Second Superseding Indictment as to Francesco Distefano (1) count(s) 1s-11s, 12s — USA v. Distefano (Dkt. 39, N.D. Ill.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · No. 1:24-cr-00424 · Doc. 39 · 2024-12-10 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
EASTERN DIVISION 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
   v. 
FRANCESCO DISTEFANO and 
SARGIS URUMIEH 
No. 24 CR 424 
Judge Jeremy C. Daniel 
Violations: Title 18, United States 
Code, Sections 1014, 1343 and 
1957(a) 
SECOND SUPERSEDING 
INDICTMENT 
COUNTS ONE THROUGH EIGHT 
The SPECIAL MAY 2024 GRAND JURY charges that: 
1.
At times material to this indictment:
Individuals and Entities 
a.
Defendant FRANCESCO DISTEFANO was a resident of
Addison, Illinois, and the owner and president of Distefano Enterprises LLC 
(“Distefano Enterprises”), a limited liability company formed under the laws of 
Montana in or around 2015. 
b.
Defendant SARGIS URUMIEH, was a resident of Glendale,
California and the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary of 
West Coast POS Inc. (“West Coast”), a corporation incorporated under the laws of 
California on or around February 1, 2019, and the Vice President, Secretary, and 
Director of National POS Inc. (“National”), a corporation incorporated in Delaware 
on or about August 31, 2015. 
1:24-cr-00424
Judge Jeremy C. Daniel
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole
Cat. 4
FILED
12/10/2024
THOMAS G. BRUTON
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
BI
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 1 of 36 PageID #:149

2 
 
c. 
Individual A was a resident of Addison, Illinois. 
The Small Business Administration 
d. 
The U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was a United 
States government agency that provided economic support to small businesses. 
The Paycheck Protection Program 
e. 
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. 
f. 
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. 
g. 
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 
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 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 2 of 36 PageID #:150

3 
 
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 that the business entity was 
in operation on February 15, 2020, and that economic uncertainties had necessitated 
their loan requests for continued business operations. 
h. 
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. 
i. 
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. 
j. 
Businesses, sole proprietors, and self-employed individuals that 
obtained PPP loans and used the full loan amount were allowed to obtain additional 
funds through the PPP by submitting a Second Draw Borrower Application Form 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 3 of 36 PageID #:151

4 
 
(“Second Draw Application”), which was signed by the applicant or an authorized 
representative of the business.  The Second Draw Application required the applicants 
to again acknowledge the program rules and make certain affirmative certifications 
regarding the eligibility of the business, and again provide their number of employees 
and average monthly payroll. These figures were again used to calculate the 
applicant’s eligibility and the amount of money the business could receive under the 
PPP.  Applicants were again required to make good faith certifications, including that 
economic uncertainties had necessitated their loan requests for continued business 
operations and that the applicants had used the full amount of the initial PPP loan 
only for eligible expenses. 
k. 
Participating lenders required applicants for PPP loans to provide 
truthful information about the sole proprietorship, self-employed individual, or 
business and its owner, including truthful information about the applicant’s payroll, 
income, operating expenses, and how the PPP loan would be used, which information 
was material to (i) lenders’ approval, terms, and funding of loans and (ii) the SBA’s 
decision to guarantee and to forgive the loans. 
The Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program 
l. 
Another source of relief provided by the CARES Act and other 
pandemic-relief legislation was the expansion of the Economic Injury Disaster Loan 
(“EIDL”) Program, which provided loan assistance (including advances of up to 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 4 of 36 PageID #:152

5 
 
$10,000) for businesses with 500 or fewer employees and other eligible entities. The 
EIDL Program was designed to provide economic relief to small businesses that were 
experiencing a temporary loss of revenue. 
m. 
To gain access to funds through the EIDL Program, small 
businesses applied through the SBA via an online portal and application. As part of 
the EIDL application process, the SBA required applicants to submit truthful 
information about the applying entity, its owner, and its financial condition prior to 
the COVID-19 pandemic. This information included the entity’s number of employees 
as of January 31, 2020; the entity’s gross revenues and cost of goods sold for the 12-
month period prior to January 31, 2020; and the entity’s type of business (i.e., a 
business, an agricultural business, a sole proprietorship, a cooperative, among 
others); the date on which the business opened; and the date on which the current 
owner assumed ownership of the entity. Applicants were required to electronically 
certify that the information provided in the application was true and correct and were 
warned that a false statement or misrepresentation to the SBA may result in 
sanctions, including criminal penalties.   
n. 
EIDL funds were issued to small-business applicants directly 
from the United States Treasury. 
o. 
EIDL Advance was a grant program offered together with the 
EIDL Program. EIDL Advance was designed to provide emergency economic relief to 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 5 of 36 PageID #:153

