Indictment as to Eric Rivera — USA v. Rivera et al. (Dkt. 23, D.N.J. No. 1:23-mj-02053)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · No. 1:24-cr-00267-KMW · Doc. 23 · 2024-04-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Vv
0

2024R00261/DAF/JMR . R
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ECE/ VEC
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY APR >
waite”
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA » tes: i. STRICT Coa
v. : Crim. No. 24 207 (druid)
ERIC RIVERA, : 18 U.S.C. § 1349
ADRIENNE PONZO, and : 18 U.S.C. § 1344
JAMES WESSELS : 18 US.C. § 1343

18 U.S.C. § 1956
18 U.S.C. § 1967 t FILED
isus.c.§2 ¢
APR 17 2024
NDICTMENT NL eC

CLERK
The Grand Jury in and for the District of New Jersey, sitting in

Camden, charges:

COUNT 1
(Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud)

Background
Individuals and Entities

hi At all times relevant to this Indictment:
a. Lender-1 was a financial institution that participated as lender
in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), as described herein. Lender-1 was a
“financial institution” within the meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Section 20.
b. Financial Institution-1 was a “financial institution” within the

meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Section 20.
G, Financial Institution-2 was a “financial institution” within the

meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Section 20.
d. Financial Institution-3 was a “financial institution” within the
meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Section 20.

e. Financial Institution-4 was a “financial institution” within the
meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Section 20.

f. Financial Institution-5 was a “financial institution” within the
meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Section 20.

g. The U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was an
independent agency of the federal government created to aid, counsel, assist, and
protect the interests of small business concerns, preserve free competitive enterprise,
and maintain and strengthen the overall economy of the United States.

h. Defendant ERIC RIVERA was a resident of Georgia. Defendant
ERIC RIVERA owned or controlled companies One World Read LLC, Precis
Laboratory LLC, and Nothing Much LLC.

i. Defendant ADRIENNE PONZO was a resident of Delaware.
Defendant ADRIENNE PONZO owned or controlled the company Queens Logistics
LLC.

hE Defendant JAMES WESSELS was a resident of Delaware.

k. William Ingram, who is a co-conspirator and charged elsewhere,
resided in Haddonfield, New Jersey. William Ingram owned or controlled several
New Jersey companies, including King of Aces Barbershop LLC, Leader of the Pack

Productions LLC, and East Coast Commercial Investment LLC.
1. Yasha Barjona, who is a co-conspirator and charged elsewhere,
resided in Phoenix, Arizona. Yasha Barjona owned or controlled several companies,
including Visionworks Group of America LLC.

m. Co-Conspirator-1 (“CC-1”), who is a co-conspirator but not
charged herein, was the branch manager at Lender-1’s Conshohocken, Pennsylvania
location until May 2021.

n. Co-Conspirator-2 (“CC-2”), who is a co-conspirator but not
charged herein, was a resident of New York. CC-2 owned or controlled a New York
company.

oO. Co-Conspirator-3 (“CC-3”), who is a co-conspirator but not
charged herein, was a resident of North Carolina. CC-3 owned or controlled Delaware
companies.

p. Individual-1 was a resident of Connecticut. Individual-1 owned
or controlled Company-1.

The Paycheck Protection Program CPE)

q. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”)
Act was a federal law enacted in or about March 2020 and was designed to provide
emergency financial assistance to millions of Americans suffering economic effects
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act
was the authorization of billions of dollars in forgivable loans to small businesses for
job retention and certain other expenses, through a program referred to as the

Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).
r. To obtain a PPP loan, a business had to submit a PPP loan
application signed by an authorized representative of the business. The applicant of
a PPP loan was required to acknowledge the program rules and make certain
affirmative certifications in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan. In the PPP
loan application, the applicant had to state, among other things, its average monthly
payroll expenses and number of employees. These figures were used to determine
whether the business was eligible for a PPP loan and to calculate the amount of
money the business was eligible to receive under the PPP. In addition, businesses
applying for a PPP loan had to provide documentation showing their payroll
expenses, such as tax forms and bank statements.

