Criminal Complaint as to Stephanie Diane Smith (1) — United States v. Stephanie Diane Smith (Dkt. 3, S.D. Fla. No. 0:23-mj-06477)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-mj-06477-PMH · Doc. 3 · 2023-10-11 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 23-m1-6477-PH 11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VS.
STEPHANIE DIANE SM ITH,
Defendant.
FILED BY 
D.C.
22T 1 1 2223
ANGELA E. NOBLE
CLERK U S. DIS'E CT:
s. o. oF Ftk. - F'c txtlo.
CRIM INAL COVER SHEET
Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the N orthern Region of the United States
Attorney's Office prior to August 8, 2014 (Mag. Judge Shaniek M aynard)? 
NO.
Did this matter origtnate from a matler pending in the Central Region of the United States
Attorney's Office prior to October 3, 2019 (Mag. Judge Jared Strauss)? 
NO.
Respectfully Subm itted,
M ARKENZY LAPOINTE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
D  ' W  Y  *
By: 
-
DAVID A. SNIDER
Assistant United Sltes Attorney
Court ID No. A5502260
500 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Tel: (954) 660-5696
Fax: (954) 156-7336
Email: david.snider@usdoj.gov
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 1 of 16

AO 91 (Rev. 1 l/1 1) CIiYIVI Complaint
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Southern District of Florida
United States of America
V.
STEPHANIE DIANIE SMITH
)
)
) 
Case No.'
) 
23-mj-6477-PMH
)
)
)
De#ndantls)
CRIM INAL COM PLM G
1, the complainant in this emne, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
On or about the datets) of 03/29/2021 through 11/01/2021 in the county of 
BroFard 
in the
Southern 
District of 
Florida 
, the defendantts) violated:
Code Section 
OA zize Descrètion
18 U.S.C. j 1343 
Wire Fraud.
This criminal complaint is based on these facts:
See attached Affidavit.
W continued on the attached sheet.
ptokx &
Complainant 's signature
Kelly Dipietrantonio, Special Agent, FBl
Printedname > zdzp/,
Judge 's a'fgn//lzre
Sworn to and subscribed before me telephonically
this 11th day of Odober, 2023.
Date: 
10/11/2023
city and state: 
Fort Lauderdalev Florida 
Patrick M. Hunt, United States Magistrate Judge
Printed novie andtitle
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 2 of 16

AFFIDAW T IN SUPPORT OF CRIM INAL COM PLM NT
Your Affiant, Kelly Dipietrantonio, having been duly sworn, does hereby depose and say:
INTRODUCTION AND AGENT BACK GROUND
1 am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation CTB1'') assigned to
the M iami Division. As such, l am an investigative and 1aw enforcement oftk er of the United
States empowered by law to conduct investigations of, and to make arrests for, certain federal
criminal violations including, in pazt violations of the wire fraud statute. 1 have been a Special
Agent with the FB1 sinçe M ay 2018 and am currently assigned to a Public Conuption Squad in
M iami where 1 conduct investigations involving bribery, Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan
fraud, Economic lnjury and Disaster Loan (EIDL) fraud, election crimes, and money laundering.
2. 
Through my training and experience, l became familiar with the types of records,
electronic and financial, that these schemes generate, and the mçthodologies used to perpetrate
. such schemes. M uch of my work involved analyzing these types of records to determine the
existence of criminal activity and to develop evidence. I have also received formal and on-the-job
training in crim inal investigation procedures and crim inal law. 1 have personally conducted
numerous physical and other surveillances, including wire and electronic surveillance.
The information contained in this affidavit is based on, am ong other things, my
participation in the investigation described herein, consensual witness interviews, my review of
relevant documents and electronic comm unications, information from other 1aw enforcement
officers and other individuals, and knowledge gained from my personal training and experience.
l make this affidavit in jupport of a criminal complaint charging STEPHANIE
DIANE SMITH (hereinafter, GCSMITH'') with violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section
1343, that is, wire fraud. Based upon the facts set forth herein, there is probable cause to believe
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 3 of 16