6 
 
businesses that were experiencing a temporary loss of revenue as a result of the 
COVID-19 pandemic. The applicant could request consideration for an EIDL advance 
in an application for an EIDL. The amount of the advance issued to the small-
business applicant was determined by the number of employees indicated on the 
EIDL application, at $1,000 per employee, up to $10,000. If an EIDL advance was 
issued, the advance did not need to be repaid. 
p. 
If an EIDL application was approved by the SBA, the amount of 
the EIDL was determined in part based on the statements in the EIDL application 
about the entity’s revenues and cost of goods sold for the 12 months prior to January 
31, 2020. 
q. 
EIDL Program funds could be used to pay for the ordinary 
operating expenses and debts of the entity, including payroll, sick leave, production 
costs, utilities, rent, mortgage payments, continuation of health care benefits, and 
fixed debt payments. 
Mortgage Loans 
r. 
Financial institutions, including banks and mortgage lending 
businesses that financed or refinanced debt secured by an interest in real estate, 
required mortgage loan applicants to provide truthful information, including the 
applicant’s financial condition, employment, income, assets, liabilities, and source of 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 6 of 36 PageID #:154

7 
 
down payment funds, all of which was material to the financial institutions’ approval, 
terms, and funding of mortgage loans. 
Financial Institutions and Lenders 
s. 
U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) was a financial 
institution which funded PPP loans to approved borrowers. The deposit accounts of 
U.S. Bank were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 
t. 
Encore Bank was a financial institution which funded PPP loans 
to approved borrowers. The deposit accounts of Encore Bank were insured by the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 
u. 
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase Bank”) was a financial 
institution in which West Coast maintained an account. The deposit accounts of 
Chase Bank were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 
v. 
Arkansas Capital Corporation (“Arkansas Capital”) was a 
community development finance company located in Little Rock, Arkansas, which 
originated PPP loans in partnership with financial institutions, including Encore 
Bank. 
w. 
Better Mortgage Corporation (“Better Mortgage”) was a mortgage 
lending business based in New York that provided residential mortgage loans to 
borrowers across the United States. 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 7 of 36 PageID #:155

8 
 
x. 
Planet Home Lending LLC (“Planet Home”) was a mortgage 
lending business with an office in Missouri that provided residential mortgage loans 
to borrowers across the United States. 
Electronic Signatures 
y. 
Docusign was an electronic signature and document management 
platform that allowed users to send and electronically sign documents using a 
computer or other electronic device. 
Payroll Processors 
z. 
Payroll Processor 1 and Payroll Processor 2 were payroll 
processing companies who performed payroll services on behalf of client companies, 
including issuing payroll checks; calculating and withholding payroll taxes; and 
preparing and filing payroll tax forms such as Forms 940 and 941 on behalf of client 
companies. 
The Scheme to Defraud 
2. 
Beginning in or around March 2020 and continuing through in or around 
February 2021, in the Northern District of Illinois, and elsewhere,  
FRANCESCO DISTEFANO and  
SARGIS URUMIEH, 
 
defendants herein, together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, 
knowingly devised, intended to devise, and participated in a scheme to defraud, and 
to obtain money and property, in connection with applications for PPP loans, EIDLs, 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 8 of 36 PageID #:156

9 
 
and residential mortgage loans, by means of materially false and fraudulent 
pretenses, representations, and promises, as further described below. 
3. 
It was part of the scheme that DISTEFANO and URUMIEH, for the 
purpose of fraudulently obtaining approximately $6,348,808 in PPP loan and EIDL 
funds, submitted and caused to be submitted not fewer than five applications for 
loans and advances under the PPP and EIDL Programs, on behalf of West Coast and 
National, 
which 
applications 
contained 
materially 
false 
statements 
and 
misrepresentations concerning, among other things, the purported entities’ number 
of employees, gross income, gross revenues, payroll, cost of goods sold, operating 
expenses, type of business, and existence as companies with ongoing operations. 
4. 
It was further part of the scheme that, for the purpose of obtaining real 
property for URUMIEH’s benefit, defendants DISTEFANO and URUMIEH used 
approximately $312,000 in funds fraudulently obtained from the PPP loans to West 
Coast and National towards the purchase of the real property, and prepared and 
submitted not less than two fraudulent mortgage loan applications to obtain a 
mortgage loan in the approximate amount of $765,600 to fund the purchase of the 
real property, which applications contained materially false statements and 
misrepresentations concerning, among other things, URUMIEH’s past, present, and 
future income sources. 
 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 9 of 36 PageID #:157

10 
 
West Coast EIDL 
5. 
It was further part of the scheme that between March 31, 2020, and May 
22, 2020, DISTEFANO and URUMIEH submitted and caused to be submitted to the 
SBA an EDIL application on behalf of West Coast in the amount of $150,000 and an 
EIDL advance in the amount of $10,000, knowing that the application contained false 
and fraudulent representations regarding (a) West Coast’s number of employees; (b) 
West Coast’s gross receipts and costs of goods sold; and (c) the truthfulness and 
accuracy of the application. 
6. 
It was further part of the scheme that in order to obtain the EIDL and 
advance, DISTEFANO prepared the loan application falsely representing that for the 
12 months ending January 1, 2020, West Coast had Gross Receipts of $5,000,000, 
Cost of Goods of $4,500,000, and 12 employees as of that date, and URUMIEH 
certified in the Loan Authorization and Agreement that all representations in the 
loan application were true, correct, and complete. 
7. 
It was further part of the scheme, that, through the submission of the 
false and fraudulent EIDL application, DISTEFANO and URUMIEH caused the SBA 
to disburse a loan and advance totaling $159,900 into an account that URUMIEH 
maintained and controlled in the name of West Coast at Chase Bank, when, as 
DISTEFANO and URUMIEH knew, neither they nor West Coast were entitled to the 
EIDL funds. 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 10 of 36 PageID #:158

