Indictment returned in open court as to Casey David Crowther (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3-4 — USA v. Crowther (Dkt. 15, M.D. Fla. No. 2:20-mj-01094, docketed in No. 2:20-cr-00114)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida · No. 2:20-cr-00114 · Doc. 15 · 2020-09-23 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document15_ Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 12 PagelD 31
FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .......
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 2:20-cr-[[4- Ft M-GOma pr
18 U.S.C. § 1344
CASEY DAVID CROWTHER 18 U.S.C. § 1014

18 U.S.C. § 1957

INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges:

COUNT ONE
(Bank Fraud)

A. Introduction

At all times material to this Indictment:

1. Casey David Crowther was a resident of North Fort Myers,
Florida, who served as president, director, and registered agent of Target
Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc.

2. Target Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc. (“Target Roofing”) was a
Florida corporation controlled by Casey David Crowther with its stated
principal place of business in Fort Myers, Florida. Target Roofing operated as
a roofing company and provided residential and commercial roofing services,
which included the installation of new roofs, reroofing, and roof repair in the

Southwest Florida area. Target Roofing maintained bank accounts at a
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document15_ Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 12 PagelD 32

federally insured financial institution (“the Lender”). Casey David Crowther
was the sole signatory on those accounts.

3. The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was
an executive-branch agency of the United States government that provided
support to entrepreneurs and smail 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.

4, As part of this effort, the SBA enabled and provided for loans
through banks, credit unions, and other lenders. These loans had government-
backed guarantees.

5. 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 the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One
source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of
forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other
expenses, through a program referred to as the Paycheck Protection Program
(“PPP”).

6. To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was required to
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document15- Filed 09/23/20 Page 3 of 12 PagelD 33

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 in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP
loan. 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. In addition, businesses
applying for a PPP loan were required to provide documentation showing
their payroll expenses.

7. PPP loan applications were processed by a participating lender. If
a PPP loan application 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 information from 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. PPP loan proceeds were required to be used for certain
permissible expenses, including payroll costs, mortgage interest, rent, and

utilities. Under the applicable PPP rules and guidance, the interest and
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document15_ Filed 09/23/20 Page 4of 12 PagelD 34

principal on the PPP loan was eligible for forgiveness if the business spent the
loan proceeds on these expense items within a designated period of time and
used a certain portion of the loan towards payroll expenses.

9. The Lender was a financial institution federally insured by the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) headquartered and with
branches in Lee County, Florida. The Lender participated in the SBA’s PPP
as a lender and, as such, was authorized to lend funds to eligible borrowers
under the terms of PPP.

B. The Scheme to Defraud

10. Starting in or about April 2020, and continuing through and
including the date of this Indictment, in the Middle District of Florida, and
elsewhere, the defendant,

CASEY DAVID CROWTHER,
did knowingly and intentionally execute, and attempt to execute, a scheme
and artifice to defraud a financial institution, and to obtain monies, funds,
credits, assets, and other property owned by, and under the custody and
control of, a financial institution, by means of materially false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations and promises.
C. Manner and Means of the Scheme

11. The manner and means by which the defendant sought to
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document15 - Filed 09/23/20 Page 5 of 12 PagelD 35

accomplish the scheme and artifice to defraud included, among others, the
following:

a. It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did submit and cause the submission of a false and
fraudulent PPP loan application and revised PPP loan application to the
Lender on behalf of Target Roofing seeking a PPP loan through the SBA.

b. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did make and cause to be made material false,
fraudulent, and misleading representations to the Lender and SBA related to
the use of the PPP funds in the PPP loan application submitted on or about
April 7, 2020, and in the revised PPP loan application submitted on or about
April 13, 2020.

c. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did represent that all SBA PPP Loan proceeds would be
used by the defendant only for business related purposes as specified in the
loan application.

d. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did certify that the PPP funds acquired from the
requested loan would be used to retain workers and maintain payroll or make

mortgage payments, lease payments, and utility payments on behalf of Target
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document15 _ Filed 09/23/20 Page 6 of 12 PagelD 36

Roofing.

e. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant’s materially false, fraudulent, and misleading representations
would and did cause the SBA to approve the PPP application and the SBA to
issue $2,098,700.00 in PPP funds to the Lender, which the Lender then
deposited into an account under the defendant’s control.

f. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did use and cause the PPP funds to be used for
unauthorized purposes and for his own personal enrichment, including
payment towards the principal of a promissory note and the purchase of a
2020 40’ Invincible Catamaran boat.

g. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did misrepresent, hide, and conceal, and cause to be
misrepresented, hidden, and concealed, the purpose of acts performed in
furtherance of the scheme to defraud.

