A $402K GoFundMe Scam Leads to a Three-Year Prison Term (cnn.com) 52
CNN reports that 32-year-old Katelyn McClure "has been sentenced to three years in state prison for her role in scamming more than $400,000 from GoFundMe donors, by claiming to be collecting money for a homeless man."
In 2017, McClure claimed she ran out of gas and was stranded on Interstate 95 in Philadelphia. The homeless man, Johnny Bobbitt Jr., supposedly saw her and gave her his last $20 for gas. McClure and her then-boyfriend, Mark D'Amico, posted about the "good deed" on social media, including a picture of her with Bobbitt on a highway ramp. They also started a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for the homeless veteran, saying they wanted to pay it forward to the good Samaritan and get him off the streets.
The story went viral and made national headlines, with more than 14,000 donors contributing. The scammers netted around $367,000 after fees, according to court documents.... Bobbitt, who received $75,000 from the fundraiser, according to prosecutors, took civil action against D'Amico and McClure and the scam soon became public.... D'Amico and Bobbitt were charged in 2018 alongside McClure for concocting the scheme, prosecutors said. McClure pleaded guilty to one count of theft by deception in the second degree in 2019, according to the Burlington County prosecutor.
Bobbitt pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit theft by deception in 2019 and was sentenced to a five-year special probation period which includes drug treatment. D'Amico also pleaded guilty and agreed to a five-year term in New Jersey state prison, as well as restitution of GoFundMe and the donors, in 2019.
"The gas part is completely made up, but the guy isn't," McClure texted a friend (according to CNN). "I had to make something up to make people feel bad." So what happened to "the guy" from the highway ramp? Prosecutors note that if Bobbitt "fails to adhere to the tightly-structured regimen of treatment and recovery services, which includes frequent testing for drug use, he could be sentenced to five years in state prison."
And they add that the judge "also ruled that McClure, a former state Department of Transportation worker, is permanently barred from ever holding another position as a public employee."
Their statement points out that the 2017 campaign was at the time the largest fraud ever perpetrated through GoFundMe — which voluntarily reimbursed the 14,000-plus donors.
In 2017, McClure claimed she ran out of gas and was stranded on Interstate 95 in Philadelphia. The homeless man, Johnny Bobbitt Jr., supposedly saw her and gave her his last $20 for gas. McClure and her then-boyfriend, Mark D'Amico, posted about the "good deed" on social media, including a picture of her with Bobbitt on a highway ramp. They also started a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for the homeless veteran, saying they wanted to pay it forward to the good Samaritan and get him off the streets.
The story went viral and made national headlines, with more than 14,000 donors contributing. The scammers netted around $367,000 after fees, according to court documents.... Bobbitt, who received $75,000 from the fundraiser, according to prosecutors, took civil action against D'Amico and McClure and the scam soon became public.... D'Amico and Bobbitt were charged in 2018 alongside McClure for concocting the scheme, prosecutors said. McClure pleaded guilty to one count of theft by deception in the second degree in 2019, according to the Burlington County prosecutor.
Bobbitt pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit theft by deception in 2019 and was sentenced to a five-year special probation period which includes drug treatment. D'Amico also pleaded guilty and agreed to a five-year term in New Jersey state prison, as well as restitution of GoFundMe and the donors, in 2019.
"The gas part is completely made up, but the guy isn't," McClure texted a friend (according to CNN). "I had to make something up to make people feel bad." So what happened to "the guy" from the highway ramp? Prosecutors note that if Bobbitt "fails to adhere to the tightly-structured regimen of treatment and recovery services, which includes frequent testing for drug use, he could be sentenced to five years in state prison."
And they add that the judge "also ruled that McClure, a former state Department of Transportation worker, is permanently barred from ever holding another position as a public employee."
Their statement points out that the 2017 campaign was at the time the largest fraud ever perpetrated through GoFundMe — which voluntarily reimbursed the 14,000-plus donors.
If youre going to steal (Score:2)
Re:If youre going to steal (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the sentence is appropriate, if not slightly harsher than needed. There is a difference between fraudulently obtaining (on average) $30 from someone on false pretenses versus traumatizing them for life in an armed robbery. The damage caused to any individual was minimal. The biggest thing they should be punished for is that they reduced the public trust in things like Gofundme, so now someone who needs it for legit fundraising might have a slightly harder time raising money.
