Plea Agreement for Defendant Western Distribution, LLC

Summary

The plea agreement for defendant Western Distribution, LLC in United States v. Western Distribution, LLC, et al., ED CR No. 5:21-00170-VAP, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, filed August 12, 2021 as Document 30 in Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB. The company agrees to plead guilty to counts one and three of the indictment, Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349 and Bank Fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(2), and to pay restitution, which the parties currently believe is approximately $668,427 to the Small Business Administration and BAC Community Bank. The attached statement of facts states that on March 24, 2021, at Carl Bradley Johansson's direction, the company obtained a second PPP loan of $231,527 on a fraudulent application.

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

Full text

Filed 08/12/21 Page1of21 Page ID #:129

ase 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 30

TRACY L. WILKISON
Acting United States Attorney
SCOTT M. GARRINGER
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
JOSEPH O. JOHNS (Cal. Bar No. 144524)
MATTHEW W. O’BRIEN (Cal. Bar No. 261568)
Assistant United States Attorneys
Environmental and Community Safety Crimes Section
1300 United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-4536/8644
Facsimile: (213) 894-0141

a

10
11
12
13
14
LS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ad
24
25
26
27
28

E-mail:

Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

joseph. johns@usdoj.gov
matthew.o’ brien@usdoj.gov

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESTERN DISTRIBUTION, LLC,

aka “Advanced Distribution
Inc.,” and

CARL BRADLEY JOHANSSON,
aka “Brad Johnson,”
aka “Carl Johnson,”
aka “C. Brad Johanson,”
aka “Jay Johnson,”
aka “Keith Golatta,”

Defendants.

ED CR No. 5:21-00170-VAP

PLEA AGREEMENT FOR DEFENDANT
WESTERN DISTRIBUTION, LLC

Hearing Date: August 16, 2021

Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m,

Location: Courtroom of the
Hon. Virginia A.
Phillips

: This constitutes the plea agreement between WESTERN

DISTRIBUTION, LLC (“defendant”) and the United States Attorney’s

Office for the Central District of California (the “USAO”) in the

above-captioned case.

This agreement is limited to the USAO and

cannot bind any other federal, state, local, or foreign prosecuting,

enforcement, administrative, or regulatory authorities.

DEFENDANT’ S OBLIGATIONS

Ya Defendant agrees to:

a. At the earliest opportunity requested by the USAO and

provided by the Court, appear and plead guilty to counts one and

WN &

Oo Oo HY DD WM

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i?
18
19
20
ak
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ase 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document30_ Filed 08/12/21 Page2of21 Page ID #:130

three of the indictment in United States v. Western Distribution,

LLC, et al., ED CR No. 5:21-00170-VAP, which charge defendant with

Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349,
and Bank Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(2).

b. Not contest facts agreed to in this agreement.

ie. Abide by all agreements regarding sentencing contained
in this agreement.

d. Appear for all court appearances, surrender as ordered
for service of sentence, obey all conditions of any bond, and obey
any other ongoing court order in this matter.

e. Not commit any crime; however, offenses that would be
excluded for sentencing purposes under United States Sentencing
Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.” or “Sentencing Guidelines”) § 4A1.2(c) are not
within the scope of this agreement.

ae Be truthful at all times with the United States
Probation and Pretrial Services Office and the Court.

g. Pay the applicable special assessments at or before
the time of sentencing unless defendant has demonstrated a lack of
ability to pay such assessments.

h. Pay restitution in an amount to be determined by the

Court to the victims of the criminal conduct in United States v.

Western Distribution, LLC, et al., ED CR No. 5:21-00170-VAP.

ds Defendant agrees that any and all criminal debt,
including restitution, as ordered by the Court will be due in full
and immediately, and paid in accordance with any payment schedule
determined by the Court. The government is not precluded from
pursuing, in excess of any payment schedule set by the Court, any and
all available remedies by which to satisfy defendant's payment of the
2

10
11
12
ta
14
15
16
Ly
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ase 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document30 _ Filed 08/12/21 Page3of21 Page ID #:131

full financial obligation, including referral to the Treasury Offset
Program.

