On July 27, 2026, a female victim arrived at the Manheim Township Police station to report a government impersonation scam resulting in a monetary loss of $5,100.

The victim reported that at approximately 8:30 am, she received an incoming call from a "No Caller ID" number. An unknown male caller with a southern American accent, likely Georgia, identified himself as a deputy with the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office. The caller informed the victim that she had failed to appear for jury duty, an arrest warrant had been issued in her name, and a $6,000.00 bond was required to discharge the warrant. She was told that once she paid the bond, she could undergo a signature verification at the Sheriff's Office to prove that she did not sign the jury summons.  If the signature was in fact not hers, all charges would be dropped, and the bond would be refunded.

When the victim stated she could not afford $6,000.00, the suspect negotiated the amount down to $3,500.00. The suspect then transmitted three images to the victim's phone purporting to be official jury duty notices. Subsequent examination of these documents indicated they were AI-generated. Throughout the call, the suspect also used official-sounding legal terminology, including references to a "Class C Citation," "Federal Fines," and a "Maintain Control Order," to further convince the victim that the matter was legitimate. 

The suspect told the victim that a "federal gag order" prohibited her from discussing the matter with anyone. Consequently, the victim did not notify her spouse or contact law enforcement to verify the claim.

Following the suspect’s instructions while remaining on the active phone call, the victim drove to her bank and withdrew $3,500.00 in cash. She then proceeded to a convenience store in Manheim Township and deposited the $3,500.00 into a Bitcoin ATM.

The suspect advised the victim that she would receive a digital transaction receipt to present to the Sheriff's Office for a refund. When no receipt was printed, the suspect claimed to transfer the victim to an "IT department." This second actor claimed that a system error occurred and stated that the $3,500.00 covered only the bond, with an additional $1,600.00 owed to cover court fees.

The victim returned to her bank, withdrew an additional $1,600.00 in cash, and deposited it into the same Bitcoin ATM. When no receipt was printed after the second transaction, the actors claimed the machine failed because the funds were deposited in two separate payments. They instructed her to deposit an additional $5,100.00 in a single transaction.

The victim subsequently traveled to a different bank branch and submitted an application for a $5,100.00 personal loan. The actor remained connected on the open phone line for approximately two hours during the application process. Upon loan approval, the victim suspected fraudulent activity, declined to withdraw the loan funds, and immediately traveled to MTPD station to file a report.

Hear from the victim in her own words: 

1. When you first got the call, what made you believe it was legitimate? The caller had my parents' address, which is where the supposed jury summons had allegedly been mailed. His tone, language, and use of legal terminology were convincing and intimidating, which made the situation feel legitimate. Throughout the conversation, he was calm, patient, and surprisingly sympathetic. I was shaken by the possibility of being arrested and having felony charges on my record, and his reassuring demeanor lowered my guard. At one point, he even encouraged me to take a moment and focus on my breathing, which further reinforced my belief that he was trying to help me.

2. At what point did you realize something wasn't right, or when did you realize it was a scam?  The first thing that felt questionable was the use of a Bitcoin ATM. However, by that point, the scammers had already texted me what appeared to be an official document from a "public defender" explaining the use of "public kiosks" as a modern, secure way to post bail. I also had a vague awareness of cryptocurrency being discussed in government and financial news, which made the explanation seem more believable.

3. Looking back, what do you think the scammer did that was most convincing? More than anything, the scammer preyed on my fears. The urgency of the situation triggered a panic response that made it difficult to think critically or logically. Once I entered a fight-or-flight state, I became focused on avoiding arrest rather than evaluating the facts. The fact that they had personal information, including my parents' address and my husband's phone number, made the story seem credible and further reinforced their claims.

4. What's one thing you wish you had known before answering that phone call? I wish I had known that this type of scam existed. Since this happened, I've spoken with many people who were already familiar with it, but I had never heard of it before. I also wish I had known that legitimate law enforcement and court officials do not handle these matters over the phone, do not demand immediate payment, and do not require payment through cryptocurrency.

5. If sharing your story could help one other person avoid becoming a victim, what would you want them to know? This can happen to anyone. It is not a matter of intelligence, education, or age. These scammers are highly skilled at manipulating emotions and exploiting fear. I never considered myself naive, yet my lack of experience with the legal system and my desire to prove my innocence made me particularly vulnerable.

6. Is there anything else you would like to add? I wish I could say that their request for additional funds raised alarm bells, but unfortunately, it did not. In the moment, the explanation of court fees seemed plausible. It wasn't until I reunited with my husband and pieced together enough details of what happened that red flags became apparent. He quickly recognized the situation for what it was and helped me realize that I was being scammed. Looking back, these seem like obvious red flags. In the moment, however, fear and panic overrode my ability to think clearly and recognize them for what they were. If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, pause before taking any action. Take a breath, step back, and give yourself time to think. Fear and urgency are powerful tools that scammers use to prevent people from asking questions. Trust your instincts, verify information independently, and remember that legitimate law enforcement will not pressure you into making immediate payments over the phone. During the experience, I remember thinking, "Why am I being treated as guilty until proven innocent?" I was even mentally compiling a list of complaints I planned to file once I proved that the signature on the jury summons was not mine. Looking back, many of those concerns were actually red flags that I failed to recognize because I was so focused on proving my innocence. I remember thinking that I just wanted to get to the Sheriff's Office as quickly as possible to prove the signature wasn't mine, which also contributed to my inability to think logically. While I wish this had never happened, it forced me to educate myself and become better prepared to protect myself in the future. Prior to this incident, I had very little interaction with law enforcement. Combined with my own naivety and fear of getting into trouble, that lack of experience made me especially susceptible to intimidation. Working with Officer Shivers and the Manheim Township Police Department afterward helped change my perspective. I came to understand that law enforcement's goal is not to punish innocent people, but to help protect them. That experience transformed some of my fear into respect and trust. I am hopeful that the lessons I learned will help me think more clearly and confidently if I ever encounter a similar situation again.

MEDIA POST CONTACT: Sergeant Barry E. Waltz, Jr., Cell: 717-371-5212, Office: 717-569-6401 Ext: 1505, waltzb@manheimtownshippolice.org