IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

[UNDER SEAL],

 Plaintiff,

v. 

[UNDER SEAL],

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 

FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

FEDERAL FALSE 

CLAIMS ACT

FILED UNDER SEAL

PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C. 

§ 3730 (b)(2)

DO NOT PUT ON PACER

DO NOT PLACE IN PRESS 

BOX

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

KP Oct 14, 2022 Miami

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 1 of 47
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

ex. rel. WADE RINER

 Plaintiff,

v. 

HUNTERS RUN PROPERTY 

OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., 

ET AL. 

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. _____________

RELATOR WADE 

RINER’S ORIGINAL 

COMPLAINT

FILED UNDER SEAL

PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C. 

§ 3730 (b)(2)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

RELATOR WADE RINER’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 2 of 47
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Page)

I. Introduction: Covid-19, PPP, and the Opportunists .............................................................................1

II. Parties ...................................................................................................................................................3

III. Responeat Superior and Vicarious Liability ......................................................................................8

IV. Jurisdiction and Venue......................................................................................................................8

V. Original Source and Disclosures............................................................................................................9

VI. The Paycheck Protection Program....................................................................................................9

VII. Defendants’ Fraud...........................................................................................................................16

VIII. Actionable Conduct by Defendants................................................................................................34

A. False Claims Act...............................................................................................................................34

B. Defendants’ Violations of the False Claims Act ..............................................................................36

i. Presentation of False or Fraudulent Claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)).............................36

ii. Making or Using—or causing to be made or used—False Records or Statements Material 

to False or Fraudulent Claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B)) ..........................................................36

C. Defendants’ Violations of the False Claims Act are Material..........................................................37

IX. Causes of Action..............................................................................................................................39

A. Count I – Presentation of False or Fraudulent Claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)) .........................39

B. Count II – Presentation of False or Fraudulent Claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)) ........................41

X. Prayer for Relief ..................................................................................................................................42

XI. Demand for Jury Trial......................................................................................................................43

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 3 of 47
1

Plaintiff/Relator Wade Riner (“Relator” or “Riner”) brings this action pursuant to the False 

Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–32, and seeks to recover all damages, penalties, and other 

remedies established by the FCA on behalf of the United States of America and on his own behalf. 

Relator respectfully shows the following:

I. INTRODUCTION: COVID-19, PPP, AND THE OPPORTUNISTS

1. After the crisis of the COVID-19 Coronavirus pandemic began, Congress passed

the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act—more commonly referred to as the 

“CARES Act”—in part to provide emergency relief to small businesses facing payroll difficulties 

and other concerns meeting their bottom-line in the midst of the pandemic. Unfortunately, this aid 

also attracted opportunistic actors who received aid that Congress never intended. Congress 

created the PPP in March 2020, as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security 

(CARES) Act, to provide emergency financial support to the millions of Americans suffering the 

economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act authorized billions of 

dollars in forgivable loans to small businesses struggling to pay employees and other business 

expenses. Throughout 2020 and 2021, PPP loan applicants were required to certify that they were 

eligible to receive a PPP loan.

2. Part of the aid in the CARES Act was the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), 

which provides forgivable, emergency loans to small businesses that certify to the United States 

Small Business Administration that they are qualified to receive the interest-free loan, that their 

loan request is necessary for continued operation, and that they will use funds only to pay payroll 

expenses, rent, mortgage, interest, or utilities during a covered period. 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 4 of 47
2

3. The PPP loans were originally intended to help traditional small businesses make 

it through the economic downturn that came as a consequence of the pandemic, but others wanted 

in. 

4. Numerous trade groups and similar associations lobbied Congress to be added as 

entities eligible for PPP loans. Among those groups were country clubs and community 

associations, which include housing cooperatives, condominium associations, and property owner 

associations. 

5. In December 2020, Congress passed and the president signed into law amendments 

to the CARES Act (the Economic Aid Act) that allowed housing cooperatives to apply for PPP 

loans. Condominium associations, homeowners associations, and other community associations 

were not included in the amendments, and neither were other not-for-profit organizations like 

country clubs. The list of eligible recipients only expanded one more time near the end of the final 

PPP application period—when President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into 

law on March 11, 2021, which included most 501(c) organizations as “additional covered nonprofit 

entities” but explicitly excluded 501(c)(4) organizations (the only 501(c) status for which a 

homeowners association or condominium association might be eligible). 

6. Despite the industry’s recognition that Congress had not allowed their participation 

in the Paycheck Protection Program, numerous community associations, particularly 

condominium associations, homeowners associations, and other not-for-profit organizations, 

applied for PPP loans anyway, falsely certifying to the United States that they were eligible for 

funding and that they needed the loans after also certifying in the Application that “I have read the 

statements included in this form, including the Statements Required by Law and Executive Orders, 

and I understand them.” They did so even though they had millions of dollars in revenue every 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 5 of 47
3

year that was not reliant on the unpredictable swings of the economy but instead on a simple tool: 

assessments to their wealthy membership. Many country clubs nationwide acted similarly. Rather 

than obtain PPP loans as the intended American businesses in need, Defendants approached the 

program as opportunists. And by fraudulently applying for these PPP loans, the rich got richer 

while depriving needy Americans of the boost that Congress sought to give them. 

7. In total, the Defendant not-for-profit condominium associations and not-for-profit

homeowners associations fraudulently applying for PPP loans received millions of dollars in 

forgivable funding, directly depriving the United States of millions of dollars and preventing 

worthy and needy small businesses from receiving congressionally approved loans. Not-for-profit

community associations were not the only culprits. Not-for-profit so-called “country clubs” were 

not eligible and also wrongly applied for and received PPP. 

8. As Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton has explained, “PPP loans 

were intended to provide critical relief to small businesses so that they could pay employees and 

maintain operations,” and the Department of Justice is “committed to pursuing those who 

knowingly violated the requirements of the PPP or other Covid-19 assistance programs and 

obtained relief funds to which they were not entitled”—particularly, with the assistance of qui tam 

relators. 

II. PARTIES

9. Plaintiff/Relator Wade Riner is a regular homeowner and investor. A corporation 

with which Riner is the officer and principle in turn owns multiple homes in Florida. Through 

ownership of these homes, Riner is a member of the Hunters Run Property Owners Association, 

Inc., and he was a member of the Boca West Master Association, Inc. until the fourth quarter of 

2021. Through his membership in these homeowners associations—both defendants here—he 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 6 of 47
4

learned that his homeowners associations had applied for millions of dollars of federal relief 

through PPP loans, even though they were not a business interest that qualified for such loans 

under the CARES Act. Riner subsequently learned that his own homeowners associations and 

numerous others defrauded the United States government by falsely certifying they were eligible 

for PPP loans that they were not, in fact, eligible for. Riner is intimately familiar with the finances 

and organization of these particular homeowners associations as well as homeowners associations 

and country clubs in general, including details of how such community associations and country 

clubs are governed and how they raise funds through their membership and other sources of 

liquidity. 

10. Defendants are all various not-for-profit entities. Although there may be some 

subtle differences in the Defendants’ governing documents, Defendants can generally be 

categorized in one of three ways: as a not-for-profit homeowners association, a not-for-profit 

condominium association, or a not-for-profit country club. 

11. Hunters Run Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Hunters Run”) is a not-for-profit

homeowners association located at 3500 Clubhouse Lane, Boynton Beach, FL.

12. Boca West Master Association, Inc. (“Boca West”) is a not-for-profit homeowners

association located at 20540 Country Club Blvd., Boca Raton, FL.

13. Aberdeen Golf & Country Club, Inc. (“Aberdeen Golf”) is a not-for-profit country

club located at 8251 Aberdeen Dr., Boynton Beach, FL.

