Luis Uribe Charged in Federal Case Over Gunpoint Sexual Assaults of Four Women
Federal prosecutors accuse Uribe of assaults in Schaumburg and Naperville between February and October 2022; the charges are pending and he has not been tried.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 10, 2026, 2:25 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 10, 2026, 2:56 p.m. ET
Luis Uribe Charged in Gunpoint Sexual Assaults of Four Women in Schaumburg and Naperville
Federal prosecutors have charged Luis Uribe in connection with a string of gunpoint sexual assaults targeting four women in Schaumburg and Naperville, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The charges allege Uribe committed multiple "gunpoint sexual assaults" between February and October 2022.
The FBI investigated the case, which prosecutors said involved four victims across the two suburbs. Uribe has not been tried or convicted, and the charges are allegations. He is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.
The case remains at the charging stage, and no trial date has been set. The FBI led the investigation that resulted in the charges.
Sep 10, 2026, 2:25 p.m. ETFirst report
Federal prosecutors charge Luis Uribe over alleged gunpoint sexual assaults of four women
Federal prosecutors have charged Luis Uribe, alleging he committed multiple "gunpoint sexual assaults" of four women in Schaumburg and Naperville between February and October 2022, the Chicago Sun-Times reported. The FBI is involved in the matter, according to the Sun-Times.
The case is at the charging stage, and the proceeding is ongoing. The charges are allegations; Uribe has not been tried, and he is presumed innocent.
The cause and further details of the alleged conduct have not been established beyond what prosecutors have stated.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 18:56current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 18:25current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 19:23current
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.