Published: October 28th 2026.
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN: A 33-year-old woman with multiple prior identity theft and fraud-related convictions is facing two felony charges in Dakota County after prosecutors allege she used another person's identity and provided two fraudulent checks while attempting to rent a home in Mendota Heights.
According to a criminal complaint filed in Dakota County District Court, Dimajia Denae Williams, 33, allegedly presented herself as another individual, signed a lease agreement using that person's identity, and provided the property owner with a $6,825 check that could not be cashed.
The investigation began after the property owner listed a Mendota Heights residence for rent. On March 27, 2026, a rental application was submitted using the name, date of birth, and address of a male individual identified in the complaint by the initials M.S.
On March 31, Williams allegedly met with the property owner at the residence for a tour. Prosecutors allege Williams claimed to be M.S., expressed interest in immediately renting the property, signed a lease agreement, and provided a check for $6,825.
According to the complaint, the check appeared to be drawn from a bank account belonging to M.S. and included his name, address, and purported signature.
The property owner initially attempted to cash the check at a Wells Fargo branch, but bank employees declined the transaction after identifying something suspicious. Because the check appeared to be issued by Chase Bank, the property owner subsequently visited a Chase branch, where employees determined the account did not exist.
Bank employees reportedly recommended obtaining a cashier's check instead.
On April 6, Williams allegedly provided the property owner with a second check, this time purportedly a cashier's check issued from M.S.'s account. However, the complaint states the check was also invalid.
Investigators reported that the purported cashier's check was printed on ordinary paper, lacked security watermarks, and contained account and routing numbers that were not unique.
During the investigation, Williams allegedly provided law enforcement with conflicting explanations about her relationship to M.S.
According to the complaint, Williams initially claimed M.S. was her sister and had rented the property. After investigators pointed out that M.S. was male, Williams reportedly changed her explanation, claiming he was her cousin.
The property owner subsequently identified Williams as the person who toured the residence, signed the lease agreement, and provided both checks.
Williams denied signing the lease agreement using M.S.'s name, instead telling investigators that the signature read "make some," according to the complaint.
Investigators also contacted M.S., who denied knowing Williams. M.S. reportedly told law enforcement that he had received numerous calls from a bank but had not returned them because he believed they were part of a scam.
The complaint further alleges that when the property owner returned to the residence to clean it, he discovered a printer and multiple blank fraudulent checks.
Court records cited in the complaint indicate Williams has several previous convictions involving identity theft, theft, and check forgery.
Those convictions include three felony identity theft convictions entered in July 2025 and January 2026, a 2015 felony check forgery conviction, and additional felony theft-related convictions dating back to 2016 and 2018.
The complaint also identifies two pending identity theft cases against Williams, including one in Hennepin County and another in Washington County. Those pending cases are separate proceedings, and the allegations in them have not been established by a conviction.
Williams is charged with two counts of offering a forged check involving an amount exceeding $2,500, both felonies under Minnesota Statute 609.631, subdivisions 3 and 4(2).
The charges relate to the checks allegedly provided on March 31 and April 6, 2026. Each count carries a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison, a $20,000 fine, or both.
The criminal complaint does not establish that the property owner suffered a completed financial loss from either check, as both were reportedly rejected by financial institutions.
Williams is presumed innocent of the new charges unless and until proven guilty in court.