Superseding Indictment as to Alexandra Acosta (1) count(s) 1s, 2s-3s, 4s — USA v. Alexandra Acosta (Dkt. 23, S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60170-RNS · Doc. 23 · 2024-03-14 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

FILED BY 
D.C.
Mlq 1 j 2229
IJNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
XklLll lïlum
S. D. OF FLA. - FT. LAUD.
CASE NO.: 23-CR-60170-SCOLA(S)
18 U.S.C. j 371
15 U.S.C. j 645(a)
18 U.S.C. j 1343
18 U.S.C. j 981(a)(1)(C)
UNITED STATES O F AM ERICA
VS.
ALEXANDR A ACO STA and
VILSAINT ST LOUIS,
Defendants.
/
SUPERSEDING INDICTM ENT
The Grand Jury charges that:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
At times relevatlt to this lndictm ent:
The Sm all Business A dm inistration
The United States Small Business Administration (1iSBA'') was an executive
1.
branch agency of the United States government that provided support to entreprenetlrs and sm all
businesses. The m ission of the SBA was to m aintain and strengthen the nation's economy by
enabling the establisbm ent and viability of small businesses and by assisting in the economic
recovery of commtmities after disasters.
2. 
As part of this effort, the SBA enabled and provided loans through banks, credit
llnions, and other lenders. These loans had government-backed guarantees.
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 1 of 14

The Paycheck Protection Program
The Coronavirus Aid, Relietl and Economic Security ICCCARES''I Act was a federal
1aw enacted in or around M arch 2020, designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the
millions of Am ericans who were suffering f'rom the economic effects caused by the COV1D-19
pandem ic. One source of relief that the CARES Act provided was the Paycheck Protection
Program (1TPP''), which authorized forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and
certain other expenses.
4.
The SBA promulgated regulations concerning eligibility for a PPP loan. To obtain
a PPP loan, a qualifying business was required to subm it a PPP loan application, which was signed
by an authorized representative of the business. The PPP loan application required the business
(through its authorized representative) to acknowledge the progrnm rules and make certain
affinnative certifications to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan, including that the business was in
operation on February 15, 2020, and either had em ployees for whom it paid salaries and payroll
taxes or paid independent contractors. Paym ents to independent contractors are typically reported
to the Internal Revenue Senice Ct1RS'') on a tTorm 1099-MISC.'' In the PPP loan application
(SBA Form 2483), the small business (through its authorized representative) was required to state,
nmong other things, its: (a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of employees.
These figtlres were used to calculate the nmount of m oney the small business was eligible to
receive under the PPP.
ln addition, a business applying for a PPP loan was required to provide
doctzm entation showing its payroll expenses. This payroll inform ation was m aterial to the
application because, pursuant to statutory requirements and implementing regulations, the amotmt
of the loan that typically could be approved was a function of the applicant's historical payroll
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 2 of 14

costs, consisting of compensation to its em ployees whose principal place of residence was the
United States, subject to certain exclusions.
Individuals who operated a business under a tûsole proprietorship'' business
strucmre were eligible for a PPP loan.To qualify for such a PPP loan, individuals had to report
and document their incom e and expenses from the
typically report their incom e and expenses yearly to the IRS on a itForm  1040, Schedule C.'' As
with other PPP loans, tlais inform ation and supporting documentation was used to calculate the
am ount of money the individual was entitled to receive under the PPP. The m axim um PPP loan
sole proprietorship. Sole proprietorships
amount for a sole proprietor with no employees was $20,833.
7. 
PPP loan applications were processed by pm icipating lenders and third-party loan
processors. If a PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan
using its own m onies. W hile it was the pm icipating lender that issued the PPP loan, the loan was
100% guaranteed by the SBA . Data from  the application, including information about the
borrower, the total am ount of the loan, and the listed num ber of employees, was transm itted by the
lender to the SBA in the cotlrse of processing the loan.
8. 
After the lender funded the PPP loan to the borrower, the lender subm itted
disbursement details into the SBA E--fran system with servers located in Sterling, VA . The SBA 'S
Denver Finance Center, located in Denver,Colorado, created payment tiles and authorized
paym ents of the PPP processing fee to the lender through the Financial M anagem ent System to
the Treasury. The primary server for the Financial M anagement System is in Sterling, VA . The
PPP processing fee varied depending on the nm ount of the loan. Once created, the payment tiles
were then transm itted via wire to the U.S. Treasury disbtzrsing office in Kansas City, M issouri,
3
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 3 of 14

