Original Complaint — Kolbert v. Benworth Capital Partners LLC et al. (including Womply/OTO Analytics)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · No. 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK · Doc. 1 · 2025-01-07 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
 
WILLIAM KOLBERT, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
-against- 
 
BENWORTH 
CAPITAL 
PARTNERS 
LLC; 
BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS PR LLC; 
BENWORTH FINANCIAL LLC; BERNARDO 
NAVARRO a/k/a BERNARDO E. NAVARRO; 
CLAUDIA NAVARRO a/k/a CLAUDIA PEZZIA 
NAVARRO; and OTO ANALYTICS, LLC f/k/a 
OTO ANALYTICS, INC., d/b/a WOMPLY; and 
TOBY SCAMMELL a/k/a TOBY G. SCAMMELL; 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
Civil Action 
Case No.: 2:25-cv-00117 
 
 
COMPLAINT 
 
Plaintiff William Kolbert (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, Petroff Amshen LLP, 
as and for his complaint against the defendants named herein (collectively, “Defendants”), hereby 
alleges the following upon personal knowledge, review of public record, and/or otherwise upon 
information and belief: 
1. 
Plaintiff, a licensed CPA since 1983, has provided professional accounting and tax 
preparation services for individuals, businesses, and trust entities for more than 40 years.  Despite 
dedicating his life and career to helping others maintain their finances, while also carefully and 
diligently maintaining his own, Plaintiff has fallen victim to financial fraud and identity theft 
facilitated and perpetrated by the Defendants, who operated a widespread criminal enterprise that 
started during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
2. 
Now in his seventies, and relying on income from social security benefits he earned 
over a lifetime as a practicing accountant, Plaintiff’s livelihood and reputation have been damaged 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 1 of 56 PageID #: 1

 
 
2
by a fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan Defendants approved and funded in 
his name, without his knowledge or authorization. 
3. 
As a result of Defendants’ knowing, willful, and unlawful conduct, in furtherance 
of a massive scheme to defraud the federal government and Federal Reserve System, exploit 
emergency government assistance intended to assist small businesses and individuals adversely 
affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and profit off of hundreds of thousands of fraudulent PPP 
loans processed, approved, and funded through their joint enterprise, Plaintiff’s social security 
benefits are now being garnished by the federal government, to repay a “delinquent debt” falsely 
attributed to Plaintiff because of the fraudulent PPP loan. 
4. 
Plaintiff therefore seeks judgment against Defendants granting statutory, equitable, 
compensatory, and other relief, including a declaration that the fraudulent PPP loan and any related 
agreement(s) in Plaintiff’s name is/are null and void ab initio, and monetary damages. 
PARTIES 
5. 
Plaintiff is an individual and resident of the State of New York, County of Nassau, 
residing at 4 Donald Drive, Syosset, New York 11791 (“Plaintiff’s Residence”). 
6. 
Defendant Benworth Capital Partners LLC (“Benworth FL”) is a limited liability 
company organized under the laws of the State of Florida, with a principal business address of 700 
Biltmore Way, Suite C-1, Coral Gables, Florida 33134. 
7. 
Defendant Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC (“Benworth PR”) is a limited 
liability company organized under the laws of Puerto Rico, with a principal business address of 
221 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 1401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00917, and registered agent for 
service c/o Alfred F. Andreu, 700 Biltmore Way, Suite C-1, Coral Gables, Florida 33134. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 2 of 56 PageID #: 2

 
 
3
8. 
Upon information and belief, Benworth PR is co-owned by Bernardo Navarro and 
Claudia Navarro. 
9. 
Defendant Benworth Financial LLC (“Benworth Financial”) is a limited liability 
company organized under the laws of the State of Florida, with a principal business address of 700 
Biltmore Way, Suite C-1, Coral Gables, Florida 33134. 
10. 
Defendant Bernardo Navarro a/k/a Bernardo E. Navarro (“Mr. Navarro”) is an 
individual and resident of Florida and Puerto Rico.  Upon information and belief, Mr. Navarro is 
the sole member and manager of Benworth FL and Benworth Financial, and a member of 
Benworth PR. 
11. 
Defendant Claudia Navarro a/k/a Claudia Pezzia Navarro (“Mrs. Navarro”) is an 
individual and resident of Florida and Puerto Rico.  Upon information and belief, Mrs. Navarro is 
married to Mr. Navarro.1  Upon further information and belief, Mrs. Navarro is the managing 
member of Benworth PR. 
12. 
Upon information and belief, Benworth FL, Benworth PR, and Benworth Financial  
(collectively, the “Benworth Entities”) all operate under the exclusive ownership and control of 
Mr. Navarro and/or Mrs. Navarro, and/or other business entities they also own and control. 
13. 
Defendant Oto Analytics, LLC f/k/a Oto Analytics, Inc., d/b/a Womply 
(“Womply”) is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with 
no physical presence (operating only virtually), and registered agent for service c/o The 
Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center – 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, 
Delaware 19801. 
                                                 
1 Mr. Navarro and Mrs. Navarro may be collectively referred to herein as the “Navarros.” 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 3 of 56 PageID #: 3

 
 
4
14. 
Defendant Toby Scammell a/k/a Toby G. Scammell (“Mr. Scammell”) is an 
individual and resident of the State of Nevada.  Upon information and belief, Mr. Scammell is the 
founder and CEO of Womply. 
JURISDICTION 
15. 
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Plaintiff’s claims 
substantially arise under federal law. 
16. 
Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as a substantial part 
of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this district, and Plaintiff resides in this 
district. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS 
17. 
Plaintiff, a licensed CPA since 1983, is the managing partner of a boutique 
accounting firm in Nassau County, where he has been employed since 1985. 
18. 
Plaintiff has also resided in Nassau County, within the same 14-mile radius, for the 
last 30 plus years. 
19. 
As a licensed professional providing accounting and tax preparation services for 
individuals, businesses, and trust entities for more than 40 years, Plaintiff has also maintained an 
exemplary and unblemished credit history, which he carefully monitors on a rolling basis. 
20. 
Now in his seventies and partially retired, Plaintiff relies on receipt of his monthly 
social security retirement benefit (“SSR”), in order to cover living expenses. 
21. 
On or about September 18, 2024, Plaintiff discovered that his SSR deposit for 
September 2024 was reduced from the usual monthly benefit amount by $476.57. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 4 of 56 PageID #: 4

 
 
5
22. 
Plaintiff immediately contacted the Social Security Administration (the “SSA”) 
regarding the unexpected SSR reduction, and was informed that it was an offset collected under 
the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), to pay a delinquent debt owed to the SBA. 
23. 
Unaware of any debt he purportedly owed to the SBA, Plaintiff requested additional 
information regarding the SSR reduction and TOP offset, which he later learned was the result of 
a fraudulent PPP loan originated in Plaintiff’s name in 2021, without his knowledge or permission. 
The Fraudulent PPP Loan 
24. 
In response to Plaintiff’s request for additional information regarding the SSR 
reduction and TOP offset, by letter dated September 25, 2024, addressed to Plaintiff’s Residence, 
the SSA enclosed a copy of a letter dated September 18, 2024, from the U.S. Department of the 
Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service (the “Treasury Dept. Letter”).  A true and correct copy of 
the Treasury Dept. Letter, with SSA cover letter dated September 25, 2024, is annexed hereto as 
Exhibit A. 
25. 
The Treasury Dept. Letter, which Plaintiff had not received from the Treasury 
Department, was addressed to Plaintiff at 15614 80TH ST # 2, HOWARD BEACH, NY 11414-
2503 (the “Howard Beach Address”). 
26. 
Notably, the Howard Beach Address is in Queens County, and is not Plaintiff’s 
Residence (which is located in Nassau County): 
 
See Ex. A. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 5 of 56 PageID #: 5

 
 
6
27. 
The Treasury Dept. Letter advised that it applied “all or part” of Plaintiff’s SSR 
payment to a “delinquent debt” categorized as a “Non-Tax Federal Debt,” which Plaintiff 
purportedly owed to the SBA: 
 
See Ex. A. 
28. 
Plaintiff does not reside at the Howard Beach Address, and he does not receive mail 
there.  Plaintiff has not lived, or received mail, in Queens County, or at any address outside of 
Nassau County, in over 30 years. 
29. 
Accordingly, Plaintiff did not receive the Treasury Dept. Letter – or any other 
notices regarding the purported “delinquent debt” owed to the SBA – that were mailed to the 
Howard Beach Address, which is nearly 30 miles from Plaintiff’s Residence. 
30. 
Using the limited information provided in the Treasury Dept. Letter, Plaintiff 
subsequently conducted internet searches to determine the source of the purported debt.  A true 
and correct copy of the internet research search results Plaintiff obtained regarding the purported 
SBA debt is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. 
31. 
As a result of this research, upon information and belief, the source of the purported 
debt is a PPP loan originated by Benworth FL on or about May 2, 2021, in the amount of 
$18,803.00 (the “Fraudulent PPP Loan”): 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 6 of 56 PageID #: 6

 
 
7
 
See Ex. B. 
32. 
Plaintiff has never requested or applied for a loan of any kind with any of the 
Defendants. 
33. 
Plaintiff did not request, apply for, or authorize the Fraudulent PPP Loan, he had 
no prior knowledge of its existence, and he did not receive or benefit from any proceeds of the 
Fraudulent PPP Loan. 
34. 
Plaintiff also did not request, apply for, or authorize the Fraudulent PPP Loan on 
behalf of any business entity under his ownership, control, or authority to operate in his name 
(“Authorized Business Entities”); nor did he authorize any other individual to submit an 
application to, or obtain a loan from, any of the Defendants on his behalf, or on behalf of any 
Authorized Business Entities. 
35. 
None of the proceeds of the Fraudulent PPP Loan were received or used by, or for 
the benefit of, Plaintiff, or any Authorized Business Entities. 
36. 
Upon information and belief, the Fraudulent PPP Loan was obtained through a 
single member LLC fraudulently created in Plaintiff’s name, and without Plaintiff’s knowledge or 
authorization (the “Fraudulent LLC”).  See Ex. B.  Notably, it appears the perpetrator(s) used the 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 7 of 56 PageID #: 7

 
 
8
Howard Beach Address for the Fraudulent PPP Loan and/or the Fraudulent LLC, knowing Plaintiff 
would never receive mail sent to that address: 
 
37. 
It also appears the business industry classification for the Fraudulent LLC was 
listed under NAICS code 621511,2 used for “Medical Laboratories.”  See Ex. B. 
38. 
Plaintiff is not in or associated with the medical industry, and he has never created 
or authorized a business entity in his name or under his control that could be classified as a 
“medical laboratory.”  
39. 
Plaintiff had no prior knowledge of the Fraudulent LLC’s existence, he did not 
create or authorize the creation of the Fraudulent LLC, and he did not use the Howard Beach 
                                                 
2 Upon information and belief, the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) “was developed . . . as 
the standard for use by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the collection, tabulation, 
presentation, and analysis of statistical data describing the U.S. economy.”  “There is no central government agency 
with the role of assigning, monitoring, or approving NAICS codes for establishments. . . . The U.S. Census Bureau 
has no formal role as an arbitrator of NAICS classification. . . . Generally, the U.S. Census Bureau’s NAICS 
classification codes are derived from information that the business establishment provided on surveys, census forms, 
or administrative records.”  Source: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 
(NAICS), “Frequently Asked Questions,” https://www.census.gov/naics/#q1 (Last accessed Dec. 17, 2024). 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 8 of 56 PageID #: 8

 
 
