Indictment — United States v. Bully

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 9:23-cr-80141-DMM · Doc. 5 · 2023-08-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
Case No. --------------
18 u.s.c. § 1343 
18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2) 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
v. 
EMMANUEL BULLY, JR., 
Defendant. 
__________ __ / 
INDICTMENT 
The Grand Jury charges that: 
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 
At all times relevant to this Indictment: 
The Small Business Administration 
• 
1. 
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. The mission of the SBA was to maintain and strengthen the nation's economy by 
enabling the establishment and viability of small businesses by assisting in the economy recovery 
of communities after disasters. 
The Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program 
2. 
The Economic Injury Disaster Loan ("EIDL") program was an SBA program that 
existed before the COVID-19 pandemic to provide low-interest financing to small businesses, 
renters, and homeowners in regions affected by declared disasters. 
23-80141-Cr-Middlebrooks/Matthewman
TM
Aug 17, 2023
WPB
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2023   Page 1 of 12

3. 
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security ("CARES") Act was a federal 
law enacted in or around March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial assistance to 
the millions of Americans who are suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 
pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization for the SBA 
to provide EID Ls of up to $2 million to eligible smal l businesses experiencing substantial financial 
disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 
4. 
In order to obtain an EIDL, a qualifying business was required to submit an 
application to the SBA and provide information about its operations, 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. In the case of EID Ls for COVID-19 relief, the 12-
month period preceding January 31 , 2020. The applicant was further required to "review and 
check all of the fo llowing" statements, which included a statement that the "Applicant is not 
engaged in any illegal activity (as defined by Federal guidelines)." If the applicant was "unable to 
check all of the" certifications, the "Applicant [was] not an Eligible Entity." The applicant was 
further required to certify that all of the information in the application was true and correct to the 
best of the applicant's knowledge. 
5. 
EIDL applications were submitted directly to the SBA and processed by the SBA 
with support from a government contractor. The amount of the loan was determined based, in part, 
on the information provided in the application concerning the number of employees, gross 
revenues, and cost of goods sold. Any EIDL funds were issued directly by the SBA. 
2 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2023   Page 2 of 12

The Paycheck Protection Program 
6. 
Another source of relief prov ided through the CARES Act was the authorization of 
forgivable loans to businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through a program 
called the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"). 
7. 
The PPP allowed qualifying small businesses and other organizations to receive 
PPP loans. Businesses were required to use PPP loan proceeds on payroll costs, interest on 
mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP allowed the interest and principal on the PPP loan to be 
entirely forgiven if the business spent the loan proceeds on these expense items within a designated 
period of time and used a certain percentage of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses. 
8. 
The amount of a PPP loan that a small business was entitled to receive was 
determined by the number of employees employed by the business and the business's average 
monthly payroll costs. 
9. 
To obtain a PPP loan, a qualify ing business was required to submit a PPP loan 
application which was signed by an authorized representative of the business. The PPP loan 
application requi red the business (through its authorized representative) to acknowledge the 
program rules and make certain affirmative certifications to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan. In 
the PPP loan application, the small business (through its authorized representative) was required 
to state, among other things, its average monthly payro ll expenses and number of employees. 
These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible to 
receive under the PPP. In addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan _were required to prov ide 
documentation confirming their payroll expenses. 
3 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2023   Page 3 of 12