which, in turn, sent instructions for payment of funds to the Federal Reserve Bank Automated
Clearing House processing site in East Rutherford, New Jersey.
9. 
The proceeds of a PPP loan could be used only for certain specified items, such as
payroll costs, costs related to the continuation of group health care benefits, or m ortgage interest
payments for the business. The proceeds of a PPP loan were not permitted to be used by the
borrowers to purchase consumer goods, automobiles, personal residences, clothing, orjewelry, to
pay the borrower's personal federal income taxes, or to fund the borrower's ordinary day-to-day
living expenses unrelated to the specifed authorized expenses.
10. 
The PPP allowed the interest and principal on the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven
if the borrower utilized 60% of the loan in the 24 weeks post-disbursement toward payroll costs
and utilized the remaining 40% on qualified expense items (e.g., mortgage, rent, and utilities).
Applying for PPP loan forgiveness was a separate process that required additional
affirmations that the applicant satisfied the eligibility for PPP loan forgiveness. If forgiveness was
approved, the SBA would pay the remaining balance of the loan to the participating lender.
W hatever portion of the PPP loan was not forgiven was serviced as a loan.
The Defendants
l2. 
AI,EXANDRA ACOSTA was a resident of Broward County, Florida, and full-
time employee of THE Broward County Sheriff's Office.
13. 
W LSM NT ST LOUIS was a resident of Broward County, Florida, and President
and Chief Executive Officer of Victory Tax lnc., a Florida Corporation.
ALEXANDR A ACOSTA was a tax client of Victory Tax lnc. and W LSM NT ST
LOUIS from at least on or about January 2019 through April 2021.
4
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 4 of 14

Relevant Lender. Loan Processor. and Entitv
Lender 1 was a participating lender in the PPP, and was based in Fort Lee, New
Jersey.
16.
Loan Processor 1 was a third-party
Jersey, that processed PPP loan applications for Lender l .
17. 
Realtor Com pany 1 was a Florida Lim ited Liability Com pany. T.C. was the
President of Realtor Company 1.
loan processor, based in Jersey City, New
CO UNT 1
(Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)
18 U.S.C. j 371
18. 
Paragraphs 1 through 17 of the General Allegations section of this lndictm ent are
re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
19. 
From in or about January 2021, through in or about June 2021, the exact dates being
unknown to the Grand Jury, in Broward County, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida, and
elsewhere, the defendants,
ALEXANDRA ACO STA and VILSAINT ST LOUIS,
did knowingly make a false statem ent to the Sm all Business Adm inistration for the pum ose of
obtaining m oney and influencing in any way the Small Business Administration, that is, false
statem ents within ALEX ANDRA ACO STA 'S PPP loan application and PPP 1oan forgiveness
application, in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Sections 6454a) and 2.
PURPO SE OF THE CONSPIM CY
20. 
lt was the purpose of the conspiracy for ALEXANDM
 ACOSTA and
VILSAINT ST LO UIS to tmlawfully obtain PPP relief funds- m ade available through the SBA
to provide relief for the economic effects caused by the COV1D-19 pandem ic- for
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 5 of 14