9
Address for any purpose in or around May of 2021.  To date, Plaintiff has no additional knowledge 
or information regarding the Fraudulent LLC. 
40. 
Upon information and belief, the Fraudulent LLC and the Fraudulent PPP Loan 
were each the result of an unknown individual or individuals using Plaintiff’s personal identifying 
information, criminally obtained through identity theft, without Plaintiff’s knowledge and without 
authorization. 
Plaintiff Reports Identity Theft 
41. 
Plaintiff does not know who obtained the Fraudulent PPP Loan or created the 
Fraudulent LLC in his name, or how the perpetrator(s) obtained his personal identifying 
information to do so, as he has not provided this information to any other individual, or authorized 
any other individual to use such information for the purpose of creating an LLC or applying for a 
loan with any of the Defendants. 
42. 
Plaintiff also does not know how the Fraudulent PPP Loan became associated with 
him personally, such that his SSR benefits could be subject to TOP offset for its repayment, as it 
has never appeared on any of Plaintiff’s credit reports over the last several years, nor does it appear 
on Plaintiff’s credit report to date. 
43. 
Plaintiff never received any information, correspondence, or notices from any of 
the Defendants regarding the Fraudulent PPP Loan. 
44. 
Plaintiff also never received any information, correspondence, or notices of any 
kind regarding the Fraudulent LLC. 
45. 
Before obtaining a copy of the Treasury Dept. Letter from the SSA on or about 
September 25, 2024, Plaintiff never received any information, correspondence, or notices from the 
SBA, Treasury Department, SSA, or any other government agency regarding the Fraudulent PPP 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 9 of 56 PageID #: 9

 
 
10
Loan and purported “delinquent debt,” and he was therefore deprived of any opportunity to dispute 
the debt before the TOP offset was implemented and his SSR benefits were garnished. 
46. 
Upon information and belief, any information, correspondence, or notices 
regarding the Fraudulent PPP Loan and/or the Fraudulent LLC, if they were sent, were mailed to 
the Howard Beach Address.  Accordingly, Plaintiff did not receive them. 
47. 
On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Identity Theft Report with the Federal 
Trade Commission (“FTC”), under FTC Report Number 178185118 (the “FTC Report”). 
48. 
Also on September 30, 2024, Plaintiff completed a “Declaration of Identity Theft,” 
which he submitted to the SBA with a copy of the FTC Report and his New York State driver’s 
license (collectively, the “ID Theft Packet”).  True and correct copies of Plaintiff’s email to the 
SBA dated September 30, 2024, submitting the ID Theft Packet for review, along with the 
completed ID Theft Packet attached to the email, are annexed collectively hereto as Exhibit C. 
49. 
On October 11, 2024, the SBA confirmed receipt of Plaintiff’s email and ID Theft 
Packet, and advised that it “will refer [Plaintiff’s] ID Theft complaint to SBA’s Office of Inspector 
General for investigation,” while noting: 
SBA does not have the regulatory authority to adjudicate fraud allegations.  SBA 
will not provide information regarding the status of any possible criminal 
investigations being conducted by SBA’s Office of Inspector General or other law 
enforcement agencies in connection to your case.  SBA is also unable to release any 
documents related to an ongoing criminal investigation. 
 
A true and correct copy of the SBA acknowledgment email dated October 11, 2024, is annexed 
hereto as Exhibit D. 
50. 
Accordingly, Plaintiff has no knowledge or information regarding any criminal 
investigation into the Fraudulent PPP Loan or the Fraudulent LLC, or whether any such criminal 
investigation is being conducted. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 10 of 56 PageID #: 10

 
 
11
51. 
The SBA has also not released or disclosed any additional information to Plaintiff 
regarding the Fraudulent PPP Loan or the Fraudulent LLC, to the extent any such information is 
in the SBA’s possession. 
52. 
Upon information and belief, to date, the SBA’s review of Plaintiff’s identity theft 
complaint remains pending and unresolved. 
The Benworth Enterprise 
53. 
Upon information and belief, Benworth FL is a Florida-based hard money lender 
that was initially established on or about April 1, 2008, as a Florida corporation called Benworth 
Capital Partners Incorporated, and it was subsequently converted to a Florida LLC on or about 
February 1, 2012. 
54. 
Benworth FL was a licensed mortgage lender/servicer in the State of Florida, 
operating under NMLS ID 374363, and License No. MLD359, issued on or about June 13, 2011.  
True and correct copies of the relevant Florida Department of State Filing Information for 
Benworth FL, and the NMLS Consumer Access database information for Benworth FL, as of 
December 26, 2024, are annexed collectively hereto as Exhibit E. 
55. 
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), signed 
into law on March 27, 2020, was enacted to provide emergency assistance for individuals, families, 
and businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic.  Through the CARES Act, the SBA received 
funding and authority to establish the PPP as a new loan program, to assist small businesses 
adversely impacted by the pandemic.  The PPP provided loans to small businesses to help them 
keep their workers on the payroll during the economic downturn caused by the pandemic. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 11 of 56 PageID #: 11

 
 
12
56. 
The Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (“PPPLF”), implemented by 
the Federal Reserve to bolster the effectiveness of the SBA’s PPP, extended credit to eligible 
financial institutions that originated PPP loans, taking the loans at face value as collateral. 
57. 
Upon information and belief, beginning in or about May 2020, Benworth FL was 
approved for PPPLF financing to fund PPP loans.  Upon further information and belief, Benworth 
FL obtained this funding through credit advances drawn on PPPLF agreements with the Federal 
Reserve Bank of San Francisco (the “Federal Reserve Bank”), and subsequently defaulted on these 
agreements due to fraud, insolvency, and other misconduct, which are currently the subject of a 
pending lawsuit by the Federal Reserve Bank discussed further below. 
58. 
Upon information and belief, Benworth FL received approximately $4.3 billion in 
advances from the Federal Reserve Bank under the PPPLF, which Benworth FL used to fund at 
least 300,000 PPP loans.  Upon further information and belief, Benworth FL earned at least $680 
million in fees, accrued interest, and other amounts from the loans in its PPP portfolio. 
59. 
Upon information and belief, on or about May 3, 2024, Benworth FL voluntarily 
surrendered its mortgage lender servicer license.  See Ex. E. 
60. 
Benworth PR was formed in Puerto Rico on June 28, 2021, just shy of sixty days 
following origination of the Fraudulent PPP Loan.  Upon information and belief, Mr. Navarro 
caused Benworth FL to transfer most or all of its assets, employees, and operations to Benworth 
PR, and Benworth PR is now operating as Benworth FL’s alter ego. 
61. 
Benworth PR is a licensed mortgage lender/servicer in Puerto Rico and Florida, 
operating under NMLS ID 2234263, Florida License No. MLD2534 (issued on or about January 
19, 2024), and Puerto Rico License No. IH-253 (issued on or about September 22, 2021).  True 
and correct copies of the relevant Puerto Rico and Florida Department of State Filing Information 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 12 of 56 PageID #: 12

 
 
13
for Benworth PR, and the NMLS Consumer Access database information for Benworth PR, as of 
December 26, 2024, are annexed collectively hereto as Exhibit F. 
62. 
Upon information and belief, pursuant to Loan Servicing Agreements (“LSAs”) 
between Benworth FL and Benworth PR executed in 2021, all loan servicing functions for 
Benworth FL’s PPP loan portfolio, which Benworth FL previously performed and received 
compensation for, have been delegated to Benworth PR. 
63. 
Upon further information and belief, the LSAs were executed by Mr. Navarro on 
behalf of Benworth FL, and by Mrs. Navarro on behalf of Benworth PR; however, the first LSA 
Mrs. Navarro executed on Benworth PR’s behalf – dated May 31, 2021 – was dated almost a month 
before Benworth PR was actually formed.  See Ex. F. 
64. 
According to Mr. Navarro’s self-reported employment information appearing in the 
NMLS database, from April 2008-present, he has acted as President of Benworth FL; and from 
June 2021-present, he has acted as Director of Benworth PR.  A true and correct copy of the NMLS 
Consumer Access database information for Mr. Navarro, as of December 26, 2024, is annexed 
hereto as Exhibit G. 
65. 
Mr. Navarro holds mortgage loan originator licenses in Florida and Puerto Rico, 
through Benworth PR, issued on or about March 15, 2011 (License No. LO3865), and June 30, 
2022 (License No. MLO-946), respectively.  See Ex. G. 
66. 
According to Mrs. Navarro’s self-reported employment information appearing in 
the NMLS database, from April 2008-present, she has acted as Vice President of Benworth FL; 
and from June 2021-present, she has acted as President of Benworth PR.  A true and correct copy 
of the NMLS Consumer Access database information for Mrs. Navarro, as of December 26, 2024, 
is annexed hereto as Exhibit H. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 13 of 56 PageID #: 13

 
 
14
67. 
Mrs. Navarro holds mortgage loan originator licenses in Florida and Puerto Rico, 
through Benworth PR, issued on or about July 26, 2022 (License No. LO111219), and June 30, 
2022 (License No. MLO-947), respectively.  See Ex. H. 
68. 
Benworth Financial was initially established on or about May 15, 2019, as a Florida 
limited liability company called Pay Advance USA, LLC.  On or about July 2, 2019, Pay Advance 
USA, LLC changed its name to Benworth Financial. 
69. 
Upon information and belief, Mr. Navarro is the sole member and manager of 
Benworth Financial. 
70. 
Upon information and belief, the Benworth Entities all operate a shared website 
under the domain benworthcapital.com (the “Benworth Website”). 
71. 
Upon information and belief, the Benworth Entities are each alter egos of one 
another, acting under the same ownership, management, and control. 
72. 
Upon further information and belief, the Benworth Entities are exclusively owned, 
managed, and controlled by the Navarros, who established Benworth PR and Benworth Financial 
as alter egos of Benworth FL in order to effectuate fraudulent transfers of Benworth FL’s assets to 
Benworth PR, Benworth Financial, and themselves, in an attempt to shield those assets from 
collection as a result of illegal activities conducted by, or at the direction of, the Navarros, in 
furtherance of the Benworth Enterprise. 
73. 
Specifically, the “About” section of the Benworth Website refers generally to 
“Benworth Capital,” without differentiating between Benworth FL and Benworth PR, stating:   
Headquartered in Coral Gables, Florida, we opened our doors in 2008, when many 
banks were closing theirs because of the global financial crisis. . . .  Following our 
success in Florida, we opened an office in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 2021. . . . 
 