11 
 
West Coast First Draw PPP Loan 
8. 
It was further part of the scheme that between, on or about July 17, 
2020, and on or about July 22, 2020, DISTEFANO and URUMIEH submitted and 
caused to be submitted to Arkansas Capital a PPP loan application on behalf of West 
Coast in the amount of $1,090,891, knowing that the application contained false and 
fraudulent representations regarding: (a) West Coast’s number of employees; (b) West 
Coast’s average monthly payroll; and (c) the truthfulness and accuracy of the 
application and supporting documents.  
9. 
It was further part of the scheme that, in order to obtain a PPP loan, on 
or about July 20, 2020, URUMIEH sent an email to Arkansas Capital, containing the 
PPP loan application for West Coast, with a fraudulent IRS Form 940, and fraudulent  
summary payroll report, which falsely represented that West Coast had 14 employees 
with an average monthly payroll of $436,356.37, and had paid its employees, wages, 
tips, and compensation of $5,236,276.47 in 2019. 
10. 
It was further a part of the scheme that, on or around July 21, 2020, 
DISTEFANO applied URUMIEH’s Docusign signature to documents to open bank 
accounts in the name of West Coast ending in 6266 and 6282 at Encore Bank, which 
accounts were to be used to effect and conceal the scheme. 
11. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about July 21, 2020, 
URUMIEH submitted and caused to be submitted to Arkansas Capital, documents 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 11 of 36 PageID #:159

12 
 
that included a fraudulent IRS Form 941 and falsely represented that West Coast 
had paid $1,765,990.17 to its employees as wages, tips, and compensation in the first 
quarter of 2020.   
12. 
It was further part of the scheme that, through the submission of the 
false and fraudulent PPP loan application and supporting materials, DISTEFANO 
and URUMIEH caused, on or about July 22, 2020, a PPP loan of approximately 
$1,090,890 to be disbursed into the West Coast account ending 6266 at Encore Bank, 
when, as DISTEFANO and URUMIEH knew, neither they nor West Coast were 
entitled to the PPP loan funds. 
13. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about July 23, 2020, 
URIMIEH, with DISTEFANO’s unannounced presence to assist him, participated in 
a phone call with Payroll Processor 1, in an effort to establish an account for West 
Coast in order to disguise the withdrawals of the PPP proceeds obtained from Encore 
Bank as payroll, and, during such call, falsely represented that West Coast had 
approximately $2,000,000 to $2,500,000 in gross sales in 2019.  
14. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about July 23, 2020, 
DISTEFANO applied for and established an account for West Coast with Payroll 
Processor 2, in order to disguise as payroll the withdrawals of the PPP proceeds from 
the accounts at Encore Bank. 
15. 
It was further part of the scheme that on or about July 28, 2020, 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 12 of 36 PageID #:160

13 
 
DISTEFANO created a fictitious list of approximately 66 purported employees titled 
“WESTCOASTPOSINCexportPayrollRUn06.xlsx” to be used in support of the West 
Coast PPP loan application, and URUMIEH thereafter transmitted the fictitious list 
to Arkansas Capital. 
16. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about July 28, 2020, 
URUMIEH submitted and caused to be submitted on behalf of West Coast to 
Arkansas Capital, what URUMIEH characterized as a “corrected” first page of the 
PPP loan application with the increased number of employees from 14 to 67, knowing 
that it contained false and fraudulent representations regarding the number of 
employees and average monthly payroll.   
National First Draw PPP Loan 
17. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about July 26, 2020, 
DISTEFANO and URUMIEH submitted and caused to be submitted to Arkansas 
Capital a PPP loan application and supporting documents on behalf of National in 
the amount of $1,722,646, knowing that the application materials contained false and 
fraudulent representations regarding: (a) National’s number of employees; (b) 
National’s average monthly payroll; and (c) the truthfulness and accuracy of the 
application and supporting documents.  
18. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about July 26, 2020, 
DISTEFANO and URUMIEH caused an email to be sent to Arkansas Capital 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 13 of 36 PageID #:161

