Indictment Filed as to Western Distribution, LLC — USA v. Western Distribution, LLC. et al. (Dkt. 14, C.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 5:21-cr-00170-VAP · Doc. 14 · 2021-07-21 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
April 2021 Grand Jury 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
WESTERN DISTRIBUTION, LLC, 
  aka “Advanced Distribution     
Inc.,” and 
CARL BRADLEY JOHANSSON, 
  aka “Brad Johnson,”  
  aka “Carl Johnson,” 
  aka “C. Brad Johanson,” 
  aka “Jay Johnson,”  
  aka “Keith Golatta,” 
Defendants. 
CR 
I N D I C T M E N T 
[18 U.S.C. § 1349: Conspiracy To 
Commit Bank Fraud; 18 U.S.C.  
§ 1344(2): Bank Fraud; 18 U.S.C.
§ 3147: Offense Committed While
On Pretrial Release; 18 U.S.C. 
§ 982: Criminal Forfeiture]
The Grand Jury charges: 
INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS 
At times relevant to this Indictment: 
A.
THE DEFENDANTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS
1.
Defendant WESTERN DISTRIBUTION, LLC, also known as
(“aka”) “Advanced Distribution, Inc.” (“WESTERN”), was a 
5:21-cr-00170-JFW
07/21/2021
DM
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 1 of 20   Page ID #:77
 
 
FILED 
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
 
 
 
 
 
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
BY: ___________________ DEPUTY 

 
 
2 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
trucking company based in San Bernardino County, California, 
that was engaged in the business of transporting jet fuel.  
2. 
Defendant CARL BRADLEY JOHANSSON, aka “Brad Johnson,” 
“Carl Johnson,” aka “C. Brad Johanson,” aka “Jay Johnson,” aka 
“Keith Golatta” (“JOHANSSON”), controlled and operated defendant 
WESTERN and Co-conspirator #1.  From in or about April 2018 
through July 2021, defendant JOHANSSON was on federal pretrial 
release due to the felony charges pending against him in United 
States v. National Distribution Services, Inc., et al., C.D. 
Cal. Case No. 5:18-CR-114(B)-VAP.  
3. 
Co-conspirator #1 was a trucking company based in 
Gustine, California, that was engaged in the business of 
transporting agricultural products.  
4. 
Co-conspirator #2 was defendant JOHANSSON’s son, and 
the alleged owner of defendant WESTERN.  
5. 
Co-conspirator #3 was defendant JOHANSSON’s 
administrative assistant for defendant WESTERN.  
B. 
THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM 
6. 
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 
(“CARES”) Act was a federal law enacted in or about March 2020 
that was designed to provide emergency financial assistance to 
Americans suffering economic harm due to impacts of the COVID-19 
pandemic.  One form of assistance provided by the CARES Act was 
the authorization of United States taxpayer funds to be paid as 
forgivable loans to small businesses for the specific purpose of 
paying employees, protecting their jobs, and certain other 
expenses, through a program referred to as the Paycheck 
Protection Program (“PPP”).  PPP loan proceeds were required to 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 2 of 20   Page ID #:78

 
 
3 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
be used by applying businesses for the following purposes only: 
to retain workers and maintain payroll, make mortgage interest 
payments, make lease payments, and make utility payments.  The 
PPP allowed the interest and principal on the PPP loan to be 
entirely forgiven if the business spent the loan proceeds on 
these allowable expenses within a designated period of time 
(usually 24 weeks after receiving the proceeds) and used at 
least sixty percent of the PPP loan proceeds on worker payroll 
expenses. 
7. 
To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was 
required to submit a PPP loan application signed by an 
authorized representative of the business.  The PPP loan 
application required the applicant business (through its 
authorized representative) to acknowledge the program rules and 
make certain affirmative certifications to be eligible for a PPP 
loan.  These certifications required the applicant to affirm 
that “The [PPP loan] funds will be used to retain workers and 
maintain payroll or make mortgage interest payments, lease 
payments, and utility payments,” and that the “loan proceeds 
will be used only for business-related purposes as specified in 
the loan application” and consistent with the PPP rules.  The 
authorized representative of the applicant was also required to 
certify that “the information provided in this application and 
the information provided in all supporting documents and forms 
is true and accurate in material respects,” and “I understand 
that if the funds are knowingly used for unauthorized purposes, 
the federal government may hold me legally liable, such as for 
charges of fraud.” 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 3 of 20   Page ID #:79

