Court filing
Information as to Chad Brandon Thomas (1) count(s) 1 — USA v. Thomas (Dkt. 1, E.D. Tenn.)
Filed July 15, 2022 in USA v. Thomas; one of 68 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2022-07-15 |
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee · No. 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW · Doc. 1 · 2022-07-15 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
-1Ul. J t l:2'1
Cle k U
UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA
)
)
)
)
)
r , · S. u1::,tr ,c.:,
Ea t
.
, 1..,uu1 t
~ ·. -2..-:l -c,r-7l} s ern District ofTennessee
No.
At Greeneville
V.
CHAD BRANDON THOMAS
JUDGE ~~ / ~n~
INFORMATION
The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee charges:
COUNT ONE
(Wire Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1343)
A.
Background
1.
At all times material to this information, the defendant, CHAD BRANDON
THOMAS, was a resident of Blountville, Tennessee, in the Eastern District of Tennessee.
2.
At all times material to this information, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS was the
primary owner, or claimed to be the primary owner, of three small businesses, two of which were
purportedly incorporated in Tennessee and all of which were headquartered in the Eastern District of
Tennessee.
3.
At all times material to this information, Chad Thomas Enterprises ("CTE") was
incorporated with the State of Tennessee and listed its principal address in the Eastern District of
Tennessee. At all times relevant to this information, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS was the owner
and person with primary decision-making authority for CTE.
4.
At all times material to this information, Kingdom of God, Inc. ("KOG") was
incorporated with the State of Tennessee and listed its principal address in the Eastern District of
Tennessee. At all times relevant to this information, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS was the owner
and person with primary decision-making authority for KOG.
Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID
#: 1
5.
At all times material to this information, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS operated a
purported sole proprietorship and did business under the name The Triangle Group ("TG") in the
Eastern District of Tennessee.
Paycheck Protection Program
6.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act") is a
federal law enacted in or around March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial
assistance to the millions of Americans who were suffering the economic effects of the COVID-19
pandemic. One 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. The purpose of loans issued
under the PPP was to enable small businesses suffering from the economic downturn to continue to
pay salaries or wages to their employees.
7.
The PPP was administered by the Small Business Administration ("SBA"), which
promulgated regulations concerning eligibility for a PPP loan. Eligible businesses seeking a loan
under the PPP could apply for such a loan through a federally insured depository institution.
8.
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 to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan. In
the PPP loan application, the small business (through its authorized representative) was required to
state, among other things, its average monthly payroll expenses and its number of employees.
These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible to receive
2
Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID
#: 2
under the PPP. In addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan were required to include
documentation, such as tax forms or payroll listings, showing their payroll expenses and other
information as part of the application.
9.
A PPP loan application was required to be 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 PPP loan application, including
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.
10.
PPP loan recipients were required to use PPP loan proceeds on certain permissible
expenses: payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP allowed the interest and
principal on the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven if the business spent the loan proceeds on these
expense items within a designated period of time after receiving the proceeds and used a certain
amount of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.
11.
The proceeds of a PPP loan were not permitted to be used to purchase consumer
goods, automobiles, personal residences, clothing, jewelry, to pay the borrower's personal federal
income taxes, or to fund the borrower's ordinary day-to-day living expenses unrelated to the
specified authorized expenses.
B.
The Scheme
Beginning in or about May 2020 and continuing through inn or about July 2020, the
defendant, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS, knowingly and willfully devised and intended to devise
a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property, by means of materially false
and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises.
3
Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID
#: 3
C.
Purpose and Object of the Scheme
It was the purpose and object of the scheme for CHAD BRANDON THOMAS to unjustly
enrich himself and others by obtaining PPP loan proceeds under false and misleading pretenses,
including by making false statements about the number of employees and historical payroll
expenses ofCTE, TG, and KOG.
D.
Manner and Means
11
It was part of the scheme that defendant, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS, submitted
electronic loan applications, or caused to be submitted electronic loan applications, for small
businesses that purportedly employed persons and purportedly made monthly payroll expenditures,
all for the purpose of obtaining loans that were intended for distressed small businesses as a result of
the COVID-19 pandemic.
2.
It was further part of the scheme that CHAD BRANDON THOMAS created
fraudulent Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") documents, including Forms 941, as well as monthly
payroll listings, all containing false representations about the number of employees working CTE,
TG, and KOG, as the case may be.
3.
It was further part of the scheme that CHAD BRANDON THOMAS concealed and
attempted to conceal the scheme by transferring loan proceeds among various bank accounts that he
controlled.
E.
Execution of the Scheme
On or about July 6, 2020, in the Eastern District of Tennessee, the defendant, CHAD
BRANDON THOMAS, for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice described above,
transmitted or caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce a
writing, sign, or signal-that is, the electronic submission of a PPP loan application on behalf of
4
Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID
#: 4
KOG-from CHAD BRANDON THOMAS's electronic device in Blountville, Tennessee, to the
computer servers of CDC Small Business Finance located outside the state of Tennessee.
All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations contained in this Information are hereby realleged and incorporated by
reference for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section
981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c).
Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States
Code, Section 2461 ( c ), upon conviction of the violation alleged in this Information, wire fraud, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, the defendant, CHAD BRANDON
THOMAS, shall forfeit to the United States, any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds
defendant obtained directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation.
The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, the following:
a.
$161,938.01 of United States currency seized from Regions Bank on or about March
2, 2022, which represents proceeds the defendant personally derived from violations
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
b.
A personal money judgment in the amount of $145,761.99 in favor of the United
States and against the defendant, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS, which represents
proceeds the defendant personally derived from the offense of Title 18, United States
Code, Section 1343.
If any of the property subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act or omission of defendant,
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;
5
Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID
#: 5
the United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to
Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p ), as incorporated by Title 18, United States
Code, Section 982(b)(l).
FRANCIS M. HAMIL TON III
By:
Mac
. Heavener, III
Assistant United States Attorney
6
Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW Document 1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID
#: 6File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.tned.105535.1.0.pdf
- Size
- 1,712,921 bytes
- SHA-256
- 5fd57d80f567a8fe8fecd67e433bd95d6708e96a9837317ae5e6d4c9be8ca740
- Our copy
- gov.uscourts.tned.105535.1.0.pdf
- Original
- PACER (login required)