A() 9 l ( Res ()8z/f')9) trnmlnal Conlplalnt

UNITED STATES D ISTRIC'I' COURT

for the

Southern District ot- Florida

United States of America

V .

Andre Clark, c-ex-w. p-sszs- -----

CRIM INAL COM PLAINT

1, the complainant in this case, state that the fbllowing is true to the best of my knowledge and helief.

()n or about the datelsl ot- M4y-.1.9-J!?p..:-;4., ,2720 in tht counly of BlvF.#.rj . -. - . in the

S....pM.4q*rq............-. Dislrict of Floridp... . . -- ..-.,.... 

- the delkndantls) violated:

C-ode &dt',-//f#?

18 U.S.C. âj 1343 and 2

18 U.S.C. âj 1344 and 2

18 U.S.C. â 1349

(?#i??z$'t! Description

W ire Fraud

Bank Fraud

Conspiracy/Attempt tn Commit W ire and Bank Fraud

This criminal complaint is based on these facts:

SEE ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT.

V Contintlcd on the attached sheet.

f klvllLn'it.linullt 's .:/k?.?t.l/t?rt'

Miçh, @vl Bvç3iyvgpy, Specipl,A, gent, IRS-CI

llt*ilntkt6l z?tz??lt> zê'tçl tit /K,

Attested to b/ the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 4. I by telephlme.

Ilate: * o

.lutlpe 'x sig'îature

City and statc: n. kypdyrdale, Florid. , Hpn, p.4t...(içk. Mz Hppt, M.:.s. ,t. h .yygi>tr4t, kpdg.

ritued '?tazae anci pk/e

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 1 of 15
AFFIDAW T

1, M ichael Benivegna, being first duly sworn, hereby depose and state as follow s:

INTR O DU CH O N AND A G ENT B ACK G R OU ND

I make this A ffidavit in support of a crim inal com plaint charging AN D RE CLA RK

('iCLARK'' or dûDefendant''), with wire fraud, bank fraud, attempt and conspiracy to colnmit wire

fraud and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. jj 1343, 1344, 1349, and 2, from on or about May

l9, 2020, to at least on or about June 24 2020, in the Southern D istrict of Florida, and elsewhere

(the ttTarget Offenses'').

Defendant has participated in a scheme to obtain by fraud millions of dollars in

forgivable loans through the Paycheck Protection Program (:tPPP'') and other government

programs, conspiring with a person now cooperating with the investigation CSCHS 2'') and others.

Defendant obtained a fraudulent PPP loan for his own company, Top Choice LLC (it-fbp Choice''),

w ith CHS 2 providing falsified docum ents and subm itting the application on Defendant's behalf.

Defendant also conspired to submit a ntlmber of additional fraudtllent PPP loan applications for

other companies by recruiting other confederate loan applicants, in order to receive kickbacks from

those confederates. To intlate the size of these PPP loans, and the corresponding kickbacks, the

conspirators relied on a variety of false statements, including by subm itting falsified bank

statements and payroll tax form s. For example, the conspirators used nearly identical versions of

the sam e fabricated bank statem ents, recycled in the PPP applications for m ultiple companies with

m inor changes.

The conspirators in the scheme planned or prepared at least 90 fraudulent

applications, most of which w ere subm itted. Based on the evidence investigators have review ed

to date, CHS 2, Defendant, and their co-conspirators applied for PPP loans that are together worth

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 2 of 15
more than $24 million dollars, with at least approximately 42 of those loans approved and funded

for a total of approximately $1 7.4 million. Certain of those loan recipients then wired a kickback

of varying amounts, often approximately 25% of the f'raudulent Ioan proceeds, to an account

controlled by CH S 2.

I am a Special Agent with the United States Department Of The Treasury, Internal

Revenue Service, Criminal lnvestigation C(1RVCl'') and have been employed in this capacity since

October 2016. l am presently assigw d to the M iam i Field Oftk e. M y duties as a Special A gent

include the investigation of possible criminal violations of the lnternal Revenue Code (Title 26 of

the United States Code), the Bank Secrecy Act (Title 31 of the United States Code), and the Money

Laundering Statutes (Title l 8 of the United States Code). I graduated from the Criminal

Investigator Training Program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in April 20l 7 and

the Special A gent lnvestigative Techniques program at the National Crim inal Investigation

Training A cadem y in July 20l 7. ln these two program s, I studied a variety of 1aw enforcem ent

tactics and criminal investigator techniques relating to tax and financial crimes. Since becom ing

an IRS-CI Special A gent, 1 have personally investigated and assisted in investigations relating to

the lntenml Revenue Law s and Gnancial crim es. Recently, I have been assigned to work with the

U.S. Department of Justice and other law enforcement partners, including the Federal Bureau of

lnvestigation and the Small Business Administration Office of lnspector Genel-al, to investigate

possible fraud associated with the stimultls and economic assistance programs created by the

federal government in response to the COVlD-19 program.

