Indictment — United States v. Damisha Brown, et al.

Summary

A grand jury indictment in United States v. Damisha Brown, et al., No. 2:24-cr-00192, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, filed November 19, 2024 as Document 1. It charges Kisha Sutton, Shamiese Wright, Cylena Sutton, Rahmel Meekins, William Powell, Damisha Brown and Jasmine Spencer with conspiracy to commit bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and with bank fraud counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and 2. The indictment alleges that from about April 2021 to July 2021 Kisha Sutton caused fraudulent PPP loan applications and Schedules C to be submitted for the others in exchange for up to 25 percent of the funded amount, and that the scheme caused at least $140,625 in fraudulent PPP loans. It lists loans of $15,625 funded by three non-bank lenders and seeks forfeiture money judgments against each defendant.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ~~
CHARLESTON GRAND JURY 2024
NOVEMBER 19, 2024 SESSION

FILED

NOV | 9 2024

+
My,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA a rt
v. crmmInan No. 7, 2Y-crof/g9Z

18 U.S.C. § 1349

18 U.S.C. § 1344 & 2

KISHA SUTTON
SHAMIESE WRIGHT
CYLENA SUTTON
RAHMEL MEEKINS
WILLIAM POWELL
DAMISHA BROWN
JASMINE SPENCER

ZNPLEEMERE
The Grand Jury Charges:

At all times material to this Indictment:

Introduction

Ls Beginning no later than in or about April 2021, and

continuing until at least in or about July 2021,

at or near

Charleston, Kanawha County, West Virginia, within the Southern

District of West Virginia and elsewhere, defendants KISHA SUTTON,

SHAMIESE WRIGHT, CYLENA SUTTON, RAHMEL MEEKINS, WILLIAM POWELL,

DAMISHA BROWN, and JASMINE SPENCER, and Lydia Spencer, named but
not indicted, conspired with each other and persons both known and
unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit bank fraud, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1344 by applying for and obtaining fraudulent Paycheck
Protection Program (“PPP”) loans from financial institutions. The
scheme caused at least $140,625 in fraudulent PPP loans to be
issued to ineligible borrowers and for the funds to be used on
ineligible expenses.

2 Defendant KISHA SUTTON caused the preparation and
submission of fraudulent PPP loan applications and IRS Forms 1040
Schedule C (“Schedule C”) on behalf of her co-conspirators in
exchange for up to 25 percent of the total funded amount. The
Schedules C qualified the borrowers for a loan amount they were
not eligible to receive by either reporting income for nonexistent
businesses or inflating the income of existing businesses.

The Paycheck Protection Program

3. On March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“The CARES
Act”), an economic stimulus bill that, among other things, provided
emergency assistance to small business owners, including
agricultural businesses, and nonprofit organizations in all U.S.
states, Washington D.C., and territories affected by the COVID-19

pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the
authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small
businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through
a program referred to as the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).
Additional PPP funding was authorized in legislation enacted on or
about December 27, 2020, and March 11, 2021.

4. As discussed more fully below, the PPP, which was
operated by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), provided
small businesses with funding to meet specific business
obligations, including payroll and rent. The PPP permitted
participating third-party lenders to approve and disburse
SBA-backed PPP loans to cover payroll, fixed debts, utilities,
rent/mortgage payments, accounts payable, and other bills incurred
by qualifying businesses during, and resulting from, the COVID-19
pandemic. PPP loans were fully guaranteed by the SBA. In the event
of default, the SBA would fully satisfy the lender for any balance
remaining on the loan. Further, the SBA would forgive any loan up
to 100 percent if the borrower utilized 60 percent of the loan on
payroll costs in the 24-week period post-disbursement, with the
remaining 40 percent going toward covered expenses including:
mortgage interest payments, rent payments, utilities, operations

expenditures, property damage costs, supplier costs, and worker
protection expenditures. Whatever portion was not forgiven was
serviced as a loan.

5. The SBA promulgated regulations concerning eligibility
for a PPP loan. Individuals who operated a business under a “sole
proprietorship” business structure were eligible for a PPP loan.
To qualify for a PPP loan, individuals had to report and document
their income and expenses from the sole proprietorship, as
typically reported to the Internal Revenue Service on a Schedule
C for a given tax year. As with other PPP loans, this information
and supporting documentation was used to calculate the amount of
money the individual was entitled to receive under the PPP. The
maximum loan amount for a sole proprietor with no employees was
$20,833.

