Man indicted for selling fake military documents online

Thursday, August 19, 2010 at 5:38pm
Staff reports

A Smithville, Tenn., man operated an Internet business replicating federal seals on various military documents and passing them off as real, authentic documents, according to a federal grand jury in Nashville.

A 29-count federal indictment returned Wednesday alleges that 63-year-old Robert E. Neener committed wire fraud, mail fraud and sold fake seals of U.S. military branches and other government agencies.

Neener allegedly operated in 2007 and 2008 an Internet business called “Bob Neener Military Documents” through which he sold various military service certificates to the public.

A statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Nashville claims Neener falsely claimed the documents were authentic replications of the original documents and he had contracts with the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Army and other agencies authorized to produce such documents.

Some of the documents reflected that the person named was either a disabled veteran, had been honorably discharged, had received a presidential citation, or had been recognized for various other military service achievements.

Neener apparently operated essentially the same website under three different names including: www.expresscitations.com, Citationexpress.com and Military-Certificates.com copyrighted by Bob Neener from 2001 to 2010.

The website’s homepage states: “It is not our intent to propagate fraud, our certificates are reproductions and are intended to be used as Replacements for your lost or damaged originals, If you display in public view, use for official purposes or present any certificate that you did not earn, you are in violation of Federal Laws and therefore subject to prosecution under Title 18 US Code, ‘Stolen Valor Act of 2005.’”

Neener faces up to 20 years imprisonment for each of the 14 counts of wire fraud and mail fraud, and up to 5 years for each of the 15 counts charging the false use of a federal agency seal.

1 Comment on this post:

By: yogiman on 8/20/10 at 5:57

Looks like a harsh punishment for someone who displayed in their ad the unintended fraud. Looks like their only neglect was not requiring proof of eligibility for the orders they received. Maybe they should have required a copy of the client's DD214.