 
 
4 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. 
In the PPP loan application, the applicant was 
required to state, among other things, the business’s average 
monthly payroll expenses and number of employees.  These figures 
were used to calculate the amount of money the applicant 
business was eligible to receive under the PPP.  In addition, 
the applicant was required to provide documentation proving its 
payroll expenses, including federal tax filings and bank account 
records.   
9. 
The PPP loan application included eligibility 
questions relating to current and past criminal histories of any 
and all individuals owning twenty percent or more of the 
applicant company.  The application stated that any recent 
felony conviction or current indictment of an owner of twenty 
percent or more of an applicant made the applicant ineligible 
for PPP funding. 
10. 
A small business’s PPP loan application would be 
received and processed by a participating lender approved by the 
United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”).  If a PPP 
loan application was approved, the participating lender would 
fund the PPP loan using its own monies, which were guaranteed by 
the SBA. 
C. 
THE SBA-APPROVED LENDERS 
11. 
“Bank A” was a financial institution and an SBA-
approved participating lender of PPP loans based in Stockton, 
California, whose deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 4 of 20   Page ID #:80

 
 
5 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. 
“Bank B” was a financial institution and an SBA-
approved participating lender of PPP loans based in San 
Francisco, California, whose deposits were insured by the FDIC. 
13. 
These Introductory Allegations are incorporated into 
each count of this Indictment.  
 
 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 5 of 20   Page ID #:81

 
 
6 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COUNT ONE 
[18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 3147] 
[ALL DEFENDANTS] 
A. 
OBJECTS OF THE CONSPIRACY 
Beginning on a date unknown to the Grand Jury and 
continuing to on or about July 21, 2021, in San Bernardino 
County, within the Central District of California, and 
elsewhere, defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON conspired with 
others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, including Co-
conspirators #1, #2, and #3, to execute a scheme to defraud a 
federally-insured financial institution, as to material matters, 
and to obtain moneys and funds owned by and in the custody and 
control of the bank by means of material false and fraudulent 
pretenses, representations, and promises, and the concealment of 
material facts, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 
Sections 1344(1), (2).  
B. 
THE MANNER AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY  
The objects of the conspiracy were carried out, and were to 
be carried out, as follows:    
1. 
Under defendant JOHANSSON’s direction, defendant 
WESTERN would apply for and obtain a PPP loan in the amount of 
$436,390 in April 2020, yet fail to disclose on its PPP loan 
application that (a) it would not comply with the PPP rules; (b) 
it shared common management (i.e., defendant JOHANSSON) with 
other businesses; (c) it already had laid off most of its 
employees; and (d) it was not a lawfully registered limited 
liability company (“LLC”).  
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 6 of 20   Page ID #:82

 
 
7 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. 
Under defendant JOHANSSON’s direction, defendant 
WESTERN would spend all of the $436,390 PPP loan by June 15, 
2020, and most of the loan on expenses unrelated to its payroll. 
3. 
Under defendant JOHANSSON’s direction, Co-conspirator 
#1 would apply for and obtain a PPP loan in the amount of 
$286,500 in April 2020, yet fail to disclose on the PPP loan 
application that Co-conspirator #1 shared common management 
(i.e., defendant JOHANSSON) with other businesses.  
4. 
When defendant WESTERN’s business picked back up in 
the fall of 2020, in order to make it look as if defendant 
WESTERN had spent most of its PPP loan on its payroll, 
defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON and Co-conspirator #1 would 
cause 21 of Co-conspirator #1’s employees to be placed on 
defendant WESTERN’s payroll, even though those 21 individuals 
did not work for defendant WESTERN. 
5. 
Under defendant JOHANSSON’s direction, Co-conspirator 
#1 would reimburse defendant WESTERN for the payroll costs for 
Co-conspirator #1’s employees, even though those employees had 
been transferred to defendant WESTERN’s payroll.  
6. 
Under defendant JOHANSSON’s direction, defendant 
WESTERN and Co-conspirator #2 would submit a PPP loan 
forgiveness application that fraudulently claimed that defendant 
WESTERN had complied with the PPP rules, and that 21 of Co-
conspirator #1’s employees worked for defendant WESTERN, so that 
defendant WESTERN could meet the PPP loan-forgiveness 
eligibility requirement that at least sixty percent of a 
company’s loan be spent on payroll. 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 7 of 20   Page ID #:83