Currently, we finance property in Florida.  It’s the market we know best (and love). 
. . . 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 14 of 56 PageID #: 14

 
 
15
Anyone (with cash) can fund a loan but we’re different than a great uncle or the 
cash-rich entrepreneur down the street.  Benworth Capital is licensed to lend.  And 
that’s a big deal, especially in Florida, because it’s the law.  It’s an even bigger deal 
for borrowers because that means our borrowers are protected by U.S. regulations 
that oversee our industry. 
See https://benworthcapital.com/about/ (emphasis added).  A true and correct copy of the “About 
Us” page of the Benworth Website, as it appeared on December 26, 2024, is annexed hereto as 
Exhibit I. 
74. 
While Benworth FL was formed in 2008, and is headquartered in Coral Gables, 
Florida, it voluntarily surrendered its Florida mortgage lender license on May 3, 2024.  See Ex. E.   
75. 
Benworth PR, which was formed in Puerto Rico thirteen years later in 2021, and is 
headquartered there, is currently licensed to lend in Florida.  See Exs. E, F. 
76. 
The bottom of the “About Us” page of the Benworth Website references both 
Benworth PR and Benworth Financial, noting that Benworth Financial is a “licensed Consumer 
Finance Company #CF9901387”: 
 
See Ex. I. 
77. 
A consumer finance company license issued by the State of Florida “authorizes the 
holder to solicit, make and collect loans to consumers in this state [of Florida] for an amount not 
exceeding $25,000 at an interest rate greater than 18%.  The license is not required for banks and 
certain other financial institutions doing business under state or federal laws.”  See 
https://flofr.gov/divisions-offices/division-of-consumer-finance/consumer-finance-companies. 
78. 
Accordingly, upon information and belief, Benworth Financial is also licensed to 
lend in Florida, subject to certain restrictions. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 15 of 56 PageID #: 15

 
 
16
The Womply Enterprise 
79. 
Upon information and belief, Womply is a fintech company formed on or about 
February 22, 2011, as a provider of marketing services and technology for small businesses. 
80. 
Upon information and belief, Womply is not a bank and is not otherwise licensed 
to lend money.  
81. 
Beginning in or about April 2020, Womply acted as an unlicensed referral agent 
between PPP loan applicants and lenders, taking illegal kickbacks.  Upon information and belief, 
Womply had no prior experience with, or involvement in, loan referrals or processing. 
82. 
Beginning in or about February 2021, Womply launched its “PPP Fast Lane” 
system, which it aggressively advertised and marketed both directly to consumers and small 
businesses, and through referral partners including social media influencers. 
83. 
Womply ads appearing on NYC buses advertised that applicants could “[g]et up to 
$50k in PPP,” and urged them to “Apply now!,” but noted that “Womply is not a lender”: 
 
84. 
With PPP Fast Lane, in addition to referral services, Womply also purportedly 
offered marketing, technology, application review, eligibility verification, document analysis, 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 16 of 56 PageID #: 16

 
 
17
fraud prevention, and other services to PPP lenders, including Benworth FL, to facilitate the 
processing and funding of PPP loans.  Upon information and belief, Womply is not a licensed 
mortgage lender or loan provider in any state. 
85. 
Upon information and belief, in furtherance of its kickback scheme with Benworth 
FL to personally benefit from as many PPP loans as possible, with the highest profit from fees and 
other receivables, Womply overwhelmingly approved and referred fraudulent applications over 
legitimate and eligible applicants. 
86. 
Womply also induced its lending partners to fund as many PPP loans as possible, 
and penalized them if they did not fund enough in a certain time period.  Specifically: 
Agreements between Womply and its lending partners . . . reveal that Womply often 
took at least half—and in some cases up to 90 percent—of all the taxpayer-funded 
fees allocated to lenders by SBA to compensate it for processing PPP loans.  Under 
these agreements, Womply was entitled to fees both for referring applicants to PPP 
lenders and for providing its PPP Fast Lane pre-qualification review, eligibility 
verification, and fraud detection services. . . . Additionally, multiple Womply 
contracts contain provisions that imposed “Under-Funding Fees” that required 
lenders to pay Womply additional funds as a penalty for failing to fund a certain 
value of PPP loans in a calendar week. 
See Ex. L (below) at 47. 
87. 
“[T]he vast majority of [Womply’s] revenue—$1.9 billion in 2021—was ‘PPP 
Technology Service Revenue’ from the PPP Fast Lane.”  See Ex. L at 47. 
88. 
Womply and its CEO, Mr. Scammell, were aware of rampant fraud in the 
applications they were processing, that Womply’s technology platform and processing services 
were incapable of and failed to detect fraud and identity theft in applications Womply reviewed, 
and that Womply was specifically targeted by criminal gangs and fraudsters seeking easy access 
to PPP loans; and continued knowingly approving and referring fraudulent applications for PPP 
funding in order to collect the substantial fees Womply was allotted under its fee agreements. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 17 of 56 PageID #: 17

 
 
18
89. 
On March 18, 2024, the FTC filed a complaint against Womply and Mr. Scammell, 
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, under Case No. 3:24-cv-
01661, titled Federal Trade Commission v. Oto Analytics, Inc., et al. (the “FTC Lawsuit”).  See 
FTC Lawsuit, Complaint (ECF Doc. No. 1), a true and correct copy of which is annexed hereto as 
Exhibit J.  
90. 
The FTC Lawsuit alleges that both Womply and Mr. Scammell, individually, made 
deceptive claims to consumers and engaged in deceptive practices “in or affecting commerce . . . 
associated with . . . a government benefit,” that violated the FTC Act and the COVID-19 Consumer 
Protection Act.  See id. 
91. 
Specifically, the FTC Lawsuit alleges that Womply “advertised, marketed, or 
distributed PPP financing services to small business consumers throughout the United States,” that 
Mr. Scammell “formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the 
acts and practices of Womply, including the acts and practices described in this Complaint,” and 
that Mr. Scammell also “managed the day-to-day business of Womply for years and has knowledge 
of and involvement in the company’s advertising, marketing, and provision of PPP financing 
services to small business consumers.”  See Ex. J, FTC Lawsuit, Complaint at 3-4. 
92. 
The FTC Lawsuit alleges in detail Mr. Scammell’s direct role in Womply’s 
violation of consumer protection laws and deceptive practices associated with the PPP: 
Defendant Scammell controlled and directly participated in Womply’s advertising 
and marketing of its PPP loan services.  Throughout the duration of PPP Fast Lane, 
he frequently sent and received messages regarding the marketing of Womply’s 
services.  Defendant Scammell reviewed and provided feedback on draft marketing 
emails to consumers and content on Womply’s website, and he wrote and edited 
language to be used in Womply’s advertising. . . . 
Despite being flooded with customer service requests and complaints about stalled 
applications, Defendants consistently increased their spending on advertisements 
in order to increase traffic to PPP Fast Lane throughout at least April 2021.  
Defendants also used referral programs to generate new PPP loan applications, 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 18 of 56 PageID #: 18

 
 
19
offering what Defendant Scammell called “aggressive rewards” to those who 
referred new applicants, and using “very strict time bound campaigns to drive 
urgency and capture attention.”  In addition to Womply’s own customers who could 
be paid hundreds of dollars for referring their friends and family to PPP Fast Lane, 
Defendants sought out accountants, as well as gig companies and social media 
influencers popular with gig workers, to refer their clients, workers, and audience. 
See Ex. J, FTC Lawsuit, Complaint at 14-15. 
93. 
“Between at least February 2021 and May 2021, Defendants [Womply and Mr. 
Scammell] disseminated advertisements for PPP loans, or otherwise made statements to 
consumers, that claimed consumers who qualified for PPP loans would receive loan funds if they 
applied with Womply.”  See Ex. J, FTC Lawsuit, Complaint at 5. 
94. 
Womply and Mr. Scammell “also made these claims in advertisements on social 
media” in sponsored posts: 
 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 19 of 56 PageID #: 19

 
 
20
 
See Ex. J, FTC Lawsuit, Complaint at 6-9. 
95. 
While Womply implemented an aggressive marketing campaign targeting 
consumers and small businesses to apply for loans through PPP Fast Lane, promising “faster” and 
“better” processing, and high-level customer service and support, its “customer support channels 
were useless for thousands of consumers seeking assistance with their applications.”  See Ex. J, 
FTC Lawsuit, Complaint at 5-10. 
96. 
The FTC Lawsuit further notes:   
Despite Defendants’ promises that small business consumers would get PPP loan 
funds if they applied with Womply, of more than 3.25 million PPP loan applications 
initiated by consumers, Defendants failed to achieve funding for more than 1.99 
million of them (61%).  Many of the consumers who never received funding were 
eligible for PPP loans, but Defendants failed to fix known technical issues with 
their system or otherwise provide the assistance necessary to process consumers’ 
applications. 
See Ex. J, FTC Lawsuit, Complaint at 10. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 20 of 56 PageID #: 20

 
 
21
97. 
The FTC’s allegations also highlight Womply’s disfavor of legitimate PPP 
applicants who required more hand-holding and effort than fraudulent applicants: 
Because of the time-sensitive nature of the PPP and its limited funding, speedy 
application processing was critical for consumers. . . . [E]ven to the extent 
consumers did ultimately  obtain PPP loans through Womply, in numerous 
instances Defendants’ delays in processing their applications deprived struggling 
small business consumers of emergency funds they needed immediately. 
 
Concerned applicants also contacted Womply when they had not heard about their 
applications within 24 hours as promised. . . . Consumers complained to Womply 
after not hearing anything about their applications for more than twenty-four hours, 
only to find when they logged into Womply’s portal that their applications had been 
cancelled. 
See Ex. J, FTC Lawsuit, Complaint at 13. 
98. 
Upon information and belief, some Womply applicants’ loans were marked 
disbursed by the SBA, but the funds were never received by the applicant, and Womply failed and 
refused to provide information or assistance in response to the applicants’ requests.  See Ex. J, 
FTC Lawsuit, Complaint at 11. 
99. 
On or about April 3, 2024, Womply and Mr. Scammell agreed to pay $26 million 
to settle the FTC Lawsuit, which settlement included a permanent injunction prohibiting Womply, 
Mr. Scammell, and their officers, agents, and employees, from making deceptive, false, and/or 
unsubstantiated claims in connection with “advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, 
servicing, or offering any financial product or service.”  See FTC Lawsuit, Stipulated Order for 
Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment (ECF Doc. No. 10), a true and correct copy of which 
is annexed hereto as Exhibit K; see also https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-
proceedings/womply-ftc-v. 
The Congressional Investigation of PPP Fraud Involving Womply and Benworth FL 
100. 
A two-year congressional investigation into rampant fraud and misconduct in the 
PPP program, perpetuated and facilitated by unregulated fintechs and their lending partners, put 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 21 of 56 PageID #: 21

 
 
22
Womply and Benworth FL squarely in the crosshairs, and left the two entities pointing fingers at 
each other in an attempt to escape liability for their roles in facilitating the disbursement of billions 
of dollars in PPP funds to ineligible and/or fraudulent applicants. 
101. 
While Womply, Benworth FL, and their principals each had express knowledge of 
widespread fraud in the loan program, they continued approving and funding fraudulent loans 
without taking any measures to identify or prevent such fraud, and earned hundreds of millions in 
profits at the expense of individuals and taxpayers. 
102. 
The Fraudulent PPP Loan is one such loan, which Womply and Benworth FL 
jointly and individually failed to properly vet, and which neither wants to take responsibility for. 
103. 
According to the report by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus 
Crisis (the “House Subcommittee”), issued in connection with the House Subcommittee’s 
investigation of fraud in PPP loan programs (the “Subcommittee Report”):  
The Select Subcommittee’s investigation found that fintechs were given 
extraordinary responsibility in administering the nation’s largest pandemic relief 
program—a responsibility that some of the fintechs that facilitated the highest 
volumes of loans were either unable or unwilling to fulfill.  Despite fintechs’ claims 
that their use of technology and innovation would allow them to better administer 
the PPP than traditional financial institutions, many of these companies appear to 
have failed to stop obvious and preventable fraud, leading to the needless loss of 
taxpayer dollars.  The . . . investigation found that many fintechs, largely existing 
outside of the regulatory structure governing traditional financial institutions and 
with little to no oversight from lenders, took billions in fees from taxpayers while 
becoming easy targets for those who sought to defraud the PPP. 
 
The investigation found that two unvetted and unregulated fintechs that, together, 
facilitated nearly one in every three PPP loans funded in 2021—Womply and 
Blueacorn—failed to implement systems capable of consistently detecting and 
preventing fraudulent and otherwise ineligible PPP applications.  Their lending 
partners, who were tasked with supervising the activities of these fintechs, often 
did little to oversee the activities of the companies to which they delegated their 
responsibilities. 
See Subcommittee Report dated December 2022, at 1 (emphasis added); a true and correct copy 
of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit L. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 22 of 56 PageID #: 22

 
 
23
104. 
Notably, “[i]nternal communications obtained by the Select Subcommittee show 
that fintechs and their lending partners both anticipated and observed high levels of fraud in the 
PPP.”  See Ex. L at 17. 
105. 
The Subcommittee Report summarized Womply’s role in the PPP as follows: 
Womply, also known as Oto Analytics, Inc., was founded in 2011 as a provider of 
reputation management, email marketing, and business intelligence services for 
small businesses. . . .  
 
