Sealed Indictment as to Brandon Jamal Thurmond (1) count 1 — USA v. Thurmond et. al. (Dkt. 3, S.D. Ga.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia · No. 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE · Doc. 3 · 2023-03-09 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 _ Filed 03/09/23. Page1of15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION CR

123-0021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INDICTMENT NO.

18 U.S.C. § 1349

)

)

)

) Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud
BRANDON JAMAL THURMOND ) and Bank Fraud

)

)

)

Vv.

and

LA’-KYERA ME’LIKA THURMOND 18 U.S.C. § 1344

Bank Fraud
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT: Sz

At all times material to this Indictment:

1. BRANDON JAMAL THURMOND was an individual residing in
Georgia. He has been incarcerated in Wheeler Correctional Facility in Alamo,
Georgia, which is in the Southern District of Georgia, since approximately 2019.

Z. LA’KYERA ME’LIKA THURMOND was an individual residing in
Georgia.

3. Harvest Small Business Finance, LLC (“Harvest”) was a financial
institution within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 20. Harvest was a non-bank lender and
mortgage lending business that provided Payroll Protection Program loans to small
businesses under the CARES Act.

4. Renasant Bank was a financial institution within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. § 20. Its deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

5. SRP Federal Credit Union was a financial institution within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 20. Its accounts were insured by the National Credit Union

Share Insurance Fund.
Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 _ Filed 03/09/23 Page 2of15

The COVID-19 Pandemic and the CARES Act

6. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was
a federal law enacted in or about March 2020 designed to provide emergency financial
assistance to the millions who are suffering the economic effects caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic. Among other relief efforts, the United States sought to provide
financial support to eligible businesses that could be used to offset certain business
expenses.

7. The SBA was an executive branch agency of the United States
government that provided support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The SBA
was headquartered in Washington, DC and maintained its computer servers outside
of the State of Georgia. The SBA’s mission 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.

8. As part of this effort, the SBA enabled and provided for loans through
banks, credit unions, and other lenders. These loans have government-backed
guarantees. In addition, the SBA provided loans that came directly from the U.S.
Government.

Economic Injury Disaster Loans

9. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization

for the SBA to provide EIDLs to eligible small businesses experiencing substantial

financial disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 _ Filed 03/09/23 Page 3of15

10. In order to obtain an EIDL, a qualifying business had to submit an
online application to the SBA and provide information about its operations, such as
the number of employees, gross revenues for the twelve-month period preceding the
disaster, and the cost of goods the business sold in the twelve-month period preceding
the disaster. In the case of EIDLs, the twelve-month period was that preceding
January 31, 2020. The applicant also had to certify that all the information in its
application was true and correct to the best of the applicant’s knowledge.

11. EIDL applications were submitted directly to the SBA online at
https://covid19relief.sba.gov/#/ and processed by the agency with support from a
government contractor, Rapid Finance. The amount of each loan was determined
based, in part, on the information provided by the application about employment,
revenue, and cost of goods, as described above. Any funds issued under an EIDL were
issued directly by the SBA.

12. EIDL funds could be used for payroll expenses, sick leave, production
costs, and business obligations, such as debts, rent, and mortgage payments.

The Paycheck Protection Program

13. Another source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the
authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for job
retention and certain other expenses, through a program referred to as the Paycheck
Protection Program (“PPP”). In or around April 2020, Congress authorized over $300

billion in additional PPP funding.

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 _ Filed 03/09/23 Page4of15

14. Inorder to obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business had to submit a PPP
loan application 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 in order
to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan. In the PPP loan application, the small business
(through its authorized representative) had to state, among other things, its: (a)
average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of employees. These figures were
then used to calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible to receive
under the PPP. In addition, a business applying for a PPP loan had to provide
documentation showing its payroll expenses.

15. A PPP loan application had to be processed by a participating lender,
such as a financial institution. If a PPP loan was approved, the participating lender
funded the PPP loan using its own monies, which were 100% guaranteed by the SBA.
Data from the application, including the 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.

16. The PPP loan proceeds had to be used by the business on certain
permissible expenses—payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The
PPP allowed the interest and principal of the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven if the
business spent the loan proceeds on these expense items within a designated period

of time and used a certain percentage of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 _ Filed 03/09/23 Page5of15

Unemployment Insurance

17. Unemployment Insurance (“Ul”) was a joint state and federal program
that provided monetary benefits to eligible workers. Each state administered a
separate unemployment insurance program through its state workforce agency
(“SWA”).

