Response in Opposition by USA as to Casey David Crowther — USA v. Crowther (Dkt. 88, 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. 88 · 2021-03-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
FORT MYERS DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
CASE NO. 2:20-cr-114-JES-MRM 
 
CASEY DAVID CROWTHER 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S RESPONSE  
IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION SEEKING TO PRECLUDE 
REFERENCE TO FRAUDULENT EMPLOYMENT SCHEME 
 
 
The United State of America responds in opposition to Defendant’s 
motion to preclude references to a fraudulent employment scheme.  Doc. 75. 
Introduction 
   
The government intends to introduce evidence that Casey Crowther 
added 39 fake employees and 5 family members to Target Roofing and Sheet 
Metal, Inc.’s (“Target Roofing”) payroll in an effort to further and conceal the 
fraud he committed in the procurement of a Paycheck Protection Program 
(“PPP”) loan for his company.  Crowther’s efforts were part of the scheme to 
defraud itself—adding fake employees and family members to the payroll 
helped ensure the loan would be forgiven, which helped ensure that Crowther 
would not have to repay any money that he had improperly spent on himself.  
Crowther’s efforts are also evidence of his fraudulent intent at the time he 
applied for the loan on behalf of Target Roofing.   
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 1 of 14 PageID 388

 
2 
 
The government also intends to introduce such evidence to undermine a 
“no-harm-no-foul” argument repeatedly raised by his counsel in the lead-up to 
trial.  Namely, that Crowther committed no fraud because, even though he 
bought a 40’ catamaran directly with PPP money, Target Roofing spent an 
equivalent amount of its own funds making payroll. 
Facts Expected to be Developed at Trial 
 
The United States will prove that Crowther was eyeing a luxury 40’ 
catamaran for sale by a dealer in Naples, Florida prior to the inception of the 
PPP program.  On April 6, 2020, Crowther applied for a $1.4 million PPP 
loan for his company, Target Roofing.  In the application for the PPP loan, 
Crowther certified that his company would only use the proceeds of the loan 
to “retain workers and maintain payroll or [to] make mortgage payments, 
lease payments, and utility payments.”  The Lender notified Crowther that 
Target Roofing was approved for the loan on April 8, 2020. 
 
Two days later, Crowther firmed up the price of the nearly $700,000 
boat with the dealer.  Three days after that, Crowther went back to the Lender 
seeking more money on the loan, this time approximately $2.1 million.  
Crowther made the same certification as to the use of funds in the revised 
application. 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 2 of 14 PageID 389

 
3 
 
The Lender approved that revised request on April 14, 2020 and the 
PPP funds were placed into a segregated PPP account formed for Target 
Roofing.  At the closing of the loan, Crowther signed yet another certification 
promising to the Lender to limit the use of PPP funds as follows:
 
  
 
One week after obtaining the proceeds of the loan, Crowther wired 
$100,000 to a former business partner to pay down principal on a debt created 
in the buyout of that partner.  The money was sent directly from Target 
Roofing’s segregated PPP account which contained no funds other than PPP 
funds.  In Crowther’s wire instructions to the Lender, he indicated that the 
purpose of the wire was for “payroll,” even though neither he nor Target 
Roofing owed the former business partner back pay.   
Ten days after obtaining the proceeds of the loan, Crowther wired 
$689,417 to the dealer to close on the luxury boat.  Again, the money was sent 
directly from Target Roofing’s segregated PPP account which contained no 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 3 of 14 PageID 390

 
4 
 
funds other than PPP funds.  In Crowther’s wire instructions to the Lender, he 
indicated that the purpose of the wire was “equipment.” 
On May 13, 2020, the Lender sent Crowther additional guidance from 
the SBA regarding the PPP program.  That guidance stated that PPP loans in 
excess of $2 million would be subject to SBA heightened oversight to ensure 
compliance with the program’s requirements.  In response, Crowther told the 
Lender that he was “more than prepared.” 
On May 15, 2020, Target Roofing hired 20 new employees.  Target 
Roofing’s human resource manager described the hiring as unusual because 
the paperwork for the employees came to her mostly pre-filled out by 
Crowther, and she never saw any of the employees, either during the hiring 
process or thereafter.  One week later, Target Roofing hired another batch of 
employees, this time 19 of them.  Again, unusually, their hiring documents 
were provided to the Human Resources manager pre-filled out by Crowther 
and she never saw any of new employees.   
Crowther told the Human Resources manager that the 39 individuals 
were hired to “shred paper” for the company.  Around the same time, Target 
Roofing added five of Crowther’s family members to the payroll as well for 
clerical work, but the Human Resources manager, who worked in Target 
Roofing’s small office, never saw the family members working.  Each family 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 4 of 14 PageID 391