 
 
8 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. 
Under defendant JOHANSSON’s direction, defendant 
WESTERN and Co-conspirator #2 would apply for a second PPP loan 
in the amount of $231,527 in March 2021, using the same 
fraudulent scheme whereby they falsely represented – the 
following: (a) that defendant WESTERN would comply with the PPP 
rules; (b) that defendant WESTERN did not share any common 
management with other businesses; (c) that defendant WESTERN was 
a lawfully registered LLC; and (d) that many of Co-conspirator 
#1’s employees worked for defendant WESTERN. 
C. 
OVERT ACTS 
On or about the following dates, in furtherance of the 
conspiracy and to accomplish the objects of the conspiracy, 
defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON, and others both known and 
unknown to the Grand Jury, including Co-conspirators #1, #2, and 
#3, committed various overt acts within the Central District of 
California and elsewhere, including, but not limited to, the 
following: 
Overt Act No. 1: 
On or about April 15, 2020, Co-
conspirator #1 submitted a PPP loan application (“Co-conspirator 
#1’s PPP Loan Application”) to Bank B, seeking a PPP loan in the 
amount of $286,505. 
Overt Act No. 2: 
On or about April 15, 2020, as part of 
Co-conspirator #1’s PPP Loan Application, Co-conspirator #1 
represented to Bank B that Co-conspirator #1 had no common 
management with any other business.   
Overt Act No. 3: 
On or about April 15, 2020, as part of 
Co-conspirator #1’s PPP Loan Application, Co-conspirator #1 
represented to Bank B that defendant JOHANSSON’s mother owned 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 8 of 20   Page ID #:84

 
 
9 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Co-conspirator #1 to make it appear that no owner of Co-
conspirator #1 was under indictment.  
Overt Act No. 4: 
On or about April 24, 2020, defendant 
WESTERN submitted a PPP loan application (“WESTERN’s PPP Loan 
Application”) to Bank A, seeking a PPP loan in the amount of 
$436,390. 
Overt Act No. 5: 
On or about April 24, 2020, as part of 
defendant WESTERN’s PPP Loan Application, defendant WESTERN 
represented to Bank A that it had the equivalent of 31 full-time 
employees, even though defendant WESTERN had laid off most of 
those employees prior to the submission of the application.  
Overt Act No. 6: 
On or about April 24, 2020, as part of 
WESTERN’s PPP Loan Application, defendant WESTERN represented to 
Bank A that WESTERN had no common management with any other 
business.   
Overt Act No. 7: 
On or about April 24, 2020, as part of 
defendant WESTERN’s PPP Loan Application, defendant WESTERN 
represented to Bank A that it was a lawfully registered LLC even 
though defendant JOHANSSON had caused the LLC to become defunct 
in or around September 2019. 
Overt Act No. 8: 
On or about April 24, 2020, as part of 
defendant WESTERN’s PPP Loan Application, defendant WESTERN 
represented to Bank A that Co-conspirator #2 owned defendant 
WESTERN to make it appear that no owner of defendant WESTERN was 
under indictment. 
Overt Act No. 9: 
On or about April 24, 2020, as part of 
defendant WESTERN’s PPP Loan Application, defendant WESTERN 
certified to Bank A that the PPP funds it received would be 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 9 of 20   Page ID #:85

 
 
10 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“used to retain workers and maintain payroll or make mortgage 
interest payments, lease payments, and utility payments, as 
specified under the Paycheck Protection Rule.” 
Overt Act No. 10: 
On or about May 5, 2020, defendant 
WESTERN obtained a PPP loan in the amount of $436,390 after 
submitting its fraudulent PPP loan application. 
Overt Act No. 11: 
On or about May 6, 2020, Co-conspirator 
#1 obtained a PPP loan in the amount of $286,500 after 
submitting its fraudulent PPP loan application. 
Overt Act No. 12: 
Between on or about May 7, 2020 and 
June 15, 2020, defendant WESTERN spent at least $435,000 of its 
PPP loan, mostly on expenses unrelated to its payroll, because 
the company had laid off most of its employees before it even 
applied for the PPP loan. 
Overt Act No. 13: 
On or about May 16, 2020, defendant 
JOHANSSON added Co-conspirator #2 to defendant WESTERN’s 
payroll, even though defendant JOHANSSON had previously 
represented in the April 24, 2020 PPP loan application that Co-
conspirator #2 already owned defendant WESTERN. 
Overt Act No. 14: 
On or about September 22, 2020, 
defendant JOHANSSON and Co-conspirator #1 fraudulently 
transferred 21 of Co-conspirator #1’s employees (“Co-conspirator 
#1’s 21 Employees”) to defendant WESTERN’s payroll account 
(effective as of on or about September 16, 2020), even though 
those employees continued to work for Co-conspirator #1 rather 
than defendant WESTERN.  
Overt Act No. 15: 
Between on or about September 16, 2020 
and October 19, 2020, at defendant JOHANSSON’s direction, 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 10 of 20   Page ID #:86

