Indictment — United States v. David Antonetti

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida · No. 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP · Doc. 1 · 2024-07-11 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP Document1 Filed 07/11/24" Page-tof8-PagelD 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION - 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA we) V7, Nov aS

v. CASE NO. §724-¢-317-VMC- REP

DAVID ANTONETTI 18 U.S.C. § 1343

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges:

COUNTS ONE AND TWO
(Wire Fraud)

A. Introduction cD

At times relevant to this Indictment:

1. DAVID ANTONETTI, a resident of the Middle District of Florida,
falsely and fraudulently represented himself as the owner and sole employee of a
non-existent motion picture and video production business in order to obtain federal
Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans to which he was not entitled.

The Small Business Administration

vA The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was an
executive branch agency of the United States government that provided support to
entrepreneurs and small businesses.

D The SBA enabled and provided for loans through banks, credit unions,

and other lenders. These loans had government-backed guarantees. In addition to
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP Document1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 2 of 8 PagelD 2

traditional SBA funding programs, The CARES Act, established several new
temporary programs and provided for the expansion of others to address the
COVID-19 outbreak, which was declared a nationwide disaster by the President on
March 13, 2020.

4, One of the new loan programs was the SBA PPP, which was a loan
designed, in part, to provide a direct incentive for small businesses to keep their
workers on the payroll. Under this program, the SBA could forgive all or part of the
borrowing businesses’ loans provided that employees were kept on the payroll for
eight weeks and borrowers submitted documentation confirming that the loan
proceeds were used for certain qualifying business expenses (i.e., payroll, rent,
mortgage interest, or utilities).

5. Interested applicants applied through an existing SBA lender or any
other participating federally-insured financial institution. The PPP application
process required applicants to submit a Borrower Application Form through an SBA-
approved financial entity. The application contained information as to the purpose of
the loan, average monthly payroll, number of employees, and background of the
business and its owner. Applicants were also required to make certain good faith
certifications, including that economic uncertainties had necessitated their loan
requests for continued business operations, and that they intended to use loan

proceeds only for the authorized purposes.
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP Document1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 3 of 8 PagelD 3

6. Bank #1 was a federally-insured financial institution that had computer
servers used for processing financial transactions located outside the State of Florida.
Bank #1 was a member bank of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco.

7. Lender #1 participated in the SBA’s PPP as a lender, and as such, was
authorized to lend funds to eligible borrowers under the terms of the PPP.

B. The Scheme and Artifice

8. Beginning on an unknown date, but no later than in or around March
2021, and continuing through at least in or around October 2021, in the Middle
District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

DAVID ANTONETTI,
did knowingly and intentionally devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations, and promises about a material fact.
C. Manner and Means of the Scheme and Artifice

9. The manner and means by which the defendant and others sought to
accomplish the scheme and artifice included, among others, the following:

a. It was part of the scheme and artifice that the defendant would
and did prepare and submit, and cause to be prepared and submitted, two materially
false and fraudulent applications to the PPP, which program was tailored to provide
benefits and relief to businesses and workers negatively impacted by the COVID-19

pandemic.
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP Document1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 4 of 8 PagelD 4

b. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that, in order to
induce the financial institutions to fund PPP loans, the defendant would and did
prepare and submit, and cause to be prepared and submitted, to Lender #1
applications that contained multiple materially false and fraudulent representations
and pretenses, including:

i. overstating the gross income for the defendant’s motion
picture and video production business;
il. representing and certifying that loan proceeds would be
used for business-related purposes; and
iii. fraudulently affirming the truth of statements in the
applications.

c. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that the defendant
would and did submit fraudulent supporting documentation, including a 2019 IRS
Form Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business form.

d. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that the defendant
would and did cause Lender #1 to approve PPP loan applications and cause to be
transmitted PPP loan proceeds via interstate wire transfers to Bank #1;

e. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that the defendant
would and did use the PPP funds, and cause the PPP funds to be used, for
unauthorized purposes and for his own personal enrichment and the enrichment of

others; and
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP Document1 Filed 07/11/24 Page5of 8 PagelD 5

f. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that the defendant
would and did perform acts and make statements to promote and achieve the scheme
and artifice and to misrepresent, hide, and conceal the scheme and artifice and the
acts committed in furtherance thereof.

D. Execution of the Scheme and Artifice
10. Onor about the date set forth below in each count, in the Middle
District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,
DAVID ANTONETTI,
for the purpose of executing the aforesaid scheme and artifice, knowingly and
intentionally transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire
communication in interstate and foreign commerce the writings, signs, signals,

pictures, and sounds described below, each transmission constituting a separate

Defendant caused an electronic funds transfer in the
. ‘| amount of $20,136 in PPP funds, sent from outside
ONE April 28, 2021 of Florida to a Bank #1 account in the defendant’s
name within the Middle District of Florida

Defendant caused an electronic funds transfer in the
amount of $20,136 in PPP funds, sent from outside
of Florida to a Bank #1 account in the defendant’s

name within the Middle District of Florida

TWO May 19, 2021

All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP Document1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 6 of 8 PagelD 6

FORFEITURE

1. The allegations contained in Counts One and Two are incorporated by
reference for the purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)
and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

2. Upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the defendant shall
forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. §
2461(c), any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds
traceable to the violation.

3. The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, an order of
forfeiture in the amount of approximately $40,272, which represents the proceeds the
defendant obtained from the offenses.

4. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission
of the defendant:

a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
Cc. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

d. has been substantially diminished in value; or

e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be

divided without difficulty,
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP Document1_ Filed 07/11/24 Page/7 of 8 PagelD 7

the United States shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to 21
U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).
A TRUE BILL,

Td

Foreperson

ROGER B. HANDBERG
United States Attorney

Christopher Poor
Assistant United States Attorney

By: fe ‘e

¥ Rachelle DesVaux Bedke
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Economic Crimes Section

FORM OBD-34
July 24

Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP Document1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 8 of 8 PagelD 8

No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Middle District of Florida
Tampa Division

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS.

DAVID ANTONETTI

INDICTMENT

Violations: 18 U.S.C. § 1343

—

Foreperson

Filed in open court this 11" day

of J uly 2024.

Clerk

Bail $

GPO 863 525

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.429938.1.0.pdf

Size

951,061 bytes

SHA-256

9ba94ba5e5a0d303dfceeed49bf1f8269ed57cc791591fb4c7b675308a3a2b23

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.429938.1.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)