New Castle woman accused of Social Security fraud totaling nearly $27K |

New Castle woman accused of Social Security fraud totaling nearly $27K


A New Castle woman is accused of defrauding the Social Security Administration of nearly $27,000 in benefits she was not entitled to receive, U.S. Attorney Scott W. Brady said Friday.

Shawna Stelter, 36, of Lawrence County was indicted by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh on charges related to Social Security fraud, Brady said. Stelter was charged with fraud as well as making false statements and concealing information.

According to the indictment returned on Thursday, Stelter received $26,918 in Supplemental Security Income benefits “to which she knew she was not entitled.”

Stelter claimed her household was made up of only herself and her children; she did not report that her husband also was part of the household, prosecutors said.

If convicted on all charges, Stelter faces a maximum sentence of up to 20 years in prison, a fine up to $750,000 or both.

The Social Security Administration’s Office of the Inspector General conducted the investigation that led to the indictment.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy C. Wiegand is prosecuting the case.

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.