A(') 9 1 lt Rrv l k / I l ) (.7 f 1 1111 1141 ('() J'r1l'l lt 1 fl t

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILE

for the 3 :45 1-)411 .1 tl l 28 21121)

Nonllern District ol'ol:io Clerk U.S. District Court

Northern District of Ohio

United States o l' A merica cjeveland

wYLEIA NASHON W ILLIAMS O2Se NO' l :20M J2208

C RIM INAL CO M PLAINT

1- llle complainant in this case. sîale that the following is lrue to the best of my knowledge and belief.

On or aboul tlltt datels) of- May 13, 2020 to July 9, 2020 in the cotlnty of Cuyahoga in the

Northern Dislrict of Ohio . the defendantts) violated:

(.'()de k$'dt..//'f?l? Ot/ènse De?â't?r/p/k't)n

18 U.S.C, jj 1243, 1 344, 1349,

and 2

Wire fraud, bank fraud, and attempt and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and

bank fraud

-I-h i s c l'i 114 illa 1 col'np la i llt i s ba sed tln these tktcts :

SEE ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT

Y Colltinued on ll4e attached sheet.

.fJ !?1/7 f//17 (//1/ A SIjItltIll4t e

Matthew E. Scalisi, Sqecial Agent, FBI

Swurn te v ia telcphone after stlblniss i0n by rel iablf l3I-Il3lt?(i ??f/ ??? t! tttttl l/f/(, (

electron i(.- nleans . Futd. R . Cri n.1 . P. 3x 4(d ), and 4 . l .

Date: 07/28/2020

City and state:

xrs Dla'r % > Ytx Q <y #.

o

g.* z '. 0

t!t -.@ > ' C' D # # q .:- ërj + r . . ' 1

t '

. !: .,

. ; .;t . r .

. , . ' . 

.. ï . ,9l : j . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .

. ,, . . ) j ;. j, .. (& Jkltvlge .$' .i'/g&f ttllre j. , ' )' .' ik hr/'rsf hr ' -1,.

** ë id A R d , :1 ' y Cleveland, Ohio N ofl-rekc Dav . , . . uiz U S Magistrate Judge

Printed ??(??.??(., f'l/lf/ tltle.t .--

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 1 of 28
A FFIDAVIT l :20M J2208

1, M atthew Scalisi, being tsrst duly sw orn, hereby depose and state as follows'.

INTRO DUC TIO N AN D AG ENT BA C KG RO UND

I m ake this atxdavit in support of crilninal com plaints charging PH ILLIP J.

At/GUSTIN (aka, P.l Atlgustin or Augtlstine) (biAugustin'') and WYLEIA NASHON

WIIwl -IAMS (aka, Nashon Matthews) (ûbq/illiams'q) (together, %tllefendants''), with wire fraud,

bank fiaud, attem pt and conspiracy to cornm it wil'e fratld and bank fraud, in violation of I 8

U.S.C'. jj 1 343, 1 344, 1 349, and 2, and charging Augustin with obstruction ofjtlstice, in

violation of I 8 U.S.C. jj I 503 and l 5 I2(c)(2), from on or about May l 3, 2020 to on or about

July 9. 2020, in the N orthern District ofo hio, Eastern Division. and elsewhere.

Defendants have devised and participated in a scheme to obtain by tiaud m illions

ofdollars in fbrgivable loans through the Paycheck Protection Program (:.PPP'') and other

governmellt program s. conspiring w ith two people now cooperating w ith the investigation

(--f>. l IS 2'- alld bsf.>l IS 3'-) and others. l E A arly in the scheme, Augustin obtained a fraudulent PPP

'

loan for his own company, Clear Vision M usic Group LLC ('ûclear Vision''), with CHS 2

providing draft fktlsified documents for A ugustin to use. After subm itting that application,

Defendants then began to w ork w ith CI'IS 2 on a schem e to subm it ntlm erous fiaudulent PPP

Ioan applications in order to receive kickbacks fkolu cont-ederate Ioan applicants. Augtlstin

fbcused on recrtliting ntlmerous ctAnfkderate PPP loan applicants using his network of business

contacts 9om his work as a manager for professional football players. A ugustin also recruited

1 The conduct and charges described in this aft-idavit are paI4 of a Iarger investigation that

is being condtlcted in this District and elsewhere. As a result, not aII num bered sotlrces and

anonym otls individuals and entities are described in every tsling. I have included in this aftidavit

only those individuals and entities I have deem ed necessary to explain the particular facts set

forth here.

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 2 of 28
W illiam s to assist il1 the scl-lelne. Early on, W illialns obtained fàlsifsed docum ents fiom CI IS 2

to include in t'raudulent applications.Later, she fbcused on coordinating colnm unications

between CI-IS 2 and the contkderates Augustin recruited, primarily by collecting infbrmation

froln them and passing that inform ation to CH S 2 for use in creating falsilied docum ents and

applications. To intlate the size ofthese PPP loans, and tbe corresponding kickbacks, the

conspirators relied on a variety of false statem ents, incltlding by subm itting falsified bank

statelllents and payroll tax form s. For exam ple. the conspirators used nearly identical versions of

the sam e fabricated bank statem ents, recycled in the PPP applications for m ultiple com panies

w ith m inor changes.

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

applications, most ofwhich were subm itted. Based on the evidence invcstigators have reviewed

to date. CH S 2, Augustin, and their co-conspirators applied for PPP loans that are together worth

more than $24 million dollars, with at least approximately 42 of those Ioans approved and ftlnded

for a total ofapproxiluately $ l 7.4 lnillion. Certain of those loan recipients then wired a kickback

of varying amounts, often approximately 25% ofthe fraudulent loan proceeds, to an accotlnt

controlled by C1'IS 2. Because Augustin had originated the schem e w ith Cl'IS 2 and recruited so

m any loan applicants, A ugustin expected to receive and often did receive sizable kickbacks.

C l.IS 2 paid Augustin a share ofthe kickbacks, of-ten by wiring funds to an account controlled by

Augustin. In a six-week period, CHS 2 wired to one of Augustin's accounts kickbacks totaling

more than $900,000.

l am a Speeial Agellt with the Federal Bureau of Illvestigation (kûFBI''), and have

been since Jtlly 7, 20 1 9. A s a Speclal Agent with the FBI, l am assigned to the Com plex

Financial C rim es Squad. I have obtained extensive training and experience w ithin the FBI on

Page 2 0f-26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 3 of 28
investigating financial crimes leading to fkderal prosecutions. Prior to becolning a Special Agent

with the FBI. I was a Special Agent with the United States Secret Service (ikUSSS-') from Jtlly of

20 1 6 to Jtlly of 20 l 9. W hile working out of the Chicago Field O ftsce w ithin the USSS. l was

assiglled to the Financial Crim es Unit. I Ilave w orked on m ultiple financial crim es cases that

involved wire fraud, banlk fiaud, aggravated identity theft, and other fratlds and swindles.

Recently, I have been assigned to work with the U.S. Department of Justice and other Iaw

enforcement partners, including the Internal Revellue Service - Crim inal lnvestigation (-(lRSCI'') and the Small Business Administration Offlce of lnspector General, to investigate possible

fraud associated w ith the stimulus and econolnic assistance program s created by the federal

governm ent in response to the COV ID- l 9 program .