10. 
A PPP loan application was processed by a participating lender. If a PPP loan 
application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan using its own funds. While 
a participating lender issued the PPP loan, the loan was 100% guaranteed by the SBA. 
Relevant Entities 
11. 
MB Tax Services LLC was purportedly a corporation controlled by the Defendant 
with a principal address in Plant City, Florida. 
12. 
MB Tax Consultants LLC was purportedly a corporation controlled by the 
Defendant with a principal address in Delray Beach, Florida. 
13. 
Emmanuel B was purportedly a sole proprietorship controlled by the Defendant 
with a principal address in Boynton Beach, Florida. 
14. 
MB Tax Services Consultants was purportedly a corporation controlled by the 
Defendant with a principal address in Delray Beach, Florida. 
15. 
Bank of America was a financial institution that was headquartered in Charlotte, 
North Carolina. Bank of America was an approved SBA lender of PPP loans. 
COUNTS 1-6 
Wire Fraud 
(18 u.s.c. § 1343) 
l . 
The General Allegations section of this Indictment is re-alleged and incorporated 
by reference as though fully set forth herein. 
2. 
From in or around April 2020, and continuing through in or around October 2021 , 
the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District 
of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, 
EMMANUEL BULLY, JR., 
did knowingly, and with the intent to defraud, devise, and intend to devise, a scheme and artifice 
4 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2023   Page 4 of 12

to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent 
pretenses, representations, and promises, knowing that the pretenses, representations, and 
promises were false and fraudulent when made, and, for the purpose of executing the scheme and 
artifice, did knowingly transmit and cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in 
interstate commerce, certain writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, in violation of Title 18, 
United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2. 
Purpose of the Scheme and Artifice 
It was the purpose of the scheme and artifice for the Defendant to unlawfully enrich 
himself by, among other things, submitting and causing the submission of false and fraudulent 
applications for EIDL and PPP loans and diverting the proceeds of those loans for the personal 
use and benefit of the Defendant and to further the scheme and artifice. 
The Scheme and Artifice 
The manner and means by which EMMANUEL BULLY, JR. sought to accomplish the 
purpose of the scheme and artifice included, among others, the following: 
1. 
On or about April 29, 2020, the Defendant submitted, and caused the submission 
of, a false and fraudulent PPP loan application on behalf of MB Tax Services Consultants. In the 
PPP application, the Defendant falsely represented the corporation's average monthly payroll. 
2. 
As a result of the false and fraudulent PPP application, Bank of America approved 
and funded the PPP loan for MB Tax Services Consultants. On or about May 13, 2020, Bank of 
America transferred approximately $20,835.00 to a bank account controlled by the Defendant. 
3. 
On or about May 6, 2020, the Defendant submitted, and caused the submission of, 
a false and fraudulent PPP loan application on behalf of MB Tax Consultants LLC. In the PPP 
application, the Defendant falsely represented the corporation' s average monthly payroll. 
5 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2023   Page 5 of 12

4. 
As a result of the false and fraudu lent PPP application, Bank of America approved 
and funded the PPP loan for MB Tax Consultants LLC. On or about May 14, 2020, Bank of 
America transferred approximately $62,500.00 to a bank account controlled by the Defendant. 
5. 
On or about May 22, 2020, the Defendant submitted and caused to be submitted to 
the SBA, via interstate wire communications, a false and fraudulent EIDL application for MB Tax 
Services, LLC. In the EIDL application, the Defendant falsely represented the corporation's gross 
revenues. 
6. 
As a result of the false and fraudulent application, the SBA approved the EIDL. 
7. 
In reliance on the false representations made in the EIDL application for MB Tax 
Services LLC, on or about May 26, 2020, the SBA deposited an EIDL loan for $36,900 into the 
bank account controlled by the Defendant. 
8. 
On or about June 19, 2020, the Defendant submitted and caused to be submitted to 
the SBA, via interstate wire communications, a false and fraudu lent EIDL application for MB Tax 
Consultants LLC. In the EIDL application, the Defendant falsely represented the corporation's 
gross revenues. 
9. 
As a resu lt of the false and fraudu lent application for MB Tax Consultants LLC, 
the SBA approved the EIDL. 
10. 
In reliance on the false representations made in the EIDL application for MB Tax 
Consultants LLC, on or about June 23, 2020, the SBA deposited an EIDL loan for $134,400 into 
the bank account controlled by the Defendant. 
11 . 
On or about July 17, 2020, the Defendant submitted and caused to be submitted to 
the SBA, via interstate wire communications, a false and fraudulent EIDL application for 
6 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2023   Page 6 of 12

