Information as to Tiffany Bowlin count 1 — United States v. Bowlin (Dkt. 5, S.D. W. Va.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia · No. 2:22-cr-00205 · Doc. 5 · 2022-11-09 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

NOV - 9 2022

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ——
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA | Siig aes te Vig
CHARLESTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CRIMINAL NO. 2) 22 were zex
18 U.S.C. § 1343

TIFFANY BOWLIN

INFORMATION

The United States Attorney Charges:

INTRODUCTION

At all times material to this Information:

de The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
("CARES") Act was a federal law enacted in or about March 2020,
designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions
who suffered economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

ei Among other relief efforts, the United States sought to
provide financial support to eligible businesses that could be
used to offset certain business expenses.

3. The Small Business Administration ("SBA") was an
executive branch agency of the United States government that
provided support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The SBA
was headquartered in Washington, D.C., and maintained its computer
servers outside of the State of West Virginia. The SBA's mission

was to maintain and strengthen the nation's economy by enabling

the establishment and viability of small businesses and by
assisting in the economic recovery of communities after disasters.

4, As part of this effort, the SBA enabled and provided for
loans through banks, credit unions, and other lenders. These loans
had government-backed guarantees.

5. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the
authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small
businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through
a program referred to as the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP").
In or around April 2020, Congress authorized over $300 billion in
additional PPP funding.

6. To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business had 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 make certain affirmative certifications to be eligible
to obtain the PPP loan. In the PPP loan application, the small
business (through its authorized representative) had to state,
among other things, its: (a) average monthly payroll expenses; and
(ob) number of employees. These figures were then used to calculate
the amount of money the small business was eligible to receive
under the PPP. In addition, a business applying for a PPP loan had

to provide documentation showing its payroll expenses.
7. A PPP loan application had to be processed by a
participating lender, such as a financial institution. If a PPP
loan was approved, the participating lender would fund the PPP
loan using its own monies, which were 100% guaranteed by the SBA.
Data from the application, including the information about the
borrower, the total amount of the loan, and the listed number of
employees, was transmitted by the lender to the SBA in the course
of processing the loan.

8. The PPP loan proceeds were required to be used by the
business on certain permissible expenses, such as payroll costs,
interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP allowed the
interest and principal of the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven if
the business spent the loan proceeds on these expense items within
a designated period of time and used a certain percentage of the
PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.

BACKGROUND

9. A company known to the Grand Jury (the “Tech Company”)
was a technology company that developed an online portal for
prospective PPP loan applicants to submit their PPP loan
application online. The Tech Company received PPP applications and
supporting documentation online utilizing third-party servers

located in the State of Kansas.
10. The Tech Company reviewed PPP applications and
determined on a case-by-case basis whether a PPP loan should be
granted. If a PPP loan application met the criteria for approval,
the Tech Company sent, and caused to be sent, the PPP loan
application to the SBA and a prospective third-party lender.

ll. A lending institution known to the Grand Jury (the
“Lender”) was a non-bank finance company headquartered in
California and was an SBA approved lender authorized to make loans
as part of the PPP.

12. The Lender authorized funding of approved PPP loans
through automatic clearing house (“ACH”) transfers directly to the
approved applicant’s bank account. The Lender utilized a bank
headquartered in State of California to initiate ACH transfers.

13. Defendant TIFFANY BOWLIN was a resident of Charleston,
Kanawha County, West Virginia, within the Southern District of
West Virginia. She claimed to own, as the sole proprietor, a
business called “Tiffany Bowlin” with a business address in

Charleston, Kanawha County, West Virginia.

THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD

14. From on or about April 27, 2021, through on or about
March 9, 2022, at or near Charleston, Kanawha County, West

Virginia, and within the Southern District of West Virginia,
defendant TIFFANY BOWLIN, acting with the intent to defraud, did
knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
obtain money and property from the SBA and the Lender, in
connection with an application for PPP funds, by means of
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and
promises, with the intent to defraud and with knowledge of the
scheme’s fraudulent nature.

15. It was the purpose of the scheme to defraud for defendant
TIFFANY BOWLIN to unjustly enrich herself by fraudulently
obtaining loan proceeds through the PPP.