Re: If youre going to steal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the sentence is appropriate, if not slightly harsher than needed. There is a difference between fraudulently obtaining (on average) $30 from someone on false pretenses versus traumatizing them for life in an armed robbery.
Should the sentence be based on per person damage then? Imagine someone hacks a large bank and withdraws only $10 from each customer account (so a third of the individual damage example you used), say 10 million accounts. What, in your opinion, would be an appropriate sentence if they get convicted of that theft?
The biggest thing they should be punished for is that they reduced the public trust in things like Gofundme, so now someone who needs it for legit fundraising might have a slightly harder time raising money.
Why? Perhaps making people more cautious and harder to scam is a good thing. Internet has global reach, and globally there will always be plenty scammers trying to take people, even if it's $30 at a
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine someone hacks a large bank and withdraws only $10 from each customer account (so a third of the individual damage example you used), say 10 million accounts.
If I deposit $10 at the bank, the bank owes me $10, regardless of what the bank's computer says. The hacker would have stole $10 from the bank rather than $10 from me, and should receive the commensurate punishment for stealing $100 million.
Now if they hacked into 10 million individually-owned crypto wallets and stole $10 from each, then they'd be committing petty theft. Though I'm not sure if serving millions of 6-month-long jail sentences is better than consolidating it all into one felony charge.
Re: (Score:2)
If I deposit $10 at the bank, the bank owes me $10, regardless of what the bank's computer says.
Not entirely true, as I found out on my own account. It turns out, if you deposit $10 in your account and someone presents the bank with an e-check/automatic-withdrawal-request from your account for $10, they will give transfer the $10 to them and all you get from the bank is information who took it. The bank does not check if the party presenting an e-check actually has your valid authorization, they take their word for it as long as they have your account number, name, maybe address and phone number. I on
Re: (Score:2)
That's theft on their part if the business relationship has concluded and you've instructed them to stop taking payments. Especially if they have already acknowledged this (which they have done the first time you went through the paperwork to get refunded).
Reporting them to the police might get it escalated internally so that they actually fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you check with a lawyer? Based on what I can find, the bank is liable for authorizing fraudulent transactions (source [seeds.law]):
Due to a change in the law in 2018, banks are liable for damages in the event of phishing. Your bank is therefore obliged to compensate you for the full amount of the damage suffered.
However, there is an important exception to this rule. If the bank can prove that you were grossly negligent in connection with the phishing, you will be liable for the full amount of the damages.
If you have millions of cases of theft from the same bank, it would be very hard to argue all of those bank customers were grossly negligent.
Re: (Score:2)
Should the sentence be based on per person damage then? Imagine someone hacks a large bank and withdraws only $10 from each customer account (so a third of the individual damage example you used), say 10 million accounts. What, in your opinion, would be an appropriate sentence if they get convicted of that theft?
Well, what's the purpose we want for any sentence? Is it, A: to make the offender feel intense pain to lessen ours, B: to change their behavior or C: to deter others? I would prioritize B as the primary purpose and some of C. A is useless to me. So what sentence would be appropriate to make them change their behavior, and as long as it doesn't result in unusual cruelty to the offender, make other people feel it is not worth the risk? Probably a sentence of a few years in jail or maybe thousands of hours of
Re: (Score:2)
I think a lot of people would find a sentence of a few years (and that is only if caught) a fair risk for $367,000. I think a thousand hours of "hard" community labor would be even more worth the risk - since "hard" would exclude anything cruel or unusual.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what's the purpose we want for any sentence? Is it, A: to make the offender feel intense pain to lessen ours, B: to change their behavior or C: to deter others? I would prioritize B as the primary purpose and some of C. A is useless to me.
I would prioritize C. You're free to disagree, but that's my opinion and you're not going to change it. I am fully supportive of laws having penalties designed to make breaking the law very unattractive.
I don't really have much sympathy for the person who says "I wouldn't have done it if I'd realized how severe the punishment would be, I didn't even think about whether what I was doing was wrong, let alone what the punishment would be if I got caught"
The world would be a better place if everyone assumed tha
Re: (Score:2)
My justification for not prioritizing C is that it isn't fair to someone that we overly punish them just because we have societal goals. After all, a thief makes a similar decision, which is to cause some collateral pain into society so they can live better. If we prioritize C or A, we'd be making a very similar decision except targeting for pain someone who did a crime without intent to cause someone else that level of suffering. A criminal's punishment must not greatly exceed the bounds of pain they inten
Re: (Score:1)
TDS
Re: (Score:2)
Use a computer. This is a slap on the wrist for something so heinous, premeditated, and greedy.