6. A PPP loan application was processed by the third-party
participating lender with whom the application was filed. If a PPP
loan application was approved, the participating lender would fund
the PPP loan. To encourage PPP loans to be issued, the loan was
guaranteed by the SBA. Data from the application, including
information from the borrower, the total amount of the loan, and
the listed number of employees, was transmitted by the lender to

the SBA while processing the loan.
7. The proceeds of a PPP loan were not permitted to be used
by the borrowers to purchase consumer goods, automobiles, personal
residences, clothing, jewelry, to pay the borrower’s personal
federal income taxes, and to fund the borrower’s ordinary
day-to-day living expenses unrelated to the specified authorized
expenses.

The Co-Conspirators and the Financial Institutions

8. Defendant KISHA SUTTON was a resident of Jersey City,
Hudson County, New Jersey. Defendant KISHA SUTTON caused the
creation and submission of fraudulent PPP applications for her
co-conspirators, and she received kickbacks from her
co-conspirators for her assistance.

91. Defendant SHAMIESE WRIGHT was a resident of Charleston,
Kanawha County, West Virginia. Defendant SHAMIESE WRIGHT recruited
at least one other co-conspirator, Lydia Spencer, not named as a
defendant herein, to join the conspiracy. Defendant SHAMIESE
WRIGHT authorized defendant KISHA SUTTON to apply for a fraudulent
PPP loan on her behalf. As a result, defendant SHAMIESE WRIGHT
received fraudulent PPP loan proceeds and paid a portion of the
proceeds to defendant KISHA SUTTON as a kickback for applying for

the loan.
r

10. Defendant CYLENA SUTTON was a resident of Charleston,
Kanawha County, West Virginia. Defendant CYLENA SUTTON authorized
defendant KISHA SUTTON to apply for two fraudulent PPP loans on
her behalf. As a result, defendant CYLENA SUTTON received
fraudulent PPP loan proceeds and paid a portion of the proceeds to
defendant KISHA SUTTON as a kickback for applying for the loans.

11. Defendant RAHMEL MEEKINS was a resident of South
Charleston, Kanawha County, West Virginia. Defendant RAHMEL
MEEKINS authorized defendant KISHA SUTTON to apply for a fraudulent
PPP loan on his behalf. As a result, defendant RAHMEL MEEKINS
received fraudulent PPP loan proceeds and paid a portion of the
proceeds to defendant KISHA SUTTON as a kickback for applying for
the loan.

12. Defendant WILLIAM POWELL was a resident of Huntington,
Cabell County, West Virginia. Defendant WILLIAM POWELL authorized
defendant KISHA SUTTON to apply for a fraudulent PPP loan on his
behalf. As a result, defendant WILLIAM POWELL received fraudulent
PPP loan proceeds and paid a portion of the proceeds to defendant
KISHA SUTTON as a kickback for applying for the loan.

13. Defendant DAMISHA BROWN was a resident of Charleston,
Kanawha County, West Virginia. Defendant DAMISHA BROWN authorized

defendant KISHA SUTTON to apply for a fraudulent PPP loan on her
behalf. As a result, defendant DAMISHA BROWN received fraudulent
PPP loan proceeds and paid a portion of the proceeds to defendant
KISHA SUTTON as a kickback for applying for the loan.

14. Defendant JASMINE SPENCER was a resident of Charleston,
Kanawha County, West Virginia. Defendant JASMINE SPENCER
authorized defendant KISHA SUTTON to apply for a fraudulent PPP
loan on her behalf. As a result, defendant JASMINE SPENCER received
fraudulent PPP loan proceeds and paid a portion of the proceeds to
defendant KISHA SUTTON as a kickback for applying for the loan.

15. Lydia Spencer, named but not indicted, was a resident of
Charleston, Kanawha County, West Virginia. Lydia Spencer
authorized defendant KISHA SUTTON to apply for a fraudulent PPP
loan on her behalf, received fraudulent PPP loan proceeds, and
paid a portion of the proceeds to defendant KISHA SUTTON as a
kickback.

16. Financial Institution 1 was a non-bank financial
institution as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 20 headquartered in Laguna
Hills, California. Financial Institution 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.

