LEESBURG, Fla. – An employee at a check-cashing store didn’t just refuse to cash a forged check with a large amount. She also kept the suspect and her driver’s license at the store until the victim’s son and police arrived.
Now, that suspect, described as a caregiver for the 92-year-old victim at an assisted living facility in Florida, faces two felonies.
D’Andrea Virginia Brintley-Kidd’s arrest report described the “fraudulent check” as #7242 “in the amount of $4750.00 with an issue date of 03/16/2025.”
Brintley-Kidd’s arrest took place two days later.
The victim’s son told police his mother “did not authorize or write a check in the amount of $4750.00, or give authorization to any person to write a check in that amount,” the arrest report said. He “did state his mother has provided checks in the past” to Brintley-Kidd, who works where his mom lives.
He brought along his mother’s checkbook, which was described as having “two checks transposed on the carbon copy.”
The previous one, “Check #7241, [was] written to the defendant in the amount of $160.00 on 3/16/2025,” the arrest report said. The one in question, “Check number #7242, did not transpose any information, and was missing from the checkbook. Check number #7243 was written to the defendant in the amount of $350.00 with a date of 3/2025. I was unable to make out a day on the carbon copy,” an officer wrote.
“The victim was unable to arrive on the scene due to medical issues and her mobility,” the officer added, but authorities reported calling her on a recorded line.
“She has given the defendant checks in the past and could recall giving her check #7241 in the amount of $160.00, and check number #7243 in the amount of $350.00,” the arrest report said.
But, it continued, “The victim stated she had never authorized the defendant to write herself a check with such a high amount, or was aware check #7242 was missing from her checkbook.”
‘She charges the victim a fee for her services,’ suspect admits
Police said Brintley-Kidd told them, “She buys groceries for the victim, who repays her with checks. The defendant stated she charges the victim a fee for her services. The fee that was charged was never given.
“The defendant stated the victim owes her back payments of groceries for approximately one month’s worth of groceries. The defendant picks up groceries from Walmart for the victim. The defendant had transactions on her phone labeled to the victim in random amounts in the ranges of $100.00-$250.00. The defendant was unable to provide me with any grocery bills or a series of bills that had a combined total of $4,750.00 or anything near that amount.
“The defendant stated the victim signed the check and she was authorized by the victim to fill in her name and to fill in the amount. The defendant stated the amount of $4,750 was authorized by the victim and she completed the top portion of the check. The defendant stated part of the $4,750.00 was services provided for the groceries and services provided at the assisted living residence.”
Another officer interviewed the check-cashing employee.
“Per her policy and procedure,” the witness said, “she has to verify with the issuer for large transactions. Witness One utilized a program to verify issuers of the check, and was able to contact the [son], who stated the check was fraudulent.
“Witness One provided me with the original check, which I collected and later placed into evidence. The check contained the name of the victim and [son] on the check.”
Finally, the first officer reported, “Check #7242 appeared to have been taken out of the book and filled out elsewhere, corroborating with the victim statements.
“Check #7242 was issued the same day as #7241, both having a date of 03/16/2025. The signature on check #7241 and the signature the victim provided do not match up to the signatures on check #7242, further leading me to believe the check is fraudulent.”
Unexpected witness, new evidence
So did a second witness, who suddenly reportedly said the check-cashing store wasn’t their first stop.
“The defendant was accompanied by a female only identified as her sister,” the arrest report said, “who spontaneously uttered that they were turned down at [financial services chain] Amscot in Leesburg, due to not being able to verify the check was not fraudulent.”
Brintley-Kidd, 21, was charged with theft from a victim 65 or older, $300 to $10,000, and uttering a forged check.
Then came another surprise.
“The defendant was searched incident to arrest,” an officer wrote. “In the defendant’s left hoodie pocket, a receipt was located from Amscot that said the check you [sic] were attempting to cash could not be processed due to issues. The receipt was collected and later filed as evidence.”
Brintley-Kidd was booked four-and-a-half hours after her arrest and then released in lieu of $5,000 bond after three hours behind bars.
She may have a lot of time on her hands.
The occupation listed on her arrest report is “medication tech,” and authorities reported talking to her boss at the facility.
“The employees are not authorized to accept any form of currency for the residents,” he told police, “including credit cards, money, or checks. The defendant would be violating policy and procedure by collecting any type of payments from residents that were not filled out to the assisted living facility.”
Important Notice: Application for Criminal Indigent Status, March 20, 2025 by Lenny Cohen on Scribd
Brintley-Kidd also applied for a public defender, claiming she had no money for a lawyer.
The court turned her down, writing, “You are not indigent,” and asking for the application fee of $50.
She’s due in court to be arraigned on April 14.
4 more involving fraud
Discover more from CohenConnect.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
