FirstAlerts

Pittsburgh Man Sentenced for Depositing Altered U.S. Treasury Check

Andre Pitts was sentenced to probation and ordered to pay restitution in a federal criminal case.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 18, 2026, 6:25 p.m. ET
Developing · not yet checked for updates

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 have not yet searched for new coverage of this beyond the reports listed below.

According to official records from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania, United States Attorney Troy Rivetti announced on August 18, 2026, that 21-year-old Pittsburgh resident Andre Pitts was in a developing federal case. Senior United States District Judge David Stewart Cercone Pitts to two years of probation and ordered him to pay $30,471.80 in restitution. Pitts was convicted of uttering counterfeit obligations or securities and theft of government property. According to information presented to the court, Pitts deposited an altered U.S. Treasury check in the amount of $62,211 on June 12, 2023. The check had originally been issued in February 2023 to another individual regarding that person's 2021 income tax return. The payee line and memo line were altered to list Pitts, his residence, and a tax year of 2022. Following the deposit, Pitts withdrew $500 in cash and had a $25,000 cashier's check issued to himself. Assistant United States Attorney Brendan J. McKenna prosecuted the case, which was investigated by the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Office of Investigations.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 118 Aug 2026, 22:25current

    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.