Counterfeit Credit Card Trafficking Exposed in Guam
A recent investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has revealed no evidence of prohibited or inappropriate factors in the pretrial diversion practices of the United States Attorney’s Office in the District Court of Guam.
The investigation was initiated by the District Court of Guam during sentencing proceedings for two Chinese nationals in United States v. Lu et al., No. 17-CR-00041 (D. Guam). The defendants, who had been arrested after arriving on Guam from Los Angeles with over 118 counterfeit credit cards from foreign banks, were charged with Possession of Fifteen or More Counterfeit or Unauthorized Access Devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1029(a)(3), a Class C felony.
Diversion is an alternative to criminal prosecution that enables certain offenders to avoid traditional criminal proceedings in favor of a program of supervision and services administered by United States Probation and Pretrial Services. If the program is successfully completed, the charges against a defendant are dismissed. However, in this case, the U.S. Attorney declined to offer pretrial diversion.
In February 2018, the Court announced that it would request the Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate whether there was ‘disparate treatment’ by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in its handling of pretrial diversion offers. OPR reviewed the Court’s concerns and the relevant pretrial diversion decisions against the limits on prosecutorial discretion set forth in the Department’s United States Attorneys’ Manual Section 9-27.260, which prohibits prosecutors from taking into consideration a ‘person’s race, religion, gender, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, or political association, activities, or beliefs.’
As a result, OPR found no evidence of unethical conduct. United States Attorney Shawn N. Anderson stated, ‘We appreciated the opportunity to fully cooperate with OPR and respond to the Court’s concerns. Prosecutorial discretion, which includes the decision on whether pretrial diversion is appropriate in any given case, has an important function in the criminal justice system.’
The U.S. Attorney’s Office respects the limitations on its discretion and routinely relies on the guidelines in making diversion decisions. In this case, the office will continue to consider criminal offenders for this type of disposition on a case-by-case basis.
Mandatory Facts:
Defendant: Lu et al. (Note: No single defendant name provided)
Criminal Charges: Possession of Fifteen or More Counterfeit or Unauthorized Access Devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1029(a)(3), a Class C felony
City and State: Hagåtña, Guam
Arrest Date: Not specified
Sentence or Outcome: Pretrial diversion not offered
Dollar Amounts: None specified
Key Facts
- State: Guam
- Category: Fraud & Financial Crimes
- Source: DOJ Press Release â†â€â€
ðŸâ€Â’ Get the grimiest stories delivered weekly. Subscribe free →
