Waco Woman Charged With Misappropriating Over $300,000
Shere Lomosad faces charges of misappropriation, theft, and credit card abuse; the case has not yet gone to trial and remains undecided.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 4, 2026, 7:52 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 4, 2026, 7:52 p.m. ETFirst report
Waco Woman Indicted on Charges of Misappropriating Over $300,000
A McLennan County grand jury has indicted Shere Lomosad, 45, of Waco, on charges of misappropriation of fiduciary funds over $300,000, theft over $300,000, and two counts of credit card abuse, according to KXXV. The charges are at the indictment stage, and the case is undecided; Lomosad is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
The government alleges that Lomosad misappropriated fiduciary funds and committed theft over $300,000, as well as credit card abuse, KXXV reported. The Beverly Hills Police Department investigated the case.
The charges are first-degree felonies for misappropriation and theft, and state jail felonies for the credit card abuse counts. The date of the alleged conduct has not been established. The matter has not been resolved, and no trial date has been set.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 14 Sept 2026, 23:52current
First published.
- Version 14 Sept 2026, 23:52current
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.