 
 
11 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
defendant WESTERN paid Co-conspirator #1’s 21 Employees 
approximately $87,722, even though Co-conspirator #1’s 21 
Employees did not work for defendant WESTERN.   
Overt Act No. 16: 
Between in or about September 2020 
through December 2020, Co-conspirator #1 wired approximately 
$358,287 from Co-conspirator #1’s bank account to defendant 
WESTERN’s bank account, in order to reimburse defendant WESTERN 
for the money that it was using to pay Co-conspirator #1’s 21 
Employees. 
Overt Act No. 17: 
On or about December 28, 2020, 
defendant JOHANSSON sent an email to the employee at Co-
conspirator #1 who handled payroll issues, writing “[M]ake this 
the last week . . . go back to your own next week.”  
Overt Act No. 18: 
On or about December 29, 2020, the 
employee at Co-conspirator #1 replied to defendant JOHANSSON, 
writing, “We will go ahead and run the weekly payroll 
information we gave you yesterday under the Western trucker 
account. . . . We will go back to everyone under the Agri-Comm 
Express, Inc. account next week.” 
Overt Act No. 19: 
On or about January 19, 2021, defendant 
WESTERN submitted a loan forgiveness application (the “Loan 
Forgiveness Application”) to Bank A, in which defendant WESTERN 
requested that its entire $436,390 loan be forgiven pursuant to 
the PPP rules. 
Overt Act No. 20: 
On or about January 19, 2021, as part 
of the Loan Forgiveness Application, Co-conspirator #2 certified 
to Bank A that “[t]he dollar amount for which forgiveness is 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 11 of 20   Page ID #:87

 
 
12 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
requested was used to pay costs that are eligible for 
forgiveness.” 
Overt Act No. 21: 
On or about January 19, 2021, as part 
of the Loan Forgiveness Application, Co-conspirator #2 certified 
to Bank A that “[t]he information provided in this application 
and the information provided in all supporting documents and 
forms is true and correct in all material respects.” 
Overt Act No. 22: 
On or about January 29, 2021, as part 
of the Loan Forgiveness Application, Co-conspirator #2 
represented to Bank A that Co-conspirator #1’s 21 Employees were 
actually defendant WESTERN’s employees from on or about May 5, 
2020 to October 19, 2020, and were paid approximately $87,722 by 
defendant WESTERN during that period, even though the 21 
Employees did not work for defendant WESTERN and Co-conspirator 
#1 had reimbursed defendant WESTERN for those 21 Employees’ 
payroll expenses. 
Overt Act No. 23: 
On or about February 22, 2021, Co-
conspirator #3 represented to Bank A that defendant WESTERN had 
three different departments and hence three different payroll 
journals, yet concealed from Bank A that one of those 
“departments” actually consisted of Co-conspirator #1’s 21 
Employees.  
Overt Act No. 24: 
On or about March 24, 2021, under 
defendant JOHANSSON’s direction, defendant WESTERN applied for a 
second PPP loan (the “Second PPP Loan Application”), also 
through Bank A, seeking a PPP loan in the amount of $231,527. 
Overt Act No. 25: 
On or about March 24, 2021, as part of 
the Second PPP Loan Application, Co-conspirator #2 fraudulently 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 12 of 20   Page ID #:88

 
 
