The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a 68-year-old Sayre, Pennsylvania resident has been charged with possessing child pornography and wire fraud.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, a Superseding Information was filed today in U.S. District Court in Scranton alleging that Harold Schrader possessed child pornography on a computer in 2012, and allegedly participated through willful blindness in a fraud scheme involving soliciting overseas loans that were never repaid.
The charges against Schrader resulted from an investigation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the Pennsylvania State Police.
If convicted of the charges, Schrader faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine for wire fraud, and up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the child pornography charge.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys' Offices and the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.usdoj.gov/psc For more information about internet safety education, please visit www.usdoj.gov/psc and click on the tab "resources."
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Francis P. Sempa.
Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.
A sentence following a finding of guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant’s educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the United States Attorneys