D. Execution of the Scheme

12. Starting in or about April 2020, and continuing through and
including the date of this Indictment, in the Middle District of Florida and
elsewhere, the defendant,

CASEY DAVID CROWTHER,
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document15_ Filed 09/23/20 Page 7 of 12 PagelD 37

knowingly executed the aforesaid scheme and artifice to defraud, by
submitting a false PPP loan application and revised PPP loan application on
behalf of his company, Target Roofing, in order to receive a loan from the
Lender, a bank insured by the FDIC, which loan was guaranteed by the SBA
and which proceeds were deposited into accounts at the Lender under the
defendant’s custody and control.

All in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2.

COUNT TWO
(False Statement to Lending Institution)

1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 of Part A of Count One of this
Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.

2. On or about April 13, 2020, in the Middle District of Florida and
elsewhere, the defendant,

CASEY DAVID CROWTHER,
knowingly made a false statement, for the purpose of influencing the actions of
the Lender, an institution the accounts of which were insured by the FDIC, in
connection with a PPP loan application and revised PPP loan application by
Target Roofing, in that the defendant signed and initialed a revised PPP loan
application representing SBA loan proceeds would only be used for business

related purposes and certifying that the PPP funds would be used to retain
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document15_ Filed 09/23/20 Page 8 of 12 PagelD 38

workers and maintain payroll or make mortgage payments, lease payments,

and utility payments on behalf of Target Roofing; when in truth and in fact, as

the defendant well knew, all of the SBA loan proceeds would not only be used

for business related purposes and that the PPP funds would not be exclusively

used to retain workers and maintain payroll or to make mortgage interest

payments, lease payments, and utility payments on behalf of Target Roofing.
In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014 and 2.

COUNTS THREE AND FOUR
(Illegal Monetary Transaction)

1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 of Part A of Count One of this
Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.

2. On or about the date set forth below, in the Middle District of
Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant,

CASEY DAVID CROWTHER,
did knowingly engage and attempt to engage in the described monetary
transaction, in and 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, that is, bank fraud, in violation of 18

U.S.C § 1344:
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document15_ Filed 09/23/20 Page 9 of 12 PagelD 39

COUNT DATE MONETARY TRANSACTION

Defendant caused $100,000 to be
transmitted, via wire, from the Lender
account ending in 6781 in the name of
Target Roofing to S.A. in connection with
a $722,474.00 promissory note.
Defendant caused $689,417.00 to be
transmitted, via wire, from the Lender
FOUR April 24, 2020 | account ending in 6781 in the name of
Target Roofing to Sara Bay Marina in
connection with defendant’s purchase of a
40’ Invincible Catamaran boat.

THREE April 21, 2020

In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2.
FORFEITURE

1. The allegations contained in Counts One through Four are
incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §§ 982(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A).

2. Upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 1014, and/or
1344, the defendant,

CASEY DAVID CROWTHER,

shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A), any
property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained directly or
indirectly, as a result of such violation.

3. Upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, the

defendant,
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document15_ Filed 09/23/20 Page 10 of 12 PagelD 40

CASEY DAVID CROWTHER,
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1), any
property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or any property traceable
to such property.
4, The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, the
following:

a. an order of forfeiture in the amount of approximately
$2,098,700.00, which represents the proceeds obtained from
the offenses; and

b. a2020 40’ Invincible Catamaran, Hull ID# IVBC0076D920,
registered to and owned by Casey Crowther.

5. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or
omission of the defendant:

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 which cannot be
divided without difficulty,

10
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document15_ Filed 09/23/20 Page 11 of 12 PagelD 41

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

provisions of 21 U.S.C § 853(p), as incorporated by 18 U.S.C § 982(b)(1).

A TRUE BILL,
Foreperson
MARIA CHAPA LOPEZ
United States Attorney

py ties

Trenton J. Reichl
Assistant United States Attorney

By: M, nn

sus M. Casas
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Fort Myers Division

11
Page 12 of 12 PagelD 42

Filed 09/23/20

Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M M Document 15

FORM OBD-34
September 20

No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Middle District of Florida
Fort Myers Division

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS.

CASEY DAVID CROWTHER

INDICTMENT

Violations: 18 U.S.C. § 1344,
18 U.S.C. § 1014, and
18 U.S.C. § 1957.

A true bill,

ovale Hinz ts

Foreperson

Filed in open court this 23rd day

of September, 2020.

Clerk

Bail $

GPO 863 525

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.15.0.pdf

Size

567,256 bytes

SHA-256

34a43cce0726d02d2fedca1c580824e171d196143017dd78bc75a15acf39676d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.15.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)