that, on or about M arch 29, 202 1, and continuing through in or around November 1, 2021, in
Broward County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, SM ITH did knowingly, and
with the intent to defraud, devise, and intend 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, knowing that the pretenses, representations, and promises were false and fraudulent
when made, and, for the purpose of executing the scheme and artitsce, did knowingly transmit and
cause to be transm itted, by means of wire communication in interstate commerce, certain writings,
signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, in violation of Title 18, United Sàtes Code, Section 1343.
Because l submit this affdavit for the limited purpose of establishing probable
cause, it does not include a1l the facts that 1 have leam ed dtlring the course of the government's
investigation.
BACK GROUND
The Small Business Adminlstration
The United States Small Business Administration (ççSBA'') 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 establishm ent and viability of small businesses and by assisting in the econom ic
recovery of communities after disasters.
As part of this efforq the SBA enabled and provided loans through banks, credit
unions, and other lenders. These loans had govemm ent-backed guarantees.
The Paycheck Protection Program
8. 
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security CSCARES'') Actwas a federal
1aw enacted in or around M arch 2020, designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the
millions of Americans who were suffering from the economic effects caused by the COVlD-19
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 4 of 16

pandem ic. One source of relief that the CARES Act provided was the Paycheck Protection
Program CTPP''), which authorized forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and
certain other expenses.
9.
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, including that the business was in
The SBA promulgated regulations concerning eligibility for a PPP loan. To obtain
operation on Februaly 15, 2020, and either had employees for whom it paid salaries and payroll
taxes or paid independent contractors. Payments to independent contractors are typically reported
to the Internal Revenue Service (Eû1RS'') on a GdForm 1099-M1SC.'' ln 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
(including owners). These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the small business
was eligible to receive under the PPP.
10. 
In addition, a business
documentation showing its payroll
applying for a PPP loan was required to provide
expenses. This payroll information was material to the
application because, pursuant to sàtutory requirements and implem enting regulations, the amount
of the loan that typically could be approved was a function of the applicant's historical payroll
costs, consisting of compensation to its employees whose principal place of residence was the
United States, subject to certain exclusions.
lndividuals who operated a business under a ûtsole proprietorship'' business
structure were eligible for a PPP loan. To qualify for such a PPP loan, individuals had to report
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 5 of 16

and document their income and expenses from the sole proprietorship. Sole proprietorships
i 11 report their income and expenses yearly to the 1RS on a tTorm 1040 Schedule C.'' As
WP Ca y 
,
with other PPP loans, this information and supporting documentation was used to calculate the
amount of money the individual was entitled to receive under the PPP. The maximum PPP loan
amount for a sole proprietor with no employees was $20,833.
12. 
PPP loan applications were processed by participating lenders and third-party loan
processors. lf a PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan
using its own monies, including by electronic transfer through the Automated Clearing House
(ACH) system. W hile it was the participating lender that issued the PPP loan, the loan was 100%
guaranteed by the SBA . Data from the application, including inform ation 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 Ioan.
13. 
After the lender funded the PPP loan to the borrower, the lender subm itted
disbursem ent details into the SBA E-Tran system , with servers located in Sterling, VA. The SBA'S
Denver Finance Center, located in Denver, Colorado, created payment files and authorized
payments of the PPP processing fee to the lender through the Financial M anagement System to
the Treasuty. The primary server for the Financial M anagement System was in Sterling, VA. The
PPP processing fee varied depending on the amount of the loan. Once created, the paym ent files
were then transmitted via wire to the U.S. Treasury disbursing office in Kansas City, M issouri,
which, in turn, sent instructions for payment of funds to the Federal Reserve BankAcl-l processing
site in East Rutherford, New Jersey.
14. 
The proceeds of a PPP loan could be used only for certain specified items, such as
payroll costs, costs related to the continuation of group health care benefits, or mortgage interest
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 6 of 16

