ICE Lawyer Sentenced To Four Years For Stealing The Identities of Immigrants

us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-seal-plaque-lRaphael A. Sanchez held a high position as chief counsel for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Seattle that paid $162,000 a year.  However, Sanchez was not happy with that high salary and used his authority to augment his income by stealing the identities of undocumented immigrants.  With all of of the perils of facing these people, they were victimized by the lead lawyer representing the United States government. He is now facing four years in prison which strikes me as rather low for this abuse of authority.

Earlier this year, Sanchez was charged with stealing the identities of seven immigrants. He would steal the identities of undocumented individuals and use them to open credit cards and secure loans.  He pled guilty to all charges in exchange for this deal.

When he was arrested, he was worth $700,000 with an array of bank accounts and email accounts under different names. This includes fake driver’s licenses which entail separated federal offenses from wire and mail fraud.  He even used the pictures of a murdered woman on some of the identifications.

The Department of Justice stated:

Once the accounts were approved and opened, Sanchez made charges or drew payments totaling more than $190,000 in the names of aliens to himself or entities that he controlled, often using PayPal and mobile point-of-sale devices from Amazon, Square, Venmo and Coin to process the fraudulent transactions. In a number of cases, Sanchez purchased goods online in the names of aliens and had them shipped to his residence. Sanchez also employed credit-monitoring services and corresponded with credit bureaus in the names of aliens to conceal his fraud scheme. Sanchez also claimed three aliens as relative dependents on his tax returns for 2014, 2015, and 2016.

What I fail to understand is why a plea deal was warranted for such a relatively short period of incarceration. This was a long premeditated criminal enterprise that misused official powers. It involves a myriad of fraudulent acts, including the falsification of driver’s licenses.  Four years seems pretty light given the scope of criminality and culpability.

What do you think?

36 thoughts on “ICE Lawyer Sentenced To Four Years For Stealing The Identities of Immigrants”

  1. He likely has been getting sweetheart deals for most of his adult life, and developed a sense of entitlement. If he got into college and law school and a job at DOJ on affirmative-action set-asides, it only follows that DOJ would give him another break on the prison sentence. He gets four years; Rod Blagoyavich got 14.

    1. Out of curiosity, do you have any basis for your hypothesis about all these alleged Affirmative Action set-asides (which work more like maximum caps) other than his last name?

      1. That’s probably quite enough don’t you think Enigma? Check the box and the right last name, poof, magic!

        1. Is that how that works? I had it all wrong. Here I was thinking that major colleges and universities were barely admitting minorities at all and then they established a guideline, lower than the population percentage, which actually served as a cap since the “goal” was hardly ever exceeded by as much as a percentage point. And that was just admission.

            1. JR – Wel yes if you consider the cap used to be zero. I defy anyone to provide an example ever where the Affirmative Action “goal” wasn’t less than their percentage of the population? Hence, it locks in a scenario where the majority population always has an edge in numbers, but it does allow for minority participation which was better than they had.

              1. The ‘goal’ invariably exceeds the share of those who make the recruitment pool according to the usual criteria. That’s the whole point of AA. There is no ceiling. The population subsegment which faces ceilings here there and the next place would be Orientals. (See the recent controversy at Harvard, as well as previous controversies in re Berkeley).

                1. No there is no technical ceiling, just a practical one. One the goal is reached there is no incentive whatsoever in exceeding it and when they do it is by decimal points because actual people are hard to round up or down. Please point to one example anywhere where the goal was greatly exceeded?
                  Regarding the example of Orientals, it is because all the crabs have been thrown in one pot having to climb over each other to get out. If for example legacies are given priority and to use an example with which I recently became familiar. At the University of Missouri (Mizzou) no black students were admitted prior to 1950. Even then an extremely low number. The pool of blak legacy students is extremely low because of past policy and therefore gives an inherent advantage o white students.
                  The people who strenuously object to Affirmative Action in my experience, have no idea how it actually works. There is no great advantage for minority students, it establishes schools nhave to do this much and no more.

  2. If you cross the border illegally you’re already one if the f**k ups. At least if you’re willing to go through the process you’re starting out on the right foot. These people do not have to live in the shadows. They don’t have to worry about ICE.

    1. Exactly my question. The time frames indicated it was back far enough to not be any Trump appointee. Then I see the foto of Holder. That rings a big red flag bell.

      Now ask WHAT COURT tried him? A real court or one of these fourth branch courts?

      Cannot make any decision without sufficient information but it sure makes one wonder who was paying off whom.

  3. I agree with you Sir, I believe that nothing short of 20 years of time served would be warranted in this case. I am going to reblog this article for you Mr. Turley.

  4. General Petraeus (Betraeus) redux? Different spanks for different ranks. A sweetheart deal which was denied to Reality Winner. When the elephants fight, the ants die.

    1. Petraeus showed his office diary to his biographer / mistress, who had security clearances. Not much of a violation.

    2. The Justice Department was preparing to charge U.S. General David Howell Petraeus with violating the Espionage Act and with lying to the FBI, but they let him cop a plea to one count involving the mishandling of classified information, a misdemeanor.