'I-he facts in this affidavit com e fiom m y personal observations, m y training and

experience, and inform ation obtained from my co-ease agent, Special A gent A nthony Pizzola of

the IRS-CI Cleveland. Ohio office, as well as from other m em bers of Iaw entbrcement and from

w itnesses. 'I-his affsdavit is intended to sllow m erely that there is suflicient probable cause for

the requested warrants and does not set forth alI of m y know ledge about this m atter.

PR O BABLE CAU SE

A ugustin and CHS 2 originated this schem e to fraudulently obtain governm entbacked, forgivable loans by first obtaining a PPP loan for Augustin's own company, Clear

Vision. lm m ediately thereafter, A ugustin brought in W illiam s to facilitate the schem e, while

Augustin foctlsed 014 recruiting both confkderate PPP loan applicants and additional coconspirators who cotlld to recruit even m ore such confbderates. The netw ork of conf-ederates

and the scope ofthe schenle grew quickly, both throtlgh Augustin's network and throtlgh

broader word of m outh. A lthough W illiam s appears to have worked on subm itting a num ber of

Page 3 of26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 4 of 28
applications in the days after the Clear V ision application. the schem e soon developed a stable

model. with CHS 2 as the operational center, submitting the vast majority ofapplications. The

applications relied on falsified payroll ntlm bers, supporting those figures w ith counterfeit lRS

Form s 94 1 that CHS 2 and CHS 3 created. CHS 2 also often tlsed counterfeit bank statements to

conceal tlle fàct that lnany ofthe businesses had little to I1o funds on hand, and often had little to

l)o ongoing business. W illiam s Iargely t-acilitated com m unications between confkderates and

CHS 2. btlt also falsilsed checks to subluit w ith solne applications. All the while, Atlgustin

continued to recruit confederates and then pressure them to send their kickbacks once their loans

were received.

The tblloNving t'inancial institutions are referenced herein :

a. Bank 1 is a tkderally insured bank located in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Bank 2 is a federally insured bank located in Fort Lee, New Jersey.

Bank 3 is a fb, derally insured bank Iocated in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Bank 4 is a federally insured bank located in New York. New York.

Bank 5 is a federally insured bank located in New York, N ew York.

Bank 6 is a tkderally insured bank located in San Francisco, California.

Bank 7 is a federally insured bank Iocated in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Bank 8 is a fb. derally insured credit union Iocated in Vienna, V irginia.

g.

h.

8. Bank Processor l is a 'linancial technology com pany located in Redw ood City,

California- that enables businesses to apply online for PPP loans from tw o participating banks,

Bank 2 and Bank 3.

Page 4 of26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 5 of 28
The #flpt#lG W Protectitln 'rtzxtzr/?;l

The Coronavirus Aid, Relieft and Econom ic Security (+:CARES'') Act is a federal

law enacted in or around M arch 2020 and designed to provide em crgency financial assistance to

the m illions of A mericans who are suffering the econolnic effects catlsed by the CO VID- l 9

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

billion in fbrgivable loans to small businesses tbr job retention and certain other expenses,

throtlgh a program referred to as the PPP. In or around A pril 2020, Congress authorized over

$300 billion in additional PPP ftlnding.

10. ln order to obtain a PPP ltAan, a qualifying business m ust subm it a PPP loan

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

application requires the business (through its authorized representative) to acknowledge the

program rules and m ake certain alxrm ative certifscations in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP

loan. In the PPP Ioan application, the small btlsiness (throtlgh its authorized representative) must

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

em ployees. These fsgures are used to calculate the am ount of m oney the sm all business is

eligible to receive tlnder the PPP. ln addition, businesses applying fbr a PPP loan m ust provide

Joctlm entation showillg their payroll expenses.

A PPP loan application 1:1t1st bc processed by a participating lender. Ifa PPP loan

application is approved, the participating lender ftlnds the PPP Ioan using its ow n m onies, w hich

are I 00% guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (*(SBA''). Data from the application,

incltlding infbrm ation about the borrower, the total am ount ofthe loan, and the listed num ber of

em ployees, is translnitted by the Iender to the SBA in the cotlrse of proeessing the loan.

Page 5 of 26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 6 of 28
PPP loan proceeds m ust be used by the business on certain perm issible

expenses payroll costs. interest on mortgages, rents and utilities. The PPP allows the interest

and principal on the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven ifthe business spends the Ioan proceeds on

these expense item s within a designated period oftim e after receiving the proceeds and uses a

certain am ount ofthe PPP Ioan proceeds on payroll expenses.

The Frautluleltt Clear Iz7.Ww/ ### Loan

On or abotlt M ay l 3, 2020. Augtlstin and CHS 2 worked together to subm it a

f-raudulent PPP Ioan application on behalf-of Clear V ision, a business ow ned by Augustin.

Augustin stlbmitted a PPP loan of $84,5 l 5 to Bank 3 in Utah, through Bank Processor 1 .

Augustin reported that Clear Vision had 1 0 em ployees. and that the loan would be used to pay

their wages.z

Bank Processor 1 records show that the application w as finalized on M ay 13,

2020, in the nalne of teclear vision music grotlp l1c (capitalization sicl,'' with an address in

Hialeah. F lorida. ksphillip A ugustin-' w as listed as Clear V ision-s prim ary contact and 5 l %

owner. A ugustin's known personal cellular phone ntlm ber and em ail w ere Iisted as the contact

infbrm ation.

CLIS 2 and Augustin had been emailing about obtaining Coronavirus-relief loans dating

back to at least M arch 30, 2020. w hen Augustin sent Cl'IS 2 a series of em ails, attaching

photographs of a Clear Vision 20l 9 tax rettlrn and an intake form for 'ESBA C.A .R.E.S. Relief

Loans.'- Although the return showed a net loss of $9 l 3,420, Augtlstin reported on the intake

tbrm that the business was bçproducing positive revenue'' befbre February 1 5, 2020. Contrary to

his PPP application, the intake tbrm also reported that Clear Vision had only tsve em ployees as

of the end of M arch 2020 .

Page 6 0f-26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 7 of 28
In interviews w ith investigators, Cl IS 2 has adm itted that the application w as

based on docum ents he falsified for Augustin.3 The application included, for exam ple, a

purported Febrtlary 2020 bank statem ent for a Bank 6 account ending in 6432. The statement is

a clear forgery, bearing an account holder nam e of fCCLEA R V ISION M USIC GROUP'A in the

address section, but an account holder name of vkgcompany A1'' next to the accotlnt number.

Com pany A is an entity unrelated to Clear Vision that is controlled by Cl IS 2, and CHS 2 has

adm itted that he was also falsifying bank statem ents for his own entities, and sim ply forgot to

change the account holder nam e in both places w hen providing Augustin a fblsified statem ent to

tlse for the application.

