Authorities shut down 3 illegal call centers tied to gold bar scam
John McCarthy, the state’s attorney for Montgomery County speaks during a press conference at the Montgomery County Police Department in Gaithersburg, Md., Feb. 2, 2026. (Montgomery County Police Department)
(MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Md.) — Maryland and federal authorities announced Monday that they have shut down three Indian call centers linked to a gold bar scam that stole millions of dollars from American consumers.
Authorities said the operation netted almost $50 million from more than 600 victims across the U.S. through wire transfer, cryptocurrency and gold bar schemes.
The six alleged leaders of the scheme were also arrested, authorities said.
An ABC News investigation previously found that as the value of gold surged, grifters posing as federal agents convinced people — mostly older Americans — to convert their life savings into gold bars.
As part of the scheme, scammers sent “couriers” to pick up the bars in person to allegedly keep them in a secure location.
Last year, ABC News interviewed a suspected courier from jail as he faced charges in two states for his alleged involvement in the scam. He claimed he was hired by an individual in India and paid between $800 and $4,000 per job to pick up packages, some of which contained gold bars.
John McCarthy, the Maryland state attorney for Montgomery County, announced Monday that his office had indicted 10 couriers accused of collecting money from victims, and said that several of those cases have already resulted in convictions.
“They’re targeting people who have retirement money, who have pensions, who have investments, who’ve maybe sold their homes and have that money in reserve,” McCarthy said.
A memorial dedicated to the 19 children and two adults murdered on May 24, 2022 during a mass shooting at Robb Elementary School is seen on January 06, 2026 in Uvalde, Texas. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
(CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas) — As soon as Wednesday afternoon, a Texas jury will begin deliberating whether a law enforcement officer should be held criminally responsible for failing to act in the face of one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history.
After nine days of testimony, prosecutors and defense lawyers in the trial of former Uvalde schools police officer Adrian Gonzales are scheduled to deliver their closing arguments in a Corpus Christi courtroom on Wednesday morning. Deliberations could begin as early as Wednesday afternoon.
At issue is whether Gonzales — one of the first officers to arrive at Robb Elementary on May 24, 2022 — ignored his training and endangered dozens of students when he responded to the shooting.
Prosecutors allege he “intentionally, knowingly, recklessly and with criminal negligence” put children in danger by failing to “engage, distract, and delay the shooter” in the critical first minutes of the shooting. If convicted on all 29 counts, Gonzales could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Nineteen students and two teachers died in the shooting nearly four years ago, with police officers waiting 77 minutes to confront the gunman as he was holed up inside a double classroom with students and teachers. While the shooting response has been the subject of hearings and investigations, the case against Gonzales marks the first criminal trial related to the shooting and the delayed police response.
What is he charged with? Gonzales was charged with 29 felony counts of abandoning/endangering children – one count for each of the 19 students who died in the shooting and the 10 children who survived in classroom 112.
Each count carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison, and Gonzales could spend the rest of his life in prison if he is convicted. While juries in Texas sometimes determine criminal sentences, Gonzales has opted to be sentenced by Judge Sid Harle if he is convicted.
What happened to the police chief’s case? Along with Gonzales, prosecutors also charged former Uvalde schools Police Chief Pete Arredondo, who was the scene commander during the Robb shooting. His case has been indefinitely delayed due to a pending civil lawsuit involving the tactical unit that ultimately breached the classroom and killed the shooter.
Why is the trial in Corpus Christi? Judge Sid Harle began overseeing the case after a local judge in Uvalde recused themselves from the matter.
Taking place 200 miles from Uvalde, the trial is being held in a Corpus Christi courtroom after Gonzales’ attorneys successfully argued he would be unable to have a fair trial in the county where the shooting took place.
Who is in the jury? While emotions flared during jury selection — with some now-disqualified jurors vocally criticizing the police response to cheers from other jurors — Harle was able to seat a jury in less than a day.
The jury and alternates included 11 women and five men, though one of the male jurors was excused last week due to a family emergency.
Are there any comparable cases? According to Phil Stinson — a professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio who maintains a database of police officers who have been arrested — the case against Gonzales is uncommon but not unprecedented.