14. Anchorage Resort and Yacht Club Condominium Association, Inc. (“Anchorage 

Resort”) is a not-for-profit condominium association located at 107800 Overseas Hwy, Key Largo, 

FL.

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 7 of 47
5

15. The Aragon Condominium Association of Boca Raton, Inc. (“The Aragon”) is a 

not-for-profit condominium association located at 2494 South Ocean Blvd, Boca Raton, FL.

16. BAL Harbor 101 Condominium Association, Inc. (“BAL Harbour”) is a not-forprofit condominium association located at 10155 Collins Ave., Bal Harbour, FL.

17. Bay Head at Johnathan’s Landing Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Bay Head”) is 

a not-for-profit homeowner’s association located at 16854 Bay St., Palm Beach, FL.

18. Boca Pointe Country Club, Inc. (“Boca Point Country Club”) is a not-for-profit

homeowners association located at 7144 Boca Pointe Drive, Boca Raton, FL.

19. Bocaire Country Club, Inc. (“Bocaire”) is a not-for-profit homeowners association 

located at 4989 Bocaire Blvd., Boca Raton, FL.

20. The Crossings HOA, Inc. (“Crossings HOA”) is a not-for-profit homeowners

association located at 11578 SW 132 Ave., Miami, FL.

21. Deering Bay Yacht and Country Club, Inc. (“Deering Bay”) is a not-for-profit

country club located at 13610 Deering Bay Dr., Coral Gables, FL.

22. Doral Park Country Club Association, Inc. (“Doral Park”) is a not-for-profit

homeowners association located at 5001 NW 104 Ave., Miami, FL.

23. Fortune House Condominium Association, Inc. (“Fortune House”) is a not-forprofit condominium association located at 185 SE 14th Terrace, Miami, FL. 

24. Frenchmans Creek, Inc. (“Frenchmans Creek”) is a not-for-profit homeowners 

association located at 13495 Tournament Drive, Palm Beach Gardens, FL.

25. Frenchmans Reserve Country Club (“Frenchmans Reserve”) is a not-for-profit

country club located at 3370 Grande Corniche, Palm Beach Gardens, FLS.

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 8 of 47
6

26. The Grand Condominium Association, Inc. (“Grand Condominium”) is a not-forprofit condominium association located at 1717 N. Bayshore Drive, Miami, FL.

27. Grand Harbor Golf & Beach Club, Inc. (“Grand Harbor Golf”) is a not-for-profit

country club located at 4785 Club Drive, Vero Beach, FL.

28. Hammocks Community Association, Inc. (“Hammocks Community”) is a not-forprofit homeowners association located at 9020 Hammocks Blvd., Miami, FL.

29. Lake Clarke Gardens Condominium, Inc. (“Lake Clarke Gardens”) is a not-forprofit condominium association located at 2981 Florida Mango Road, Lake Worth, FL.

30. Leverett House Condominium Association, Inc. (“Leverett House”) is a not-forprofit condominium association located at 120 Sunset Avenue, Palm Beach, FL.

31. The Loxahatchee Club Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Loxahatchee Club HOA”) 

is a not-for-profit homeowners association located at 1350 Echo Dr., Jupiter, FL.

32. The Loxahatchee Club, Inc. (“Loxahatchee Club”) is a not-for-profit homeowners 

association located at 1350 Echo Dr., Jupiter, FL.

33. Mayacoo Lakes II Club, Inc. (“Mayacoo Lakes”) is a not-for-profit country club 

located at 9697 Mayacoo Club Dr., West Palm Beach, FL.

34. Meadowood Golf & Tennis Club, Inc. (“Meadowood Golf”) is a not-for-profit

country club located at 9425 Meadowood Dr., Fort Pierce, FL.

35. Mimm Condominium Association (“Mimm”) is a not-for-profit condominium 

association located at 777 NW 72 Ave., Miami, FL.

36. Mirasol Club & Association, Inc. (“Mirasol Club”) is a not-for-profit homeowners 

association located at 11600 Mirasol Blvd., Palm Beach Gardens, FL.

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 9 of 47
7

37. Mizner Country Club, Inc. (“Mizner Club”) is a not-for-profit country club located 

at 16104 Mizner Club Dr., Delray Beach, FL.

38. Ocean Club Community Association, Inc. (“Ocean Club”) is a not-for-profit

homeowners association located at 753 Crandon Blvd., Key Biscayne, FL.

39. Old Palm Golf Club, Inc. (“Old Palm”) is a not-for-profit country club located at 

11889 Old Palm Dr., Palm Beach Gardens, FL.

40. Palm Beach Towers Condominium Association, Inc. (“Palm Beach Towers”) is a 

not-for-profit condominium association located at 44 Cocoanut Row, Palm Beach, FL.

41. Pine Island Ridge Country Club, Inc. (“Pine Island Ridge”) is a not-for-profit

country club located at 9400 Pine Ridge Dr., Fort Lauderdale, FL.

42. The Pinnacle Condominium Association, Inc. (“Pinnacle Condominium”) is a notfor-profit condominium association located at 17555 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, FL.

43. The Point of Aventura Maintenance Association (“Point of Aventura”) is a not-forprofit homeowners association located at 21125 Yacht Club Drive, Aventura, FL.

44. Quail Ridge Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Quail Ridge”) is a not-for-profit

homeowners association located at 3715 Golf Rd., Boynton Beach, FL.

45. Royal Palm Improvement Association, Inc. (“Royal Palm”) is a not-for-profit

homeowners association is located at 1650 S. Dixie Highway #100, Boca Raton, FL.

46. Tequesta Country Club (“Tequesta Club”) is a not-for-profit country club located 

at 201 Country Club Dr., Tequesta, FL.

47. The Township Community Master Association, Inc. (“Township Association”) is a 

not-for-profit homeowners association located at 2424 Lyons Road, Coconut Creek, FL.

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 10 of 47
8

48. Turnberry Ocean Colony Master Association, Inc. (“Turnberry Ocean Colony”) is 

a not-for-profit homeowners association located at 16049 Collins Ave., Sunny Isles Beach, FL.

49. Turnberry Towers Condominium Association, Inc. (“Turnberry Towers”) is a notfor-profit condominium association located at 19355 Turnberry Way, Miami, FL.

50. Williams Island Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Williams Island”) is a notfor-profit homeowners association located at 5300 Island Boulevard, Aventura, FL.

51. Willoughby Golf Club, Inc. (“Willoughby Golf”) is a not-for-profit homeowners

association located at 3001 SE Doubleton Drive, Stuart, FL.

52. Wycliffe Golf and Country Club HOA (“Wycliffe Golf”) is a not-for-profit

homeowners association located at 4650 Wycliffe Country Club Blvd., Wellington, FL.

53. The Yacht & Country Club, Inc. (“Yacht & Country Club”) is a not-for-profit

country club located at 38836 SE Fairway East, Stuart, FL.

III. RESPONEAT SUPERIOR AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY

54. Any and all acts alleged herein to have been committed by Defendants were 

committed by officers, directors, employees, representatives, or agents who at all times acted on 

behalf of the named Defendants and within the course and scope of their employment or agency.

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

55. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Southern District of Florida, pursuant to 

the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–33), because Relator’s claims seek remedies on behalf 

of the United States for multiple violations of 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–30. Furthermore, Defendants 

can be found in this district. 

56. Additionally, Defendants’ false claims relate directly to their status as not-for-profit

homeowner association, condominium associations, or country clubs—not “business interests” or 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 11 of 47
9

501(c)(3) nonprofit corporations entitled to PPP loans under Congress’s statue—and thus their 

fraud is against the United States as a whole. All Defendants are at home in the United States. 