The fintech—which had never before involved itself in loan processing or high 
volume fraud prevention screening—began its involvement in the PPP in April 
2020 as a referral agent. . . . Upon receipt of the referral, lenders would conduct all 
other tasks associated with processing, managing, and tracking the PPP loans, 
including verifying borrower identity and auditing borrowers. . . . 
 
Beginning in February 2021, Womply initiated a “PPP Fast Lane” service, which 
it claimed would provide PPP lenders with technological, marketing, underwriting, 
prequalification review, eligibility verification, and other services. . . . 
 
In a presentation to Select Subcommittee staff, Womply explained that, as part of 
its new PPP Fast Lane service, the fintech’s staff (1) conducted automated 
eligibility checks; (2) identified and verified their PPP borrowers’ identities through 
automated and manual KYC management; (3) conducted automated and manual 
bank and tax document analysis to confirm PPP program eligibility; and (4) 
implemented automated and manual anti-fraud tools and measures to detect 
application fraud, in service of BSA requirements.  Applicants that passed 
Womply’s pre-qualification reviews were then forwarded to one of its partner 
lenders. 
 
See Ex. L at 46. 
106. 
Following its investigation, the House Subcommittee concluded: 
Womply has described itself as a “technology service provider,” despite performing 
functions usually associated with LSPs [lender service providers], and has used its 
purported status to avoid accountability [for approval of fraudulent PPP loans].  
Evidence obtained by the Select Subcommittee indicates that Womply likely should 
have been considered an LSP and therefore been subject to SBA regulation.  While 
Womply did provide some technology services, its core functionalities appear to 
closely resemble the SBA’s criteria for an LSP. . . . Evidence further indicates that 
Womply independently conducted pre-qualification reviews on PPP applications 
based on SBA and lender criteria before referral to lenders. 
See Ex. L at 59. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 23 of 56 PageID #: 23

 
 
24
107. 
The House Subcommittee further noted that “Womply used the same reasoning to 
avoid responsibility for approving fraudulent loans through its PPP Fast Lane Service.”  Id. at 60. 
108. 
“PPP loan applicants submitted a total of over 3.7 million applications in 2021 
through Womply, with most likely going through their PPP Fast Lane Program.  Of that 3.7 
million, 70 percent . . . were sent to lenders after passing Womply’s pre-qualification reviews and 
underwriting processes.”  See Ex. L at 46. 
109. 
“In March 2021 alone, Womply referred 889,275 PPP loan applications to lenders.”  
See id. 
110. 
“Multiple high volume PPP lenders relied on Womply to review PPP applications 
for eligibility and potential fraud, even though the fintech lacked prior experience in conducting 
high volume small business lending, managing large scale financial crime compliance, or creating 
scalable automated fraud prevention technology.”  See Ex. L at 45. 
111. 
Of particular relevance to Plaintiff’s situation, the House Subcommittee 
investigation revealed that “individuals looking to commit fraud identified Bluevine, Blueacorn, 
and Womply as ‘fintechs with lower fraud risk capabilities that were letting a lot more fraud go 
through,’” and that “Womply communications obtained by the Select Subcommittee show that the 
fintech knew that it was a top target for fraud.”  See Ex. L at 61. 
112. 
Specifically: 
Womply- and Blueacorn-facilitated PPP loans were crucial to one violent drug 
dealing enterprise in central Florida.  Police and media reporting show that gang 
members allegedly created limited liability companies, solicited individuals 
through social media, and, in some cases, stole identities to apply for PPP loans, 
which were then approved.  Investigators believe the PPP loans were then used to 
finance the criminal enterprises, including the purchase of guns and drugs.  Police 
documents allege that the gang members quickly identified Womply and Blueacorn 
as easy targets to obtain PPP loans without much scrutiny. 
See Ex. L at 62 (emphasis added). 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 24 of 56 PageID #: 24

 
 
25
113. 
The Subcommittee Report also revealed Mr. Scammell’s history of illegal and 
unethical conduct, which could (and probably should) have precluded him – and Womply – from 
conducting business with the SBA, or participating in the PPP, as follows: 
Mr. Scammell—who served as Womply’s CEO and ran its fraud prevention 
operations—was previously convicted of financial crime and barred from the 
securities industry.  Despite this, Mr. Scammell’s company was allowed to oversee 
the distribution of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds, with Mr. Scammell serving 
as the highest ranking Womply executive that had “responsibilities related to the 
KYC process and anti-fraud measures implemented by Womply for the Fast Lane 
Program.” 
 
In 2009, Scammell was charged with stealing proprietary and confidential 
information from his girlfriend related to a potential merger between Disney and 
Marvel Entertainment, and trading on that information using bank accounts 
belonging to his brother.  On August 11, 2011, the SEC filed a civil action alleging 
that Mr. Scammell engaged in unlawful insider trading through that conduct.  On 
June 15, 2012, Scammell consented to the entry of a permanent injunction 
prohibiting him from participating in the securities industry.  On April 21, 2014, in 
a parallel criminal case, Mr. Scammell pleaded guilty to “‘knowingly and with 
intent to defraud’ engag[ing] in a fraudulent scheme” related to insider trading and 
was sentenced to three months of imprisonment and $120,000 in restitution, in 
addition to the $801,000 he was to pay under a civil settlement with the SEC. . . .  
 
The SEC stated that Mr. Scammell provided misleading information regarding 
Womply in the course of their 2011 investigation, . . . that Mr. Scammell continued 
his dishonest behavior even after his civil and criminal punishments[,] . . . and 
accused Mr. Scammell of lying to federal regulators about Womply’s financial 
condition in an attempt to frustrate government’s efforts . . . . Additionally, 
according to the SEC, Mr. Scammell also improperly used Womply investor funds 
for his personal legal defense. 
See Ex. L at 51-52. 
114. 
Womply and Mr. Scammell also refused to comply with SBA requests for 
information to aid in its investigation into potential fraud related to PPP loans, with the 
Subcommittee Report noting that “Womply declined requests to help the federal government 
prevent fraud in the program and ensure that loans were going to only eligible Americans.”  See 
Ex. L at 52-55. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 25 of 56 PageID #: 25

 
 
26
115. 
On December 8, 2022, the SBA published a press release regarding findings from 
the Subcommittee Report on PPP fraud, stating that it “immediately suspended non-lenders 
Blueacorn and Womply, companies that worked with PPP lenders, from working with the SBA in 
any capacity,” and also “launched a full investigation of the lenders – [including] Benworth . . . as 
well as the individuals and other related entities named in the report.”  See SBA Press Release 22-
98 (Dec. 8, 2022), available at https://www.sba.gov/article/2022/dec/08/us-small-business-
administration-statement-house-select-subcommittee-coronavirus-crisis-report. 
116. 
By providing services fitting the SBA’s criteria for an LSP, Womply bears 
individual responsibility for its failure to properly vet PPP applications it reviewed and processed, 
including its failure to implement fraud prevention measures, particularly when it had express 
knowledge of its systems’ vulnerability to fraud. 
117. 
As for its part in perpetrating PPP fraud, while Benworth FL attempted to shift 
blame solely to Womply by claiming that it “relied on Womply to prevent fraud related to identity 
theft and the use of fake documents by using its systems to validate a PPP applicant’s identity, 
authenticity, and type of documents submitted, calculations for the PPP loan amount, and bank 
account information, among other underwriting services,”3 it also approved and funded loans 
despite “express[ing] serious concerns about Womply’s fraud prevention and eligibility 
verification program capabilities” in and around the time the Fraudulent PPP Loan was originated.  
See Ex. L at 49. 
118. 
Specifically: 
[A] series of May 2021 emails between Womply and Benworth, the fintech’s 
second-largest PPP lending partner, in which Benworth’s senior leadership 
expressed serious concerns about Womply’s fraud prevention and eligibility 
verification program capabilities . . . show that, in late April and early May 2021, 
Womply discovered what Benworth described as “rampant fraud” in the over 
                                                 
3 See Ex. L at 47. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 26 of 56 PageID #: 26

 
 
27
200,000 PPP loan applications Womply had referred to Benworth.  Subsequently, 
Benworth became concerned that Womply’s application screening processes were 
inadequate and had exposed it to “a dangerous amount of liability.” 
See Ex. L at 49. 
119. 
Mr. Navarro acknowledged Benworth FL was aware that “banks involved in 
disbursing PPP loans referred by Womply had previously voiced concerns about the high incidence 
of fraud in Womply-reviewed loans,” which led Benworth FL to being “on the brink of being 
closed 3 times”; and to giving Benworth FL’s own PPPLF lender (the Federal Reserve Bank of 
San Francisco) “assurances that [it] ha[d] every protocol in place to mitigate fraud,” even though 
it did not.  See Ex. L at 50. 
120. 
On April 8, 2021, approximately one month before the Fraudulent PPP Loan was 
funded, “Womply proposed changes to its pre-qualification, fraud prevention, and other screening 
processes to better address fraud.”  More than a month later, and after the Fraudulent PPP Loan 
was funded, “Benworth’s CEO characterized Womply’s new proposed fraud review process as 
‘unproven’ and ‘last minute,’ and pointed out that these changes would not detect fraud in the 
200,000 loans that Womply had already referred to the lender.”  See Ex. L at 50-51. 
121. 
By that time, Benworth FL had already funded the Fraudulent PPP Loan, despite 
its “multiple concerns with Womply’s performance,” which it acknowledged included 
documentation errors, missing supporting documents in application packages, and receipt of 
complaints and subpoenas relating to loans Womply referred to Benworth FL.  See Ex. L at 51. 
122. 
Despite ample evidence that Mr. Navarro and Benworth FL were aware of rampant 
fraud issues in the PPP applications Benworth FL was receiving, approving, and funding – for at 
least a month before the Fraudulent PPP Loan was funded – Mr. Navarro and Benworth FL took 
no action to prevent or mitigate any such fraud, and continued knowingly funding fraudulent PPP 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 27 of 56 PageID #: 27

 
 
28
loans referred by Womply, including the Fraudulent PPP Loan attributed to Plaintiff.  See, 
generally, Ex. L. 
123. 
Instead, using funds drawn from the Federal Reserve System, Benworth FL, acting 
at Mr. Navarro’s direction, continued knowingly funding fraudulent PPP loans referred by 
Womply – reaping substantial profits for Benworth FL and the Navarros. 
124. 
As an SBA lender under the PPP, SBA regulations require Benworth FL to 
“exercise[] day-to-day responsibility for evaluating, processing, closing, disbursing, servicing, 
liquidating, and litigating its SBA portfolio,” which requirements exist independent of Benworth 
FL’s attempt to delegate these functions to Womply, an unlicensed entity, and which 
responsibilities Benworth failed to exercise.  See Ex. L at 60. 
125. 
As discussed further below, Benworth FL’s failure to comply with SBA regulations 
and PPP requirements resulted in a default under its agreements with the Federal Reserve Bank of 
San Francisco, regarding nearly $4.3 billion in PPPLF credit advances provided to Benworth FL, 
which it used to fund the Fraudulent PPP Loan and some 300,000 other PPP loans. 
126. 
The Subcommittee Report and investigation clearly demonstrate that, to the extent 
Benworth FL delegated application review/eligibility determination, fraud prevention/mitigation, 
and/or other underwriting functions to Womply, and to the extent Womply undertook providing 
those functions, Womply purposefully and knowingly failed to carry out those functions in 
accordance with SBA and PPP regulations and requirements, and continued pre-approving and 
referring unqualified and fraudulent PPP applicants to Benworth for funding, which Womply knew 
were unqualified, fraudulent, and/or improperly reviewed and vetted. 
127. 
The Subcommittee Report and investigation further demonstrate that, to the extent 
Benworth FL delegated application review/eligibility determination, fraud prevention/mitigation, 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 28 of 56 PageID #: 28