13 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
represented to Bank A that defendant WESTERN had no common 
management with any other business.   
Overt Act No. 26: 
On or about March 24, 2021, as part of 
the Second PPP Loan Application, Co-conspirator #2 fraudulently 
represented to Bank A that defendant WESTERN was a lawfully 
registered LLC.   
Overt Act No. 27: 
On or about March 24, 2021, as part of 
the Second PPP Loan Application, Co-conspirator #2 certified to 
Bank A that the PPP funds that defendant WESTERN received would 
be “used to retain workers and maintain payroll; or make 
payments for mortgage interest, rent, utilities, [and] covered 
operations expenditures . . . as specified under the Paycheck 
Protection Program Rules.” 
Overt Act No. 28: 
On or about March 24, 2021, as part of 
the Second PPP Loan Application, defendant WESTERN submitted to 
Bank A its purported payroll, yet failed to disclose to Bank A 
that many of the individuals that it had listed as its own 
employees were actually employed by Co-conspirator #1 rather 
than defendant WESTERN.  
Overt Act No. 29: 
On or about March 24, 2021, defendant 
WESTERN obtained a PPP loan in the amount of $231,527 after 
submitting its Second PPP Loan Application. 
D. 
OFFENSE COMMITTED WHILE ON PRETRIAL RELEASE  
During the commission of the felony offense described 
above, defendant JOHANSSON was released pursuant to Title 18, 
United States Code, Chapter 207, in the criminal case of United 
States v. National Distribution Services, Inc., et al., 5:18-CR-
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 13 of 20   Page ID #:89

 
 
14 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
114(B)-VAP, in the United States District Court for the Central 
District of California. 
 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 14 of 20   Page ID #:90

 
 
15 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COUNTS TWO THROUGH FOUR 
[18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(2), 2(b), 3147] 
[ALL DEFENDANTS] 
A. 
THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD 
1. 
Beginning no later than in or around April 2020 and 
continuing until at least in or around July 2021, in San 
Bernardino County, within the Central District of California, 
and elsewhere, defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON, knowingly and 
with intent to defraud, devised, participated in, and executed a 
scheme to obtain moneys, funds, credits, assets, and other 
property owned by and in the custody and control of Bank A by 
means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, 
representations, and promises, and the concealment of material 
facts. 
2. 
The fraudulent scheme operated, in substance, as 
follows: 
a. 
In April 2020, defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON 
submitted, and caused to be submitted, a false and fraudulent 
PPP loan application (“WESTERN’s PPP Application”) to Bank A. 
b. 
In defendant WESTERN’s PPP Application, 
defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON made, and caused to be made, 
false and fictitious statements and provided falsified documents 
to the SBA and Bank A, including concealing that defendant 
WESTERN shared common management with other companies, 
concealing that defendant WESTERN was not a lawfully registered 
LLC, and falsely certifying that the loan would be used for 
permissible PPP purposes. 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 15 of 20   Page ID #:91

 
 
16 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. 
Defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON electronically 
submitted, and caused to be submitted, the false and fictitious 
statements to the SBA and financial institution in support of 
the fraudulent PPP Loan Application to obtain a PPP loan that 
they did not intend to spend on payroll as required. 
d. 
In reliance on defendants WESTERN’s and 
JOHANSSON’s materially false and fraudulent statements and their 
concealment of material facts, Bank A approved and funded the 
PPP loan, and thereafter transferred approximately $436,390 in 
loan proceeds by interstate wire into bank accounts that 
defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON controlled. 
e. 
Defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON used the 
fraudulently obtained PPP loan proceeds for their own benefit, 
among other things, rather than ensuring that most of defendant 
WESTERN’s employees would not be laid off.  
f. 
Defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON submitted, and 
caused to be submitted, a false and fraudulent PPP loan 
forgiveness application (the “Loan Forgiveness Application”) to 
Bank A on behalf of defendant WESTERN. 
g. 
In the Loan Forgiveness Application, defendants 
WESTERN and JOHANSSON made, and caused to be made, false and 
fictitious statements to the SBA and Bank A, including inflating 
defendant Western’s payroll expenses by listing employees who 
did not work for defendant WESTERN, and falsely certifying that 
the loan had been used for permissible PPP purposes. 
h. 
Defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON electronically 
submitted, and caused to be submitted, the false and fictitious 
statements to the SBA and Bank A in support of the fraudulent 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 16 of 20   Page ID #:92

 
 
