Score:   1
Docket Number:   ND-CA  5:18-cr-00048
Case Name:   USA v. Mason et al
  Press Releases:
SAN JOSE– Monica Mason, the lead defendant in a seven-defendant bank fraud conspiracy, was sentenced to 106 months prison and ordered to pay over $3 million in restitution for a wide ranging refund fraud conspiracy, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson and FBI Special Agent in Charge, John F. Bennett.  The sentence was handed down by the Honorable Lucy H. Koh, U.S. District Judge.

Mason, 40, of Oakland, pleaded guilty to the charges on August 14, 2019.  According to her plea agreement, Mason admitted that she, along with Brandon Bodine, Jennifer Prince, Katherine Baldridge, Raymundo Ramos, Lakhinder Singh, and Armida Ruelas, participated in a refund fraud scheme that is thought to have originated in the Bay Area around 2014 and has since spread to neighboring areas.  Pursuant to the scheme, fraudsters exploit the credit card refund process by using stolen or reprogrammed electronic point of sale (“POS”) terminals to “force” refunds from merchant bank accounts for products or services that were never actually purchased from the victim merchant.  The fraudulent refunds then are loaded to credit and debit cards controlled by the fraudsters, who spend the illicit funds via credit card charges, wire transfers, and ATM withdrawals from affiliated bank accounts.  These refund fraud schemes have caused significant disruption to banks and payment processors servicing the targeted merchants, who must divert resources and funds to investigate and remediate the financial losses suffered by their merchant clients.  The victims collectively report a total loss of over $20 million since authorities began to track this type of fraud in 2014.

In this case, Mason admitted in her plea agreement that in early 2016, she and her codefendants used a stolen POS terminal to launch refund attacks against several businesses and franchises located throughout the nation. Mason further admitted that the defendants loaded fraudulently obtained refunds onto debit and credit cards under their control.  The defendants registered some of the credit and debit cards in their own names and registered many cards in the names of other people using stolen identity information.  The defendants attempted to force over $525,000 in fraudulent refunds from various merchant bank accounts using one POS terminal alone.  Sixteen additional POS terminals were later recovered from a storage locker associated with Mason and Ruelas. 

In addition, Mason, Bodine, Baldridge, and Ruelas acknowledged in their publicly filed plea agreements that they were involved in a second refund fraud scheme that took place from mid-2017 to early 2018.  According to the plea agreements, Mason, Bodine, Baldridge, Ruelas and others caused over $3.5 million in fraud loss to a payment processor pursuant to this scheme.  They have all accepted responsibility for their conduct during the 2017-2018 time period and agreed to be sentenced based on the combined loss suffered by victims in both cases.

On February 8, 2018, a federal grand jury indicted Mason, Bodine, Prince, Baldridge, Ramos, Singh, and Ruelas, charging them for their respective roles in the conspiracy.  Mason was charged with conspiracy, nine substantive counts of bank fraud, unlawful possession of personal identification information, and aggravated identity theft.  Mason pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge and the remaining charges were dismissed. 

As of January 22, 2020, all seven defendants have been convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349.  The following five defendants have now been sentenced by the Judge Koh:



Defendant





Place of Birth





Date of Sentencing





Sentence Imposed





Monica Mason





Oakland, CA





January 22, 2020





106 months in prison;

Over $3.3 million in restitution to victims;

3 years supervised release;

$100 Special Assessment Fee;

Forfeiture.

 





Brandon Bodine





Hayward, CA





November 27, 2019





94 months in prison;

Over $3.9 million in restitution to victims;

3 years supervised release;

$100 Special Assessment Fee;

Forfeiture.

 





Katherine Baldridge





Berkeley, CA





October 11, 2019





87 months in prison;

Over $3.6 million in restitution to victims;

3 years supervised release;

$100 Special Assessment Fee;

Forfeiture.

 

 





Armida Ruelas





Hayward, CA





November 27, 2019





84 months in prison;

Over $4.3 million in restitution to victims;

3 years supervised release;

$100 Special Assessment Fee;

Forfeiture.

 





Raymundo Ramos





San Leandro, CA





December 4, 2019





30 months in prison;

Over $270,000 in restitution to victims;

3 years supervised release;

$100 Special Assessment Fee;

Forfeiture.

 



Prince and Singh have not yet been sentenced.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Marissa Harris is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Susan Kreider, Nina Burney-Williams, and Jessica Leung.  The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the R.E.A.C.T. Taskforce, a joint federal and state taskforce targeting identity theft crimes in the Bay Area that includes the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office and Berkeley Police Department.  Special Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Secret Service also assisted the investigation.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1onEY9VZ3peXJZdP1xPmMjLTIYuDianLlWy4q4XFaojo
  Last Updated: 2024-04-08 20:17:39 UTC
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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
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