18. In Arizona, the Department of Economic Security (“DES”) administered
the UI program.

19. In California, the Employment Development Department (“EDD”)
administered the UI program.

20. In Georgia, the Georgia Department of Labor (“DOL”) administered the
UI program.

21. In Virginia, the Virginia Employment Commission (“VEC”)
administered the Ul program.

22. In West Virginia, the Department of Commerce’s Workforce West
Virginia (““WWV”) administered the UI program.

23. Beginning in or around March 2020, in response to the COVID-19
pandemic, several federal programs expanded UI eligibility and increased UI
benefits. These programs were the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Program
(“PUA”), Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (“FPUC”), and the Lost
Wages Assistance Program (“LWAP?”) (collectively, “pandemic benefits”).

24. In order to receive pandemic benefits, an applicant was required to file

a claim with their SWA. Separate claims were not filed for PUA, FPUC, and LWAP.

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 Filed 03/09/23. Page 6 of 15

Rather, a single claim for PUA, if approved, resulted in an approved claim for the
additional FPUC and LWAP benefits as well. Unemployed workers in Arizona,
California, Georgia, Virginia, and West Virginia could file for UI benefits either by
phone or through an on-line portal.

25. After the SWA processed and authorized the claim, a financial
institution, pursuant to a contract with the state government, received and disbursed
the authorized benefits, either by direct deposit into the account the claimant
designated to receive such funds or onto a prepaid debit card mailed to the address
included in the claimant’s application for benefits.

26. Once their initial claim was approved, the claimant could then file to
receive benefits on a weekly basis by certifying online that they remained
unemployed and eligible for benefits. SWAs received and processed these
certifications via the Internet through their respective websites. Based on the
claimant’s certifications, the SWA would continue to authorize payment of available
UI benefits as described herein.

27. Individuals were only eligible for pandemic benefits if they were
unemployed for reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic and were otherwise
available to work and were seeking employment.

28. AnSWA participating in the UI program had an account in the United
States Treasury's “Automated Standard Application for Payments” program,
commonly referred to as “ASAP.” ASAP was an electronic system that federal

agencies used to securely transfer money to recipient organizations. An SWA, as such

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 _ Filed 03/09/23 Page/7 of 15

a recipient organization, could draw funds from its ASAP account to make payments
to individual recipients. Before being able to draw down those funds, the funds had
to first be placed in the SWA’s ASAP account. When the SWA for which the account
was funded was ready to receive the funds, the SWA would make a payment request
using the ASAP web interface, and Treasury would then disburse the funds to the
SWA’s bank account for the SWA’s use. Whether an SWA’s bank account was located
in the same state as the SWA or elsewhere, UI funds disbursed from an SWA’s bank
account would have necessarily flowed through interstate payment channels before

being disbursed to a UI beneficiary.

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 _ Filed 03/09/23 Page 8of15

COUNT ONE
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1349

29. Paragraphs One through Twenty-Eight of this Indictment are
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
30. Beginning at least as early as June 2020, and continuing to in or about
May 2021, within the Southern District of Georgia and elsewhere, the defendants,
BRANDON JAMAL THURMOND and LA’KYERA ME’LIKA THURMOND,
with others, known and unknown, did conspire, confederate, and agree with each
other to commit the following offenses:

a. wire fraud, that is, to devise and intend to devise a scheme and
artifice to defraud individuals and to obtain money and property by means of
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and
for the purpose of executing this scheme, and attempting to do so, to cause to
be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce
signals and sounds, all in violation of Section 1343 of Title 18 of the United
States Code; and

b. bank fraud, that is, to knowingly execute or attempt to execute a
scheme and artifice to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets,
securities, and other property under the custody and control of a financial
institution by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and

promises, all in violation of Section 1344 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 _ Filed 03/09/23 Page 9of15

The Object of the Conspiracy

31. It was the object of the conspiracy for the Defendants and others to
unlawfully enrich themselves by, among other things, obtaining EIDL and PPP
proceeds and UI benefits under false and fraudulent pretenses.

The Manner and Means of the Conspiracy

32. It was part of the conspiracy, and the manner and means thereof, that
one or both of the Defendants submitted, or caused to be submitted, (1) multiple false
and fraudulent applications for PPP loans to financial institutions, (2) at least one
electronic application for an EIDL from the SBA at https://covid19relief.sba.gov/#/,
knowing the same to contain material false representations, and (3) multiple
electronic applications for UI benefits, including pandemic unemployment benefits,
from the states of Arizona, California, Georgia, Virginia, and West Virginia at each
states SWA’s online portal, knowing the same to contain material false
representations.

33. From June 2020 to August 2020, one or both of the Defendants
submitted, or caused to be submitted, at least the following nine electronic
applications for UI benefits. Each application contained false affirmations that the
applicant resided in and/or was eligible for unemployment benefits in the state to
which the application was submitted:

a. On or about June 6, 2020, application to WWV for Brandon Thurmond;
b. On or about June 10, 2020, application to Arizona DES for Brandon

Thurmond;

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 _ Filed 03/09/23 Page 10of15

34.