ALEXANDRA ACOSTA by; (a) submitting and causing the submission of a false and fraudulent
application for a PPP loan; and (b) submitting and causing the submission of a false and fraudulent
application for forgiveness of a PPP loan.
M ANNER AND M AANS OF THE CONSPIR ACY
The manner and means by which AI.EXANDM  ACOSTA and W LSM NT ST LOUIS
sought to accomplish the purpose of the conspiracy included, among other things, the following:
21 . 
AIUEXANDRA ACOSTA and VILSM NT ST LOUIS submitted and caused the
subm ission of a materially false and fraudulent application for a PPP loan to the SBA, Lender 1,
and Loan Processor l , which contained materially false and fraudulent information as to defendant
AI,EXANDRA ACOSTA'S monthly payroll, gross revenue, and the purpose for the loan, among
other things.
22. 
ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and VILSAINT ST LOUIS submitted and caused the
subm ission of materially false and fraudulent information and documentation in support of the
application for the PPP loan, including falsified lnternal Revenue Service tax forms, such as a
Schedule C and Form 1099-M lSC, among other things.
As a result of the false and fraudulent PPP loan application submitted as part of this
scheme, on or about February 4, 202 1 , Lender l approved PPP loan number 1554728404 for
ALEXANDRA ACOSTA, and disbursed the loan proceeds in the approximate amount of $20,1 80
to ALEXANDRA ACOSTA at SunTrust Bank account number ending in 7279 in the nam e of
ALEXANDRA ACO STA .
ln furtherance of the scheme and artifice, ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and
VILSAINT ST LOUIS submitted and caused the subm ission of materially false and fraudulent
infonuation to the SBA and Lender 1 to cause and attempt to cause the forgiveness of PPP loan
6
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 6 of 14

num ber 1554728404 to which ALEXANDR A A CO STA was not entitled.
OVERT ACTS
In furtherance of the conspiracy and to achieve the purpose thereoll at least one of the
coconspirators com m itted and caused to be com mitted, in the Southern District of Florida, at least
one of the following overt acts, am ong others:
25. 
From  in or about Janualy 2021, through Jtme 2021, ALEXANDRA ACO STA and
W LSAINT ST LO UIS made and caused others to make m aterially false and fraudulent
statements to the SBA, Lender 1, and Loan Processor 1.
M aterially False and M isleading Statements
a.
That ALEXANDRA ACOSTA was compensated $103,255 by Realtor Company
1 in 2019, as represented in a false M iscellaneous Incom e Form 1099;
b. 
That ALEXANDR A ACO STA was a sole proprietor doing business as Realtor
Company 1 in 20l 9, as represented in a false Schedule C Fonn 1040;
That ALEXANDRA ACOSTA had $103,255 in gross receipts or sales in 2019 for
her sole proprietorship;
d. 
That ALEXANDRA ACOSTA had $6,389 in supply expenses in 2019 for her sole
proprietorship;
That ALEXANDRA ACOSTA had a net profit of $96,866 in 2019 for her sole
proprietorship;
That ALEXANDRA ACOSTA'S average monthly payroll in 2019 was $8,072 for
her sole proprietorship;
g. 
That the purpose of the PPP loan was for approved expenditures under the PPP
Program '
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 7 of 14

h.
That the PPP loan ftm ds were used on the approved expenditlzres under the PPP
Program.
26. 
As a result of ALEXANDM  ACO STA and VILSAINT ST LO UIS'S m aterial
m isrepresentations regarding the 2019 business incom e of ALEX ANDRA ACO STA and the
intended and actual use of the relief funds, from in or around January 2021, through in or around
Jtme 2021, ALEXANDR A ACOSTA and VILSAINT ST LOUIS falsely and fraudulently
caused Lender 1 to disblzrse $20,180 in fraudulent PPP funds to ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and
caused the SBA to pay the balance of the loan to Lender 1 based on the fraudulent application for
forgiveness.
Al1 in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
COUNT 2
False Statem ent to the SBA
(15 U.S.C. j 645(a))
27. 
Paragraphs 1 through 17 of the General Allegations section of this Indictm ent are
re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
On or about Febrtzary 3, 2021, in Brow ard County, Florida, in the Southern District of
Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants,
ALEX ANDR A A CO STA and W LSAINT ST LO UIS,
did knowingly m ake a false statement to the Small Business Administration for the purpose of
obtaining m oney and influencing in any way the Small Business Administration, that is, false
statem ents within ALEX ANDRA ACOSTA'S PPP loan application, in violation of Title 15,
United States Code, Sections 645(a) and 2.
8
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 8 of 14