Prosecutors in Florida attempted to similarly charge a law enforcement officer for his response to the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Seventeen were killed when a gunman opened fire that day, Feb. 14, 2018, in Parkland.
A jury in 2023 acquitted Scot Peterson, a former Broward County sheriff’s deputy, after he was charged with child neglect and culpable negligence for his alleged inaction following the shooting.
How did prosecutors approach the case? Prosecutors called three dozen witnesses — including investigators, teachers, and the families of victims — over nine days of testimony to argue that Gonzales missed a critical opportunity to stop the shooter before he entered Robb Elementary. They allege he was one of the first to respond to the shooter, was explicitly told the location of the gunman before he entered the school but failed to act.
“I told him that he needed to get stopped before he went into the fourth-grade building. We needed to stop him,” teaching aide Melodye Flores testified.
“And what did he say?” prosecutor Bill Turner asked.
“He, just, nothing,” Flores said.
According to a Texas Ranger who testified for prosecutors, Gonzales had more than a minute to stop the shooter before he entered the school, and the gunman was able to fire more than a hundred rounds during a two-minute period while Gonzales was standing outside Robb Elementary.
How did defense lawyers approach the case? Defense lawyers spent less than three hours on Tuesday calling two witnesses before resting their case. Gonzales declined to testify in his own defense.
His lawyers have argued that Gonzales not only followed his training that day but also highlighted that other officers had similar — if not better — opportunities to stop the shooter.
They accused prosecutors of “Monday-morning quarterbacking” Gonzales’ actions that day and argued he acted appropriately based on the limited information he had in the moment. They also highlighted that Gonzales attempted to enter the building with other officers but was directed by his commanding officer to retreat to call in for SWAT support.
(NEW YORK) — A federal appeals court ruled Thursday a judge had no jurisdiction to order Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released from immigration detention last summer, a decision that could lead to his re-arrest.
Khalil, a green card holder who is married to an American citizen, was released from ICE custody last June following his arrest by ICE agents in New York City in March.
U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz issued an order on June 20 granting Khalil ‘s release on bail after determining that he presented neither a danger nor a flight risk and that extraordinary circumstances justified his temporary release while his habeas case proceeded — a decision that was sharply criticized by the Trump administration.
On Thursday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Judge Farbiarz to dismiss a petition Khalil had filed challenging his detention, on the grounds that Farbiarz lacked jurisdiction in the case.
“On consideration whereof, it is now ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the District Court’s orders entered on April 29, May 28, June 11, June 20, and July 17, 2025, are hereby VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” the opinion said.
Khalil was picked up at his Columbia University housing complex last March and jailed as part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests. He spent about three months in a Louisiana detention center and missed the birth of his son.
Khalil was detained on the basis of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s determination that Khali’s speech would “compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” Judge Farbiarz granted Khalil’s request for a preliminary injunction after concluding that he would continue to suffer irreparable harm if the government continued efforts to detain and deport him.
Prior to ordering his release, the judge also found that Khalil was likely to succeed on the merits of his constitutional challenge to his detention and attempted deportation on the “foreign policy ground.”
“Today’s ruling is deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve,” Khalil said in a statement Thursday. “The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability. I will continue to fight, through every legal avenue and with every ounce of determination, until my rights, and the rights of others like me, are fully protected.”
Khalil’s lawyers said they are now considering whether to pursue an appeal to the full circuit — an interim step before a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Today’s decision is deeply disappointing, and by not deciding or addressing the First Amendment violations at the core of this case, it undermines the role federal courts must play in preventing flagrant constitutional violations,” said Bobby Hodgson, deputy legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union.
“The Trump administration violated the Constitution by targeting Mahmoud Khalil, detaining him thousands of miles from home, and retaliating against him for his speech,” Hodgson said. “Dissent is not grounds for detention or deportation, and we will continue to pursue all legal options to ensure Mahmoud’s rights are vindicated.”
A memorial dedicated to the 19 children and two adults murdered on May 24,2022 during a mass shooting at Robb Elementary School is seen on January 05, 2026 in Uvalde, Texas. Brandon Bell/Getty Images
(CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas) — Editor’s note: Some of the testimony described below may be distressing to some readers.
