Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

“Con-Woman” Accused Of Embezzling Millions From Military To KEEP Lucrative Retirement Package

EDITOR’S NOTE: ALLEGED “Con-Woman”, of course.

So refusing to take experimental gene therapy can get you unceremoniously thrown out of the military, but stealing from the military is ok?

A civilian military employee, who is accused of embezzling $100 million from the military, will be allowed to retire and keep her full retirement benefits.

57-year-old Janet Yamanaka Mello is alleged to have used a shell company to embezzle funds allocated for military youth programs and spent the funds on luxury goods.

According to sources, Mello purchased 81 exotic cars and 31 homes across the United States with the money she allegedly embezzled.

Spokespeople from the military explained that an archaic rule meant to protect bureaucrats has kept Mello immune from losing her benefits. Here’s more on the story:

Daily Mail revealed:

The 57-year-old from San Antonio, who was not held in jail ahead of her trial, is accused of a mammoth six-year fraud that she kept hidden from army brass.

She allegedly created a shell company in 2016 to stash huge sums destined for military youth programs across the country.

But Mello was finally rumbled when IRS agents started digging into her finances and how she was affording luxury properties, vacations and supercars.

One individual remarked: “Janet Yamanaka Mello billed the US Defense Department for 100 million dollars and they did not notice. The IRS caught her. It’s time to cut the budget of every Federal agency by 25%. Let’s call it say…’ the great reset.”

The New York Post shared this statement from one Army spokesperson:

“In accordance with 5 U.S. Code Section 8312, an individual may be denied an annuity or retired pay on the basis of the service of the individual, if the individual is convicted of treason, rebellion or insurrection, or other similar offenses.

There is no similar statutory authority for denying retired pay based on a conviction of other offenses.”


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!