Indictment as to Francesco Distefano (1) count(s) 1 — USA v. Distefano (Dkt. 1, N.D. Ill.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · No. 1:24-cr-00424 · Doc. 1 · 2024-09-10 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
EASTERN DIVISION 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
v. 
FRANCESCO DISTEFANO 
Violation: Title 18, United States Code, 
Section 1014 
The SPECIAL MAY 2024 GRAND JURY charges: 
1.
At times material to this indictment:
The Small Business Administration 
a.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was a United
States government agency that provided economic support to small businesses. 
The Paycheck Protection Program 
b.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”)
Act was 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 caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 
c.
One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the
authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses and sole 
proprietors for job retention and certain other expenses, through a program called 
the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).  Congress subsequently authorized an 
additional $465 billion in funding for PPP loans, for a total of about $814 billion. 
d.
To obtain a PPP loan, a business, sole proprietor, or self-employed
individual submitted a PPP loan application, which was signed by the applicant or 
UNDERSEAL
1:24-cr-00424
Judge Jeremy C. Daniel
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole 
RANDOM/CAT.4
FILED
9/10/2024
THOMAS G. BRUTON
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
KSR
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1

an authorized representative of the business. The PPP loan application required the 
applicants to acknowledge the program rules and make certain affirmative 
certifications regarding the eligibility of the business, proprietorship, or individual. 
In the application, businesses, sole proprietors, and self-employed individuals were 
required to provide, among other things, their number of employees and average 
monthly payroll. This figure was used to calculate the applicant’s eligibility and the 
amount of money the business could receive under the PPP. Applicants were also 
required to make good faith certifications, including that economic uncertainties had 
necessitated their loan requests for continued business operations. 
e. 
PPP loan proceeds were required to be used by the business, sole 
proprietorship, or self-employed individual for 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 by the SBA if the business, sole 
proprietorship, or self-employed individual spent the loan proceeds on these items 
within a designated period of time and used at least a certain percentage of the PPP 
loan for payroll expenses. 
f. 
To gain access to funds through the PPP, businesses, sole 
proprietorships, and self-employed individuals applied to financial institutions 
participating in the PPP and received the loans directly from those financial 
institutions as the lender. 
g. 
Participating lenders required applicants for PPP loans to provide 
truthful information about the sole proprietorship, self-employed individual, or 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2

business and its owner, including truthful information about the applicant’s payroll, 
income, operating expenses, and how the PPP loan would be used. 
Lender A 
h. 
Lender A was a financial institution which funded PPP loans to 
approved borrowers.  The deposit accounts of Lender A were insured by the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation. 
Defendant 
i. 
Defendant FRANCESCO DISTEFANO was the owner and 
president of Distefano Enterprises LLC (“Distefano Enterprises”). 
Distefano Enterprises 
j. 
Distefano Enterprises was a limited liability company formed 
under the laws of Montana.  
k. 
On or about April 27, 2020, a Paycheck Protection Program 
Borrower Application Form was submitted to Lender A on behalf of Distefano 
Enterprises. The Number of Employees listed in the application was 14, with an 
Average Monthly Payroll of $95,000. 
l. 
On or about May 13, 2020, a revised Paycheck Protection Program 
Borrower Application Form was submitted to Lender A on behalf of Distefano 
Enterprises. The Number of Employees listed in the revised application was 14, with 
an Average Monthly Payroll of $79,166. 
m. 
On or about May 13, 2020, Lender A funded a PPP loan to 
Distefano Enterprises in the amount of approximately $197,915. 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3

2. 
On or about April 27, 2020, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern 
Division, and elsewhere, 
 
FRANCESCO DISTEFANO,  
 
 
defendant herein, knowingly made a false statement to Lender A for the purpose of 
influencing the actions of Lender A concerning a PPP loan application, in that 
defendant falsely stated: 
a. 
That Distefano Enterprises had 14 employees; and 
b. 
That Distefano Enterprises had an Average Monthly Payroll of $95,000; 
when defendant knew that such statements were false; 
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1014. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION 
The SPECIAL MAY 2024 GRAND JURY further alleges: 
1. 
Upon conviction of an offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 
Section 1014, as set forth in this Indictment, defendant shall forfeit to the United 
States of America any property involved in such offense, and any property 
constituting, or derived from, proceeds defendant obtained directly or indirectly, as 
the result of such violation, as provided in Title 18, United States Code, Section 
982(a)(2)(A).   
2. 
The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, a personal 
money judgment in an amount equal to the proceeds derived from the offense in 
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1014, estimated to be approximately 
$197,915. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5

3. 
If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission 
by a defendant: cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence, has been 
transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party, has been placed beyond the 
jurisdiction of the Court; has been substantially diminished in value; or has been 
commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty, the 
United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property, as 
provided in Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p). 
 
A TRUE BILL: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FOREPERSON 
 
 
_______________________________________ 
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY   
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ilnd.464178.1.0.pdf

Size

172,871 bytes

SHA-256

bdb25b3554806ff393f3453affea3a51f329bb67d0b90e5998d02d2e120ca7c2

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ilnd.464178.1.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)