Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Bully

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 9:23-cr-80141-DMM · Doc. 31 · 2023-12-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO. 23-80141-CR-MIDDLEBROOKS 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
v. 
EMMANUEL BULLY, JR., 
Defendant. 
PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE 
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon an unopposed motion of the United States of 
America (the "United States") for entry of a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture ("Motion") [ECF No. 
30] against Defendant EMMANUEL BULLY, JR. (the "Defendant"). The Court has considered 
the Motion, is otherwise advised in the premises, and finds as follows: 
On or around August 17, 2023, a federal grand jury returned an Indictment charging the 
Defendant with wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Indictment, ECF No. 1. The 
Indictment also contained forfeiture allegations, which alleged that, upon conviction of a violation 
of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, affecting a :financial institution, the Defendant shall 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 violation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A). See id. 
at 9 - 10. 
On September 19, 2025, the Defendant pled guilty to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
§ 1343. See Minute Entry, ECF No. 15; Plea Agreement ~ 1, ECF No. 16. As part of the 
Defendant's guilty plea, the Defendant agreed to forfeiture, including the entry of a forfeiture 
money judgment in the amount of $503,335 in U.S. currency, and the forfeiture of substitute 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 31   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2023   Page 1 of 5

property. See Plea Agreement ,r 15, ECF No. 16. In support of the guilty plea, the Defendant 
executed a Factual Proffer, and the Court found that there was a factual basis to support the 
Defendant's conviction. See Factual Proffer, ECF No. 17. The Factual Proffer also provided a 
basis for the forfeiture of property. See id. at 4. The United States Probation Office has since 
conducted a presentence investigation, which, in relevant part, included information on the 
Defendant's forfeiture, addressing a Scrivener's error in the plea agreement specifically that the 
correct forfeiture money judgment amount is $503,235, not $503,335. 
See Presentence 
Investigation Report ,r,r 4 and 25, ECF No. 25. 
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security ("CARES") Act was a federal law 
enacted in or around March 2020, to provide financial assistance to Americans suffering from 
economic harm from the COVID-19 pandemic. See Factual Proffer 1, ECF No. 17. One source 
of relief provided through the CARES Act was the authorization of forgivable loans to businesses 
for job retention and certain other expenses, through a program referred to as the Paycheck 
Protection Program ("PPP"). Id. at 1. 
The PPP allowed qualifying small businesses and other organizations to receive PPP loans. 
Id. Businesses were required to use PPP loan proceeds on payroll costs, interest on mortgages, 
rent, and utilities. Id. 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 defined portion of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses. Id. 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 average monthly payroll costs of the business. Id. at 
2. 
2 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 31   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2023   Page 2 of 5

To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was required to submit a PPP loan application, 
which was signed by an authorized representative of the business. Id. The PPP loan application 
required the business (through its authorized representative) to acknowledge the program rules and 
make certain affirmative certifications in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan. Id. In the 
PPP loan application, the small business (through its authorized representative) was required to 
state, among other things, its average monthly payroll expenses of employees. Id. These figures 
were used to calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible to receive under the 
PPP. Id. In addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan were required to provide documentation 
confirming their payroll expenses. Id. 
A PPP loan application was processed by a participating lender. Id. 
If a PPP loan 
application was approved, the participating lender funding the PPP loan using its own funds. Id. 
While a participating lender issued the PPP loan, the loan was 100% guaranteed by the United 
States Small Business Administration ("SBA"), an executive branch agency of the United States 
government. Id. 
Bank of America, an approved SBA lender of PPP loans, was a financial 
institution that was headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Id. 
Another source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization for the SBA to 
provide Economic Injury Disaster Loans ("EID Ls") of up to $2 million to eligible small businesses 
experiencing substantial financial disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. 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. Id. at 2 - 3. The applicant was further required to certify that all information was 
true and correct to the best of the applicant's knowledge. Id. at 3. 
3 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 31   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2023   Page 3 of 5

EIDL applications were submitted directly to the SBA which processed the applications 
with support from a government contractor. Id. The amount of loan was determined based, in 
part, on the information provide in the application concerning the number of employees, gross 
revenues, and cost of goods sold. Id. Any EIDL funds were issued directly by the SBA. Id. 
As set forth in the Factual Proffer, the Defendant became aware of the opportunity to 
obtain funds through the CARES Act relief programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. The 
Defendant learned how to apply for PPP loans and EIDLs. Id. 
On April 29, 2020, the Defendant submitted a PPP loan application on behalf of MB Tax 
Services Consultants (the "April 2020 Loan"), claiming that he controlled that corporation and that 
it had a principal place of business in Delray Beach, Florida. Id. In reality, MB Tax Services 
Consultants was not an active business with an office in Delray Beach. Id. In the PPP application, 
the Defendant also falsely and fraudulently represented the corporation's average monthly payroll 
and the number of employees, both of which were material to the size of the loan received. Id. 
As a result of the false and fraudulent PPP application, Bank of America approved and 
funded the PPP loan for MB Tax Services Consultants. Id. On or about May 13, 2020, Bank of 
America transferred approximately $20,835.00 to a bank account controlled by the Defendant. Id. 
The Defendant spent these PPP loan proceeds on personal expenses, including jewelry and travel, 
and not on any legitimate business expenses for MB Tax Services Consultants. Id. at 4. 
In addition to the April 2020 Loan, the Defendant applied for multiple other PPP loans or 
EID Ls using his various corporations or as a sole proprietor. Id. Just as with the April 2020 Loan, 
these applications contained false and fraudulent information. Id. Many of these loan applications 
were denied; however, some were funded. Id. Ultimately, the Defendant succeeded in receiving 
$503,235 in CARES Act funds. See Presentence Investigation Report ,i,i 4 and 25, ECF No. 25. 
4 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 31   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2023   Page 4 of 5

The Defendant spent these fraudulently obtained funds on personal expenses and not on legitimate 
business expenses like payroll. See Factual Proffer, ECF No. 17, at 4; see also Presentence 
Investigation Report~ 25, ECF No. 25. 
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the evidence in the record, and for good cause shown, 
the Motion [ECF No. 30] is GRANTED, and it is hereby ORDERED that: 
1. 
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A) and Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of 
Criminal Procedure, a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $503,235 in U.S. currency is 
hereby entered against the Defendant. 
2. 
The United States is authorized to conduct any discovery that might be necessary 
to identify, locate, or dispose of forfeited property, and to resolve any third-party petition, pursuant 
to Rule 32.2(b)(3), (c)(l)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 21 U.S.C. § 853(m). 
3. 
Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this Order 
is final as to the Defendant. 
4. 
The Court shall retain jurisdiction in this matter for the purpose of enforcing this 
Order, and pursuant to Rule 32.2( e )(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, shall amend 
this Order, or enter other orders as necessary, to forfeit additional specific property when 
identified. 
DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Florida, t~---15th-~ctay of December 2023. 
// 
~ 
5 
~ 
• 
Qi, - ALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 31   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2023   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.652569.31.0.pdf

Size

86,758 bytes

SHA-256

01b84d78b23c5e742a7dae8c1f22c5ac63e3610ea2581e8d46f78440637e76b5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.652569.31.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)