Paycheck Protection Program Fraud Prosecutions
1. United States v. Daniel D. Thompson (2021)
Jurisdiction: Federal Court, New York
Facts: Daniel Thompson, a business owner, submitted fraudulent PPP applications claiming 50 employees when he had none. He used the funds to purchase luxury vehicles and personal expenses.
Legal Issue: Wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1344, 2.
Outcome: Thompson was sentenced to 5 years in federal prison and ordered to repay over $300,000.
Significance: Showed that personal misuse of PPP funds triggers severe criminal penalties.
2. United States v. Scott A. Lyons (2022)
Jurisdiction: Federal Court, Florida
Facts: Lyons submitted PPP loan applications for multiple shell companies, inflating payroll numbers to receive over $1 million in relief funds.
Legal Issue: Wire fraud, bank fraud, and false statements to the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Outcome: Sentenced to 6 years in prison and ordered full restitution to the SBA.
Significance: Demonstrated that fabricating companies to extract PPP funds is a high-priority federal offense.
3. United States v. Robert Cox (2021)
Jurisdiction: Federal Court, Texas
Facts: Cox applied for PPP loans claiming employees and payroll expenses that did not exist. He used the proceeds to gamble and invest in personal ventures.
Legal Issue: Bank fraud and making false statements to obtain PPP loans.
Outcome: Cox received 4 years in federal prison and was ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution.
Significance: Emphasized that diversion of PPP funds for personal gain is strictly prosecuted.
4. United States v. Maria and Jonathan Gonzalez (2021)
Jurisdiction: Federal Court, California
Facts: The couple applied for multiple PPP loans using fake tax documents and inflated payroll information. They used the funds to purchase cars, jewelry, and luxury items.
Legal Issue: Bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit PPP fraud.
Outcome: Maria received 3 years, Jonathan 3.5 years in prison, and both were ordered to repay $400,000.
Significance: Highlighted that even joint schemes by family members are aggressively prosecuted.
5. United States v. Michael D. Nichols (2022)
Jurisdiction: Federal Court, Illinois
Facts: Nichols created a fraudulent LLC and submitted multiple PPP applications claiming payroll for non-existent employees. He attempted to withdraw over $500,000.
Legal Issue: Bank fraud and PPP loan fraud under federal statutes.
Outcome: Sentenced to 7 years in federal prison and ordered to repay all misappropriated funds.
Significance: Shows that repeated or large-scale fraudulent applications lead to longer prison sentences.
6. United States v. Christopher Coleman (2021)
Jurisdiction: Federal Court, Georgia
Facts: Coleman falsified payroll reports to obtain $600,000 in PPP loans. He used the funds to buy electronics and luxury goods.
Legal Issue: Wire fraud, bank fraud, and making false statements to a federal agency.
Outcome: Sentenced to 5 years in federal prison and ordered restitution.
Significance: Reinforced federal commitment to punishing misuse of COVID-19 relief funds.
7. United States v. Andre J. Johnson (2022)
Jurisdiction: Federal Court, New Jersey
Facts: Johnson filed fraudulent PPP applications using stolen identities and fake business documentation to obtain over $750,000.
Legal Issue: Identity theft, bank fraud, and wire fraud in connection with PPP loans.
Outcome: Johnson was sentenced to 8 years in federal prison and ordered to pay restitution.
Significance: Showed the intersection of identity theft and PPP fraud is taken very seriously by federal authorities.
Key Takeaways from PPP Fraud Prosecutions:
Federal Enforcement is Aggressive: Cases are prosecuted under wire fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy, and false statement statutes.
Restitution and Prison: Defendants often face years in federal prison and full restitution to the SBA.
Personal Misuse is Criminal: Using funds for personal luxuries, gambling, or investments triggers severe penalties.
Large-Scale or Repeated Fraud: Multiple false applications or schemes involving fake companies lead to longer sentences.
Identity Theft Connection: Some fraud cases also involve stealing identities or falsifying documentation to secure loans.
RELATED Blog
0 comments