Former Pittsburgh police officer pleads guilty to lying to FBI |

Former Pittsburgh police officer pleads guilty to lying to FBI

Dillon Carr

A former Pittsburgh police officer pleaded guilty Tuesday to lying to FBI agents about not knowing a person suspected in a Crafton bank robbery in 2018.

Antoine Cain, 49, of Brookline pleaded guilty to two counts of making false statements to government agents. The 25-year police veteran faces a sentence of up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

In a Justice Department news release, FBI investigators said Cain knew the alleged bank robber, Brent Richards, through a romantic relationship with the robber’s mother, Melissa Kane. Investigators said Cain and Kane had been in an off-and-on relationship for seven years.

Court records show Richards, 33, is charged with armed robbery in connection to a January 2018 robbery at Citizens Bank in Crafton.

Kane, 47, is charged with covering up her son’s crime.

FBI detectives said they interviewed Cain twice in 2018, and he said he did not know Richards. When approached a third time by detectives, Cain admitted that he did.

“Cain further admitted that Brent Richards had told him he ‘hit’ a bank, which Cain understood to mean that Brent Richards had committed a bank robbery,” said the news release.

The release also pointed out that Kane told Cain that her son had robbed the Citizens Bank while wearing a mask and using a BB gun.

Cain’s sentencing is scheduled for July 2 in front of Senior U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

Dillon Carr is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Dillon at 412-871-2325, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.