Dallastown Man Sentenced to 21 Months for Defrauding Financial Institution
Jason Motter, 42, of Dallastown, Pennsylvania, was sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment for a scheme to defraud a financial institution in connection with a $773,409 residential loan application.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 28, 2026, 6:19 p.m. ET
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.
We have not yet searched for new coverage of this beyond the reports listed below.
Earlier reports
Aug 28, 2026, 6:19 p.m. ETFirst report
Dallastown Man Sentenced to 21 Months for Defrauding Financial Institution
HARRISBURG – On August 28, 2026, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that United States District Judge Karoline Mehalchick sentenced Jason Motter, 42, of Dallastown, Pennsylvania, to 21 months’ imprisonment for executing a scheme to defraud a financial institution.
According to United States Attorney Brian D. Miller, on or about April 13, 2023, Motter applied for a residential loan and provided bank statements he had fraudulently altered to increase account balances by approximately $400,000. On or about June 8, 2023, he provided a written representation affirming the information was “true, accurate, and complete.” The bank relied on the application and disbursed $773,409 to Motter.
The bank later discovered the fraud during an internal audit and demanded immediate repayment. Motter refinanced the loan and repaid the balance in full. The FBI Philadelphia’s Capital Area Resident Agency investigated the case, and Assistant United States Attorney Joseph J. Terz prosecuted it.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 128 Aug 2026, 22:22current
First published.
- Version 128 Aug 2026, 22:19current
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.