Man Charged and Taken into Custody in Adams County Investment Fraud Scheme
The United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today the unsealing of an indictment of Jorge Salazar, a/k/a J. Michael Salazar, for wire fraud.
Salazar, age 54, a resident of Georgia, was indicted on November 12, 2014 for defrauding approximately ten investors from Adams County, Pennsylvania. The indictment was sealed pending the arrest of Salazar. The investment scheme netted Salazar approximately $350,000 during a six-month period. As part of the scheme, Salazar passed himself off as a licensed attorney and investor from Atlanta, Georgia. According to Salazar, the funds he received were guaranteed to yield a return of three times the initial investment. The money turned over to Salazar was not invested by him, but rather misappropriated for his own personal needs. On November 20, 2014, agents of the FBI and IRS-CI arrested Salazar in Kentucky. A federal Magistrate Judge in Kentucky ordered that Salazar be detained and transported to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to face the federal charges.
The investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph J. Terz.
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 20 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.