Information as to Charlene Wint — Information as to Charlene Wint (1) count(s) 1 — USA v. Wint (Dkt. 6) (Dkt. 6, E.D.N.Y.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · No. 1:21-cr-00477-FB · Doc. 6 · 2021-09-23 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

DCP:JN/CWE 
F. #2020R00955
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
- against -
CHARLENE WINT, 
Defendant. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
I N F O R M A T I O N
Cr. No.       21-477 (FB)
(T. 18, U.S.C., §§ 982(a)(2), 982(b)(1), 
1349 and 3551 et seq.; T. 21, U.S.C., 
§ 853(p))
THE UNITED STATES CHARGES: 
INTRODUCTION 
At all times relevant to this Information, unless otherwise indicated: 
I.
The Defendant and Relevant Individuals and Entities
1.
The defendant CHARLENE WINT was a resident of the Bronx, New York.
2.
Bank 1, an entity the identity of which is known to the United States, was a
federally insured financial institution with branches across the United States, including in the 
Eastern District of New York.  The defendant CHARLENE WINT was a supervisor at Bank 1 and 
worked at a branch of Bank 1, located in New York, New York (the “Bank 1 Branch New York”). 
3.
Co-Conspirator 1 (“CC-1”), Co-Conspirator 2 (“CC-2”) and Co-Conspirator
3 (“CC-3”), individuals whose identities are known to the United States, were employees of Bank 
1 and worked at the Bank 1 Branch New York (the “Bank 1 Co-Conspirators”).  The defendant 
CHARLENE WINT reported to CC-1, and CC-2 and CC-3 reported to WINT.  
C l e r k ’ s  
O f f i c e
F i l e d  
D a t e :
0 9 / 2 3 / 2 1
U . S .  
D I S T R I C T  
C O U R T
E A S T E R N  
D I S T R I C T  
O F  N E W  
Y O R K
B R O O K L Y
N  O F F I C E
Case 1:21-cr-00477-FB     Document 6     Filed 09/23/21     Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 27

2 
4. 
Co-Conspirator 4 (“CC-4”) and Co-Conspirator-5 (“CC-5”), individuals 
whose identities are known to the United States, were tax preparers who worked with the 
defendant CHARLENE WINT, CC-1, CC-2 and CC-3. 
II. 
Small Business Administration Loan Programs 
 
A. 
The Paycheck Protection Program 
 
5. 
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was a 
federal law enacted in or about March 2020, which was 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 about April 2020, 
Congress authorized over $300 billion in additional PPP funding. 
6. 
To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was required to submit a PPP 
loan application 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 
to make certain affirmative certifications in order 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: (a) average monthly payroll expenses, and (b) number of employees.  
These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible to 
receive under the PPP.  In addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan were required to provide 
documentation showing their payroll expenses.  
7. 
The PPP was overseen by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), 
which was headquartered in Washington, D.C., and had authority over all PPP loans.  Individual 
Case 1:21-cr-00477-FB     Document 6     Filed 09/23/21     Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 28

3 
PPP loans, however, were issued by approved private lenders such as participating financial 
institutions and credit unions (the “Lenders”).  The Lenders received and processed PPP 
applications and supporting documentation and made loans using the Lenders’ own funds. 
8. 
Upon approval of a PPP loan application, the Lenders funded the PPP loan, 
which was 100 percent 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 Lenders to the SBA in the course of processing the loan.   
9. 
PPP loan proceeds were permitted to be used by a borrower on specified 
expenses, such as payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent and utilities.  The PPP allowed the 
interest and principal on a PPP loan to be entirely forgiven if the borrower spent the loan proceeds 
on the enumerated expenses within a designated period of time and used a certain amount of the 
PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses. 
B. 
The Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program 
 
10. 
The Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program was an SBA 
program that provided low-interest financing to small businesses, renters and homeowners in 
regions affected by declared disasters. 
11. 
Another source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization 
for the SBA to provide EIDLs of up to $2 million to eligible small businesses experiencing 
substantial financial disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Under the program, the SBA was 
authorized to issue advances of up to $10,000 to small businesses within three days of applying for 
an EIDL (“EIDL Advances”).  The amount of an EIDL Advance was determined based on the 
number of employees working for the applicant.  The advance did not have to be repaid. 
Case 1:21-cr-00477-FB     Document 6     Filed 09/23/21     Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 29