5. The facts in this A ftsdavit com e from my personal observations, my training and

experience, and information obtained from other m embers of law enforcem ent and from witnesses.

Page 2 of 14

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 3 of 15
This Affidavit is intended to show merely that there is sufficient probable cause and does not set

forth a11 of my know ledge about this matter.l

PRO BABLE CAU SE

The Pqvcheck Protection Proqram

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security ('SCARES'') Act is a fedeml

law enacted in or around M arch 2020 and designed to provide emergency fmancial assistance to

the m illions of A mericans who are suffering the econom ic effects caused by the COVlD-19

pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorizmtion Of up to $349

billion in forgivable loans to small businesses forjob retention and certain other expenses, through

a provam referred to as the PPP. In or around April 2020, Congress authorized over $300 billion

in additional PPP funding.

ln order to obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business must submit a PPP loan

application, which is signed by an authorized representative of the btlsiness. The PPP loan

application requires the business (through itsauthorized representative) to acknowledge the

propam rules and make certain afflrmative certitkations in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP

loan. In the PPP loan application, the small business (through its authorized representative) must

state, among other things, its: (a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of employees.

These figtlres are used to calculate the amount of money the small business is eligible to receive

under the PPP. ln addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan must provide documentation

showing their payroll expenses.

1 The conduct and charges described in this A ffidavit are pal4 of a larger investigation that

is being conducted in this D istrict and elsew here. A s a result, not a11 num bered sources and

anonym ous individuals and entities are described in every filing. I have included in this A ftldavit

only those individuals and entities I have deemed necessary to explain the particular facts set forth

here.

Page 3 of 14

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 4 of 15
A PPP loan application must be processed by a participating lender. lf a PPP loan

application is approved, the participating lender funds the PPP loan using its own monies, which

are 1 00% guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (:kSBA''). Data from the application,

including information about the borrower, the total amount of the loan, and the listed number of

employees, is transmitted by the lender to the SBA in the course of processing the loan.

PPP loan proceeds m ust be used by the business on certain perm issible expenses

payroll costs, interest on m ortgages, rent, and tltilities. The PPP allows the interest and principal

on the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven if the business spends the Ioan proceeds on these expense

item s w ithin a designated period of tim e after receiving the proceeds and uses a certain amount of

the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.

The Scheme to Obtain Fraudulent PPP L oans

10. On or about May 13, 2020, Phillip J. Augtlstin (dçAtlgustin'') and CHS 2 worked

together to submit a fraudulent PPP loan application on behalf of a company owned by Augustin.

Augustin submitted a PPP loan of $84,515 to a federally insured bank (hereinafter ttBank 3,5),

through a third-party company processor (hereinafter iiBank Processor 15').2 The application

included bank statements that are clear forgeries, and CHS 2 has admitted that the application was

based on docum ents that he falsified for A ugustin.3

2 All banks referenced in

Corporation.

this A ffidavit are insured by the Federal Deposit lnsurance

3 On June 25, 2020, investigators arrested CH S 2 and another person now cooperating with

the investigation (EiCHS 39') and executed search warrants at their residences. Following his arrest,

CH S 2 chose to cooperate with the investigation in the hope of obtaining favorable consideration

in connection w ith his pending charges. CH S 2 was interviewed on that day, and has continued to

cooperate w ith the investigation after obtaining counsel. M ost of his statem ents related herein

have been corrobom ted by records obtained from third parties or recovered from his electronic

devices.

Page 4 of 14

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 5 of 15
Follow ing the success of that initial fraudulent PPP application, Augustin and CH S

2 began to work on obtaining m ore and larger PPP loans fbr Augustin's associates and others,

generally for several hundred thousand dollars for each loan, up to as much as approximately $1 .24

million. Based on the evidence investigators have reviewed so far, CHS 2 and Augustin

collectively coordinated applications for PPP loans that are together worth more than $24 million

dollars. The evidence also shows many more PPP loans were attempted but rejected by banks or

their partners, or w ere planned and prepared, but not stlbm itted before CHS 2's arrest. The

evidence suggests that all or nearly aII of those Ioan applications w ere fraudulent, including

Defendant's loan application and the applications Defendant orchestrated by referring additional

confederates to the conspiracy.

