Court filing
Information - United States v. Tracy and Carolyn Wade
No. 0:23-cr-60173-KMW · Doc. 213 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
An order entered January 10, 2025 as Doc. 213 in United States v. Carolyn Denise Wade and Tracy D. Wade, No. 0:23-cr-60173-KMW, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, denying the defendants' motion for judgment of acquittal after jury verdict (ECF No. 204). It recounts that the superseding indictment returned June 27, 2024 charged conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to make false statements to the SBA and false statements to the SBA over PPP loans, and that a jury found both defendants guilty after trial. Under Rule 29, the court finds the evidence sufficient on each count. It cites testimony of a co-conspirator who said she prepared fictitious Schedule C forms and testified under a plea agreement, and Womply and DocuSign records of the defendants' activity on their applications. The order is 10 pages.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 213 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2025 Page 1 of 10
UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 23-60173-CR-WILLIAMS/GRAHAM
UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA
vs.
CAROLYN DENISE WADE and
TRACY D. WADE
Defendants.
I
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants Carolyn Denise Wade and Tracy D.
Wade's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal After Jury Verdict. (ECF No. 204). The Court also
considers the Government' s Response in Opposition to Defendants' Post-Trial Motion for Judgment
of Acquittal. (ECF No. 207).
THE COURT has reviewed the pleadings and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Based
thereon, for the reasons explained below, the Defendants' motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 27, 2024, the Grand Jury returned the Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 188), which
charged Defendants with conspiracy to commit wire fraud , in violation of Tile 18, United States
Code, Section 1349; wire fraud, in violation of Tile 18, United States Code, Section 1343 ;
conspiracy to make false statements to the SBA, in violation of Tile 18, United States Code, Section
371; and false statements to the SBA, in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Section 645(a).
With respect to conspiracy to commit wire fraud (Count 1), the Superseding Indictment
alleged that, from May 2021 through August 2021 , Defendants agreed with each other, with Haydee
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 213 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2025 Page 2 of 10
Rivero , f/k/a Haydee Granados ("Rivero"), and with others, to obtain loans through the Paycheck
Protection Program ("PPP") based upon materially false and fraudulent information, including
fictitious tax documents. The substantive wire fraud counts alleged that, from May 2021 through
August 2021 , Defendants participated in a scheme to defraud in which they obtained PPP loans
based upon materially false and fraudulent information, including fictitious tax documents. Count 2
charged Tracy Wade with causing the execution of a wire communication in interstate commerce
that disbursed the proceeds of a fraudulently obtained PPP loan for the purported business "Tracy
Wade," and Count 3 charged both Defendants with causing the execution of a wire communication
in interstate commerce that disbursed the proceeds of a fraudulentl y obtained PPP loan for the
purported business "Carolyn Wade. "
As to conspiracy to make false statements to the Small Business Administration (SBA)
(Count 4), the Superseding Indictment alleged that, from May 2021 through August 2021 ,
Defendants agreed with each other, with Rivero, and with others, to make false statements to the
SBA in PPP loan applications (using SBA Form 2483 -C) and SBA PPP loan forgiveness
applications (using SBA Form 3508S). Additionally, Carolyn Wade and Tracy Wade were each
charged individually with three counts of making false statements to the SBA in their respective PPP
loan applications and forgiveness applications (Counts 5, 8, and 9 as to Carolyn Wade and Counts 6,
7, and 10 as to Tracy Wade).
On October 23 , 2024, after a jury trial , Defendants were found guilty on all counts with
which they were charged, respectively. (ECF Nos . 183 and 184).
Now, Defendants move, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P 29(c)(l), for a judgment of acquittal
after jury verdict asserting that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to persuade any
2
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 213 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2025 Page 3 of 10
rational factfinder of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (ECF No. 204). Specifically, Defendants
contend that with respect to the conspiracy counts, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the
Defendants willfully joined in either conspiracy. As to the wire fraud counts, the Defendants contend
that the evidence was insufficient to prove that they knowing devised and participated in a scheme
to defraud or acted with intent to defraud . As to the false statements to the SBA, the Defendants
assert that the evidence was insufficient to prove that they knowingly made any false statement. Id.
The Government filed its response in opposition to Defendants' motion. (ECF No. 207).
Defendants filed no reply to the government' s response. This matter being ripe, the Court addresses
the arguments raised in Defendants' motion below.
II. LEGAL ST AND ARD
A. Rule 29 Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
Rule 29 provides the Court with authority, where appropriate, to enter a judgment ofacquittal
following a guilty verdict. See Rule 29(c)(2). A motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 "is a
direct challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presented against the defendant. " United States v.
Aibejeris, 28 F.3d 97, 98 (11th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Ward, 197 F.3d 1076, 1079
(11th Cir. 1999) ("In considering a motion for the entry of judgment of acquittal under [Rule 29( c)],
a district court should apply the same standard used in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to
sustain a conviction."). In ruling on such a motion, "a district court must ' determine whether,
viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, a reasonable trier of fact
could find that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. "' United States v. Grigsby,
111 F.3d 806, 833 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. O'Keefe , 825 F.2d 314, 319 (11th Cir.
1987)). Applying this test, "[a]ll credibility choices must be made in support of the jury's verdict."