4 
12. 
To obtain an EIDL or EIDL Advance, a qualifying business was required to 
submit an application to the SBA and provide information about its operations, such as the number 
of employees, gross revenues for the 12-month period preceding the disaster and cost of goods 
sold in the 12-month period preceding the disaster.  In the case of EIDLs for COVID-19 relief, the 
12-month period was the period preceding January 31, 2020.  The applicant also was required to 
certify that all the information in the application was true and correct to the best of the applicant’s 
knowledge. 
13. 
EIDL applications were submitted directly to the SBA and processed by the 
SBA with support from a government contractor, Rapid Finance.  The amount of the loan, if the 
application was approved, was determined based, in part, on the information provided in the 
application about number of employees, revenue and cost of goods, as described above.  Any 
funds issued under an EIDL were issued directly by the SBA.  EIDL funds could be used for 
payroll expenses, sick leave, production costs and business obligations, such as debts, rent and 
mortgage payments.  If the applicant also obtained a loan under the PPP, the EIDL funds could not 
be used for the same purpose as the PPP funds. 
III. 
The Fraudulent Scheme 
 
14. 
Following the enactment of the CARES Act, the defendant CHARLENE 
WINT, the Bank 1 Co-Conspirators, and CC-4 and CC-5, together with others, orchestrated a 
scheme to submit fraudulent PPP loan applications on behalf of Bank 1 customers who did not 
legitimately qualify for loans under the PPP program in exchange for “commissions” taken from 
the loan proceeds.   
15. 
The defendant CHARLENE WINT and the Bank 1 Co-Conspirators, 
together with others, submitted and caused to be submitted to Bank 1 dozens of PPP loan 
Case 1:21-cr-00477-FB     Document 6     Filed 09/23/21     Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 30

5 
applications on behalf of borrowers recruited to fraudulently apply for PPP loans that contained 
materially false representations, as well as other borrowers who were unaware that PPP 
applications were submitted on their behalf.  WINT and the Bank 1 Co-Conspirators also worked 
with at least two tax preparers, including CC-4 and CC-5, to obtain false tax documents, which 
were provided as support for the fraudulent PPP loan applications.  Some of the PPP applicants 
resided in Brooklyn, New York and withdrew their fraudulent PPP loan proceeds at ATM 
locations in the Eastern District of New York.  In addition, WINT and the Bank 1 Co-
Conspirators submitted fraudulent EIDLs on behalf of customers.  
16. 
The defendant CHARLENE WINT and the Bank 1 Co-Conspirators worked 
with a network of recruiters to identify borrowers to fraudulently apply for PPP loans.  The 
borrowers identified by the recruiters were either existing Bank 1 customers or became Bank 1 
customers after they were recruited.  In exchange for their assistance, WINT and the Bank 1 Co-
Conspirators gave the recruiters “commissions” from the PPP loan proceeds.      
17. 
After borrowers were recruited to join the scheme, the defendant 
CHARLENE WINT and the Bank 1 Co-Conspirators helped the borrowers complete PPP 
applications that contained fraudulent information.  WINT personally helped borrowers fill out 
fraudulent PPP loan application documents, including the SBA Form 2483 PPP Borrower 
Application (the “2483 Forms”).  The 2483 Forms required borrowers to state, among other 
things, their businesses’ average monthly payroll and number of employees, and to certify that the 
PPP loan funds would be “used to retain workers and maintain payroll or make mortgage interest 
payments, lease payments, and utility payments, as specified under the Paycheck Protection 
Program Rule.”  WINT knowingly helped borrowers make false representations on the 2483 
Forms. 
Case 1:21-cr-00477-FB     Document 6     Filed 09/23/21     Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 31