 
 
29
and/or other underwriting functions to Womply, and to the extent Womply undertook providing 
those functions, Benworth FL purposefully and knowingly failed to satisfy its independent 
responsibility to oversee and supervise Womply’s activities, and to ensure those functions were 
carried out in accordance with SBA and PPP regulations and requirements, and continued 
approving and funding unqualified and fraudulent PPP applicants referred by Womply, which 
Benworth FL knew were unqualified, fraudulent, and/or improperly reviewed and vetted. 
RELATED LAWSUITS ALLEGING FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS 
128. 
Multiple lawsuits have been filed alleging fraudulent transfers from Benworth FL 
to Benworth PR and/or the Navarros, in an illegal attempt to shield the assets of Benworth FL, and 
the proceeds of the Benworth Enterprise, from creditors and lawsuits arising out of its actions and 
misconduct involving fraudulent PPP loans. 
The Womply Lawsuit 
129. 
On January 24, 2023, Womply commenced an action against Benworth PR, 
Benworth FL, and the Navarros, in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico 
under Case No. 3:23-cv-01034-GMM, titled Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners PR 
LLC, et al. (the “Womply Lawsuit”), seeking to rescind alleged fraudulent asset transfers from 
Benworth FL to Benworth PR and/or the Navarros, which Womply alleges were intended to 
prevent Womply from collecting its fees owed under a breached agreement with Benworth FL. 
130. 
The Womply Lawsuit alleges that, “[w]ith Womply’s technology, Benworth FL 
processed and funded more than 305,000 PPP loans with a principal amount of approximately $4 
billion, generating more than $680 million in revenue for Benworth FL.”  See Womply Lawsuit, 
Complaint (ECF Doc. No. 1) (emphasis in original), a true and correct copy of which is annexed 
hereto as Exhibit M. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 29 of 56 PageID #: 29

 
 
30
131. 
Womply alleges that it “developed and maintained a website through which small 
businesses searching for PPP assistance could be connected with and submit application materials 
to PPP lenders,” and then provided the PPP lenders (including Benworth FL) with a technology 
platform to review, process, and service PPP loans.  Womply further alleges that Benworth FL 
breached its fee agreement with Womply for use of these services, through which Benworth FL 
processed thousands of PPP loans.  See Ex. M, Womply Lawsuit, Complaint at 3-4. 
132. 
On June 11, 2024, Womply obtained a final arbitration award in separate JAMS 
arbitration proceedings it commenced against Benworth FL in or about August 2021 (the 
“Arbitration”), which awarded Womply nearly $118 million in unpaid fees, interest, and costs 
owed under its fee agreement with Benworth FL.   
133. 
In the Womply Lawsuit, Womply alleges that during the course of Arbitration 
proceedings, it discovered that the Navarros formed Benworth PR for the purpose of preemptively 
and fraudulently transferring and shielding assets of Benworth FL, in order to prevent Womply 
from collecting on any judgment or award obtained in the Arbitration.  See Ex. M, Womply 
Lawsuit, Complaint at 2. 
134. 
Thus, in connection with the fraudulent transfers, the Womply Lawsuit alleges that 
“[t]he separation of Benworth FL and Benworth PR as distinct corporate entities is an illusion—
they are effectively the same company.”  See Ex. M, Womply Lawsuit, Complaint at 5. 
135. 
The Womply Lawsuit further alleges that “Benworth FL sought to avoid 
accountability for its failure to conduct a good faith review of applicant information before 
deciding to fund PPP loans” by misrepresenting to the House Subcommittee – in connection with 
the House Subcommittee’s investigation of fraud in PPP loan programs – “that it relied on Womply 
to determine applicant eligibility,” when “it was Benworth FL that decided which Womply-
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 30 of 56 PageID #: 30

 
 
31
referred PPP loans to submit to the SBA for approval and, if approved, to fund.”  See Ex. M, 
Womply Lawsuit, Complaint at 7. 
The Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit 
136. 
On July 10, 2024, after learning about the Womply Lawsuit, the Federal Reserve 
Bank of San Francisco (the “Federal Reserve Bank”) commenced its own lawsuit against 
Benworth PR, Benworth FL, and the Navarros, in the United States District Court for the District 
of Puerto Rico under Case No. 3:24-cv-01313-MAJ, titled Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco 
v. Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC, et al. (the “Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit”).  A true and 
correct copy of the Complaint in the Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit (ECF Doc. No. 1) is annexed 
hereto as Exhibit N.4 
137. 
The Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit seeks “damages for breach of contract, 
collection of money, conversion, and rescission of fraudulent transfers of various assets from 
Benworth FL to Benworth PR and the Navarros.”  See Ex. N, Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit, 
Complaint at 1 (emphasis added). 
138. 
The Federal Reserve Bank, which is part of the Federal Reserve System, provided 
Benworth FL with PPPLF financing pursuant to PPPLF Letters of Agreement dated May 4, 2020, 
January 14, 2021, and January 30, 2023 (the “Letters of Agreement”), through credit advances 
totaling approximately $4.3 billion.  See Ex. N, Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit, Complaint at 4. 
139. 
Specifically, the Federal Reserve Bank alleges that “Benworth FL received 
Advances from the Federal Reserve Bank from time to time in an aggregate principal amount of 
approximately $4.3 billion, secured by approximately 300,000 Pledged PPP Loans and the other 
PPP Collateral.  Upon information and belief, Benworth FL processed, funded, and managed this 
                                                 
4 On August 20, 2024, the District Court consolidated the Womply Lawsuit and the Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit 
under Case No. 3:23-cv-01034-GMM. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 31 of 56 PageID #: 31

 
 
32
loan portfolio, earning accrued interest income and various other fees in relation to those loans.”  
See Ex. N, Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit, Complaint at 9. 
140. 
Notably: 
[T]he Reserve Bank has become aware that Benworth FL has failed to comply with 
the terms of the PPP for at least some portion of the outstanding Pledged PPP 
Loans, which has caused Benworth FL’s outstanding Advances to become recourse 
obligations . . . . Benworth FL has represented to the Reserve Bank that for a period 
of years, it did not have appropriate documentation to support its requests for 
guaranty purchases for all of the relevant PPP loans, either due to Womply’s 
withholding of the appropriate documentation . . . , or due to other problems internal 
to Benworth FL.  These facts have caused the Reserve Bank to determine that 
Benworth FL has failed to comply with the terms of the PPP for at least some 
portion of its PPP portfolio, causing the Advance amounts to become recourse. 
See Ex. N, Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit, Complaint at 8 (emphasis added). 
141. 
The Federal Reserve Bank further alleges that “Benworth FL fraudulently 
transferred various assets, including the Reserve Bank’s collateral, to Benworth PR and the 
Navarros, who are exercising dominion and control over those assets.  As a result, Benworth FL 
was left with virtually no capital to fulfill its current obligations to the Reserve Bank.”  See Ex. N, 
Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit, Complaint at 2. 
142. 
According to the Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit, “[a]lthough Benworth PR was 
formed as a separate entity from Benworth FL, it is effectively the same company as Benworth 
FL, and any corporate separateness is illusory.”  See Ex. N, Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit, 
Complaint at 11.  “Benworth PR provides certain services to process and/or service Benworth FL’s 
mortgage and PPP loans, as well as other services such as fraud monitoring and loan forgiveness, 
all of which Benworth FL previously performed itself.”  Id. 
143. 
The Federal Reserve Bank further alleges that “Benworth FL has moved all of its 
employees to a Florida branch of Benworth PR,” and pursuant to LSAs executed by the Navarros 
on behalf of Benworth FL and Benworth PR in 2021, “Benworth PR services Benworth FL’s 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 32 of 56 PageID #: 32

 
 
33
mortgage and PPP loans” and will receive all of the PPP loan income that Benworth FL would 
have received for servicing the loans to maturity.  See Ex. N, Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit, 
Complaint at 12-13. 
144. 
Notably, Benworth PR did not even exist as an entity on the date of the first LSA 
purportedly between Benworth FL and Benworth PR.  Although the first LSA was dated May 31, 
2021, Benworth PR was not formed until nearly a month later, on June 28, 2021.  See Ex. F. 
145. 
Additionally, “[f]rom time to time, Benworth FL made transfers to Benworth PR.  
These transfers were purportedly advances in payment for loan servicing and related services that 
Benworth PR would render to Benworth FL pursuant to the LSAs.”  See Ex. N, Federal Reserve 
Bank Lawsuit, Complaint at 13.  In sum, the Federal Reserve Bank alleges that “[b]etween 2021 
and 2023, Benworth FL transferred over $50 million to Benworth PR, which left Benworth FL 
unable to pay its debts as they came due, insolvent, and with inadequate capital.”  Id. 
146. 
The Federal Reserve Bank further alleges that “Benworth FL also made transfers 
to the Navarros,” including a portion of dividends totaling more than $48 million paid to Mr. 
Navarro between 2021 and 2023, at least $800,000 paid to Mr. Navarro in 2024, and additional 
assets diverted to Mrs. Navarro to avoid payment of prior judgments.  See Ex. N, Federal Reserve 
Bank Lawsuit, Complaint at 13-14. 
147. 
Upon information and belief, the Navarros formed Benworth Financial in 2019, 
also for the purpose of fraudulently diverting and shielding assets of Benworth FL.  Upon further 
information and belief, the Navarros have fraudulently transferred assets of Benworth FL to 
Benworth Financial in order to avoid paying judgments and other debts owed by Benworth FL, 
and/or operated Benworth Financial as an alter ego of Benworth FL. 
 
 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 33 of 56 PageID #: 33

 
 
34
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 
Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) 
(18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) 
AS TO THE BENWORTH ENTITIES AND THE NAVARROS 
148. 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully 
set forth herein. 
149. 
The Benworth Entities (Benworth FL, Benworth PR, and Benworth Financial) 
together form an “enterprise” (the Benworth Enterprise) as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), and 
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), which engages in activities affecting interstate 
commerce. 
150. 
Womply and Mr. Scammell together form an “enterprise” (the Womply Enterprise) 
as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), and within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), which engages 
in activities affecting interstate commerce. 
151. 
Mr. Navarro is a “person” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), and within the 
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). 
152. 
Mr. Navarro is also a “principal” of the Benworth Enterprise, within the meaning 
of section 2, title 18, of the United States Code.   
153. 
As principal of the Benworth Enterprise, Mr. Navarro has individually taken 
actions, and directed other members of the Benworth Enterprise to take actions, necessary to 
accomplish the overall goals and purposes of the Enterprise.  Mr. Navarro is responsible for day-
to-day operations and business decisions of the Benworth Enterprise, and for creating, approving, 
and implementing the policies, practices, and instrumentalities used by the Enterprise to 
accomplish its common goals and purposes. 
154. 
Mrs. Navarro is a “person” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), and within the 
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).  Mrs. Navarro is also a member of the Benworth Enterprise. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 34 of 56 PageID #: 34

 
 