8. A PPP loan application had to be processed by a participating
financial institution (the lender). If the PPP loan application was approved, the
lender funded the PPP loan using its own monies, which were 100% guaranteed by
the SBA. Data from the application, including information about the borrower, the
total amount of the loan, and the listed number of employees, was transmitted by the
lender to the SBA in the course of processing the loan.

t. PPP loan proceeds could only be used by the business for certain
permissible expenses, including payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and
utilities. The PPP allowed the interest and principal on the PPP loan to be entirely
forgiven if the business used the loan proceeds on these expense items within a
designated period of time after receiving the proceeds and used a certain amount of

the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.
u. To obtain loan forgiveness of a loan in the amount of $150,000 or
less, a borrower was required to submit a PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form
3508S. Form 3508S required the borrower to report the amount of loan proceeds
spent on payroll costs. It also required the borrower to certify that the information
provided in the forgiveness application was true and correct.

The Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) Program

Vv. The EIDL program was an SBA program that provided low-
interest financing to small businesses, renters, and homeowners in regions affected
by declared disasters.

w. The CARES Act authorized the SBA to provide EIDLs of up to $2
million to eligible small businesses that were experiencing substantial financial
disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

x. To obtain an EIDL, a qualifying business was required to submit
an application to the SBA and provide information about its operations, such as the
number of employees, gross revenues for the 12-month period preceding the disaster,
and cost of goods sold in the 12-month period preceding the disaster. In addition, the
business entity must have been in operation on February 1, 2020.

y- The amount of the EIDL was determined based, in part, on the
information provided by the applicant regarding the revenue, employees, and cost of
goods of the business. The SBA directly issued any funds disbursed under an EIDL
to the applicant business. A business was permitted to use EIDL funds for payroll

expenses, sick leave, production costs, and business obligations such as debts, rent,
and mortgage payments. Ifa business also obtained a PPP loan, the business was
prohibited from using EIDL funds for the same purpose as PPP funds.
The Bank Fraud Conspiracy
2. From in or about January 2021 through in or about December 2021, in
the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendants

ERIC RIVERA and
JAMES WESSELS

did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with each other and with CC-1,
CC-3, William Ingram, and others to execute and attempt to execute a scheme and
artifice to defraud a financial institution, Lender-1, and to obtain moneys, funds, ©
credits, assets, securities, and other property owned by, and under the custody and
control of, Lender-1, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344.
The Object of the Conspiracy

3. The object of the conspiracy was for the defendants and their co-
conspirators to financially enrich themselves by obtaining PPP loans that were
intended for small businesses distressed by the COVID-19 pandemic through the
submission of fraudulent loan applications, for companies with little or no operations
(“Non-Operating Companies”), that included false statements about the Non-
Operating Companies’ number of employees and payroll expenses, and by providing

false documentation to Lender-1.
Manner and Means of the Conspiracy

4. It was part of the conspiracy that defendant ERIC RIVERA, CC-1, CC-
3, and others learned that Lender-1 was accepting applications for PPP loans.
Lender-1 required that applicants first open a business bank account with Lender-1.

5. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ERIC RIVERA
agreed with CC-3 and others to submit PPP loan applications to Lender-1 on behalf
of Non-Operating Companies controlled by defendant ERIC RIVERA. These PPP
loan applications contained materially false representations, including that that Non-
Operating Companies controlled by defendant ERIC RIVERA had significantly
higher employees and payroll expenses than they actually had.

6. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant JAMES WESSELS
created fraudulent IRS tax forms—including Forms 941 (Employer’s Quarterly
Federal Tax Return—in the names of Non-Operating Companies controlled by
defendant ERIC RIVERA that falsely represented that they had employees and
payroll expenses in the period preceding the PPP loan applications. These fraudulent
IRS tax forms were submitted to Lender-1 as part of the PPP applications.

7. It was further part of the conspiracy that CC-3 created fraudulent bank
statements in the names of Non-Operating Companies controlled by defendant ERIC
RIVERA. These fraudulent bank statements were submitted to Lender-1 as part of
some PPP applications.

8. It was further part of the conspiracy that on or about March 20, 2021,

and March 26, 2021, based on the fraudulent PPP loan applications, defendant ERIC
RIVERA received PPP loans from Lender-1 in the amount of $140,000 and $145,000
for One World Read LLC and Precis Laboratory LLC.

9. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ERIC RIVERA
recruited individuals who owned or controlled Non-Operating Companies, and some
of the recruited individuals recruited other individuals who owned or controlled Non-
Operating Companies (together, the “Recruits”). Some of these Non-Operating
Companies were New Jersey companies and some of the Recruits were residents of
New Jersey.

10. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ERIC RIVERA, CC-
3, and others directed the Recruits to open business bank accounts at Lender-1’s
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania branch even where the Recruits lived far from
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. In some instances where the Recruits lived far from
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, CC-3 opened accounts for the Recruits.

11. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ERIC RIVERA, CC-
8, and others directed some Recruits to transfer ownership of their Non-Operating
Companies to other individuals to increase their chances of obtaining PPP loans.

12. It was further part of the conspiracy that, after individuals were
recruited, CC-3 prepared PPP applications to Lender-1 in the name of the Non-
Operating Companies. The applications contained materially false statements whose
purpose was to induce Lender-1 to approve PPP loans that otherwise would not have
been approved. Those false statements included the representations that the Non-
Operating Companies had significantly higher employees and payroll expenses than

they actually had.
13. It was further part of the conspiracy that the PPP applications prepared
by CC-3 and submitted to Lender-1 included materially false documentation to
support the fraudulent PPP loan applications. That false documentation often
included fraudulent bank statements and fraudulent tax documents purporting to
substantiate the applications’ claims that the businesses had a substantial number
of employees with significant average monthly payroll. The false documentation
sometimes also included backdated operating agreements.

14. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant JAMES WESSELS
created fraudulent IRS tax forms—including Forms 941 (Employer’s Quarterly
Federal Tax Return—in the names of the Recruits’ Non-Operating Companies that
falsely represented that they had employees and payroll expenses in the period
preceding the PPP loan applications. These fraudulent IRS tax forms were submitted
to Lender-1 as part of the PPP applications. CC-3 paid Defendant JAMES WESSELS
for each fraudulent IRS tax form that he created.

15. It was further part of the conspiracy that CC-3 created fraudulent bank
statements in the names of some Non-Operating Companies. These fraudulent bank
statements were submitted to Lender-1 as part of some PPP applications.

16. It was further part of the conspiracy that based on the materially false
statements and documentation in the PPP applications, Lender-1 approved more
than 35 PPP loans and disbursed almost $5,000,000 to the Non-Operating

Companies.
17. It was further part of the conspiracy that the Recruits paid defendant
ERIC RIVERA or defendant ERIC RIVERA’s companies a percentage of each PPP
loan that was approved and funded.

18. It was further part of the conspiracy that CC-3 prepared applications for
PPP forgiveness to Lender-1 in the name of some Non-Operating Companies. The
applications contained materially false statements whose purpose was to induce
Lender-1 and the SBA to forgive PPP loans that otherwise would not qualify for
forgiveness. Those false statements included the representations that the Non-
Operating Companies had significantly higher employees than they actually had and
that they spent a higher percentage of the PPP loan proceeds on permissible expenses
such as payroll than they actually did.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.

10
COUNTS 2 THROUGH 4
(Bank Fraud)

Ls Paragraphs 1 and 3 through 18 of Count 1 of the Indictment are
incorporated as if set forth in full herein.
me On or about the dates listed below, in the District of New Jersey and

elsewhere, defendants

ERIC RIVERA and
JAMES WESSELS

did knowingly and intentionally execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice
to defraud a financial institution, and aid and abet the scheme and artifice to defraud
a financial institution, that was Lender-1, and to obtain moneys, funds, credits,
assets, securities, and other property owned by, and under the control of, a financial
institution, Lender-1, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,

representations, and promises, by causing the following PPP loan applications to be

submitted:
Count |Approx. Date| Borrower Compan Approx,
PRE Bae Amount
2 3/19/2021 King of Aces Barbershop $122,000
LLC
3 4/10/2021 East Coast Commercial $143,000
Investment LLC
4 4/20/2021 Leader of the Pack $145,000
Productions LLC

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344 and 2.

11
COUNT 5
(Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud)

1. Paragraphs 1 and 3 through 18 of Count 1 of the Indictment are
incorporated as if set forth in full herein.
The Wire Fraud Conspiracy
2. From in or about July 2020 through in or about December 2020, in the
District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendants

ERIC RIVERA and
ADRIENNE PONZO

did knowingly and intentionally conspire with each other and with William Ingram
and others to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the U.S. Small Business
Administration, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and, for the purpose of
executing and attempting to execute such scheme and artifice to defraud, did
transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communications in
interstate and foreign commerce, certain writings, signs, signals, pictures, and
sounds, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
Object of the Conspiracy

3. The object of the conspiracy was for the defendants and their co-
conspirators to financially enrich themselves by submitting materially fraudulent
applications to the SBA for EIDL loans that were intended for small businesses
distressed by the COVID-19 pandemic, through the submission of fraudulent loan

applications, for companies with little or no operations (“Non-Operating Companies’),

12
that included false statements about the Non-Operating Companies’ gross revenues,
and by providing false documentation to the SBA.

