Las Vegas woman guilty of fraud for false COVID-19 tax credit claims
Feb. 14 (UPI) -- The Justice Department said Friday that Candies Goode-McCoy, of Las Vegas, has pleaded guilty of conspiring to defraud the United States with tens of millions of dollars in false COVID-19 employment tax credit claims.
"In total, these claims sought refunds of over $98 million, of which the IRS paid approximately $33 million," the Justice Department said in a statement.
"McCoy personally received over $1.3 million in fraudulent refunds and was paid about $800,000 from those on whose behalf she filed fraudulent returns. McCoy knew that these returns were fraudulent."
The DOJ said McCoy filed "approximately 1,227 false tax returns for her businesses and others claiming these refundable credits."
McCoy used the money to buy luxury cars, to take vacations, for gambling and for other luxury goods, according to the DOJ.
The tax credits during the pandemic were sup[posed to go to small businesses to help them keep workers on their payrolls during the economic turmoil caused by the pandemic.
The credits were equal to the wages the businesses paid the employees during sick or family leave. Congress also authorized reduced employment taxes for businesses during the pandemic.
At sentencing scheduled for Feb. 23, McCoy faces a maximum of 10 years in prison plus monetary penalties and a period of supervised release.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Abrego Garcia due in US court on migrant smuggling charges after wrongful deportation
By Luc Cohen NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) -Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the migrant returned to the U.S. last week after being wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador, is due in court on Friday to enter a plea to criminal charges of taking part in a conspiracy to smuggle migrants into the United States. President Donald Trump's administration has portrayed the indictment of Abrego Garcia, 29, as vindication of its aggressive crackdown on illegal immigration. Before Abrego Garcia's indictment was unsealed on June 5, officials alleged he was a member of the MS-13 gang and said they would not bring him back. The Justice Department's decision to return him to the U.S. to face criminal charges is a potential off-ramp for Trump's administration from its escalating confrontation with the judiciary over whether it complied with a court order to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. The Republican president's critics say his swift removal without a hearing showed the administration prioritized increased deportations over due process, the bedrock principle that people in the U.S., whether citizens or not, can contest governmental actions against them in the courts. The criminal proceeding will provide Abrego Garcia with due process by giving him the right to contest the charges contained in a grand jury indictment returned in secret on May 21. Still, his lawyers say his return to face criminal charges does not absolve the Trump administration of responsibility for wrongfully deporting him. Abrego Garcia's hearing on the criminal charges is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. CDT (1500 GMT) before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville, Tennessee. In addition to entering his plea, Abrego Garcia is expected to contest a bid by federal prosecutors to have him detained pending trial. In the indictment, Abrego Garcia was charged with working with at least five co-conspirators as part of a smuggling ring to bring immigrants to the United States illegally, then transport them from the U.S.-Mexico border to destinations across the country. Abrego Garcia often picked up migrants in Houston, making more than 100 trips between Texas and Maryland between 2016 and 2025, the indictment alleges. Abrego Garcia is also accused of transporting firearms and drugs. 'ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR' Prosecutors say Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident whose wife and young child are U.S. citizens, could face 10 years in prison for each migrant he smuggled. That means he could spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted, according to prosecutors. They are urging he be detained, saying the potentially hefty sentence means he may try to flee. They also say detention is warranted because he allegedly murdered a rival gang member's mother in El Salvador and solicited child pornography, though those accusations are not part of his indictment. Abrego Garcia's lawyers have called the charges "fantastical" and deny that he is a flight risk. Abrego Garcia was deported on March 15 to El Salvador, despite a 2019 immigration court ruling that he not be sent there because he could be persecuted by gangs. Officials called his removal an "administrative error." In a separate civil case, Greenbelt, Maryland-based U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis is investigating whether the Trump administration violated her order to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return from El Salvador. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld that order. Abrego Garcia's lawyers are urging Xinis to hold administration officials in contempt and impose fines for stonewalling their requests for information about the steps the administration took to facilitate his return. The Trump administration says Xinis should drop her probe because it complied with her order by deciding to bring Abrego Garcia back to face criminal charges. His lawyers disagree and say that for the administration to be in compliance, his immigration case must be handled as it would have been had he not been deported.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
