Buffalo man sentenced in debt collection fraud
Nicholas Janes, 40, was sentenced on August 21, 2026, after being convicted of mail fraud in a scheme that victimized more than 500 people.
4 reports on this incident · first at Aug 22, 2026, 9:29 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 25, 2026, 7:25 p.m. ET
Buffalo Man Sentenced to Probation for Mail Fraud in Debt Collection Scheme
Nicholas Janes, 40, of Tonawanda, New York, was sentenced on August 21, 2026, to five years' probation by U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr., according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York. Janes had pleaded guilty to mail fraud.
Prosecutors said Janes posed as a sheriff's deputy or attorney and used fictitious law-firm names while pressuring victims to pay purported debts. He contacted individuals across the country, threatening criminal charges if they did not repay alleged unpaid loans, and directed payments via money orders to addresses he controlled. The scheme victimized more than 500 people, totaling $420,812.92, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Franz M. Wright and investigated by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.
Aug 25, 2026, 7:22 p.m. ET
Buffalo Man Sentenced to Probation for Mail Fraud in Debt Collection Scheme
BUFFALO, N.Y. — Nicholas Janes, 40, of Tonawanda, was sentenced on August 21, 2026, to five years' probation by U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr., according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York. Janes had been convicted of mail fraud.
Prosecutors said Janes posed as a sheriff's deputy or attorney and used fictitious law-firm names while pressuring people to pay purported debts. He victimized more than 500 people for $420,812.92, the U.S. Attorney's Office said.
The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Franz M. Wright and investigated by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.
Aug 22, 2026, 9:29 p.m. ETFirst report
Buffalo Man Sentenced for Defrauding Hundreds of Victims
BUFFALO, N.Y. — Nicholas Janes, 40, of Tonawanda, was sentenced to five years' probation by U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. after being convicted of mail fraud, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York announced on August 21, 2026.
According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, Janes ran a scheme that defrauded more than 500 people out of $420,812.92. He contacted victims by phone, claiming to be a sheriff's deputy and threatening criminal charges over alleged unpaid loans. He also posed as an attorney at fictitious law firms, and directed victims to send USPS money orders via overnight mail to addresses he controlled.
The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Franz M. Wright and investigated by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service under Acting Special Agent-in-Charge Justin Page, Boston Division.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 231 Aug 2026, 23:56current
Updated to reflect the official record and clarify the sentencing details.
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 23:22current
First published.
- Version 123 Aug 2026, 01:29current
First published.
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 23:25current
First published.
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 22:52
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.