6 
18. 
Under PPP loan program rules, borrowers generally were eligible to receive 
loans of up to 2.5 times their businesses’ average monthly payroll.  The defendant CHARLENE 
WINT worked with CC-1 to maximize the loan amount for each borrower’s business, including by 
providing false documents in support of the PPP application.  WINT often included false tax 
documents prepared by CC-4 and CC-5 in borrowers’ PPP applications to help borrowers obtain 
fraudulent PPP loans when WINT knew they did not qualify.  
19. 
The defendant CHARLENE WINT and the Bank 1 Co-Conspirators profited 
from the scheme in two ways.  First, once a borrower obtained a fraudulent PPP loan, CC-1 
determined a “commission” amount each borrower owed the Bank 1 Co-Conspirators.  Second, as 
part of the PPP application process, WINT and the Bank 1 Co-Conspirators often required 
borrowers to sign “starter” checks, legally negotiable instruments often issued by banks to 
customers who opened new checking accounts.  Once the PPP loans were funded, the Bank 1 Co-
Conspirators would use the signed starter checks to make withdrawals from borrowers’ accounts.  
In some instances, the Bank 1 Co-Conspirators used the starter checks to purchase cashiers’ 
checks, which the Bank 1 Co-Conspirators used to pay themselves the “commissions” described 
above.     
20. 
The defendant CHARLENE WINT obtained thousands of dollars in 
“commissions” from the PPP loan proceeds. 
21. 
The defendant CHARLENE WINT also submitted a number of fraudulent 
EIDL applications on behalf of borrowers and was, at times, paid “commissions” with respect to 
the EIDLs.   
22. 
The defendant CHARLENE WINT, CC-1, CC-2, CC-3, CC-4 and CC-5 
were ineligible to receive any PPP loan or EIDL proceeds per the terms of the programs.   
Case 1:21-cr-00477-FB     Document 6     Filed 09/23/21     Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 32

7 
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD AND BANK FRAUD 
23. 
The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 are realleged and 
incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.  
24. 
In or about and between March 2020 and August 2020, both dates being 
approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant 
CHARLENE WINT, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to execute a 
scheme and artifice, to wit: 
(a) 
to defraud and to obtain money and property from Bank 1 and the 
SBA by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and 
promises, and to transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communications in 
interstate commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, for the purpose of executing the 
scheme to defraud, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343; and 
(b) 
to defraud Bank 1, a financial institution, and to obtain money, 
funds, credits and other property owned by and under the custody and control of Bank 1, by means 
of one or more materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, contrary to 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344. 
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349 and 3551 et seq.) 
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION 
 
25. 
The United States hereby gives notice to the defendant that, upon her 
conviction of the offense charged herein, the government will seek forfeiture in accordance with 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2), which requires any person convicted of such 
offense to forfeit any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained directly or 
indirectly as a result of such offense.  
Case 1:21-cr-00477-FB     Document 6     Filed 09/23/21     Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 33

8 
26. 
If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or 
omission of the defendant: 
(a) 
cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; 
(b) 
has been transferred or 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 which cannot be divided 
without difficulty; 
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as 
incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(1), to seek forfeiture of any other 
property of the defendant up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture 
allegation. 
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 982(a)(2) and 982(b)(1); Title 21, United 
States Code, Section 853(p)) 
 
 
 
____________________________________ 
JACQUELYN M. KASULIS 
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
 
 
 
____________________________________ 
JOSEPH S. BEEMSTERBOER  
ACTING CHIEF 
CRIMINAL DIVISION, FRAUD SECTION 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
Case 1:21-cr-00477-FB     Document 6     Filed 09/23/21     Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 34

 
F.#: 2020R00955 
FORM DBD-34 
No.  
JUN. 85                        
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
EASTERN District of NEW YORK 
 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
 
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
vs. 
 
CHARLENE WINT, 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
INFORMATION 
(T. 18, U.S.C., §§ 982(a)(2), 982(b)(1), 1349 and 3551 et seq.; T. 21, 
U.S.C., § 853(p)) 
A true bill.  
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
 
Foreperson 
 
 
Filed in open court this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day, 
 
of  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  A.D. 20 _ _ _ _ _  
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  
 
Clerk 
 
 
Bail, $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
 
 
Julia Nestor and Chand W. Edwards-Balfour, Assistant U.S. Attorneys  
(718) 254-6297/6238 
Michael McCarthy, Trial Attorney (202) 305-3995 
Case 1:21-cr-00477-FB     Document 6     Filed 09/23/21     Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 35

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nyed.469459.6.0.pdf

Size

318,700 bytes

SHA-256

164397a120f8034e635b7db21ad80e962339beff0d84e5b6696137b076c768d9

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nyed.469459.6.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)