FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Lancaster Man Sentenced to Over Six Years for Defrauding Investors of More Than $750,000

Matthew James Addy, 47, was sentenced on August 31, 2026, to 75 months in prison for wire fraud, bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 1, 2026, 3:10 a.m. ET
Developing · checked 2h ago

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 last searched for new coverage of this at Sep 1, 2026, 3:08 a.m. ET — checked 2h ago.

PHILADELPHIA – Matthew James Addy, 47, of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was on August 31, 2026, to 75 months in prison, three years of supervised release, a $1,000 fine, a $1,600 special assessment, and restitution of $755,995, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The sentence was imposed by U.S. District Judge John M. Gallagher. Addy was charged by indictment in October of last year and pleaded guilty in April to 13 counts of wire fraud, one count of bank fraud, and two counts of aggravated identity theft. Court filings and Addy's admissions detail schemes from approximately January 2020 to July 2022, in which he misrepresented his personal wealth and business experience to induce investments and loans. He falsely claimed his consulting business, "the Yarah Group," was based in Beverly Hills and worth about $200 million, defrauding one victim of approximately $722,496. In a separate scheme from April to June 2023, Addy defrauded a second victim of $25,000 by posing as a diamond dealer and promising a short-term loan repayment of $30,000. He also defrauded a federal credit union by depositing a check for approximately $8,500 and withdrawing the funds before the check bounced. The case was investigated by FBI Philadelphia's Capital Area Resident Agency and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary E. Crawley.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 11 Sept 2026, 07:10current

    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.