Home Philadelphia Press Releases 2014 Former Bank Supervisor Charged with Embezzling $316,324

Former Bank Supervisor Charged with Embezzling $316,324

U.S. Attorney’s Office January 22, 2014
  • Middle District of Pennsylvania (717) 221-4482

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that today in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg, a criminal information has been filed against Shelly Ann Kocher, 42, Lehighton, Pennsylvania, for embezzling approximately $316,324 from customer accounts while she worked as a customer service supervisor at Jim Thorpe National Bank in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania. A plea agreement was also filed indicating that Kocher intends to plead guilty to the charge when she appears in federal court for her arraignment.

According to U.S. Attorney Peter J. Smith, Kocher was employed by Jim Thorpe National Bank from 1999 until May 2013. Kocher allegedly embezzled the funds by making unauthorized withdrawals from customers’ CD and savings accounts between April 2010 and April 2013. Upon discovery of the activity, the bank reimbursed the victims for their losses.

If convicted, Kocher faces up to 30 years’ imprisonment, $1 million in fines, and mandatory restitution.

The case was investigated by the Scranton Resident Agency of the FBI and is assigned to Senior Litigation Counsel Bruce Brandler.

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 guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

In this case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is 30 years’ 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. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.

This content has been reproduced from its original source.