Hershey Man Indicted On Bankruptcy Fraud Charges

HARRISBURG – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Michael J. Jackson, age 57, of Hershey, Pennsylvania, was indicted on February 15, 2017, by a federal grand jury on wire fraud, bankruptcy fraud, false bankruptcy oaths and claims, and aggravated identity theft charges.

The indictment was unsealed today following Jackson’s initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab. Jackson was ordered detained pending his detention hearing scheduled for February 17, 2017.

According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, the indictment alleges that Jackson perpetrated a scheme to defraud his creditors, the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and his wife between 2009 and 2017, by filing seven Chapter 13 and 11 bankruptcy petitions, five of which were filed under Jackson’s name and two of which were filed under his wife’s name without her knowledge, information or consent. The indictment also alleges the petitions contained false information regarding Jackson’s income, his assets, and his employment, and were merely filed in order to postpone a Sheriff’s Sale of his Hershey residence.

The case was investigated by the Harrisburg Offices of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Kim Douglas Daniel is prosecuting the case.

Wire Fraud is punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment. Bankruptcy Fraud and False Statements in Bankruptcy matters both carry a five-year statutory maximum.

Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine.

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.

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.

# # #