Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-IN  1:20-cr-00056
Case Name:   USA v. HO
  Press Releases:
Indianapolis – United States Attorney Josh J. Minkler announced today, Tuong Quoc Ho, 32, Carmel, Ind., was indicted by a federal grand jury for an elaborate scheme to defraud businesses, consumers, suppliers, financial institutions, credit card holders, credit card companies, and identity theft victims for personal monetary gain. The indictment contains 28 federal offenses including wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, credit card fraud, money laundering, and other federal offenses.

“Fraud cannot and will not be tolerated at any cost, especially when it involves identity theft,” said Minkler. “This can devastate people’s credit, which often times takes them years to repair. This office is committed to prosecuting such crimes to the fullest extent of the law. Today Mr. Ho’s streak of fraud and identity theft comes to an end.”

According to court documents, Ho and others overseas allegedly obtained personal information from the internet of hundreds of persons located throughout the United States and worldwide. He then allegedly used this information to fraudulently open PayPal and eBay accounts. He would then link his personal bank accounts to these PayPal accounts to receive and transfer money. There were over 500 PayPal accounts linked to Ho’s personal bank accounts.

The indictment further alleges that Ho and others used the eBay accounts to advertise and sell a variety of items that were purchased with stolen credit card information from thousands of individuals.

The indictment further alleges that Ho used the personal information he obtained of others to generate and submit to PayPal fraudulent documents in the names of those other persons, including identification documents (driver’s licenses, passports, social security cards), proof of address documents (utility bills, bank statements), and proof of sales documents (invoices, receipts). This was intended to mislead PayPal about the identity of the person who opened and maintain the accounts, as well as the true source of the items being sold on eBay.

Finally, the indictment alleges that proceeds from eBay sales totaling over $2 million, flowed through to the PayPal accounts. Ho then wired money to family and friends in Vietnam, and used the money for personal expenses, including the purchase of his home in Carmel.

This case is the result of an investigation by the Carmel Police Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Postal Inspection Service.

“These charges are the result of a complex international investigation conducted jointly by FBI Indianapolis’ Cyber Intrusion Program and the Carmel Police Department working in partnership to put an end to Mr. Ho’s illegal activity that targeted hundreds of victims,” said Special Agent in Charge Grant Mendenhall, FBI Indianapolis. “Identity theft wreaks havoc on the lives of legitimate consumers and can cause them to spend countless hours trying to clear their names. This arrest highlights the FBI's commitment to work with our law enforcement partners to continue an aggressive fight against individuals who carry out these schemes.”

“This case began in October of 2018,” said Carmel Police Department Major Charlie Harting. “Dedicated detectives and special agents from the Carmel Police Department and the FBI collaborated together to put the pieces of the investigative puzzle together that touched points on the other side of the world. The hard work of the detectives, special agents, and U.S. Attorney’s office is a great example of local and federal partnership working together for the good of our community and the country.”

 “Postal Inspectors investigate any fraud in which the U.S. Mail is used, even if the scheme originally started over the phone or through the Internet.” said Inspector-in-Charge Ed Gallashaw, USPIS Indianapolis. “ Being the law enforcement and security arm of the U.S. Postal Service, the Postal Inspection Service works with federal, state, and local law enforcement partners to enforce fraud statutes to the maximum extent possible against those who seek to separate postal customers from their money. The indictment secured in this investigation is a perfect demonstration of how that team work helps us protect our customers and safeguard our communities.”

According to Assistant United States Attorneys MaryAnn T. Mindrum and James M. Warden, who are prosecuting this case for the government, defendant faces up to 20 years’ imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release, and a maximum fine of $250,000.

An indictment is only a charge and not evidence of guilt. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven otherwise in federal court.

In October 2017, United States Attorney Josh J. Minkler announced a Strategic Plan designed to shape and strengthen the District’s response to its most significant public safety challenges. This prosecution demonstrates the office’s firm commitment to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of complex, large scale fraud schemes that warrant federal resources and expertise, particularly those that are perpetrated by career fraudsters involving the use of bogus access devices and identity fraud. See United States Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Indiana Strategic Plan Section 4.5 and 5.1.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j4dv3uI0gEQmkmWFuaF7Teb9xFZJnGljA1Ad5EzPPi8
  Last Updated: 2024-04-16 21:31:43 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