Court filing
Notice of Maximum Penalties, Elements of Offense and Factual Basis — United States v. Amber Rewis Bruey
Summary
A Notice of Maximum Penalties, Elements of Offense, Personalization of Elements and Factual Basis filed by the United States on March 11, 2022 in United States v. Amber Rewis Bruey, No. 2:21-cr-00074, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, as Doc. 68. It sets out the elements of conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, money laundering conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) and illegal monetary transactions under 18 U.S.C. § 1957, with the maximum penalties for each group of counts. The factual basis describes the PPP and EIDL programs and states the government's account that fraudulent applications led to $881,058.35 in PPP and EIDL funds. It then lists the transactions charged in Counts Fifteen through Eighteen.
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
No. 2:21-cr-00074 · Doc. 68 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 68 Filed 03/11/22 Page 1 of 12 PageID 153
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CASE NO. 2:21-cr-74-TPB-MRM
AMBER REWIS BRUEY
NOTICE OF MAXIMUM PENALTIES, ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE,
PERSONALIZATION OF ELEMENTS AND FACTUAL BASIS
The United States of America, by Roger B. Handberg, United States
Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, hereby files this Notice of
Maximum Penalties, Elements of Offense, Personalization of Elements and
Factual Basis, stating as follows:
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
The essential elements of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, Conspiracy to
Commit Wire Fraud, charged in Count One, are as follows:
First: Two or more persons, in some way or manner,
agreed to try to accomplish a common and unlawful
plan to commit wire fraud, as charged in the
indictment; and
Second: The Defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the
plan and willfully joined in it.
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 68 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 12 PageID 154
The essential elements of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, Wire Fraud,
charged in Counts Two through Eleven, are as follows:
First: The Defendant knowingly devised or participated in
a scheme to defraud, or to obtain money or property
by using false pretenses, representations, or
promises;
Second: The false pretenses, representations, or promises
were about a material fact;
Third: The Defendant acted with the intent to defraud; and
Fourth: The Defendant transmitted or caused to be
transmitted by wire some communication in
interstate commerce to help carry out the scheme to
defraud.
The essential elements of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), Conspiracy
to Commit Money Laundering, charged in Count Fourteen, are as follows:
First: Two or more people agreed to try to accomplish a
common and unlawful plan to violate 18 U.S.C. §
1957; and
Second: The Defendant knew about the plan’s unlawful
purpose and voluntarily joined in it.
2
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 68 Filed 03/11/22 Page 3 of 12 PageID 155
The essential elements of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, Illegal
Monetary Transaction, charged in Counts Fifteen through Eighteen, are as
follows:
First: The Defendant knowingly engaged in or attempted
to engage in a monetary transaction;
Second: The Defendant knew the transaction involved
property or funds that were the proceeds of some
criminal activity;
Third: The property had a value of more than $10,000;
Fourth: The property was in fact proceeds of wire fraud; and
Fifth: The transaction took place in the United States.
PENALTY
The penalties for the offenses charged in Counts One through Eleven of
the Indictment are a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 years, a fine of
up to $1,000,000, a term of supervised release of up to five (5) years, and a
$100 special assessment for each count.
The penalties for the offenses charged in Counts Fourteen through
Eighteen of the Indictment are a maximum of ten (10) years imprisonment, a
fine of up to $250,000 or alternate fine of twice the amount of the criminally
derived property, a term of supervised release of up to three (3) years, and
$100 special assessment for each count.
3
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 68 Filed 03/11/22 Page 4 of 12 PageID 156
Additionally, the defendant must forfeit property, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C) and 982(a)(1), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), as outlined in
the Indictment.
FACTUAL BASIS
Background on PPP and EIDL
In March of 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(“CARES”) Act was enacted as a federal law, designed to provide emergency
financial assistance to the millions of Americans who were suffering the
economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief
provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of forgivable loans to small
businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through a program
referred to as the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Another source of
relief was the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program, which was
a Small Business Administration (“SBA”) program that provided low-interest
financing to small businesses affected by declared disasters. The CARES Act
authorized the SBA to provide EIDLs of up to $2 million to eligible businesses
experiencing substantial financial disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Additionally, eligible businesses could apply for an EIDL advance of up to
$10,000, which was determined by the number of employees the applicant
certified having and did not have to be repaid.
