Second Superseding Indictment returned in open court as to Casey David Crowther — USA v. Crowther (Dkt. 62, 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-JES-MRM · Doc. 62 · 2021-02-10 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

ee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1) 1 Py) os 95
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA "
FORT MYERS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CASE NO. 2:S20-cr-114-FtM-66MRM
18 U.S.C. § 1344
CASEY DAVID CROWTHER 18 U.S.C. § 1014

18 U.S.C. § 1957

SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges:

COUNT ONE
(Bank Fraud)

A. Introduction

At all times material to this Second Superseding 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
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 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.

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
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
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 Second Superseding 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
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, in the revised PPP loan application submitted on or about
April 13, 2020, and in loan documents submitted to the Lender on or about
April 14, 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
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 Lender and SBA to approve the PPP loan
application and the Lender to deposit $2,098,700.00 in PPP loan funds 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 Second Superseding Indictment, in the Middle

District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,
CASEY DAVID CROWTHER,

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 Second
Superseding 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
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 Second
Superseding 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:
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.

COUNT FIVE
(Bank Fraud)

A. = Introduction

At all times material to this Second Superseding Indictment:

1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part A of Count One of this Superseding
Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.

2. Casey David Crowther had personal and business accounts,
along with a line of credit account, with the Lender, including a bank account
ending in 8841, over which he had signatory authority.

3. The Mortgage Broker was headquartered in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, with offices in the Middle District of Florida and elsewhere. The

Mortgage Broker was in the business of assisting borrowers in obtaining loans
to purchase residential homes and other property, including by connecting
borrowers with lenders and assisting borrowers in completing and submitting
loan applications to lenders. The Mortgage Broker also referred to itself as a
loan originator.

4. The Mortgage Lender was a financial institution and mortgage
lending business, as defined in 18 U.S.C. §§ 20 and 27, headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia, with an office in the Middle District of Florida. The
Mortgage Lender offered mortgages to individuals and entities seeking to
purchase real property. The Mortgage Lender relied upon information and
documents provided to it by the borrower to determine whether to offer the
borrower a mortgage, including the information contained in the Uniform
Residential Loan Application.

5. A Uniform Residential Loan Application (“URLA”), commonly
referred to as a mortgage loan application, was generally utilized by lending
institutions and other lenders in the mortgage loan approval process. The
URLA was designed to be completed by the applicant borrower with the
lender’s assistance and, if applicable, the broker’s assistance and required the
borrower to truthfully provide to the lender various types of material
information, including employment information, monthly income, detailed

financial information (including assets and liability information), and other

10
specifics of the residential property transaction, such as the purchase price and
whether the borrower would use the property as a primary residence,
secondary residence, or an investment. Each prospective borrower is required
to sign the URLA under penalty of perjury and pledge that the information is
true and correct.
6. The Title Company was a real estate title and escrow company
headquartered and with offices in the Middle District of Florida.
7. The Residence was real property located at 3653 San Carlos Dr.,
Saint James City in Lee County, in the Middle District of Florida.
B. The Scheme to Defraud
8. Starting in or about May 2020, and continuing through and
including the date of this Second Superseding 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.

11
C. Manner and Means of the Scheme

9. The manner and means by which the defendant sought to
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 complete or cause to be completed URLAs, which
included false and fraudulent information concerning the defendant’s source
of down payment and liquid assets in a bank account ending in 8841 held by
the defendant with the Lender.

b. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did sign URLAs, which were dated June 25, 2020 and
July 31, 2020, and which acknowledged under penalty of perjury that the
information contained in the URLA was true and correct.

c. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did submit or cause to be submitted completed false and
fraudulent URLAs to the Mortgage Lender and the Mortgage Broker.

d. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did create and cause to be created false and fraudulent
bank statements for a bank account ending in 8841 held by the defendant with

the Lender, which purported to show the defendant had more assets than he

12
actually had.

e. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did submit and cause the submission of false and
fraudulent bank statements to the Mortgage Lender and Mortgage Broker for
the purpose of misrepresenting the defendant’s liquid assets and
misrepresenting the source of the down payment for the purchase of the
Residence.

f. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did submit and cause the submission of materially false
and fraudulent bank statements to the Mortgage Lender for the purpose of
influencing the Mortgage Lender’s approval of a mortgage loan for the
purchase of the Residence.

g. 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 Mortgage Lender to approve the mortgage loan and disburse
approximately $640,381.21 to the Title Company for the defendant’s purchase
of the Residence.

h. 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

13
furtherance of the scheme to defraud.
D. Execution of the Scheme
10. Starting in or about May 2020, and continuing through and
including the date of this Second Superseding Indictment, in the Middle
District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,
CASEY DAVID CROWTHER,
knowingly executed the aforesaid scheme and artifice to defraud, by
submitting false and fraudulent URLAs and false and fraudulent supporting
bank statements in order to receive a mortgage from the Mortgage Lender, a
financial institution and mortgage lending business, which caused the
disbursement of approximately $640,381.21 in mortgage loan funds to be
made for the purchase of the Residence.
All in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2.

COUNT SIX
(False Statement to Lending Institution)

1. Paragraphs 1 through 7 of Part A of Count Five of this Second
Superseding Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully
set forth herein.

2. On or about July 31, 2020, in the Middle District of Florida and
elsewhere, the defendant,

CASEY DAVID CROWTHER,

14
knowingly made a false statement, for the purpose of influencing the actions of
the Mortgage Lender, a mortgage lending business, in connection with a
URLA, in that the defendant represented he had approximately $1,071,696.00
in liquid assets in an account with the Lender which would be used as the
source of his down payment; when in truth and in fact, as the defendant well
knew, he did not have sufficient liquid assets in the account to cover the down
payment and that he would draw from a line of credit with the Lender to fund
the down payment for the purchase of the Residence.

In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014 and 2.

COUNT SEVEN
(Illegal Monetary Transaction)

1. Paragraphs 1 through 7 of Part A of Count Five of this Second
Superseding Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully
set forth herein.

2. On or about July 31, 2020, 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

15
U.S.C § 1344, that is the Defendant caused $640,381.21 to be transmitted, via
wire, by the Mortgage Lender to the Title Company’s escrow account ending
in 4800, in connection with the defendant’s purchase of the Residence.

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

FORFEITURE

1, The allegations contained in Counts One through Seven 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,

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.

16
following:

The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, the

3.

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

a 2020 40’ Invincible Catamaran, Hull ID#
IVBC0076D920, registered to and owned by Casey
Crowther; and

the real property located at 3653 San Carlos Dr., Saint
James City, Florida 33956 including all improvements
thereon and appurtenances thereto, the legal description
for which is as follows:

Lot 19, Block F, of that certain subdivision known as
Bayview Acres, according to the map or plat thereof on file
and recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Lee County, Florida, in Plat Book 11, at Pages 100 and
101.

Parcel ID Number: 02-46-22-11-0000F.0190

If any of the property described above, as a result of any

act or omission of the defendant:

17
a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

Bs has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third
party;

on has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;

d. has been substantially diminished in value; or

€. has been commingled with other property which cannot be

divided without difficulty,
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,

Gt A

Forepérson

MARIA CHAPA LOPEZ
United States Attorney

By, FE Bick

Trenton J. Reichling
Assistant United States Attorney

ap MM. Ga~o—

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

18
FORM OBD-34
February 21

Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-MRM Document 62 Filed 02/10/21 Page 19 of 19 PagelD 231
No. 2:820-cr-114-FtM-66MRM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Middle District of Florida
Fort Myers Division

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Vs.

CASEY DAVID CROWTHER

SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT

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

A true bill,

Ct hu

Foreperson

Filed in open court this 10th day

of February, 2021.

Clerk

Bail $

GPO 863 525

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.62.0.pdf

Size

936,598 bytes

SHA-256

fc957a124fca445f26181ef0cff5b3399cd5ffffabcd7825c9cdb01e62642cd8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.62.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)