Investigators have obtained m any otlaer PPP loan applications that CH S 2 has

adm itted he subm itted as part of this schem e, based on falsified docum ents, and have also obtained

draft documents used or intended to be used in those applications or others. These applications all

follow the same pattern of fraud- many with obviously counterfeit February 2020 bank

statements, and all with fabricated 1RS Forms 941 (titled, isEmployer's Quarterly Federal Tax

Return'') with the same indicia of fraud found in Augustin' s initial application but generally with

even larger inflated payroll numbers, thus yielding m uch Iarger 1oans.4 CH S 2 has explained to

investigators that the figures in the Form s 941 w ere the product of a formula that allowed him to

start with a target loan amount, and then Stback into'' the payroll figures on the form. He explained

how he used figures that would produce an average monthly payroll for 2019 that, when multiplied

by 2.5, would yield the requested loan am ount. In turn, the number of em ployees reported w as

4 Som e loan applications also included voided checks that appear to t)e falsified, such as a

purported Bank 5 check that appears to have lxen produced on a computer and, as the subject line

reads, itconverted to PDF,'' rather than a scan of an authentic check.

Page 5 of 14

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 6 of 15
chosen based on fktional payroll figures, chosen to avoid an average employee salary that might

raise suspicion.

13.

com pany had a large balance.

CH S 2 has also explained that he tried to use bank statements show ing that the

Because so few companies had such a statement, and likely also

because it was easier than keeping track of their true statements, CHS 2 repeatedly subm itted nearreplicas of the sam e falsified bank statem ents. ln particular, CH S 2 appears to have recycled one

statem ent each from Bank 1, Bank 6, and Bank 7. In recycling a statement, CHS 2 generally

changed only the account number and the accotmt holder's nanle and address, such that each

version of the statement had identical figures and line items throughout the statement.

A review of records for bank accounts controlled by CH S 2 at Bank 5 confirm CH S

2's admissions that he received numerous kickbacks, often of approximately 25% of the amount

of the loans, and that he regularly w ired Augustin a share of that kickback in the early stages of

the scheme. CHS 2 explained that they were doing so many loans by the end of M ay that he

changed course, instead w iring larger lum p sum s, collecting Augustin's shares of the kickbacks

for m ultiple loans in one w ire.

lnvestigators are still receiving and analyzing records, but based on a preliminary

analysis, as of July 24, 2020, investigators had identified a total of $2,367,765.82 in transfers to

CHS 2's accounts from entities that each obtained a sizable PPP loan and that were identified in

the PPP files seized from CH S 2's and another co-conspirator's residences, as described below

or from individuals associated with those entities.

16. The PPP loans identified above as im plicated in the foregoing kickback paym ents

to CH S 2 represent only a fraction of the overall schem e. In executing search wanunts at the

respective residences of CHS 2 and CH S 3, federal agents found stacks of paper printed out and

Page 6 of 14

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 7 of 15
organized by entity, containing an tdintake form,'' fabricated Form s 941, or both for each entity.

n e intake form s contained fields for the inform ation needed to fàbricate the documents and fill

out other aspects of the PPP application: identifying information about the owner and com pany,

as well as bank accotlnt inform ation for receiving the loan. A section at the end m arked EtBELOW

IS OFFICE USE ONLY'' included blank fields for the AtNumber of Employees,'' t:M onthly Payroll

Expenses'' and t:SBA Loan Pre-Approval Amount.'' Between CHS 2's and CHS 3's residences,

investigators seized paper files for PPP loan applications for approxim ately 80 different entities.

Data obtained from the SBA showed additional PPP loan applications from

additional entities that text nwssage and email records show had been referred to CHS 2 by

Defendant or other individuals.

The Fraudulent PPP Loan to Defendant 's Cbzaplap.. Top Choice

18. According to Florida's Division of Corporations website (û1Sunbiz''), Top Choice

LLC ($ûTop Choice'') was incorporated in or around June 20l 8. CLARK is listed as the company's

president and registered agent. The address listed on Sunbiz for Top Choice, 4839 SW Volunteer

Road Suite 226, Davie, Florida, is the same address listed for CLARK with Florida's Department

ofM otor Vehicles. lnvestigators visited this address and were unable to find any business named

tç-l-op Choice'' at that location. Rather, that addm ss appears to be merely a m ailbox located in a

ttUS Pak-N-ship.''

