Northwest Florida sisters sentenced to federal prison for embezzling over $844k from local business
Truck and dump truck crash head-on in Mobile; man critically injured
According to a news release from the United States Attorney's Office Northern District of Florida, Kimberly Lovitt, 52, of Pace, was sentenced to 36 months, while her sister, Amy Williams, 46, of Milton, was sentenced to 18 months.
The two were convicted of wire fraud, money laundering, and filing false tax returns, the release said.
'Abuse of trust, embezzlement and tax evasion warrant significant criminal consequences,' Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Florida Michelle Spaven said. 'The defendants' years-long theft from their employer and the extreme efforts to conceal their criminal proceeds are both illegal and offensive to all hardworking Americans, especially those who own and operate local businesses.
'It is fitting and proper that they are not only incarcerated, but that they pay restitution and unpaid taxes for their criminal conduct.'
According to the release, the embezzlement began in 2016 and continued until 2021.
During that time, Lovitt conspired with Williams to embezzle more than $844,000 from their employer, a locally owned business in Pensacola.
Lovitt was the office manager, and Williams was the receptionist, the release said. The two used their positions to steal money from the business by using corporate credit cards for unauthorized personal purchases, the release said.
Lovitt used her position to create false documentation and manipulate accounting records to cover up their crime. She also failed to report the embezzled money as income on her federal income taxes, the release said.
'The defendants' theft through embezzlement caused great financial strain on their employer and put other employees' jobs at risk,' Ron Loecker, Special Agent in Charge at the Tampa Field Office, said.
'The sentencings today serve as an example of what individuals can expect when they lie, cheat and steal and then try to hide the ill-gotten gains from the IRS.'
Gulf Shores makes history with first-ever commercial flight to Alabama's beaches
The Emerald Coast Financial Crimes Task Force, which included officers from the Pensacola Police Department and agents from the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation unit, investigated the case, which Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Tharp then prosecuted.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
20 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows Countries That Don't Allow Dual Citizenship
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Data mapped by Newsweek shows which countries do not allow dual citizenship. Why It Matters A recent Harris Poll survey revealed that 42 percent of U.S. adults have thought about or intend to move abroad to enhance their lifestyle or financial well-being. This figure climbs to 63 percent among Gen Z adults and 52 percent among millennials. What To Know According to Henley & Partners—a U.K.-based investment migration consultancy—at least 39 countries do not permit dual citizenship. In Africa, these include Botswana, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Eswatini, Guinea, Libya, Mauritania, Senegal, Tanzania, and Congo. In the Americas, Cuba and Suriname do not allow dual citizenship; in Europe, these include Andorra, Estonia, Monaco, and San Marino. As for Asia, Henley & Partners says countries that prohibit dual citizenship include: Azerbaijan Bhutan Brunei China India Indonesia Iran Japan Kazakhstan Kuwait Laos Malaysia Myanmar Nepal North Korea Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia Singapore Uzbekistan Countries that ban dual citizenship typically do so to preserve national identity, ensure loyalty, and avoid legal complications, Henley & Partners said. Key reasons include concerns over divided allegiance, potential security risks (like military conflicts or espionage), legal complexities related to taxation and rights, and fears that dual nationality may dilute cultural or political cohesion. Notable examples include China, India, and Singapore. China fully bans dual citizenship, citing the importance of loyalty and safeguarding national unity. India disallows it to maintain legal and administrative clarity, offering Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) status instead, which grants limited privileges without full citizenship. Singapore upholds a firm one-citizenship rule, stressing national allegiance and requiring proof of renunciation of other citizenships before granting naturalization, the firm said. What People Are Saying Tim Osiecki, director of thought leadership and trends at The Harris Poll, previously told Newsweek: "For most of modern history, the American Dream was rooted in one place: America. But that's shifting," "While dual citizenship used to be reserved for retirees, the wealthy, or those with strong family ties abroad, it's now a growing goal for middle-class Americans who want more control over their future," he said. "It marks a real mindset shift—less about pledging allegiance to one nation, more about staying agile in a world that feels increasingly unstable." What Happens Next "This isn't about a mass migration overnight—but we are at a tipping point," Osiecki said previously. "One in five younger Americans say they're seriously considering moving abroad, and that kind of intent matters. So, while it may not be an exodus yet, it's certainly a movement, and it speaks volumes about how people are feeling about life in the U.S. right now," he said. "The American Dream may not be ending—it could simply be relocating."