14 
 
transmitting a fraudulent PPP loan application that contained false representations, 
including that National had 19 employees and an average monthly payroll 
$689,058.20, and accompanied the fraudulent PPP loan application with a fraudulent 
payroll summary report and fraudulent IRS Form 941 for the first quarter of 2020 
that falsely reported the payment of wages of approximately $2,157,170 to employees.  
19. 
It was further a part of the scheme that, on or about July 27, 2020, 
DISTEFANO and URUMIEH caused to be submitted to Arkansas Capital a 
fraudulent IRS Form 940 that falsely reported that National paid wages, tips, and 
compensation of approximately $8,269,698 to its employees. 
20. 
It was further a part of the scheme that, on or around July 27, 2020, 
URUMIEH, for the purpose of effecting and concealing the scheme, applied his 
Docusign signature to a Signature Card form to open a bank account for National 
ending in 6449 at Encore Bank. 
21. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about July 28, 2020, 
DISTEFANO created a fictitious list of approximately 122 purported employees titled 
“NATIONALPOSINCexportPayrollRun06.xlsx” to be used in support of the National 
PPP loan application, and URUMIEH thereafter transmitted the fictitious list to 
Arkansas Capital. 
22. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about July 28, 2020, 
URUMIEH submitted and caused to be submitted to Arkansas Capital, what he 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 14 of 36 PageID #:162

15 
 
characterized as a “corrected” PPP loan application for National, knowing that it 
falsely and fraudulently represented that National had 123 employees.  
23. 
It was further a part of the scheme that, on or around July 28, 2020, 
DISTEFANO, for the purpose of effecting and concealing the scheme, applied a 
Docusign signature for URUMIEH to a Signature Card form to open a bank account 
for National ending in 6472 at Encore Bank. 
24. 
It was further part of the scheme that, through the submission of the 
false and fraudulent PPP loan application and supporting materials, on or about July 
29, 2020, DISTEFANO and URUMIEH caused a PPP loan of approximately 
$1,722,645 to be deposited into a National account ending in 6449 at Encore Bank, 
when, as DISTEFANO and URUMIEH knew, neither they nor National were entitled 
to the PPP loan funds. 
West Coast Second Draw PPP Application 
25. 
It was further part of the scheme that between approximately January 
29, 2021, and February 5, 2021, DISTEFANO and URUMIEH submitted and caused 
to be submitted to Arkansas Capital, a fraudulent second draw PPP loan application 
on behalf of West Coast in the approximate amount of $1,380,655, knowing that it 
contained false and fraudulent representations regarding: (a) West Coast’s number 
of employees; (b) West Coast’s average monthly payroll; (c) gross receipts; and (d) the 
truthfulness and accuracy of the application and supporting documents.  
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 15 of 36 PageID #:163

16 
 
26. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about February 5, 2021, 
DISTEFANO submitted and caused to be submitted a fraudulent second draw loan 
application, and fraudulent IRS Forms 941 for 2019, to Arkansas Capital, which, as 
DISTEFANO and URUMIEH knew, falsely represented that West Coast had 14 
employees, its monthly payroll was approximately $552,262, and total payments to 
all employees were approximately $6,627,145 for year 2019. 
National Second Draw PPP Application 
27. 
It was further part of the scheme that, between approximately January 
29, 2021 and February 5, 2021, DISTEFANO and URUMIEH submitted and caused 
to be submitted to Arkansas Capital an application for a PPP loan for National in the 
amount of approximately $1,994,717, knowing that it contained false and fraudulent 
representations regarding: (a) the number of employees; (b) average monthly payroll; 
(c) gross receipts; and (d) the truthfulness and accuracy of the application and 
supporting documents. 
28. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or around February 5, 2021, 
DISTEFANO submitted and caused to be submitted to Arkansas Capital fraudulent 
tax forms, namely IRS Forms 941 for tax year 2019, which as DISTEFANO and 
URUMIEH knew, contained false representations regarding National’s number of 
employees, total payments to all employees, and average monthly payroll.  
 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 16 of 36 PageID #:164

17 
 
Purchase of Property in Glendale, California 
29. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about August 17, 2020, 
URUMIEH caused $450,000 in funds obtained from the PPP loan to National to be 
transferred from the account ending in 6449 that he controlled at Encore Bank to the 
account ending in 6472 that he controlled at Encore Bank. 
30. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about August 18, 2020, 
URUMIEH caused $450,000 in funds obtained from the PPP loan to National to be 
transferred from the account ending in 6472 that he controlled at Encore Bank to the 
account ending in 6250 that he controlled at Chase Bank. 
31. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about September 3, 2020, 
URUMIEH caused $32,000 in funds obtained from the PPP loan to National to be 
transferred from the account ending in 6250 that he controlled at Chase Bank to an 
escrow account for the purchase of real property located at 29XX E. Chevy Chase Dr. 
in Glendale, California (the “Glendale Property”). 
Better Mortgage 
32. 
It was further part of the scheme that, between approximately 
September 9, 2020 and October 19, 2020, DISTEFANO and URUMIEH submitted 
and caused to be submitted to Better Mortgage an application for a residential real 
estate loan in the amount of approximately $746,555 to purchase the Glendale 
Property, knowing that such application contained false and fraudulent 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 17 of 36 PageID #:165