 
5 
 
member was paid a weekly amount, which if extrapolated out over a year, 
amounted to a nearly $100,000 salary. 
Within weeks of their hiring, all 39 employees and the 5 new family 
member employees were terminated en masse by Target Roofing on June 5, 
2020.  Records obtained from Target Roofing’s payroll company and its bank 
show that, of all the weekly paychecks issued to the 39 employees over the two 
and three week periods they were employed, only one was ever cashed.  That 
check was not deposited into an account belonging to the “employee,” but 
into an account belonging to Crowther. 
Relevancy of Hiring and Firing to the Government’s Theory of the Case 
Under the PPP program, lenders are authorized to make loans to 
borrowers guaranteed by the Small Business Administration.  See generally 15 
U.S.C. § 636(a)(36).  If the borrower can show that it used a certain percentage 
of the loan for payroll, while also meeting certain criteria that measure 
whether the company retained and paid employees at a sufficient rate 
compared to pre-pandemic times, 100% of the loan can be forgiven.  15 U.S.C. 
§ 9005(d)(1).  When these benchmarks are not met, the forgiveness amount 
can be reduced or eliminated entirely.  See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 9005(d)(2), (3), 
and (8). 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 5 of 14 PageID 392

 
6 
 
To be forgiven, at least originally, a borrower needed to demonstrate 
that it met the payroll and employment benchmarks within 8 weeks after the 
loan was distributed.  Pub. L. 116–136, div. A, title I, § 1106, Mar. 27, 2020, 
then codified at 15 U.S.C. § 9005.  Congress, however, amended the program 
midstream and introduced a longer period (24 weeks) over which PPP funds 
could be used, thus making it easier for borrowers to qualify for forgiveness.  
Pub. L. 116–142, § 3(b), June 5, 2020, 134 Stat. 641, now codified at 15 
U.S.C. § 9005. That amendment to the PPP program was called the 
“Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act” and became law on June 5, 
2020 (the “Flexibility Act”). 
Crowther obtained Target Roofing’s loan on April 14, 2020, and so, 
originally, he would have had to have demonstrated that Target Roofing met 
the payroll and employee benchmarks within 8 weeks (i.e. June 9, 2020) to 
obtain full forgiveness.  That changed when Congress permitted a longer 
period to be used on June 5, 2020. 
When Crowther’s conduct, including the hiring of the fake employees is 
viewed against the backdrop of the PPP program, the relevance of his hiring of 
fake employees becomes clear.  The evidence shows Crowther obtained a 
forgivable PPP loan in the name of Target Roofing so that he could personally 
enrich himself with government money that would not have to be paid back.  
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 6 of 14 PageID 393

 
7 
 
He used the money to purchase a boat and disguised the purchase from the 
lender by calling it “equipment.”   
But that was not enough, for Crowther to avoid ever having to pay for 
the boat with his own money, he needed a way to ensure that Target Roofing 
didn’t have to pay the PPP loan back, otherwise he was still on the hook.1  
Crowther also needed to ensure that his business looked as compliant with the 
PPP program as possible, given the heightened oversight it would receive 
based on the size of the loan.  So, Crowther hired 39 fake employees and 5 
non-working family members to ensure Target Roofing met the benchmarks 
for loan forgiveness and minimize any red-flags for the SBA. 
But, pumping up employee and payroll numbers became less important 
once Congress made it easier to obtain forgiveness for a PPP loan via the 
Flexibility Act.  So, on the same day Congress relaxed the standards for loan 
forgiveness, Target Roofing terminated the employment of the fake employees 
and family members. 
Crowther’s actions with respect to these “employees” are part-and-
parcel of his scheme to defraud.  Hiring fake employees simultaneously 
 