Fis Complete the Financial Disclosure Statement on a form
provided by the USAO and, within 30 days of defendant’s entry of a
guilty plea, deliver the signed and dated statement, along with all
of the documents requested therein, to the USAO by either email at
usacac.FinLit@usdo].gov (preferred) or mail to the USAO Financial
Litigation Section at 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 7516, Los
Angeles, CA 90012. Defendant agrees that defendant’s ability to pay
criminal debt shall be assessed based on the completed Financial
Disclosure Statement and all required supporting documents, as well
as other relevant information relating to ability to pay.

k. Authorize the USAO to obtain a credit report upon
returning a signed copy of this plea agreement.

dive Consent to the USAO inspecting and copying all of
defendant’s financial documents and financial information held by the
United States Probation and Pretrial Services Office.

THE USAO’S OBLIGATIONS

3. The USAO agrees to:
a. Not contest facts agreed to in this agreement.
bi Abide by all agreements regarding sentencing contained
in this agreement.
Ce At the time of sentencing, move to dismiss the

remaining counts of the indictment for United States v. Western

Distribution, LLC, et al., ED CR No. 5:21-00170-VAP, as against

defendant. Defendant agrees, however, that at the time of sentencing

the Court may consider any dismissed charges in determining the

10
id
12
13
14
iS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ase 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document30_ Filed 08/12/21 Page4of21 Page ID #:132

applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, the propriety and extent of
any departure from that range, and the sentence to be imposed.

d. At the time of sentencing, provided that defendant
demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility for the offenses up to
and including the time of sentencing, recommend a two-level reduction
in the applicable Sentencing Guidelines offense level, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, and recommend and, if necessary, move for an
additional one-level reduction if available under that section.

e, Except for criminal tax violations (including
conspiracy to commit such violations chargeable under 18 U.S.C.

§ 371), not further criminally prosecute defendant for violations
arising out of defendant’s conduct described in the agreed-to factual
basis attached to this agreement as Exhibit 1. Defendant understands
that the USAO is free to criminally prosecute defendant for any other
unlawful past conduct or any unlawful conduct that occurs after the
date of this agreement. Defendant agrees that at the time of
sentencing the Court may consider the uncharged conduct in
determining the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, the propriety
and extent of any departure from that range, and the sentence to be
imposed after consideration of the Sentencing Guidelines and all
other relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES AND APPLICABILITY

4. This Agreement shall bind defendant, its successor
corporation(s), if any, and any other person or entity that assumes
the liabilities contained herein (“successor-in-interest”)}. No
change in name, change in corporate or individual control, business
reorganization, change in ownership, merger, change of legal status,
sale or purchase of assets, or similar action shall alter defendant’s

4

p=

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
pe
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ase 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document30 _ Filed 08/12/21 Page5of21 Page ID #:133

responsibilities under this Agreement. Defendant shall not engage in
any action to seek to avoid the obligations and conditions set forth
in this Agreement.

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

5. The parties stipulate and agree that under principles of
corporate liability and respondeat superior, as these principles
apply in this case, defendant is liable for the actions of its agents

and employees. New York Central and Hudson River R.R. v. United

States, 212 U.S. 481, 495 (1909); United States v. Beusch, 596 F.2d

871, 877-878 (Sth Cir. 1979); United States v. Hilton Hotels

Corporation, 467 F.2d 1000, 1004-1007 (9th Cir. 1972).

NATURE OF THE OFFENSES

6. Defendant understands that for defendant to be guilty of
the crime charged in count one, that is, Conspiracy to Commit Bank
Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, the following must be true:
(1) there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit bank
fraud as charged in the indictment; (2) that one or more employees of
defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing of at least one
of its objects and intending to help accomplish it; (3) that
defendant’s employee(s) that participated in the conspiracy were, at
that time, operating within the scope of their employment with
defendant and motivated, at least in part, by an intent to benefit
defendant’s business operations; and (4) one of the members of the
conspiracy performed at least one overt act on for the purpose of
carrying out the conspiracy.

