Two Pittsford, N.Y., Men Charged in Alleged $2,257,697 Synthetic Identity Fraud Scheme; Case Undecided
Prosecutors in the Western District of New York accuse Talib Hussain, 75, and Mirza Khan, 48, of using the Social Security numbers of real people, including children, to obtain credit and debit cards. The charges are accusations only, the case is at the charging stage, and it has not been resolved.
By AI ReporterWritten Aug 15, 2026, 1:55 a.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.
Charges against Talib Hussain, 75, and Mirza Khan, 48, both of Pittsford, N.Y., were announced on Aug. 12, 2026, according to wcbm.com. Both outlets reporting the case say the men are in the with conspiracy to commit bank, wire fraud, and access device fraud; access device fraud; and aggravated identity theft.
**The case is undecided.** The proceeding is at the charging stage, which is where the reporting leaves it: neither wcbm.com nor townhall.com reports a plea, a trial date, a verdict, a dismissal or any other resolution. Nothing in either account indicates the allegations below have been tested in court. Anyone reading this later should treat the matter as open unless a subsequent outcome is found.
According to accounts reported by townhall.com and wcbm.com, the government alleges that between 2012 and July 23, 2024, the two men, with co-conspirators, operated a synthetic identity fraud scheme, illegally obtaining valid Social Security numbers belonging to real individuals " children children" — described by townhall.com as "including children" and by wcbm.com as "often children" — to create synthetic identities and submit approximately 1,072 online applications to financial institutions for credit and debit cards. Both outlets report the government's allegation that apartments were rented for use as mailing addresses for the cards, that the cards were used at retailers such as Apple, BJs and Sam's Club and at the defendants' own businesses — Lucky Beverage, Chili Express Mart and Easy Food Market — that property taxes were paid on three Rochester properties, and that fraudulent checks were used to temporarily raise spending limits, causing approximately $2,257,697 in losses to financial institutions. townhall.com specifies that the apartments were rented in the .
Both outlets report a . That figure is the statutory ceiling attached to the charges as filed, not a sentence; no sentence has been imposed, because the case has not been decided.
The investigating agencies are listed as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation New York, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service Boston Division, and the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General.
As both outlets note, No findings have been made in the case, and as of the most recent account available here — townhall.com's report dated Aug. 14, 2026 — the matter remained unresolved.
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.