Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parole Fraud Case topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parole board imposes conditions but spares revocation after $35,000 check fraud tied to online ‘catfish’ scheme
Summary
The Louisiana Parole Committee found evidence that an offender was likely exploited in an online fraud involving a $35,000 check and opted for supervision, classes and closer Parole Project involvement instead of revoking parole.
The Louisiana Committee on Parole reviewed the case of Paul Eisenow (DOC 410069) Oct. 15, 2024, after a $35,000 altered‑routing‑number check was presented to a bank account linked to the Louisiana Parole Project. Representatives of the Parole Project told the panel that bank controls exposed the check as fraudulent and that the organization’s review suggested Eisenow had been manipulated by a third party he met online.
Andrew Hundley of the Louisiana Parole Project described how Eisenow communicated with a person he met on TikTok and Telegram who promised business transfers and asked him to deposit a check. Hundley said the Project conducted an internal review, accessed the offender’s phone with consent and concluded that a third party had produced the check, advised Eisenow on deposit, and sought gift‑card transfers in return. Hundley said the Project did not intend to press criminal charges and offered to continue reentry support.
Eisenow told the panel he had been naive, that he had provided account credentials in some chats and that he deposited a mailed check at an ATM at the other party’s direction. Panel members expressed concern that Eisenow had engaged in conduct that exposed him and others to financial risk, but they also acknowledged the evidence of third‑party manipulation. Rather than revoke parole, the board voted to impose special conditions: participation in financial‑literacy and money‑management classes, a temporary restriction on certain social‑media contacts, closer Parole Project supervision and mandatory reporting of program attendance.
"We believe you were taken advantage of, but you must be accountable," one panel member told Eisenow on the record. The Parole Project agreed to increase direct follow‑up and submit progress reports to supervising parole staff.
What this means Eisenow will remain under supervision but must meet new conditions the board set to reduce the risk of re‑exploitation. The Parole Project and parole supervision staff will coordinate classes and verification of attendance; failure to comply could result in future revocation proceedings. The case highlights how online contact and social‑media recruitment can produce complex parole decisions where criminal intent is unclear.
Provenance The board discussed the check and the Parole Project's review on the record (see hearing remarks by Andrew Hundley and the offender).
