ShareThis Page
Regional

Grand jury indicts 3 Western Pennsylvania men for money crimes

Tony LaRussa
| Thursday, July 12, 2018, 8:22 a.m.

A federal grand jury in Pittsburgh has indicted three Western Pennsylvania men in connection with thefts from lending institutions, according to U.S. Attorney Scott W. Brady.

• Matthew David Stanley, 32, formerly of Pleasant Hills, faces a two-count indictment for allegedly robbing $3,700 from the First Commonwealth Bank on Route 22 in New Alexandria on Aug. 19, 2013. Stanley also is accused of robbing $2,413 from the Citizens Bank on Ligonier Street in Latrobe on Aug. 23, 2013.

If convicted, Stanley could face a maximum of 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for each count.

• Mark Hammond, 54, of Pittsburgh was indicted on charges that he conspired with another person to rob the Huntingdon Bank on Smithfield Street in Downtown on Jan. 10. Conviction could result in a prison term of 20 years and fine of up to $250,000.

• Solomon Chambers Sr., 50, of Washington has been charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud.

Prosecutors say that in July 2016, Chambers and other people conspired to defraud the Members 1st Federal Credit Union and the Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union by depositing checks into bank account with insufficient funds to cover cash withdrawals and purchases that were made.

If convicted, Solomon could face 30 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Tony LaRussa is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tony at 724-772-6368 or tlarussa@tribweb.com or via Twitter @TonyLaRussaTrib.

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 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.

click me