Pie Defendant understands that for defendant to be guilty of
the crime charged in count three, that is, Bank Fraud, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §$§ 1344(2), the following must be true: (1) one or more

5

10
11
sae
13
14
15
16
ta
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ao
26
a
28

ase 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document30_ Filed 08/12/21 Page6of21 Page ID #:134

of defendant’s employees knowingly carried out a scheme or plan to
obtain money or property from a bank by making false statements or
promises; (2) defendant’s employee(s) knew that the statements or
promises were false; (3) the statements or promises were material,
that is, they had a natural tendency to influence, or were capable of
influencing, a financial institution to part with money or property;
(4) defendant’s employee(s) acted with the intent to defraud; (5) the
employee(s) was/were operating within the scope of his/their
employment with defendant and motivated, at least in part, by an
intent to benefit defendant’s business operations at the time scheme
or plan was carried out; and (6) the bank was federally insured.

PENALTIES AND RESTITUTION

8. Defendant understands that the statutory maximum sentence
that the Court can impose for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, is: a
fine of $1,000,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting
from the offense, whichever is greatest; a five-year period of
probation; and a mandatory special assessment of $400.

9. Defendant understands that the statutory maximum sentence
that the Court can impose for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2), is:
a fine of $1,000,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting
from the offense, whichever is greatest; a five-year period of
probation; and a mandatory special assessment of $400.

10. Defendant understands, therefore, that the total maximum
sentence for all offenses to which defendant is pleading guilty is: a
fine of $2,000,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting
from the offenses, whichever is greatest; a five-year period of

probation; and a mandatory special assessment of $800.

—
oS

bm |
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
93
20
21
22
2A
24
25
26
27
28

ase 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document30_ Filed 08/12/21 Page 7of21 Page ID #:135

ll. Defendant understands that defendant will be required to
pay full restitution to the victims of the offenses to which
defendant is pleading guilty. Defendant agrees that, in return for
the USAO’s compliance with its obligations under this agreement, the
Court may order restitution to persons other than the victims of the
offenses to which defendant is pleading guilty and in amounts greater
than those alleged in the counts to which defendant is pleading
guilty. In particular, defendant agrees that the Court may order
restitution to any victim of any of the following for any losses
suffered by that victim as a result: (a) any relevant conduct, as
defined in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, in connection with the offenses to which
defendant is pleading guilty; and (b) any counts dismissed pursuant
to this agreement as well as all relevant conduct, as defined in
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, in connection with those counts and charges. The
parties currently believe that the applicable amount of restitution
is approximately $668,427, and includes the United States Small
Business Administration and BAC Community Bank as victims, but
recognize and agree that this amount could change based on facts that
come to the attention of the parties prior to sentencing.

SUSPENSION/REVOCATION/ DEBARMENT

12. Defendant understands that if defendant holds any
regulatory license or permit, the conviction in this case may result
in the suspension or revocation of such license and/or permit. By
this Agreement, the USAO makes no representation or promise
concerning suspension or debarment of defendant from contracting with
the United States or with any office, agency, or department thereof.
Suspension and debarment of organizations convicted under various
federal regulatory protection and criminal statutes is a

%

11
12
13
14
RB)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
et
28

ase 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document30_ Filed 08/12/21 Page 8of21 Page ID #:136

discretionary administrative action solely within the authority of
the federal contracting agencies.

FACTUAL BASIS

13. Defendant admits that defendant is, in fact, guilty of the
offenses to which defendant is agreeing to plead guilty. Defendant
and the USAO agree to the statement of facts attached hereto as
Exhibit 1, and incorporated herein by reference, and agree that this
statement of facts is sufficient to support pleas of guilty to the
charges described in this agreement but is not meant to be a complete
recitation of all facts relevant to the underlying criminal conduct
or all facts known to either party that relate to that conduct.

