Horry County Man Charged with Lottery Fraud
Antonio Levon Ricardo Stewart faces three counts of intent to defraud, counterfeit game tickets; he has not been tried and is presumed innocent.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 28, 2026, 10:21 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 28, 2026, 10:21 a.m. ETFirst report
Florence County Man Charged with Lottery Fraud
A Florence County man has been charged with three counts of intent to defraud, counterfeit game tickets, according to WMBF News. The charges stem from an investigation by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and the 12th Circuit Solicitor’s Office.
Antonio Levon Ricardo Stewart is accused of stealing scratch-off tickets from several stores in Florence County. The government claims he was captured on video stealing tickets from a Murphy USA during a job interview and later redeemed a stolen ticket for a cash prize of five dollars, as reported by WMBF News.
The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved. Stewart has been charged but not yet tried; charges are allegations and he is presumed innocent.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 128 Aug 2026, 14:22current
First published.
- Version 128 Aug 2026, 14:21current
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.