PARIS, Maine — A Rumford woman was found guilty of defrauding Maine and the U.S. government of more than $10,000 in food stamps, TANF and MaineCare benefits on Wednesday.
Amy Knowlton, 30, was found guilty of felony theft by deception by a jury of seven men and five women after about 45 minutes of deliberation in Oxford County Superior Court.
Knowlton’s family was quiet during the reading of the verdict and left the courthouse soon after. The court will set a sentencing date for Knowlton in June or July.
The maximum sentence on the Class B theft charge is 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. Knowlton may also face a requirement to pay back the money she took.
Jurors listened to summation arguments from both sides Wednesday morning. The verdict came down at around 1:15 p.m.
The state says that between October 2006 and March 2009, Knowlton had access to her then-boyfriend’s money while collecting more than $18,000 in food stamps, TANF and MaineCare benefits. An investigator from the state Department of Health and Human Services said Knowlton wouldn’t have received those benefits had she reported her boyfriend’s income.
The defendant’s boyfriend, who she later married, had maintained a legal residence in New Hampshire while she was collecting benefits. Knowlton maintained that she told her DHHS caseworker she was getting financial help from her boyfriend at the time, and that the DHHS did not ask for more information on the arrangement.
Before the verdict, her husband, Scott Knowlton, said the DHHS had erred, not his wife.
“She did all the right things. The DHHS didn’t.” He made reference to recent comments by Gov. Paul LePage that middle management in state government is corrupt. “I think LePage is right,” he said.
Amy Knowlton said she had access to Scott Knowlton’s money to pay for living expenses, but that the money belonged to him. State prosecutors say Amy Knowlton should have claimed that money when declaring her assets to the Maine Department of Health and Human Services.
Such a confusing case. She had access to her boyfriend’s money? He claims DHHS corruption? It seems like there is some shared blame here.
I am thinking that these 2 lived together and they were trying to hide it in order for her to keep getting benefits. Why should taxpayers pay his way as well if they are living together and eating the food that is meant for her children and her who supposedly has/had no access to any other funds…thats only 1 down and thousands more of these losers to go………
You hit it on the head. If this crap continues, I’ll divorce the husband, throw his address into another place we own and rent, quit working, and spend all day long working the system to get all I can. Oh..never mind, I have a conscience and want to be proud of what I own and what I earned after 30+ years of working. Lepage, keep going with welfare reform. Drive them out of our state. They’re ruining it.
what you speak of has been done.
Once again it would be great if the reporter had given out a complete report. If they were living together as a couple, if he was the father of children for which she was receiving benefits for instance.
They were together since 2004. They had a child together and lived in the same house. The bank accounts proved they were co-mingling funds and hiding money. He lied according to multiple sources and evidence from employers, friends and police. 45 minutes to decide!! There’s no confusion just lies.
About time they start catching the freeloaders!!
That’s right! They will throw her in jail and we’ll pay $70000 a year to support her there. What a tradeoff
////
The penalty needs to be stiff enough to deter other thieves
Hmmm. We need to spend more than she stole to punish her? Sounds like the taxpayer gets punished instead of the thief.
Since when is a boyfriend required to support a woman? Or her children? Guess this article needs to give a better summation of the circumstances.
Is it possible that she was authorized to draw on “his” bank account? And that she actually did so? Regarding her defense: Telling the DHS worker that you are going to break the law doesn’t mean you have a legal defense – – it means you have a shoddy caseworker.
Another good reason to end all these “programs” …
And do what with the people who are on them legitimately? Shoot them?
Every McDonalds in Maine is hiring along with many other places. If you do not GIVE these folks then they will have to get out and EARN a living like the rest of us do…
What about the ones who can’t get hired by McDonalds? Even for the ones who do, $20 K per year minus $10 K for health insurance = $10 K to pey for living expenses. Maybe they can live in the dumpster in back? Wouldn’t it be better to have DDHS do their job and weed out the abusers?
” Knowlton may also face a requirement to pay back the money she took.”
She MAY !?!?
Wouldn’t you think that restitution would be pretty high on the judges list? It’s gonna cost us all a bundle more to feed and house her in prison. This is insane!
People know just how to work the system…some get caught.
It would be high if she was a male. The courts still expect the man to support the women no matter what…………very old school. These judges need to get with the times.
Shame on her. I doubt she will get much out of it, but hopefully she does. I’m sick of paying for these folks. Must hold DHHS somewhat accountable as well.
Aww..she will get 10 days and the rest suspended.
She will be allowed to reapply and will be told her
boy friend won’t count for income. She will be told
that she will receive benefits for life as long as she
is a good doobie for 3 years. Her resitituion will be
to do community service from her home for 20 hours.
1 down…Thousands more to go.
See?
The punishment should include a lifetime ban on public money and services.
There’s more to this story. Hopefully she won’t be torn away from her family and children for what appears to be a lot of confusion and mismanagement on both sides.
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/oxford-hills/2012/05/23/rumford-woman-denies-welfare-fraud-allegations/1199392
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/oxford-hills/2012/05/23/rumford-woman-found-guilty-welfare-fraud/1199836
Time to cut our losses. Just send her home. No benefits for life. No more cost for the taxpayer!
I hope we can catch all the illegal activity. One thing wrong with this, the finger-pointers will label everyone guilty, when only a few are, and should be in jail. (and off the rolls)
Sorry Scotty. She got caught. She’s the corrupt one.
Aren’t there any “renewals” required to keep getting food stamps? At some point you would think that she was re-evaluated so that there is none of “he said, she said, or rather they never asked” kind of thing.
each and every month…….but that requires that the person be HONEST about their income…….
VERY interesting. I would say that the court system is going to have to take one LONG look at all the men paying out the ying yang to the x wife while she shacks up with the boyfriend. Obviously it would be discrimination if they didn’t. Why should the man pay all that money to the x wife(who choses not to work) if the boyfriend supports her?? A big can of worms. I still think there is much more money going after the political crooks and all the money they have taken vs welfare fraud.
I have to say this is very sad. Isn’t the first time that innocent children will be hurt because of Amy and Scotts selfishness. And it won’t be the last if DHHS doesn’t step in. The DHHS is there for those that need it and because people abuse it, all may lose it.
You are absolutley right. It’s sad to see,but the state of Maine is well on it’s way to making sure they don’t get away with it. The penalty needs to fit the crime. Nothing but the maximum will do.
No it isn’t the first time, I am living proof. After “said human” left our family was in shambles and still is. “Said human” also had another family in which “said human” forgot about. You might remember this
http://www.sunjournal.com/node/252108
45 minutes to decide guilty. The evidence must have been overwhelming.
I agree that was a little harsh, my attempt at sarcasim. Probably not the right thing to say in this instance, but the alternative of doing nothing because it cost more is not the answer there needs to be a punishment of some kind for flagrant violaters. If we have no deterent in place what will stop the shameless from continuing?