18 
 
representations regarding: (a) monthly income; and (b) the truthfulness and accuracy 
of the application and supporting documents. 
33. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about September 9, 2020, 
DISTEFANO and URUMIEH submitted and caused to be submitted a fraudulent 
Uniform Residential Loan Application to Better Mortgage falsely representing that 
URUMIEH had monthly income of $233,333. 
34. 
It was further part of the scheme that between approximately 
September 9, 2020 and October 19, 2020, DISTEFANO and URUMIEH submitted 
and caused to be submitted to Better Mortgage two  fraudulent individual income tax 
returns (IRS Forms 1040-X)  falsely representing that URUMIEH had adjusted gross 
income of $8,908,233.43 in 2019 and adjusted gross income of $7,659,188.50 in 2018, 
and a fraudulent letter from “ER TAX SERVICES” explaining the IRS Forms 1040-
X. 
35. 
It was further part of the scheme that between approximately 
September 9, 2020, and October 19, 2020, DISTEFANO and URUMIEH submitted 
and caused to be submitted to Better Mortgage a fraudulent “Large Deposit 
Explanation” that falsely attributed a $450,000 deposit of proceeds from the National 
first draw PPP loan into an account that URUMIEH controlled at Chase Bank ending 
in 6250, as proceeds of a liquidation of URUMIEH’s “stock options on TastyTrade.” 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 18 of 36 PageID #:166

19 
 
36. 
It was further a part of the scheme that, on or about October 19, 2020, 
URIMIAH, after he was informed by Better Mortgage that his loan application had 
been rejected by underwriting because of “discrepancies in income in the amount of 
millions of dollars from what was reported to the IRS when your taxes were filed as 
opposed to the tax returns that [Better Mortgage] received,” sent an email to 
DISTEFANO and Individual A stating “[t]hats what I was concerned about” and 
asking “[w]hat now?” to which DISTEFANO responded with a false narrative for 
URUMIEH to provide to Better Mortgage. 
Planet Home 
37. 
It was further part of the scheme that, between approximately October 
30, 2020 and December 4, 2020, DISTEFANO, URUMIEH, and Individual A 
submitted and caused to be submitted to Planet Home an application on behalf of 
URUMIEH for a residential real estate loan in the amount of approximately $765,600 
to purchase the Glendale Property, knowing that such application contained false and 
fraudulent representations regarding: (a) monthly income; and (b) the truthfulness 
and accuracy of the application and supporting documents. 
38. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about October 30, 2020, 
DISTEFANO and URIMIAH submitted and caused to be submitted a fraudulent 
Uniform Residential Loan Application to Planet Home falsely representing that 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 19 of 36 PageID #:167

20 
 
URUMIEH was employed by National and West Coast, both of Addison, Illinois, with 
a total monthly income of $30,833. 
39. 
It was further a part of the scheme that, on or about November 17, 2020, 
URUMIEH caused $105,000 in proceeds of the West Coast PPP loan to be transferred 
from an account at Encore Bank ending in 6282 to an account that URUMIEH 
controlled at Chase Bank ending in 6250. 
40. 
It was further part of the scheme that, between approximately October 
30, 2020 and December 4, 2020, DISTEFANO, URUMIEH, and Individual A, created 
and caused to be created and submitted to Planet Home, a fraudulent Sales Purchase 
Agreement dated August 1, 2020 (the “Sales Purchase Agreement”), that falsely 
recounted that West Coast was sold by URUMIEH to Distefano Enterprises for 
$2,000,000 payable in installments, and that URUMIEH was to enter into a 10-year 
employment agreement with Distefano Enterprises at an annual salary of $365,000. 
41. 
It was further a part of the scheme that, on or around December 4, 2020, 
URIMIAH executed and caused to be submitted a fraudulent Uniform Residential 
Loan Application to Planet Home falsely representing that he was then employed by 
West Coast of Addison, Illinois as a “Consultant” with a total monthly income of 
$30,416. 
42. 
It was further a part of the scheme that, on or around December 4, 2020, 
URUMIEH caused a wire transfer of approximately $280,421 in funds from the 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 20 of 36 PageID #:168

21 
 
account he controlled at Chase Bank ending in 6250, to Escrow Company 1 for the 
purchase of the Glendale Property. 
43. 
It was further part of the scheme that, through the submission of the 
false and fraudulent Uniform Residential Loan Application and supporting 
materials, on or about December 4, 2020, URUMIEH, DISTEFANO, and Individual 
A caused Planet Home to disburse approximately $765,600 to Escrow Company 1 to 
enable URUMIEH to purchase the Glendale Property, when, as URUMIEH, 
DISTEFANO, and Individual A knew, URUMIEH was not entitled to the funds. 
44. 
It was further part of the scheme that DISTEFANO and URUMIEH 
misrepresented, concealed, and hid, and caused to be misrepresented, concealed, and 
hidden, the existence and purpose of the scheme and the acts done in furtherance of 
the scheme. 
45. 
On or about the dates set forth below, in the Northern District of Illinois, 
Eastern Division, and elsewhere, defendants FRANCESCO DISTEFANO and 
SARGIS URUMIEH, as set forth below, for the purpose of executing the above-
described scheme, knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire 
communication in interstate commerce certain writings, signs, and signals, listed 
below, each such writing, sign, and signal constituting a separate count: 
Count 
Date 
Description of Act 
1 
March 31, 2020 
An internet transmission of an EIDL application on 
behalf of “WEST COAST POS INC.” to the SBA 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 21 of 36 PageID #:169

