FirstAlerts

Two Virginia Residents Plead Guilty in CARES Act Fraud Scheme

Martha Sue Buffy Davis and Robert Walter Neely admitted to conspiring to file fraudulent pandemic unemployment claims.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 28, 2026, 5:39 p.m. ET
ABINGDON, Va. – Two Virginia residents guilty on August 28, 2026, to conspiring to defraud the United States by filing false claims for pandemic unemployment benefits authorized by the CARES Act, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia. Martha Sue Buffy Davis, 50, of Glade Spring, and Robert Walter Neely, 47, each guilty to one count of conspiracy. Court documents state that from July 2020 through May 2021, Davis and Neely conspired to file fraudulent claims with the Virginia Employment Commission. Neely provided personal identifying information to Davis, who filed and recertified the false claims, including for a non-existent business she invented called "Buff-N-Shine Cleaning." Sentencing is scheduled for December 18, 2026. The case was investigated by the FBI, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Virginia Employment Commission. The announcement was made by First Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert N. Tracci and FBI Special Agent in Charge Ian Kaufmann.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 128 Aug 2026, 21:39current

    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 β€” 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 β€” accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements β€” 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 β€” a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them β€” 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.