Now we need to apply the same standards to Elizabeth Holmes, Meredith Perry, etc.
Boyfriend (Score:5, Interesting)
How did the boyfriend get five years, and she only got 3 when it seems they were equally guilty?
Re: (Score:3)
How did the boyfriend get five years, and she only got 3 when it seems they were equally guilty?
She is prettier and female, he is male and looks like a career criminal. For the other comment fake pistol still equals armed robbery
Re: (Score:3)
She is prettier and female, he is male and looks like a career criminal. For the other comment fake pistol still equals armed robbery
Oh go shove the reverse sexism up your arse you poor poor oppressed male. She pleaded guilty, the boyfriend did not and both she and Bobbit testified against him. If you'd bothered to look this up you wouldn't look like some pathetic whiney bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, pleading guilty to lesser charges is usually the way to go, especially if there's doubt about winning the case. The prosecutors offer this as a way to avoid expensive trials.
Re: (Score:1)
How did the boyfriend get five years, and she only got 3 when it seems they were equally guilty?
Forget why he got a longer sentence, why did they get sentences at all? Aren't fraudulent charities supposed to just be barred from operating as a charity again, maybe a fine, while tthere's no question of the operators facing any criminal charges? I guess they should have incorporated properly and maybe been born rich.
Seriously though, I see this story and I'm confused. They started a charity for a homeless veteran and made up a story about a good deed he'd done, but he actually was a homeless veteran, an
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's interesting. Someone gave me a troll mod for that post. I certainly wasn't trolling. I wonder what anyone actually objected to from that post? The notion that there's an unfairness between how the rich and powerful are treated and the relatively weak and powerless in the justice system? The suggestion that, by the standards of corporate fraud this wasn't even fraud since he apparently really was a homeless veteran, even if the $20 story was an embellishment (seriously, your average person with we
Re: (Score:2)
She pleaded guilty and testified against her boyfriend who did not.
So Homeless Man Was In On It? (Score:4, Informative)
The campaign listed a goal of $10,000 to provide Bobbitt with rent for an apartment, a reliable vehicle and six months of living expenses, among other things. But the incoming funds far exceeded their expectations – rising above $400,000 – and were quickly spent by McClure and D’Amico on casino gambling and personal items such as a BMW, a New Year’s trip to Las Vegas, a helicopter ride over the Grand Canyon and Louis Vuitton hand bags.
Within a few months of the campaign’s creation, all of the donated funds had been spent. Once he realized the money had been squandered, Bobbitt took civil action against D’Amico and McClure. He alleged in August 2018 through his attorneys that he had only received approximately $75,000 of the funds raised on his behalf.
So the gas story was fake and Bobbitt was in on it, but then when he thought his share was too small, he decided to bring the court's close attention to the scheme?
Do I really have that right? Did this homeless guy still somehow have a "nothing to lose" mentality after receiving $75,000 (by committing a crime)?
I guess he could come out ahead after all if he takes advantage of the addiction/treatment program, but that doesn't sound like his plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they felt spry for him n]because he is a veteran and veterans are notoriously unskilled and unemployable. But not so sorry that they gave him free food and lodging.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do I really have that right? Did this homeless guy still somehow have a "nothing to lose" mentality after receiving $75,000 (by committing a crime)?
No you don't have this right. Not everyone in the world is a logical thinking person in their right mind (especially not one who abuses drugs as in TFA). He didn't think he had "nothing to lose". He thought he had "more to gain". After all it wasn't his scheme, and he's just a homeless man.
Stupidity happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Homeless drug addicts aren’t known for having sound judgment. If you’re going to do something like this, it’s better not to involve someone like that at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the homeless guy does appear to have had a drug problem. Likely he didn't realize it was a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
>Do I really have that right? Did this homeless guy still somehow have
>a "nothing to lose" mentality after receiving $75,000 (by committing
>a crime)?
Do you have *any* idea how many people call the police over stolen drugs, etc., each year?
hawk, esq.
