He Collected $585,000 Until Investigators Looked Closer

Laptop displaying refinance mortgage application form — Photo: Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock

Disability fraud cases are not about whether someone can lift a bag of groceries on a good day; they turn on deception—what was claimed to the government, what was concealed, and for how long. In the New Jersey case of funeral director Steven D. Stankovits, the record shows a years-long pattern of false statements while working and traveling that crossed the bright line from ambiguity into criminal fraud.

The Short Version

A federal jury convicted Steven D. Stankovits of wire fraud and making false statements tied to Social Security disability benefits.
Prosecutors documented work activity and international ski travel that contradicted his claims of severe functional limits.
The Social Security Administration paid out more than $585,000 before the scheme was uncovered, according to court filings.
His case illustrates how “work while on disability” becomes fraud: not by activity alone, but by lying and failing to report as the rules require.

What the Government Proved

The Justice Department’s case rested on a straightforward theory: Stankovits repeatedly told the Social Security Administration (SSA) he was unable to work and suffered functional restrictions so severe he could not comfortably sit for more than 15 minutes, bend to dress, or lift a carton of milk—claims he also associated with having given up skiing. A jury found those statements were knowingly false. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, he was at the same time a licensed funeral director working at two funeral homes, performing physically demanding tasks such as carrying 160-pound caskets down stairs, shoveling snow, yard work, and even climbing a ladder to install signage. He also traveled for ski trips, including to Cortina, Italy, and major U.S. resorts, and purchased a season pass in Vermont—all flatly at odds with the disabilities he reported to keep the benefits flowing.

Prosecutors also anchored the case to the paper trail. The indictment describes a 2007 Disability Insurance Benefits application in which he claimed he had been unable to work since 2006 due to a spinal cord injury, and a subsequent July 7, 2020 Disability Update Report in which he made material misrepresentations under penalty of federal law. The government calculated total improper payments of approximately $585,629.80 between 2010 and early 2022. A jury convicted him of four counts of wire fraud and one count of making false statements; the court later imposed a term of imprisonment and financial penalties, including restitution, consistent with program-fraud sentencing in comparable cases.

Why This Counts as Fraud, Not a Misunderstanding

Disability rules are more nuanced than popular shorthand suggests. SSA’s programs allow limited work in some circumstances and even encourage trial work through defined incentives; working, in itself, does not automatically void eligibility. Fraud emerges when a beneficiary crosses two lines: concealing work or earnings that must be reported, and making false statements about functional limits or employment that a reasonable person would understand to be material to eligibility. SSA’s own oversight history shows most “SGA errors” (substantial gainful activity problems) stem from beneficiaries failing to report work; in one Office of Inspector General review, 64 percent of improper payments tied to work arose from the beneficiary’s non-reporting rather than agency delay.

That policy context is important because it distinguishes edge cases—where a beneficiary works within permitted bounds but runs afoul of complex reporting rules—from deliberate deception. The Stankovits record lands on the latter side: sustained misrepresentations, a contemporaneous work history as a funeral director, and travel/activity evidence that directly contradicted asserted limitations. Taken together, those facts move far beyond ambiguity into intentional falsehood, which is exactly what Congress criminalized in Title II program fraud and false-statements statutes.

Mechanics of the Scheme, as Reconstructed from the Record

Chronologically, the government’s filings and courtroom statements describe a scheme beginning with a disability application that claimed inability to work dating back to 2006, culminating in an eligibility finding in 2010 with retroactive benefits. Over the next decade, prosecutors say he reiterated the same severe limitations in written submissions and communications, which maintained the flow of benefits. Meanwhile, he conducted remunerative work in the funeral trade and traveled extensively to ski—facts prosecutors introduced to show knowledge and intent. The July 2020 Disability Update Report, a periodic check intended to verify continuing eligibility, became the keystone false-statement count. By the time SSA halted payments, the total had exceeded $585,000, and investigators had assembled both documentary and testimonial evidence to present to the grand jury and, later, at trial.

This profile aligns with a common enforcement pattern: authorities frequently focus on “concealed work activity” and “false continuing eligibility reporting” rather than esoteric medical disputes. Put plainly, the case rose or fell on whether the defendant lied about his functional capacity and employment while taking the money. The jury’s verdict resolved that question decisively.

Sentencing and Deterrence

Stankovits received a sentence of a year and a day in federal prison, plus restitution and a fine. While some readers may expect longer imprisonment for a six-figure fraud, outcomes in disability cases often calibrate to loss amount, acceptance of responsibility, and criminal history; incarceration terms in the range of months to a few years are common in first-offender program-fraud cases, with restitution carrying the long tail of punishment. The government’s public messaging in such cases serves a broader deterrence purpose: to remind current beneficiaries that misrepresentations are felonies with real consequences and to signal that SSA and the Department of Justice are actively mining records, travel, and employment data to identify inconsistencies.

There is also a program-integrity angle that predates this case. Oversight bodies have warned for more than a decade that work-activity detection and continuing disability reviews need to keep pace with earnings data and investigative bandwidth. The Inspector General has testified to Congress about the share of improper payments linked to unreported work and the need for timely follow-up when earnings indicate substantial gainful activity. Those systemic improvements reduce both the window for abuse and the risk that honest beneficiaries will stumble over confusing reporting thresholds.

Takeaways for Beneficiaries and Administrators

For beneficiaries, the line is clear: report work promptly, answer review forms truthfully, and assume that travel, social media, and employer records can and will be reconciled with claimed limitations. The rules allow for work attempts and partial capacity; they do not tolerate concealment or fabrication. For administrators, the case underscores why data-matching and rapid work reviews matter. Much of the $585,000 in this matter accrued over years; better earnings surveillance and faster continuing reviews can compress that timeline, curbing losses while the evidence is still fresh enough to support administrative correction instead of criminal litigation.