FirstAlerts

Nebraska man sentenced to 8 years for ATM jackpotting scheme

Juan Gouveia-Aguilera was sentenced to eight years in federal prison for his role in a scheme that stole more than $3.5 million from ATMs.

4 reports on this incident · first at Aug 22, 2026, 12:39 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 22, 2026, 12:33 p.m. ETWritten Aug 22, 2026, 11:52 p.m. ET
Juan Gouveia-Aguilera has been to for his role in an ATM jackpotting scheme, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The sentencing was reported by WOWT. Gouveia-Aguilera pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud. The government said he was responsible for stealing more than $3.5 million through ATM jackpotting, using malware to steal money from ATMs. The sentence was handed down in federal court in Nebraska.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 22, 2026, 11:22 p.m. ET

    Man sentenced to 8 years for ATM jackpotting scheme in Nebraska

    Juan Gouveia-Aguilera has been sentenced to eight years in federal prison for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office as reported by wowt.com.

    The government said Gouveia-Aguilera was responsible for stealing more than $3.5 million through ATM jackpotting, using malware to steal money from ATMs.

  2. Aug 22, 2026, 10:52 p.m. ET

    Man sentenced to 8 years for ATM jackpotting scheme in Nebraska

    Juan Gouveia-Aguilera has been sentenced to eight years in federal prison for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as reported by wowt.com.

    The government said Gouveia-Aguilera was responsible for stealing more than $3.5 million through ATM jackpotting, using malware to steal money from ATMs. The sentencing was reported by wowt.com.

  3. Aug 22, 2026, 12:39 p.m. ETFirst report

    Man Sentenced to 8 Years for ATM Jackpotting Scheme

    Juan Gouveia-Aguilera has been sentenced to eight years in federal prison for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The sentencing was reported by WOWT.

    The government said Gouveia-Aguilera was responsible for stealing more than $3.5 million through ATM jackpotting, using malware to steal money from ATMs. The charges are allegations, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 123 Aug 2026, 03:22current

    First published.

  2. Version 122 Aug 2026, 16:39current

    First published.

  3. Version 123 Aug 2026, 03:52current

    First published.

  4. Version 123 Aug 2026, 02:52current

    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.