FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Federal Jury Convicts Kansas City Woman in Social Security Fraud Case

Divianys Morales-Alvarez was found guilty of four federal counts involving stolen benefits and forged Treasury checks.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 18, 2026, 5:25 p.m. ET
Developing · not yet checked for updates

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.

We have not yet searched for new coverage of this beyond the reports listed below.

On August 18, 2026, a federal jury in the U.S. District Court in Kansas City Divianys Morales-Alvarez, 50, of Kansas City, Missouri, for stealing federal benefits, according to official records from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Missouri. The developing case remains open as sentencing has not yet been determined. According to official records, Morales-Alvarez was of two counts of theft of government funds, one count of bank fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft. The verdict was returned to U.S. District Stephen R. Bough following four hours of deliberation by the jury, ending a trial that began on Monday, August 10. Official records state that from February 2020 to September 2024, the Social Security Administration sent over $66,000 to a joint account belonging to Morales-Alvarez and her mother, R.A., who had moved to Cuba upon her retirement in February of 2020. While Morales-Alvarez claimed she sent $10,000 of the benefit payments in cash to Cuba, evidence introduced at trial showed she sent approximately $1,600 and four to five packages containing clothes and supplies over that four-year period, spending remaining funds on personal expenses. She also intercepted U.S. Treasury checks and forged signatures. Under federal statutes, Morales-Alvarez faces a sentence of up to 30 years in federal prison without parole.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 118 Aug 2026, 21:25current

    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.