MANNER AND MEANS OF THE SCHEME

16. It was part of the scheme that in early 2021 defendant
TIFFANY BOWLIN prepared, and caused to be prepared, a fraudulent
PPP loan application (the “Fraudulent PPP Loan Application”). The
Fraudulent PPP Loan Application included multiple materially false
and fraudulent representations and pretenses, such as:

a. The Fraudulent PPP Loan Application falsely claimed
that defendant TIFFANY BOWLIN operated a hair salon
as a sole proprietorship under the name Tiffany
Bowlin.

b. The Fraudulent PPP Loan Application falsely
represented that Tiffany Bowlin received $106,600

in gross income in 2020.
om The Fraudulent PPP Application falsely stated that
Tiffany Bowlin was established in 2019, and in
operation on February 15, 2020.

d. The Fraudulent PPP Loan Application included a
false IRS Form 1040, Schedule C for the Profit or
Loss from a Business (“Form 1040”), for the year
2020. The Form 1040 again falsely stated that
Tiffany Bowlin had earned $106,600 in 2020.

e. The Fraudulent PPP Loan Application fraudulently
affirmed the truth of the statements made in the
application.

17. In furtherance of the scheme, on or about April 27, 2021,
defendant TIFFANY BOWLIN submitted and caused to be submitted the
Fraudulent PPP Loan Application utilizing the Tech Company’s
online portal. Defendant TIFFANY BOWLIN did this despite knowing
the Fraudulent PPP Loan Application was false in material respects
and that she was not entitled to a PPP loan.

18. It was part of the scheme that on or about April 29,
2021, after the PPP loan was provisionally approved, defendant
TIFFANY BOWLIN electronically signed and submitted, and caused to
be electronically signed and submitted, a note to the SBA as the

owner of the purported hair salon, even though she knew that she
did not own a hair salon and that the submitted Fraudulent PPP
Loan Application contained information that was materially false.

19. In furtherance of the scheme, on or about May 13, 2021,
defendant TIFFANY BOWLIN received a $20,833 PPP loan deposited
into her personal bank account through an ACH transfer authorized
by the Lender and guaranteed by the SBA.

20. It was part of the scheme that defendant TIFFANY BOWLIN
used the fraudulently obtained funds to benefit herself personally
and not to pay legitimate business expenses.

21. In furtherance of the scheme, on or about March 2, 2022,
defendant TIFFANY BOWLIN submitted and caused to be submitted an
online application to have the $20,833 PPP loan that she received
forgiven. In doing so, defendant TIFFANY BOWLIN certified the
$20,833 PPP loan was used on permissible business expenses as
required by the terms of the PPP loan, even though she knew this
to be false.

22. The SBA forgave defendant TIFFANY BOWLIN’s PPP loan on
or about March 9, 2022.

23. In this manner, from on or about April 27, 2021, through
on or about March 9, 2022, defendant TIFFANY BOWLIN defrauded the

SBA and the Lender out of approximately $20,833.
WIRE TRANSMISSION TO EXECUTE THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD

24. On or about April 27, 2021, at or near Charleston,
Kanawha County, West Virginia, and within the Southern District of
West Virginia and elsewhere, defendant TIFFANY BOWLIN having
devised and intending to devise the above-described scheme and
artifice to defraud the SBA and the Lender, and to obtain money
and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing
such scheme and artifice, did knowingly transmit and caused to be
transmitted by means of wire and radio communications in interstate
commerce any writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, that
is an interstate wire signal originating from the Southern District
of West Virginia sent to Kansas constituting the Fraudulent PPP
Loan Application.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

1343.
NOTICE OF FORFEITURE

1. The allegations contained in this Information are hereby
re-alleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of giving
notice of forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 982 and
28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

2. Notice is hereby given of 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 982 and
28 U.S.C. § 2461 (c). Under Section 2461(c), criminal forfeiture is
applicable to any offenses for which forfeiture is authorized by
any other statute, including, but not limited to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981,
982 and all specified unlawful activities listed or referenced in
18 U.S.C. § 1956(c) (7), which are incorporated as to proceeds by
Section 981(a) (1) (C).

The following property is subject to forfeiture in accordance
with Section 982 and/or 246l(c):

a. All property which constitutes or is derived from
proceeds of the violations set forth in this
Information;

b. All property involved in such violations or traceable to
property involved in such violations; and

c. If, as set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), any property
described in (a) or {b) 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, all other property of the
defendant’s to the extent of the value of the property

described in (a) and (b).
The following property is subject to forfeiture on one or
more grounds stated above: a forfeiture money judgment in the
amount of approximately $20,833, such amount constituting the

proceeds of the violations set forth in this Information.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

WILLIAM S. THOMPSON
United States Attorney

By: iA
M. RYAN BLACKWELL

Assistant United States Attorney

10

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.235404.5.0.pdf

Size

537,019 bytes

SHA-256

15e1f41cd93e1060024658ee9fafc19f622b98ed7cb51a55c6b9eff3eb2540e9

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.235404.5.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com