Accordingly, under the FCA and requisites of due process, personal jurisdiction against all 

Defendants is proper in this United States federal district court. See J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. 

v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 884 (2011). 

V. ORIGINAL SOURCE AND DISCLOSURES

57. There are no bars to recovery under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e). To the extent that any 

allegations or transactions herein have been publicly disclosed, Relator has knowledge that is 

independent of and materially adds to any publicly disclosed allegations or transactions and had 

provided that information to the United States prior to filing the complaint by serving a voluntary 

Pre-Filing Disclosure Statement. 

58. As required by 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(b) and (e), Relator submitted and Original 

Disclosure Statement to the Attorney General of the United States and the United States Attorney 

for the Southern District of Florida, as well as all material evidence and information, prior to filing 

and serving this Original Complaint. 

VI. THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM

59. On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the 

“CARES Act”), Pub. L. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281, created the PPP, initially making $349 billion in 

forgivable loans available to small businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. 

Small Business Administration (“SBA”) administers the PPP, promulgates the rules and 

regulations governing the PPP, and guarantees all PPP loans made by lenders.

60. The PPP allowed small businesses (less than 500 employees) to obtain forgivable 

loans of up to $10 million, at 1% interest, to cover payroll costs, rent, mortgage interest, utilities, 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 12 of 47
10

and other overhead expenses for a “covered period.” CARES Act § 1102(a)(2)(36)(D)–(c), 134 

Stat. at 288–90.

61. PPP loans were processed and approved by qualified lenders that the SBA 

approves. Lenders issued PPP loans without the SBA’s prior review or express and individualized 

approval, but they agreed to be responsible for determining borrower eligibility under the SBA’s 

criteria. They were “deemed to have been delegated authority by the [SBA] Administrator to make 

and approve covered loans.” CARES Act § 1102(a)(2)(36)(F)(ii), 134 Stat. at 290.

62. For processing the PPP loans, the SBA reimbursed participating lenders with a 

processing fee equal to the amount of 5% of loans up to $350,000; 3% of loans between $350,000 

and $2,000,000; and 1% on loans of at least $2,000,000. See CARES Act § 1102(a)(2)(36)(P), 134 

Stat. at 293. Additionally, although the lenders funded the PPP loans with their own funds, the 

SBA 100% guaranteed these loans. 

63. PPP loans are also subject to complete forgiveness. CARES Act § 1106, 134 Stat. 

at 297–302. And within 90 days of which forgiveness is given, the SBA remits to the lender the 

full amount of forgiveness, plus any accrued interest. Id. § 1106(c)(3), 134 Stat. at 298.

64. The PPP was a program under the Small Business Act, Section 7(a). Generally 

speaking, a key eligibility requirement for Section 7(a) SBA loans is that the applicant be a 

business operating for profit. 

65. Pursuant to the CARES Act, PPP loans were originally available only to a “business 

concern, nonprofit organization, veterans organization,[] Tribal business,” or sole proprietorship 

that employed no more than 500 employees. See CARES Act § 1102(a)(2)(36)(D), 134 Stat. at 

288. Nonprofit-organization eligibility, however, was limited to 501(c)(3) organizations that are 

tax exempt. Id. § 1102(a)(2)(36)(A)(viii). 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 13 of 47
11

66. Eligibility for PPP is also spelled out in Interim Final Rule #1 published in the 

Federal Register on April 15, 2020 (answering the question, “How do I determine if I am 

ineligible?”). As it stated: “Businesses that are not eligible for PPP loans are identified in 13 CFR 

120.110 and described further in SBA’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 10 Subpart B, 

Chapter 2, except that nonprofit organizations authorized under the Act are eligible.” 85 Fed. Reg. 

20812. Meanwhile, 13 CFR 120.110 states that “non-profit businesses” are ineligible. 

67. Applicants for PPP loans were required to certify to a participating SBA-approved 

lender and to the SBA that they are eligible to receive the loan under the rules in effect at the time 

of their application. For example, the April 2020 SBA Form 2483 (the PPP application at the time) 

required applicants to certify as follows:

68. The PPP applications also required applicants to certify that the loan request is 

necessary to support their ongoing operations. As SBA Form 2483 required:

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 14 of 47
12

69. Recognizing that some applicants might be confused by this economic-uncertainty 

certification, the SBA provided a “safe harbor” when it issued Interim Final Rule #4 (85 Fed. Reg. 

23450 published April 28, 2020) stipulating that “any borrower that applied for a PPP loan and 

repays the loan in full by May 7, 2020, will be deemed by SBA to have made the required 

certification in good faith.” Interim Final Rule #4 additionally noted that the SBA would give 

additional guidance before May 14, 2020 concerning this certification, especially in helping PPP 

borrowers evaluate whether they “may have misunderstood or misapplied the statutory standard.” 

As of May 13, 2020, SBA clarified in its Frequently Asked Questions section of Interim Final Rule 

# 9, (85 Fed. Reg. 29845 published May 19, 2020) stating that “borrowers must make this 

certification in good faith, taking into account their current business activity and their ability to 

access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is 

not significantly detrimental to the business.” 

70. PPP applications additionally required applicants’ authorized representatives to 

specifically certify that all information provided on the application is true and accurate in all 

material respects as well as to certify their understanding that a false statement made in order to 

obtain a guaranteed loan from the SBA is punishable under the law. Again, from the April 2020 

SBA Form 2483:

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 15 of 47
13

71. Finally, when PPP loan recipients apply for forgiveness of their loan, they must 

further certify, through their authorized representative, that they have “complied with all 

requirements in the Paycheck Protection Program Rules,” including the statute passed in the 

CARES Act and the subsequent amendments. From SBA Form 3508S:

72. The PPP was originally funded by Congress with $349 Billion, but the funds were 

depleted on April 16, 2020—only weeks after the CARES Act passed. On April 24, 2020, the 

President signed the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, Pub. L. 

116-139, 134 Stat. 620, whereby Congress allocated an additional $320 Billion in funding.

73. Congress further expanded the PPP at the end of the year in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. 116-260. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, added 

$284.5 Billion to the PPP. Additionally, the Act allowed certain entities to obtain “second draw” 

PPP loans. By May 5, 2021, these additional funds had also been depleted.

74. One further amendment in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 made 

“housing cooperatives” eligible for PPP loans when it was enacted December 2020—but not 

homeowner associations, condominium associations, or other not-for-profit organizations. See 

Pub. L. 116-260, § 311(a). This is despite the fact that HOA condominium-association groups, 

along with country-club groups, lobbied Congress for their explicit inclusion.

75. Congress expanded the list of eligible recipients one last time near the end of the 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 16 of 47
14

final PPP application period—when the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law 

on March 11, 2021 and included most 501(c) organizations as “additional covered nonprofit 

entities.” Yet Congress still explicitly excluded 501(c)(4) organizations—the only 501(c) status 

for which a homeowners association or condominium association might be eligible. Thus, 

homeowner associations and condominium associations were still clearly ineligible. And while 

certain nonprofit country clubs were then eligible for PPP loans, they were only eligible for the 

final weeks of the application period and only if they met the specific 501(c)(7) tax-exempt status. 

See 86 Fed. Reg. 15083 (explaining that the American Rescue Plan Act changes only “apply to 

PPP loans approved, and loan forgiveness applications submitted, on or after March 11, 2021”).