17. Financial Institution 2 was a non-bank financial

institution as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 20 headquartered in Lake
Mary, Florida. Financial Institution 2 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.

18. Financial Institution 3 was a non-bank financial
institution as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 20 headquartered in Coral
Gables, Florida. Financial Institution 3 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.
COUNT ONE
The Conspiracy

19. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 18 are
hereby realleged and incorporated herein.

20. Beginning no later than in or about April 2021, and
continuing until at least in or about July 2021, at or near
Charleston, Kanawha County, West Virginia, within the Southern
District of West Virginia, and elsewhere, defendants KISHA SUTTON,
SHAMIESE WRIGHT, CYLENA SUTTON, RAHMEL MEEKINS, WILLIAM POWELL,
DAMISHA BROWN, and JASMINE SPENCER, and Lydia Spencer, named but
not indicted, knowingly and intentionally conspired with each
other and with other persons both known and unknown to the Grand
Jury, to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, that
is, to knowingly execute a scheme and artifice to defraud Financial
Institutions 1, 2, and 3, and to obtain moneys, funds, credits,
assets, securities, and other property owned by, and under the
custody and control of Financial Institutions 1, 2, and 3 by means
of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises
made in PPP loan applications and Schedules C.

21. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendants

committed the following acts:
Manner and Means

22. Defendant KISHA SUTTON caused the creation and
submission of PPP loan applications on behalf of defendants
SHAMIESE WRIGHT, CYLENA SUTTON, RAHMEL MEEKINS, WILLIAM POWELL,
DAMISHA BROWN, and JASMINE SPENCER, and Lydia Spencer, named but
not indicted, (hereinafter “the co-conspirators”) and with the
authorization of each of the co-conspirators in exchange for
payment from the fraudulent PPP loan proceeds.

23. In the applications, defendant KISHA SUTTON falsely
stated either the existence of a sole proprietorship prior to the
pandemic that generated $75,000 in gross income or greatly inflated
the revenues of any “businesses” that did exist in 2020.

24. Defendant KISHA SUTTON also caused the creation of
fictitious Schedules C to support each of the fraudulent PPP loan
applications that would be submitted to Financial Institutions 1,
2, and 3 on behalf of the co-conspirators. These Schedule Cs
falsely stated that defendant KISHA SUTTON’s co-conspirators had
operated sole proprietorships in 2020 that had $75,000 in gross
receipts or sales.

25. Financial Institutions 1, 27 and 3 received the

applications and Schedules C and funded the PPP loans.

10
Case 2:24-cr-00192

Document 1 ‘Filed 11/19/24

Page 11 of 33 PagelD #: 11

26. Once the PPP loans were funded, the co-conspirators paid
defendant KISHA SUTTON up to 25 percent of the total funded amount
of the PPP loans for her assistance. The co-conspirators kept the
remainder of the funds and spent the money on ineligible expenses.

27. On or about the dates listed below, defendant KISHA
SUTTON caused the submission of the following false PPP loan
applications on behalf of her which

co-conspirators, were

ultimately funded by Financial Institutions 1,

and 3:

DATE (on or | CO-CONSPIRATOR / FINANCIAL FUNDED AMOUNT

about) BORROWER INSTITUTION
a. 4/19/2021 SHAMIESE WRIGHT 3 $15,625
lore 4/11/2021 CYLENA SUTTON 1 $15,625
Gis 4/14/2021 CYLENA SUTTON 1 $15,625
d. 4/11/2021 RAHMEL MEEKINS 1 $15,625
e. 4/22/2021 WILLIAM POWELL 3 $15,625
Fs 4/25/2021 DAMISHA BROWN 1 $15,625
g. 5/27/2021 JASMINE SPENCER 1 $15,625
h. 4/8/2021 Lydia Spencer 1 $15,625
i. 4/8/2021 Lydia Spencer 2 $15,625

28. On or about the dates listed below,

paid defendant KISHA SUTTON for her services.

the co-conspirators

DATES (on or about) CO-CONSPIRATOR TOTAL AMOUNT
a. 5/7/2021 - 5/21/2021 SHAMIESE WRIGHT $3,000
b. 4/20/2021 -— 5/4/2021 CYLENA SUTTON $2,500
Gs 4/23/2021 -— 4/30/2021 RAHMEL MEEKINS $1,650
d. 7/6/2021 -— 7/20/2021 WILLIAM POWELL $2,000
e. 4/30/2021 - 5/27/2021 DAMISHA BROWN $3,500
f. 6/30/2021 - 7/9/2021 JASMINE SPENCER $3,000
g. 5/3/2021 - 6/21/2021 Lydia Spencer $4,000

11

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344

and 1349.

