Five Charged in Alleged $23 Million Check Theft Scheme Involving Postal Carriers
Federal charges allege postal carriers were recruited to steal checks and sell them via Telegram; case remains undecided.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 23, 2026, 6:50 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 23, 2026, 6:52 p.m. ET
Five Charged in Alleged $23 Million Check Theft Scheme Involving Postal Carriers
Five people have been charged in connection with an alleged scheme to steal checks from the mail and sell them through an encrypted Telegram group, according to abc13.com. The charges were announced on August 23, 2026. The matter is only at the charging stage and has not been resolved; no verdict has been reached.
The defendants are Tryston Vaughn, Catherine Kilpatrick, Drakkor Alexander, Malcolm Joubert, and Alyssa Bryant. The government alleges that postal carriers were recruited to steal checks and sell them to buyers through the Telegram group, orchestrated by Vaughn.
The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
Aug 23, 2026, 6:50 p.m. ETFirst report
Five Charged in Alleged $23 Million Check Theft Scheme Involving Postal Carriers
Five people have been charged in connection with an alleged scheme to steal checks from the mail, according to abc13.com. The charges were announced on August 23, 2026. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; the defendants have not been convicted.
The government alleges that postal carriers were recruited to steal checks from the mail and sell them to buyers through an encrypted communications group on Telegram, orchestrated by Tryston Vaughn. The defendants are Tryston Vaughn, Catherine Kilpatrick, Drakkor Alexander, Malcolm Joubert, and Alyssa Bryant.
The defendants are charged and presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 123 Aug 2026, 22:52current
First published.
- Version 123 Aug 2026, 22:50current
First published.
- Version 123 Aug 2026, 23:22current
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.