Penn Hills woman charged with $819K fraud
A Penn Hills woman who told four investors that she had “turned hundreds of thousands to millions” instead turned their money into her private piggy bank, prosecutors say.
A federal grand jury Thursday indicted Rochelle Johnson, 33, on one count of mail fraud and seven counts of wire fraud for allegedly coaxing the investors to give her $819,911 that was supposed to help them obtain financing for their companies.
Johnson paid out $230,000 to third parties and kept the rest of the money herself, prosecutors say.
Her website, www.sourcenationalfunding.com , solicits companies to make “donations” to Source National's nonprofit partner, Strive for Student Athletes, which purportedly will help 100 Pittsburgh student-athletes participate in a “Total Solution” program that is supposed to help them go to college. In return for the donations, the companies were to get business plans that would help them obtain funding or improve financial scores.
A question-and-answer section says the company can't provide any references because, “In the financing profession all transactions are treated with utmost confidentiality and kept that way even after completion. This is due to the liability laws and to avoid the mega-million-dollar lawsuits that the breaking of our confidentiality agreement in particular and our client's trust in us in general might initiate.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.