19. According to Sunbiz, Top Choice was adm inistratively dissolved in or around

September 2019 for failure to file an annual report, lt was then reinstated on or about M arch 29,

2020, two days after the passage ofthe CA RES Act.

20. According to bank records, on or about M ay 19, 2020, CLARK visited a bank in

M iram ar, Florida, and opentd business checking and savings accounts in the name of Top Choice.

Page 7 of 14

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 8 of 15
In opening the accounts, CLARK presented a N orth Carolina driver license and, to prove Florida

residence, provided a Florida Power & Light pow er bill in the nam e of 's-l'op Choice'' and at the

sam e address listed for the company on Sunbiz.

Residential Service.''

'rhe pow er bill states that the tçl-ate'' is fbr SERS-I

CLARK indicated to the bank that Top Choice had six employees and a gross

annual revenue of $200,000. Howeverythe bank records from these accounts reveal a total of $600

in deposits (and no withdrawals) for the month of May 2020.5

22. n e day after CI-ARK opened the Top Choice bank accotlnts, a PPP loan

application package on behalf of Top Choice was electronically submitted to Bank 3 through Bank

Processor l . The loan application package included, among other documents: (1) purported Forms

94l for all four quarters of 2019 in the name of Top Choice; (2) a company bank statement for

Top Choice; (3) an application form; and (4) a promissory note.

The purported Form s 94 1 included in the application show quarterly payroll of

more than $500,000 each quarter, for 25 employees. That quarterly payroll figure yielded the PPP

Ioan application's ilAverage M onthly Payroll'' figure of $195,426, which determined the $488,565

am ount of the loan. Each w as signed by hand w ith the name 'iAndre Clark'' as the company owner,

and also listed CLARK as the com pany-s desir ee and as a 'tpaid Preparer,'' though he is not a

paid tax preparer. The Top Choice Forms 94l follow the same style and pattern as the many other

Form s 941 that CH S 2, described above, acknowledged that he helped create and subm it in the

course of the scheme, including in the indicia of fraud.6 lRS records shew that Top Choice did

5 The only activity in June 2020 consisted of the deposit of the PPP loan proceeds. The

accounts were frozen on or about M ay 26, 2020.

6 As noted above, CLA RK was listed as both owner and paid preparer. Dozens of other

Form s 941 subm itted in this scheme evidence the same error. CH S 2 has adm itted that these

Page 8 of 14

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 9 of 15
not, in fact, file any Form s 94 1for any quarter of 2019 or the first quarter of 2020, and Florida

Depal-tment of Revenue records show that Top Choice did not report any wages or employees for

that sam e period.

The purported company bank statement, w hich w as subm itted in electronic fonnat

is a clear forgery. First, the statement purports to be for the month of February 2020, prior to the

date that account was opened. Second, accordingto the docum ent's file ltprow rties,'' the statement

was created using tCPD FFILLER,'' a program used to edit electronic PDF tsles, and w as iim odified

using i'rext-''

25. The application form, labeled at the top Slpayment Protection Program Borrower

Application Form,'' listed CLARK as the owner of Top Choice, claimed the company had 25

employees, and stated that the average monthly payroll was $ 195,426. Based on this figure, the

amount of the PPP loan request was $488.565. 'I'he application form required the borrower to

electronically initial a number oftscertificationsy'' including; (1) that the applicant was in operation

on February 15, 2020 and had employees to whom it paid salaries/payroll taxes or paid independent

contractors, as reported on Fonmts) 1099; (2) that the funds would be used to retainwworkers,

m aintain payroll, or m ake lmodgage/interest/lease/utility payments as specified by the PPP rule

documents share that feature because he misunderstood the form, and he (or someone following

his instructions) prepared all of the Forms 94l at issue. The content of the forms also indicate

falsification. A ll four quarterly form s are nearly identical, and the four form s for Top Choice are

identical, down to the penny, in reported figures. They also evidence a pattern of payroll spending

that is likely false: each of the quarters shows significant increases from the first to second to third

m onth of the quarter. For each identical form , the same figures are reported for the tax Iiability

incurred in the first month of each quarter, the sam e figure for the second m onth of each quarter

(increased substantially from the first month), and the same figure for the third month of the quarter

(increased substantially from the second month). The result is that the company reports a mrfectly

repeating cycle of ascending payroll costs w ithin each quarter. CHS 2 has explained that this w as

due to a formula he used, allocating different percentages of the quarterly payroll tax liability to

each month of each quarter.