1 This is not to suggest that if Crowther had paid back, or even intended to pay back 
the PPP loan, he is innocent.  See, e.g., United States v. Morales, 978 F. 2d 650, 655 
(11th Cir. 1992) (intent to repay fraudulently obtained money is not a defense).  
Obtaining a loan via fraud is just as much a crime as obtaining a forgivable loan via 
fraud. 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 7 of 14 PageID 394

 
8 
 
worked to further his goal of enriching himself with free money, while also 
helping to conceal the scheme.  Crowther’s efforts to enrich himself and 
conceal those efforts are alleged in the manner and means section of the 
Second Superseding Indictment.  See Doc. 62 at ¶ 11.f. and g.  Because the 
hiring and firing of sham employees fits is part of the scheme alleged in the 
indictment, the hiring and firing evidence is necessarily relevant. 
Even if the Court does not view the hiring-and-firing evidence as part of 
the crime, it is still admissible.  “Evidence, not part of the crime charged but 
pertaining to the chain of events explaining the context, motive and set-up of 
the crime, is properly admitted if linked in time and circumstances with the 
charged crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the 
crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.”  United 
States v. Williford, 764 F.2d 1493, 1499 (11th Cir. 1985).  Here, Crowther’s 
actions with respect to the employees is a natural and integral part of the story 
of his fraud.  The hiring-and-firing evidence permits the jury to understand 
Crowther’s plan to ensure he didn’t have to pay any of the PPP loan back, 
even though he diverted large sums of it to his personal use.  
The evidence is admissible for a third reason.  Crowther has repeatedly 
argued that he is innocent, even though he spent PPP funds directly on a 
$700,000 boat, because his company spent more on payroll than was ever 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 8 of 14 PageID 395

 
9 
 
provided to it through the PPP program.  See, e.g., Doc. 25 at p. 10 (arguing 
that because Crowther spent more in payroll than he obtained from PPP 
program, government’s indictment should be dismissed).  The government 
believes the argument is unavailing for multiple reasons, not the least of which 
are certifications Crowther made to the Lender which indicated the borrower 
would “use the proceeds of the PPP Loan solely for” certain permitted 
expenditures and that “no part of the proceeds of the loan” would be used for 
unauthorized purposes.  Nevertheless, Crowther appears ready to press the 
argument at trial. 
The government should be entitled to head-off any such argument by 
showing Target Roofing’s payroll numbers are not to be trusted and offering 
evidence showing Crowther padded the payroll of his company with family 
members and people who don’t exist. 
Response to Crowther’s Specific Arguments for Exclusion 
Crowther raises multiple arguments against the admissibility of the 
hiring evidence.  First, he claims that the evidence should be excluded because 
“it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the element of intent.”  Crowther 
believes that because the employee hiring occurred after his fraudulent 
misrepresentations, hiring evidence is incapable of providing insight into 
Crowther’s intent at the time he made the misrepresentations.  That argument 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 9 of 14 PageID 396

 
10 
 
is without merit for two reasons:  (1) the after-the-fact nature of the employee 
hiring is not disqualifying and the conduct does bear on intent, and (2) the 
conduct bears on another issue the government must prove, namely, the 
fraudulent scheme. 
Evidence of intent frequently stems from events which occur after a 
crime has been committed.  In fact, the Eleventh Circuit has stated that a 
“subsequent act, as well as a prior act, can be used to show intent….”  United 
States v. Hurley, 755 F.2d 788, 790 (11th Cir. 1985).  Flight is perhaps the most 
frequently seen example.  See United States v. Ramon-Perez, 703 F.2d 1231, 1233 
(11th Cir. 1983) (affirming admission of flight evidence in counterfeiting with 
intent to defraud case).  But, even a later fraud may be relevant to prove intent 
during earlier fraud. See United States v. Terebecki, 692 F.2d 1345, 1348 (11th 
Cir. 1982) (upholding the introduction of an uncharged fraudulent business 
dealing which occurred 15 months after a charged fraudulent business dealing 
to prove intent).  Thus, contrary to what Crowther argues, there is no rule 
barring the use of subsequent acts to prove a defendant’s intent at an earlier 
time.       
Further, evidence of Crowther hiring fake employees and family 
members does shed light on his intent at the time he made misrepresentations 
to the bank.  If Crowther intended to use the PPP funds for appropriate uses 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 10 of 14 PageID 397