payments for the business. Ihe proceeds of a PPP loan were not permitted to be used by the
borrowers to purchase consumer goods, automobiles, personal residences, clothing, orjewelry, to
pay the borrower's personal federal incom e taxes, or to fund the borrower's ordinaly day-to-day
living expenses unrelated to the specitsed authorized expenses.
15. 
The PPP allowed the interest and principal on the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven
if the borrower utilized 60%  of the loan in the 24 weeks post-disbursem ent toward payroll costs
and utilized the remaining 40% on qualified expense items (e.g., mortgage, rent, and utilities).
16. 
Applying for PPP loan forgiveness was a separate process that required additional
affinnations that the applicant satisfied the eligibility for PPP loan forgiveness. W hatever portion
of the PPP loan was not forgiven was serviced as a loan.
Investigation ofcertain Broward SherW s Om ce Employees F/1/ Received PPP Loans
During the COV1D-19 pandemic, federal and state law enforcem ent agencies,
including the FBI, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System , Office of lnspector
General CIFRB-OIG''), and the Broward Sheriff's Oftke CçBSO''), became aware that certain
current and form er BSO employees, including, but not limited to, sworn law enforcement officers,
had received one or more PPP loans while they were employed by BSO.
18. 
ln and around M ay 2022, the United States Attorney's Oftk e for the Southem
District of Florida CtUSAO''), in coordination with FRB-OIG, BSO, and FBI, opened a criminal
investigation to determine whether any current or former BSO employee had violated federal law
in connection with obtaining or attempting to obtain a PPP loan or any other form of pandem ic
relief authorized under the CARES Act, such as loans and advances made available through the
SBA'S Economic lnjury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program (hereinafter, the GGlnvestigation'').
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 7 of 16

SM ITH is one such current BSO employee whom the USAO and its law
learning that SM ITH had received PPP loans while
enforcement partners investigated after
employed by BSO. SM ITH has bçen employed by BSO since approximately M arch 1996 and
held the title of Deputy Sheriff in BSO's Department of Law Enforcement.
20. 
M ore specitk ally, 1aw enforcem ent learned from SBA records and other sources
described below that SM ITH received the following two PPP loans while employed by BSO:
a. SBA loan number 1892748707 in the amount of $20.833.00, which was disbursed
on or about April 1, 2021, from a PPP lender Ctender 1'') to borrower édstephanie
Smith'' as a sole proprietor doing business as ççchildren 1st Basketball Training''
(hereinafter, the Cfhildren 1st PPP Loan''); and
b. SBA loan number 7928598808 in the amount of $10.275.00, which was disbursed
on or about May 1 1, 2021, from a PPP lender (Gtender 2'3 to borrower çûstephanie
Smith'' as a sole proprietor doing business as GW gape Smith Vending'' (hereinafter,
the EW gape PPP Loan'').
21. As more particularly described below, pursuant to federal grandjury subpoenas, cx
parte court orders, consensual interviews, and other investigative sources and methods, the
Investigation has obtained evidence establishing probable cause to believe that, in connection with
the Children 1st PPP Loan and the Agape PPP Loan, SM ITH comm itted violations of the wire
fraud statute. That is, SM ITH knowingly devised and participated in a scheme to defraud in which
SM ITH, among other things: (a) submitted and caused the submission of false and fraudulent PPP
loan applications; (b) caused the disbursement of fraudulently obtained PPP loan proceeds to
herself by means of wire communication transmitted in interstate commerce; and (c) submitted
and caused the subm ission of false and fraudulent applications for fprgiveness of her PPP loans.
6
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 8 of 16

PROBABLE CAUSE TH AT SM ITH COM M ITTED W llèE FRAUD
SM lTH Fraudulentlk Obtained the Children 1st PPP Loan
22. Loan records obtained by federal grandjury subpoena show that, on or about March
29, 2021, SM ITH caused the subm ission of a PPP loan application to Lender 1 for ç'Stephanie
Smith'' (the business legal name) as a sole proprietor doing business as çichildren 1st Basketball
Training'' (hereinafter, the ûfhildren 1st PPP Application''). The Children 1st PPP Application
included SM ITH'S social security number, hom e address, cell phone number, and email address.
It also listed CSSTEPHANIE SM ITH'' as the primary contact, and SM ITH'S Florida driver's license
was submitted therewith.
23. 
The Children 1st PPP Application claimed that Children 1st Basketball Training
(hereinafter, GEchildren 1st'') had a total gross income of $100-000 for the tax year 2019. Based
upon this claimed total gross income for the tax year 2019, the Children 1st PPP Application
requested a PPP loan in the amount of $20,833.32. The Children 1st PPP Application also claimed
that the purpose of the PPP loan was for payroll costs, rent/mortgage interest, utilities, and covered
operations expenditures. As explained below , evidence shows that Children 1st in fact had zero
gross income for the tax yar 2019.
Submitted with the Children 1st PPP Application was an 1RS Form 1040 Schedule
C, purportedly for the tax year 2019. The name of the proprietor on the Schedule C was ttstephanie
D Sm ith'' and the business nam e was çschildren 1st Basketball Training.'' The Schedule C retlected
in line 7 that Children 1st had $100,236 in gross income and reflected in line 31 a net profk of
$88,193. As explained below, evidence shows that the Schedule C submitted with the Children
1st PPP Application was fabricated and was n0t fled with IRS.
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 9 of 16