      He was sentenced to two years probation (which will end on April 23, 2017) and a $100,000 fine. 

      Below are the most important documents from US v. Petraeus. 

      Bill of Information [2 pages] – the charge against Petraeus (“Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Documents or Material”)

      Plea Agreement [5 pages] 

      Factual Basis [15 pages] – includes a narrative of Petraeus’ actions
      Acceptance and Entry of Guilty Plea [6 pages]

      Judgment [5 pages] – includes terms of Petraeus’ probation and notice of $100,000 fine
      Statement of Reasons [4 pages] – the court explains its punishment. Originally a sealed document

      Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum in Support of Probation [11 pages] – Petraeus explains why he should be allowed to cop a plea. Originally a sealed document

      Appendix [64 pages] – appendix to the above memorandum. Petraeus’ powerful friends and colleagues explain why he should be allowed to cop a plea. Originally a sealed document

      It was ( and is ) not the container, but the contents. Simply, substance over form.

      Mr. Petraeus was and is a criminal. He was ( and is ) a criminal, an admitted criminal.

      If one were to read, understand, and accept the facts, which is not to say agree with the facts, Mr. Petraeus must be or should have received a long, very long prison sentence.

      You may recall the navy sailor who took some pictures of a secret submarine. What was his charge, sentence and punishment?

      Mr. Petraeus was and is a member of the so-called “power elite,” the oligarchy, simply put, the criminal class.

      The criminal class protects one of its own.

      You question that analysis? Please tell me what was and is Mr. Petraeus’ position and compensation after pleading to a misdemeanor?

      And, what is the position and compensation of the sailor who took the sub’ photos and only showed them to his father a retired military man?

      dennis hanna

      1. The Justice Department was preparing to charge U.S. General David Howell Petraeus with violating the Espionage Act and with lying to the FBI, but they let him cop a plea to one count involving the mishandling of classified information, a misdemeanor.

        They were preparing to overcharge him. Big deal. What he did was unimportant.

  5. Sanchez was not happy with that high salary and used his authority to augment his income by stealing the identities of undocumented immigrants.

    How exactly do you steal the identity of someone that has no documents proving their identity?

    1. OLLY – I was curious about that myself, but had not had enough coffee to deal with it. 😉 I went on the assumption they were using illegal documentation and he took and used that.

    2. Try this in easy steps. The original identity was stolen There was no further documentation because the original identify was stolen. There was also no documentation as as an immigrant because the original identity was stolen.

      Thus the stolen documents were used NOT any subsequent documents. Once stolen the victim was denied entry and shipped safely out of the way. If they produced new home country documentation and came back they would be investigated by the same individual as the thief of the new documents and sent back. etc etc etc.

      The real stolen documents were used to apply for and gain the new documents in the host country… by the same office which stole them. And then used in various rackets.

      So you have theft, theft of documents, falsifying charges used to reject and eject, false incrimination. Uttering false documents in quantities, Using same for personal gain and the gain of others involved. RICO violations, receiving stolen goods, disposing of stolen goods for personal gain, falsifying the production of money or legal tender, etc etc etc.times how many victims?

      Four years is a very small fine and no jail time? Get real.

      This was a full blown conspiracy.

  6. I believe this fellow is Raphael Angel Sanchez Alvarez, b. 24 January 1974 and a resident of Reading, Pa. in 1995. I hadn’t realized Reading was majority hispanic and that north of 40% of the population is either Puerto Rican or Dominican. About 1/3 of the population of Reading was born in Puerto Rico or born abroad, which would encompass roughly half the hispanic population in the municipality.

    1. His sentencing memorandum says he graduated from Alverina College and Penn State Law School (class of 2001).

  7. What do you think?

    I think Justice Department lawyers go for broke when they have a defendant on whom you can check certain tick-bozes (see Conrad Black). This guy isn’t it.

    1. Tick Boozes? One would think so. But whose on the booze. The rest is just supposition and has no useful application unless one can establish the relevancy of even the existence of these magic tick boxes.

  8. Well, Imran Awan got a plea deal so why shouldn’t he? We don’t want to over-fill the Camp Cupcake federal prisons with white collar prisoners, it looks bad on the stats.

    1. If you begin with the assumption that Justice Department lawyers are Democratic operatives with JD’s, it all makes sense.

      1. That was clearly stated. The time frame given locked that in place. A good investigator would have verified it of course but just from what was presented this is case to drool over and is a career maker. Unless and except for this four year deal? Something is definitely missing. An investigation before Congress of the sentencing Judge for starters.

  9. Off topic. Welcome to 14,000 new Americans who came to this country through the legal process. They’ll probably be better citizens than most of us who were born here.

    1. They’ll probably be better citizens than most of us who were born here.

      No. It’s a reasonable wager they’ll be better citizens than the criminal class, better citizens than the f**k ups you see on COPS, and better citizens than the smug metropolitan bourgeois which Barack Obama exemplifies. But not better citizens than the other 70% of the population.

Leave a Reply