L2
COUNT TWO

29. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 are
hereby realleged and incorporated herein.

30. Between no later than on or about April 19, 2021, and
continuing until at least on or about May 21, 2021, defendants
KISHA SUTTON and SHAMIESE WRIGHT, aided and abetted by each other,
knowingly executed and attempted to execute the above-mentioned
scheme.

31. On or about April 19, 2021, defendant KISHA SUTTON caused
the submission of a PPP loan application and a Schedule C to
Financial Institution 3 on behalf of defendant SHAMIESE WRIGHT and
with defendant SHAMIESE WRIGHT’s authorization.

32. The application and the Schedule C stated that defendant
SHAMIESE WRIGHT was a sole proprietor of a business that was
established on January 1, 2017. The application stated that in
2020, the business had a gross income of $75,000. As part of the
application, a 2020 Schedule C was submitted listing gross receipts
of $75,000 and a net profit of $48,750.

33. In fact, defendant SHAMIESE WRIGHT did not have a
business in 2020 with those gross receipts and profit. Defendant
SHAMIESE WRIGHT’s 2020 tax return listed $21,716 in wages and no

business income or expenses. Defendant SHAMIESE WRIGHT applied for

13
unemployment compensation throughout 2020 and stated, several
times, that she was not self-employed.

34. Financial Institution 3 funded defendant SHAMIESE
WRIGHT’s PPP loan for $15,625 on or about May 7, 2021.

35. Between on or about May 7, 2021, and on or about May 21,
2021, Defendant SHAMIESE WRIGHT, within the Southern District of
West Virginia, remitted $3,000 of the fraudulent PPP loan proceeds
to defendant KISHA SUTTON. Defendant SHAMIESE WRIGHT spent the
remainder of the PPP loan proceeds on personal, ineligible
expenses.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344

and 2.

14
COUNT THREE

36. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 are
hereby realleged and incorporated herein.

37. Between no later than on or about April 11, 2021, and
continuing until at least on or about May 2, 2021, defendants KISHA
SUTTON and CYLENA SUTTON, aided and abetted by each other,
knowingly executed and attempted to execute the above-mentioned
scheme.

38. On or about April 11, 2021, defendant KISHA SUTTON caused
the submission of a PPP loan application and an IRS Form Schedule
C to Financial Institution 1 on behalf of defendant CYLENA SUTTON
and with defendant CYLENA SUTTON’s authorization.

39. The application and the Schedule C stated that defendant
CYLENA SUTTON was a sole proprietor of a business that was
established on January 1, 2017. The application stated that in
2020, the business had a gross income of $75,000. As part of the
application, a 2020 Schedule C was submitted listing gross receipts
of $75,000 and a net profit of $48,750.

40. In fact, defendant CYLENA SUTTON did not have a business
in 2020 with those gross receipts and profit. Defendant CYLENA
SUTTON’s 2020 tax return listed $6,791 in wages and no business

income or expenses. Defendant CYLENA SUTTON applied for

15
unemployment compensation throughout 2020 and_ stated, several
times, that she was not self-employed.

41. Financial Institution 1 funded defendant CYLENA SUTTON’s
PPP loan for $15,625 on or about April 20, 2021.

42. Between on or about April 20, 2021, and on or about April
27, 2021, defendant CYLENA SUTTON, within the Southern District of
West Virginia, remitted $2,000 of the fraudulent PPP loan proceeds
to defendant KISHA SUTTON. Defendant CYLENA SUTTON spent the
remainder of the PPP loan proceeds on. personal, ineligible
expenses.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344

and 2.

6
COUNT FOUR

43. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 and
36 through 42 are hereby realleged and incorporated herein.

44, Between no later than on or about April 14, 2021, and
continuing until at least on or about May 4, 2021, defendants KISHA
SUTTON and CYLENA SUTTON, aided and abetted by each other,
knowingly executed and attempted to execute the above-mentioned
scheme.