25. 
Twhe Children 1st PPP Application was initialed and signed electronically by
SM ITH via Docusign. Specifically, a Docusign Certifcate of Completion for the Children 1.
PPP Application showed that CESTEPHANIE SM ITH,'' using the email address
çssmithsd4l7@aol.com,'' signed the Children 1st PPP Application on March 29, 2021, at
approximately 7:19 p.m .
26. 
Subpoenaed bank records show that, on April 1, 2021, SM ITH received the
proceeds of the Children 1st PPP Loan in the amount of $20,833. M ore specitkally, Lender 1
funded the Children 1st PPP loan by depositing the loan proceeds into SM ITH'S checking account
ending in 3536 in her name at Bank 1 via ACH transfer. Based on my training and experience and
understanding of the ACH system , and my review of records obtained in the Investigation, the
disbursement of the Children 1st PPP loan to SM ITH caused the transmission of a wire
communication in interstate commerce.
Subpoenaçd loan records further show that SM ITH applied for forgiveness of the
Children 1st PPP Loan, and that the principal loan am ount and interest was forgiven by the SBA.
ln particular, a ETPP Loan Forgiveness Application From 35085 Revised January 19, 2021''
produced by Lender 1 bears SM ITH 'S electronic signature and is dated July 19, 2021. The
forgiveness application claimed that $12,499.80 in loan proceeds was spent on payroll costs, and
certifed that the borrower (SM ITH) had complied with the requirements of the PPP rules. Lender
1's records show that it received the Children 1st PPP Loan's then-outstanding principal balance
($20,833) and interest ($68.49) from the SBA on or about July 29, 2021.
28. 
As indicated above, the Investigation obtined evidence by cx parte court order,
federal grand jury subpoenass and other sources, establishing that the 2019 gross income claimed
8
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 10 of 16

in the Children 1st PPP Application ($100,000) was materially false, and that the 1RS Form 1040
Schedule C submitted therewith was a fictitious document not tsled with the IRS. ln particular:
a. Pursuant to an ex parte Order issued by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Title 26, United States Code, Section 6l03(i)(l),
the lRS disclosed to the USAO for pumoses of the Investigation certain federal 1ax
returns and tax rettu.n information relating to SM ITH. This disclosure included a
copy of SM ITH 'S lRS From 1040 and Schedule C thereto for the tax year 2019 that
was Gled with the IRS. This tax ret'urn showed that, for the tax year 2019, SM ITH
reported that Children's lst had $0.00 in gross income (Schedule C, line 7) and a
net loss of -$31,91 1 (Schedule C, line 31). Furthermore, the version of the Schedule
C subm itted with the Children's 1st PPP Application was not sled with the IRS,
and the lRS had no record of any separate business tax reml'n filed for Children's
1st for the tax years 2019 or 2020.
b. Bank account statements for SM ITH'S checking account at Bank 1 ending in 3536,
which received the proceeds of the Children 1st PPP Loan, do not show any
deposits consistent with or otherwise supporting the purported $100,000 in gross
income in 2019 that SM ITH claimed on the Children 1st PPP Application. Bank
account statements for SM ITH'S savings account at Bank 1 likewise show no
deposits consistent with or otherwise supporting such gross income.
c. As part of her employment with BSO, SMITH was required to disclose to BjO any
outside employment she had while employed by BSO. SMITH did not disctose to
BSO that she had any outside employment relating to Children l st at any time.
9
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 11 of 16