l
COUNT 3
False Statem ent to the SBA
(15 U.S.C. j 645(a))
28. 
Paragraphs 1 through 17 of the General Allegations section of this lndictm ent are
re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
On or about A pril 2 1, 2021, in Brow ard County, Florida, in the Southern District of
Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants,
ALEX ANDM
 A CO STA and VILSAINT ST LO UIS,
did knowingly m ake a false statement to the Sm all Business Adm inistration for the purpose of
obtaining m oney and influencing in any way the Sm all Business Administration, that is, false
statem ents within ALEXANDRA ACO STA'S PPP loan forgiveness application, in violation of
Title 15, United States Code, Sections 645(a) and 2.
CO UNT 4
W ire Fraud
(18 U.S.C. j 1343)
29. 
Paragraphs 1 through 17 of the General Allegations section of this lndictm ent are
re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
From in or around January 2021, through in or around June 2021, the exact dates
being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Broward County, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida,
and elsewhere, the defendants,
ALEXANDM  ACOSTA and VILSAINT ST LOUIS,
did knowingly, and with the intent to defraud, devise, and intend to devise, a scheme and artifice
to defraud, and to obtain m oney and
pretenses, representations, and
property by m eans of materially false and fraudulent
prom ises, knowing that the pretenses, representations, and
promises were false and fraudulent when made, and, for the purpose of executing the schem e and
9
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 9 of 14

artifice, did knowingly transm it and cause to be transmitted, by m eans of wire communication in
interstate commerce, certain writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1343.
PURPOSE OF THE SCHEM E AND ARTIFICE
31. 
Paragraph 20 of Cotmt 1 is realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
THE SCH EM E AND ARTIFICE
Paragraphs 21-24 of Count 1 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
USE OF W IRES
On or about Febnzary 4, 2021, in Broward County, Florida, the Southern District
of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, ALEX ANDR A ACOSTA and W LSAINT ST LO UIS,
for the purpose of executing and in furtherance of the aforesaid schem e and artitk e to defraud, and
to obtain money and property by m eans of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and prom ises, knowing that the pretenses, representations, and promises were
false and fraudulent when m ade, did knowingly cause to be transmitted in interstate comm erce, by
m eans of wire comm tmication, certain writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, that is, the
transmission of an Automated Clearing House payment in the amount of approximately $20,180
from Lender 1 to SunTrust Barlk accotmt number ending in 7279, in the nam e of ALEXANDRA
ACOSTA , in the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS
1.
The allegations of this Indictment are hereby re-alleged and by this reference fully
incom orated herein for thç purpose of alleging forfeimre to the United States of Am erica of certain
10
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 10 of 14