4
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 68 Filed 03/11/22 Page 5 of 12 PageID 157
To obtain a PPP loan, qualifying businesses were required to submit a
PPP loan application, which contained numerous certifications, to a
participating PPP lender. In the PPP application, the small business (through
its authorize representative) was required to state and certify, among other
things, its: (a) average monthly payroll expense; and (b) number of employees.
These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the small business
was eligible to receive under the PPP. Furthermore, businesses applying for a
PPP loan were required to provide documentation showing their payroll
expenses. Individuals who operated as a sole proprietorship, independent
contractor, or eligible self-employed individual were also eligible to apply for a
PPP loan. All PPP applicants was required to disclosed whether the applicant
(if the loan was for an individual) or an owner of the applicant business had
been convicted of a felony or had served a term of probation within the last
five years.
PPP loan application were processed, approved, and funded by
participating lenders. The PPP loan funds were 100% guaranteed by the SBA.
PPP loan proceeds were required to be used for certain permissible expenses,
including payroll costs, mortgage interest, rent, and utilities.
To obtain an EIDL and advance, a qualifying business had to submit an
application directly to the SBA and provide information about its operation,
5
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 68 Filed 03/11/22 Page 6 of 12 PageID 158
such as the number of employees, gross revenues for the 12-month period
preceding the disaster, and cost of goods sold in the 12-month period
preceding the disaster. These figures were used by the SBA to calculate the
EIDL and advance amount. For COVID-19 relief EIDLs, the 12-month
period was that preceding January 31, 2020. An EIDL applicant was also
required to disclose whether the applicant had been convicted of a felony or
had served a term of probation within the last five years.
EIDL funds could be used for payroll expenses, sick leave, production
costs, and business obligations, such as debts, rents, and mortgage payments.
If the applicant also obtained a loan under the PPP, the EIDL funds could not
be used for the same purpose as the PPP funds.
Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud
Beginning on an unknown date, but no later than in or around April
2020, the defendant, Amber Rewis Bruey, and her husband and co-conspirator
Anthony James Bruey (hereinafter, “the Brueys”), conspired to defraud PPP
lenders and the SBA by submitting false and fraudulent PPP and EIDL
applications. In total, the Brueys submitted approximately 26 fraudulent PPP
and EIDL applications between April 2020 and June 2020. The false and
fraudulent applications were electronically submitted from the Middle District
6
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 68 Filed 03/11/22 Page 7 of 12 PageID 159
of Florida (MDFL) to SBA approved lenders, loan processing companies, and
the SBA, all located outside of the State of Florida.
The fraudulent applications contained numerous false and fraudulent
misrepresentations concerning the applicant’s dates of operation, payroll,
gross revenues, total number of employees, and the criminal history of the
applicant or business owner. The Brueys’ false and fraudulent
misrepresentations caused PPP lenders and the SBA to approve approximately
12 loans and issue a total of $881,058.35 in PPP and EIDL funds. The PPP
and EIDL funds were deposited into bank accounts that were controlled and
maintained by the Brueys. The defendant then used these fraudulently
obtained funds for her own personal enrichment, which included financial
transactions of more than $10,000, discussed in detail below.
Wire Fraud
The defendant electronically submitted or caused the electronic
submission of approximately five fraudulent EIDL applications to the SBA
that were funded and approved. In each application, the defendant falsely
represented that she had not been placed on probation in the last five years.
Additionally, in each EIDL application, the defendant misrepresented the
number of employees, gross revenue, and cost of goods sold for businesses that
did not exist. The defendant also submitted fraudulent tax returns, income
7
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 68 Filed 03/11/22 Page 8 of 12 PageID 160
statements, and profit and loss statements to the SBA in furtherance of the
fraud.
As specified in the Indictment, each of the five fraudulent EIDL
applications were submitted by the defendant electronically from MDFL to
the SBA, located outside of the State of Florida, on April 2, 2020 (Count
Two), April 3, 2020 (Count Three), May 18, 2020 (Count Nine), June 16,
2020 (Count Ten), and June 24, 2020 (Count Eleven). In all, the defendant’s
false and fraudulent representations caused the SBA to approve and fund a
total of $660,900 in EIDL funds and $15,000 in EIDL advance funds. The
EIDLs and advance funds were deposited into bank accounts the defendant
controlled and maintained.
The defendant also electronically submitted or caused the electronic
submission of approximately five fraudulent PPP loan applications to PPP
loan servicers and lenders. In each PPP loan application, the defendant falsely
represented that she had not been placed on probation in the last five years.