 
11 
 
like payroll, why would he later spend PPP funds on fake employees?  The 
lack of a satisfactory answer to that question strongly suggests the premise of 
the question is faulty, which is to say, Crowther did not intend to use the PPP 
funds appropriately.2   
The only rational explanation that fits the evidence is that Crowther 
intentionally deceived the lender to obtain the PPP funds, knowingly misused 
them, and attempted to further and conceal the scheme by hiring fake 
employees and family members to ensure that none of the money he used on 
himself would need to be paid back.  Thus, the hiring-and-firing evidence is 
proof of his fraudulent intent.  
Crowther’s argument to exclude the evidence because it does not bear 
on to intent also fails to recognize that hiring and firing evidence serves 
another role—namely, it is part of the scheme.  As the pattern jury instructions 
make clear, a “scheme to defraud” includes “any plan or course of action 
intended to deceive or cheat someone out of money….”  11th Cir. Pattern J. 
Instr. at O52 (emphasis added).  Of course, the government cannot prove a 
fraud by simply proving that someone intended to defraud a bank in their 
mind.  It must also prove the existence of a plan or course of action.  As 
discussed above, the Government’s theory of the case is that Crowther’s hiring 
 
2 Of course, the defense argues that the employees were not fake, but that is a 
different issue and for the jury to determine. 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 11 of 14 PageID 398

 
12 
 
and firing of the fake employees was a part of his plan and course of action to 
obtain money to which he was not entitled.  Thus, even if hiring evidence is 
inadmissible to prove intent, it remains admissible to prove scheme. 
Crowther also argues that hiring evidence “impermissibly seeks to hold 
Crowther criminally responsible for wrongdoing that—if it occurred at all—
was committed solely by third parties.  Crowther goes on to make argument 
regarding an employer’s low burden in ensuring the accuracy of employment 
documents.   
The argument is a straw man that Crowther sets up so that he can 
knock it down.  The government is not introducing hiring evidence to 
demonstrate that Crowther (or anyone at Target Roofing) failed to adequately 
check employment documents to ensure that they were genuine, nor does it 
plan to make argument in that regard.  It is offering evidence to demonstrate 
that 39 people who were added to the payroll did not exist, and that family 
members who were added to the payroll did not work there. 
Crowther’s second argument dovetails with his third.  He claims that 
the allowing the government to introduce the hiring evidence would severely 
prejudice him because “illegal immigration is a widely and highly polarized 
political matter.”  Crowther appears to believe illegal immigration will become 
an issue in Court because the employees were allegedly green card holders.   
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 12 of 14 PageID 399

 
13 
 
This is another straw man argument which does not inherently arise 
from the hiring and firing evidence, nor does the government intend to bring 
up issues related to immigration at trial.  The government isn’t going to prove 
that Crowther hired aliens, it is going prove that he hired ghosts.  Therefore, 
his argument is without merit and the motion should be denied. 
 
 
By: 
 /s/Michael V. Leeman                          
Michael V. Leeman  
Assistant United States Attorney 
Florida Bar No. 0084422 
2110 First Street, Suite 3-137 
Ft. Myers, Florida 33901 
Telephone: (239) 461-2200 
Facsimile: 
(239) 461-2219 
E-mail: Michael.leeman@usdoj.gov 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 13 of 14 PageID 400

 
14 
 
U.S. v. Casey David Crowther   
   Case No. 2:20-cr-114-JES-MRM 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I electronically filed the 
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which 
will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: 
Nicole H. Waid  
nicole.waid@fisherbroyles.com  
 
Brian Dickerson 
brian.dickerson@fisherbroyles.com 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Michael V. Leeman                     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Michael V. Leeman  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 88     Filed 03/15/21     Page 14 of 14 PageID 401

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.88.0.pdf

Size

205,910 bytes

SHA-256

568c98c0315dd2c36e767032f0cf6cc9176fde12d275ce41881a5b54b2686f51

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.88.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)