The application also included purported lRS Forms 94 l (titled, bbEmployer's

Qtlarterly Federal 'l-ax Returnh') fbr al1 fbur quarters of20 I 9. The purported tax forms show

quarterly payroll of more than $ l 00,000 each qtlarter. That figtlre yielded the PPP Ioan

application's bkAverage Monthly Payroll-' fqgure of $33,806, which determ ined the $84,5 l 5

amotlnt ofthe loan. Each was signed by Augtlstin as the com pany owner, and also listed

Augustin as the company's designee and as a *ipaid Preparer.'' though he is not a paid tax

preparer. The C-lear Vision Form s 94 l fbllow the sam e style and pattern as the many other

Forlns 94 l tllat CHS 2 fàlsifsed in the course of the scheme, incltlding in the indicia of fraud.'l

3 O n June 25, 2020, investigators arrested CHS 2 and CHS 3 and executed search warrants

at their residellces. Follow ing his arrest, CHS 2 chose to cooperate with the investigation in the

hope ofobtaining fhvorable consideration in connection w ith his pending charges. CHS 2 w as

illterviewed on that day. and has continued to cooperate with the investigation after obtaining

cotlnsel. M ost of his statelnents related herein have been corroborated by records obtained from

third parties or recovered from his electronic devices.

4 As lloted above. Augustin was listed as both owner and paid preparer. Dozens of other

Form s 94 1 stlbm itted in this schem e evidence the same error. CHS 2 has adm itted that these

Page 7 of 26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 8 of 28
IRS records show that Clear Vision did not, in fàct, f5le any Form s 94 1 fbr any quarter of 20 1 8 or

201 9, and F lorida Departm ent of Revenue records show that C lear Vision did not report any

wages or em ployecs fbr those years, or tbr the tsrst quarter of2020.

As described in more detail in the following section, Augustin also sought out the

opportunity to speak with investigators through his attorney, and agreed to be interviewed with

his attorney present. ln that interview on July 6, 2020, A ugustin falsely portrayed him selfas a

victim , adm itting that he received hundreds ofthousands of dollars in paym ents from CHS 2 for

loan refkrrals, but claim ing to be unaware that the applications CHS 2 was subm itting were

fraudulent. In that interview, Augustin eflkctively admitted that the doctlments submitted with

the application were not genuine, as he stated that he provided C HS 2 only C lear V ision's annual

corporate tax return, and did not provide any quarterly Form s 94 l . bank accotlnt statelnent, or

inform ation about C lear V ision's payroll 1701- use in the application. Augtlstin falsely claimed

that it w as Cl IS 2 w ho stlbm ittcd the Clear Vision application from Atlgustin-s house, using

Augustin's com puter.

documents share that feature because he mistlnderstood the form, and he (or som eone following

his instructions) prepared aI1 of the Forlns 94l at issue.

The content of the form s also indicate tlalsitscation. Al1 four quarterly tbrm s are nearly

identical, and the four forms for C lear Vision com prise two pairs of fbrm s that are identical,

down to the penlly, with the tirst and second quarter matching, and the third and fotlrth qtlarter

m atching. They also evidence a pattern of payroll spending that is likely false: each of the

qtlarters shows signit-icant increases from the fsrst to second to third m onth ofthe quarter. For

each identical pair, the sam e figures are reported fbr the tax Iiability incurred in the f'irst month of

each quarter, the same flgure for the second month of each qtlarter (increased stlbstantially from

the lsrst monthl- and the same ligure for the third month of each quarter (increased stlbstantially

tiom the second lnonthl. The result is that the company reports a perfectly repeating cycle of

ascending payroll costs within each qtlarter, dropping dow n again at the start of the next qtlarter.

CI,I S 2 has explained that this w as due to a form ula he used, allocating diffbrent percentages of

the qual-terly payroll tax liability to each m onth of each quarter.

Page 8 0f-26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 9 of 28
Contrary to Augtlstin's claim s, em ails betw een Augustin and CI4S 2 show that

CHS 2 prepared the bank statem ent and Forms 94 1 for A tlgustin, and sent them to Atlgustin for

Augustin to use in his applieation. On the night that Augblstin subm itted the PPP application,

CHS 2 sent an elnail to A tlgustin w ith one attachm ellt, 'CCLE A R V ISION G RO UP feb

202().pdf.'' That dtlcument was the same tàlsifsed Bank 6 Febrtlary 2020 statement submitted

w ith the Clear V ision PPP application. Later that evening, Cl'IS 2 sent A tlgustin a series of

em ails, each with a falsilsed Form 941 for a quarter of tax year 20 l 9, in native PDF lbrm . The

tinal versions ofthe Forms 94 I CI IS 2 sent m atch the scanned Forms 94 1 sublnitted w ith the

Clear Vision PPP application, with one exception'. the versions that CHS 2 elnailed were not

signed and dated in Part 5, while the versions Atlgustin subm itted appear to have been printed

and then signed and dated in black ink in Part 5, next to Augtlstin's nam e and the title beow ller.''

Specifically, they appear to have been signed by Augustin.s

l 9. By contrast, signattlres on other Forms 94 I subm itted in this schem e, prepared by

C HS 2 and C HS 3, generally appear sim ilar in style to one another, but very different from the

style of signatures on the Clear Vision fbrm s. CHS 2 has adm itted to fabricating and signing

numerous other Form s 94 I , but contsrm ed to investigators that Ne had only em ailed Augustin the

unsigned docum ents for Clear Vision.

5 Those signattlres a1I resem ble one another, and they resem ble m ultiple exelnplars of

Augustia-s true signature that investigators have obtained. For exam ple, A ugustin m ade a

withdrawal tl-oln his Clear Vision account ending in 964 1 at Bank l ()n M ay 9, 2020. The Phillip

Augtlstin signature on the w ithdrawal slip from that transaction highly resembles that of the

Phillip Augtlstin signattlre on the Form s 94 l . Augtlstin also provided docum ents to investigators

through his cotlnsel on or abotlt July 9. 2020, in an attem pt to show that his arrangement w ith

CH S 2 was Iaw fkl, and Augtlstin's signatures in those docum ents also resem ble the Form s 94 1

signatures. Exam ples in those doctlments incltlde Augtlstin's signature on tw o prom issory notes

for the entity Atlgustin claim ed to have established for his btlsiness dealings w ith CHS 2, 60 Day

F unding & lnvestluent G roup, LLC, and two of its clients, botla dated in early April 2020.

Page 9 of26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 10 of 28
Session records from Bank' Processor I show that m ost of the activity on

A tlgustin's account occurred on the night of M ay 1 3, 2020, starting at approxim ately 8:45 PM

and ending at approxim ately 1 l :2 l PM , after Cl IS 2 sent the final Form s 94 l . Augtlstin's

account with Bank Processor 1 also logged in on the evenings of M ay l 4 and 17. According to

those records, al1 ofthose logins were from the same Com cast IP address. According to Comcast

records fbr the high-speed internet account assigned that IP address at the tim es of these logins,

the Iogins occtlrred through the account w ith service at Augtlstin's residence at that tim e. That

Com cast account is in the nam e ofAugustin's son, Person 8, but with a contact phone num ber

that is Augustin's cellular phone. the salne nulnber listed on A ugustin-s Clear V ision

applications and docum ents.