35
155. 
As a member of the Benworth Enterprise, Mrs. Navarro has participated in creating, 
managing, and/or maintaining other business entities which are members of the Enterprise, for the 
purpose of accomplishing the overall goals and purposes of the Enterprise, and entered into 
contracts and agreements to siphon and transfer proceeds of the Enterprise to other members of 
the Enterprise. 
156. 
Mr. Scammell is a “person” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), and within the 
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). 
157. 
Mr. Scammell is also a “principal” of the Womply Enterprise, within the meaning 
of section 2, title 18, of the United States Code. 
158. 
As principal of the Womply Enterprise, Mr. Scammell has individually taken 
actions, and directed other members and agents of the Womply Enterprise to take actions, 
necessary to accomplish the overall goals and purposes of the Enterprise.  Mr. Scammell is 
responsible for day-to-day operations and business decisions of the Womply Enterprise, and for 
creating, approving, and implementing the policies, practices, and instrumentalities used by the 
Enterprise to accomplish its common goals and purposes. 
159. 
The Benworth Entities are associated in fact through common ownership, 
management, and control by the Navarros, and through shared personnel, office space, resources, 
and/or one or more contracts or agreements relating to and/or for the purpose of originating, 
servicing, collecting upon, and/or otherwise profiting off of PPP loans referred by Womply and 
originated by Benworth FL. 
160. 
The members of the Benworth Enterprise share the common purpose of profiting 
from the referral, origination, approval, funding, and servicing of these fraudulent PPP loans, 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 35 of 56 PageID #: 35

 
 
36
including the Fraudulent PPP Loan in Plaintiff’s name, which were funded in violation of SBA 
and PPP regulations, using Federal Reserve Bank funds obtained through the PPPLF. 
161. 
The Navarros have each personally benefitted from the unlawful acts of the 
Benworth Enterprise through fraudulent transfers of proceeds of the Enterprise to other members 
of the Enterprise under their ownership and/or control, and to the Navarros individually. 
162. 
The Benworth Enterprise is also associated in fact with the Womply Enterprise, 
through one or more contracts or agreements relating to and/or for the purpose of sourcing, 
referring, originating, and/or otherwise profiting off of fraudulent PPP loans sourced, referred, 
and/or at least partially underwritten and approved for funding by Womply, and originated and/or 
at least partially underwritten and approved for funding by Benworth FL. 
163. 
The ongoing conduct of the Benworth Enterprise, acting individually and/or in 
concert with the Womply Enterprise, beginning in 2020 and continuing until the present, is 
unlawful and constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of repeated, continuous, and 
related acts of fraud and other unlawful conduct in violation of federal statutes governing mail 
fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), financial institution fraud (18 U.S.C. § 
1344), and identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028), in connection with thousands of fraudulent PPP loans 
originated between 2020 and 2023, including the Fraudulent PPP Loan associated with Plaintiff. 
164. 
The Navarros knowingly conducted and/or participated, directly or indirectly, in 
the conduct of the Benworth Enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).  Through members of the Benworth Enterprise, agents, or other 
individuals acting at their direction, and/or acting in concert with the Womply Enterprise and Mr. 
Scammell, the Navarros knowingly and intentionally executed or attempted to execute a scheme 
to defraud the federal government including the SBA, Federal Reserve Bank, and the general 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 36 of 56 PageID #: 36

 
 
37
public, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1344, and 1028, including by use of the mails and 
interstate wire communications in furtherance of, and for the purpose of executing, the scheme. 
165. 
The predicate acts of racketeering activity in violation of the foregoing statutes 
involve Benworth FL’s approval and conduct as a PPP lender subject to SBA regulations, credit 
advances granted to Benworth FL under the PPPLF, fraudulent transfers between the Benworth 
Entities and the Navarros, agreements and kickback schemes between Benworth FL and Womply, 
Benworth FL and Benworth PR, and other members of the Benworth Enterprise and/or the 
Womply Enterprise, and fraudulent PPP loans funded using Federal Reserve Bank funds, 
including:  
a. Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344):  Executing or attempting to execute a scheme 
to defraud the Federal Reserve Bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, in 
connection with credit advances granted to Benworth FL under the PPPLF, and 
fraudulent transfers by and between members of the Benworth Enterprise in 
order to misrepresent insolvency and avoid repayment.  Individually and/or 
through members of the Benworth Enterprise, agents, or other individuals 
acting at their direction, the Navarros knowingly and intentionally executed or 
attempted to execute a scheme to defraud by (i) drawing on PPPLF credit 
provided by the Federal Reserve System to fund fraudulent PPP loans, 
including the Fraudulent PPP Loan, using Plaintiff’s stolen identity and 
fraudulent or stolen identity information for other borrowers; and (ii) making 
intentional and material misrepresentations to the Federal Reserve Bank 
regarding (a) Benworth FL’s agreements with the Federal Reserve Bank in 
connection with credit advances it received under the PPPLF, and (b) Benworth 
FL’s assets and solvency in light of fraudulent transfers the Navarros caused 
and/or facilitated from Benworth FL to Benworth PR, and from Benworth FL 
directly to the Navarros and/or other members of the Benworth Enterprise. 
b. Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343):  Devising or intending to devise a scheme to 
defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent 
pretenses, representations, or promises, and transmitting by means of wire, 
radio, or television communication in interstate commerce, writings, signs, 
signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, in connection with thousands of fraudulent PPP 
loans originated by Benworth FL, in concert with Womply, using credit 
advances from the Federal Reserve Bank obtained through the PPPLF, for the 
Navarros’ and Mr. Scammell’s personal gain, and at their direction; which 
occurred in relation to, or involving a benefit authorized, transported, 
transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 37 of 56 PageID #: 37

 
 
38
declared major disaster or emergency regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, and 
affected a financial institution.  Individually and/or through members of the 
Benworth Enterprise, agents, or other individuals acting at their direction, and 
acting in concert with the Womply Enterprise and Mr. Scammell, the Navarros 
knowingly and intentionally transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, by means 
of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate commerce, writings, 
signs, signals, pictures, and/or sounds for the purpose of executing a scheme or 
artifice to defraud, including, but not limited to (i) online PPP loan applications, 
approvals, and disbursement instructions for thousands of PPP loans, including 
the Fraudulent PPP Loan associated with Plaintiff, even when the Defendants 
had knowledge of widespread fraud in the applicant pool; (ii) email 
communications among the Defendants and with third parties to coordinate the 
funding of fraudulent PPP loans, and funneling of PPP-related funds and 
profits; and (iii) continued marketing and advertising via internet and social 
media channels to attract more PPP applicants, despite knowledge of ongoing 
fraud. 
c. Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341):  Devising or intending to devise a scheme to 
defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent 
pretenses, representations, or promises, and placing in any post office or 
authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent 
or delivered by the Postal Service, or depositing or causing to be depositing any 
matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial 
interstate carrier, or taking or receiving therefrom, any such matter or thing, or 
knowingly causing to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the 
direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the 
person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, for the purpose of 
executing such scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, in connection with 
thousands of fraudulent PPP loans originated by Benworth FL, in concert with 
Womply, using credit advances from the Federal Reserve Bank obtained 
through the PPPLF, for the Navarros’ and Mr. Scammell’s personal gain, and 
at their direction; which occurred in relation to, or involving a benefit 
authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in 
connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency 
regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, and affected a financial institution.  
Individually and/or through members of the Benworth Enterprise, agents, or 
other individuals acting at their direction, the Navarros knowingly and 
intentionally used, or caused to be used, the U.S. mail in furtherance of a 
scheme to defraud, through actions including, but not limited to, mailing, or 
causing to be mailed, documents, notices, letters, and/or other communications 
regarding PPP loan applications, approvals, purported borrower obligations, 
and other materials integral to the fraudulent scheme, to interstate addresses 
(including erroneous or fictitious addresses including the Howard Beach 
Address) with knowledge that such mailings furthered the Enterprise’s 
fraudulent objectives. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 38 of 56 PageID #: 38

 
 
39
d. Identity Theft and Related Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1028):  Knowingly 
possessing, 
using, 
and/or 
transferring 
an 
identification 
document, 
authentication feature, or false identification document knowing that such 
document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority, with the 
intent that such document or feature be used to defraud the United States, and/or 
knowingly transferring, possessing, and/or using, without lawful authority, a 
means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or 
abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of 
Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law, 
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028.  Individually and/or through members of the 
Benworth Enterprise, agents, or other individuals acting at their direction, the 
Navarros knowingly participated in, permitted, and facilitated the unauthorized 
possession, use, and transmission of Plaintiff’s personal identifying information 
fraudulently obtained through identity theft, in connection with the submission, 
approval, and/or funding of the Fraudulent PPP Loan in Plaintiff’s name, 
without Plaintiff’s knowledge or authorization. 
166. 
Each of the foregoing predicate acts involved a benefit authorized, transported, 
transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major 
disaster or emergency regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, and affected a financial institution. 
167. 
These acts amount to and/or pose a threat of continued criminal activity because 
the Navarros and the Benworth Enterprise (i) continued their unlawful activity related to the PPP 
and fraudulent PPP loans over a period of several years despite direct knowledge of the fraudulent 
nature of the loans; (ii) perpetuated additional unlawful activity related to the PPP by effectuating 
fraudulent transfers intended to defraud the Federal Reserve Bank and other potential creditors; 
(iii) only ceased certain unlawful acts or practices with respect to the PPP because the program 
ended; (iv) continued working in financial services after the end of the PPP; and (v) maintain the 
means, ability, and incentive to resume their unlawful conduct with respect to small business and 
consumer lending and financial services. 
168. 
Plaintiff has been injured in his business and property by reason of the foregoing 
conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), which injuries were directly, factually, and 
proximately caused by Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).  Specifically, as a result of 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 39 of 56 PageID #: 39

 
 
40
Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff has suffered damages including loss and reduction of SSR 
benefits that were improperly garnished under the TOP due to the Fraudulent PPP Loan, payment 
of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting Defendants’ criminal 
activities, reputational harm, and other financial and economic damages to be determined at trial. 
169. 
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover treble damages, including attorneys’ 
fees and costs, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). 
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 
Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) 
(18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) 
AS TO WOMPLY AND MR. SCAMMELL 
170. 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully 
set forth herein. 
171. 
The Womply Enterprise is an ongoing “enterprise” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 
1961(4), and within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), which engages in activities affecting 
interstate commerce. 
172. 
The Benworth Enterprise is an ongoing “enterprise” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 
1961(4), and within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), which engages in activities affecting 
interstate commerce. 
173. 
Mr. Scammell is a “person” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), and within the 
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). 
174. 
Mr. Scammell is also a “principal” of the Womply Enterprise, within the meaning 
of section 2, title 18, of the United States Code. 
175. 
As principal of the Womply Enterprise, Mr. Scammell has individually taken 
actions, and directed other members and agents of the Womply Enterprise to take actions, 
necessary to accomplish the overall goals and purposes of the Enterprise.  Mr. Scammell is 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 40 of 56 PageID #: 40

 
 
41
responsible for day-to-day operations and business decisions of the Womply Enterprise, and for 
creating, approving, and implementing the policies, practices, and instrumentalities used by the 
Enterprise to accomplish its common goals and purposes. 
176. 
The Womply Enterprise is associated in fact with the Benworth Enterprise, through 
one or more contracts or agreements relating to and/or for the purpose of sourcing, referring, 
originating, and/or otherwise profiting off of fraudulent PPP loans sourced, referred, and/or at least 
partially underwritten and approved for funding by Womply, and originated and/or at least 
partially underwritten and approved for funding by Benworth FL, in violation of SBA and PPP 
regulations, and using Federal Reserve Bank funds obtained through the PPPLF. 
177. 
Mr. Scammell has personally benefitted from the unlawful acts of the Womply 
Enterprise through profits and illegal kickbacks from fee agreements and other arrangements with 
PPPLF lenders including Benworth FL. 
178. 
The ongoing conduct of the Womply Enterprise, acting individually and/or in 
concert with the Benworth Enterprise, beginning in 2020 and continuing until the present, is 
unlawful and constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of repeated, continuous, and 
related acts of fraud and other unlawful conduct in violation of federal statutes governing mail 
fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), financial institution fraud (18 U.S.C. § 
1344), and identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028), in connection with thousands of fraudulent PPP loans 
originated between 2020 and 2023, including the Fraudulent PPP Loan associated with Plaintiff. 
179. 
Mr. Scammell knowingly conducted and/or participated, directly or indirectly, in 
the conduct of, the Womply Enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).  Through members of the Womply Enterprise, agents, or other 
individuals acting at his direction, and/or acting in concert with the Benworth Enterprise and the 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 41 of 56 PageID #: 41