Manner and Means of the Conspiracy

A. It was part of the conspiracy that defendant ERIC RIVERA recruited
individuals who owned or controlled Non-Operating Companies (the “Recruits”). At
least one of the Non-Operating Companies was a New Jersey company and at least
one of the Recruits was a resident of New Jersey.

5. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ADRIENNE
PONZO prepared applications for EIDLs on behalf of Non-Operating Companies
recruited by defendant ERIC RIVERA and others. On each of these EIDL
applications, defendant ADRIENNE PONZO provided materially false information,
including about each Non-Operating Company’s gross revenues for the twelve months
preceding January 31, 2020.

6. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants ERIC RIVERA and
ADRIENNE PONZO directed some Recruits to transfer ownership of their Non-
Operating Companies to other individuals to increase their chances of obtaining
EIDL loans.

7. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ADRIENNE
PONZO prepared fraudulent bank statements and fraudulent IRS tax documents for
some of the EIDL applications she facilitated, which were then submitted to the SBA

along with the fraudulent EIDL applications.

13
8. It was further part of the conspiracy that based on the materially false
information included in the EIDL applications, the SBA approved EIDLs for Non-
Operating Companies that it otherwise would not have approved.

9. It was further part of the conspiracy that after approving the EIDLs, the
SBA disbursed the loan proceeds into bank accounts maintained by the Recruits. At
least two of the EIDL loans that the SBA approved based on loan applications that
defendants ERIC RIVERA and ADRIENNE PONZO caused to be submitted were
funded via Automated Clearing House (ACH) payments sent from the SBA’s server
in a state other than New Jersey, through a server in New Jersey, to the Recruit’s
bank account.

10. It was further part of the conspiracy that the Recruits paid defendant
ERIC RIVERA or defendant ERIC RIVERA’s companies or defendant ADRIENNE
PONZO’s companies after the EIDL loans were approved and funded. Defendant
ERIC RIVERA also paid defendant ADRIENNE PONZO for her role in the
conspiracy.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.

14
COUNTS 6-7
(Wire Fraud)

1. Paragraph 1 of Count 1 of this Indictment and paragraphs 1 and 3
through 10 of Count 5 of this Indictment are incorporated as if set forth in full herein.

a On or about the dates listed below, in the District of New Jersey and
elsewhere, defendants

ERIC RIVERA and
ADRIENNE PONZO

did knowingly and intentionally devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud, and aid and abet the scheme and artifice to defraud, the SBA, and to obtain
money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises; and, for purposes of executing and attempting to
execute such scheme and artifice to defraud, did knowingly and intentionally
transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate
and foreign commerce certain writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, namely
the wire transfers described below, each constituting a separate count of this

Indictment:

15
Count

Approximate
Date

Description of Interstate Wire

11/20/2020

ACH payment of approximately $147,100 from the
SBA, through New Jersey, to the bank account of
'Visionworks Group of America at Financial
Institution-1, representing proceeds of an EIDL
loan approved based on a fraudulent EIDL
application.

12/15/2020

ACH payment of approximately $141,500 from the
SBA, through New Jersey, to the bank account of
King of Aces Barbershop at Financial Institution-2,
representing proceeds of an EIDL loan approved

based on a fraudulent EIDL application.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.

16

COUNT 8
(Conspiracy to Engage in Money Laundering)

hy Paragraphs 1 and 3 through 18 of Count 1 of the Indictment are

incorporated as if set forth in full herein.
The Conspiracy

2. From approximately June 2021 through approximately December 2021,

in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant
JAMES WESSELS

did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with William Ingram, CC-2, and
others to knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions affecting
interstate and foreign commerce which involved the proceeds of a specified unlawful
activity, namely bank fraud, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344,
with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity, namely bank
fraud, and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial
transactions knew that the property involved in the financial transaction represented
the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, contrary to Title 18, United States
Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(A)().