Page 9 of 14

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 10 of 15
and that unauthorized use could result in charges for fraud; and (3) that the information provided

in the application, including in supporting docum ents, w as ittrue and accurate in all material

respectsr'' and that m aking false statem ents could result in crim inal charges. 'Fhe application was

electronically signed w ith the name kiAndre Clark,'' and

initialed I:AC.''

each certification was electronically

26. The prom issory note, labeled at the top ûipaycheck Protection Program Loan,'' set

forth the amount of the loan ($488,565) and its terms (including that the proceeds could only be

used for business purposes). The terms also specified that the borrower may apply for loan

forgiveness only in an amount equal to the sum of certain specified costs: payroll costs, interest on

mortgage obligations, rent obligations, and utility payments. The promissory note further specified

that not more than 25% of the amount of forgiveness can be attributable to non-payroll costs.

Additionally, the prom issory note contained a itRepresenutions and W armnties'' section for the

borrower to acknowledge, among other things that 'ithe information provided in al1 supporting

docum ents and form s to obtain this loan'' were true and accurate. The prom issory note was

electronically signed with the nam e ''A ndrew Clark.''

Based on the m presentations made in the loan application papenvork and

supporting docum ents, the PPP loan application for Top Choice was approved, and on or about

June l , 2020, Bank 3 wired approxilnately $488,565 in loan proceeds into the Top Choice bank

account.

Page 10 of 14

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 11 of 15
CHS 2 Confirmed to Law Enforcement that the Top Choice Ppp Loan Was Fraudulent and

that CLARK Referred Others to the Scheme

28. lnvestigators spoke w ith CHS 2 about CLARK and the Top Choice PPP loan. CHS

2 stated that he had m et CLA RK through A ugustin. According to CH S 2, the three of them m et

on a number of occasions (sometimes at a gas station in Broward County) and discussed CLARK'S

PPP loan, as w ell as CLA RK 'S refel-rals, for which CLA RK would receive a sm all cut. A s stated

above, CHS 2 and Augustin had already agreed to share the 25% kickback payments that CHS 2

would usually receive from referrals, including from CLARK 'S referrals.

29. As to the Top Choice PPP loan, CHS 2 confirmed that the Ioan application was

fraudulent and stated that he had assisted CLARK in preparing and subm itting it. Specifk ally,

CHS 2 stated that he discussed the details of the loan with CLARK, including the amount of the

loan and the number of employees claimed on the application.CHS 2 also explained to CLARK

that he w ould need a bank account and need to hire em ployees in order to m ake the loan look

legitim ate.

30-

Top Choice with Bank Processor 1 ; (2) cxated and submitted the fake Top Choice bank statement;

and (3) created, submitted, and signed (on behalf of CLARK), the false Forms 941 . According to

Additionally CHS 2 stated that he: (l) created for CLARK an online account for

CH S 2, he did not recall signing the application form or prom issory note, but he was uncertain on

this point. Bank Processor 1 's IP records for the Top Choice loan application show that a com puter

with an IP address (ending in l 70) associated with CHS 2's residence in Broward County, Florida,

logged into the Top Choice loan account as early as M ay l9, 2020.

CH S 2 also stated that, in addition to the Top Choice loan, CLARK referred to him

a number of fkiends/associates for the purpose of creating and subm itting additional fraudulent

PPP loans. As stated above, CHS 2 and A ugustin would share the kickback paym ents for these

Page 11 of 14

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 12 of 15
referrals. CH S 2 stated that he did not know how CLARK got paid for his referrals but that

Augustin told him that CLARK was getting a cut.

Emails and Text M essazes Confirm CLARK 'S Knowinz 'Jrscfplst?a in the Fraud

32. As part of its investigation, Iaw enforcem ent obtained cornmunications between

CHS 2 and CLARK, incltlding text messages and emails. I have reviewed a number of these

com munications, w hich discuss, among other things, CLARK 'S PPP loan and the loans for the

individuals and com panies he referred to CHS 2.