The W ider Sc/lcazèz to Subm it Fraudulent PPP L f/sa Apnlications

Following the success of Clear Vision's PPP application on M ay 1 3, 2020,

Detkndants and C>. l IS 2 im m ediately began to work on obtaining more and larger PPP loans tbr

Augustin's associates and others. generally 1301- several hundred thotlsand dollars for each loan,

up to as much as approxinnately $ l .24 million. Based ()1: the evidence investigators have

reviewed so fàr, Defbndants and C I'IS 2 collectively coordinated the subm ission of applications

for PPP loans that are together wol'th more than $24 million dollars, of which, at least

approximately $ l 7.4 million in loans were approved and funded. The evidence also shows many

more PPP loans were attempted but rqiec.

ted by banks or their partners, or w ere planned and

prepared, but not subm itted before CHS 2's arrest. The evidence indicates that all or nearly aIl

ofthose loan applications w ere fraudulent.

22. CHS 2 has admitted that he sublnitted the vast majority ofthese loans. largely

through Bank Processor 1 . and that they were fraudtllent.

Page 1 0 0f'26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 11 of 28
Investigators have obtained m any other PPP loan applications that CI'IS 2 has

adjnitted he subm itted as part of this scheme based on falsified documents, and have also

obtained draft docum ents tlsed or intended to be used in those applications or others. 'rhese

applications all lbllow the sam e pattern of fraud tbund in the Clear Vision application m any

w ith obviously cotlnterfeit February 2020 bank statements. and alI w ith fabricated Form s 94 l

w ith the sam e indicia of fratld fotlnd in the Clear Vision application but generally w ith even

larger inflated payroll nulnbers. thus yielding luuch larger loans. CH S 2 has explained to

investigators that the fsgures in the Form s 94 I were the product of a form ula that allow ed him to

start with a target loan am ount, and then tGback illto'' the payroll figures on the form . H e

explained how he used fsgures that would produce an average monthly payroll fbr 20 l 9 that.

when m ultiplied by 2.5, w ould yield the requested loan am ount. In turn, the num ber of

elnployees reported was claosen based on the fctional payroll figtlres, chosen to avoid an average

em ployee salary that m ight raise suspicion.

CHS 2 has also explained that he tried to use bank statem ents showing that the

eom pany had a Iarge balance. Because so few companies had such a statem ent, and Iikely also

because it was easier than keeping track oftheir true statem ents, CHS 2 repeatedly subm itted

near-replicas of the sam e falsifsed bank statements. ln pal-ticular, CHS 2 appears to have

recycled one statem ent each fiom Bank l , Bank 6, and Bank 7. In recycling a statem ent, C HS 2

generally changed only the accotlnt nulnber and the account holder's nam e and address, such that

each version ofthe statem ent had identical figures and line item s throtlghout the statem ent.ti

* For example, C I IS 2 recycled a Bank 1 February statement that C,1'1 S 1 (described in the

fbllowing section) had provided CHS 2 for Company 1 before C l IS l began cooperating with

law enforcem ent. That statelnent w as used repeatedly, w ith identical dollar figures throughotlt.

Those idelltical Ggtlres illcltlde a iq-otal Combined M onthly Average Balance'' of .'$391,264.80''

Page 1 1 of 26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 12 of 28
A review ofrecords tbr bank accotlnts controlled by CI'IS 2 at Bank 5 confsrm

CHS 2's adm issions that he received numerotls kickbacks. oûen of approxim ately 25% of the

amotlnt ofthe loalls, and that he regtllarly wired A ugustin a share ofeach kickback in the early

stages ofthe schem e. CHS 2 explained that they were doing so m any loans by the end of M ay

that I:e changed cotlrse, instead wiring larger lump sums, collecting Augustin's shares ofthe

kickbacks for m ultiple loans in one wire.

26. Records for CHS 2's Bank 5 personal checking account ending in 6828 (the

*:C. l IS 2 6828 Account-') for May 2020 show that Cl'IS 2 received a Iarge volume of wire

transfers from businesses for which CH S 2 had recently obtained sizable fratldulent PPP loans.

The fbllow ing table show the date and alnotlnt of each entity's loan and w ire to CHS 2.-

Entity Receiving Loan and Loan PPP Loan W ire W ire A m ount Sendin W ire Datc Am ount Date

(7-0111 an 5 5/,1 5 $363. 177 5/l 8 $72,635.40

û>..0m 'lall 6 5/1 5 $363, 1 77 5/1 8 $8 1 ,635

Com nan ' 7 5/17 $258,575 5/20 $64,645

Com an 8 5/18 $426,7 I 7 5/20 $90,000

Com any 9 5/1 8 $84,515 5/2 1 $21, 1 30

Com an l 0 5/14 $389,627 5/2 l $97,4 l 8

Com an 1 I 5/l 8 $4l 6,752 5/22 $ 1 04, l 88

Company l 2 5/2 1 $708,065 5/26 $50,000

5/27 $40,000

5/29 $50,000

(Tot.: $ 140,000)

Com an ' I 3 5723 $4 14,675 5/28 $ l 03,664.25

and :111 biEnding Balance'- 01'-1*$362,220.38.'' The only apparent changes from the falsifsed

Com pany 1 statem ent are the account ntlm ber and the nam e ofthe company/account holder, and

an apparently inadvertent change in the docum ent's prilnary font, which does not m atch the font

used in true Bank l statem ents. Every line item and other detail of those statelnents is

unchanged including the Iocation ofthe transactions, w hich would suggest the purported

account holders based in Florida and other areas far from O hio operate prim arily in northeast

Ohio.

Page 12 of26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 13 of 28
Sim ilarly- records for a Bank 5 business account ending in 8588 in the name of

Company A (the ç-colnpany A 8588-') for M ay 2020 show that the Company A 8588 Account

received a large volulne of wire transfèrs fiom businesses that likewise had recently received

fraudulent PPP Ioans through CH S 2:

Entity Receiving Loan and Loan PPP Loan W ire W ire Am ount

Sendin W ire Date A m ount Date

Com an ' B7 5/ I 7 $702.720 5/20 $42,380

Com nan , 1 4 5/20 $488,565 5/26 $122, l 55

Com . an 1 5 5/2 l $488,565 5/27 $96,000

Com an 16 5/2 l $488,565 5/27 $97,700

Com an 1 7 5/22 $488,565 5/28 $ 1 22,000

Com a1) 1 8 (Person 5)8 5/26 $ 1,246,565 5/28 $31 1,64 l .67

28. Bank 5 records also indicate that Cl'IS 2 opened a new busilless account ending il1

0640 tlnder the name of Colnpany C (the sicom pany C 0640 Accotlnt''). That accotlnt includes

incoming wires of $22,500 and $80,000 il1 early June that are connected to two additional

entities that stlbm itted fraudulent PPP loan applications through Cl'IS 2.

29. Investigators are still l-eceiving and analyzing records for CHS 2's and A ugustin-s

accounts, but based on a prelim inary analysis, as of July 24, 2020, investigators had identified a

total 017$2.367,765.82 in transfers to CHS 2's accounts froln entities that each obtained a sizable

PPP loan and that w ere identified in the PPP tsles seized from CHS 2's and CHS 3's residences,

as described below or fiom individtlals associated w ith those entities.g

Company B is a com pany controlled by CH S 3.