45. On or about April 14, 2021, defendant KISHA SUTTON caused
the submission of a second PPP loan application and a second
Schedule C to Financial Institution 1 on behalf of defendant CYLENA
SUTTON and with defendant CYLENA SUTTON’s authorization.

46. The second application mirrored the first. It and the
Schedule C stated that defendant CYLENA SUTTON was ae sole
proprietor of a business that was established on January 1, 2017.
The application stated that in 2020, the business had a gross
income of $75,000. As part of the application, a 2020 Schedule C
was submitted listing gross receipts of $75,000 and a net profit
of $48,750.

47. As previously stated, in fact, defendant CYLENA SUTTON
did not have a business in 2020 with those gross receipts and

profit. Defendant CYLENA SUTTON’s 2020 tax return listed $6,791 in

17
wages and no business income or expenses. Defendant CYLENA SUTTON
applied for unemployment compensation throughout 2020 and stated,
several times, that she was not self-employed.

48. Financial Institution 1 funded defendant CYLENA SUTTON’s
second PPP loan for $15,625 on or about May 2, 2021.

49. On or about May 4, 2021, defendant CYLENA SUTTON, within
the Southern District of West Virginia, remitted $500 of the
fraudulent PPP loan proceeds to defendant KISHA SUTTON. Defendant
CYLENA SUTTON spent the remainder of the PPP loan proceeds on
personal, ineligible expenses.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344

and 2.

18
COUNT FIVE

50. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 are
hereby realleged and incorporated herein.

51. Between no later than on or about April 11, 2021, and
continuing until at least on or about April 30, 2021, defendants
KISHA SUTTON and RAHMEL MEEKINS, aided and abetted by each other,
knowingly executed and attempted to execute the above-mentioned
scheme.

52. On or about April 11, 2021, defendant KISHA SUTTON caused
the submission of a PPP loan application and a Schedule C to
Financial Institution 1 on behalf of defendant RAHMEL MEEKINS and
with defendant RAHMEL MEEKINS’s authorization.

53. The application and the Schedule C stated that defendant
RAHMEL MEEKINS was a sole proprietor of a business that was
established on January 1, 2017. The application stated that in
2020, the business had a gross income of $75,000. As part of the
application, a 2020 Schedule C was submitted listing gross receipts
of $75,000 and a net profit of $48,750.

54. In fact, defendant RAHMEL MEEKINS did not have a business
in 2020 with those gross receipts and profit. Defendant RAHMEL
MEEKINS’s 2020 tax return listed $8,754 in wages and no business

income or expenses. Defendant RAHMEL MEEKINS applied for

Lg
unemployment compensation throughout 2020 and stated, several
times, that he was not self-employed.

55. Financial Institution 1 funded defendant RAHMEL
MEEKINS’s PPP loan for $15,625 on or about April 23, 2021.

56. Between on or about April 23, 2021, and on or about April
30, 2021, defendant RAHMEL MEEKINS, within the Southern District
of West Virginia, remitted $1,650 of the fraudulent PPP loan
proceeds to defendant KISHA SUTTON. Defendant RAHMEL MEEKINS spent
the remainder of the PPP loan proceeds on personal, ineligible
expenses.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344

and 2.

20
COUNT SIX

57. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 are
hereby realleged and incorporated herein.

58. Between no later than on or about April 19, 2021, and
continuing until at least on or about July 20, 2021, defendants
KISHA SUTTON and WILLIAM POWELL, aided and abetted by each other,
knowingly executed and attempted to execute the above-mentioned
scheme.

59. On or about April 19, 2021, defendant KISHA SUTTON caused
the submission of a PPP loan application and an IRS Form Schedule
C to Financial Institution 3 on behalf of defendant WILLIAM POWELL
and with defendant WILLIAM POWELL’s authorization.

60. The application and the Schedule C stated that defendant
WILLIAM POWELL was a sole proprietor of a business that was
established on January 1, 2017. The application stated that in
2020, the business had a gross income of $75,000. As part of the
application, a 2020 Schedule C was submitted listing gross receipts
of $75,000 and a net profit of $48,750.

61. In fact, defendant WILLIAM POWELL did not have a business
in 2020 with those gross receipts and profit. Defendant WILLIAM
POWELL applied for unemployment compensation throughout 2020 and

stated, several times, that he was not self-employed.

21
62. Financial Institution 3 funded defendant WILLIAM
POWELL’s PPP loan for $15,625 on or about June 29, 2021.

