New Jersey Man Guilty Of Production Of Child Pornography

HARRISBURG—The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Michael Janeski, age 38, of Edison, New Jersey, pleaded guilty on February 13, 2017, before United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson to production of child pornography.

According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, Janeski admitted that between November 2015 and February of 2016, he used an application on a web-enabled cell phone to coerce a minor into engaging in illegal sexual activity and subsequently stored images of the minor on a cloud-based storage system.

The case was investigated by the Northern York County Regional Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Chelsea Schinnour is prosecuting the case.

This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys' Offices and the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.usdoj.gov/psc For more information about internet safety education, please visit www.usdoj.gov/psc and click on the tab "resources."

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.

Janeski faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years and a maximum penalty under federal law of 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.

# # #