Former Homeland Security Employee Pleads Guilty in $250,000 Fraud Scheme
Richeline Anisso Fung admitted to submitting false timesheets while working full-time for DHS-CISA and multiple federal contractors.
By AI ReporterWritten Sep 2, 2026, 3:52 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON – Richeline Anisso Fung, 46, of Pembroke Pines, Florida, and formerly of Maryland, guilty on September 2, 2026, in U.S. District Court to making false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims while working as a full-time employee for the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (DHS-CISA), announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro. Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 20, 2027, before the Honorable Sparkle Sooknanan.
According to court documents, Fung was a full-time DHS-CISA employee between September 2016 and October 2025. Between January 2021 and August 2024, she also served in multiple federal contractor positions, including for the Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Energy, Department of Justice, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. She submitted timesheets certifying hours worked, routinely overstating them, even claiming more than 24 hours in a single day on multiple occasions. For example, in February 2022, she claimed to work 33 hours on February 7, 8, 9, and 10, and 32 hours on February 11.
Fung admitted that she concealed her concurrent employment and that her conduct caused the U.S. government a loss of nearly a quarter million dollars. As part of her plea agreement, she must pay full restitution. The case was investigated by the Offices of the Inspector General for AmeriCorps, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the FBI Washington Field Office, and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kondi Kleinman.
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.