America is heading down a dark road as fury boils over in California
America seems headed to an angry and ugly place. Inflammatory incidents, rhetoric and dissent unleashed by President Donald Trump's tough immigration crackdown are inexorably building political pressure as a polarized nation barrels into the heat of summer. Stunning scenes in Los Angeles on Thursday, when Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla was manhandled out of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's news conference and handcuffed, epitomized a dark turn taken this week in California. But there's no sign yet of a path back from the brink before cascading confrontations and protests turn violent or even tragic. If anything, the crisis is deepening. The administration, led by a president determined to use every instrument of power — including a tamed Justice Department and the military — to enforce his will, is vowing to go harder, stronger and faster to target undocumented migrants. Even those here legally are not immune. The White House on Thursday told half a million Venezuelans, Haitians, Cubans and Nicaraguans here on humanitarian parole they must return to their unstable, poverty-stricken home countries. Trump's extremism is now stirring a counter-reaction ahead of a weekend that will see hundreds of 'No Kings' demonstrations in cities and towns, and after he warned against protests at a US Army 250th anniversary parade Saturday that will bolster his dictator's schtick on his 79th birthday. A president who pledged to use the military on 'the enemy from within' said this week he wants troops 'everywhere.' The political battle is also finally being joined by Democrats, stung into finding a voice and cause after their so far desultory efforts to rebuild after their 2024 election fiasco. California was already on edge after Trump defied Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and ordered National Guard troops to the city amid protests and then added a contingent of active-duty US Marines. But the television pictures of government security agents restraining Padilla and pushing him to the ground on Thursday afternoon created an instantly iconic snapshot of the national moment. Some caveats should be noted. Any time a Cabinet official is in public, especially amid heightened political feeling, there is a concern for their safety. The horrific scenes after Trump survived his first assassination attempt last year remain a fresh national trauma. In the light of such experience, security details often act first and without waiting to establish the full context of a situation. It's perfectly possible Noem's agents didn't immediately recognize Padilla, even though he's one of the state's senators. 'I was there peacefully,' Padilla said later amid fierce dispute over his conduct. 'At one point I had a question, and so I began to ask a question. I was almost immediately forcibly removed from the room. I was forced to the ground, and I was handcuffed. I was not arrested. I was not detained.' Initially, Noem seemed to realize the incident could become a political liability. She explained that the Secret Service had feared Padilla could be an attacker, so they pushed him away. She said his behavior was 'not appropriate' but said they'd spoken afterward in what sounded like a civil conversation, even swapping phone numbers. But the Trump White House never admits fault and always seeks political vengeance. Noem toughened here message when she headed onto Fox News. 'This man burst into a room, started advancing towards the podium … he … continued to lunge towards the podium,' she said. The Homeland Security secretary's comments were quickly backed up by House Speaker Mike Johnson as the GOP launched a full court-press. 'When they storm cabinet secretaries in a press conference, I think it's wildly inappropriate behavior, and I think it sends a terrible message in tone for the rest of the country,' said a speaker who helped Trump expunge the record of the January 6, 2021, assault by MAGA supporters on the US Capitol. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who has this week accused Democrats of supporting criminals and rioters and demonized undocumented migrants as pedophiles, wrote on X that Padilla should be 'ashamed of his childish behavior.' In a less fraught time, Padilla might have acted with more discretion and the White House would have worked to mitigate the incident's impact on America's fragile psyche. But this is 2025, five months into Trump's second term. Whatever precipitated the incident in Los Angeles, Padilla's treatment — after he identified himself, when he was shoved out of the room as he tried to ask a question and then shoved face-first to the ground and handcuffed — was unheard-of. The racial overtones of California's first Latino senator being put under such duress will become a metaphor for Trump's ruthless deportation policy. 'They use words like 'lunge' and 'charge.' He is not an animal; he's a US senator,' California's Attorney General Rob Bonta told CNN's Kasie Hunt. In Washington, Democratic senators rushed to the chamber to exploit the moment. Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz warned that his colleague's removal from Noem's briefing was 'the stuff of dictatorships.' Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, who has condemned Trump's use of the military in California, warned in a statement: 'This is America. Dissent should not be met with violence.' Across the Capitol, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Padilla suffered an 'assault.' She added, 'It's a federal offense to attack a member of Congress. … It shouldn't be anybody in our country to be treated this way.' Padilla was the latest official to face harsh action for perceived dissent. Trump administration prosecutors have already indicted a Wisconsin judge and a New Jersey Democratic congresswoman in cases arising from the immigration blitz. But the fact his roughing-up was on camera means it could be a powerful political launching pad for Democrats as they step up resistance to the president. In the initial reaction to Padilla's manhandling, there was just a hint that Democratic senators — part of an always self-reverential body — were most offended that the collective dignity of their august chamber had been affronted. But the quick and unified effort to frame the incident as an example of an encroaching Trump dictatorship suggests that the party might have found an opening at last. In some ways, the spectacle was not that different from the kind of on-camera stunt with viral social media potential that Trump has made a signature and that now dominates the populist Republican Party. A televised speech by Newsom this week finally satisfied the cravings of some Democrats for someone, anyone to take the fight to the president. His Senate colleague will never now be forgotten by Democrats after he introduced himself to the rest of the nation with the Thursday afternoon debacle that lit up cable news. But making a splash is only one of the Democrats' problems. Padilla's show of force does not necessarily point a way out of the conundrum Trump has set for them, namely that their public condemnations of his deportation plan allow the White House to portray them as soft on securing the border. Perhaps more evidence of administration thuggery could hurt Trump — and convince voters he is overreaching and inhumane. But the White House is still sure it's got the winning political hand on immigration. Democrats are also no nearer to producing a coherent policy and electoral position that addresses the public's desire to stem illegal immigration while reconciling liberal constituencies within their own political base. The Biden administration's obliviousness to a long-building crisis and public sentiment has given Trump plenty of political cover. But Thursday's drama poses an even more profound question: Do most Americans — notwithstanding their stark ideological divides — really want to live in a country plagued by ever-worsening conflict and disharmony? If not, Trump could be vulnerable and his iron-fist approach to immigration could end up serving as a microcosm of a destructive presidency. For sure, Trump's base responds to his outlandish rhetoric and strongman vibe. But no one would describe the White House's approach as a modulated effort to solve an immigration issue that has been haunting the nation for years. The crisis has confounded every president since at least Ronald Reagan. But while some commanders in chief have tried to solve it, Trump has been deliberately escalating the confrontation at every opportunity, seemingly to incite maximum discord and political stress. The president and his team argue with some justification that voters chose Trump last November because they were despairing over Biden's negligence at the border. The White House insists that protests cannot be allowed to stop deportations that are needed to keep Americans safe and to deter new waves of migrants that could strain the country's resources, unity and character. But they are also using the language of tyrants and demagogues as they seek to use the deportations to grab more and more power, to repress their political adversaries and even to threaten the choices of Democratic voters. During the news conference that was interrupted by Padilla, Noem warned that the federal government was not 'going away' from Los Angeles. 'We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist and burdensome leadership that this Governor Newsom and this mayor placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into this city.' Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass are the democratically elected representatives chosen by Californians and the citizens of Los Angeles. Noem's comments only reinforced an impression that Trump and his team view Democratic leaders as illegitimate and blue states as enemies within the US. Trump's top domestic policy adviser Stephen Miller has spent the week portraying his boss's political opponents as supporting invasions and rebellions by forces outside the United States. 'America voted for mass deportations,' Miller wrote in one X post this week. 'Violent insurrectionists, and the politicians who enable them, are trying to overthrow the results of the election.' The country needs no reminder that incitement and extreme political language can provoke violence and threaten the rule of law and the foundational democratic principles of the republic. It happened at the end of Trump's first term. Historically, presidents have felt a moral imperative to cool political agitation when it threatens to splinter the nation and to heal such estrangements before they provoke strife and threaten life. Trump's entire political method seems designed to do the opposite.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Afraid' for court: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courthouses