Emmanuel B. In the EIDL application, the Defendant falsely represented the corporation's gross 
revenues. 
12. 
As a result of the false and fraudulent application for Emmanuel B, the SBA 
approved the EIDL. 
13. 
In reliance on the false representations made in the EIDL application for Emmanuel 
B, on or about July 21, 2020, the SBA deposited an EIDL loan for $47,800 into the bank account 
controlled by the Defendant. 
14. 
On or about September 27, 2021, the Defendant submitted and caused to be 
submitted to the SBA, via interstate wire communications, a false and fraudulent EIDL application 
for MB Tax Services LLC. 
In the EIDL application, the Defendant falsely represented the 
corporation's gross revenues. 
15. 
As a resu lt of the false and fraudulent application, the SBA approved the EIDL. 
16. 
In reliance on the false representations made in the EIDL application for MB Tax 
Services LLC, on or about October 4, 2021, the SBA deposited an EIDL loan for $189,800 into 
the bank account controlled by the Defendant. 
17. 
The Defendant spent much of the EIDL and PPP loan proceeds for his personal use 
and benefit, not for payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, or utilities. 
USE OF WIRES 
16. 
On or about the dates specified below, in the Southern District of Florida, and 
elsewhere, EMMANUEL BULLY, JR., for the purpose of executing and in fu1iherance of the 
aforesaid scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially 
false and fraudu lent pretenses, representations, and promises, knowing that the pretenses, 
representations, and promises were false and fraudulent when made, did knowingly transmit and 
7 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2023   Page 7 of 12

cause to be transmitted in interstate commerce, by means of wire communication, certain writings, 
signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, as described below: 
Count 
Approx. Date 
April 29, 2020 
2 
May 6, 2020 
3 
May 22, 2020 
4 
June 19, 2020 
5 
July 17, 2020 
6 
September 27, 2021 
Description of Wire 
E lectronic 
transmission 
of a 
PPP 
Loan 
Application for MB Tax Services Consultants, 
causing a wire transmission from the Southern 
District of Florida to outside of the State of 
Florida 
Electronic 
transm1ss1on 
of a 
PPP 
Loan 
Application for MB Tax Consultants LLC, 
causing a wire transmission from the Southern 
District of Florida to outside of the State of 
Florida 
Electronic transmission of an EIDL application 
containing false information about MB Tax 
Services LLC, causing a wire transmission from 
the Southern District of Florida to outside of the 
State of Florida 
Electronic transmission of an EIDL application 
containing false information about MB Tax 
Consultants LLC, causing a wire transmission 
from the Southern District of Florida to outside 
of the State of Florida 
Electronic transmission of an EIDL application 
containing false information about Emmanuel B, 
causing a w ire transmission from the Southern 
District of Florida to outside of the State of 
Florida 
Electronic transmission of an EIDL application 
containing false information about MB Tax 
Services LLC, causing a wire transmission from 
the Southern District of Florida to outside of the 
State of Florida 
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2. 
8 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2023   Page 8 of 12

FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS 
1. 
The allegations of this Indictment are hereby re-alleged and by this reference fu lly 
incorporated herein for the purpose of alleging forfe iture to the United States of America of certain 
property in which any of the defendant, EMMANUEL BULLY, JR., has an interest. 
2. 
Upon conviction of a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, as 
alleged in this Indictment, the defendant shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or 
personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such offense, pursuant to Title 
18, United States Code, Section 981 (a)(l )(C). 
3. 
Upon conviction of a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 
affecting a fi nancial institution, as alleged in this Indictment, the defendant shal l forfeit to the 
United States any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from, proceeds 
obtained directly or indirectly, as a result of such offense, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, 
Section 982(a)(2). 
4. 
If any of the property subject to forfe iture, as a result of any act or omission of the 
defendants: 
a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; 
b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; 
c. has been placed beyond the j urisdiction of the court; 
d. has been substantially diminished in value; or 
e. 
has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without 
difficu lty. 
the United States shall be entitled to forfe iture of substitute property under the provisions of Title 
21 , United States Code, Section 853(p ). 
9 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2023   Page 9 of 12