Forever Associated (Score:2)
So... homeless man prosecuted for taking charity (Score:2)
So, a couple raised money for a homeless man. Then gave him some of it.
How exactly did the homeless man defraud people? GoFundMe took 33k of it, the couple took 292k, and he received 75k. I can understand how the couple should probably have given him more of it, but how was he defrauding people when he took money that donors had intended for him?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I suspected - he committed the crime of attempted escape from poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly.
Does this mean if you give money to a homeless person who claims he needs to eat or catch a bus he is legally required to do one of those things?
Is it fraud? Probably. Is it really important? No. Nobody is disputing that the guy is actually homeless. If anything he seems more like the victim of fraud (ie, he should have received all of the money).
I really don't see how lying about giving $20 to somebody turns into a federal case. This is bullshit on all levels. Advertisers and politician
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean if you give money to a homeless person who claims he needs to eat or catch a bus he is legally required to do one of those things?
Don't be silly. He's not in trouble for getting money. He's in trouble for telling others he was involved in an act of kindness he didn't do, specifically for the purpose of creating a story critical to a executing fraud.
Intent matters. If I run up to you in the street and punch you in the face I would hopefully face assault charges. That doesn't mean I face an assault charge every time you and I face off in a boxing ring.
Re: (Score:2)
D'Amico and Bobbitt were charged in 2018 alongside McClure for concocting the scheme, prosecutors said.
Bobbitt is the homeless man. The couple shortchanged him at the end of the deal, so he ratted them out (and himself).
Re: So... homeless man prosecuted for taking chari (Score:2)
Because he was a willing participant in a scam. That he got apparently got shafted by his co-conspirators doesn't alter this. That's it, comrade.
Re: (Score:2)
If a homeless man asks for money, and I give him money, how am I being scammed?
Re: So... homeless man prosecuted for taking char (Score:2)
That's not happened. If you want to ignore the details, instead discussing hypotheticals, then sure. Am I murderer if, in a struggle, the person hitting me dies? Well done, the Boston strangler is exonerated as we can assume his victims fought back.
Re: (Score:2)
It is exactly what happened and the details don't matter at all. The couple were collecting money for a homeless man and the man is really homeless.
Why should it matter that he lied about his past? In my opinion it only became serious fraud when they kept the money instead of giving it to Bobbitt since they weren't homeless.
The couple stole money from a homeless man. It was money given to him and that doesn't change just because people donating were motivated by a false narrative.
Is this really any worse th
Re: So... homeless man prosecuted for taking char (Score:3)
>It is exactly what happened and the details don't matter at all. The couple were collecting money for a homeless man and the man is really homeless.
Was the story used for the fund raising campaign accurate?
Re: (Score:2)
It's fraud if you lie to get money given to you. Whether by claiming you're a Nigerian prince, or that your non-existent car broke down and you just need $100. Generally the small lies for small money never rise to the level where it is an actual crime or the level where prosecutors will take an interest in it. So people can beg on the streets even if what they say isn't 100% correct. But now if it's a lot of money and you open up a case against your partner and legal authorities start to scrutinize it
Re: (Score:2)
No he didn't take charity. He was a willing participant involved in a premediated fraudulent scheme. There was no charity here. There was fraud. He wasn't given money. He was part of a scheme to defraud others and got a cut of the proceeds.
Some people are just complete crap (Score:2)
The amount of trust and goodwill abused here is staggering. The $400k stolen pale in comparison to that.
Online Panhandling (Score:1)
This is what panhandling "at scale" looks like.
There was a mitigating factor (Score:2)
She was jealous of constantly being in the shadow of her famous brother Troy.
Public safety nets (Score:2)
There are so many "charity" crowd-funding stuff trying to cover for things like basic healthcare, that other democratically elected governments around the world manage to handle, that it is completely impossible to tell who is legitimate and who is fake.
Charities don't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Charities do work. We can point to Medicare and welfare fraud for the examples of how government programs sometimes are taken advantage of. It doesn't mean either are failures.
what fraud? no diff than charity orgs (Score:1)
The story may have been slightly made up but there really was a homeless man that received $ from the donations.
This is no different than any other charity (who all tell questionable stories to make you "feel bad") that takes in money and 80% of the donation goes to "overhead" and 20% goes to the people in need. Every one one of them should be charged with fraud under this standard.
The only thing these people did wrong was not start a 501c3 for their efforts.