22 
 
Count 
Date 
Description of Act 
2 
July 20, 2020 
An internet transmission of a PPP loan application on 
behalf of “WEST COAST POS INC.” to Arkansas 
Capital 
3 
July 21, 2020 
An internet transmission of a Docusign signature upon 
a Corporate Authorization Resolution form to Encore 
Bank  
4 
February 5, 2021 An internet transmission of a PPP loan application on 
behalf of “WEST COAST POS INC.” to Arkansas 
Capital 
5 
July 26, 2020 
An internet transmission of a PPP loan application on 
behalf of “NATIONAL POS INC.” to Arkansas Capital 
6 
July 28, 2020 
An internet transmission of a Docusign signature upon 
a Signature Card form to Encore Bank  
7 
February 5, 2021 An internet transmission of a PPP loan application on 
behalf of “NATIONAL POS INC.” accompanied by 
falsified IRS Forms 941 to Arkansas Capital  
8 
November 27, 
2020  
An internet transmission of a Docusign envelope 
containing the Sales Purchase Agreement from 
DISTEFANO to URUMIEH  
 
 
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 22 of 36 PageID #:170

23 
 
COUNTS NINE THROUGH ELEVEN 
The SPECIAL MAY 2024 GRAND JURY further charges: 
1. 
Paragraphs 1(a), 1(d) through 1(q), 1(s), 1(t), 1(v), and 1(z) of Counts One 
through Eight are incorporated here. 
2. 
Beginning in or around March 2020, and continuing until in or around 
February 2021, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, 
FRANCESCO DISTEFANO, 
defendant herein, knowingly devised, intended to devise, and participated in a 
scheme to defraud and to obtain money and property from government relief 
programs, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, 
and promises, as further described below. 
3. 
 It was part of the scheme that DISTEFANO, for the purpose of 
fraudulently obtaining approximately $440,835 in PPP and EIDL funds, submitted 
and caused to be submitted not fewer than three fraudulent applications for loans 
and advances under the PPP and EIDL programs on behalf of Distefano Enterprises, 
which applications and supporting documents contained materially false 
representations concerning, among other things, Distefano Enterprises’ purported 
number of employees, payroll, gross revenues and operating expenses. 
 
 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 23 of 36 PageID #:171

24 
 
EIDL Application and Loan  
4. 
It was further part of the scheme, that on or about March 31, 2020, 
DISTEFANO submitted and caused to be submitted to the SBA an online EIDL 
application for Distefano Enterprises seeking a loan in the amount of $150,000 and 
an EIDL advance in the amount of $10,000, knowing that the application contained 
false and fraudulent representations.  
5. 
It was further part of the scheme that on or about March 31, 2020, in 
order to obtain the EIDL and advance, DISTEFANO prepared and submitted a 
fraudulent loan application in which he falsely represented that Distefano 
Enterprises had gross revenues of $2,500,000 and cost of goods sold of $2,120,000 for 
the 12 months ending January 31, 2020, and 12 employees as of that date, when, as 
DISTEFANO knew, Distefano Enterprises did not have 12 employees and did not 
have the revenues or cost of goods stated in the application. 
6. 
It was further part of the scheme that, through the submission of the 
false and fraudulent EIDL application, DISTEFANO caused the SBA, on or about 
June 10, 2020, to disburse approximately $149,900 in EIDL proceeds into a bank 
account ending in 9624 at U.S. Bank that was controlled by DISTEFANO. 
7. 
It was further part of the scheme that, through the submission of the 
false and fraudulent EIDL application, DISTEFANO caused the SBA, on or about 
June 18, 2020, to disburse approximately $10,000 in EIDL advance funds into a bank 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 24 of 36 PageID #:172

25 
 
account ending in 9624 at U.S. Bank that was controlled by DISTEFANO. 
PPP Loan from U.S. Bank 
8. 
It was further part of the scheme that between approximately April 20, 
2020, and  May 13, 2020, DISTEFANO submitted and caused to be submitted to U.S. 
Bank a PPP loan application on behalf of Distefano Enterprises in the amount of 
$237,500, 
knowing 
that 
the 
application 
contained 
false and 
fraudulent 
representations regarding: (a) Distefano Enterprises’ number of employees; (b) 
Distefano Enterprises’ average monthly payroll; and (c) the truthfulness and 
accuracy of the application and supporting documents. 
9. 
It was further part of the scheme that, in order to obtain a PPP loan, on 
or about April 27, 2020, DISTEFANO sent an email to U.S. Bank, containing the 
fraudulent PPP loan application for Distefano Enterprises, which falsely represented 
that Distefano Enterprises had 14 employees with an average monthly payroll of 
$95,000.  
10. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or about April 27, 2020, 
DISTEFANO sent an email to U.S. Bank, containing a fraudulent Payroll Run Report 
that falsely purported to be issued by Payroll Processor 2 and falsely represented that 
Distefano Enterprises had total payroll of approximately $1,011,889 during calendar 
year 2019. 
11. 
 It was further part of the scheme that, on or about May 13, 2020, 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 25 of 36 PageID #:173