8 com pany 1 8 obtained this Ioan w ith Person 5 listed as the contact for the business.

Person 5 is tlle sam e professional football player that A ugtlstin had referred to C HS 2 early in

their relationship. The Colnpany A 8588 A ccount records show this w ire w as received not froln

Com pany l 8. but from an account in Person 5's nam e.

9 Person 5, who had already wired the full 25% kickback from the Com pany l 8 loan, w ired

an additional $2 1 9,000 to CHS 2 in two separate transactions, incltlded in this total. According

Page l 3 of 26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 14 of 28
30. A review ofcl IS 2's and Atlgustin's bank records also shows that, after receiving

these wires. CHS 2 regularly wired large sum s to Augustin's account at Bank l in the name of 60

Day Funding & Investments LLC (i$60 Day Funding''), as well as to Person l4. 'I'ext Inessage

and email records show , and CHS 2 confirm ed, that Person 14 also referred clients to the

scheme. Based on the analysis thus t'ta r, it appears that, between M ay l 9, 2020 and June 22,

2020, the 60 Day Funding account received at Ieast $900,789.35 in wires from CHS 2's

accounts, ofwhich approximately $40,000 was actually intended as a payment to Person 14 for

her referrals. 10 In addition. CHS 2 directly sent Person l 4 two wires totaling $66,5 14.1 6 for

other referrals. and sent W illiams a $16,000 wire on May l8, 2020.

The PPP Ioans identitsed above as im plicated in the fbregoing kickback paym ents

to C l,IS 2 represent only a ti'action ofthe overall scheme. In exectlting search warrants at

CHS 2's and CHS 3's respective residences, federal agents found stacks of paper printed out and

organized by entity, containing an Ssintake fbrm s'l fbbricated Form s 94 1 , or both fbr each entity.

The intake form s eolltained fields for the inform ation needed to fabricate the doctlm ents and fill

otlt other aspects ofthe PPP application'. identifying inform ation about the ow ner and com pany,

as well as bank accotlnt inforlmation tbr receiving the loan. A section at the end m arked

'EBE LO W IS O l7F ICE USE ONLY'' included blank fields for the -ûN um ber of Em ployees,'-

'kM onthly Payroll Expenses'' and 'CSBA Loan Pre-A pproval Am ount.'' Between CHS 2-s and

to CHS 2, $ l 9-000 was compensation for CHS 2 to assist Person 5 with obtaining forgiveness of

his PPP loan, while $200,000 was intended for purported business investments that Atlgustin and

CHS 2 offered Person 5. Person 5 had also referred other businesses to CH S 2 to obtain PPP

Ioalls, and had been discussing w ith C1 IS 2 in text m essages investm ent opportunities and CI IS

2*s assisting Person 5 w ith obtaining fbrgiveness of his PPP loan.

CHS 2 explained that one wire to that account for approximately $40,000 was actually

intended as a paym ent to Person I 4, who w as having trouble receiving the w ire directly from

CH S 2, and so she arranged to receive it throtlgh Augustin.

Page 1 4 of 26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 15 of 28
CI IS 3-s residcnces, investigators seized paper f5les for PPP loan applications for approxim ately

80 different entities.

Federal agents also found text message and em ail records that referenced

additional PPP loan applicants that had been referred to CHS 2 by A tlgtlstin, W illiam s, Person

I 4. ()r other associates of Augustin.Data obtained fieom the SBA corroborate m any of those text

messages and emails. 'I'ogether. the conspirators appear to have conspired to subm it at least 90

fraudulent loans, w ith approxim ately 59 of those Ioan applications stlbm itted to banks or bank

processors fbr a total of more than $24 m illion. It appears that at least 42 ofthose Ioans were

funded for a total of approximately $ l 7.4 m illion.

Em ail. Text A.fc.ult'e, and L fpfla Records Illustrate the CbaNp/rf'zttvx ' R oles in the Schem e

33. Defkndants and CI'IS 2 did not wait Iong at-ter subm itting the Clear V ision

application to begin coordinating the subm ission of other applications. A ugustin was in regular

contact with f>.,l IS 2 about referrals and docum ents to be used specifqcally in PPP Ioan

applications, which A ugustin knew were fratldulent. A ugustin also recruited W illialns, w ho

CH S 2 has identiGed as A ugustin's girlfriend and the m other of one of his children, to assist hiln

and to com m tlnicate w ith C l IS 2. Recovered text messages and em ails show that W illiam s

regularly com m unicated w ith CHS 2 regarding CHS 2's tlnancial dealings w ith A tlgustin.

For exam ple, on or abotlt M ay l 4, 2020, the day after A ugustin stlblnitted the

Clear V ision Ioan application, CH S 2 began corresponding w ith Atlgustin and W illiam s by em ail

and text lnessages regarding multiple businesses that Atlgustin referred fbr PPP loans.

a. At approximately 1 2: l 4 PM , W illiams sent CI IS 2 a text m essage w ith the

address and lkderal employer identifscation ntlmber (:iE IN*') for Company 5 and the name

of its owner, Iàerson 1 0.

Page 1 5 of 26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 16 of 28
b. At appl-oxim ately l 2:50 PM , W illial-ns, sent C HS 2 an email with a PDF

attachmellt that appears to be a falsifsed Bank 4 check in the nam e of Person 5, w ith an

address in St. Petersburg, Florida. 'l-he im age ofthe check appears not to be a scan ofan

autllentic check, but rather, to have been produced on a colnputer and, as the subject Iine

reads, lf onvel-ted to PDF.-' The check appears tt) have the accotlnt holder name and

address, bank nam e. account num ber, and rotlting num ber superim posed on the im age of

a check sim ilar to the preview a consum er could see online before ordering new checks

to be printed fbr his or her accotlnt. The m etadata for the PD F show s the fsle w as created

froln a M icrosoft W ord docum ent.

At approxilmately 2: l 9 PM . CHS 2 sent an em ail to Augustin. In the

em ail, C.l-1S 2 included one attachm ent, a purported February Bank 6 bank statement tbr

an account in the nam e of Com pany 5, w ith a typo in the nam e. But for a change in the

accotlnt num ber and the nam e and address in the tlpper let't portion of the Grst page, this

doctlment was identical to the Clear Vision bank statelnent subm itted w ith its PPP loan.

Company A w as still Iisted underneath the account num ber.

M inutes Iater, CIIS 2 sent another em ail to A ugustin w ith a revised

version of the sam e r'ebruary bank statelnent. ln this version, CH S 2 had replaced

Colllpally A underneath the account num ber w ith Company 5-s nam e. 'rhis version of

the statem ent matches the bank statem ent subm itted w ith Com pany 5's PPP Ioan

app I ication .

At approxim ately 3:25 PM , CI-IS 2 sent an em ail to Augustin, attaching

fotlr (ùbricated lRS Form s 94 l for Com pany 5, w ith Com pany 5's and Person l 0's

Page 1 6 of 26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 17 of 28
contact information, and Person I 0 Iisted as the paid preparer fbr aIl fbur quarters, as in

the lblsified Clear V ision Form s 94 1 .