17 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Loan Forgiveness Application to obtain the forgiveness of the 
PPP loan that they had not spent on defendant WESTERN’s payroll 
as required. 
i. 
In March 2021, defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON 
submitted, and caused to be submitted, a second false and 
fraudulent PPP loan application (the “Second PPP Loan 
Application”) to Bank A on behalf of defendant WESTERN. 
j. 
In the Second PPP Loan Application, defendants 
WESTERN and JOHANSSON made, and caused to be made, false and 
fictitious statements and provided falsified documents to the 
SBA and Bank A, including inflating the number of defendant 
WESTERN’s employees, concealing the fact that defendant WESTERN 
shared common management with other companies, concealing the 
fact that defendant WESTERN was not a lawfully registered LLC, 
and falsely certifying that the loan would be used for 
permissible business purposes. 
k. 
Defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON electronically 
submitted, and caused to be submitted, the false and fictitious 
statements to the SBA and financial institution in support of 
the fraudulent Second PPP Loan Application to obtain a PPP loan 
that they did not intend to spend as they had represented to 
Bank A.  
l. 
In reliance on defendants WESTERN’s and 
JOHANSSON’s material false and fraudulent statements and their 
concealment of material facts, Bank A approved and funded the 
Second PPP Loan Application, and thereafter transferred 
approximately $231,527 in loan proceeds by interstate wire into 
bank accounts that defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON controlled. 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 17 of 20   Page ID #:93

 
 
18 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. 
EXECUTIONS OF THE SCHEME  
3. 
On or about the following dates, in San Bernardino 
County, within the Central District of California, and 
elsewhere, defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON committed and 
willfully caused others to commit the following acts, each of 
which constituted an execution of the fraudulent scheme: 
 
COUNT  
DATE  
ACT 
TWO 
4/24/2020 
Submission to Bank A of defendant 
WESTERN’s first PPP loan application 
THREE 
1/19/2021 
Submission to Bank A of defendant 
WESTERN’s loan forgiveness application 
for its first PPP loan 
FOUR 
3/24/2021 
Submission to Bank A of defendant 
WESTERN’s second PPP loan application 
 
C. 
OFFENSES COMMITTED WHILE ON PRETRIAL RELEASE  
During the commission of the felony offenses described 
above, defendant JOHANSSON was released pursuant to Title 18, 
United States Code, Chapter 207, in the criminal case of United 
States v. National Distribution Services, Inc., et al., 5:18-CR-
114(B)-VAP, in the United States District Court for the Central 
District of California. 
 
 
 
 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 18 of 20   Page ID #:94

 
 
19 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION 
[18 U.S.C. § 982] 
1. 
Pursuant to Rule 32.2(a) of the Federal Rules of 
Criminal Procedure, notice is hereby given that the United 
States of America will seek forfeiture as part of any sentence, 
pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2), and 
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), in the event of 
defendants’ conviction of the offenses set forth in any of 
Counts One through Four of this Indictment.   
2. 
The defendants so convicted shall forfeit to the 
United States of America the following: 
a. 
$436,390 in funds obtained on or about May 5, 
2020 as part of defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON’s PPP loan 
application; 
b. 
$286,500 in funds obtained on or about May 6, 
2020 as part of defendant JOHANSSON and Co-conspirator #1’s PPP 
loan application;  
c. 
$231,527 in funds obtained on or about March 24, 
2021 as part of defendants WESTERN and JOHANSSON’s second PPP 
loan application;  
d. 
All right, title, and interest in any and all 
property, real or personal, constituting, or derived from, any 
proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the 
offense; and  
e. 
To the extent such property is not available for 
forfeiture, a sum of money equal to the total value of the 
property described in subparagraph (a). 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 19 of 20   Page ID #:95

 
 
20 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. 
Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 
853(p), as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 
982(b) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), the  
defendants so convicted shall forfeit substitute property, up to 
the total value of the property described in the preceding 
paragraph if, as the result of any act or omission of said 
defendant, the property described in the preceding paragraph, or 
any portion thereof: (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of 
due diligence; (b) has been transferred, 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. 
A TRUE BILL 
 
 
_     /S/______________ 
Foreperson 
 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
 
 
 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
MARK A. WILLIAMS 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Environmental and  
Community Safety Crimes Section 
 
JOSEPH O. JOHNS 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Environmental and Community  
Safety Crimes Section 
 
MATTHEW W. O’BRIEN 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Environmental and Community  
Safety Crimes Section 
Case 5:21-cr-00170-VAP   Document 14   Filed 07/21/21   Page 20 of 20   Page ID #:96

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.826563.14.0.pdf

Size

187,152 bytes

SHA-256

34ab8fc0c51a2d16fed223c33884166535bd8e64b5fa5c2171025477a423adc7

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.826563.14.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com