Harrisburg woman pleads guilty to laundering proceeds of $390,000 email fraud against a municipality
Charlette Baquero, 32, pleaded guilty to money laundering charges after opening bank accounts for a shell drainage company that received about $390,000 from a business email compromise scheme against a municipality, the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said.
Charlette Baquero, 32, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty on 9 November 2026 before US District Judge Joshua D. Wolson, the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced. She pleaded guilty to conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, laundering of monetary instruments, and engaging in a monetary transaction in property derived from specified unlawful activity. She had been indicted in January 2026.
According to the US Attorney's Office, the case concerned the proceeds of a business email compromise scheme that defrauded a municipality of about $390,000. In a business email compromise, criminals pose as a trusted supplier or official by email to get a victim to send payments to accounts they control. From about July 2020 to early 2021, Baquero took part in a money laundering conspiracy with a person she knew as Omar, who asked her to open bank accounts for a drainage company incorporated in her name. Prosecutors said the company was a shell that did no real work and had no lawful income.
The accounts were used to receive fraud proceeds and pass them on to co-conspirators to hide where the money came from, and Baquero monitored the amount and frequency of money moving in and out, according to the release. One account received three wires from the victim municipality: $193,016 on 3 December 2020, $100,705.70 on 16 December 2020 and $96,174 on 13 January 2021. Within days, she moved the funds to other launderers in the conspiracy. She was promised a share of the proceeds but received a used car, the US Attorney's Office said.
Sentencing is scheduled for 19 February. She faces a maximum of 50 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $1,543,427.54. The FBI investigated the case.
Why it matters to AML professionals
Business email compromise schemes depend on accounts that can receive a large payment and move it on quickly. Shell companies opened in a real person's name give those accounts a business look that can pass basic checks. AML professionals reviewing small business accounts should compare the stated business with the actual payment flows from the first months of the relationship.
Red flags in this case
- A newly opened business account receives large wires from a government body or public entity with no visible service relationship
- Incoming funds are sent out to other accounts within days, leaving little balance
- The business shows no ordinary operating expenses such as payroll, suppliers, equipment or rent
- The account holder appears to act for a third party who directs the opening of accounts and the movement of funds
If this landed in your queue
- Check whether the business's stated activity matches its counterparties and the size of incoming payments
- Contact the sending bank or payer, where policy allows, to confirm whether a large incoming wire is legitimate before releasing funds
- Trace where outgoing funds went and look for links to other accounts that received similar wires
- File a suspicious activity report describing the pass-through pattern and any signs the customer acts for someone else
Key terms
- Business email compromise (BEC)
- A fraud in which criminals impersonate a supplier, executive or official by email to trick a victim into sending money to accounts they control.
- Shell company
- A company that exists on paper but has no real business operations, often used to hide who controls money.
- Money mule
- A person who receives and moves criminal proceeds through their own or their company's accounts, knowingly or not.
Interview angle
A new small business account receives a large wire from a local government body and sends most of it out within two days. What do you do?
Explain that you would compare the payment with the stated business, look for missing operating costs, check the beneficiaries of the outgoing payments, consider contacting the payer to confirm the wire, and escalate for a suspicious activity report if the pass-through pattern has no clear business reason.
Sources
Go deeper on AMLift
Every fact in AMLift News Desk stories comes from an official source: a regulator, court, government gazette or the company's own filing.
Report an error
Every report is checked against the official source. If we got something wrong, the story is corrected.