33. For example, on or about M ay 19, 2020, CHS 2 sent CLARK a text message that

stated: itl-li Andre this is (CHS 2) lock in my number l am working on your t5le l need social

security num ber and date of birth.'' CLARK responded w ith his date of birth and social security

number. That same day, CLARK texted CHS 2 his email address, and CHS 2 responded: tkcheck

your email and activate your account Just open em ail and click the link.''

On or about M ay 20, 2020, CLARK forwarded CHS 2 an email he had received

from Bank Processor l with the subject, ddYou have an offer for the Paycheck Protection Program.''

The email stated: ddAndre, the SBA has finished reviewing your application and you've been

approved for your Paycheck Protection Program loan. A ccept your offer to access m ore

inform ation, including the next steps.'' The email included a link button to clicks labeled SiAccept.''

35. On or about M ay 20, 2020, CLA RK separately texted CHS 2 w ith inform ation that

appears to relate to a different fraudulent loan application.In the text message, CLARK provided:

(1) a social security number; (2) date of birth; (3) email address; (4) business start date; and (5)

state of incorpomtion. (CHS 2 explained that CLARK was serving as a refkrral source, or

middleman, between CHS 2 and the applicant, in exchange for a small fke). Afler getting the

information from CLAR K, CH S 2 responded that he needed a check from the business. CLARK

Page 12 of 14

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 13 of 15
asked by text m essage: *tshould he go to the bank in the m orning and get tem porary checks while

he order somel?l,'' to which CHS 2 responded islyles we need check.''

36. On or about M ay 27, 2020, CLARK sent a text m essage to CH S 2 w ith information

regarding another, different referral. n is information provided by CLARK included, among other

things'. (l) the individual's name, address, date of birth, social security number, and e-mail address',

(2) the individual's business name, business address, EIN, and business start date; and (3) bank

account and routing num bers. On or about M ay 28, 2020, regarding this sam e referral, CH S 2

texted CI-ARK that he needed i$a february statem ent from her credit union m ake sure if she cant

download and send in pdf she takes a good picture of it so i can modify it.''

O n or about M ay 30, 2020, CLARK texted CHS 2: Etllow m any I gave you so far

that is working besides the Grst two ones already completed (...1 l want at least 10 more people

w ithin the next few days.''

38. During my review of CLARK'S communications with CHS 2, 1 found what appears

to be inform ation pertaining to at least 14 different individuals and at least 15 associated corporate

entities. Further investigation, including review of data collected by the SBA and bank records,

to date has identified PPP loans totaling more than $3.5 million con-esponding to these names and

entities.

CLA RK's Bankinz Activitv fba/-lz.- His Knowinz Participation in the Fraud

39. 1 have also reviewed Top Choice's and CH S 2's bank records, which confirm

CLARK 'S receipt of the PPP loan proceeds. Specitk ally, on or about June 1, 2020, Bank 3 wired

the loan amount, $488,565, into the Top Choice account. As discussed above, however, Top

Choice's accounts w ere frozen on or about M ay 26, 2020, so CLARK could not access the PPP

loan funds.

Page 13 of 14

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 14 of 15
According to an investigator at Top Choice-s bank. CI-ARK called the bank

numerous times and then visited the bank's Miramar branch location in order to get his accounts

unffozen. During a phone conversation w ith CI-ARK. the bank investigator asked CIaA RK about

the FPL power bill he had submitted w'hen opening his account. which the investigator believed

was a forgery. CLA RK denied ever submitting thc power bill. W hcn the invcstigator asked

CI-ARK about his PPP application, CLA RK stated he would need to speak to his accountant,

W hen asked for the namc of his accountantv CLARK would not provide a name. fêinally, when

the investigator told CLARK that his PPP loan was suspected as fraudulent, CLARK sim ply stated

*tthank you'' and hung up.

CO NCLtISIO N

41 , Based on the forgoing. I respectfully submit that therc is probable cause to believe

that ANDRE CI-ARK committed the Targct Of'fenscs.

FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SA YE'I''H NAUGHT

M IC I'IAE 1- B E N I VE GNA

Specia I Agent

I RS-C I

Attested to by the applicant in accordance

with tht requirtments of Med. R. Crim. P. 4.1

by telephone on this X . Day ofAugust. 2020

HO . PATRICK M. HUNT 'kf '

UNITED STATES M AGISTRATE JtJIX iE

Page 14 o1: 1 4

Case 0:20-mj-06318-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 15 of 15