76. The eligibility rules relevant to the Defendants for various nonprofit and not-forprofit organizations for PPP loans throughout the history of various congressional actions is 

summarized as follows:

Entity Type Eligibility Status & History

501(c)(3) nonprofits Always eligible

(CARES Act)

Cooperative Associations Eligible on or after Dec. 27, 2020 

(Economic Aid Act)

501(c)(7) nonprofits Eligible on or after Mar. 11, 2021

(American Rescue Plan)

501(c)(4) nonprofits Never eligible

Not-for-profit homeowners associations Never eligible

Not-for-profit condominium associations Never eligible

Not-for-profit country clubs Never eligible

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 17 of 47
15

77. Additionally, for entities that applied for a second-draw PPP loan, they again were 

required to certify their eligibility under the effective rules. From SBA Form 2483-SD:

78. Additionally, second-draw PPP applications continued to require another 

certification that all information provided on the application is true and accurate in all material 

respects as well as to certify their understanding that a false statement made in order to obtain a 

guaranteed loan from the SBA is punishable under the law. From SBA Form 2483-SD:

79. Finally, qui tam lawsuits are an appropriate remedy for violations of the PPP rules 

and regulations. In remarks given on February 17, 2021, for example, Acting Assistant Attorney 

General Brian M. Boynton explained: “It is clear to me and my colleagues in the Civil DivisionCase 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 18 of 47
16

and I’m sure to all of you-that the False Claims Act will play a significant role in the coming years 

as the government grapples with the consequences of this pandemic.” As he further pointed out, 

“[t]he vast majority of the funds distributed under these programs have gone to eligible recipients. 

Unfortunately, some individuals and businesses applied for-and received- payments to which they 

were not entitled.” Accordingly, “qui tams will continue to be an essential source of new leads, 

and the Department [of Justice] will continue to rely on whistleblowers to help root out the misuse 

and abuse of taxpayer funds.”

VII. DEFENDANTS’ FRAUD

80. Defendants knowingly told the SBA and participating lenders that they were 

qualified entities to receive PPP loans, even though they are all not-for-profit homeowners 

associations, condominium associations, or country clubs that do not qualify as qualified entities 

under Congress’s act. They also all knowingly misrepresented their need for these loans. Their 

fraud deprived the United States of the ability to loan appropriated funds to qualified businesses, 

as the funding for PPP loans ran out shortly after Defendants applied for their loans. 

81. Defendants’ false certification that they were qualified occurred despite them 

knowing or recklessly disregarding the fact that they were ineligible nonprofit organizations and 

that not-for-profit organizations like them were not eligible for-profit businesses under SBA 

Section 7(a) or “business interests” pursuant to the CARES Act or even SBA’s guidance and 

regulations. In fact, the SBA published—and, upon congressional amendments, updated, FAQs 

for the PPP loans including an answer for “Who is Eligible”—and neither not-for-profit

community associations like housing associations and condominium associations nor not-forprofit country clubs were ever listed in the answer to that question. The only community groups 

that was ever listed were housing cooperatives, and that was after specific congressional 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 19 of 47
17

amendments to allow housing cooperatives to apply. Additionally, “non-profit businesses” were 

explicitly excluded in official guidance, further telling Defendants—who are all non-profit or notfor-profit organizations—that they were ineligible. Further, because the associations’ lobbyists 

were fighting for inclusion in the PPP, the Defendants inherently knew that they could not qualify 

without new amendments by Congress that never materialized. Defendants realized they could slip 

by rushed bankers and regulators by purporting to be a “business interest” without actually being 

one. 

82. Defendants’ other false certifications—that economic uncertainty made the PPP 

loans necessary to support their ongoing operations—were in bad faith, given the strong finances 

of Defendants and how they could raise money. The SBA required applicants to make this 

certification in good faith and admonished applicants to consider “their ability to access other 

sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not 

significantly detrimental to the business.” The SBA even gave an example of a business that could 

not make this certification: “it is unlikely that a public company with substantial market value and 

access to capital markets will be able to make the required certification in good faith.” There is no 

circumstance under which a homeowners’ association, condominium association, or not-for-profit

country club could certify in good faith that they do not have access to other sources of liquidity 

to support their ongoing operations. While Defendants were not public companies, they still had 

substantial value of their own and access not only to capital markets but also a more readily 

available source of funds—the wealthy members and assets. For example, Hunters Run currently 

has annual revenue of over $33 million per year. Hunters Run’s budget supported championship 

golf courses, tennis courts, pools, a 145,000-square-foot clubhouse, and more, all valued at tens of 

millions of dollars themselves. Hunters Run spent over $40 million in a 5-year period on nonCase 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 20 of 47
18

maintenance improvements to their recreational facilities. Hunters Run also continuously 

maintains millions of dollars in reserve funds, and Hunters Run charges new residents a nonrefundable initiation fee of $85,000. As another example, Bays Head is so exclusive that it reported 

apparently 28 separate employees, even though it is a property owners’ association with only six 

properties.

83. Unlike businesses (who rely on sales by voluntary consumers, or other voluntary 

business) or even 501(c)(3) nonprofits (who rely on voluntary donations), housing associations, 

condominium associations, and not-for-profit country clubs do not rely on such voluntary funding 

subject to economic whims—instead, they rely on mandatory assessments and/or dues and fees 

from their membership. Defendants’ members are particularly wealthy, often with net worth of 

tens of millions of dollars, and it would not have been a hardship to raise their assessments and/or 

dues and fees in order to continue operations even assuming the highly doubtful proposition that 

the pandemic represented a hardship on these defendants. 

84. Furthermore, these associations and country clubs are created as not-for-profits

under Florida law and given special authority and powers including the power to “make contracts 

and guaranties, incur liabilities, borrow money at such rates of interest as the corporation may 

determine, issue its notes, bonds, and other obligations, and secure its obligations by mortgage and 

pledge of all or any of its property, franchises or income.” Fla. Stat. § 617.0302. Homeowners 

associations and condominium associations have the additional powers to assess a sum of money 

which if not paid by the owner of a parcel, can result in a lien against the parcel. See Fla. Stat. 

720.301, 720.308, 718.116. These powers are further reason that Defendants’ false certifications 

that they needed the PPP loans were thus in knowing or reckless ignorance of their true financial 

situation. 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 21 of 47
19

85. The Defendants’ false certifications to the SBA and the lenders were material, 

because the SBA and lenders were relying on the honesty of applicants to process PPP loans as 

quickly as possible in order to get relief to American businesses as Congress intended. 

86. Moreover, most of the Defendants, building on this fraud, have already applied for 

loan forgiveness from the United States and had their loans forgiven in full, thus directly depriving 

the United States of the full amount of the loans and the interest accrued on the loans. The 

forgiveness actually given (and forgiveness potential for entities that have not applied) is equal to 

hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars per Defendant. 

87. Some of the Defendants went even further and applied for a second loan, yet again 

fraudulently and falsely claiming that they were eligible entities under the CARES Act, even 

though they are just homeowners associations, condominium associations, or not-for-profit

country clubs. 

88. The damages suffered by the United States extended beyond the simple amount of 

the loans. The damages also include the Government’s other incidental expenses supporting the 

particular PPP loans. For example, Defendants induced the United States to pay fees to banks and 

other financial institutions in order to execute these fraudulent loans. 

89. Each Defendant knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a 

loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” They also falsely certified 

that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing 

operations of the Applicant.” Defendants each applied for and received loans in violation of the 

FCA as summarized in the following table:

Defendant

# of 

Loans 

Rec’d

Loan(s) 

Amount

Date 

Loan(s) 

Approved

Loan 

Forgiven?