NO AGREEMENT REGARDING SENTENCING FACTORS

14. Except as set forth in paragraph 3(d) above, defendant and
the USAO have no agreement as to the appropriate sentence or the
applicable Sentencing Guidelines factors. Except as set forth in
paragraph 3(d) above, both parties reserve the right to seek any
sentence within the statutory maximum, and to argue for any criminal
history score and category, base offense level, specific offense
characteristics, adjustments, departures, and variances.

15. Except as set forth in paragraph 3(d) above, defendant and
the USAO reserve the right to argue for a sentence outside the
sentencing range established by the Sentencing Guidelines based on
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (1), (a) (2), (a) (3),

(a) (6), and (a) (7).
WAIVER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

16. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty, defendant
gives up the following rights:
a. The right to persist in a plea of not guilty.
8

o

10
ack
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
20
26
27
28

ase 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document30_ Filed 08/12/21 Page9of21 Page ID #:137

b. The right to a speedy and public trial by jury.

Os The right to be represented by counsel at trial.
Although a corporation does not have the right to appointment of
counsel, defendant understands that it retains the right to be
represented by counsel at every other stage of the proceeding.

d. The right to be presumed innocent and to have the
burden of proof placed on the government to prove defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.

e. The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses
against defendant.

a The right to testify and to present evidence in
opposition to the charges, including the right to compel the
attendance of witnesses to testify.

g. Any and all rights to pursue any affirmative defenses,
Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment claims, and other pretrial
motions that have been filed or could be filed.

WAIVER OF APPEAL OF CONVICTION

17. Defendant understands that, with the exception of an appeal
based on a claim that defendant’s guilty pleas were involuntary, by
pleading guilty defendant is waiving and giving up any right to
appeal defendant’s convictions on the offenses to which defendant is
pleading guilty. Defendant understands that this waiver includes,
but is not limited to, arguments that the statutes to which defendant
is pleading guilty are unconstitutional, and any and all claims that
the statement of facts provided herein is insufficient to support

defendant’s pleas of guilty.

Be
13
i3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 30 _ Filed 08/12/21 Page10of21 PageID
#:138

LIMITED MUTUAL WAIVER OF APPEAL OF SENTENCE

18. Defendant agrees that, provided the Court imposes a total
term of imprisonment on all counts of conviction of no more than the
statutory maximum specified above, defendant gives up the right to
appeal all of the following: (a) the procedures and calculations used
to determine and impose any portion of the sentence; (b) the fine
imposed by the Court, provided it is within the statutory maximum;

(c) to the extent permitted by law, the constitutionality or legality
of defendant’s sentence, provided it is within the statutory maximum;
(d) the term of probation imposed by the Court, provided it is within
the statutory maximum; and (e) any of the following conditions of
probation imposed by the Court: the conditions set forth in Second
Amended General Order 20-04 of this Court.

19. The USAO agrees that, provided (a) all portions of the
sentence are at or below the statutory maximum specified above, the
USAO gives up its right to appeal any portion of the sentence.

RESULT OF WITHDRAWAL OF GUILTY PLEA

20. Defendant agrees that if, after entering guilty pleas
pursuant to this agreement, defendant seeks to withdraw and succeeds
in withdrawing defendant’s guilty pleas on any basis other than a
claim and finding that entry into this plea agreement was
involuntary, then (a) the USAO will be relieved of all of its
obligations under this agreement; and (b) should the USAO choose to
pursue any charge or any civil, administrative, or regulatory action
that was either dismissed or not filed as a result of this agreement,
then (i) any applicable statute of limitations will be tolled between
the date of defendant’s signing of this agreement and the filing
commencing any such action; and (ii) defendant waives and gives up

10

oS ©) © >

=

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
LS
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 30 _ Filed 08/12/21 Page1lof21 PageID
#:139

all defenses based on the statute of limitations, any claim of pre-
indictment delay, or any speedy trial claim with respect to any such
action, except to the extent that such defenses existed as of the
date of defendant’s signing this agreement.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT

21. This agreement is effective upon signature and execution of
all required certifications by defendant, defendant’s counsel, and an
Assistant United States Attorney.