. On or about June 15, 2020, application to Arizona DES for Individual 1;
. On or about June 15, 2020, application to Arizona DES for Individual 2;

. Onor about June 15, 2020, application to Arizona DES for Individual 3;

On or about June 16, 2020, application to Arizona DES for Individual 4;

. On or about July 13, 2020, application to Georgia DOL for Brandon

Thurmond;

. On or about August 9, 2020, application to VEC for Brandon Thurmond;

On or about August 11, 2020, application to California EDD for Brandon
Thurmond.

From April to May 2021, one or both of the Defendants submitted, or

caused to be submitted, at least the following six PPP loan applications to Harvest on

behalf of various purported businesses. Each application falsely represented the

applicant’s average monthly payroll. To support the false payroll amounts in each

PPP application, the Defendants created fabricated IRS forms Schedule C that were

submitted with the PPP applications:

a. On or about April 14, 2021, application for “Brandon Thurmond”

containing a false Schedule C reflecting $100,000 in gross receipts for

2019;

. On or about April 26, 2021, application for “Business 1” containing a

false Schedule C reflecting $100,000 in gross receipts for 2019.

. On or about April 28, 2021, application for “Business 2” containing a

false Schedule C reflecting $100,000 in gross receipts for 2019;

10

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 Filed 03/09/23 Page 11of15

d. On or about May 8, 2021, application for “Brandon Thurmond”
containing a false Schedule C reflecting $100,000 in gross receipts for
2019;

e. Onor about May 28, 2021, application for “Business 2” containing a false
Schedule C reflecting $100,000 in gross receipts for 2019;

f. Onor about May 28, 2021, application for “Business 3” containing a false
Schedule C reflecting $100,000 in gross receipts for 2019.

35. In June 2020 one or both of the Defendants submitted, or caused to be
submitted, the following EIDL application that falsely represented a purported
business’s gross revenues and number of employees:

a. On or about June 16, 2020, application for a purported business called
“Brandon Thurmond” with $98,325.00 in gross revenues in the 12
months preceding January 31, 2020, and 10 employees.

36. In reliance on the false representations made in that EIDL application
the SBA, by means of interstate wire communication, disbursed a $10,000 grant into

BRANDON JAMAL THURMOND’s bank account.

11

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 Filed 03/09/23 Page 12of15

COUNT TWO
Bank Fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1844

37. Onor about July 21, 2020, within the Southern District of Georgia and

elsewhere, the defendant,
LA’KYERA ME’LIKA THURMOND,

knowingly executed and attempted to execute a scheme and artifice to obtain any of
the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, and other property owned by Renasant
Bank by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and
promises; that is, she misrepresented her income to Renasant Bank in a residential
loan application and provided that financial institution with false and fraudulent
documents overstating her income, and made a $2,000 payment by wire, all in order

to obtain a residential mortgage for $269,000.00.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344.

12

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 _ Filed 03/09/23 Page13o0f15

COUNT THREE
Bank Fraud
18 U.S.C. § 13844

38. On or about October 2, 2020, within the Southern District of Georgia

and elsewhere, the defendant,
LA’KYERA ME’LIKA THURMOND,

knowingly executed and attempted to execute a scheme and artifice to obtain any of
the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, and other property owned by SRP
Federal Credit Union by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises; that is, she misrepresented her income to SRP
Federal Credit Union in a loan application and provided that financial institution
with false and fraudulent documents overstating her income, all in order to obtain a
loan for $31,518.23 that she used to purchase a 2020 Dodge Charger and pay off a
loan for a 2017 Dodge Charger.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344.

13

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 Filed 03/09/23 Page 14of15

FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations contained in Counts One through Three of this Indictment are
hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeiture
pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981(a)(1)(C) and 982(a)(2)(A) and
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c).

Upon conviction of any of the Title 18 offenses set forth in Counts One through
Three of this Indictment, the Defendants, BRANDON JAMAL THURMOND AND
LA’KYERA ME’LIKA THURMOND, shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to
Title 18, United States Code, 981(a)(1)(C) and 982(a)(2)(A), any property, real or
personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the charged
offense.

That property includes, but is not limited to:

a. Residence at 4619 Chafin Point Court, Snellville, Georgia 30039

b. 2020 Dodge Charger, VIN2C3CDXBG4LH208925

If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of the
Defendant(s):

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

b. has been transferred 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 that cannot be divided without
difficulty,

the United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property

!

14

Case 1:23-cr-00021-JRH-BKE Document3 _ Filed 03/09/23 Page 15of15

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

A True Bill.
Jill E. Speiabaae? Jeni Stanley
United States Attorney Assistant United States Attorney

Lead Counsel

B2GYA OW

Patricia G. Rhodes
Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Criminal Division

15

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.89394.3.0.pdf

Size

967,977 bytes

SHA-256

00697d62f1c6bb889783be0adb720f4a3c4c1a0636789355cd14658ab7591c36

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.89394.3.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)