Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings United States v. Alexander Barabash

Case docket

Alexander Barabash PPP fraud case — U.S. District Court, D. Md.

United States v. Alexander Barabash — 10 court filings in the archive from U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, filed between June 29, 2022 and April 14, 2025. Among them: 2 sentencing memoranda, 2 responses or replies and 1 indictment.

See also: Alexander Barabash PPP fraud case — U.S. District Court, District of Maryland — the same docket (docket No. 1:22-cr-00232) under another case page, 25 public filings. Full docket →

Case facts

CourtU.S. District Court, District of Maryland
Filings10 public filings
Filed2022-06-29 – 2025-04-14
Document typessentencing memoranda (2), responses or replies (2), indictment (1), plea agreement (1), order (1), judgment (1)
Original PDFs10 of 10

Case summary

Alexander Barabash was prosecuted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, No. 1:22-cr-00232-JKB, over Paycheck Protection Program loan applications made for his construction business, iDesignbuild LLC. The indictment returned June 29, 2022 charged wire fraud and money laundering and describes three applications to M&T Bank: a loan of $46,800.00 funded April 23, 2020, a second April 2020 application that was denied, and a January 2021 application on which the bank funded $1,295,000.00 on February 26, 2021. Barabash pleaded guilty on March 24, 2023 to count one, wire fraud. The government's sentencing memorandum asked for 40 months, restitution of $1,295,000 and a forfeiture money judgment of $1,295,000. Judgment was entered June 28, 2023. In April 2025 the government moved to forfeit an Arizona property as a substitute asset.

Case at a glance

Defendant(s)Alexander Barabash; business named in the filings as iDesignbuild LLC
Court and docketU.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, No. 1:22-cr-00232-JKB
ProgramPaycheck Protection Program (PPP)
ChargesWire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343); money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1957); forfeiture allegations under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1), (a)(2)(A) and (b)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(p)
Outcome and sentencePleaded guilty March 24, 2023 to count one, wire fraud; judgment entered June 28, 2023. The judgment PDF on the page carries no extracted text, so the term imposed is not recorded in the archived text
Counts of convictionPleaded guilty to count 1 of the indictment, wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, offense concluded 02/26/2021; counts 2-7 dismissed on motion of the United States (judgment of June 28, 2023, p. 1)
Sentence imposed14 months' imprisonment as to count 1 (p. 2); three years of supervised release (p. 3), with residence restriction and location monitoring for the first six months (p. 4)
Restitution$1,317,352.05, payable to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, for disbursement; interest accumulated until 6-26-2023 is due and payable and no interest accrues on the restitution or fine after the date of sentencing (p. 5)
Fine and assessmentFine $400,000.00; special assessment $100.00 (p. 5)
Forfeiture$504,869.54 in funds seized on 12/23/2021 from an M&T Bank account ending in x3819 in the name of iDesignBuildLLC; a 2016 Chevrolet Corvette; real property at 7 Fila Way and at 14044 Fox Hill Road, Sparks Glencoe, Maryland; amounts forfeited to be credited against restitution to the full extent permitted by law (p. 6). A preliminary order of June 27, 2023 entered a forfeiture money judgment of $1,295,000 (order of June 27, 2023, p. 2); an order of April 14, 2025 added real property at 5575 E. Sheena Drive, Scottsdale, Arizona as a substitute asset (order of April 14, 2025, p. 1)
Status checked2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

What did the government ask for at sentencing?

Forty months' imprisonment, restitution of $1,295,000 plus interest accrued at the time of sentencing, and a forfeiture money judgment of $1,295,000. That is the government's position in its sentencing memorandum of June 12, 2023, not the sentence imposed.

How much did the PPP loans come to?

M&T Bank funded $46,800.00 in April 2020 and $1,295,000.00 on February 26, 2021, according to the indictment. A second April 2020 application was denied.

What happened after sentencing?

On April 14, 2025 the government moved to amend the preliminary order of forfeiture of June 27, 2023 to add real property at 5575 E. Sheena Drive, Scottsdale, Arizona as a substitute asset, stating that nothing had been paid toward the $1,295,000 money judgment.

Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.

Filings

10 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.

  1. Indictment — United States v. Alexander Barabash (D. Md.)Indictment · PDF
  2. Plea Agreement — United States v. Alexander BarabashPlea agreement · PDF
  3. Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Alexander Barabash (D. Md.)Sentencing memorandum · PDF
  4. Government's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Alexander Barabash (D. Md.)Sentencing memorandum · PDF
  5. Defendant's Response to the Government's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Alexander Barabash (D. Md.)Response or reply · PDF
  6. Government's Response to the Defense Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Alexander Barabash (D. Md.)Response or reply · PDF
  7. Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Alexander Barabash (D. Md.)Order · PDF
  8. Judgment — United States v. Alexander Barabash (D. Md.)Judgment · PDF
  9. United States' Motion to Amend Preliminary Order of Forfeiture to Include Substitute Asset — United States v. Alexander Barabash (D. Md.)PDF
  10. Amended Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Alexander Barabash (D. Md.)PDF

Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.

Back to top