property in which the defendants, ALEXANDM  ACOSTA and VILSAINT ST LO UIS, have
an interest.
2.
alleged in this lndictm ent, the defendants shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or
Upon conviction of a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, as
personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such offense, ptzrsuant to Title
18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C).
All ptlrsuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98 1(a)(1)(C) and the procedlzres set
forth in Title 21, United States Code, Section 853, as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code,
Section 2461(c).
A TRUE BILL
FoRsfERsox
. 
o - px zsuhsl
(*  MARKENZY LAPOINTE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
TREVO 
.JONE
ASSISTANT 
ED STATES ATTORN EY
11
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 11 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA
V.
ALEXANDRA ACOSTA et a1.,
e en an .
Court Division (select one)
ES M iami 
r  Key west r FTP
L FTL 
L W PB
l do hereby certify that:
1. 
l have carefully considered the allegations of the indictment, the number of defendants, the number of probable
witnesses and the lejal complexities of the Indictmenvlnfonnation attached hereto.
2. 
l am aware that the lnformation supplied on this statement will be relied upon by the Judges of this Court in setting
their calendars and scheduling criminal trials under the mandate of the Speedy Trial Act, Title 28 U.S.C. j3161.
3. Interpreter: (Yes or No) No
List language and/or dialect:
5 days for the parties to try.
4. 
This case will take
CASE NO.:
CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY
Superseding Case Inform ation:
New Defendantts) (Yes or No) Yes
Number of New Defendants 1
Total number of counts 4
5. 
Please check appropriate category and type of offense listed below:
(Check only one) 
(Check only one)
I 
m 0 to 5 days 
n Petty
11 r 6 to 10 days 
D Minor
1I1 L l l to 20 days 
n Misdemeanor
IV L 21 to 60 days 
M Felony
V L 61 days and over
6 Has this case been previously filed in this District Court? (Yes or No) Yes
If yes, Judge Scola 
Case No. 23-CR-60170
Has a complaint been filed in this matler? (Yes or No) Yes
lf yes, Magistrate Case No. 24-mj-06078-STRAUSS
Does this case relate to a previously filed matter in this District Court? (Yes or No) No
If yes, Judge 
Case No.
9. Defendantts) in federal custody as of N/A
l0. Defendantts) in state custody as of N/A
1 1. Rule 20 from the 
District of
l2. Is this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) N0
13. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office
prior to August 8, 2014 (M ag. Judge Shaniek Maynard? (Yes or No) No
14. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the U.S. Attorney's Om ce
prior to October 3, 2019 (Mag. Judge Jared Strauss? (Yes or No) No
Did this matter involve the participation of or consultation with now M agistrate Judge Eduardo 1. Sanchez
during his tenure at the U.S. Attorney's Offce, which concluded on January 22, 2023? NO
B :
y
Trevor C ne
Assistant Unlted States Attorney
FL Bar No. 
0092793
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 12 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENALTY SHEET
Defendant's Nam e: ALEXANDM  ACOSTA
Case No; 23-CR-60170-SCOLA(s)
Count #: 1
Conspiracv to Defraud the United States. Title 18s United States Code. Section 371
* M ax. Term of Im prisonm ent: 5 years
* Mandatory M in. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): n/a
* M ax. Supervised Release: 3 years
* M ax. Fine: $250,000
Counts #: 2-3
False Statement to SBAS Title 15. United States Code. Section 6454a)
* M ax. Term  of Im prisonm ent: 2 years
* Mandatory M in. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): n/a
* M ax. Supervised Release: 1 year
* M ax. Fine: $5,000
Count #: 4
W ire Frauds Title 18s United States Codes Section 1343
* M ax. Term of Im prisonm ent: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): n/a
* M ax. Supervised Release: 3 years
* M ax. Fine: $250,000
*Refers only to possible term  of incarceration, supervised release and ines. It does not include
restitution, special assessm ents, parole term s, or forfeitures that m ay be applicable.
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 13 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT O F FLO RIDA
PENALTY SHEET
Defendant's Nam e: VILSAINT ST LOUIS
Case No: 23-CR-60170-SCOLA(s)
Count #: 1
Conspiracv to Defraud the United States. Title 18. United States Code. Section 371
* M ax. Term  of Im prisonm ent: 5 years
* M andatory M in. Term of Imprisonm ent (if applicable): n/a
* M ax. Supervised Release: 3 years
* M ax. Fine: $250,000
Counts #: 2-3
False Statement to SBA. Title 15. United States Codes Section 645(a)
* M ax. Term of Im prisonm ent: 2 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of lmprisonment (if applicable): n/a
* M ax. Supervised Release: 1 year
* M ax. Fine: $5,000
Cotmt #: 4
W ire Fraud. Tislç
-  l8s
-united Statçs Cptle. Section 1343
* M ax. Term of Im prisonm ent: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of lmprisonment (if applicable): n/a
* M ax. Supervised Release: 3 years
* M ax. Fine: $250,000
*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, supervised release and llnes. It does not include
restitution, special assessm ents, parole term s, or forfeitures that m ay be applicable.
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024   Page 14 of 14

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.23.0.pdf

Size

598,964 bytes

SHA-256

7281ae21c25c996cf91cf4b42fdcc090a5896eac77eb91f572e803c4ba4aaaf8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.23.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)