Object of the Conspiracy

3. The object of the conspiracy was for defendant JAMES WESSELS to
assist William Ingram and CC-2 by making it appear as if Non-Operating Companies
controlled by William Ingram and CC-2 were using the proceeds of fraudulently-
obtained PPP loans for the permissible purpose of disbursing payroll to employees, to

support subsequent fraudulent applications for loan forgiveness.

17
Manner and Means of the Conspiracy

4. It was a part of the conspiracy that William Ingram and CC-2 received
into bank accounts at Lender-1 in the name of Non-Operating Companies that they
controlled at Lender-1, four PPP loans based on fraudulent PPP loan applications.

5. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant JAMES WESSELS
agreed with William Ingram and CC-2 to facilitate the issuance of fake payroll checks
by William Ingram’s and CC-2’s Non-Operating Companies even though these Non-
Operating Companies did not have any employees.

6. It was further part of the conspiracy that William Ingram and CC-2
provided defendant JAMES WESSELS with the identities of associates and family
members to be paid from PPP loan proceeds and the amounts of money that each
individual would receive.

7 It was further part of the conspiracy that William Ingram’s and CC-2’s
associates and family members completed Forms W4, which William Ingram and CC-
2 sent to defendant JAMES WESSELS.

8. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant JAMES WESSELS
printed fake payroll checks and sent them to William Ingram in New Jersey and CC-
2 in New York for further distribution to William Ingram’s and CC-2’s associates and
family members.

a It was further part of the conspiracy that William Ingram’s and CC-2’s
associates and family members cashed the fake payroll checks and returned most of

the cash to William Ingram and CC-2.

18
10. It was further part of the conspiracy that more than 60 percent of the
PPP loan proceeds disbursed to William Ingram’s and CC-2’s Non-Operating
Companies were distributed via fake payroll check because PPP program rules stated
that at least 60 percent of proceeds needed to be spent on payroll or other qualifying
expenses to qualify for loan forgiveness.

11.  Itwas further part of the conspiracy that William Ingram and CC-2 each
paid defendant JAMES WESSELS for preparing the fake payroll checks.

12. It was further part of the conspiracy that between in or around October
2021 and in or around December 2021, CC-3 submitted to Lender-l—and William
Ingram and CC-2 signed—applications for PPP loan forgiveness for their Non-
Operating Companies. The loan forgiveness applications falsely stated that William
Ingram’s and CC-2’s Non-Operating Companies spent more than 60 percent of the
PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses. After receiving the fraudulent loan
forgiveness applications, Lender-1 forgave each PPP loan received by William
Ingram’s and CC-2’s Non-Operating Companies.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h).

19
COUNT 9
(Conspiracy to Engage in Monetary Transactions
in Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity)

1. Paragraphs 1 and 3 through 18 of Count 1 of the Indictment and
paragraphs 1 and 3 through 10 of Count 5 of this Indictment are incorporated as if
set forth in full herein.

The Conspiracy

2. From in or about November 2020 through in or about June 2021, in the
District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendants

ERIC RIVERA and
ADRIENNE PONZO

did knowingly conspire and agree with each other and with others to engage in, or
attempt to engage in, monetary transactions, namely, deposits, withdrawals,
transfers and exchanges of U.S. Currency and monetary instruments, through
financial institutions, affecting interstate and foreign commerce, in criminally
derived property of a value greater than $10,000, such property having been derived
from specified unlawful activity, namely bank fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to
commit bank and wire fraud, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957.
Object of the Conspiracy

3. The object of the conspiracy was for defendants ERIC RIVERA and
ADRIENNE PONZO to enrich themselves by receiving a portion of the PPP and EIDL
loans that were obtained by Recruits and Non-Operating Companies that they

recruited and assisted.

20
Manner and Means of the Conspiracy

4. It was part of the conspiracy that, based on false information and
documentation that was included in the Non-Operating Companies’ PPP and EIDL
applications, the Lender-1 and the SBA approved PPP and EIDL loans for the Non-
Operating Companies and deposited the PPP and EIDL proceeds into bank accounts
in the name of the Non-Operating Companies. These proceeds represented proceeds
of bank fraud conspiracy, wire fraud conspiracy, bank fraud, and wire fraud.

5. It was further part of the conspiracy that after the PPP and EIDL loan
proceeds were deposited into the Non-Operating Companies’ bank accounts,
defendant ERIC RIVERA caused the Recruits to transfer a portion of those funds
from the Non-Operating Companies’ bank accounts to bank accounts controlled by
defendant ERIC RIVERA. These transfers were generally done by either wire
transfer or by paper check delivered to defendant ERIC RIVERA. These wires and
checks often contained notations to give the false impression that the Non-Operating
Companies were using PPP and EIDL loan proceeds for legitimate business activity
rather than to compensate defendant ERIC RIVERA and his co-conspirators for
helping the Recruits to obtain PPP and EJDL loans based on fraudulent applications.