 
 
42
Navarros, Mr. Scammell knowingly and intentionally executed or attempted to execute a scheme 
to defraud the federal government including the SBA, Federal Reserve Bank, and the general 
public, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1344, and 1028, including by use of the mails and 
interstate wire communications in furtherance of, and for the purpose of executing, the scheme. 
180. 
The predicate acts of racketeering activity in violation of the foregoing statutes 
involve agreements and kickback schemes between Womply and Benworth FL, and other 
members of the Benworth Enterprise and/or the Womply Enterprise, to approve and fund 
fraudulent PPP loans funded using Federal Reserve Bank capital, and deceptive acts and practices 
involving interstate commerce related to Womply’s PPP loan-related services, including: 
a. Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344):  Individually and/or through members of the 
Womply Enterprise, agents, or other individuals acting at his direction, and 
acting in concert with the Benworth Enterprise, Mr. Scammell knowingly and 
intentionally executed or attempted to execute a scheme to defraud the Federal 
Reserve Bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, by approving and referring 
fraudulent PPP loans for funding, including the Fraudulent PPP Loan, with 
PPPLF credit drawn on funds from the Federal Reserve System, using 
Plaintiff’s stolen identity and fraudulent or stolen identity information for other 
borrowers. 
b. Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343):  Individually and/or through members of the 
Womply Enterprise, agents, or other individuals acting at his direction, Mr. 
Scammell knowingly and intentionally transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, 
by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate commerce, 
writings, signs, signals, pictures, and/or sounds for the purpose of executing a 
scheme or artifice to defraud, including, but not limited to (i) online PPP loan 
applications, approvals, and disbursement instructions for thousands of PPP 
loans, including the Fraudulent PPP Loan associated with Plaintiff, even when 
the Defendants had knowledge of widespread fraud in the applicant pool; (ii) 
email communications among the Defendants and with third parties to 
coordinate the funding of fraudulent PPP loans, and funneling of PPP-related 
funds and profits; (iii) deceptive acts and practices related to aggressive and 
ongoing marketing and advertising via internet and social media channels to 
attract and induce PPP applicants to apply with Womply, knowing that Womply 
would not, and could not, keep the promises made to the public through these 
advertisements, and would favor approval of fraudulent applications over 
legitimate ones; and (iv) continued and increased marketing and advertising via 
internet and social media channels to attract more PPP applicants, despite 
knowledge of ongoing fraud. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 42 of 56 PageID #: 42

 
 
43
c. Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341):  Individually and/or through members of the 
Womply Enterprise, agents, or other individuals acting at his direction, Mr. 
Scammell knowingly and intentionally used, or caused to be used, the U.S. mail 
in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, through actions including, but not limited 
to, mailing, or causing to be mailed, documents, notices, letters, and/or other 
communications regarding PPP loan applications, approvals, purported 
borrower obligations, and other materials integral to the fraudulent scheme, to 
interstate addresses (including erroneous or fictitious addresses including the 
Howard Beach Address) with knowledge that such mailings furthered the 
Enterprise’s fraudulent objectives. 
d. Identity Theft and Related Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1028):  Knowingly 
possessing, 
using, 
and/or 
transferring 
an 
identification 
document, 
authentication feature, or false identification document knowing that such 
document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority, with the 
intent that such document or feature be used to defraud the United States, and/or 
knowingly transferring, possessing, and/or using, without lawful authority, a 
means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or 
abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of 
Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law, 
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028.  Individually and/or through members of the 
Womply Enterprise, agents, or other individuals acting at his direction, Mr. 
Scammell knowingly participated in, permitted, and facilitated the unauthorized 
possession, use, and transmission of Plaintiff’s personal identifying information 
fraudulently obtained through identity theft, in connection with the submission, 
approval, and/or funding of the Fraudulent PPP Loan in Plaintiff’s name, 
without Plaintiff’s knowledge or authorization. 
181. 
Each of the foregoing predicate acts involved a benefit authorized, transported, 
transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major 
disaster or emergency regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, and affected a financial institution. 
182. 
These acts amount to and/or pose a threat of continued criminal activity because 
Mr. Scammell and the Womply Enterprise (i) continued their unlawful activity related to the PPP 
and fraudulent PPP loans over a period of several years despite direct knowledge of the fraudulent 
nature of the loans; (ii) perpetuated additional unlawful activity related to the PPP through 
deceptive acts and practices related to aggressive and ongoing marketing and advertising to attract, 
increase, and induce PPP applicants to apply with Womply, knowing Womply’s advertised 
promises were illegitimate and the applicant pool and referrals contained widespread fraud, 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 43 of 56 PageID #: 43

 
 
44
resulting the FTC Lawsuit brought in 2024; (iii) only ceased certain unlawful acts or practices with 
respect to the PPP because the program ended; (iv) continued working in financial services after 
the end of the PPP; and (v) maintain the means, ability, and incentive to resume their unlawful 
conduct with respect to small business and consumer lending and financial services.  Additionally, 
Mr. Scammell’s prior related criminal conduct, including a 2014 criminal conviction for financial 
crime and engaging in a fraudulent scheme related to insider trading, for which he served prison 
time and paid nearly $1 million in restitution and related civil penalties in a parallel civil suit by 
the SEC, demonstrate that Mr. Scammell is not deterred by the threat or possibility of civil, or even 
criminal, punishments for his ongoing fraudulent and unlawful actions. 
183. 
Plaintiff has been injured in his business and property by reason of the foregoing 
conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), which injuries were directly, factually, and 
proximately caused by Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).  Specifically, as a result of 
Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff has suffered damages including loss and reduction of SSR 
benefits that were improperly garnished under the TOP due to the Fraudulent PPP Loan, payment 
of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting Defendants’ criminal 
activities, reputational harm, and other financial and economic damages to be determined at trial. 
184. 
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover treble damages, including attorneys’ 
fees and costs, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). 
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 
Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) 
(18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)) 
AS TO THE NAVARROS 
185. 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully 
set forth herein. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 44 of 56 PageID #: 44

 
 
45
186. 
The Benworth Enterprise is an ongoing “enterprise” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 
1961(4), and within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), which engages in activities affecting 
interstate commerce. 
187. 
Mr. Navarro is a “person” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), and within the 
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a). 
188. 
Mrs. Navarro is a “person” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), and within the 
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a). 
189. 
Mr. Navarro is a “principal” of the Benworth Enterprise, within the meaning of 
section 2, title 18, of the United States Code, and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a). 
190. 
As principal of the Benworth Enterprise, Mr. Navarro has individually taken 
actions, and directed other members of the Benworth Enterprise to take actions, necessary to 
accomplish the overall goals and purposes of the Enterprise.  Mr. Navarro is responsible for day-
to-day operations and business decisions of the Benworth Enterprise, and for creating, approving, 
and implementing the policies, practices, and instrumentalities used by the Enterprise to 
accomplish its common goals and purposes. 
191. 
Mrs. Navarro is a “person” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), and within the 
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).  Mrs. Navarro is also a “principal” of the Benworth Enterprise, 
within the meaning of section 2, title 18, of the United States Code, and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), to 
the extent she has aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, and/or procured the 
commission of an offense against the United States, through operation of the Benworth Enterprise 
as described in detail above. 
192. 
The Navarros knowingly participated in the conduct of the Benworth Enterprise’s 
affairs as principals, through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 45 of 56 PageID #: 45

 
 
46
consisting of repeated violations of federal statutes related to mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire 
fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), financial institution fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344), and identity theft (18 
U.S.C. § 1028), in connection with thousands of fraudulent PPP loans originated between 2020 
and 2023, including the Fraudulent PPP Loan associated with Plaintiff. 
193. 
Specifically, the Navarros willfully directed, and/or aided, abetted, counseled, 
commanded, induced, or procured the following acts (as described in greater detail in the First 
Cause of Action above), which are violations federal statutes and constitute the commission of an 
offense against the United States, through operation of the Benworth Enterprise: 
a. Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344):  Executing or attempting to execute a scheme to 
defraud the Federal Reserve Bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, in connection 
with credit advances granted to Benworth FL under the PPPLF, and fraudulent 
transfers by and between members of the Benworth Enterprise in order to 
misrepresent insolvency and avoid repayment. 
b. Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343):  Devising or intending to devise a scheme to 
defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent 
pretenses, representations, or promises, and transmitting by means of wire, radio, 
or television communication in interstate commerce, writings, signs, signals, 
pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme in violation of 18 
U.S.C. § 1343, in connection with thousands of fraudulent PPP loans originated by 
Benworth FL, in concert with Womply, using credit advances from the Federal 
Reserve Bank obtained through the PPPLF; which occurred in relation to, or 
involving a benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or 
paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency 
regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, and affected a financial institution. 
c. Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341):  Devising or intending to devise a scheme to 
defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent 
pretenses, representations, or promises, and placing in any post office or authorized 
depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by 
the Postal Service, or depositing or causing to be depositing any matter or thing 
whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or 
taking or receiving therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causing to be 
delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place 
at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any 
such matter or thing, for the purpose of executing such scheme in violation of 18 
U.S.C. § 1341, in connection with thousands of fraudulent PPP loans originated by 
Benworth FL, in concert with Womply, using credit advances from the Federal 
Reserve Bank obtained through the PPPLF; which occurred in relation to, or 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 46 of 56 PageID #: 46

 
 
47
involving a benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or 
paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency 
regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, and affected a financial institution. 
d. Identity Theft and Related Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1028):  Knowingly possessing, 
using, and/or transferring an identification document, authentication feature, or 
false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or 
produced without lawful authority, with the intent that such document or feature be 
used to defraud the United States, and/or knowingly transferring, possessing, and/or 
using, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with 
the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity 
that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any 
applicable State or local law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028. 
194. 
The Navarros have each received income, both directly and indirectly, from the 
foregoing pattern of racketeering activity in which they each participated as a principal. 
195. 
The Navarros have each invested or used, directly or indirectly, part of such 
income, or the proceeds of such income, in the acquisition of an interest in, or the establishment 
or operation of, one or more enterprise(s) which is/are engaged in, or the activities or which affect, 
interstate or foreign commerce. 
196. 
An example of one such enterprise is Benworth PR.  The Navarros have invested 
or used income derived from their pattern of racketeering activity to further their unlawful business 
activities and maintain the enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a). 
197. 
Plaintiff’s injuries were directly caused by the Navarros’ illegal investment of 
racketeering proceeds, as Plaintiff was directly harmed by the Navarros’ racketeering activity and 
misuse of funds that resulted in the Fraudulent PPP Loan in Plaintiff’s name, and continues to be 
harmed by this conduct due to the fraudulent transfer of assets from Benworth FL to Benworth PR 
in furtherance of the Benworth Enterprise, leaving Benworth FL insolvent and unable to satisfy 
creditors’ judgments, which would include any judgment entered in Plaintiff’s favor. 
198. 
Plaintiff has been injured in his business and property by reason of the foregoing 
conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), which injuries were directly, factually, and 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 47 of 56 PageID #: 47

 
 
