Redacted indictment to jury for deliberations as to Alexandra Acosta — USA v. Alexandra Acosta (Dkt. 76, S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60170-RNS · Doc. 76 · 2024-06-06 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2024 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 23-CR-60170-SCOLA(S)

18 U.S.C. § 371
15 U.S.C. § 645(a)

18 U.S.C. § 1343

18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VS.

ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and
VILSAINT ST LOUIS,

Defendants.
/

_SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT _

The Grand Jury charges that:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

At times relevant to this Indictment:
The Small Business Administration

dL, The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was an executive
branch agency of the United States government that provided support to entrepreneurs and small
businesses. The mission of the SBA was to maintain and strengthen the nation’s economy by
enabling the establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in the economic
recovery of communities after disasters.

Ds As part of this effort, the SBA enabled and provided loans through banks, credit

unions, and other lenders. These loans had government-backed guarantees.
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2024 Page 2 of 11

The Paycheck Protection Program

3. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was a federal
law enacted in or around March 2020, 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 that the CARES Act provided was the Paycheck Protection
Program (“PPP”), which authorized forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and
certain other expenses.

4, The SBA promulgated regulations concerning eligibility fora PPP loan. To obtain
a PPP loan, a qualifying business was required to submit 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 program rules and make certain
affirmative certifications to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan, including that the business was in
operation on February 15, 2020, and either had employees for whom it paid salaries and payroll
taxes or paid independent contractors. Payments to independent contractors are typically reported
to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on a “Form 1099-MISC.” In the PPP loan application
(SBA Form 2483), the small business (through its authorized representative) was required to state,
among other things, its: (a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of employees.
These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible to
receive under the PPP.

De In addition, a business applying for a PPP loan was required to provide
documentation showing its payroll expenses. This payroll information was material to the
application because, pursuant to statutory requirements and implementing regulations, the amount

of the loan that typically could be approved was a function of the applicant’s historical payroll
.Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2024 Page 3 of 11

costs, consisting of compensation to its employees whose principal place of residence was the
United States, subject to certain exclusions.

6. Individuals who operated a business under a “sole proprietorship” business
structure were eligible for a PPP loan. To qualify for such a PPP loan, individuals had to report
and document their income and expenses from the sole proprietorship. Sole proprietorships
typically report their income and expenses yearly to the IRS on a “Form 1040, Schedule C.” As
with other PPP loans, this information and supporting documentation was used to calculate the
amount of money the individual was entitled to receive under the PPP. The maximum PPP loan
amount for a sole proprietor with no employees was $20,833.

7. PPP loan applications were processed by participating lenders and third-party loan
processors. If a PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan
using its own monies. While it was the participating 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 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.

8. After the lender funded the PPP loan to the borrower, the lender submitted
disbursement details into the SBA E-Tran system with servers located in Sterling, VA. The SBA’s
Denver Finance Center, located in Denver, Colorado, created payment files and authorized
payments of the PPP processing fee to the lender through the Financial Management System to
the Treasury. The primary server for the Financial Management System is in Sterling, VA. The
PPP processing fee varied depending on the amount of the loan. Once created, the payment files

were then transmitted via wire to the U.S. Treasury disbursing office in Kansas City, Missouri,
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2024 Page 4 of 11

which, in turn, sent instructions for payment of funds to the Federal Reserve Bank Automated
Clearing House processing site in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

a i 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 mortgage 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, or jewelry, to
pay the borrower’s personal federal income taxes, or to fund the borrower’s ordinary day-to-day
living expenses unrelated to the specified 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).

11. | 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.
Whatever portion of the PPP loan was not forgiven was serviced as a loan.

The Defendants

12. ALEXANDRA ACOSTA was a resident of Broward County, Florida, and full-
time employee of THE Broward County Sheriff’s Office.

13, VILSAINT ST LOUIS was a resident of Broward County, Florida, and President
and Chief Executive Officer of Victory Tax Inc., a Florida Corporation.

14. ALEXANDRA ACOSTA was a tax client of Victory Tax Inc. and VILSAINT ST

LOUIS from at least on or about January 2019 through April 2021.
.Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2024 Page 5 of 11

Relevant Lender, Loan Processor, and Entity

15. 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 loan processor, based in Jersey City, New
Jersey, that processed PPP loan applications for Lender 1.

17. Realtor Company 1 was a Florida Limited Liability Company. T.C. was the
President of Realtor Company 1.

COUNT 1
(Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)
18 U.S.C. § 371

18. Paragraphs 1 through 17 of the General Allegations section of this Indictment 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 ACOSTA and VILSAINT ST LOUIS,
did knowingly make a false statement to the Small Business Administration for the purpose of
obtaining money and influencing in any way the Small Business Administration, that is, false
statements within ALEXANDRA ACOSTA’s PPP loan application and PPP loan forgiveness
application, in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Sections 645(a) and 2.

PURPOSE OF THE CONSPIRACY

20. It was the purpose of the conspiracy for ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and
VILSAINT ST LOUIS to unlawfully obtain PPP relief funds—made available through the SBA

to provide relief for the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic—for
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2024 Page 6 of 11

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.