Amount of Loan 

Forgiven

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 22 of 47
20

Hunters Run Property Owners 

Association, Inc

(www.huntersrun.net)

1 $2,870,271 04/29/20 Yes $2,906,680

Boca West Master Association, Inc

(www.bocawestmaster.com)

1 $745,500 04/15/20 Unknown Unknown

Aberdeen Golf & Country Club 

Inc

(https://aberdeencountryclub.com)

1 $1,308,433 4/13/2020 Yes $1,307,362

Anchorage Resort and Yacht Club 

Condominium Association Inc 2

$104,120

$104,120

04/28/20

03/26/21

Yes

Yes

$105,129

$104,696

The Aragon Condominium 

Association Of Boca Raton, Inc 1 $116,966 04/30/20 Yes $118,584

BAL Harbour 101 Condominium 

Association, Inc 1 $270,800 04/15/20 Yes $272,284

Bay Head at Jonathan’s Landing 

Homeowners Association Inc 1 $287,500 3/13/2021 Unknown Unknown

Boca Pointe Country Club, Inc 1 $927,800 4/14/2020 Unknown Unknown

Bocaire Country Club, Inc

(www.bocairecc.com)

1 $751,717 4/9/2020 Yes $758,942

The Crossings HOA Inc 1 $178,200 04/09/20 Yes $179,523

Deering Bay Yacht and Country 

Club

(https://www.dbycc.com)

1 $792,200 4/10/2020 Yes $799,836

Doral Park Country Club 

Association

(www.doralparkcc.com)

2

$327,175

$305,360

04/14/20

04/03/21

Yes

Yes

$330,956

$307,498

Fortune House Condominium 

Association, Inc. 1 $259,400 04/08/20 Yes $261,781

Frenchmans Creek Inc

(www.frenchmanscreek.com)

1 $2,796,200 4/27/2020 Yes $2,826,843

Frenchmans Reserve Country Club

(www.frenchmansreservecc.com)

1 $1,375,333 5/1/2020 Yes $1,392,214

The Grand Condominium 

Association, Inc 1 $283,683 04/12/20 Yes $286,827

Grand Harbor Golf & Beach Club, 

Inc

(https://grandharbor.com)

1 $982,748 4/26/2021 Yes $985,805

Hammocks Community 

Association Inc 2

$259,000

$191,500

04/28/20

03/12/21

Yes

Unknown

$260,973

Unknown

Lake Clarke Gardens 

Condominium, Inc 1 $124,120 05/01/20 Yes $124,848

Leverett House Condominium 

Association, Inc 1 $141,700 04/30/20 Yes $142,940

The Loxahatchee Club 1 $228,047 04/28/20 Unknown Unknown

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 23 of 47
21

Homeowners Association, Inc

The Loxahatchee Club, Inc

(www.loxahatcheeclub.org)

1 $645,236 04/28/20 Yes $651,527

Mayacoo Lakes II Club Inc 2

$386,615

$386,615

4/19/2020

1/22/2021

Yes

Yes

$389,729

$388,839

Meadowood Golf & Tennis Club 

Inc 1 $210,280 4/14/2020 Yes $211,769

Mimm Condomium Association, 

Inc. 1 $315,000 04/06/20 Unknown Unknown

Mirasol Club & Association Inc

(www.mirasolcc.com) 1 $2,871,200 04/09/20 Yes $2,904,219

Mizner Country Club Inc

(www.miznercc.com) 1 $1,628,509 4/15/2020 Yes $1,639,083

Ocean Club Community 

Association, Inc

(www.oceanclubkeybiscayne.org)

1 $1,067,500 5/6/2020 Yes $1,075,862

Old Palm Golf Club, Inc

(www.oldpalmgolfclub.com) 1 $1,035,500 4/10/2020 Yes $1,043,784

Palm Beach Towers Condominium 

Association, Inc

(www.pbtowers.net)

1 $519,200 04/15/20 Yes $523,211

Pine Island Ridge Country Club 

Inc 1 $532,995 4/11/2020 Yes $535,740

The Pinnacle Condominium 

Association, Inc 1 $248,000 04/30/20 Yes $249,860

The Point of Aventura 

Maintenance Association

(www.pointofaventuracondos.com)

1 $516,724 04/28/20 Unknown Unknown

Quail Ridge Property Owners 

Association Inc

(www.quailridgecc.com)

1 $1,444,970 05/01/20 Yes $1,453,679

Royal Palm Improvement 

Association, Inc (www.rpia.info) 1 $283,370 05/01/20 Yes $286,124

Tequesta Country Club 1 $516,993 4/13/2020 Yes $523,398

The Township Community Master 

Association, Inc 1 $269,277 5/2/2020 Yes $272,951

Turnberry Ocean Colony Master 

Association, Inc

(www.turnberryyo.com)

1 $764,800 4/13/2020 Yes $770,515

Turnberry Towers Condominium 

Association, Inc. 1 $275,156 04/27/20 Yes $277,678

Williams Island Property Owners 

Association, Inc

(www.williamsislandclub.com)

1 $2,629,000 05/01/20 Yes $2,658,099

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 24 of 47
22

Willoughby Golf Club, Inc 1 $888,013 4/11/2020 Yes $896,795

Wycliffe Golf and Country Club 

HOA (www.wycliffecc.com) 1 $2,138,600 05/01/20 Yes $2,168,184

The Yacht & Country Club Inc

(https://www.yccstuart.org) 2

$482,756

$484,788

4/11/2020

2/10/2021

Yes

Yes

$485,465

$488,020

90. Hunters Run applied for and received a PPP loan of $2,870,271, approved on April 

29, 2020. In Hunters Run’s application, Hunters Run knowingly and falsely certified that it was 

“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It 

also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Hunters Run already applied for forgiveness for 

its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $2,906,680 (including interest).

91. Boca West applied for and received a PPP loan of $745,500, approved on April 15, 

2020. In Boca West’s application, Boca West knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible 

to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely 

certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the 

ongoing operations of the Applicant.” 

92. Aberdeen Golf applied for and received a PPP loan of $1,308,433, approved on 

April 13, 2020. In Aberdeen Golf’s application, Aberdeen Golf knowingly and falsely certified 

that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is 

submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request 

necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Aberdeen Golf already applied for 

forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $1,307,362 

(including interest).

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 25 of 47
23

93. Anchorage Resort applied for and received a PPP loan of $104,120, approved on 

April 28, 2020. Anchorage Resort applied for and was approved for a second PPP loan of 

$104,120, approved on March 26, 2021. In Anchorage Resort’s applications, Anchorage Resort 

knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at 

the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic 

uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” 

Anchorage Resort has applied for forgiveness for its first loan, and the United States forgave the 

first loan in the amount of $105,129 (including interest). Anchorage Resort applied for forgiveness 

for its second loan, and the United States forgave this second loan in the amount of $104,696 

(including interest).

94. The Aragon applied for and received a PPP loan of $116,966, approved on April 

30, 2020. In The Aragon’s application, The Aragon knowingly and falsely certified that it was 

“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It 

also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” The Aragon already applied for forgiveness for 

its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $118,584 (including interest).

95. BAL Harbour applied for and received a PPP loan of $270,800, approved on April 

15, 2020. In BAL Harbour’s application, BAL Harbour knowingly and falsely certified that it was 

“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It 

also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” BAL Harbour already applied for forgiveness 

for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $272,284 (including interest).

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 26 of 47
24

96. Bay Head applied for and received a PPP loan of $287,500, approved on March 3, 

2021. In Bay Head’s application, Bay Head knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to 

receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely 

certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the 

ongoing operations of the Applicant.” 

97. Boca Pointe Country Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $927,800, 

approved on April 14, 2020. In Boca Pointe Country Club’s application, Boca Pointe Country Club 

knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at 

the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic 

uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” 

98. Bocaire applied for and received a PPP loan of $751,717, approved on April 9, 

2020. In Bocaire’s application, Bocaire knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to 

receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely 

certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the 

ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Bocaire already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the 

United States forgave the loan in the amount of $758,942 (including interest).