6. For example, as part of the conspiracy, defendant ERIC RIVERA caused
the following monetary transactions in amounts exceeding $10,000, affecting
interstate and foreign commerce, to occur:

a. On or about November 20, 2020, the SBA approved an EIDL loan for
Visionworks Group of America LLC and deposited approximately

$147,100 into the Visionworks Group of America LLC bank account

21
at Financial Institution-1. On or about November 25, 2020,
defendant ERIC RIVERA caused Yasha Barjona to wire $72,000
from the Visionworks Group of America LLC bank account to a bank
account at Financial Institution-3 in the name of Precis Laboratory
LLC, a company controlled by defendant ERIC RIVERA..

b. On or about April 13, 2021, Lender-1 approved a PPP loan for East
Coast Commercial Investment LLC and deposited approximately
$148,000 into the East Coast Commercial Investment LLC bank
account at Lender-1. On or about April 20, 2021, defendant ERIC
RIVERA caused William Ingram to wire $21,450 from the East Coast
Commercial Investment LLC bank account to a bank account at
Financial Institution-3 in the name of Precis Laboratory LLC, a
company controlled by defendant ERIC RIVERA.

c. Onor about April 27, 2021, Lender-1 approved a PPP loan for Leader
of the Pack Productions LLC and deposited approximately $145,000
into the Leader of the Pack Productions LLC bank account at Lender-
1. Defendant ERIC RIVERA caused William Ingram to write two
checks, of $9,000 and $12,750, dated April 10, 2021 and April 15,
2021, from the Leader of the Pack Productions LLC bank account to
One World Read LLC, a company controlled by defendant ERIC
RIVERA, bearing memo lines that did not accurately reflect the

purpose of the payments. On or about May 17, 2021, defendant ERIC

22
RIVERA deposited these two checks into the One World Read LLC
bank account at Financial Institution-3.

d. On or about May 4, 2021, Lender-1 approved a PPP loan for King of
Aces Barbershop LLC and deposited approximately $122,000 into
the King of Aces LLC bank account at Lender-1. Defendant ERIC
RIVERA caused William Ingram to write two checks, of $10,800 and
$7,500, dated April 28, 2021 and May 8, 2021, to Nothing Much LLC,
a company controlled by defendant ERIC RIVERA, bearing memo
lines that did not accurately reflect the purpose of the payments. On
or about May 17, 2021, defendant ERIC RIVERA deposited these two
checks into the Nothing Much LLC bank account at Financial
Institution-4.

7. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant ERIC RIVERA
caused transfers of a portion of the PPP proceeds from bank accounts that he
controlled to bank accounts controlled by CC-3. For example, as part of the
conspiracy, defendant ERIC RIVERA engaged in the following monetary transaction
in an amount exceeding $10,000, affecting interstate and foreign commerce: On or
about July 15, 2021, defendant ERIC RIVERA wired $25,000 from the Nothing Much
LLC bank account at Financial Institution-4 to CC-3’s bank account at Financial
Institution-2.

8. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendants ERIC RIVERA and
ADRIENNE PONZO caused transfers of a portion of the EIDL proceeds from bank

accounts controlled by defendant ERIC RIVERA to bank accounts controlled by

23
defendant ADRIENNE PONZO. For example, as part of the conspiracy, defendants
ERIC RIVERA and ADRIENNE PONZO engaged in the following monetary
transactions in amounts exceeding $10,000, affecting interstate and foreign
commerce:
a. On or about November 27, 2020, defendant ERIC RIVERA wired
$15,000 from the Precis Laboratory bank account at Financial
Institution-3 to a bank account controlled by defendant ADRIENNE
PONZO at Financial Institution-5.
b. On or about December 17, 2020, defendant ERIC RIVERA wired
$14,330 from the Precis Laboratory bank account at Financial
Institution-3 to a bank account controlled by defendant ADRIENNE
PONZO at Financial Institution-5.
9. It was further part of the conspiracy that after defendants ERIC
RIVERA and ADRIENNE PONZO received the PPP and EIDL loan proceeds, they
used the funds to pay personal expenses.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h).