MANNER AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY

The manner and means by which ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and VILSAINT ST LOUIS
sought to accomplish the purpose of the conspiracy included, among other things, the following:

21. ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and VILSAINT ST LOUIS submitted and caused the
submission of a materially false and fraudulent application for a PPP loan to the SBA, Lender 1,
and Loan Processor 1, which contained materially false and fraudulent information as to defendant
ALEXANDRA 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
submission of materially false and fraudulent information and documentation in support of the
application for the PPP loan, including falsified Internal Revenue Service tax forms, such as a
Schedule C and Form 1099-MISC, among other things.

23. As a result of the false and fraudulent PPP loan application submitted as part of this
scheme, on or about February 4, 2021, Lender 1 approved PPP loan number 1554728404 for
ALEXANDRA ACOSTA, and disbursed the loan proceeds in the approximate amount of $20,180
to ALEXANDRA ACOSTA at SunTrust Bank account number ending in 7279 in the name of
ALEXANDRA ACOSTA.

24. In furtherance of the scheme and artifice, ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and
VILSAINT ST LOUIS submitted and caused the submission of materially false and fraudulent

information to the SBA and Lender 1 to cause and attempt to cause the forgiveness of PPP loan
.Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2024 Page 7 of 11

number 1554728404 to which ALEXANDRA ACOSTA was not entitled.

OVERT ACTS

In furtherance of the conspiracy and to achieve the purpose thereof, at least one of the
coconspirators committed and caused to be committed, in the Southern District of Florida, at least
one of the following overt acts, among others:

25. From in or about January 2021, through June 2021, ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and
VILSAINT ST LOUIS made and caused others to make materially false and fraudulent
statements to the SBA, Lender 1, and Loan Processor 1.

Materially False and Misleading Statements

a. That ALEXANDRA ACOSTA was compensated $103,255 by Realtor Company
1 in 2019, as represented in a false Miscellaneous Income Form 1099;

b. That ALEXANDRA ACOSTA was a sole proprietor doing business as Realtor
Company 1 in 2019, as represented in a false Schedule C Form 1040;

Cc. 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;

e. That ALEXANDRA ACOSTA had a net profit of $96,866 in 2019 for her sole
proprietorship;

f. 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 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2024 Page 8 of 11

h. That the PPP loan funds were used on the approved expenditures under the PPP
program.

26. As aresult of ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and VILSAINT ST LOUIS’s material
misrepresentations regarding the 2019 business income of ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and the
intended and actual use of the relief funds, from in or around January 2021, through in or around
June 2021, ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and VILSAINT ST LOUIS falsely and fraudulently
caused Lender 1 to disburse $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.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

COUNT 2
False Statement to the SBA
(15 U.S.C. § 645(a))

27. Paragraphs 1 through 17 of the General Allegations section of this Indictment are
re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

On or about February 3, 2021, in Broward County, Florida, in the Southern District of

Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants,

ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and VILSAINT ST LOUIS,
did knowingly make a false statement to the Small Business Administration for the purpose of
obtaining money and influencing in any way the Small Business Administration, that is, false
statements within ALEXANDRA ACOSTA’s PPP loan application, in violation of Title 15,

United States Code, Sections 645(a) and 2.
. ,Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2024 Page 9 of 11

COUNT 3
False Statement to the SBA
(15 U.S.C. § 645(a))

28. Paragraphs 1 through 17 of the General Allegations section of this Indictment are
re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

On or about April 21, 2021, in Broward County, Florida, in the Southern District of
Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants,

ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and VILSAINT ST LOUIS,
did knowingly make a false statement to the Small Business Administration for the purpose of
obtaining money and influencing in any way the Small Business Administration, that is, false
statements within ALEXANDRA ACOSTA’s PPP loan forgiveness application, in violation of
Title 15, United States Code, Sections 645(a) and 2.
COUNT 4
Wire Fraud
(18 U.S.C. § 1343)

29. Paragraphs | through 17 of the General Allegations section of this Indictment are
re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

30. 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,

ALEXANDRA 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 money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent

pretenses, representations, and promises, knowing that the pretenses, representations, and

promises were false and fraudulent when made, and, for the purpose of executing the scheme and

Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2024 Page 10 of 11

artifice, did knowingly transmit and cause to be transmitted, by means 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 SCHEME AND ARTIFICE

aL. Paragraph 20 of Count 1 is realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE

Paragraphs 21-24 of Count 1 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

USE OF WIRES

ee On or about February 4, 2021, in Broward County, Florida, the Southern District
of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and VILSAINT ST LOUIS,
for the purpose of executing and in furtherance of the aforesaid scheme and artifice to defraud, and
to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises, knowing that the pretenses, representations, and promises were
false and fraudulent when made, did knowingly cause to be transmitted in interstate commerce, by
means of wire communication, 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 Bank account number ending in 7279, in the name of ALEXANDRA
ACOSTA, in the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

A TRUE BILL

FOREPERSON

10
» Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2024 Page 11 of 11

MARKENZY LAPOINTE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

TREVOR C. JONES
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

11

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.76.0.pdf

Size

3,190,024 bytes

SHA-256

8a82f12937901dced801299d4fb026dca6a098b60e2ef7769228bfee612133e4

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.76.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)