Amanda Smith says she has never used Cash App, yet investigators linked her to a $1,000 (£747) fraud allegation through an account bearing her Social Security number. Look closer at the evidence, though, and it's far from clear that she was the one running it.
She faces up to six years in prison after investigators linked her to an alleged $1,000 (£747) scam through a Cash App account registered using her personal information.
Amanda Smith, 47, was arrested at her home in April after officers arrived with a warrant over alleged computer fraud in Arkansas, more than 1,000 miles away.
She says she had never visited the state, had never used Cash App and had no idea why she was being accused of a crime.
'I was completely confused,' Smith recalled.
She spent three nights in jail before travelling to Arkansas to face the allegations. The case remains unresolved, with a hearing scheduled for November.
The central question is whether investigators established that Smith actually controlled the account – or identified her because her personal information appeared in its records.
What the Prosecutor's Affidavit Reportedly Reveals
According to 404 Media's review of a copy of the prosecutor's affidavit, police responded to a fraud report in Arkansas on 4 February. The document sets out the basis for the criminal allegations.
The alleged victim had found items advertised on Facebook Marketplace and was instructed to transfer $1,000 (£747) to a Cash App account supposedly belonging to the seller's wife. The account was registered under Smith's name, with the username $Smithy5687.
Investigators later found that the seller's Facebook account had been hacked. The items were never really for sale, and the buyer had allegedly been scammed.
The Cash App account was reportedly set up just before the transaction, at the end of January. Investigators then got a search warrant, from Block Inc, Cash App's parent company. What came back included Smith's Social Security number (SSN) and date of birth.
According to the case record, Detective Poole also obtained Smith's driving licence and checked her details through Accurint, a tool that lets investigators search records from many different sources. Smith was then charged with computer fraud, unlawful use of a communication device and theft of property.
We haven't seen the original affidavit or its exhibits, so these details come from reporting on the case record.
Her Name Was on the Account – But Was It Really Hers?
The data disclosed in the case shows several details that don't match Smith.
The Philadelphia address linked to the account isn't one where Smith or her husband ever lived, though they once lived in the same postal area. The phone number used to set up the account isn't her current one. Smith said she may have had it in the early 2000s, but her husband doesn't remember her ever using it.
The review also found a Venmo account in a different name, using the same phone number, created about a week before the alleged scam account. The Cash App data reportedly showed an iPhone running iOS 16.1.1, while Smith provided a screenshot of her iPhone 13 mini running iOS 26.5.2.
The IP addresses tied to the account's creation and the alleged transaction were linked, using geolocation tools, to Verizon's mobile network. Smith says she uses AT&T and has never been a Verizon customer. An IP address is a number attached to an internet connection, a bit like the return address on a letter. It can offer clues, but it doesn't necessarily point to the person using the device.
None of this proves who ran the account. It does raise the question of whether investigators did enough to link Smith to the person who created or used it.
Why an SSN Match Does Not Prove Account Control
A Social Security number and date of birth can help identify someone, but they do not automatically prove that person opened an account or controlled the money sent through it.
Consider a familiar example: if a stranger uses your name and date of birth to open a bank account, the paperwork alone does not prove you were the person who opened it.
Smith believes someone stole her identity, potentially using information exposed in a data breach, and used it to open the account without her knowledge. That remains her explanation, not a finding by a court.
According to Smith, Cash App wouldn't hand over any details about the account at first, since she couldn't show it belonged to her. She finally got the data through the case's evidence-disclosure process.
Max Ponte, a private investigator, isn't convinced that investigators properly established Smith was the one operating or controlling the account.
'The central issue is the distinction between identifying a person by name and establishing that the person actually operated or controlled an account,' he said.
Smith's lawyer, Jason Horton, said he is trying to get the charges dismissed before the case reaches a jury trial.
Block and Prosecutor Did Not Respond To Questions
Block Inc, the company behind Cash App, didn't reply to several requests for comment about the case or how it checks who is behind an account.
Prosecutor Jeffrey Sams also stayed quiet when asked whether investigators did anything more to verify the account information. Court records set out what Detective Poole did, but there's no sign of a separate response from the detective.
Of course, silence isn't proof of wrongdoing by either the company or investigators. It just means questions about the verification process remain open.
A $1,000 Scam With Potentially Life-Changing Consequences
According to the account records, the $1,000 (£747) was broken up into smaller transfers and sent on to several other accounts within a few hours. A few of them seemed possibly linked to scammers, although nobody has conclusively shown who owns them.
Smith has since been offered a plea deal. That would mean a $1,000 (£747) fine, $1,000 (£747) in restitution, some extra costs and three years of probation.
She has refused the offer, saying she will not accept a deal for a crime she maintains she did not commit. The case remains pending, and the allegations have not been resolved by a court.
The central question is whether prosecutors can establish that Smith knowingly participated in the alleged fraud, rather than relying on personal information that may have been used by someone else.
'I am just waiting and seeing,' she told.