At approxim ately 3:30 PM , W illiam s sent C1 IS 2 a text m essage providing

k-gperson I 1 1's information--' including Company 1 0's address, EIN, bank accotlnt

information and the following: vkAnnual ltevenue - $4,675,552-' and %% ofemployees -

I 6.'- (>1 IS 2 responded by asking for Person 1 l 's phone num ber, and w hen he got no

answer, texted Augustin for it. A ugustin ilmmediately responded with her num ber.

Hours later, beginning at approxim ately 6:39 PM , W illiam s sent CHS 2 a

series oftext luessages providing sim ilar inform ation for Com pany 6 and its ow ner,

Person l 2, adding, il-l-his is for his 941 's.'- After stating, *$He has 1 5 em ployees,''

W illiam s tbllow ed up w ith, t'Please Iet m e know w hat the payroll average is once you

calctllate it-'-

C I'IS 2 also subm itted fiaudulent loan applications ol1 behalfoftwo entities,

Colnpally I and Company 2, both controlled by another individual w ho later decided to

cooperate with the investigation (*CCHS I ''), and both based in the Northern District of Ohi().

Files fbr b0th entities w ere found in C I'IS 2*s and CI'lS 3 's PPP f'iles. CHS 3 began soliciting

CHS 1 's participation in text m essages on or about M ay l 5, 2020, requesting inform ation on

Colupany l , which CHS l provided. CI IS 3 fbllowed up with a screenshot showing, kiY ou

qtlalify for $554,232,'5 and stating that confirmations and instructions would be sent.

On or abotlt M ay 1 6. 2020, beginning at approxim ately 8:3 l PM , W illiam s sent

Cl'IS 2 a series oftext messages providing her email address and then stating, E%Need the (Bank

81 stateluent and 941 -s when you get minute to create them.''

Page 1 7 0f'26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 18 of 28
37. On or about M ay l 6, 2020, at approxim ately 9:03 PM , CH S 2 sent an em ail to

W illiam s. The elnail attached a purported Bank 1 February statem ent for Colnpany 4, w hich was

adapted from the falsified Company 1 February statelment, with only changes to the account

ntlm ber and the account holder's nam e and address. That document lnatches the falsified bank

statement submitted with Colnpany 4-s fraudulent PPP loan application, which was flnalized ()n

or about M ay 1 7, 2020. I n the body text, C HS 2 told W illiam s that the attachlment w as the bank

statelnent. and that she needed to get a voided check for Bank 8, and that, tiw hen you apply you

tlse acct and rotkting number from (Bank 81.'1 Investigators are aware that the PPP loan funds for

Com pany 4 were sent to Bank 8, but the account was frozen soon thereafter, preventing

Company 4's ow ner from w iring CH S 2 the kickback.

38. O n or about M ay l 7, 2020, CI-IS 2 exchanged em ails w ith W illiam s and Person

l 4 abotlt tlle process for facilitating the schem e.

At approximately 9:36 A M , CHS 2 sent an email to W ill iam s and Person

14. In the email. CH S 2 asked W illiam s and Person 14 to fill out the attached docum ent

entitled iBgCOMPANY C1 SBA INTAKE.docx.'' The attachment was a blank form

labeled *VLCOMPANY C1 INFORMA'I'ION IN'I-AKE SLIEET.'* That fbrm substantially

m atched the many form s recovered from CHS 2's and CH S 3's residences, which were

fslled in with infbrm ation on businesses for w hich fraudulent PPP Ioan applications had

been subm itted or planned. It contained the sam e section for ûCO FFICE USE ON LY''

with tselds tbr, among other things, the ntlm ber of employees and m onthly payroll

CXPCIASCS.

M inutes later, at approxim ately 9:55 A M . W illiam s replied to CH S 2 and

Person 1 4. In the el-nail, she stated, -kOk, l vvill do it going forw ard fbr all new clients-'f

Page 1 8 of 26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 19 of 28
39. 'l-hereafter, Person 1 4 sent ntlm erous em ails to CHS 2 attaching com pleted

Com pany C Intake Form s that leû the section lnarked .IO FFICE USE ON LY'A blank. Som e of

these tbrms included a dollar figure, stlch as $300,000 or $400,000, listed above or below the

-VO FFICE U SE ON LY'A heading, indicating the amount ofthe loan requested.

O n or about M ay l s. 2020, W illiam s sent CHS 2 an em ail with an im age of

another counterfeit check, stating, -kl-lere is the check. Please review for acctlracy.'' The check

resem bled the falsifsed Bank 4 check in the nam e of Person 5 that W illiam s had previously sent

to C I IS 2. l Iowever. this check bore the nam e and address of another fraudulent PPP applicant,

Colupany 27, and Bank 6 was the listed bank on tlle check.

On 01, about M ay 20, 2020, CH S 2 flnalized an application on behalfof Com pany

l fbr a $554.232 PPP Ioan from Bank 2 in New Jersey, through Bank Processor 1 . Company l 's

application was approved, and the funds were then wired from an account outside of O hio to a

bank account at Bank l in Ohio, How ever, after the w ire w as transm itted, Bank l placed a hold

on the accotlnt to allow a review of the transaction.

42. O n 01' about M ay 28, 2020, CHS 2 fsnalized an application on behalfofcom pany

2 for a $320,767 PPP loan from Bank 3. through Bank Processor l . 'rhat loan was funded and

disbursed to a bank account in Com pany 2's nalne. Com pany 2 is a construction com pany

operated under the nam e ofperson 2, a relative of C1 IS l . ln interview s w ith investigators, CI-IS

l stated that after the PPP loan for Company 1 was approved in M ay 2020, he had arranged for

CHS 2 and CHS 3 to obtain another PPP loan for Com pany 2. C HS l also adm itted that

Company l 's and Com pany 2's loans w ere based on fraudulent representations, including a

falsified Bank 1 Febrtlary statelnent for Com pany l , and further stated that Com pany 1 and

Page l 9 0f-26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 20 of 28
Com pany 2 do their banking and accesses their funds at bank branch Iocations w ithin the

Northenl D istrict of Ohio.l 1

After Com pany 2's PPP loan was approved, CHS I received instructions to w ire

C HS 2 and CHS 3 approximately $80,000 of the loan proceeds (approximately 25% ofthe total

Ioall proceeds received in the name of Company 2).CHS l received wiring instructions by

em ail, and thereafter directed Person 2 to visit a Bank 4 branch in the Cleveland, Ohio area, and

request that Bank 4 wire approximately $80, 190 to the Company A 8588 Account, consistent

w ith the instrtlctions he had received. Person 2 did so on or abotlt June l , 2020, and CHS 2

received the w ire il1 the Com pany A 8588 Accotlnt the same day. CH S l , CHS 2, alld CHS 3

coordinated these loan applications and the kickback paym ent through the use of num erous

interstate w ire translnissions phone calls, text m essages, and em ails between Florida and the

Northern D istrict ofo hio.

