New York man pleads guilty to swindling Giant Eagle out of $90K |

New York man pleads guilty to swindling Giant Eagle out of $90K

Natasha Lindstrom
The Pittsburgh Human Relations Commission dismissed a discrimination complaint that a Monroeville man filed against a Strip District nonprofit. The commission said it found no evidence that Community Human Services discriminated against Theron Pitts at a group home for people with mental disabilities.

A New York man has pleaded guilty to conspiring to swindle Giant Eagle stores in Western Pennsylvania out of $90,000, federal prosecutors in Pittsburgh said Tuesday.

Corey W. Howard, 25, of Brooklyn, N.Y., was convicted on one count of conspiracy, U.S. Attorney Scott W. Brady said.

In June 2016, Howard and co-conspirators used counterfeit credit cards to purchase more than $90,000 worth of gift cards and merchandise at multiple Giant Eagle locations, prosecutors said.

Howard faces a maximum sentence of up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine or both.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory C. Melucci prosecuted the case with help from the Western Pennsylvania Financial Crimes Task Force, a multi-agency effort to combat financial crimes.

The investigation that led to Howard’s prosecution involved the Secret Service, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Homeland Security, Allegheny County District Attorney’s office and state police as well as police from Allegheny County, Pittsburgh and Robinson Township.

U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer scheduled a sentencing for Jan. 31.

Natasha Lindstrom is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Natasha at 412-380-8514, [email protected] or via Twitter @NewsNatasha.

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.