A federal superseding indictment unsealed this month accuses seven people scattered across five states of running a fictitious-instrument tax refund scheme that sought more than $57 million from the U.S. Treasury. The Justice Department says the fraud worked because the underlying paperwork looked, on its face, like a real financial instrument. It was not — and the IRS still paid out more than $8 million before the scheme was stopped.
The Fictitious Financial Instruments Behind the Refund Claims
According to the Justice Department’s announcement, the seven defendants — Andrea and Kent Shannon of Kuna, Idaho; Monika Skinger of Chicago; Sherita Chandler of Port St. Lucie, Florida; Saule Moshkanova of Roseville, California; Tiffany Nichols of Suwanee, Georgia; and Stacey Rice of Manteca, California — are charged with filing false individual and trust tax returns between 2023 and 2024. The returns relied on more than 100 fictitious financial instruments filed with the IRS to claim refunds the filers were not entitled to. All seven face a conspiracy to commit wire fraud charge; Andrea and Kent Shannon are additionally charged with multiple counts of wire fraud, multiple counts of making false claims to the United States, and money laundering. The Justice Department’s release is explicit that these are charges: an indictment describes allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Inside the kit: This scheme worked by making a false document — a fabricated financial instrument — look enough like a real one to move through the refund system before anyone checked. The same forgery-and-verification gap is what makes a phone caller’s fake case number or a scam email’s forged letterhead effective. Open The Senior Fraud Defense & First-Hour Recovery Kit for the steps on verifying a caller and a fraud evidence and report log.
$57 Million Claimed, $8 Million Already Paid by the IRS
The scale gap between the two dollar figures is the part of the case with the most direct consequence for other taxpayers. Prosecutors say the seven defendants sought refunds totaling more than $57 million, but the IRS — before the scheme was detected and stopped — had already paid out more than $8 million of that amount. The indictment further alleges that Andrea and Kent Shannon used part of the fraudulently obtained refunds to purchase luxury cars and other personal property, rather than anything connected to the trusts or individual returns the money was claimed under.
“As alleged, this group of fraudsters participated in a $57 million tax fraud scheme, filing over 100 fictitious instruments and ultimately receiving more than $8 million in taxpayer dollars from the IRS,” Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald, head of the Justice Department’s National Fraud Enforcement Division, said in the announcement. “The Fraud Division will continue working vigorously to investigate and prosecute tax fraud schemes like these across the country. Fraudsters should never be allowed to rip off the United States of America.” The case was investigated by IRS Criminal Investigation, the agency’s law enforcement arm responsible for financial-crime cases involving the tax system, and is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney David F. Scollan of the National Fraud Enforcement Division’s Tax Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Brittney Campbell for the District of Idaho.
Conspiracy and Wire Fraud Charges Carry Decades of Exposure
The Justice Department’s release lays out the statutory exposure the seven defendants now face. Conspiracy to commit wire fraud carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison. Wire fraud itself, charged separately against the Shannons, carries an additional 20-year maximum per count. Making false claims against the government carries up to five years per count, and money laundering carries up to 10 years per count. Those maximums apply only if the defendants are convicted; no trial date or plea has been announced in the September 3 release, and any sentence would be set by the court under federal sentencing guidelines rather than the statutory ceiling. Skinger, Chandler, Moshkanova, Nichols and Rice each face only the single conspiracy count, without the additional wire fraud, false claims or money laundering charges filed against the Shannons.
Why a Superseding Indictment Points to a Widening Case
The Justice Department’s release describes the charging document as a superseding indictment, meaning it replaces an earlier charging document in the same case rather than opening a new one — typically a sign that prosecutors added defendants, counts or factual detail as the investigation continued. That the case reached a superseding indictment with seven named defendants, rather than closing after an initial filing, suggests IRS Criminal Investigation’s review of the fictitious-instrument scheme extended beyond whoever was first charged. The department’s release did not disclose how the scheme was first identified, only that the underlying conduct spanned 2023 through 2024 before any charges were filed.
Five of the seven defendants — Skinger, Chandler, Moshkanova, Nichols and Rice — are charged only with the single conspiracy count and live in five different states, a geographic spread the Justice Department’s release does not explain beyond describing the scheme as coordinated. Whether that spread reflects a network of participants who never met in person, or separate cells feeding the same fictitious-instrument template, is not addressed in the September 3 announcement, which frames the case as one scheme rather than several loosely related ones.
A Refund Scheme Built on Paper That Looked Real
Seven people are charged in a scheme that leaned on fictitious financial instruments to draw money out of the IRS before the scheme was stopped. The unfinished practical job that leaves for other filers is proving a document is genuine when a scheme like this one shows how convincingly a fake one can pass — a task that gets harder without a place to log which records have been checked and which caller or notice asked for them.
The Senior Fraud Defense & First-Hour Recovery Kit includes the first-hour recovery plan and the family code word for organizing exactly that kind of response.
See the first-hour recovery plan in The Senior Fraud Defense & First-Hour Recovery Kit.
This article was produced with AI assistance and checked against the primary source linked above.
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