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981(a)(l)(c) and 982(a)(2), and the 
procedures set forth in Title 21, United States Code, Section 853, as incorporated by Title 18, 
United States Code, Section 982(b)(l) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c). 
A TRUE BILL 
F 
SHANNON SHAW 
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2023   Page 10 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
CASE NO.: -----------------
v. 
CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY 
EMMANUEL BULLY, JR. 
-------~------/ 
Superseding Case Information: 
Defendant. 
New Defendant(s) (Yes or No) ---
Court Division (select one) 
Number of New Defendants 
□ Miami 
□ Key West 
□ FTP 
Total number of counts 
□FTL 
IE! WPB 
I do hereby certify that: 
1. 
I have carefully considered the allegations of the indictment, the number of defendants, the number of probable 
witnesses and the legal complexities of the Indictment/Information attached hereto. 
2. 
I am aware that the information supplied on this statement will be relied upon by the Judges of this Court in setting 
their calendars and scheduling criminal trials under the mandate of the Speedy Trial Act, Title 28 U.S.C. §3161. 
3. 
Interpreter: (Yes or No) No ---
List language and/or dialect: ------
4. 
This case wi ll take _ 6_ 
days for the parties to try. 
5. 
Please check appropriate category and type of offense listed below: 
(Check only one) 
(Check only one) 
I 
D O to 5 days 
D Petty 
II 
IE] 6 to 10 days 
D Minor 
III D 11 to 20 days 
D Misdemeanor 
IV D 21 to 60 days 
IE! Felony 
V D 61 days and over 
6. 
Has this case been previously filed in this District Court? (Yes or No)_N_o __ 
If yes, Judge__________ Case No. ______________ _ 
7. 
Has a complaint been filed in this matter? (Yes or No) Yes 
Ifyes, Magistrate Case No. 23-mj-8415-WM 
---
8. 
Does this case relate to a previously filed matter in this District Court? (Yes or No) _N_o __ 
If yes, Judge __________ Case No. ______________ _ 
9. 
Defendant(s) in federal custody as of ""'"0'""8/...._]"'""6/'""2""'0 .... 
2..,_3 ________________ 
_ 
10. 
Defendant(s) in state custody as of _____________________ _ 
11. 
Rule 20 from the ____ District of -------
12. 
Is this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) _N_o __ 
13. 
Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office 
prior to August 8, 2014 (Mag. Judge Shaniek Maynard? (Yes or No) No 
---
14. 
Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office 
prior to October 3, 2019 (Mag. Judge Jared Strauss? (Yes or No) No 
---
15. 
Did this matter involve the participation of or consultation with now Magistrate Judge Eduardo I. Sanchez 
during his tenure at the U.S. Attorney's Office, which concluded on January 22, 2023? _N_o __ 
By: 
SHANNON SHAW 
Assistant United States Attorney 
FL Bar No. 
92806 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2023   Page 11 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
PENALTY SHEET 
Defendant's Name: -=E=-M-=MAc..==N'-'--"-U-=E=L~B~U-=L=L""'Y"--,'""""'JR=..cc.'----------------
Case No: --------------------------------
Counts # 1-6: 
Wire Fraud 
18 U.S.C. § 1343 
* Max. Term oflmprisonment: 20 years 
* Mandatory Min. Term oflmprisonment (if applicable): N/A 
*Max.Supervised Release: 3 years 
*Max.Fine: $250,000 fine or twice the value of the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater 
*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, supervised release and fines. It does not include 
restitution, special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable. 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2023   Page 12 of 12

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.652569.5.0.pdf

Size

364,275 bytes

SHA-256

51e0e32595e47789246baca71ba3cb3bf3aaf0e6ce6eba28431cb6b9d99494a8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.652569.5.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)