Juniata County Business Man Charged With $1 Million Loan Fraud

SCRANTON – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Brian Douglas Sheaffer, age 56, of Port Royal, Pennsylvania, was indicted on September 19, 2018, by a federal grand jury with ten counts of mail and wire fraud.

According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the indictment alleges that between January 2010 and May 2016, Sheaffer, a former President, sole owner, and manager of Perry Petroleum Equipment Ltd., Inc. (PPE), engaged in a scheme to defraud business acquaintances, family, and friends by, among other things, falsely representing to them that the money they agreed to loan to Sheaffer and PPE would be used to fund the purchase of fuel tanks and other equipment PPE used in its operations.  The indictment alleges that Sheaffer used the loan proceeds to pay for personal expenses such as gambling and business expenses such as PPE payroll, insurance, federal taxes, and state taxes.  It is also alleged that Sheaffer solicited and received more than $1,000,000.00 in loans from more than twenty lenders. 

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Assistant Joseph J. Terz is prosecuting the case.

Indictments 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 these offenses is 40 years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a $1,000,000 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.

# # #