Pennsylvania: postal contract truck driver charged with mail theft

SCRANTON – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Joseph Stefanski, age 35, Wilkes-Barre, was indicted by a federal grand jury on March 1, 2016 in Scranton for theft of mail. The indictment was unsealed today following his arrest.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, the indictment charges Stefanski with theft of mail between December 2014 and February 2015. The alleged thefts were discovered after postal customers in the areas of Dallas, Shavertown, Plains, Trucksville and Luzerne Township, Luzerne County, complained about mail that was not received and/or mail that was received with contents missing. Some of the missing contents included cash, gift cards, and lottery tickets.

inspectorFurther investigation revealed that Stefanski, who was employed by a trucking company hired to transport mail from one post office to another, had allegedly removed mail and its contents from mail containers in his truck.

The case is being investigated by the United States Postal Service, Office of Postal Inspection Services, and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Robert J. O’Hara.

Anyone who believes they may be a victim or have further information should contact Postal Inspector David Heinke, United States Postal Service, at 877-876-2455

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 guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

The maximum penalty under federal law is 5 years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a $250,000 fine. 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.