63. Between on or about July 6, 2021, and on or about July
20, 2021, defendant WILLIAM POWELL, within the Southern District
of West Virginia, remitted $2,000 of the fraudulent PPP loan
proceeds to defendant KISHA SUTTON. Defendant WILLIAM POWELL spent
the remainder of the PPP loan proceeds on personal, ineligible
expenses.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344

and 2.

22
COUNT SEVEN

64. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 are
hereby realleged and incorporated herein.

65. Between no later than on or about April 25, 2021, and
continuing until at least on or about May 27, 2021, defendants
KISHA SUTTON and DAMISHA BROWN, aided and abetted by each other,
knowingly executed and attempted to execute the above-mentioned
scheme.

66. On or about April 25, 2021, defendant KISHA SUTTON caused
the submission of a PPP loan application and a Schedule C to
Financial Institution 1 on behalf of defendant DAMISHA BROWN and
with defendant DAMISHA BROWN’s authorization.

67. The application and the Schedule C stated that defendant
DAMISHA BROWN was a sole proprietor of a business that was
established on January 1, 2017. The application stated that in
2020, the business had a gross income of $75,000. As part of the
application, a 2020 Schedule C was submitted listing gross receipts
of $75,000 and a net profit of $48,750.

68. In fact, defendant DAMISHA BROWN did not have a business
in 2020 with those gross receipts and profit. Defendant DAMISHA
BROWN’s 2020 tax return listed $668 in wages and no business income

or expenses. Defendant DAMISHA BROWN applied for unemployment

23
compensation throughout 2020 and stated, several times, that she
was not self-employed.

69. Financial Institution 1 funded defendant DAMISHA BROWN’s
PPP loan for $15,625 on or about April 30, 2021.

70. Between on or about April 30, 2021, and on or about May
27, 2021, defendant DAMISHA BROWN, within the Southern District of
West Virginia, remitted $3,500 of the fraudulent PPP loan proceeds
to defendant KISHA SUTTON. Defendant DAMISHA BROWN spent the
remainder of the PPP loan proceeds on personal, ineligible
expenses.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344

and 2.

24
COUNT EIGHT

71. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 are
hereby realleged and incorporated herein.

72. Between no later than on or about May 27, 2021, and
continuing until at least on or about July 9, 2021, defendants
KISHA SUTTON and JASMINE SPENCER, aided and abetted by each other,
knowingly executed and attempted to execute the above-mentioned
scheme.

73. On or about May 27, 2021, defendant KISHA SUTTON caused
the submission of a PPP loan application and a Schedule C to
Financial Institution 1 on behalf of defendant JASMINE SPENCER and
with defendant JASMINE SPENCER’s authorization.

74. The application and the Schedule C stated that defendant
JASMINE SPENCER was a sole proprietor of a business that was
established on January 1, 2017. The application stated that in
2020, the business had a gross income of $75,000. As part of the
application, a 2020 Schedule C was submitted listing gross receipts
of $75,000 and a net profit of $48,750.

75. In fact, defendant JASMINE SPENCER did not have a
business in 2020 with those gross receipts and profit. Defendant
JASMINE SPENCER applied for unemployment compensation throughout

2020 and stated, several times, that she was not self-employed.

yas)
76. ‘Financial Institution 1 funded defendant JASMINE
SPENCER’s PPP loan for $15,625 on or about June 28, 2021.

77. Between on or about June 30, 2021, and on or about July
9, 2021, defendant JASMINE SPENCER, within the Southern District
of West Virginia, remitted $3,000 of the fraudulent PPP loan
proceeds to defendant KISHA SUTTON. Defendant JASMINE SPENCER
spent the remainder of the PPP loan proceeds on _ personal,
ineligible expenses.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344

and 2.

26
COUNT NINE

78. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 are
hereby realleged and incorporated herein.

79. Between no later than on or about April 8, 2021, and
continuing until at least on or about June 21, 2021, defendants
KISHA SUTTON and SHAMIESE WRIGHT and Lydia Spencer, named but not
indicted, aided and abetted by each other, knowingly executed and
attempted to execute the above-mentioned scheme.

80. No later than on or about April 8, 2021, defendant
SHAMIESE WRIGHT recruited Lydia Spencer to participate in the
scheme. At or around the same time, Lydia Spencer provided her
personal and banking information to defendant SHAMIESE WRIGHT for
use in fraudulent PPP applications.