BREACH OF AGREEMENT

22. Defendant agrees that if defendant, at any time after the
signature of this agreement and execution of all required
certifications by defendant, defendant’s counsel, and an Assistant
United States Attorney, knowingly violates or fails to perform any of
defendant’s obligations under this agreement (“a breach”), the USAO
may declare this agreement breached. All of defendant’s obligations
are material, a single breach of this agreement is sufficient for the
USAO to declare a breach, and defendant shall not be deemed to have
cured a breach without the express agreement of the USAO in writing.
If the USAO declares this agreement breached, and the Court finds
such a breach to have occurred, then: (a) if defendant has previously
entered guilty pleas pursuant to this agreement, defendant will not
be able to withdraw the guilty pleas, and (b) the USAO will be
relieved of all its obligations under this agreement.

23. Following the Court’s finding of a knowing breach of this
agreement by defendant, should the USAO choose to pursue any charge
or any Civil, administrative, or regulatory action that was either

dismissed or not filed as a result of this agreement, then:

11

Qo 4 DH FT £& WwW NH FP DOD Bb DO It KH TO SB W HS KF CO

Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 30 Filed 08/12/21 Page12of21 PageID
#:140

a. Defendant agrees that any applicable statute of
limitations is tolled between the date of defendant’s signing of this
agreement and the filing commencing any such action.

b. Defendant waives and gives up all defenses based on
the statute of limitations, any claim of pre-indictment delay, or any
speedy trial claim with respect to any such action, except to the
extent that such defenses existed as of the date of defendant’s
signing this agreement.

rot Defendant agrees that: (i) any statements made by
defendant, under oath, at the guilty plea hearing (if such a hearing
occurred prior to the breach); (ii) the agreed to factual basis
statement in this agreement; and (iii) any evidence derived from such
statements, shall be admissible against defendant in any such action
against defendant, and defendant waives and gives up any claim under
the United States Constitution, any statute, Rule 410 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence, Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, or any other federal rule, that the statements or any
evidence derived from the statements should be suppressed or are
inadmissible.

COURT AND UNITED STATES PROBATION AND PRETRIAL SERVICES

OFFICE NOT PARTIES

24. Defendant understands that the Court and the United States
Probation and Pretrial Services Office are not parties to this
agreement and need not accept any of the USAO’s sentencing
recommendations or the parties’ agreements to facts or sentencing
factors.

25. Defendant understands that both defendant and the USAO are
free to: (a) supplement the facts by supplying relevant information

12

> WW N

o> n° en °° ©) a |

12
13
14
ue]
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 30 _ Filed 08/12/21 Page13o0f21 PageID
#:141

to the United States Probation and Pretrial Services Office and the
Court, (b) correct any and all factual misstatements relating to the
Court’s Sentencing Guidelines calculations and determination of
sentence, and (c) argue on appeal and collateral review that the
Court’s Sentencing Guidelines calculations and the sentence it
chooses to impose are not error. While this paragraph permits both
the USAO and defendant to submit full and complete factual
information to the United States Probation and Pretrial Services
Office and the Court, even if that factual information may be viewed
as inconsistent with the facts agreed to in this agreement, this
paragraph does not affect defendant’s and the USAO’s obligations not
to contest the facts agreed to in this agreement.

26. Defendant understands that even if the Court ignores any
sentencing recommendation, finds facts or reaches conclusions
different from those agreed to, and/or imposes any sentence up to the
maximum established by statute, defendant cannot, for that reason,
withdraw defendant’s guilty pleas, and defendant will remain bound to
fulfill all defendant’s obligations under this agreement. Defendant
understands that no one -- not the prosecutor, defendant’s attorney,
or the Court -- can make a binding prediction or promise regarding
the sentence defendant will receive, except that it will be within
the statutory maximum.