99. Crossings HOA applied for and received a PPP loan of $178,200, approved on April 

9, 2020. In Crossings HOA’s application, Crossings HOA knowingly and falsely certified that it 

was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” 

It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Crossings HOA already applied for forgiveness 

for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $179,523 (including interest).

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 27 of 47
25

100. Deering Bay applied for and received a PPP loan of $792,200, approved on April 

10, 2020. In Deering Bay’s application, Deering Bay knowingly and falsely certified that it was 

“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It 

also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Deering Bay already applied for forgiveness for 

its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $799,836 (including interest).

101. Doral Park applied for and received a PPP loan of $327,175, approved on April 14, 

2020. Doral Park applied for and was approved for a second PPP loan of $305,360, approved on 

April 3, 2021. In Doral Park’s applications, Doral Park knowingly and falsely certified that it was 

“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It 

also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Doral Park has applied for forgiveness for its 

first loan, and the United States forgave the first loan in the amount of $330,956 (including 

interest). Doral Park applied for forgiveness for its second loan, and the United States forgave this 

second loan in the amount of $307,498 (including interest).

102. Fortune House applied for and received a PPP loan of $259,400, approved on April 

8, 2020. In Fortune House’s application, Fortune House knowingly and false certified that it was 

“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It 

also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Fortune House already applied for forgiveness 

of its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $261,781 (including interest).

103. Frenchmans Creek applied for and received a PPP loan of $2,796,200, approved on 

April 27, 2020. In Frenchmans Creek’s application, Frenchmans Creek knowingly and falsely 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 28 of 47
26

certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application 

is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request 

necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Frenchmans Creek already applied 

for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $2,826,843 

(including interest).

104. Frenchmans Reserve applied for and received a PPP loan of $1,375,333, approved 

on May 1, 2020. In Frenchmans Reserve’s application, Frenchmans Reserve knowingly and falsely 

certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application 

is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request 

necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Frenchmans Reserve already 

applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of 

$1,392,214 (including interest).

105. Grand Condominium applied for and received a PPP loan of $283,683, approved 

on April 12, 2020. In Grand Condominium’s application, Grand Condominium knowingly and 

falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] 

application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this 

loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Grand Condominium

already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount 

of $286,683 (including interest).

106. Grand Harbor Golf applied for and received a PPP loan of $982,748, approved on 

April 26, 2021. In Grand Harbor Golf’s application, Grand Harbor Golf knowingly and falsely 

certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application 

is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 29 of 47
27

necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Grand Harbor Golf already applied 

for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $985,805

(including interest).

107. Hammocks Community applied for and received a PPP loan of $259,000, approved 

on April 28, 2020. Hammocks Community applied for and was approved for a second PPP loan 

of $191,500, approved on March 12, 2021. In Hammocks Community’s applications, Hammocks 

Community knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules 

in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic 

uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” 

Hammocks Community has applied for forgiveness for its first loan, and the United States forgave 

the first loan in the amount of $260,973 (including interest). 

108. Lake Clarke Gardens applied for and received a PPP loan of $124,120, approved 

on May 1, 2020. In Lake Clarke Gardens’s application, Lake Clarke Gardens knowingly and 

falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] 

application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this 

loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Lake Clarke Gardens

already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount 

of $124,848 (including interest).

109. Leverett House applied for and received a PPP loan of $141,700, approved on April 

30, 2020. In Leverett House’s application, Leverett House knowingly and falsely certified that it 

was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” 

It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 30 of 47
28

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Leverett House already applied for forgiveness 

for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $142,940 (including interest).

110. Loxahatchee Club HOA applied for and received a PPP loan of $228,047, approved 

on April 28, 2020. In Loxahatchee Club HOA’s application, Loxahatchee Club HOA knowingly 

and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] 

application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this 

loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” 

111. Loxahatchee Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $645,236, approved on 

April 28, 2020. In Loxahatchee Club’s application, Loxahatchee Club knowingly and falsely 

certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application 

is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request 

necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Loxahatchee Club already applied 

for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $651,527

(including interest).

112. Mayacoo Lakes applied for and received a PPP loan of $386,615, approved on April 

19, 2020. Mayacoo Lakes applied for and was approved for a second PPP loan of $386,615, 

approved on January 22, 2021. In Mayacoo Lakes’s applications, Mayacoo Lakes knowingly and 

falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] 

application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this 

loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Mayacoo Lakes has 

applied for forgiveness for its first loan, and the United States forgave the first loan in the amount 

of $389,729 (including interest). Mayacoo Lakes applied for forgiveness for its second loan, and 

the United States forgave this second loan in the amount of $388,839 (including interest).

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 31 of 47
29

113. Meadowood Golf applied for and received a PPP loan of $210,280, approved on 

April 14, 2020. In Meadowood Golf’s application, Meadowood Golf knowingly and falsely 

certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application 

is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request 

necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Meadowood Golf already applied 

for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $211,769 

(including interest).

114. Mimm applied for and received a PPP loan of $315,000, approved on April 6, 2020. 

In Mimm’s application, Mimm knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a 

loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that 

“[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing 

operations of the Applicant.”

115. Mirasol Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $2,871,200, approved on April 

9, 2020. In Mirasol Club’s application, Mirasol Club knowingly and falsely certified that it was 

“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It 

also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Mirasol Club already applied for forgiveness for 

its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $2,904,219 (including interest).

116. Mizner Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $1,628,509, approved on April 

15, 2020. In Mizner Club’s application, Mizner Club knowingly and falsely certified that it was 

“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It 

also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 32 of 47
30

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Mizner Club already applied for forgiveness for 

its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $1,639,083 (including interest).

117. Ocean Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $1,067,500, approved on May 

6, 2020. In Ocean Club’s application, Ocean Club knowingly and falsely certified that it was 

“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It 

also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Ocean Club already applied for forgiveness for 

its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $1,075,862 (including interest).

118. Old Palm applied for and received a PPP loan of $1,035,500, approved on April 10, 

2020. In Old Palm’s application, Old Palm knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to 

receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely 

certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the 

ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Old Palm already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and 

the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $1,043,784 (including interest).

119. Palm Beach Towers applied for and received a PPP loan of $519,200, approved on 

April 15, 2020. In Palm Beach Towers’s application, Palm Beach Towers knowingly and falsely 

certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application 

is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request 

necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Palm Beach Towers already applied 

for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $523,211

(including interest).

120. Pine Island Ridge received a PPP loan of $532,995, approved on April 11, 2020. In 

Pine Island Ridge’s application, Pine Island Ridge knowingly and falsely certified that it was 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 33 of 47
31

“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It 

also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Pine Island Ridge already applied for 

forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $535,740

(including interest).

121. Pinnacle Condominium applied for and received a PPP loan of $248,000, approved 

on April 30, 2020. In Pinnacle Condominium’s application, Pinnacle Condominium knowingly 

and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] 

application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this 

loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Pinnacle 

Condominium already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan 

in the amount of $249,860 (including interest).

122. Point of Aventura applied for and received a PPP loan of $516,724, approved on 

April 28, 2020. In Point of Aventura’s application, Point of Aventura knowingly and falsely 

certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application 

is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request 

necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” 

123. Quail Ridge applied for and received a PPP loan of $1,444,970, approved on May 

1, 2020. In Quail Ridge’s application, Quail Ridge knowingly and falsely certified that it was 

“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It 

also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Quail Ridge already applied for forgiveness for 

its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $1,453,679 (including interest).

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 34 of 47
32

124. Royal Palm applied for and received a PPP loan of $283,370, approved on May 1, 

2020. In Royal Palm’s application, Royal Palm knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible 

to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely 

certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the 

ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Royal Palm already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and 

the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $286,124 (including interest).