NEW YORK − The Trump administration on June 12 sued New York state for its law restricting federal immigration enforcement inside state courthouses. The lawsuit challenges a New York state law that blocks immigration officials from arresting people at or near New York courthouses. The complaint, filed in federal court in Albany, New York, alleges the law frustrates federal immigration enforcement at a venue - state courthouses - where authorities can safely make arrests. U.S. Justice Department lawyers said New York's law and policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration officers violated the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Albany comes after the administration has increased immigration enforcement at workplaces and while people appeared for immigration court hearings. People have protested against the federal actions in cities across the country. Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed so-called 'sanctuary city policies' for violence seen in California. Sanctuary policies generally refers to those limiting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. The Justice Department has also sued four New Jersey cities for their laws. New York state had similar policies preventing agents from apprehending migrants, Bondi said in a statement. 'This latest lawsuit in a series of sanctuary city litigation underscores the Department of Justice's commitment to keeping Americans safe and aggressively enforcing the law,' she said. Justice Department lawyers challenged the 2020 state law preventing federal officials from arresting people for civil immigration violations at state courthouses without a signed judicial warrant. New York's 2020 law doesn't apply to federal courthouses or immigration court, according to the legislation's author, state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Manhattan Democrat who called the lawsuit 'baseless and frivolous." The Justice Department said in a news release that enforcement at courthouses reduces risk of people fleeing or dangerous situations, especially since there is enhanced screening inside court buildings. State officials said federal agents entering local courthouses make communities unsafe by preventing people from accessing the judicial system. The law ensures New Yorkers can pursue justice without fear, Geoff Burgan, a spokesperson for state Attorney General Letitia James, said in a statement. 'Due process means nothing if people are too afraid to appear in court,' he said. James would defend the law and 'all of New York's laws, just as she will continue to defend the rights and dignity of all who call New York home,' Burgan said. Hoylman-Sigal, who authored the law, said the lawsuit was part of the administration's 'ongoing assault on the rule of law in New York.' To avoid conflicting with federal law or federal immigration authority, the law doesn't apply to federal courts or immigration courts, he said in a statement. Meanwhile, it allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest people in local courthouses when they have 'actual, valid judicial warrants.' 'At a time when masked ICE officials are roaming the state and lawlessly detaining New Yorkers without any due process, the law preserves access to justice and participation in the judicial process,' he said. A contentious issue has been federal agents targeting people in 'sensitive" areas. Prior Department of Homeland Security guidelines banned enforcement in areas such as schools, places of worship and hospitals. When President Donald Trump took office in January, DHS overturned the longstanding policy to give agents discretion on such actions. The administration enacted another policy permitting enforcement at or near courthouses. Justice Department lawyers also challenged two New York executive orders restricting civil immigration arrests at state facilities, and a separate policy preventing state employees from sharing information to federal officers related to civil immigration enforcement. 'Through these enactments, New York obstructs federal law enforcement and facilitates the evasion of federal law by dangerous criminals, notwithstanding federal agents' statutory mandate to detain and remove illegal aliens,' the complaint said. The same day as the lawsuit, Gov. Kathy Hochul was one of three Democratic governors testifying before Congress about "sanctuary" policies and immigration enforcement. Hochul said her state has cooperated with ICE since she's taken office. "But we have to draw a line somewhere,' Hochul said. 'New York cannot deputize our state officers to enforce civil immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa.' The administration's attack on the 2020 law would turn courthouses 'into traps,' Donna Liberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. It would further force immigrant communities into the shadows. An initial conference date for the lawsuit was scheduled for Sept. 10, court records showed. Contributing: Bart Jansen, USA TODAY Eduardo Cuevas is based in New York City. Reach him by email at emcuevas1@ or on Signal at emcuevas.01. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courts