Robb Elementary School’s former afterschool coordinator, Emilia “Amy” Marin-Franco, held back tears and visibly shook in her seat when she testified on Thursday in the trial of former Uvalde, Texas, school police officer Adrian Gonzales.
Gonzales, who was one of nearly 400 law enforcement officers to respond to the Robb Elementary School mass shooting, is charged with child endangerment for allegedly ignoring his training during the botched police response. Nineteen students and two teachers were killed, and investigations have faulted the police response and suggested that a 77-minute delay in police mounting a counterassault could have contributed to the carnage.
Gonzales has pleaded not guilty and his legal team says he did all he could to help students.
Marin testified that on May 24, 2022, she saw a man crash his truck near the school. She was one of the first people to call 911 — first to report the crash, and then realized he was armed and heading to the school.
Jurors heard her 911 call, in which Marin simultaneously tried to get police to respond while encouraging students to hide.
“There is a guy with a gun. … Oh my god. I think he came on campus now,” she told a dispatcher, while telling students, “Come on guys, hurry.”
In deeply emotional testimony, she told the jury, “I kept asking the operator, ‘Where are the cops? Where are the cops?’ And I tell her, ‘There are kids running everywhere.'”
Marin told jurors that she feared for her and her students’ lives as she sheltered in a classroom and heard countless gunshots.
“They were like, nonstop,” she said. “I thought, ‘He’s going to kill me, he’s going to kill me, he’s going to kill me. I’m going to die, I’m going to die.'”
She testified that she tried to come up with a plan to disarm the shooter if he were to find her.
“I’m looking at the floor and I’m thinking, ‘I’ll tackle him from his ankles and knock him down with my shoulder. Get up on the counter, when he comes in, jump on his back, poke his eyes out, take his gun away from him,'” she said.
A prosecutor tried to ask Marin to describe what that moment was like.
“The feeling of that type of fear is something that only someone can understand who’s been through a mass shooting,” she said. “You won’t understand if you haven’t experienced it and I don’t wish it on anybody.”
“Is it an ugly feeling?” the prosecutor asked.
“It haunts me to this day,” she said.
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, Marin was falsely accused of leaving a door open that allowed the shooter to enter. She testified about removing a rock that was briefly used to prop the door open. During a brief cross-examination, defense attorneys used the testimony to highlight how Robb Elementary had issues with doors remaining unlocked.
Earlier on Thursday, Judge Sid Harle sided with defense lawyers and instructed jurors to completely disregard the testimony of former teacher Stephanie Hale, who was a key prosecution witness.
Hale returned to the stand for an hour Thursday morning in an effort to salvage her testimony, but defense lawyers ultimately argued that allowing her testimony to stand would endanger Gonzales’ right to a fair trial.
“There’s no doubt that this was crucial to the [defense] strategy,” Harle said. “I don’t think I have any choice, having denied the mistrial — other than to craft a remedy that will protect the due process rights and hopefully avoid any appellate review that would result in this case being reversed — so I am reluctantly going to instruct the jury to disregard her testimony in its entirety.”
Before instructing the jury, the judge personally thanked Hale for her testimony and emphasized that she was not at fault.
“I want to emphasize that you did absolutely nothing wrong. It’s not on you,” the judge said. “I want to tell you, just from personal experience, memories of traumatic events change.”
When Hale was on the stand Thursday, defense attorney Jason Goss attempted to point out that her original account — provided to state investigators four days after the 2022 shooting — differed from what she told the jury on Tuesday.
Hale testified that she saw the shooter near the south side of Robb Elementary and saw him firing toward her and her students. Defense lawyers alleged she never gave that information to state investigators.
“Seeing a shooter, and being shot at, are important details, you would agree with that?” Goss said.
“It depends on who you are,” she responded. “I don’t know. I guess possibly.”
Goss pointed out inconsistencies in her description of events over the last three years, such as how she learned about the shooter and his location.
“I’m not very good with directions,” Hale remarked about the location of the shooter.
During re-direct examination, Hale clarified that she told the grand jury about seeing clouds of dust near the playground, which suggested to her that she and her students were being shot at. She acknowledged, however, that she did not initially see the shooter with her own eyes.
Hale told defense lawyers that it was “kind of implied” that she saw the shooter based on her comments about seeing the dust clouds.
