Miami-Dade County Brothers Sentenced to 70 Months in Prison for Identity Theft Schemes Involving Unemployment Insurance Fraud and Federal and State Tax Fraud
Two Miami-Dade County brothers were each sentenced to 70 months in prison for identity theft schemes involving unemployment insurance fraud, federal income tax fraud, and state income tax fraud.
Densom Beaucejour, 22, and Winzord Beaucejour, 21, both of Miami Gardens, each previously pled guilty to one count of possession of fifteen or more unauthorized access devices, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1029(a)(3), and one count of aggravated identity theft, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1).
According to court documents, the investigation in this case began in January 2015, when a local police officer reported that he/she was the victim of identity theft and that a fraudulent unemployment insurance claim had been filed in his/her name. A subsequent investigation by federal law enforcement revealed that 234 fraudulent unemployment claims were filed from the defendants’ residence. The total intended loss associated with these claims is $239,510.
On March 11, 2015, law enforcement agents executed a federal search warrant at the defendants’ residence. Inside several bedrooms in the defendants’ home, law enforcement found numerous sheets of paper, ledgers, and other documents with personal identifying information (PII) – including names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers – of more than 1,000 individuals. Agents also discovered three handguns, $8,600 in cash, and several credit cards embossed with names of individuals who did not appear to live at the defendants’ residence.
Approximately 365 fraudulent tax returns were filed with the IRS from the residence seeking $413,279 in fraudulent tax refunds, as well as 2 fraudulent state tax returns with Ohio seeking $15,004. In total, the amount of intended loss is $917,973.
Information From: U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Florida
As is all too often the case, the prosecutors do not disclose the source of the identity theft information found in the criminals’ possession. Did they buy it or did they acquire it in some other way?