44. 'I-hroughout this time. Augustin and CI IS 2 continued to exchange text m essages

about referrals and the status of loans, and also frequently disctlssed who had sent a kickback and

when CHS 2 wotlld send A ugtlstin his share. For exam ple, on or about M ay 2 l , 2020. Person l l

wired C1 IS 2 $97,4 1 8 from a Bank 6 accotlnt in the name oftigperson l l 1 DBA gcompany 1 01'5

that, the previous day. had received a PPP loan in the form of a $389,627 wire from Bank 3. At

approximately I 1 :07 AM on May 2 1, Augustin sent a text message to Cl'lS 2 stating, tûgcompany

1 ()'s1 wire is done so is (Company l l ).'' CHS 2 responded by acknowledging a wire for 11974 1 8''

1 l O n or abotlt June 8, 2020, investigators approached CI'IS l and discussed the Com pany 1

PPP loan w ith him . A fter obtaining cotlnsel and deciding to cooperate with the investigation in

the hopes of receiving favorable consideration in connection with his pending case, CHS l

agreed to additional illterviews, and the statem ents of CH S l herein are from those interviews.

CH S 1 adlnitted in his June l 2, 2020 interview that he had not told the com plete trtlth in his Jtlne

9 interview and should have disclosed the Com pany 2 Ioan to investigators when asked about the

extent of his Ioan activity.

Page 20 of 26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 21 of 28
from Person l I /Com pany l 0, and a w ire from Com pany 9, but noting that he was idstill waiting

01:'- Company l 1 and Com pany 4.

45. On or about M ay 28. 2020. at approximately 1 0: l 6 PM , Augustin reached out

abotlt Person l 9, the purported owner of Company 2 1 , stating, ûlDon't forget about gperson l 91.'9

CI-IS 2 responded, -tW orking on her statelnent not easy,'' to which Atlgustin replied, t(Ok.'' CHS

2 tsnalized Com pany 2 1 's fraudulent PPP loan application on Jtlne l , 2020, sublnitted w ith a

falsified near replica of the sam e Bank 7 statement CHS 2 submitted w ith a num ber of other

fraudulent PPP Ioans.

A ugustin regularly provided Cl4S 2 with account inforlnation for wires, and

CH S 2 also provided A ugustin wire instructions to pass along to the loan recipients. Both

Atlgustin and W illiam s provided Cl IS 2 infbrm ation for one of W illiam s's accounts.

Elnails and text m essages am ong the co-conspirators continued up to and even

including the day ofc l IS 2's arrest. On or about Jtlne 25, 2020, at approxim ately l l : l 9 AM ,

Augustin sent CHS 2 an em ail, forwarding a June 8, 2020 em ail from W illiam s to A ugustin, with

an image ofa blank check attached. The check resem bled the falsifled Person 5 and Com pany

27 chccks that W illiam s had previotlsly sent to C I-IS 2. l low ever, this check bore the name and

address ofolle of A tlgustin-s ki-l-op Gun-' entities, i-Top G un Constllting and M anagelnent LLC,''

and Bank 1 was the Iisted bank' on the check.

48. Shortly after CH S 2's arrest, W illiams canceled her Com cast internet account,

through w hich she hacl subm itted the fratldulent PPP loan applications fbr Com pany 5 and

Company l 0. Specifscally, Bank Processor 1 's IP address Iog fi Ies for those companies rettlrn to

the sam e IP address at a1l times when the accounts for those applications Iogged in, between M ay

1 4, 2020 and M ay l 8, 2020. At those tim es, according to Comcast records, that IP address was

Page 2 l 0f'26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 22 of 28
assigned to a Com cast high-speed internet account in W illiam s's nam e, w ith a service address at

a residence in W eston. F lorida associated w ith W illiam s. That service had been active since

Augtlst 20 1 8, but was disconnected on June 29, 2020.

-4 ueustin W Obstrudion of the .lave://efz//t?a and Admissions about His Atp/e in tlte Schente

Even after Iearning at the end of Jtlne Of-CHS 2's arrest and that Bank 1 had

concerns abotlt Augustin's accounts, Augustin continued to com m it acts in furtherance ofthe

scllem e, reaching out to investigators to m islead them in his interview, and thereafter providing

documents to achieve that goal. In stlm m ary. Augustin falsely portrayed him selfas a passive

recipient of referral fees based only on referrals he had lnade before the CO VID - l 9 pandelnic

and the PPP program . A ugustin m isled investigators abotlt. for example, the extent of his and his

associates- know ledge of, and involvement in. the m isstatem ents contained in the PPP Ioan

applications. Il1 fact, Augtlstin was in regular contact w ith CHS 2 about referrals and docum ents

to be tlsed specifically in PPP loan applications, which A tlgustin knew w ere fiaudulent. He then

provided doctlmentation ofthose prior referrals to support his m isrepresentations.

50. A tlgustin, accom panied by counsel, appeared in person at IRS offices in

Plantation, Florida, for a voluntary interview on July 6, 2020. Augustin met with two Floridabased law enforcem ent agents with, respectively. IRS-CI and the Federal Deposit lnsurance

Corporation Office of Inspector General. Other investigators appeared by teleconfkrence, and

identified thelnselves and their locations, incltlding m tlltiple investigators in the N orthern District

of O hio. 12 Investigators then asked A ugtlstin i f- he would Iike to record the interview, and he and

his counsel agreed to audio record the interview.

Aftsant, Special Agent Pizzola, and N orthern District ofo hio A ssistant U.S. Attorney

Elliot M orrison identifsed them selves and their positions, and their location in the Cleveland,

Ohio area.

Page 22 of 26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 23 of 28
Iluring the interview , Augustin made the fbllow ing statelments, am ong others,

about the C lear V ision PPP loan application'.

a. Atlgustin stated that, early in 2020, Augustin had paid Cl IS 2 $29.000 fbr

CHS 2 to repair his credit and obtain a business loan for Augtlstin, for as much as $ l

luillion. A ugustin, who worked as a m anager for professional football players. had also

referred som e of his clients. including Person 5, and other contacts to C HS 2 for the sam e

services, with the understanding Augustin would receive $5,000 per referral. Going into

M ay 2020, CI IS 2 had not delivered as prom ised on those services fbr Augustin or any of

h i s re lkrrals.

Augustin also claim ed that, in approximately m id-M ay 2020, CH S 2 cam e

to Augtlstin-s house to explain his new plan to obtain a Ioan for A ugustin and clients he

had referred. CHS 2 explained that they could get disaster loans, and they would .itlst

have to tlse the loans for their businesses, such as fbr rent and em ployees.

Augustin stated that CHS 2 then prepared and subm itted the Clear V ision

application from A ugtlstin's house, using A ugustin's com puter. For the application,

CI...IS 2 obtained from Atlgtlstin only the identifying inform ation for Augtlstin and Clear

Vision, a voided check, and a corporate tax return, but nothing about payroll. A ugustin

did tell CH S 2 that Clear V ision had eight em ployees, but som etim es added two more

people, meaning up to l 0 em ployees. A ugustin only provided the docum ents and

information requested and watched CHS 2 while playing two gam es ofpool.l3

l 3 By contrast, C l IS 2 reported that A ugustin handled the process from what CIIS 2

assum ed was Augustin's house, w hile f.>1 IS 2 was at CI-IS 2's residence, em ailing A ugustin

doctlments and discussing the process w ith him . Telephone records corroborate CHS 2*s

accotlnt and refute A tlgustin-s. Cellular tower data associated w ith CHS 2's cellular phone show

Page 23 0f'26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 24 of 28
d. Augtlstin claim ed that he spoke to his accountant abotlt the Ioan the day

after his exchange with CHS 2, and the accotlntant explained that A ugustin needed to set

tIp a separate accotlnt fbr the Ioan proceeds, and tlse it to pay rent and payroll. The

m oney arrived a day or two Iater, and at that tilne, Augustill had no concerns about the

Iegality ofthe arrangem ent. A ugustin did not have any such concerns abotlt his PPP

loan, or those ofthe people he refb. rred, until approxilnately the end of Jtlne, w hen Bank I

froze his accotlnts and he Iearned a Bank l investigator was saying that his m oney was

connected to f'raud.l'l l-le and his counsel then discovered and review ed A ffiant's

N ol-thern District of Ohio coluplaint against CHS 2 and CH S 3, prom pting them to reach

out to the A ssistant U .S. Attorney on the case.