Newsweek
20 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Green Card Holder Mom of Toddler Detained by ICE Returning From Wedding
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A 24-year-old woman from Vermont named Esther Ngoy Tekele was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when she returned to the U.S. after attending a wedding in Canada, her family told local news stations. Newsweek reached out to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for comment via email. Why It Matters President Donald Trump campaigned on mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, specifically targeting those with violent criminal records, and his administration ramped up immigration enforcement since his return to office in January. Recent polls, however, suggest some Americans are turning on Trump's immigration policy amid reports that individuals with no criminal records or nonviolent offenses are being targeted. The administration said it deported around 100,000 illegal immigrants in the initial months of the presidency, and many individuals have been deported following Trump invoking the rarely used Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which has been criticized and blocked by judges. Tekele's case reflects the concerns of immigrants living in the U.S. amid the mass deportations, many of whom fear they could face detainment or deportation regardless of whether they have a criminal record. Reuters reported that about 7,800 migrants with no criminal record were arrested by ICE in June. What to Know Esther Ngoy Tekele, who was born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and is the mother of a young child, was detained by immigration authorities on July 6 while entering the U.S. at the Highgate Springs Port of Entry, reported local news station WPTZ. ICE data shows that Tekele is being held by immigration authorities, while WPTZ reported that she is being held at the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility in South Burlington. Her brother, Coco Ngoy, told the news station he believes his family was racially profiled while reentering the country. "I can say we were treated like slaves because you could even tell from the body language—from the nonverbal language—how disrespectful some of the officers were," he said. A man holds a sign that reads "Protect Immigrant Rights" on March 17, 2025, in Providence, Rhode Island. A man holds a sign that reads "Protect Immigrant Rights" on March 17, 2025, in Providence, Rhode Island. JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images Coco Ngoy said that after a three-hour wait, officers told everyone they could go except for Tekele. She was subsequently transferred into ICE custody. Tekele has been living in Vermont for four years but has made several trips to Canada over the past few years. In addition to having a 2-year-old son, she is the primary caregiver for her mother, the station reported. She has a valid permanent resident card, also known as a green card, and no criminal record, her lawyer told the news station. According to court documents, Tekele was unable to communicate with her legal counsel "for several days while in detention," and the basis of her detention remains unknown. She said she was arrested and is being detained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. There have been numerous reports of migrants living in the U.S. being detained amid Trump's immigration crackdown. For instance, a Michigan mother of two is facing deportation after reporting an alleged assault to her local police. A Brazilian man living in Florida with a valid Florida ID and work permit was detained while visiting the Grand Canyon last month. What People Are Saying Coco Ngoy told the news station: "People who can make decisions, people who have the influence — I'm just asking them to step up and help." Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, told CNN earlier this year: "ICE is, they're out there enforcing the law today. And of course, as I've said numerous times, they're focusing on public safety threats. That'll be our priority." What Happens Next A court hearing is scheduled for Thursday, July 17, 2025, after a judge has ordered the Trump administration to show cause for her detention.
Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
Senate marches toward passing Trump's $9B clawback bill after dramatic late-night votes
Late-night dramatics and surprise defections capped off the push to advance President Donald Trump's multibillion-dollar clawback package through procedural hurdles, but now lawmakers are nearing the finish line. Lawmakers cruised through hours of debate on Trump's $9 billion rescissions package Wednesday morning and are now entering into another vote-a-rama, where both sides of the aisle can offer an unlimited number of amendments to the package. At stake are clawbacks that would yank back congressionally approved funding for foreign aid programs and public broadcasting, which Senate Democrats, and some Republicans, have admonished. The president's rescissions package proposed cutting just shy of $8 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and over $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the government-backed funding arm for NPR and PBS. Republicans have broadly lauded the targets, arguing that they are scraping back funding for "woke" programs that do little more than to gird the government's spending addiction. Like the preceding debate, Senate Democrats are expected to push numerous amendments intended to derail the legislation that are unlikely to succeed, but will drag out the process for several hours. Ahead of the vote-a-rama, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would highlight several areas of the bill that cut funding through the amendment process, and accused Republicans of having "no idea how the [Office of Management and Budget] plans to apply the cuts." "Senate Democrats, however, know that our job in this chamber is to govern, is to legislate, not simply eat dirt from the executive and ask for more, which is unfortunately what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing," he said. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., fired back that Senate Democrats were doing nothing more than defending their penchant for wasteful government spending. "I've heard Democrats fearmonger about this bill. Let me set the record straight. Republicans are protecting emergency alert systems here at home," he said. "Democrats are protecting and promoting electric buses in Africa. In November, Americans rejected wasteful Washington spending. This week, Republicans are delivering on that mandate." Before the vote, Senate Republican leaders agreed to carve out $400 million in cuts in global HIV and AIDS prevention funding that leaders hoped would win over holdouts. But it didn't work for all. A trio of Senate Republicans defected – Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. – forcing Vice President JD Vance to cast his sixth and seventh tie-breaking votes of the year to keep the package alive. He will likely be needed again later Wednesday to pass the bill, once lawmakers complete another vote-a-rama, where both sides of the aisle can offer unlimited amendments to the bill. Murkowski argued on the Senate floor that the rescissions package was effectively usurping Congress' duty to legislate. "We're lawmakers, we should be legislating," she said. "What we're getting now is a direction from the White House and being told, 'This is the priority we want you to execute on it. We'll be back with you with another round.' I don't accept that." Collins contended that lawmakers actually knew little about how or where the clawbacks would come from, and accused the Office of Management and Budget of not painting a clearer picture on the issue. "I recognize the need to reduce excessive spending and I have supported rescissions in our appropriations bills many times, including the 70 rescissions that were included in the year-long funding bill that we are currently operating under," she said in a statement. "But to carry out our constitutional responsibility, we should know exactly what programs are affected and the consequences of rescissions." McConnell similarly blamed the Office of Management and Budget, but noted that he might not be against the package when it came to a final vote. "I'm not going to predict where I am at the end, but I want to make it clear, I don't have any problem with reducing spending," he said. "We're talking about not knowing that they would like a blank check, is what they would like. I don't think that's appropriate. I think they ought to make the case."