29. 
Based on my training and experience, and familiarity with PPP loan applications,
there is probable cause to believe that SM ITH fraudulently obtained the Children 1st PPP loan by,
among other things, falsely and fraudulently inflating Children lst's gross income for the tax year
2019, and submitting a fabricated lRS tax document to support such material misrepresentations.
SMITH FraudulentV Obtained the Agape PPP Loan
30. Loan records obtalned by federal grand jury subpoena show that, on or about April
15, 2021, SM ITH caused the subm ission of a PPP loan application to Lender 2 for tkstephanie
Smith'' (the business legal name) as a sole proprietor doing business as dW gape Smith Vending''
(hereinafter, the ççAgape PPP Application''). The Agape PPP Application included SMI7'H'S
social security number, home address, cell phone number, and email address. lt also listed
Etstephanie Smith'' as the primary contact.
The Agape PPP Application claimed that Agape Smith Vending (hereinafter,
(Wgape'') had a total gross income of $49.326 for the tax year 2019. Based upon this claimed total
gross income for the tax year 2019, the Agape PPP Application requested a PPP loan in the amount
of $10,275. The Agape PPP Application also claimed that the purpose of the PPP loan was for
payroll costs, rent/mortgage interest, utilities, and covered operations expenditures. As explained
below, evidence shows that Agape in fact had gross income of only $1.452 for the tax yar 2019.
32. 
Submitted with the Agape PPP Application was an lRS Form 1040 Schedule C,
purportedly for the tax year 2019. The name of the proprietor on the Schedule C was ççstephanie
D Smith'' and the business name was EW gape Smith Vending LLC.'' The Schedule C reflected in
line 7 that Agape had $49,326 in gross income and retlected in line 31 a net profk of $43,172. As
explained below, evidence shows that the Schedule C submitted with the Agape PPP Application
was fabricated and was not filed with IRS.
10
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 12 of 16

The Agape PPP Application was initialed and signed electronically by SM ITH via
Docusign and dated April 15, 2021. Lender 2's loan file for the Agape PPP Loan showed that
SM ITH'S identity was verified through an electronic facial similarity comparison between her
Florida driver license and a photograph of herself that SM ITH provided in connection with the
submission of the Agape PPP Application. I have compared photograph of the person submitted
with Agape PPP Application and the picture on SM ITH'S Florida driver license, and it appears to
be the same person.
34. 
Subpoenaed bank records show that, on M ay 11, 2021, SM ITH received the
proceeds of the Agape PPP Loan in the amount of $10,275. M orç specifically, Lender 2 funded
the Agape PPP loan by depositing the proceeds into a checking account ending in l 130 in the name
of (W gape Smith Vending LLC'' at Bank 2 via Automated Clearing House (ACH) transfer.
SM ITH is the sole signatory on this bank account. Based on my training and experience and
understanding of the ACH system , and my review of records obtained in the Investigation, the
disbursement of the Agape PPP loan caused the transm ission of a wire communication in interstate
com m erce.
35. 
Subpoenaed loan records further show that SM ITH applied for forgiveness of the
Agape PPP Loan, and that the principal am ount and interest was forgiven by the SBA. ln
particular, a GTPP Loan Forgiveness Application From 35085 Revised July 30, 2021'' received by
Lender 2 was electronically signed by SM ITH via Docusign on October 18, 2021. The forgiveness
application claimed that $6,365 in loan proceeds was spent on payroll costs, and certifed that the
bonower (SMITH) had complied with the requirements of the PPP nzles. A notice from the SBA
m aintained in Lender 2's records shows that the SBA m ade a forgiveness payment to Lender 2 for
11
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 13 of 16

the Agape PPP Loan's then outstanding principal balance ($10,275) and interest ($51.95) on
November 1, 2021.
As indicated above, the lnvestigation obtained evidence by ex parte court order,
federal grand jury subpoenas, and other sources, establishing that the 2019 gross income claimed
in the Agape PPP Application ($49,326) was materially false, and that the 1RS Form 1040
Schedule C submitled therewith was a fktitious document not Gled with the IRS. ln particular:
a. SM ITH'S IRS From 1040 and Schedule C thereto for the tax year 2019 filed with
the IRS shows that SMITH reported that, for the tax year 2019, Agape had $1.452
in gross income (Schedule C, line 7) and a net loss of -$32-239 (Schedule C, line
31). Furthermore, the version of the Schedule C submitted with the Agape PPP
Application was not filed with the IRS, and the 1RS had no record of any separate
business tax return filed for Agape for the tax years 2019 or 2020.
b. Barlk account statements for SM ITH'S checking account for Agape at Bank 2
ending in 1 130, which received the proceeds of the Agape PPP Loan, do not show
any deposits consistent with or otherwise supporting the purported $49,326 in gross
income in 2019 that was claimed on the Agape PPP Application.
c. As part of her employment with BSO, SM ITH was required to disclose to BSO any
outside employment she had while employed by BSO. SM ITH did not disclose to
BSO that she had any outside employment related to Agape at any time.
37. 
Based on my training and experience, and familiarity with PPP loan applications,
there is probable cause to believe that SM ITH fraudulently obtained the Agape PPP loan by, among
other things, falsely and fraudulently inflating Agape's gross income for the tax year 2019, and
submitting a fabricated 1RS tax document to support such material misrepresentations.
12
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 14 of 16

