Lawrence Mayor Brian DePeña Released on Conditions After Federal Fraud, Money Laundering Charges
Prosecutors say the mayor spent COVID-era loan money on campaign costs, IRS debts and mortgages. The allegations are untested; the case is at the charging stage and no court has ruled on them.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 17, 2026, 4:58 p.m. ET
This matter is open. Agencies announce the actions they bring far more reliably than the ones they lose, so an action reported here may since have been settled, dismissed or decided without a further announcement.
We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 18, 2026, 9:09 a.m. ET — checked 1 min ago.
Earlier reports
Aug 17, 2026, 4:58 p.m. ETFirst report
Lawrence Mayor Brian DePeña Charged in Pandemic Loan Fraud Case
Federal prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts have charged Brian DePeña, the mayor of Lawrence, Massachusetts, with one count each of wire fraud and money laundering. The criminal case is in federal district court and is at the charging stage; the allegations have not been tested or decided.
Prosecutors allege DePeña applied for multiple COVID-era federal loans for his tire and car company, Tenares Tire Services Inc., over 2020 and 2021, and received over $1.6 million. They allege he used the funds to cover campaign expenses, pay off debts to the IRS and make payments on high-interest mortgages on properties he owns. Charging documents allege he paid a total of $883,293 toward two loans in December 2021.
DePeña was arrested Friday by the FBI and appeared in federal court in Boston. He was released without bond on conditions that include reporting to probation, no travel outside Massachusetts and no contact with witnesses.
The account above reflects the government's allegations at the charging stage. No plea or response from DePeña is recorded in the material available for this report.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 117 Aug 2026, 21:14current
First published.
- Version 117 Aug 2026, 20:58current
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.