Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-SC  2:18-cr-01023
Case Name:   USA v. Dunbar et al
  Press Releases:
Columbia, South Carolina --- United States Attorney Sherri A. Lydon announced today that Jimmy Dunbar, Jr., age 37, of Bishopville, was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, money laundering, and extortion. 

Evidence presented to the court showed that Dunbar was involved in a scheme to extort and defraud Department of Defense service members.  During the course of the scheme, Dunbar posed as females on a dating app and began communicating with service members.  Posing as the females, Dunbar sent nude photographs of young females to the service members and solicited nude photographs in exchange.  Dunbar then posed as the females’ father, claiming that the service member was in possession of child pornography and threatening to have him arrested if he did not pay money.  The service member then transferred funds electronically to Dunbar’s associates.  Dunbar utilized money mules, including a codefendant, who would receive the extorted funds via wire transfer directly from the service members, then transfer the money to Dunbar and other inmates.  From September 2016 to January 2017, Dunbar received approximately $29,598.00 in extorted funds, which investigators traced to at least 17 victims.  At the time of the scheme, Dunbar was serving a 30-year sentence for murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, and arson at the Lee Correctional Facility. 

United States District Judge David C. Norton of Charleston sentenced Dunbar to a total of 46 months in federal prison, to be served consecutive to the 30-year state sentence he is currently serving.  There is no parole in the federal system.  

This case was investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Services, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigations, Department of Defense Criminal Investigative Services, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Army Criminal Investigations Command, United States Marshals Service, South Carolina Department of Corrections, and South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.  Assistant United States Attorney Emily Limehouse of the Charleston office prosecuted the case.

#####

Columbia, South Carolina -------- United States Attorney Sherri A. Lydon announced today that 15 individuals from South Carolina and North Carolina were charged in federal court with Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, Extortion, and Money Laundering.  These individuals are:

WENDELL WILKINS, age 30, of Ridgeville, South Carolina;

RAKEEM SPIVEY, age 27, of Bishopville, South Carolina;

JIMMY DUNBAR, age 37, of Bishopville, South Carolina;

ANTWINE LAMAR MATTHEWS, age 28, of Bishopville, South Carolina;

DAVID PAUL DEMPSEY, age 31, of Ridgeville, South Carolina;

EDGAR JERMAINE HOSEY, age 34, of Aiken, South Carolina;

JALISA THOMPSON, age 30, of Spartanburg, South Carolina;

TIFFANY REED, age 34, of Charlotte, North Carolina;

BRANDON THOMPSON, age 25, of Spartanburg, South Carolina;

LABEN MCCOY, age 40, of Orangeburg, South Carolina;

ROSELYN PRATT, age 28, of Longs, South Carolina;

MITCHLENE PADGETT, age 52, of Batesburg, South Carolina;

MALCOLM COOPER, age 27, of Rock Hill, South Carolina;

ANDREIKA MOUZON, age 28, of Kingstree, South Carolina; and

FLOSSIE BROCKINGTON, age 28, of Florence, South Carolina.

 

The Indictments allege that from at least 2015 through 2017, Wilkins, Spivey, Dunbar, Matthews, and Dempsey (the “named inmates”) were inmates at the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) who smuggled smartphones into prison.  Using the Internet access on the smartphones, the named inmates and other prisoners at SCDC orchestrated a scheme to defraud members of the United States Military. 

As part of the scheme, the named inmates used smartphones to join Internet dating websites and pose as young women seeking romantic relationships.  On the dating websites, the named inmates targeted young male service members.  After meeting the service members on the dating websites, the named inmates texted nude pictures of young women that they obtained from the Internet, claiming these nude pictures were of the woman that they were impersonating on the dating website.  After they texted nude pictures, they asked the military members to text nude pictures and other personal information in return. 

As further part of the scheme, after exchanging nude pictures and other personal information, Wilkins, Spivey, Dunbar, Matthews, Dempsey, and other inmates called the military members and claimed to be the young woman’s father.  The named inmates told the military members that the “daughter” was a minor and not 18 or 19 years old as listed on the dating website.  They then threatened to notify the military authorities and/or law enforcement that the military member was exchanging nude pictures with a minor unless the military member paid money.  Often times, the named inmates claimed that the money was needed for counseling and medical bills for the trauma that the “underage daughter” suffered from the sexually explicit text messages.  In some instances, other inmates at SCDC who conspired with the named inmates called the military members posing as a police officer and threatened them with arrest unless they paid additional money.  The named inmates directed the military members to wire money by means of wire communications in interstate commerce via Western Union, MoneyGram, PayPal, and Walmart to individuals in South Carolina and North Carolina.

As further part of the scheme, Wilkins, Spivey, Dunbar, Matthews, and Dempsey recruited the other ten charged individuals—Jalisa Thompson, Reed, Brandon Thompson, McCoy, Pratt, Padgett, Cooper, Mouzon, Brockington, and Hosey—and others to retrieve the money that was wired by the military members. 

After retrieving the wired money, these ten individuals then provided the named inmates with access to the wire funds through various methods at the inmates’ direction, including the use of pre-paid debit cards.  In some instances, the individuals provided the named inmates with debit card numbers so they could access the criminal proceeds in prison via smartphones.  Other times, the individuals wired the money directly into the inmates’ prison accounts.  

The maximum penalty for each count in these Indictments is 20 years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, and 3 years of court-ordered supervision.

“This case should sound the alarm that these kinds of scams are a significant threat to members of our military and to the citizens of South Carolina,” said U.S. Attorney Lydon.  “These indictments are just one step in holding these inmates and the defendants on the outside, who allegedly assisted, accountable.  We do not lock criminals up only to have them continue their criminal enterprises from inside prison.  It is the unfettered use of contraband cell phones that allows inmates to continue harming the public.  We are thankful to our partners in state, local, and federal law enforcement and across the military branches for their hard work in bringing the perpetrators of this scheme to justice.”

This case was investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Services, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigations, Department of Defense Criminal Investigative Services, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Army Criminal Investigations Command, United States Marshals Service, South Carolina Department of Corrections, and South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.  Assistant United States Attorneys Emily Limehouse and Rhett DeHart of the Charleston office are prosecuting the case.

The United States Attorney stated that all charges in these Indictments are merely accusations and that all defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

#####

18-1017_indictment-penalty.pdf

18-1023_indictment-penalty.pdf

10-1024_indictment-penalty.pdf

18-1018_indictment-penalty.pdf

18-1022_indictment-penalty.pdf

 

Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E