Four Massachusetts Men Indicted in $12.2 Million Treasury Check Fraud and Money Laundering Case

A Treasury check goes out to a taxpayer. Someone alters the payee line. The money lands in a shell company’s account at a bank in Metro Boston. According to federal prosecutors, that is how more than $12.2 million in stolen U.S. Treasury checks moved through Massachusetts banks and credit unions between 2023 and 2026.

Today the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced that four men were arrested on federal indictments. They are David Obeng, 24, of Dedham; Lynley Joseph, 26, of Brockton; Lindsley Georges, 33, of Everett; and Shaunsayh Addo, 33, of Leominster. Each faces one count of bank fraud conspiracy and one count of money laundering conspiracy. A second indictment charges Obeng with wire fraud conspiracy, five counts of bank fraud, two counts of money laundering, and aggravated identity theft.

These are allegations. Every defendant is presumed innocent, and the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

What the government says happened

The first indictment describes altered Treasury checks, each issued to a real payee and rewritten to pay shell companies the defendants allegedly controlled. Prosecutors say each defendant directed deposits at banks and credit unions in exchange for a cut. They then allege the money moved through cashier’s checks, $310,000 in luxury watches, and a $425,000 real estate loan secured by Nantucket property.

The second indictment describes a different playbook. Prosecutors allege Obeng and others texted victims from numbers made to look like their banks, then called posing as fraud investigators and talked victims into reading back the codes that authorize withdrawals. The government also alleges Obeng recruited people to walk into branches, pose as customers, open accounts, and pull out cash.

Georges faces an added problem. The government says he was on federal supervised release from a January 2022 money laundering conviction when the alleged conduct occurred. Obeng and Georges remain detained pending hearings. Joseph and Addo were released on conditions.

The investigation is not new. Eight people were charged in June 2025 over the same stolen checks, and another in June 2026. We covered that earlier round in our post on the $8.8 million check fraud scheme.

The exposure

• Bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy: up to 30 years, five years of supervised release, and a $1 million fine
• Money laundering conspiracy: up to 20 years, three years of supervised release, and a $250,000 fine
• Money laundering: up to 20 years and a $500,000 fine
• Aggravated identity theft: a mandatory minimum of two years, served consecutively to any other sentence

A judge sets the actual sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, not the statutory maximum. That is where defense work matters most.

Reading the indictment like a defense lawyer

Conspiracy turns on knowledge. The government must prove an agreement and that each defendant joined it knowingly. Association is not agreement. A defendant who deposited a check at someone else’s direction is not automatically a defendant who understood the scheme.

Money laundering rides on top. Prosecutors attach it to fraud cases because it multiplies exposure. It also requires proof that the defendant knew the money came from a crime and that the transactions were designed to conceal it.

Money laundering counts get added to almost every fraud indictment because they raise the stakes so sharply. But the government has to prove intent to conceal and knowledge of the source, transaction by transaction, defendant by defendant. Those elements get tested, and they do not always hold.

Paul Andrews, Attorney, Dhar Law, LLP

The number drives the sentence. A $12.2 million conspiracy total does not automatically become each defendant’s number. Under the Guidelines, the question is what each person agreed to, and what was reasonably foreseeable to that person. Loss attribution and role adjustments can move a range by years.

One client, two indictments. Obeng faces two separate cases with different evidence: bank records and deposits in one, texts, calls, and recruited account holders in the other. How the cases are sequenced, and whether they resolve together, shapes everything from discovery to plea strategy.

The clock is running. Related defendants were charged as far back as June 2025. In a case this mature, the government has had time to build its evidence and its witnesses. Anyone named in an investigation like this needs counsel before the indictment, not after.

Detention and supervised release

For the two men still detained, the first fight is the detention hearing under the Bail Reform Act. For Georges, a second track opens in front of the judge who supervised his release. A supervised release violation is decided on a lower standard of proof than a criminal trial, and it can run alongside the new case. Defense counsel has to manage both proceedings at once, because a position taken in one can hurt in the other.

For the two men released, the conditions are everything. One violation can undo the release.

The first days

If you are named, or think you may be, the guidance is simple. Do not discuss the case with anyone except your lawyer, including co-defendants. Do not delete texts, apps, or accounts. Do not move or spend money connected to the investigation. Every one of those steps can create a new charge or harden an existing one.

Our experience defending these cases

Dhar Law defends federal fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, check fraud, money laundering, and aggravated identity theft cases in federal court. Our white collar defense team includes former federal and state prosecutors and alumni of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI. Managing partner Vikas Dhar was named Best Lawyers 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” for Criminal Defense: White Collar in Boston, and he has been recognized by Massachusetts Super Lawyers in white collar defense for 18 consecutive years. We litigate across federal jurisdictions, and we build mitigation for cases that call for it.

A conspiracy indictment tells one story about many people. Our job is to separate them. What did this person know, what did this person do, and what does the evidence show? A $12 million headline should never become a verdict on one client. What a defendant says and signs in the first weeks can shape the entire case, so those weeks belong to counsel.

Vikas S. Dhar, Managing Partner, Dhar Law, LLP

The question that matters

The government spent years building this case. Every person named in it now faces a choice about what comes next, and the earliest choices carry the most weight.

If you or someone you love is under investigation or has been charged in a federal check fraud, bank fraud, or money laundering case, call Dhar Law at 617-880-6155 for a confidential consultation, or contact us online. Our offices are located at Schrafft’s City Center Power House, 529 Main Street, Suite P200, Charlestown, MA 02129.

This post discusses public allegations and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.