ShareThis Page
Valley News Dispatch

Cheswick residents indicted on stamp fraud case

Joe Napsha
| Friday, Dec. 7, 2018, 9:24 p.m.

Two Cheswick residents were indicted this week by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh for allegedly participating in a scheme to write bad checks used to buy large quantities of postage stamps from Western Pennsylvania post offices and sell them for cash, according to the U.S. Attorney in Pittsburgh.

Holly Lovasik, 31, and John Martell, 38, allegedly passed the worthless checks between April 23 and June 11, according to the six-count indictment returned on Tuesday Dec. 4 and unsealed Friday.

Lovasik is accused of using checks in her own name linked to a bank account she knew was closed.

Martell allegedly used checks in the names of two individuals, which were falsely altered, completed and signed.

The unsealed court filings did not reveal how much money Lovasik and Martell allegedly received through the scheme or which post offices received the worthless checks.

Lovasik and Martell were both charged with theft of government property and conspiracy to commit offenses against the U.S. government. Martell also was charged with possessing a forged security.

Lovasik and Martell are scheduled to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on Dec. 12.

Joe Napsha is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Joe at 724-836-5252 or jnapsha@tribweb.com.

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