48
proximately caused by Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a).  Specifically, as a result of 
Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff has suffered damages including loss and reduction of SSR 
benefits that were improperly garnished under the TOP due to the Fraudulent PPP Loan, payment 
of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting Defendants’ criminal 
activities, reputational harm, and other financial and economic damages to be determined at trial. 
199. 
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover treble damages, including attorneys’ 
fees and costs, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). 
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 
Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) 
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c),(d)) 
AS TO THE BENWORTH ENTITIES, THE NAVARROS, WOMPLY, AND MR. SCAMMELL 
200. 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully 
set forth herein. 
201. 
The Benworth Entities, the Navarros, Womply, and Mr. Scammell together 
constitute an association-in-fact “enterprise” (the “PPP Fraud Enterprise”) as defined by 18 U.S.C. 
§ 1961(4), which engages in activities affecting interstate commerce. 
202. 
The members of the PPP Fraud Enterprise are associated in fact for the common 
purpose of, and/or through one or more contracts or agreements relating to, sourcing, referring, 
originating, and/or otherwise profiting off of fraudulent PPP loans sourced, referred, and/or at least 
partially underwritten and approved for funding by Womply, and originated and/or at least 
partially underwritten and approved for funding by Benworth FL, in violation of SBA and PPP 
regulations, and using Federal Reserve Bank funds obtained through the PPPLF. 
203. 
Each of the Defendants, as members of the PPP Fraud Enterprise, conspired to 
violate the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), (b), or (c), by agreeing to conduct or participate in 
the affairs of the Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 48 of 56 PageID #: 48

 
 
49
204. 
The Defendants did conduct, participate in, and further an ongoing scheme to 
fraudulently obtain and disburse PPP funds via a pattern of racketeering activity, which they 
facilitated by: 
205. 
In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to affect the objects thereof, Defendants and 
their co-conspirators knowingly committed or caused to be committed overt acts—including but 
not limited to acts constituting mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, identity theft, and related 
predicate acts—as alleged in detail above. 
206. 
The PPP Fraud Enterprise is distinct from, and has an existence beyond the pattern 
of racketeering activity described herein, by recruiting, employing, overseeing, and coordinating 
individuals (including professionals and non-professionals) responsible for facilitating and 
performing a wide variety of administrative and professional functions beyond the predicate acts, 
including various individuals involved in other legitimate business functions of the Benworth 
Entities and Womply, separate and apart from the fraudulent PPP loans and associated activities. 
207. 
Defendants’ conduct, taken together, demonstrates that each Defendant was aware 
of the fraudulent practices within the Enterprise and agreed—tacitly or explicitly—to facilitate the 
scheme.  The widespread fraud in PPP applications, repeated failures to implement fraud controls, 
and extensive profit-taking from obviously fraudulent loans all demonstrate a “meeting of the 
minds” to violate provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1962. 
208. 
As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy, Plaintiff has sustained significant 
injuries, including garnished SSR benefits, reputational harm, payment of attorneys’ fees and costs 
incurred in investigating and prosecuting Defendants’ criminal activities, and other damages. 
209. 
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover treble damages, including attorneys’ 
fees and costs, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 49 of 56 PageID #: 49

 
 
50
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 
Negligence 
210. 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully 
set forth herein. 
211. 
Defendants, in conducting national operations affecting consumers, and relating to 
lending, financial assistance, and government benefits in connection with a presidentially declared 
major disaster or emergency, owed a duty of care to Plaintiff and all potentially affected 
consumers, to properly manage the loan review, referral, and approval process, including 
implementing reasonable safeguards against fraud and identity theft (at least meeting minimum 
SBA and industry standards). 
212. 
Defendants breached this duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in the 
performance of such duties, particularly with respect to prevention of fraud and identity theft, 
resulting in the Fraudulent PPP Loan.  Specifically, Defendants knew or should have known about 
rampant fraud in the PPP applicant pool received by Benworth FL and/or referred by Womply, 
and further that Womply’s systems were incapable of, or otherwise failed to, detect fraud and 
identity theft in PPP applications approved/referred by Womply to Benworth FL, and approved 
for funding by Benworth FL. 
213. 
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff has suffered 
significant financial harm, including loss and reduction of SSR benefits that were improperly 
garnished under the TOP due to the Fraudulent PPP Loan, payment of attorneys’ fees and costs 
incurred in investigating and prosecuting Defendants’ criminal activities, reputational harm, and 
other financial and economic damages to be determined at trial. 
214. 
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual and consequential damages 
resulting from the harm caused by Defendants’ breach of duty. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 50 of 56 PageID #: 50

 
 
51
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 
Unjust Enrichment 
215. 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully 
set forth herein. 
216. 
As described in detail above, each of the Defendants have engaged in improper, 
unlawful, and/or unjust acts in furtherance of a criminal enterprise, all of which resulted in the 
Fraudulent PPP Loan, to the harm and detriment of Plaintiff. 
217. 
Plaintiff’s SSR benefits have been involuntarily garnished by the government to 
effect repayment of the Fraudulent PPP Loan Plaintiff did not know about or authorize, and has 
no lawful responsibility to repay. 
218. 
Defendants have benefitted from and been unjustly enriched at Plaintiff’s expense 
by these payments, and by fees and other profits flowing from the referral, processing, origination, 
servicing, and existence of the Fraudulent PPP Loan, from which Plaintiff derived absolutely no 
benefit whatsoever. 
219. 
Defendants have further been unjustly enriched at Plaintiff’s expense by receiving 
and retaining the proceeds of their racketeering activities and fraudulent conduct that resulted in 
the Fraudulent PPP Loan. 
220. 
Defendants have retained, and continue to retain, the benefit conferred by Plaintiff 
and at Plaintiff’s expense, without compensating Plaintiff for the benefit received, violating the 
principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. 
221. 
As a result of Defendants’ unjust enrichment, Plaintiff is entitled to restitution, and 
disgorgement of any benefits Defendants have obtained and retained at Plaintiff’s expense and to 
his detriment, in an amount to be determined at trial. 
 
 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 51 of 56 PageID #: 51

 
 
52
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 
Declaratory Judgment 
(28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202) 
222. 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully 
set forth herein. 
223. 
Plaintiff brings this claim for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 
2202. 
224. 
An actual controversy exists between the parties regarding the legal rights and 
obligations of Plaintiff with respect to the Fraudulent PPP Loan and any related agreements 
fraudulently executed in connection therewith, without Plaintiff’s knowledge or authorization. 
225. 
Given that (i) the Fraudulent LLC was created using Plaintiff’s stolen identity and 
personal identifying information, without Plaintiff’s knowledge or authorization, and (ii) the 
Fraudulent PPP Loan was also originated using Plaintiff’s stolen identity and personal identifying 
information, in the name of the Fraudulent LLC of which Plaintiff had no knowledge, all without 
Plaintiff’s knowledge or authorization, Plaintiff cannot be legally responsible for repayment of the 
debt incurred in connection with the Fraudulent PPP Loan. 
226. 
Accordingly, Plaintiff requests a judicial declaration: 
a. Dissolving the Fraudulent LLC created in Plaintiff’s name; 
b. Declaring any actions taken or agreements or contracts executed by, or on behalf 
of, the Fraudulent LLC void ab initio, including the Fraudulent PPP Loan and any 
related contracts or agreements; 
c. Declaring that Plaintiff has no legal responsibility for repayment of the Fraudulent 
PPP Loan; and 
d. Returning to Plaintiff any government benefits (including SSR), or other funds 
taken and/or retained from Plaintiff for the purpose of repayment of the Fraudulent 
PPP Loan. 
 
 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 52 of 56 PageID #: 52

 
 
53
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 
Deceptive Acts – N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 
AS TO BENWORTH FL AND WOMPLY 
227. 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully 
set forth herein. 
228. 
New York law provides that “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any 
business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared 
unlawful.”  GBL § 349. 
229. 
“To maintain a cause of action under § 349, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the 
defendant’s conduct is ‘consumer-oriented’; (2) that the defendant is engaged in a ‘deceptive act 
or practice’; and (3) that the plaintiff was injured by this practice.”  See Wilson v. Northwestern 
Mut. Ins. Co., 625 F.3d 54, 64 (2d Cir. 2010). 
230. 
“The ‘consumer-oriented’ requirement may be satisfied by showing that the 
conduct at issue ‘potentially affect[s] similarly situated consumers.’”  Id. 
231. 
The FTC Lawsuit, Federal Reserve Bank Lawsuit, and House Subcommittee 
Report all clearly demonstrate that Defendants have been, and continue to be, engaged in 
consumer-oriented deceptive conduct affecting consumers at large.  See Exs. J-L, N.   
232. 
Plaintiff has personally been injured by these practices, which resulted in the 
Fraudulent PPP Loan and garnishment of Plaintiff’s SSR benefits.  See Exs. A-C. 
233. 
As the FTC Lawsuit alleges: “Consumers are suffering, have suffered, and will 
continue to suffer substantial injury as a result of Defendants’ [Womply and Mr. Scammell] 
violations of the FTC Act.  Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue 
to injure consumers and harm the public interest.”  See FTC Lawsuit, Complaint at 18. 
234. 
Defendants’ acts amount to and/or pose a threat of continued criminal activity 
affecting consumers at large because Defendants: (i) continued their unlawful activity related to 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 53 of 56 PageID #: 53

 
 
54
the PPP and fraudulent PPP loans over a period of several years despite direct knowledge of the 
fraudulent nature of the loans; (ii) perpetuated additional unlawful activity related to the PPP by 
effectuating fraudulent transfers intended to defraud the Federal Reserve Bank and other potential 
creditors; (iii) only ceased certain unlawful acts or practices with respect to the PPP because the 
program ended; (iv) continued working in financial services after the end of the PPP; and (v) 
maintain the means, ability, and incentive to resume their unlawful conduct with respect to small 
business and consumer lending and financial services. 
235. 
Accordingly, pursuant to GBL § 349(h), Plaintiff is entitled to recover (i) actual 
damages or fifty dollars, whichever is greater; or, in the Court’s discretion, an amount not to exceed 
three times the actual damages, up to one thousand dollars; and (ii) reasonable attorneys’ fees 
incurred in bringing this action. 
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 
Rescission of Fraudulent Transfers 
AS TO THE BENWORTH ENTITIES AND THE NAVARROS 
236. 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully 
set forth herein. 
237. 
To the extent the Navarros effected fraudulent transfers from Benworth FL to 
Benworth PR, to themselves, and/or to other members of the Benworth Enterprise to shield those 
assets from recovery by creditors, Plaintiff respectfully joins in the Federal Reserve Bank’s 
requests to rescind those transactions and transfers, as alleged in the Federal Reserve Bank 
Lawsuit, which claims Plaintiff respectfully incorporates in their entirety herein.  See Ex. N. 
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 
238. 
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury on all 
issues so triable. 
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 54 of 56 PageID #: 54

 
 
55
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment awarding all actual, statutory, 
and/or punitive damages, recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other relief available 
pursuant to applicable law. 
Dated:  Brooklyn, New York 
 
 January 8, 2025 
 
 
PETROFF AMSHEN LLP 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff, 
William Kolbert 
 
/s/ Steven Amshen 
 
 
 
 
Steven Amshen, Esq. 
1795 Coney Island Avenue, Third Floor 
Brooklyn, New York 11230 
Telephone: (718) 336-4200 
Email: samshen@petroffamshen.com
Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 55 of 56 PageID #: 55

Case 1:25-cv-00117-FB-CHK     Document 1     Filed 01/07/25     Page 56 of 56 PageID #: 56

File and source

File

CASE_NYED_1-25-cv-00117_Kolbert-v-Benworth-Womply_doc1_COMPLAINT_2025-01-07.pdf

Size

1,177,631 bytes

SHA-256

b58702b73acbffb8843961c016c047b8884dc8ca9b18d0faa0557b5fd78c0fcb

Our copy

CASE_NYED_1-25-cv-00117_Kolbert-v-Benworth-Womply_doc1_COMPLAINT_2025-01-07.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)