125. Tequesta Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $516,993, approved on April 

13, 2020. In Tequesta Club’s application, Tequesta Club knowingly and falsely certified that it 

was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” 

It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Tequesta Club already applied for forgiveness 

for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $523,398 (including interest).

126. Township Association applied for and received a PPP loan of $269,277, approved 

on May 2, 2020. In Township Association’s application, Township Association knowingly and 

falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] 

application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this 

loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Township Association

already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount 

of $272,951 (including interest).

127. Turnberry Ocean Colony applied for and received a PPP loan of $764,800, 

approved on April 13, 2020. In Turnberry Ocean Colony’s application, Turnberry Ocean Colony

knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at 

the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 35 of 47
33

uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” 

Turnberry Ocean Colony already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave 

the loan in the amount of $770,515 (including interest).

128. Turnberry Towers applied for and received a PPP loan of $275,156, approved on 

April 27, 2020. In Turnberry Towers’s application, Turnberry Towers knowingly and falsely 

certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application 

is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request 

necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Turnberry Towers already applied 

for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $277,678

(including interest).

129. Williams Island applied for and received a PPP loan of $2,629,000, approved on 

May 1, 2020. In Williams Island’s application, Williams Island knowingly and falsely certified 

that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is 

submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request 

necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Williams Island already applied for 

forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $2,658,099

(including interest).

130. Willoughby Golf applied for and received a PPP loan of $888,013, approved on 

April 11, 2020. In Willoughby Golf’s application, Willoughby Golf knowingly and falsely 

certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application 

is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request 

necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Willoughby Golf already applied 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 36 of 47
34

for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $896,795

(including interest).

131. Wycliffe Golf applied for and received a PPP loan of $2,138,600, approved on May 

1, 2020. In Wycliffe Golf’s application, Wycliffe Golf knowingly and falsely certified that it was 

“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It 

also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to 

support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Wycliffe Golf already applied for forgiveness 

for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $2,168,184 (including interest).

132. Yacht & Country Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $482,756, approved 

on April 11, 2020. Yacht & Country Club applied for and was approved for a second PPP loan of 

$484,788, approved on February 10, 2021. In Yacht & Country Club’s applications, Yacht & 

Country Club knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules 

in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic 

uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” 

Yacht & Country Club has applied for forgiveness for its first loan, and the United States forgave 

the first loan in the amount of $485,465 (including interest). Yacht & Country Club applied for 

forgiveness for its second loan, and the United States forgave this second loan in the amount of 

$488,020 (including interest).

VIII. ACTIONABLE CONDUCT BY DEFENDANTS

A. FALSE CLAIMS ACT

133. This is an action to recover damages and civil penalties on behalf of the United 

States and the Relator arising from false or fraudulent statements, claims, and acts by Defendants 

made in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–32. 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 37 of 47
35

134. The FCA provides that any person who:

(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false claim or 

fraudulent claim for approval; [or]

(B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or 

statement material to a false or fraudulent claim;

... 

is liable to the Government for a civil penalty not less than $11,665 and not more than 

$22,331 for each such claim, plus three times the amount of damages sustained by the 

Government because of the false or fraudulent claim. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1).

135. The FCA defines “claim” as:

(A) [] any request or demand, whether under a contract or otherwise, for 

money or property and whether or not the United States has title to the 

money or property, that—

(i) is presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the United States; 

or

(ii) is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the money 

or property is to be spent or used on the Government’s behalf or to 

advance a Government program or interest, and if the United States 

Government—

(31) provides or has provided any portion of the money or 

property requested or demanded; or

(II) will reimburse such contractor, grantee, or other 

recipient for any portion of the money or property which is 

requested or demanded. ... 

31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2).

136. The FCA allows any persons having knowledge of a false or fraudulent claim 

against the Government to bring an action in federal district court for themselves and for the 

Government and to share in any recovery as authorized by 31 U.S.C. § 3730. 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 38 of 47
36

137. Based on these provisions, Relator Riner, on behalf of the United States and on his 

own behalf, seeks through this action to recover damages and civil penalties arising from 

Defendants’ violations of the False Claims Act.

B. DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT

i. PRESENTATION OF FALSE OR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (31 U.S.C. § 3729(A)(1)(A))

138. In 2020 and 2021, Defendants knowingly presented false and fraudulent claims for 

payment and approval directly to their lenders, deputized agents of the United States government, 

which falsely stated that they were eligible entities for PPP loans and that they needed the loans in 

order to support their ongoing operations. The falseness of these claims was exacerbated when 

Defendants applied for forgiveness of their loans and falsely certified that they complied with all 

the requirements of the PPP Rules. 

139. Due to Defendants’ actions, Defendants collectively borrowed millions of dollars 

of forgivable loans that, even if paid back, are also set at a below-market interest rate. These loans 

were disbursed at the expense of countless United States businesses who qualified for PPP loans 

but could not apply because Congress’s funding ran out. Additionally, the United States has paid 

millions of dollars to lenders for the forgiven loans, which is now lost. Accordingly, the United 

States has suffered actual damages and is entitled to recover treble damages plus a civil monetary 

penalty for each false claim.

ii. MAKING OR USING—OR CAUSING TO BE MADE OR USED—FALSE RECORDS OR 

STATEMENTS MATERIAL TO FALSE OR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (31 U.S.C. § 3729(A)(1)(B))

140. In 2020 and 2021, Defendants made, use, or caused to be made or used, false 

records or statements material to false or fraudulent claims paid or approved by the Government.

141. Defendants knew that their applications falsely certified that they were entities 

eligible to receive PPP loans and that they falsely certified that the PPP loans were necessary to 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 39 of 47
37

support ongoing operations. Beyond Defendants’ own direct claims, Defendants’ false statements 

knowingly caused these false claims, which were material to the lenders’ eventual claims to the 

United States for additional interest and loan-forgiveness reimbursement.

142. Due to Defendants’ actions, Defendants collectively borrowed millions of dollars 

of forgivable loans that their lenders’ then received millions of dollars in payments for 

administering and reimbursing. The United States disbursed this money to the lenders at the 

expense of countless United States businesses who qualified for PPP loans but could not apply 

because Congress’s funding ran out. Additionally, the United States has paid millions of dollars to 

lenders for the forgiven loans, which is now lost. Accordingly, the United States has suffered actual 

damages and is entitled to recover treble damages plus a civil monetary penalty for each false 

claim.

C. DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT ARE MATERIAL.

143. A false or fraudulent claim under subsection (a)(1)(A) or a false record or statement 

under subsection (a)(1)(B) subjects a defendant to liability if it is material. The False Claims Act 

defines “material” as “having a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the 

payment or receipt of money or property.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(4).

144. The United States set up a multi-part process of reliance on others in order to 

expeditiously execute the PPP program and keep the economy on track despite the COVID-19 

Pandemic. First, Congress and the SBA authorized certain lenders to issue PPP loans without the 

Government’s prior review or express approval. Second, although lenders were delegated the 

responsibility for determining borrower eligibility, the lenders were directed to use forms 

promulgated by the SBA that included numerous certifications—including a certification of 

eligibility.

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 40 of 47
38

145. The lenders—and thus by extension the United States Government—relied heavily 

on these certifications. Indeed, when the PPP was originally funded with $349 Billion, those funds 

were depleted less than three weeks after the CARES Act first passed. Lenders and the United 

States Government instinctively relied on applicants’ promises of eligibility, particularly when no 

data submitted on the application obviously indicated ineligibility. 

