DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

639-count indictment of 15 allegedly involved in NYC ID theft ring

Posted on November 12, 2009 by Dissent

Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau announced a 639-count indictment of 15 individuals in connection with a $600,000 pickpocketing and identity theft ring which compromised at least 60 accounts at various bank branches in New York City.

The defendants are Arthur Franklin, Joseph Simms, Vincent Franklin, James Mannix, Kathleen Miller, Carol Dibitetto, Larry Ford, Kandra Lysland, Tina Barboza, Mary Bennett, Yvonne Harris, and three unidentified woman and one unidentified man. Each of them has been indicted on multiple felony charges, including grand larceny, identity theft, criminal possession of a forged instrument, conspiracy, scheme to defraud, attempted grand larceny and criminal possession of stolen property. The crimes charged in the indictment occurred between October 1, 2008 and October 31, 2009.

The investigation leading to the indictment began when a fraud investigator at Chase Bank discovered what appeared to be unrelated fraudulent bank transactions at various Chase branches. While viewing surveillance videotape of these transactions, the investigator noticed that the transactions primarily were conducted by women wearing wigs, hats, and glasses. In addition, although different women were carrying out the transactions, one man, Arthur Franklin, regularly was present in the bank and appeared to be monitoring the person conducting the fraudulent transaction. Franklin stood out because he often was dressed as a construction worker. In a couple of instances, he wore a doctor’s uniform, including a stethoscope. Further review of the surveillance videos revealed that defendants Joseph Simms and Vincent Franklin also supervised the fraudulent bank transactions. Chase Bank determined that the victims of these transactions had all reported having been pickpocketed or having lost a wallet or bank documents.

Defendants Miller and Mannix were employed at a collection agency in Harrisburg, PA. Both had access to Accurint, a computer program through which personal identifying information can be obtained, including addresses, social security numbers, dates of birth, and telephone numbers. Although Miller and Mannix were authorized to conduct only work-related searches and were not permitted to share any information obtained with anyone outside of their workplace, at Franklin’s request, they both allegedly conducted searches to obtain personal identifying information of pickpocket victims, including social security numbers, and sold that information to Franklin.

Franklin allegedly then provided the stolen identification information, financial documents, and personal identifying information of the victims, to other defendents, who, in turn, dressed up like the pickpocket victims, trying to match each victim’s appearance as closely as possible using, in some instances, a wig, hat, glasses, and makeup.

Source: Manhattan District Attorney’s Office

Category: ID TheftTheftU.S.

Post navigation

← Heartland Update: Some St. Mary’s debit cards compromised
AZ: Former Quebedeaux employee sentenced for fraud and identity theft →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Ireland’s Data Protection Commission publishes 2024 Annual Report
  • The headlines suggested Freedman Healthcare suffered a ransomware attack that affected patient data. The reality was quite different.
  • Runsafe report: Medical device cyberattacks threaten patient care, strain budgets, top concern for healthcare sector
  • Ryuk ransomware’s initial access expert extradited to the U.S. from Ukraine
  • Alleged Geisinger hacker will defend himself pro se.
  • Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare reveals it was also impacted by Cerner/Legacy Oracle cyberattack
  • Hospital cyberattack investigation complete, no formal review needed (1)
  • Largest Ever Seizure of Funds Related to Crypto Confidence Scams
  • IMPACT: 170 patients harmed as a result of Qilin’s ransomware attack on NHS vendor Synnovis
  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • US Judge Invalidates Biden Rule Protecting Privacy for Abortions
  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities
  • 23andMe fined £2.31 million for failing to protect UK users’ genetic data
  • DOJ Seeks More Time on Tower Dumps
  • Your household smart products must respect your privacy – including your air fryer
  • Vermont signs Kids Code into law, faces legal challenges
  • Data Categories and Surveillance Pricing: Ferguson’s Nuanced Approach to Privacy Innovation

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.