3
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 213 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2025 Page 4 of 10
Williams, 611 F.2d at 1323 (citing United States v. Gianni, 678 F.2d 956, 958-59 (11th Cir. 1982)
and United States v. Burns, 597 F.2d 939, 941 (5th Cir. 1979)). Because a jury may choose among
reasonable constructions of the evidence, "[i]t is not necessary that the evidence exclude every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of
guilt, provided a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. " Id. at 1324 (quoting United States v. Young, 906 F.2d 615 , 618 (11th Cir. 1990);
United States v. Vera, 701 F.2d 1349, 1357 (11th Cir. 1983)). "A conviction must be affirmed unless
there is no reasonable construction of the evidence from which the jury could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. " United States v. Ignasiak, 667 F.3d 1217, 1227 (11th
Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants renew their Motion for Judgement of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure asserting that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction. Accordant
with the Court's prior rulings on Defendants' ore tenus Rule 29 motions made during trial , the
record evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government with all reasonable
inferences and credibility choices made in its favor, was sufficient to permit a rational jury to find
Defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to each count.
In its case in chief, the Government presented testimony of witnesses affiliated with the SBA
(Althea Harris), Womply (Amandeep Thakral), Persona (Lindsey Bergh), Verizon (Dion Morrow),
AT&T (Philip Fanara), IRS (Renee McClain), and the Broward Sheriff's Office (Alexander
Rodriguez). The government also presented testimony of Rivero, who testified pursuant to a plea
agreement. Lastly, the government presented testimony of FBI Special Agent Kelly DiPietrantonio,
4
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 213 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2025 Page 5 of 10
who testified as a summary witness.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there is sufficient evidence to
allow a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendants participated in the
conspiracy that resulted in Defendants obtaining, and receiving forgiveness of, PPP loans based upon
materially false information. Specifically, the evidence showed that, on multiple occasions
throughout the period of the conspiracy, Defendants logged into their PPP applications on the
Womply website using cell phone models that Defendants had and actively used , and/or using an IP
address then accessible to Defendants, made changes; uploaded bank documents and linked bank
accounts ; verified their identity; and viewed , initialed, and signed the critical documents via
DocuSign, including multiple SBA application forms in which they certified that false information
was true . Thereafter, Defendants received the proceeds of their fraudulent PPP loans in their
personal bank accounts, immediately paid Rivero $2,000 in total for her preparation of the fraudulent
Schedule C submitted with each PPP application. Defendants thereafter wrote checks to themselves
with memo lines that suggested that they spent the PPP loan proceeds on payroll when they had not.
Defendants subsequently applied to the SBA to have their fraudulently obtained PPP loans forgiven,
which required them to again sign and initial SBA forms that contained materially false information.
At the start of her testimony, Rivero acknowledged that she had pleaded guilty to conspiracy
to commit wire fraud and make false statements to the SBA, and that she was testifying for the
government pursuant to a plea agreement. She then testified about her role in the PPP applications
for the Defendants, and other individuals with whom she was involved in the PPP application
process. She also testified about her own receipt of fraudulent PPP loans and her knowledge that her
PPP loan applications contained false income information.
5
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 213 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2025 Page 6 of 10
Regarding the PPP applications for Defendants, Rivero testified that the scope of her
involvement included: (a) creating a fictitious Schedule C form for the Defendants; (b) uploading the
fictitious Schedule C forms she created for Defendants to the respective PPP applications on
Womply's website; and (c) inputting the false income information from the fictitious Schedule C
forms into each Defendant' s application on Womply ' s website. The scope of Rivera ' s activity for
Defendants was consistent with the undisputed Womply data in evidence. Rivero also testified about
the understanding she had with Defendants regarding her creation of fictitious Schedule C forms for
their PPP loan applications. Specifically, Rivero testified that, during a phone call with Defendant
Tracy Wade, she told him that to recei ve a PPP loan of $20,000, she would need to create a Schedule
C that reflected $100,000 in gross income for a business in Defendant Tracy Wade ' s own name, and
not for his business, Wade Funeral Home. Rivero testified she told Defendant Tracy Wade that the
process would be same for Defendant Carolyn Wade. Rivera's testimony about her phone calls with
Defendant Tracy Wade was corroborated by records showing 28 phone calls between them during
the conspiracy, and no calls between them either before or after the period of the conspiracy (i.e. ,
before May 2021 or after August 2021). Rivero testified that she received a $1 ,000 payment from
Tracy Wade and a $1 ,000 payment from Carolyn Wade for the false Schedule C she created that
allowed them to obtain the PPP loans.
Rivero further testified that she did not know how to assist with any PPP loan application
other than one for a sole proprietorship (i.e. , she did not know how to apply for a PPP loan for a
corporation or limited liability company). When asked during cross examination about images of
blank checks for businesses "Wade Funeral Home" and " 1 Step A-Head," which were emailed to her
in or around March 2021 , Rivero testified that those were not related to the sole proprietorship PPP
6
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 213 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2025 Page 7 of 10
loans she was involved with for the Defendants and other individuals.
