Sunday, November 27, 2022
Sunday, November 27, 2022

    Guinea Man Indicted On Conspiracy To Use Fraudulent Credit Cards And Failure To Appear In Court

    Your Content is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

    Get Your Content. Daily.

    Be the first to know about the biggest stories as they break. Sign up for breaking news email alerts from Your Content.

    SCRANTON, Pa. (USSS) – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Elhadj Barry, age 32, a resident alien originally from Guinea, was indicted on May 9, 2017, by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to use fraudulent credit cards and failure to appear in court. 

    According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, the indictment alleges that in or about September 2008, Barry conspired with other individuals to obtain stolen credit card numbers. Those credit card numbers were then electronically loaded onto gift cards and used to make purchases at Toys R Us in Wyomissing and multiple Walmart stores. 

    - Advertisement -

    Barry also failed to appear at a jury trial scheduled for August 31, 2009. Barry was a fugitive until he was arrested on December 1, 2016.
    The case was investigated by the United States Secret Service. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jenny P. Roberts is prosecuting the case.
    Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. 

    All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.

    A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

    The maximum penalty under federal law for each offense is five years of imprisonment,
    a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant’s educational, vocational and medical needs. 

    - Advertisement -

    For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.

    - Advertisement -