Skip to main content

New Jersey Man Sentenced In Manhattan Federal Court To 10 Years In Prison For $3.5 Million Attempted Fraud Scheme

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that KHADDY GARCIA was sentenced today to 10 years in prison in connection with a fraudulent scheme to withdraw funds from various bank accounts, and a second fraudulent scheme to induce a venture capital fund to wire $2 million to an account GARCIA controlled. He was sentenced in Manhattan federal court by U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “Khaddy Garcia employed a low-tech scheme of trickery and deceit in his attempts to commit a high-tech fraud. Fortunately, he was not able to do tremendous damage before he was caught, and he will now be punished.”

According to the Information, the Complaint previously filed in the case, and statements made during today’s sentencing proceeding:

Between February 2011and January 2012, GARCIA called customer service representatives at various banks, falsely representing that he was the owner or agent of a particular business with an account at the bank, and claiming that he had “forgotten” the username and password needed to access the business’s bank account on-line through the bank’s Internet banking system. During these calls, GARCIA “phished” for information concerning the account holder and sought to induce the representative to provide him with login information for the account. On those occasions when GARCIA was successful, he used this access to withdraw funds from the compromised account by issuing checks and wire transfers to himself and to his co-conspirators. Through this scheme, GARCIA fraudulently obtained on-line access to more than 20 different business bank accounts from which he attempted to withdraw over $1.5 million, and ultimately succeeded in withdrawing over $200,000.

In December 2011, GARCIA engaged in a separate scheme to defraud a venture capital firm located in New York, New York (the “Venture Capital Firm”) of $2 million. Specifically, after learning that the owner of the Venture Capital Firm had initiated a wire transfer of $2 million to a bank account maintained for the Venture Capital Firm by a clearing firm (the “Clearing Firm”), GARCIA made numerous phone calls to the owner and agents of the owner of the Venture Capital Firm, in which he falsely identified himself as a representative from the Clearing Firm. Over the course of these calls, GARCIA fraudulently represented to the owner and his agents that the $2 million had been deposited into the wrong account at the Clearing Firm, and that the funds needed to be re-wired to a different account, for which GARCIA gave certain routing and account information. In fact, the routing and account information corresponded to an account controlled by GARCIA. The fraud was detected before any funds were transferred.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Forrest sentenced GARCIA to five years of supervised release and ordered him to pay over $200,000 in restitution and forfeiture.

Judge FORREST said at sentencing: “This is theft no matter how sophisticated it may be. No matter the fact that it was over the telephone or in some instances using the Internet, it is theft. It is 21st century theft, but theft nonetheless.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...