UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

CASE NO. 22-60243-CR-DIMITROULEAS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

vs. 

EDWARD KEYSHAWN DARLING, 

Defendant. 

I ----------------- FACTUAL PROFFER 

The United States of America (the "United States") and Defendant Edward Keyshawn 

Darling ("Defendant") agree that, were this case to proceed to trial, the United States would prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt the following facts, among others, which occurred in the Southern 

District of Florida and elsewhere: 

1. The United States Small Business Administration ("SBA") was an executive 

branch agency of the United States government that, among other things, provided financial 

assistance to small businesses and certain other entities that suffered substantial economic injury 

because of a declared disaster. Such assistance included government-backed loans made through 

the SBA's Economic Injury Disaster Loan ("EIDL") program. 

2. The Coronavims Aid, Relief, and Economic Security ("CARES") Act was a 

federal law enacted in or around March 2020 that was designed to provide emergency financial 

assistance to the millions of Americans who were suffering from the economic effects caused by 

the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the expansion 

Case 0:22-cr-60243-WPD Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 1 of 5
of the EIDL program to provide loans up to $150,000, and additional advance funds of up to 

$10,000, for small businesses experiencing a temporary loss of revenue due to the pandemic, 

3, To qualify for an EIDL authorized by the CARES Act, applicants had to be: (I) a 

business, cooperative, or agricultural enterprise with 500 or. fewer employees, a faith-based 

organization, a private non-profit, or a sole proprietorship or independent contractor; (2) physically 

located in the United States or a designated territory; and (3) have suffered working capital losses 

due to the COVID-19 pandemic. EIDLproceeds could have been used to pay fixed debts, payroll, 

accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occun-ed; however, 

such loan proceeds were not intended to replace lost sales or profits, or for the expansion of a 

business. 

4. EIDL funds were issued directly from the United States Treasury, and applicants 

applied for EIDL funds directly through the SBA via an online pmtal and application. The EIDL 

application process collected information concerning the business and the business owner, 

including: information about the gross revenues for the business prior to January 31, 2020; and the 

cost of goods sold. Applicants electronically ce1tified that the information provided was true and 

accurate and were warned that any false statement or misrepresentations to the SBA, or any 

misapplication of loan proceeds may result in sanctions, including criminal penalties, EIDL 

applications were received in and processed using computer servers located in the states of Iowa, 

Virginia, and Washington. EIDL disbursement payments were initiated by the SBA using 

computer servers located in the state of Colorado, which transmitted the payment information to 

the Treasury using computer servers located in the state of Virginia. 

Page 2 of 5 

Case 0:22-cr-60243-WPD Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 2 of 5
5. From in or around June 2020, through in or around November 2020, in Broward 

County and elsewhere, Defendant knowingly and willfully agreed and conspired with CoConspirator 1 to accomplish a shared and unlawful plan to commit wire fraud, that is, to obtain the 

proceeds of a loan through the EIDL _program for Defendant's use and benefit purportedly on 

behalf of the entity "Edward Darling llc" by means of materially false and fraudulent presentations 

and promises to the SBA, and to carry out such plan by means of wire communications in interstate 

commerce. 

6. Specifically, on June 29, 2020, Defendant sent text messages to Co-Conspirator 1 

that included Defendant's full name, address, social security number, date of birth, cell phone 

number, email address, and a bank account number and routing number for a bank account at Bank 

1 ending in 2318 in Defendant's name. Defendant sent such information to Co-Conspirator 1 

knowingly and intending to cause Co-Conspirator 1 to submit electronically an application to the 

SBA for an EIDL loan on Defendant's behalf for "Edward Darling llc," which Defendant further 

knew. was a fictitious entity that was not entitled to an EIDL because, among other reasons, 

"Edward Darling llc" did not conduct any business whatsoever. 

7. On June 30, 2020, the SBA received an application for a loan under the EIDL 

program on behalf of "Edward Darling llc," which represented that Defendant was the manager 

and 100% owner of the company, and included Defendant's social security number, date of birth, 

cell phone number, email address, and mailing address. The EIDL application falsely stated the 

following info11nation, among other misrepresentations, about "Edward Darling llc:" 2019 gross 

revenue of $775,000; 25 employees; a business open date of 05/06/2017; an ownership start date 

of 06/30/2016; and a business category of "Limousine & Transportation." 

Page 3 of 5 

----------------- --------------------------------

Case 0:22-cr-60243-WPD Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 3 of 5
0 

8. As a result of the false and fraudulent EIDL application and infotmation submitted 

and caused to be submitted by Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1, the SBA approved EIDL advance 

funds for "Edward Darling Uc," and disbursed such advance funds in the approximate amount of 

$10,000 to Defendant's bank account at Bank I ending in 2318, via interstate wire transmission, 

on or about July 2, 2020. 

9. Furthe1more, as a result of the false and fraudulent EIDL application and 

information submitted and caused to be submitted by Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1, the SBA 

approved SBA Loan number 4890958101 to "Edward Darling llc" in the amount of $150,000, and 

disbursed the loan proceeds in the approximate amount of $149,900 to Defendant's account at 

Bank 1 ending in 2318, via interstate wire transmission, on or about August 3, 2020. 

10. As a result of Defendant's participation in the conspiracy, Defendant is responsible 

for causing an intended loss of $160,000. 

11. The United States would prove the facts set forth in this proffer, among others, with 

documentary and testimonial evidence admissible at trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence, 

including, but not limited to, Defendant's recorded statemehts to law enforcement, records from 

the SBA, financial records, testimony of U.S. govetnm~nt officials, including agents and officers 

of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Small Business Administration, and data 

extracted from Defendant's cell phone, including Defendant's statements to Co-Conspirator 1 and 

others. 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank] 

Page 4 of 5 

Case 0:22-cr-60243-WPD Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 4 of 5
12. The United States and Defendant agree that these facts, which do not include all 

facts known to the United States and Defendant, are sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

the elements of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 1349, and that Defendant is in fact guilty of that offense as charged in Count 1 of the 

Indictment. 

Date: By: 

MARKENZY LAPOINTE 

UNITED STATES A TTORN 

F ER 

AT EY FOR DEFENDANT 

SHAWN DARLING 

Page 5 of 5 

Case 0:22-cr-60243-WPD Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 5 of 5