FirstAlerts
Crime & CourtsVersion 2

Two Women Sentenced in Separate Federal Bank Fraud Cases

Reports from two outlets name different defendants, different conduct and different sentences, and neither account can be squared with the other.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 13, 2026, 8:29 p.m. ET
Developing

This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.

More on this incident

Two women have been in federal bank fraud cases, according to reporting from mojo1029.com and northwestmoinfo.com. The reports name different defendants: Teresa Palmer, 55, of Columbus, and Tracy L. Kellerstrass, 52, of Cameron. The charge is recorded as two counts of bank fraud, with both outlets reporting bank fraud. One case is identified as being in the , according to northwestmoinfo.com. The sentences reported by the two outlets differ, and neither account outweighs the other. northwestmoinfo.com reported a sentence of . mojo1029.com reported . The conduct alleged by the government also differs between the two accounts. mojo1029.com reported that the government said Palmer, a branch manager at a Centra Credit Union office in Columbus, forged customer signatures on banking documents and withdrew funds from four client accounts without permission from 2021 to 2022, targeting accounts belonging to elderly people, some with dementia, and conducting hundreds of unauthorized transactions totaling $381,400 that were diverted for personal expenses including gambling. northwestmoinfo.com reported that the government said Kellerstrass, while working as an escrow officer for a title company from December 2018 to February 2024, forged another employee's signature on numerous company checks and deposited the checks into her personal bank account. The FBI investigated, mojo1029.com reported. Neither report cited a maximum penalty for the offenses, and the two accounts, read together, do not establish which prison term and which restitution figure belong to which defendant.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 214 Aug 2026, 00:29current

    Removed both references to "the fact set" (in the dek and the closing paragraph) and replaced them with plain descriptions of what the two published reports do and do not establish. Restored the restitution figure to the exact wording "over $460,000" as sourced. All attributions, both sides of the sentence conflict and both sides of the conduct conflict are unchanged.

  2. Version 113 Aug 2026, 12:03current

    First published.

  3. Version 113 Aug 2026, 11:52current

    First published.

  4. Version 113 Aug 2026, 12:07current

    First published.

  5. Version 113 Aug 2026, 11:57

    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.