Father and Son Charged in Synthetic Identity Fraud Scheme; Third Defendant Charged in Texas
Federal charges allege a synthetic identity fraud scheme, while a separate indictment charges a man with soliciting a minor.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 15, 2026, 1:55 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 15, 2026, 1:55 a.m. ETFirst report
Two Pittsford, N.Y., Men Charged in Alleged $2,257,697 Synthetic Identity Fraud Scheme; Case Undecided
Charges against Talib Hussain, 75, and Mirza Khan, 48, both of Pittsford, N.Y., were announced on Aug. 12, 2026, according to wcbm.com. Both outlets reporting the case say the men are charged in the Western District of New York with conspiracy to commit bank, wire fraud, and access device fraud; access device fraud; and aggravated identity theft.
The case is undecided. The proceeding is at the charging stage, which is where the reporting leaves it: neither wcbm.com nor townhall.com reports a plea, a trial date, a verdict, a dismissal or any other resolution. Nothing in either account indicates the allegations below have been tested in court. Anyone reading this later should treat the matter as open unless a subsequent outcome is found.
According to accounts reported by townhall.com and wcbm.com, the government alleges that between 2012 and July 23, 2024, the two men, with co-conspirators, operated a synthetic identity fraud scheme, illegally obtaining valid Social Security numbers belonging to real individuals " children children" — described by townhall.com as "including children" and by wcbm.com as "often children" — to create synthetic identities and submit approximately 1,072 online applications to financial institutions for credit and debit cards. Both outlets report the government's allegation that apartments were rented for use as mailing addresses for the cards, that the cards were used at retailers such as Apple, BJs and Sam's Club and at the defendants' own businesses — Lucky Beverage, Chili Express Mart and Easy Food Market — that property taxes were paid on three Rochester properties, and that fraudulent checks were used to temporarily raise spending limits, causing approximately $2,257,697 in losses to financial institutions. townhall.com specifies that the apartments were rented in the Western District of New York.
Both outlets report a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1,000,000 fine. That figure is the statutory ceiling attached to the charges as filed, not a sentence; no sentence has been imposed, because the case has not been decided.
The investigating agencies are listed as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation New York, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service Boston Division, and the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General.
As both outlets note, the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime is merely an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. No findings have been made in the case, and as of the most recent account available here — townhall.com's report dated Aug. 14, 2026 — the matter remained unresolved.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 19:55current
First published.
- Version 115 Aug 2026, 05:55current
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.