26 
 
DISTEFANO submitted a revised fraudulent PPP loan application to U.S. Bank, 
which falsely represented that Distefano Enterprises had 14 employees with an 
average monthly payroll of $79,166. 
12. 
It was further part of the scheme that, through the submission of the 
false and fraudulent PPP loan application and supporting materials, DISTEFANO 
caused U.S. Bank, on or about May 13, 2020, to disburse a PPP loan of approximately 
$197,915 into an account DISTEFANO controlled at U.S. Bank ending 9624, when, 
as DISTEFANO knew, neither he nor Distefano Enterprises was entitled to the PPP 
loan funds. 
Forgiveness Application Submitted to SBA 
13. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or around October 29, 2020, 
in order to fraudulently obtain forgiveness of the Distefano Enterprises PPP loan 
obtained through U.S. Bank, DISTEFANO submitted and caused to be submitted to 
the SBA, a PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form 3508EZ, knowing that the 
forgiveness application contained false and fraudulent representations regarding: (a) 
Distefano Enterprises’ number of employees; (b) Distefano Enterprises’ average 
monthly payroll; and (c) the truthfulness and accuracy of the application and 
supporting documents. 
14. 
It was further part of the scheme that, on or around October 29, 2020 
DISTEFANO prepared and submitted a fraudulent forgiveness application to SBA 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 26 of 36 PageID #:174

27 
 
falsely representing that, between May 13, 2020 and October 27, 2020, Distefano 
Enterprises had payroll costs of $255,478.54, and that, as of the date of the 
forgiveness application, Distefano Enterprises had seven employees, when, as 
DISTEFANO knew, DISTEFANO enterprises did not have seven employees and had 
not paid the payroll amounts represented. 
15. 
It was further part of the scheme that on or around October 29, 2020, 
DISTEFANO submitted to the U.S. Bank in support of the forgiveness application, a 
fraudulent IRS Form 941 for the third quarter of 2020, falsely representing that 
Distefano Enterprises had seven employees who received wages, tips, or other 
compensation totaling $217,149.38 during that period, and that the original of the 
IRS Form 941 had been filed electronically, when, as DISTEFANO knew, Distefano 
Enterprises had not filed or caused to be filed an IRS Form 941 and had neither the 
employees nor the payroll represented in the document. 
Distefano Enterprises Second Draw PPP Application 
16. 
It was further part of the scheme that, between approximately January 
29, 2021 and February 5, 2021, DISTEFANO submitted and caused to be submitted 
to Arkansas Capital an application for a second draw PPP loan for Distefano 
Enterprises in the amount of approximately $83,920, knowing that it contained false 
and fraudulent representations regarding: (a) the number of employees; (b) average 
monthly payroll; and (c) the truthfulness and accuracy of the application and 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 27 of 36 PageID #:175

28 
 
supporting documents. 
17. 
It was further part of the scheme that, in order to obtain a PPP loan, on 
or about February 5, 2021, DISTEFANO sent an email to Arkansas Capital, 
containing a fraudulent PPP loan application for Distefano Enterprises, falsely 
representing that Distefano Enterprises had 14 employees and average monthly 
payroll of $33,568.13, when, as DISTEFANO knew, Distefano Enterprises had 
neither the represented number of employees nor the represented amount of payroll. 
18. 
It was further part of the scheme that on or about February 5, 2021, 
DISTEFANO submitted to Arkansas Capital, in support of the Distefano Enterprises 
second draw PPP loan application, fraudulent IRS Forms 941 for the first, second, 
third, and fourth quarters of 2019, and the second quarter of 2020, that had not been 
filed with the IRS, and falsely represented the number of individuals employed and 
wages paid by Distefano Enterprises. 
19. 
It was further part of the scheme that DISTEFANO misrepresented, 
concealed, and hid, and caused to be misrepresented, concealed, and hidden, the 
existence and purpose of the scheme and the acts done in furtherance of the scheme. 
 
 
 
 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 28 of 36 PageID #:176

29 
 
 
20. 
On or about the dates set forth below, in the Northern District of Illinois, 
Eastern Division, and elsewhere, defendant FRANCESCO DISTEFANO, as set forth 
below, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, knowingly caused to 
be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce certain 
writings, signs, and signals, listed below, each such writing, sign, and signal 
constituting a separate count: 
Count 
Date 
Description of Act 
9 
March 31, 2020 
An internet transmission of an EIDL application on 
behalf of “DISTEFANO ENTERPRISES LLC” to the 
SBA 
10 
April 27, 2020 
An internet transmission of a PPP loan application on 
behalf of “DISTEFANO ENTERPRISES LLC” to U.S. 
Bank  
11 
February 5, 2021 An internet transmission of a PPP loan application on 
behalf 
of 
“DISTEFANO 
ENTERPRISES 
LLC” 
accompanied by falsified IRS Forms 941 to Arkansas 
Capital  
 