NO ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS

27. Defendant understands that, except as set forth herein,
there are no promises, understandings, or agreements between the USAO
and defendant or defendant’s attorney, and that no additional
promise, understanding, or agreement may be entered into unless ina
writing signed by all parties or on the record in court.

13

ho
ee)

Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 30 Filed 08/12/21 Page14of21 PageID
#:142

PLEA AGREEMENT PART OF THE GUILTY PLEA HEARING

28. The parties agree that this agreement will be considered
part of the record of defendant’s guilty plea hearing as if the
entire agreement had been read into the record of the proceeding.
AGREED AND ACCEPTED
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

TRACY L. WILKISON
Acting United States Attorney

Watthew U) O'Bran August 12, 2021

MATTHEW 0’ BRIEN Date
JOSEPH O. JOHNS
Assistant United States Attorneys

Sf/2fZ7

Date

OHANSSON
Representative for

Defendant Western/Distribution, LLC
[or © ee ENV 1

MARK J. WERKSMAN, ESQ. Date /
KAREN SOSA, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendant Western

Distribution, LLC

CERTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT

As the authorized representative of the corporate defendant
Western Distribution, LLC, I have read this agreement in its
entirety. I have had enough time to review and consider this
agreement, and I have carefully and thoroughly discussed every part
of it with defendant’s attorney. As defendant’s authorized
representative, I understand the terms of this agreement, and I
voluntarily agree to those terms on behalf of defendant. I have

discussed the evidence with defendant’s attorney, and its attorney

14

10
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 30 _ Filed 08/12/21 Page15of21 PageID
#:143

has advised me of defendant’s rights, of possible pretrial motions
that might be filed, of possible defenses that might be asserted
either prior to or at trial, of the sentencing factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), of relevant Sentencing Guidelines provisions,
and of the consequences of entering into this agreement. No
promises, inducements, or representations of any kind have been made
to me or defendant other than those contained in this agreement. No
one has threatened or forced me or defendant in any way to enter into
this agreement. I am satisfied with the representation of
defendant’s attorney in this matter, and I represent that defendant
is pleading guilty because it is guilty of the charges and wishes to
take advantage of the promises set forth in this agreement, and not

for any other reason.

Le g/) SY

CARL BRADLEY J@HANSSON Date
Authorized Representative for

Defendant stern Distribution,

LLC

CERTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY

I am Western Distribution, LLC’s attorney. I have carefully and
thoroughly discussed every part of this agreement with my client and
its authorized representative. Further, I have fully advised my
client of and its authorized representative of its rights, of
possible pretrial motions that might be filed, of possible defenses
that might be asserted either prior to or at trial, of the sentencing
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), of relevant Sentencing
Guidelines provisions, and of the consequences of entering into this
agreement. To my knowledge: no promises, inducements, or

15

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Pf
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 30 _ Filed 08/12/21 Page16of21 PageID
#:144

representations of any kind have been made to my client or its
representative other than those contained in this agreement; no one
has threatened or forced my client or its representative in any way
to enter into this agreement; my client’s and its representative’s
decision to enter into this agreement is an informed and voluntary
one; and the factual basis set forth in this agreement is sufficient

to support my client’s entry of guilty pleas pursuant to this

agreement.
Mina Vv» fn)
MARK J. WERKSMAN, ESQ. Datel /

KAREN SOSA, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendant Western
Distribution, LLC

16

os

a ww

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 30 _ Filed 08/12/21 Page17of21 PageID
#:145

Exhibit 1

Statement of Facts in Support of Western Distribution, LLC’s Plea

Agreement

Carl Bradley Johansson, aka “Brad Johnson,” “Carl Johnson,” aka
“C. Brad Johanson,” aka “Jay Johnson,” aka “Keith Golatta”
(“Johansson”), controlled and operated defendant WESTERN
DISTRIBUTION, LLC.