SMITHACted Knowinqly and With Intent to Defraud
O ea She Obtained the Chtldren 1st and the Agape PPP Loans
38. 
On August 7, 2023, FB1 special agents conducted a consensual interview of SM ITH
in Broward County. During that interview, agents showed SM ITH the Children 1st PPP
Application and the Agape PPP Application. ln response to questions from the interviewing
agents, SMITH acknowledged that: 1) SMITH had signpd the respective PPP applications for
Children 1st and Agape via Docusign; and 2) SMITH had received the respective PPP loan
proceeds on behalf of Children 1st and Agape. W hen the interviewing agents asked SM ITH if
the information contained in the Children 1st and Agape PPP Applications was accurate, SM ITH
stated that it was. At the conclusion of the interview, SM ITH asked the interviewing agents
whether she (SM ITH) was in trouble. Based on my training and experience, and familiarity with
the evidence obtained in the lnvestigation, 1 do not believe that SM ITH was truthful when she told
the FBl that the information in the Children 1st and Agape PPP Applications was accurate.
39. 
During SM ITH 'S August 7 interview, SM ITH also told the interviewing agents that
she had received assistance with the Children 1st and Agape PPP Applications from a tax preparer
(hereinafter, tdpreparer 153. More specifically, SM ITH stated that Preparer 1 had created the lRS
documents, including the Schedule C forms, that were submitted with the Children 1st and Agape
PPP Applications.
40. 
On September 22, 2023, FBl special agents conducted a consensual interview of
Preparer 1 in Broward County. During that interview, Preparer 1 stated that SM ITH had told
Preparer 1 the am ounts to list on the Schedule C forms that were subm itted with the Children 1st
and Agape PPP Applications. M ore specitkally, Preparer 1 believed that SM ITH had called
Preparer 1 and provided the inform ation for the Schedule C form s over the phone. Preparer 1
believed that SM ITH provided such inform ation over the phone because Preparer 1 had made
13
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 15 of 16

handwritten notes on a shees of paper recording the nmotmts that were included in the Schedule C
forms. Preparer 1 provided this sheetwith the handwritten notes to the FBI, which I have reviewed.
Among other things, the sheet contains the noution t:100,0û0 - Line 77' along with SM l-fl-l's
phone number, email address, sotial security number, home address, smong other things.
41 . 
Preparer 1 did not independently verify whether the information that SMII'H
provided to Preparer 1 was accurate. Preparer 1 stated that she has never inet SM ITH in person.
Preparer 1 stated that she sent the completed Schedule C forms (containing the information
provided by SW TH), but could not remember if she did so by email or mgular mail.
42. 
Preparer 1 stated that she did not prepare SM ITH'S 2019 actual income tax retum
and that she did not have a cppy of such return. Based upon my review of SV TH'S actual 2019 .
income tax return, l believe that SM ITH'S 2019 income tmx retum  was prepared by someone other
than Preparer 1.
C ONCLUSION
43. 
Based upon the foregolng facts, your am ant submits there is probable cause to
support a criminal complaint charging STEPHANW  DIANE SM ITH with violations of Title ,18,
Urïiled States Code, Section 1343, that is, wire fraud.
FURTHER AFFM
T SAW TH  NAU GH T.
ë 
p 
#
'
KELL DV IETRANTONIO
Sm cial Agent
Federal Bureau of lnvestigation
Sworn to and subscribed before me telephonicglly this 11th day of Octobet 2023.
/
PATRICK M . HUNT
UNITED STATES M AGISTM TE JUDGE
14
Case 0:23-mj-06477-PMH   Document 3   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023   Page 16 of 16

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.655677.3.0.pdf

Size

800,663 bytes

SHA-256

b216ae378d47111e1f46f5adf8c80166d5c45bf22c9106fee88283e3a6dc1554

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.655677.3.0.pdf

Original

www.courtlistener.com