Rivero testified that she completed or attempted to complete PPP loan applications for other
individuals. Rivero also testified to obtaining loans for several of her friends and relatives . Rivero
claimed that everyone for whom she applied for a loan knew that she was preparing a fictitious
Schedule C form. The gross income listed on the fictitious schedule C was used in the PPP loan
applications she prepared for other individuals. When asked by the government and defense, Rivero
did not remember every person whom she assisted with a PPP loan application. Rivero recalled that
some individuals did not receive PPP loans because they could not successfully verify their identity.
For those individuals who could not verify their identity, Rivero testified that she did not create a
Schedule C for their PPP loan application.
The defense called three witnesses to attempt to rebut Rivero ' s testimony concerning the
creation of fictitious Schedule C forms. Two of the witnesses testified that they had no knowledge
that Rivero had included a fictitious Schedule C form in their PPP applications. Additionally ,
Defendant Tracy Wade testified that he and Carolyn Wade had no knowledge of any of the false
information contained in their PPP loan applications and PPP forgiveness applications, including the
fictitious schedule C, and that he did not see the application when prompted to electronically sign his
PPP loan application.
Two witnesses, Clemente Perez and Edison Rogers, testified on direct examination that they
did not receive a PPP loan. With respect to Mr. Perez, he admitted during cross examination that he
had difficulty verifying his identity despite several attempts, and that his PPP application ultimately
failed. Mr. Perez's testimony was consistent with Rivero's testimony that Mr. Perez did not receive a
loan because his identify verification failed. With respect to Edison Rogers, he testified that he was
7
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 213 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2025 Page 8 of 10
not familiar with Rivero and did not recall Rivero assisting him with a PPP loan application. Mr.
Rogers' testimony was consistent with Rivero's testimony that she did not recall a person named
Edison Rogers or helping that person with a PPP loan application. The third defense witness, Walter
Wright, testified that he received a PPP loan with Rivero ' s assistance. However, on cross
examination, Mr. Wright admitted that it took several attempts for him to verify his identity before
his application was accepted. That testimony was consistent with Rivero ' s testimony that Mr. Wright
had trouble verifying his identity. Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Wright's identify verification failed
several times is consistent with Rivero not remembering that Wright had received a PPP loan or that
she had created a false Schedule C for him.
The three defense witnesses did not rebut any of the Womply data, that established activity
by Defendants in their PPP loan applications. To the contrary, when the government asked the
defense witnesses if they had done any of the type of activity that Defendants had done (e.g. ,
received one-time codes, logged into their accounts, made modifications to their PPP loan
applications, or uploaded bank statements), all the defense witnesses testified that they had not.
When Defendant Tracy Wade testified on cross examination, he accepted the data as true,
thereby admitting to his and Carolyn Wade ' s activity established by the data. Defendant Tracy
Wade also admitted to paying Rivero.
Guilty knowledge can rarely be established directly , and therefore a Jury may infer
knowledge and criminal intent from circumstantial evidence alone. United States v. Clay, 832 F.3d
1259, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016). Thus, the government can establish knowledge "through proof of
surrounding circumstances such as acts committed by the defendant which furthered the purpose of
the conspiracy." United States v. Gonzalez, 834 F.3d 1206, 1215 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation
8
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 213 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2025 Page 9 of 10
omitted). A conviction may be supported by reasonable inferences, not by mere speculation. United
Statesv. Knowles,66F.3d 1146, llSS(llthCir.1995).
The record evidence, including the testimony, in this case was sufficient for a jury to find the
elements of each conspiracy (Counts 1 and 4) proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, Defendants
agreed with each other, and with Rivero, to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan to
commit wire fraud (Count 1) and make false statements to the SBA (Count 4), and Defendants knew
the unlawful purpose of each plan and willfully joined in it. Defendants' conduct, as demonstrated
through the undisputed Womply and DocuSign records, Rivera ' s testimony , and other admitted
evidence, was also sufficient for a jury to find the elements of wire fraud (Count 2 as to Tracy Wade
and Count 3 as to both Defendants) proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finally, the evidence was sufficient to find Defendants guilty of the substantive counts of
making false statements to the SBA. Among other things, the evidence established that Defendants
viewed, modified, and signed their own PPP loan applications and forgiveness multiple times.
Therefore, a rational jury could conclude that Defendants knowingly submitted false information to
the SBA in connection with their PPP loans and loan forgiveness.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the government and the jury's verdict, the evidence
sufficiently established that Defendants knowingly participated in a scheme to fraudulentl y obtain
PPP loans and acted with intent to defraud . Based, thereon, Defendant ' s motion is denied.
9
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 213 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2025 Page 10 of 10
IV. CONCLUSION
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants ' Motion for Judgment of Acquittal After
Jury Verdict. (ECF No. 204) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this /0t~ay of January 2025.
DO ALD L. GRAHAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: All Counsel of Record
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.654266.213.0.pdf
- Size
- 651,137 bytes
- SHA-256
- 6535a7a195790716dafccf95d128533f3a5e1220fa029f80f14e2e64f340d0f4
- Original
- PACER (login required)