Defendant WESTERN DISTRIBUTION, LLC, also known as (“aka”)
“Advanced Distribution, Inc.” (“defendant”), was a trucking company
based in San Bernardino County, California, that was engaged in the
business of transporting jet fuel. Agri-Comm Express, Inc. (“Agri-
comm”) was a trucking company based in Gustine, California, that was
engaged in the business of transporting agricultural products. Carl
Stefan Johansson was Johansson’s son, and the alleged owner of
defendant. L.S. was Johansson’s long-time employee and
administrative assistant at defendant.

In March 2019, Johansson founded defendant and registered it as
an LLC in Wyoming. At all times relevant to the indictment,
Johansson controlled all aspects of defendant. Defendant was based
in Buena Park, California and then Ontario, California, and focused
on the transportation of jet fuel. In September 2019, Johansson
converted defendant into Advanced Distribution, Inc. and then into
Western Distribution, Inc.

Beginning on a date unknown and continuing to July 21, 2021, in
San Bernardino County, within the Central District of California, and
elsewhere, Johansson and defendant conspired with others to execute a
scheme to defraud a federally insured financial institution, namely,

BAC Community Bank (“BAC”) in Stockton, California, as to material

WwW NM

nA Oo &

10
Ll
12
13
14
LS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 30 _ Filed 08/12/21 Page18of21 PageID
#:146

matters, and to obtain moneys and funds owned by and in the custody
and control of the bank by means of material false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations, promises, and the concealment of material
facts.

In furtherance of the conspiracy and to accomplish the objects
of the conspiracy, Johansson and defendant, and others, committed
various overt acts within the Central District of California and
elsewhere, including, but not limited to, the following:

On April 15, 2020, at Johansson’s direction, Agri-comm applied
for a PPP loan in the amount of $286,505 from Bank of the West, a
federally insured financial institution. Johansson told Agri-comm
how to fill out the responses on the PPP application. At Johansson’s
direction, Agri-comm’s PPP application claimed that Agri-comm had no
common management with any other businesses, even though Johansson
had influence over and/or controlled Agri-comm and, at the same time,
he controlled defendant and Wholesale Distribution, Inc.
(“Wholesale”). Agri-comm’s application was approved, and Agri-comm
received a PPP loan in the amount of $286,500.

On April 24, 2020, at Johansson’s direction, defendant submitted
a PPP loan application (“WESTERN’s PPP Loan Application”) to BAC,
seeking a PPP loan in the amount of $436,390. Johansson instructed
defendant’s employee L.S. regarding how to fill out the responses on
the application. As part of WESTERN’s PPP Loan Application,
Johansson caused defendant to fraudulently represent the following
material facts to BAC: (a) that defendant had the equivalent of 31
full-time employees, even though defendant had laid off most of those
employees prior to the submission of the application; and (b) that
the PPP funds defendant received would be “used to retain workers and

2

mn Wm

LO
11
12
13
14
bS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
abe
26
27
28

Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 30 _ Filed 08/12/21 Page19o0f21 PageID
#:147

maintain payroll or make mortgage interest payments, lease payments,
and utility payments, as specified under the Paycheck Protection
Rule.” At Johansson’s direction, defendant also fraudulently
represented to BAC that defendant had no common management with any
other businesses, even though Johansson controlled defendant and
Wholesale, and had influence over and/or controlled Agri-comm.

On May 5, 2020, defendant obtained a PPP loan in the amount of
$436,390 after Johansson caused its fraudulent PPP loan application
to be submitted to BAC. Between May 7, 2020 and June 11, 2020,
Johansson caused defendant to spend at least $435,000 of its PPP
loan, mostly on business expenses unrelated to its payroll, because
the company had laid off most of its employees before it even applied
for the PPP loan. On May 16, 2020, Johansson added his son, Carl
Stefan Johansson, to defendant’s payroll, even though Johansson had
previously represented in WESTERN’s PPP Loan Application that his son
already owned defendant and even though his son worked for a
different company at the time.

