FirstAlerts

Lawrence Mayor Brian DePeña Charged with Fraud and Money Laundering

The mayor faces charges of wire fraud, money laundering, and COVID relief fraud; the case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 28, 2026, 8:22 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 27, 2026, 9:25 a.m. ETWritten Aug 28, 2026, 8:22 a.m. ET
Brian DePeña, the mayor of Lawrence, Massachusetts, has been with wire fraud, money laundering, and COVID relief fraud, according to NBC Boston. The charges allege that he fraudulently obtained a $1.5 million COVID-19 small-business loan for his tire business and used the funds to pay off mortgages, fund his campaign, and pay personal taxes. The case is being prosecuted by the , with the FBI investigating. DePeña faces up to 20 years in prison for wire fraud and up to 10 years for money laundering, along with supervised release and fines. The matter is only at the charging stage and has not been decided; DePeña is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 28, 2026, 8:22 a.m. ETFirst report

    Lawrence Mayor Brian DePeña Charged with Fraud and Money Laundering

    Brian DePeña, the mayor of Lawrence, Massachusetts, has been charged with wire fraud, money laundering, and COVID relief fraud, according to the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, as reported by NBC Boston. The charges were announced on August 27, 2026.

    The government alleges that DePeña fraudulently obtained a $1.5 million COVID-19 small-business loan for his tire business and used the funds to pay off mortgages, fund his campaign, and pay personal taxes, NBC Boston reported. The FBI is investigating the case.

    DePeña faces up to 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000 for wire fraud, and up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of $250,000 for money laundering, according to NBC Boston. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; DePeña is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 128 Aug 2026, 12:22current

    First published.

  2. Version 128 Aug 2026, 12:22current

    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.