FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Delco Attorney Pleads Guilty to Tax Evasion and Mail Fraud Over Sham Checks

Daniel A. Pallen admitted to submitting over $400,000 in fictitious checks to evade taxes and buy an electric truck.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 1, 2026, 6:01 p.m. ET
PHILADELPHIA – Daniel A. Pallen, 46, of Springfield, Pennsylvania, guilty on September 1, 2026, to one count of tax evasion and one count of mail fraud, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plea was entered before U.S. District Judge Gail A. Weilheimer. Prosecutors said Pallen, an attorney, signed and submitted 14 fake "certified" checks to the IRS in November 2024 and January 2025, totaling $294,454.52, to cover tax liabilities for multiple years. The checks used a bank routing number associated with the Federal Reserve Bank and a false account number that was Pallen's Social Security number. In February 2025, he called the IRS to ask about the checks. Pallen also used a fake "cashier's check" for $129,710.51 to buy a new electric utility truck from Company A in October 2024. The check was forged, using Company A's own bank account numbers. After the check bounced and Company A secured the truck, Pallen filed a civil lawsuit seeking its return, falsely claiming Company A had no right to the vehicle. He also attached a made-up Form 1099-A. Pallen faces up to 25 years in prison at sentencing on December 10. The case was investigated by IRS Investigation and the FBI, and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Samuel S. Dalke.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 11 Sept 2026, 22:01current

    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.