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 29 of 36 PageID #:177

30 
 
COUNT TWELVE 
The SPECIAL MAY 2024 GRAND JURY further charges: 
1. 
Paragraphs 1(a), 1(d) through 1(i), 1(k), and 1(s) of Counts One through 
Eight are incorporated here. 
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 U.S. Bank for the purpose of 
influencing the actions of U.S. Bank 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 #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 30 of 36 PageID #:178

31 
 
COUNTS THIRTEEN THROUGH SEVENTEEN 
The SPECIAL MAY 2024 GRAND JURY further charges: 
On or about the dates set forth below, in the Northern District of Illinois and 
elsewhere, 
FRANCESCO DISTEFANO, 
defendant herein, did knowingly engage and attempt to engage in a monetary 
transaction affecting interstate or foreign commerce and involving criminally derived 
property of a value greater than $10,000, in the manner described by count below, 
such property having been derived from specified unlawful activity, namely, wire 
fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343: 
Count 
Date 
Financial Transaction 
13 
July 31, 2020 
Transfer and deposit of $388,821 into U.S. Bank 
account ending in 9624 of proceeds traceable to the 
National PPP loan 
14 
July 31, 2020 
 
The purchase of Cashier’s Check #4264509237 in 
the amount of $95,445 with funds from the U.S. 
Bank Account ending in 9624 that was used to 
purchase a 2016 Lamborghini Huracan,  
VIN # ending in 4413 
15 
July 31, 2020 
 
The purchase of Cashier’s Check #4264509235 in 
the amount of $41,250.94 with funds from the U.S. 
Bank Account ending in 9624 that was used to 
purchase a 2017 Maserati Ghibli, VIN # ending in 
0190                             
16 
July 31, 2020 
 
The purchase of Cashier’s Check #4264509234 in 
the amount of $46,509.39 with funds from the U.S. 
Bank Account ending in 9624 that was used to 
purchase to payoff loan balance for a 2020 Land 
Rover Evoque, VIN # ending in 6525 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 31 of 36 PageID #:179

32 
 
17 
August 6, 2020 Use of Check #1212 in the amount of $89,345 drawn 
on U.S. Bank account ending in 9624 for purchase 
of 2017 Porsche 911 Carrera S Coupe, VIN # ending 
in 3487 
 
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957(a). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 32 of 36 PageID #:180

33 
 
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION ONE 
(Proceeds of the Distefano and Urumieh Scheme) 
 
The SPECIAL MAY 2024 GRAND JURY further alleges: 
1. 
Upon conviction of an offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 
Section 1343, as set forth in Counts One through Eight of this Superseding 
Indictment, defendants shall forfeit to the United States of America any property 
which constitutes and is derived from proceeds traceable to the offense, as provided 
in Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), and any property traceable to 
such property, as provided in Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1). 
2. 
The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to: 
a. A personal money judgment in an amount equal to the proceeds derived 
from the offenses in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, estimated 
to be approximately $2,973,436. 
b. The following specific property: 
i. a 2016 Lamborghini Huracan, VIN # ZHWUC2ZF1GLA04413; 
ii. 2017 Maserati Ghibli, VIN # ZAM57RTA1H1230190; 
iii. 2020 Land Rover Evoque, VIN # SALZP2FX7LH006525; 
iv. 2017 
Porsche 
911 
Carrera 
S 
Coupe, 
VIN 
# 
WP0AB2A9XHS123487; 
v. 2020 Tesla Model 3, VIN # 5YJ3E1EA5LF808078; 
vi. 29XX E. Chevy Chase Dr. in Glendale, California; and 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 33 of 36 PageID #:181

34 
 
vii. $320,117.25 seized from U.S. Bank account ending in 9624. 
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). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 34 of 36 PageID #:182

35 
 
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION TWO 
(Proceeds of the Distefano PPP and EIDL Scheme) 
 
The SPECIAL MAY 2024 GRAND JURY further alleges: 
1. 
Upon conviction of offenses in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 
Sections 1014 and 1343, as set forth in Counts Nine through Twelve of this 
Superseding Indictment, defendant shall forfeit to the United States of America any 
property which constitutes and is derived from proceeds traceable to the offense, as 
provided in Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), and any property 
traceable to such property, as provided in Title 18, United States Code, Section 
982(a)(1). 
2. 
The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to: 
a. 
A personal money judgment in an amount equal to the proceeds 
derived from the offenses in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1014 
and 1343, estimated to be approximately $357,815. 
b.      The following specific property: 
i. $357,815 seized from U.S. Bank account ending in 9624. 
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 
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 35 of 36 PageID #:183

36 
 
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 #: 39 Filed: 12/10/24 Page 36 of 36 PageID #:184

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ilnd.464178.39.0.pdf

Size

347,965 bytes

SHA-256

5e967dca3426f1bd5b69bd7c0bbccd781275e18cb705c11660ca7737089a94bc

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ilnd.464178.39.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)