146. In particular, to process loans so quickly, lenders utilized an automated tool that 

compared loan data against publicly available information and identified anomalies that may 

indicate non-compliance purely based on this data. See SBA Procedural Notice, No. 5000-20092 

(Feb. 10, 2021).1 This data was largely limited to information about the number of employees and 

payroll size of applicant companies, which were key components to qualifications as well. The 

automated tool’s focus on this data, however, meant that qualifications such as the fact that only 

certain types of entities (“business interests” and certain specified other organizations) were less 

noticeable and more tied to applicants’ certification that they qualified for the PPP loan in the first 

instance.

147. The SBA sometimes conducted additional data analysis beyond the automated tool 

in order to identify noncompliant applicants. But again, their data analysis was limited to the data 

available and necessarily was unable to catch entities that applied for PPP loans but were not 

“business interests” or other qualified organizations. Again, the SBA relied on the certifications of 

applicants that they were qualified for SBA loans.

148. By making false and fraudulent misrepresentations that they were qualified for PPP 

loans and that they complied with all PPP requirements, the Defendants here took advantage of 

1 Available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/Procedural%20Notice%205000-20092%20-

%20Revised%20PPP%20Procedures%20to%20Address%20Hold%20Codes-508.pdf.

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 41 of 47
39

the automated tool and data analyses used by lenders and the United States Government in order 

to defraud those institutions. Defendants’ certifications of qualification and compliance, 

notwithstanding their knowledge that they did not qualify due to their HOA and condominiumassociation and not-for-profit country-club statuses, not only had the natural tendency to influence 

the award and forgiveness of PPP loans but in fact did so. Defendants’ fraudulent and false 

certifications specifically evaded the compliance measures used by the United States Government 

and participating lenders. Had Defendants told the truth, and noted that they lacked qualification 

(or even that their qualifications were questionable) due to their HOA or condominium-association 

or not-for-profit country-club status, they would not have received PPP loans or forgiveness for 

those loans. 

IX. CAUSES OF ACTION

A. COUNT I – PRESENTATION OF FALSE OR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A))

149. Relator alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained 

in all paragraphs of this Complaint. 

150. In 2020 and 2021, Defendants knowingly presented or caused to be presented false 

or fraudulent claims for payment or approval to the United States Government for PPP Loans and 

forgiveness of their PPP Loans.

151. Specifically, Defendants submitted or caused the submission of false or fraudulent 

claims when they applied for PPP loans and falsely and fraudulently stated that they were eligible 

entities for PPP loans and that they needed the loans in order to support their ongoing operations, 

even though they knew that they were ineligible and that they did not need the loans to support 

their ongoing obligations.

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 42 of 47
40

152. The false PPP applications were “claims” under the FCA because they were 

“request[s] or demand[s] ... for money or property ... that” were “presented to an officer, 

employee, or agent of the United States.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis added). Indeed, 

they were requests for money submitted directly to financial institutions as agents of the United 

States. Alternatively, the PPP applications were claims because the financial institutions were 

“contractor[s], grantee[s], or other recipient[s]” of money who would be “reimburse[d] ... for any 

portion of the money or property which [wa]s requested or demanded.” Id. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii). 

153. Defendants also submitted or caused submission of claims when they applied for 

forgiveness of their PPP loans and falsely and fraudulently certified that they complied with all 

the requirements of the PPP Rules, even though they knew they did not. 

154. The applications for forgiveness were likewise additional claims, because they 

further “request[ed] or demand[ed]” money or property from the United States, similar to the initial 

PPP loan applications. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A).

155. The United States Government, unaware of the material falsity of the claims made 

or caused to be made by Defendants, approved, paid, and participated in payments made by the 

Government’s fiscal intermediaries for loans that were not allowed and in loan forgiveness that 

otherwise was not allowed. 

156. By reason of these payments, approvals, and loan forgivenesses, the Government 

has been damaged in an amount yet to be determined. Accordingly, the United States suffered 

actual damages and is entitled to recover treble damages plus a civil monetary penalty for each 

presentment of a false claim.

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 43 of 47
41

B. COUNT II – PRESENTATION OF FALSE OR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A))

157. Relator alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained 

in paragraphs 1–137, 140–42, and 143–48 of this Complaint.

158. In 2020 and 2021, Defendants knowingly made, used, or caused to be made or used, 

false records or statements material to false or fraudulent claims paid or approved by the 

Government. 

159. Defendants’ statements of eligibility in their PPP applications were false. 

Defendants knew that these statements were false because Defendants knew that they were not 

business entities eligible to receive PPP loans. 

160. Defendants’ statements in their PPP applications that they that they needed the 

loans in order to support their ongoing operations were false. Defendants knew that these 

statements were false because they knew that they could continue their ongoing operations without 

a PPP loan.

161. Defendants’ statements in their applications for forgiveness that they complied with 

all the requirements of the PPP Rules were false. Defendants knew that these statements were false 

because they were ineligible for PPP loans and that they did not need the loans in order to support 

their ongoing operations.

162. Defendants’ false statements herein were material to their claims false and 

fraudulent claims for payment and approval that would be made to the United States Government

in conjunction with their statements. The statements also made the financial institutions’ claims 

for payment and reimbursement of loan money false and were material to those false claims, as 

well. 

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 44 of 47
42

163. Defendants’ false statements were material because the Government’s lending 

agents—and by extension the United States Government itself—heavily relied on these 

certifications in processing PPP loans as quickly as possible with the assistance of an automated 

tool that itself would trust these certifications. Defendants’ false statements thus not only had the 

natural tendency to influence the award and forgiveness of PPP loans but in fact did so.

164. The United States Government, unaware of the material falsity of the claims made 

or caused to be made by Defendants due to these material statements, approved, paid, and 

participated in payments and forgiveness for loans that were not allowed. 

165. But for Defendants’ use of the materially false statements, the PPP loans would not 

have been paid. 

166. Because of their false or fraudulent statements, Defendants earned millions of 

dollars through PPP loans to which they are not legitimately entitled. The ultimate submission to 

the federal Government of claims for payment was a foreseeable consequence of this fraud. As a 

result, the United States has suffered substantial damages and is entitled to recover treble damages 

and civil monetary penalties. 

X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

167. WHEREFORE, Riner respectfully requests the Court enter judgment against 

Defendants for violations of the FCA and award the following:

a. damages in the amount of three times the actual damages suffered by the United 

States as a result of Defendants’ conduct;

b. Civil penalties against Defendants up to the maximum allowed by law for each 

violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729;

c. The maximum award Relator may recover pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d);

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 45 of 47
43

d. All costs and expenses of the litigation, including attorneys’ fees and costs of 

court; and

e. All other relief on behalf of Relator or the United States that the Court deems 

just and proper.

XI. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

168. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Relator demands a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted, 

Randall C. Owens

Pro hac vice pending

TX State Bar No. 15380700

Michael Adams-Hurta 

Pro hac vice pending

TX State Bar No. 24097860 

WRIGHT CLOSE & BARGER, LLP

One Riverway, Suite 2200

Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone: (713) 572-4321

Facsimile: (713) 572-4320

owens@wrightclosebarger.com

hurta@wrightclosebarger.com

Kevin P. Ackerman

Florida Bar No.: 115385

THE ACKERMAN LAW FIRM, P.A.

80 S.W. 8th St., Suite 2000

Miami, FL 33130

Telephone: (305) 359-5228

Facsimile: (786) 271-2998

kevin@ackermanfirm.com

Attorneys for Relator Wade Riner

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 46 of 47
44

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 14, 2022, a true and correct copy of this Original 

Complaint was forwarded to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of 

Florida and the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. via certified mail, return receipt 

requested. 

/s/ Michael Adams-Hurta

Michael Adams-Hurta

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 47 of 47