Most viewed stories
|
| ID theft charges: $105K in student loans, credit cards |
|
Posted: Friday, May 8, 2009 11:43 am
|
 Email  Print
|
By DREW AMO
Staff Writer
WASECA — A Rochester woman has been charged with felony identity theft after allegedly obtaining $105,564 in student loans and credit cards in the name of a former relative.
Kathleen Marion Studnicka, 42, faces a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and a $100,000 fine if convicted.
On Jan. 2, Waseca Detective James Armendariz met with a Waseca woman who received a call from a credit card company.
She told Armendariz that the company told her that there were $15,398 in charges on it and wanted to know when she was going to pay the bill. The victim told the company she did not know what they were talking about.
According to the complaint, the victim learned that her name and social security number were associated with the card, but had an associated address of her former daughter-in-law, Kathleen Studnicka.
The victim told Armendariz that she believed Studnicka was involved because she had done something similar a few years ago, but they did not report it.
After the call, the alleged victim ran a credit report and discovered that there were approximately $105,000 in fraudulent charges, none of which the victim knew about.
The charges began in October of 2006 and went through October 2008.
According to the complaint, 11 educational loans and two credit card accounts were taken out in the victim’s name. The victim told Armendariz that she did not open, co-sign for or give anyone permission to open these accounts.
The credit report showed two addresses listed for the victim, one in Byron and another in Rochester.
The victim said she had never lived at either address, but said Studnicka had lived at both.
The majority of the accounts were for college education loans, but the victim did not think Studnicka was going to college. She added that Studnicka had a child that was attending college though.
On Jan. 29, Armendariz received a phone call from Chase Visa regarding one of the credit card balances. Armendariz spoke with a fraud investigator from the company, who said the account was opened under the victim’s name but the address of Studnicka. The investigator added that a convenience check was drawn on the account shortly after it was opened, payable to Studnicka, who endorsed the back of it.
On March 3, the victim told Armendariz that Studnicka had called her. A company involved in the case called Studnicka and asked her what she was doing. The victim said that Studnicka had called and said she was sorry for what she had done, adding that it was not something she wanted to do, but had to.
Studnicka asked the victim if they could get together to try and work something out, according to the complaint. Armendariz said he would call Studnicka to set up a meeting.
On March 5, Armendariz called Studnicka and spoke with her regarding the accounts. She told him that she knew why he was calling and that it was about “loans and stuff,” according to the complaint.
Armendariz read off a list of student loans and credit cards opened under the victim’s name, intentionally adding two additional credit cards to the list.
When he asked Studnicka if this sounded accurate, she said the student loans were, but she only opened two credit cards under the victim’s name, according to the complaint.
Armendariz asked Studnicka about a Visa credit card with approximately $15,000 in charges on it. She said that sounded about right since there were probably late fees in with that amount as well.
Studnicka asked what was going to happen to her since the victim said she would sit down and work out a payment plan.
According to the criminal complaint, Studnicka admitted that she was having financial problems.
Armendariz told her that this was a significant amount of money and she apparently could not handle the payments on the loans.
Studnicka explained that the loans were not due yet and she would have to start paying in six months. She also admitted the student loans were for both her and her child.
As for the $10,000 convenience check written out to herself, Studnicka said that was used to pay for living expenses like food, gas and utility bills.
According to the complaint, Studnicka said she probably had opened both credit accounts online, just like she had with the student loans. She added that she forged the victim’s signature where she had to list her as a co-signer.
On April 9, the victim dropped off paperwork she had received from the lending agencies that have signatures from both her and Studnicka. She told Armendariz that none of the signatures were made by her.
Studnicka’s next court appearance is scheduled for June 23.
Drew Amo can be reached at 837-5451 or damo@wasecacountynews.com |
|
|
|
Guidelines: Welcome to the Waseca County News community. Please keep your comments civil. Don't attack other readers personally and keep your language decent. We reserve the right to delete comments at any time.
|
|
Login and voice your opinion!
|
|
|
|
Top Jobs | Top Homes | Top Cars
|
|
on Twitter |
|
Digg
Del.icio.us
Facebook
MySpace
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!