Additionally, in each PPP application, the defendant false represented the
average monthly payroll for businesses that did not exist. To further the fraud,
the defendant submitted fraudulent tax documents and an income statement.
Each of the five fraudulent PPP applications were submitted by the
defendant electronically from MDFL to PPP loan servicers and lenders,
8
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 68 Filed 03/11/22 Page 9 of 12 PageID 161
located outside of the State of Florida, on April 12, 2020 (Count Four), May
4, 2020 (Count Five), May 5, 2020 (Count Six), May 6, 2020 (Count Seven),
and May 15, 2020 (Count Eight). In all, the defendant’s false and fraudulent
representations caused PPP loan servicers and lenders to approve and fund a
total of $97,775.01 in PPP funds. The PPP funds were deposited into bank
accounts the defendant controlled and maintained.
Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering
Beginning on an unknown date, but no later than in or around April
2020, the Brueys conspired to use and attempted to use fraudulently obtained
PPP and EIDL funds for financial transactions of a value greater than
$10,000. Specifically, after unlawfully obtained PPP and EIDL funds were
deposited into accounts controlled and maintained by the Brueys, including an
account with Stride Bank/Chime ending in 3607, the funds were used to
purchase a 2019 GMC Yukon SUV, a 2020 Honda Talon side by side UTV,
and a residence in North Carolina. These transactions affected interstate and
foreign commerce. Additionally, the Brueys used fraudulently obtained loan
proceeds to purchase a 2021 Chevrolet Spark LS and a 2020 Polaris RZR side
by side UTV.
9
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 68 Filed 03/11/22 Page 10 of 12 PageID 162
Illegal Monetary Transactions
On June 5, 2020, a $29,214.93 check (Count Fifteen) was issued from a
bank account controlled and maintained by the Brueys to Sun Sports Cycle,
located in Fort Myers, Florida, for the purchase of a Honda Talon and
Yamaha dirt bike. Sales records from Sun Sport Cycle revealed the
defendant’s husband, Anthony James Bruey, was the registered owner and
purchaser of the Honda Talon and Yamaha dirt bike. The funds used for the
purchase were proceeds from the Brueys’ PPP and EIDL fraud scheme.
On July 22, 2020, the defendant had her bank issue a $23,566 cashier’s
check to JPay (Count Seventeen) for the payment of restitution in a case
(2018CF000164) the defendant was on probation for in the State of Florida.
The funds used for the cashier’s check were proceeds from the Brueys’ PPP
and EIDL fraud scheme.
On August 11, 2020, the defendant submitted a $49,688.55 ACH
payment (Count Eighteen) to Carvana for the purchase of a 2019 GMC
Yukon XL. The funds used for the purchase of the GMC Yukon were
proceeds from the Brueys’ PPP and EIDL fraud scheme.
10
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 68 Filed 03/11/22 Page 11 of 12 PageID 163
On August 27, 2020, $211,457.57 was wired (Count Sixteen) from a
bank account controlled and maintained by the defendant to a law firm for the
purchase of a residence located at 114 Kemp Lane, Hertford, North Carolina.
A review of the property’s purchase records and deed revealed the defendant
was the co-purchaser and owner of the property. The funds used for the
property’s purchase were proceeds from the Brueys’ PPP and EIDL fraud
scheme.
Respectfully submitted,
ROGER B. HANDBERG
United States Attorney
By: /s/Trent Reichling
Trenton J. Reichling
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar Number 0084601
2110 First Street, Suite 3-137
Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
Telephone: (239) 461-2200
Facsimile: (239) 461-2219
E-mail: Trenton.reichling@usdoj.gov
11
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D Document 68 Filed 03/11/22 Page 12 of 12 PageID 164
U.S. v. Amber Rewis Bruey Case No. 2:21-cr-74-TPB-MRM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 11, 2022, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which
will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
James Lappan
Jim_Lappan@fd.org
/s/Trent Reichling
Trenton J. Reichling
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar Number 0084601
2110 First Street, Suite 3-137
Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
Telephone: (239) 461-2200
Facsimile: (239) 461-2219
E-mail: Trenton.reichling@usdoj.gov
12
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flmd.393556.68.0.pdf
- Size
- 127,130 bytes
- SHA-256
- c914860372e794cabcd20424da2858958fad604d3fc28a45dd976dec7b50caf5
- Original
- PACER (login required)