Factual Proffer — United States v. Blaise (Dkt. 46, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

A factual proffer entered January 5, 2023 in United States v. Alexander Blaise, Case No. 22-60110-CR-SINGHAL/SNOW, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, agreeing to facts relating to a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349. It describes the Paycheck Protection Program, under which the loan amount was generally 2.5 times the business's average monthly payroll. The proffer states that an electronic PPP application requested $356,485 from Financial Service Provider 1 for ACCS and falsely claimed an average monthly payroll of $142,594 and 32 employees.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

\ Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2023 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
_ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 22-60110-CR-SINGHAL/SNOW

~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

ALEXANDER BLAISE,

Defendant.
/

FACTUAL PROFFER

The United States and the Defendant, Alexander Blaise, agree that at trial, the United States |

would have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the following facts, which pertain to a-violation of
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349, and which occurred in the Southern-District of Florida
and elsewhere.

1. Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans were government-backed and

- potentially forgivable business loans that Congress created as'part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,

and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act in March 2020. Congress made many small businesses

eligible for PPP loans, with the amount of the loan generally 2.5 times the business’s average

monthly payroll.

2. In applying for a PPP loan, an authorized representative of the applicant business

had to certify the accuracy of the contents of the application, including any supporting

’ documentation used to prove the applicant business’s average monthly payroll. A PPP loan

application was processed by a participating lender and the applicant could submit the application
and supporting documents over the internet, often through a financial services provider. If a PPP

loan application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan using its own monies.

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS- Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2023 Page 2 of 5.

The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) fully guaranteed these loans, and PPP
loan recipients were required to use the proceeds on certain permissible expenses: payroll costs,
interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities.

3. The Defendant, a resident of Plantation, Florida, was the owner of Acute Care
Coordinating Systems PA (“ACCS”) and Blaise Podiatry LLC (“Blaise Podiatry”). |
. 4. Dumarsais Blaise (D. Blaise”), a resident of Lithonia, Georgia, and the
Defendant’s brother, was a tax preparer registered with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) who

owned D&C Tax City LLC “D&C Tax City) and Sawyer, Moore, and Associates, LLC.

5. Anthony Wallace (“Wallace”), also known as Anthony Sands II, was a resident of
Pembroke Pines, Florida, and the owner of One of One LLC (“One of One”) and Appetite for
Everything Inc. (“Appetite”).

6. On or about May 11, 2020, D. Blaise assisted the Defendant in submitting an
electronic PPP loan application requesting $356,485 from Financial Service Provider 1 for ACCS.
The loan application contained a number of false statements about ACCS, including: (a) that it had
an “average monthly payroll” of $142,594; (b) that it had 32 employees and (c) that the PPP “funds
will be used to retain workers and maintain payroll or make mortgage interest payments, lease

’ payments, and utility payments as specified under the Paycheck Protection Program Rule.” On or
7 about May 12, 2020, Financial Service Provider 1 funded the ACCS loan for approximately .
$356,485 and deposited these funds into a personal account in the name of Blaise Podiatry.

7. In contrast to the statements in the application, ACCS never reported any .
employees to the Florida Department of Revenue and never reported wages paid to the IRS, both

of which it was required to do by law. Further, bank records showed that the Defendant did not

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2023 Page:3 of 5—

; spend the proceeds of the ACCS PPP loan on expenses allowed under the PPP, but instead used at
least some of the proceeds on personal expenses such as credit card payments and investment
purchases.

8: The ACCS PPP loan application that Financial Service Provider 1] received
included a purported IRS Form W3 for ACCS, which bore the Defendant’s signature and was ©
dated January 3, 2020. This IRS Form W3 represented that ACCS had paid approximately $1.7
million in wages in 2019, supporting the average monthly payroll of $142,594 reported in the
application. ACCS, however, conducted no substantive business in 2019 and paid no wages in that
year. Moreover, the document properties associated with the IRS Form-W3 submitted to Financial
Service Provider 1 with the ACCS application showed that D. Blaise had created and revised the
form on or about May 4, 2020, three months after the date that the Defendant purported to have ©
signed the form. D. Blaise had also emailed the same false form to the Defendant on or about May
4, 2020.

9. Bank records showed that between on or about May 19, 2020, and on or about July
1, 2020, the Defendant transferred approximately $270,000 of the ACCS PPP proceeds to D.
Blaise’s D&C Tax City account. D. Blaise then caused some of these funds to be transmitted back |

_ to the Defendant, sometimes to accounts held jointly between the Defendant and others. D. Blaise
also transmitted payments to other individuals on the Defendant’s behalf. D. Blaise also retained
a portion of the funds for himself.

10. _‘-D. Blaise also emailed the Defendant “Employee Payroll Summary Report” files

similar to the documents that Wallace had received. On or about May 21, 2020, D. Blaise emailed

the Defendant an “Employee Payment Summary Report” purporting to list “employees” and pay

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2023 Page 4 of 5

for ACCS for the period between approximately April 21, 2020, and May 21, 2020. D. Blaise and

the Defendant were listed as employees on this report. On or about August 11, 2020, the Defendant
received an “Employee Payment Summary Report” for ACCS from D. Blaise’s personal email
address. This report purported to list “employees” and pay for ACCS for the period between
approximately April 1, 2020, and August 11, 2020. D. Blaise and the Defendant were listed as
employees on this report as well. D. Blaise never worked for ACCS, which as noted above

conducted no substantive business.

[This space intentionally left blank.]


Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2023 Page 5 of 5

The parties agree that the fraud conspiracy in this case involved the use of interstate wires.
The parties further agree that the facts contained in this proffer are not a complete recitation of the
facts and circumstances of this case, but are sufficient to prove Count | of the Indictment as to the

Defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

GLENN S. LEON
CHIEF, FRAUD SECTION

Date: t) 4/ 23 By: f-———

Fr EDWARD EMOKPAE
TRIAL ATTORNEY

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

KIRAN N. BHAT
ASSISTANT UNITED ST.

Date:

Date:

Date By:

ALEXANDER BLAISE
DEFENDANT

File and source

File

46.pdf

Size

202,526 bytes

SHA-256

a9cff53dbbb92031fca818b31445f4f1a687da3f0bf86ec9cc383214d45eb006

Our copy

46.pdf