Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →In April 2014, federal prosecutors in Florida announced an indictment accusing eight people of using information from AT&T customer files to gain unauthorized access to victims’ bank and card accounts. The indictment described allegations, not proof of guilt; later Justice Department releases reported guilty pleas and sentences in the case.
What the 2014 indictment alleged
On April 4, 2014, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida announced an unsealed, 22-count indictment charging eight defendants with conspiracy involving personal identifying information, unauthorized transfers, and credit or debit cards. The release initially named six people and said two defendants were then at large; that was their status at the time of the announcement, not a statement about their current status. The charging announcement cautioned: “An indictment is only an accusation and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
How prosecutors said the scheme worked
Information from customer files
According to the indictment as summarized by the Justice Department, Chouman Emily Syrilien worked for Interactive Response Technologies, Inc. (IRT), a staffing provider for call centers handling AT&T direct sales and customer inquiries. Prosecutors alleged Syrilien passed a co-conspirator personal identifying information from multiple AT&T customer files. The DOJ also said Arrington Basil Segu supplied identifying information about numerous people. The DOJ account of the alleged scheme describes these claimed information sources; it does not establish that AT&T itself directed or participated in the alleged conduct.
Unauthorized users and replacement cards
Prosecutors alleged that co-conspirators were added as “authorized users” to victims’ bank or credit and debit card accounts without the account holders’ knowledge or consent. The institutions were then allegedly asked to mail additional cards bearing the new users’ names to addresses under the group’s control. The indictment said the cards were used to make purchases or obtain cash.
#1 Best Overall
The charging-era release cited alleged cash advances and purchases exceeding $24,000 for Carlos Antonio Alexander, $12,000 for Monique Smith, and $8,200 for Shantegra La’Shae Godfrey. These were figures attributed to particular defendants in the prosecution, not estimates of typical identity-theft losses or population-wide totals.
What happened after the charges
Later 2014 Justice Department announcements reported guilty pleas and sentences. A November 20 release gave the following outcomes. The DOJ sentencing announcement said Godfrey had pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing at that time; the reviewed announcements do not establish her eventual sentence.
| Defendant | Outcome reported by DOJ |
|---|---|
| Chouman Emily Syrilien | 34 months in prison |
| Monique Smith | 36 months in prison |
| Arrington Basil Segu | 36 months in prison |
| Tracy Delva | 37 months in prison |
| Jacqueline Nicole Lee Warrick | 30 months in prison |
| Carlos Antonio Alexander | 16 months in prison |
| Angel Arcos | Time served, followed by supervised release |
| Shantegra La’Shae Godfrey | Pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing as of the November 20, 2014 announcement; eventual sentence not established in the reviewed DOJ releases |
Charges and possible penalties are not sentences
The original charging announcement listed conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, access-device fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) and (a)(3), and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). It also described maximum penalties available upon conviction. Those were charging-era possible penalties, not the punishment imposed on every defendant. The later reported prison terms and other outcomes are separate procedural results.
This is a historical account of a 2014 prosecution. The cited case announcements describe allegations and later court outcomes; they do not establish an ongoing breach or a current threat to AT&T customers.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