24
COUNTS 10-17
(Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Property
Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity)

VF Paragraphs 1 and 3 through 18 of Count 1 of this Indictment and
paragraphs 1 and 3 through 10 of Count 5 of this Indictment are incorporated as if
set forth in full herein.

2. On or about the dates specified below, in the District of New Jersey and
elsewhere, the defendant specified per count below did knowingly engage in, and
attempt to engage in, and aided and abetted the engaging in, the monetary
transactions specified below, namely, deposits, withdrawals, transfers and exchanges
of U.S. Currency and monetary instruments, through financial institutions, affecting
interstate and foreign commerce, in criminally derived property of a value greater
than $10,000, such property having been derived from specified unlawful activity,

namely bank fraud and wire fraud:

Count | Defendant(s) | Date Amount Transaction

10 ERIC 11/25/2020 | $72,000 Wire from Financial
RIVERA Institution-1 Visionworks

Group of America bank
account to Financial
Institution-3 Precis
Laboratory bank account.

11 ERIC 11/27/2020 | $15,000 Wire from Financial
RIVERA; Institution-3 Precis
ADRIENNE Laboratory bank account to
PONZO Financial Institution-5

account in the name of
Queens Logistics controlled
by Adrienne Ponzo.

12 ERIC 12/17/2020 | $14,330 Wire from Financial
RIVERA; Institution-3 Precis
ADRIENNE Laboratory bank account to
PONZO Financial Institution-5

25

Case 1:24-cr-00267-KMW Document 23

Filed 04/17/24 Page 26 of 29 PagelD: 220

Count | Defendant(s) | Date Amount Transaction
account in the name of
Queens Logistics controlled
by Adrienne Ponzo.
13 ERIC 4/20/2021 | $21,450 Wire from the Lender-1 East
RIVERA Coast Commercial
Investment bank account to
Financial Institution-3 Precis
Laboratory bank account.
14 ERIC 4/23/2021 | $72,500 Wire from the Lender-1
RIVERA Company-1 bank account to
Financial Institution-3 Precis
Laboratory bank account.
15 ERIC Check $12,750 Check written from the
RIVERA date Lender-1 Leader of the Pack
4/15/2021; Productions LLC account,
deposit deposited into Financial
5/17/2021 Institution-3 One World Read
LLC account
16 ERIC Check $10,800 Check written from the
RIVERA date Lender-1 King of Aces
4/28/2021; Barbershop LLC account,
deposit deposited into Financial
5/17/2021 Institution-4 Nothing Much
LLC account
17 ERIC 7/15/2021 | $25,000 Wire from the Financial
RIVERA Institution-4 Nothing Much
LLC bank account to CC-3’s
bank account at Financial
Institution-2.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957 and 2.

26

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS 1 THROUGH 4
iF As a result of committing the offenses charged in Counts 1 through 4 of
this Indictment, the defendants charged in each such count shall forfeit to the
United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A), any
property, real or personal, constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained directly
or indirectly as a result of the offenses charged in Counts 1 through 4 of this
Indictment.

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS 5 THROUGH 7

a As a result of committing the offenses charged in Counts 5 through 7 of
this Indictment, the defendants charged in each such count shall forfeit to the
United States, pursuant to Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code,
Section 2461(c), any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from
proceeds traceable to the offenses alleged in Counts 5 through 7 of this Indictment.

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS 8 THROUGH 17

3. As a result of committing the money laundering offenses charged in
Counts 8 through 17 of this Indictment, the defendants charged in each such count
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section
982(a)(1), all property, real or personal, involved in such money laundering offenses,
and all property traceable to such property.

SUBSTITUTE ASSET PROVISION

4. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of
the defendants charged in this Indictment:

a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

27
b. has been transferred to or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

d. has been substantially diminished in value; or

e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided

without difficulty;

it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21 United States Code,
Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 18 United States Code, Section 982(a)(1)
and Title 28 United States Code, Section 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other
property of such defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described

above.

PHILIP R. SELLINGER
United States Attorney

28
Case 1:24-cr-00267-KMW   Document 23   Filed 04/17/24   Page 29 of 29 PageID: 223

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.njd.546707.23.0.pdf

Size

5,819,076 bytes

SHA-256

098173c3a90047fa05db634756a3db4796aa80b585bea03372a613afb1855d29

Our copy

gov.uscourts.njd.546707.23.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)