admin
A federal judge in Worcester this week handed down a sentence in a clear case of SSI fraud. Michelle M. DiSalvo pleaded guilty to stealing Supplemental Security Income by hiding that she lived with her husband. She was ordered to repay $100,080 in restitution, given one day of prison (deemed served), and placed on three years of supervised release.
The crime and the sentence
Prosecutors say DiSalvo began getting SSI in 2001. SSI is a needs-based program that counts a spouse’s income when a married person lives with that spouse. From 2014 through 2023, DiSalvo told Social Security she was separated and omitted her husband’s presence and income during redetermination interviews. She even submitted a lease that left him off the paperwork. U.S. District Court Judge Margaret R. Guzman imposed the sentence after DiSalvo pleaded guilty to receipt of stolen government money, Social Security fraud, and false statements.
How she hid the truth to keep the checks
The Justice Department says DiSalvo’s lies were deliberate: she repeatedly concealed household changes that would have disqualified her from SSI. DOJ’s charging papers put the benefits she received at roughly $93,640, though the court ordered $100,080 in restitution. That money comes straight from taxpayers and from programs meant for the truly needy. If you think paperwork and redeterminations are only administrative, this case shows why those rules exist.
Part of a wider federal crackdown
This prosecution isn’t a one-off. United States Attorney Leah B. Foley has created a Benefit & Voter Fraud Team in Massachusetts and set up a public tip line (1‑855‑SCAM‑MA‑1) to catch people who steal benefits. At the national level, the Department of Justice has launched a National Fraud Enforcement Division to focus resources on scams that drain federal programs. Special Agent‑in‑Charge Amy Connelly and others are publicly pushing these efforts. Good — enforcing the rules restores fairness and deters the freeloaders.
What should come next
Three things follow from this sentence. First, taxpayers deserve restitution and stronger deterrents — a single day in jail looks weak next to six figures taken over a decade. Second, federal teams should use this case to sharpen how they detect household fraud and to pursue similar offenders. Third, the public should be encouraged to report suspected benefit fraud. If you see it, call the hotline. The goal is simple: protect programs for the people who really need them and stop folks who treat taxpayer money like a no-questions-asked ATM.