Augustin also m ade the fbllow ing statem ents, am ong others, about his referring

clients to C HS 2 and the paym ents he received or expected to receive for those referrals:

a. Atlgustin estim ated that he had referred 20 - 25 people to CI-IS 2, and

some ofthose people, in ttlrn, referred others.

that at the tim e ofthe Bank Processor l logins to the Clear Vision account tiom A ugustin's

home, (-.,1 IS 2 w as in the vicinity of his own home, and not in the vicinity of Atlgustin-s hom e,

which was approxiluately eight m iles away. CHS 2 was also in the vicinity ofhis hom e, not

Augustin-s, at the times on other days that the Clear Vision account logged in to Bank

Processor 1 's system fi-om Augustin's hoblse. ln addition, recovered text m essages show that, at

appl-oxim ately 8:54 PM on M ay l 3, 2020, in the m iddle of the online sessions for the subm ission

ofthe Clear Vision application, Augtlstin appears to have attempted to call CHS 2 and received

the text m essage response, -lcal'1-t talk, call you right back.'' Augustin then imm ediately sent

CH S 2 a text m essage stating, i'Call m e A SA P.'' This telephone exchange w ould not have

occurred if. as Augtlstin reported, CHS 2 and Augustin were in the sam e room conversing.

ln fact. on M ay 1 3, 2020, the sam e day he subm itted his PPP application, A ugustin sent a

text message to CH S 2 at approximately 6:49 PM with a link to an al-ticle and television new s

report regarding fraud charges against an Atlanta-based reality television star for f-raudulently

obtaining a PPP loan.

Page 24 0f'26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 25 of 28
Augtlstin stated that he had referred all of these individuals befbre the PPP

began, whel) CHS 2 was offering the combination ofcredit repair and access to a $ l

m illion Ioan, and that he did not provide Cl IS 2 with client infbrm ation specifically to

obtain PPP loans and did not provide additional referral inform ation after his C lear

Vision PPP Ioan. Instead, CHS 2 on his ow n initiative reached out to the people that

A ugustin had previotlsly retkrred. l 5

Augustin clailned that, if C HS 2 successfully obtained a PPP loan for a

client that A tlgustin referred or fbr another client that one ofthose clients, in turn.

referred, and ifthat PPP loan was paid out, A ugustin would receive a share ofthe 25%

fee that CHS 2 w as charging. Augustin's portion was generally in the range of 7% - 10%

of the Ioan, som etim es m ore, up to 1 2.5%0.16

The docum ents that Augustin provided through his counsel to investigators on or

about July 9, 2020 show tsnancial arrangements between CI-IS 2, A ugtlstin, and approximately

3 l clients. and the documents include what appears to be a note from Augtlstin to investigators

identitying tbur ofthe people he referred to CHS 2 as people who, in turn, refkrred others to

CHS 2. 'l'hese docum ents appear to have been calculated to support Atlgustin's false claim s to

investigators.

1 5 As documented above, however, Atlgustin was in regular contact w ith C I'IS 2 about these

referrals aûer M ay 1 3, 2020, and pushed CHS 2 to act on partictllar clients at particular tim es.

In fbct, when kickbacks were paid, A ugustin generally received l 2.5% , and Iesser

aluoullts were the exception rather than the rule.

Page 25 of 26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 26 of 28
CO NCLUSION

Based on the forgoing, I respectfully subm it that there is probable cause to believe

that Pl IILLIP J. AUG I-JSTIN and W YLEIA NASI-ION W IIaLIA M S com m itted the Target

Offenses, and to issue the requested arrest warrants.

?

i

; ;. .. '

- . . l i' ' 1

.

. .

M atthew Scalisi

Special Agent

Federal Btlreau of Investigation

This affidavit was sworn to by the affsant by telephone after a PDF was transm itted by email. per

Fed. R. Crim P. 3, 4(d), and 4. l on this day. July 28s 2020.

xEs Dls.r .N. > Yc Q 6 >'

* o t #k : r ,$ o

z .,tk y. f x.

o '# # .,4 + 

t

. k)' )' . ) 8 . Jjrsjyly.

* .Q î:h - 

' - - ) .i;'.;.' '.-r' . .sb -'' -$t.

,hq -t k.. ! tr .

. y . k 1 .. (2,

o . ,. : 4W x O *fl/sfmsfl

t

'

mz r . J 3

David A. Ruiz

U.S. M agistrate Judge

Page 26 of 26

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 27 of 28
zït ) 442 ( Rktv l l / l 1 j Arrcst Ssfal'ranl

U NITED STATES D ISTRICT C OURT

for the

Northen'l District of Ohio

United States of Almerica

k .

W YLEIA NASHON W ILLIAMS Case No. l :20M J2208

A RR EST W A RR AN T

-1-0* Any attthorized law en fbrcelnent otxcer

YOU ARE COM M AN DED to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate jtldge without tlnnecessary delay

tname fpyhcnwv? to /Jt, arresledl VVYLEIA NAsHo N vvI LLIAMS

who is accused of an oftknse or violation based on the following document Gled with the court:

(D Indictment Superseding Indictment O Infornlation O Superseding Information (# Complaint

ED Probation Violation Petition (D Supervised Release Violation Petition (D Violation Notice (D Order of the Court

This oftknse is brietly described as tbllows:

Wire fraud, bank fraud, and attempt and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, in violation of 1 8 U.S.C. jj 1343,

1 344, 1349, and 2

Date: 07/28/2020

City and state: Cleveland, OH

.<F.I Df&r x > *z wa .e''-e- % Q th

a* s .. o

2.2 U,.' f; ' G. . .4. ' ' ! *

.D tkk # ..4 '..@ f

b , ,

%

o . . .,p z V ' : ' g,.. g-y I. ' '

b 1 O V oo t

& cx N ors-f'sï

t

f 4

/ 5'x tting /./.,/** l (?e/' 's .$'/'g/?a lu

David A. RMig, U=S-o -M- Mgiytrate Judge

IAt-ittt ézc/ l)(Illt g (Itï6l rï/ le

Return

This warrant was received on tdatel . and the person was arrested on (dato

at lcilv (v/?t./ stttte)

13 at e :

1?./-t?.s'?

'

'';/ ?g otjvtce'. '.5, .s./v.,?a?l/re

Case 0:20-mj-06304-PMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 28 of 28