On approximately September 22, 2020, Johansson caused the
fraudulent transfer of 21 of Agri-comm’s employees (“Agri-comm’s 21
Employees”) to defendant’s payroll account (effective as of September
16, 2020), even though those employees continued to work for Agri-
comm rather than defendant. These same employees had been listed as
Agri-comm’s employees in Agri-comm’s PPP loan application.
Johansson’s intent in transferring the 21 Agri-comm Employees to
defendant’s payroll was to increase defendant’s payroll so that it
would look like defendant had spent at least sixty percent of its PPP
loan on its payroll, as required by the PPP, so that defendant’s
entire PPP loan could be forgiven.

3

wo NO

oe O82 YF BD OF &

Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 30 _ Filed 08/12/21 Page 200f21 PageID
#:148

Between September 16, 2020 and October 19, 2020, at Johansson’s
direction, defendant paid Agri-comm’s 21 Employees approximately
$87,722, even though Agri-comm’s 21 Employees did not work for
defendant. Between September 2020 through December 2020, at
Johansson’s direction, Agri-comm wired approximately $339,900 from
Agri-comm’s bank account to defendant’s bank account to reimburse
defendant for the money that it was using to pay Agri-comm’s 21
Employees. On December 28, 2020, Johansson sent an email to the
employee at Agri-comm who handled payroll issues, writing “[M]ake
this the last week . . . go back to your own next week.” On December
29, 2020, the employee at Agri-comm replied to Johansson, writing,
“We will go ahead and run the weekly payroll information we have you
yesterday under the Western trucker account. . . . We will go back to
everyone under the Agri-Comm Express, Inc. account next week.”

On January 19, 2021, Johansson caused defendant to submit a loan
forgiveness application (the “Loan Forgiveness Application”) to BAC,
in which defendant requested that its entire $436,390 loan be
forgiven pursuant to the PPP rules. As part of the Loan Forgiveness
Application, Johansson caused defendant to certify to BAC that “[t]he
dollar amount for which forgiveness is requested was used to pay
costs that are eligible for forgiveness” and that “[t]he information
provided in this application and the information provided in all
supporting documents and forms is true and correct in all material
respects.” As part of the Loan Forgiveness Application, Johansson
caused defendant to represent to BAC that Agri-comm’s 21 Employees
were defendant’s employees between the dates of May 5, 2020 and
October 19, 2020, and that the employees were paid approximately
$87,722 by defendant during that period, even though Agri-comm’s 21

4

10
Ll
12
3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ok
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 30 _ Filed 08/12/21 Page 21o0f21 PageID
#:149

Employees did not actually work for defendant and Agri-comm had
reimbursed defendant for those 21 Employees’ payroll expenses.

Later, on February 22, 2021, defendant represented to BAC that
defendant had three different departments and three different payroll
journals, but concealed from BAC that one of those “departments”
actually consisted of Agri-comm’s 21 Employees.

On March 24, 2021, at Johansson’s direction, defendant applied
for a second PPP loan (the “Second PPP Loan Application”), also
through BAC, seeking a PPP loan in the amount of $231,527. Again,
Johansson directed defendant regarding how to fill out the
application. As part of this Second PPP Loan Application, Johansson
caused defendant to make the following fraudulent and material
representations to BAC: that the PPP funds that defendant received
would be “used to retain workers and maintain payroll or make
mortgage interest payments, lease payments, and utility payments, as
specified under the Paycheck Protection Rule.” As part of the Second
PPP Loan Application, Johansson caused defendant to fraudulently
submit to BAC its purported payroll, yet omit to disclose a
significant, material fact to BAC, namely, that many of the
individuals that it had listed as its own employees were actually
employed by Agri-comm rather than defendant. Johansson again caused
defendant to claim to BAC, falsely, that defendant had no common
management with any other businesses.

On March 24, 2021, as a result of its submission of the
fraudulent Second PPP Loan Application, defendant obtained a PPP loan

in the amount of $231,527.

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.826563.30.0.pdf

Size

6,213,595 bytes

SHA-256

59a3d0bd61285427acdf3b87efc85ce503513b9a79b5386d318c06b0188a9166

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.826563.30.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)