The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Dory L. Sater, age 46, of Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania, was convicted on November 10, 2020, following a jury trial, of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft offenses. The six-day trial was held before United States District Court Judge Robert D. Mariani in Scranton.

According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the jury returned the guilty verdict on both counts in the indictment after approximately one hour of deliberation. Sater was convicted of one count of bank fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft.

The evidence presented at trial showed that in August 2017, Sater forged a mortgage satisfaction piece and filed the instrument with the Luzerne County Recorder of Deeds Office. The forged document erased a mortgage held by Fidelity Deposit & Discount Bank on the Mountaintop, Pennsylvania residence of Sater’s parents. The mortgage had served as collateral for a $50,000 line of credit that Sater had withdrawn in its entirety. Evidence at trial established that Sater’s parents were considering selling their residence while the forged satisfaction piece was recorded. In the process of forging the mortgage satisfaction piece, Sater also forged the signatures of a Fidelity bank officer and of a public notary, whose notary stamp he stole to use on the forged document. Sater was a personal injury attorney in Delaware County, who ran The Sater Law Firm LLC.

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Phillip J. Caraballo and James Buchanan are prosecuting the case.

The maximum penalty under federal law for the bank fraud offense is 30 years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. The aggravated identity theft charge carries a mandatory, consecutive two-year term of imprisonment. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant's educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.