81. On or about April 8, 2021, KISHA SUTTON caused the
submission of a PPP loan application and a Schedule C to Financial
Institution 2 on behalf of Lydia Spencer and with Lydia Spencer’s
authorization.

82. The application and the Schedule C stated that Lydia
Spencer was a sole proprietor of a business, “Les Prints,” that
was established on January 1, 2016. The application stated that in

2020, the business had a gross income of $75,000. As part of the

27
application, a 2020 Schedule C was submitted listing gross receipts
of $75,000 and a net profit of $48,750.

83. In fact, Les Prints did not have those gross receipts
and profit in 2020. Additionally, Lydia Spencer never submitted
the fraudulent Schedule C to the IRS.

84. Financial Institution 2 funded Lydia Spencer’s PPP loan
for $15,625 on or about April 30, 2021.

85. Between on or about May 3, 2021, and on or about May 17,
2021, Lydia Spencer, within the Southern District of West Virginia,
remitted $3,000 of the fraudulent PPP loan proceeds to defendant
KISHA SUTTON. Lydia Spencer spent the remainder of the PPP loan
proceeds on personal, ineligible expenses.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344

and 2.

28
iN
¢

COUNT TEN

86. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 and
78 through 85 are hereby realleged and incorporated herein.

87. Between no later than on or about April 8, 2021, and
continuing until at least on or about June 21, 2021, defendant
KISHA SUTTON and Lydia Spencer, named but not indicted, aided and
abetted by each other, knowingly executed and attempted to execute
the above-mentioned scheme.

88. On or about April 8, 2021, KISHA SUTTON caused the
submission of a PPP loan application and a Schedule C to Financial
Institution 1 on behalf of Lydia Spencer and with Lydia Spencer’s
authorization.

89. The application and the Schedule C stated that Lydia
Spencer was a sole proprietor of a business, “Les Prints,” that
was established on January 1, 2016. The application stated that in
2020, the business had a gross income of $75,000. As part of the
application, a 2020 Schedule C was submitted listing gross receipts
of $75,000 and a net profit of $48,750.

90. In fact, Les Prints did not have those gross receipts
and profit in 2020. Additionally, Lydia Spencer never submitted

the fraudulent Schedule C to the IRS.

29
91. Financial Institution 1 funded Lydia Spencer’s PPP loan
for $15,625 on or about June 21, 2021.

92. On or about June 21, 2021, Lydia Spencer, within the
Southern District of West Virginia, remitted $1,000 of the
fraudulent PPP loan proceeds to defendant KISHA SUTTON. Lydia
Spencer spent the remainder of the PPP loan proceeds on personal,
ineligible expenses.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344

and 2.

30
FORFEITURE

1. The allegations contained in Counts 1 through 10 of this
Indictment are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for
the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§
981(a) (1) (C) and 982(a) (2), and 28 U.S.C. 2461 (c).

2. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 (a)(1)(C), 982(a) (2), 28
U.S.C. § 2461(c) and Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, upon conviction of the offenses in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1349, as set forth in Count 1 of this Indictment, or
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2, as set forth in Counts 2
through 10 of this Indictment, any defendant so convicted shall
forfeit to the United States of America any property constituting,
or derived from, proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a
result of such violation(s).

4. The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited
to:

a. a money judgment in at least the amount of $19,650, such
amount constituting the proceeds of violations set forth
in this Indictment regarding KISHA SUTTON;

b. a money judgment in at least the amount of $12,625, such
amount constituting the proceeds of violations set forth

in this Indictment regarding SHAMIESE WRIGHT;

31
4

c. a money judgment in at least the amount of $28,750, such

amount constituting the proceeds of violations set forth

in this Indictment regarding CYLENA SUTTON;

d. a money judgment in at least the amount of $13,975, such

amount constituting the proceeds of violations set forth

in this Indictment regarding RAHMEL MEEKINS;

e. a money judgment in at least the amount of $13,975, such

amount constituting the proceeds of violations set forth

in this Indictment regarding WILLIAM POWELL;

f. a money judgment in at least the amount of $12,125, such

amount constituting the proceeds of violations set forth

in this Indictment regarding DAMISHA BROWN; and

g. a money judgment in at least the amount of $12,625, such

amount constituting the proceeds of violations set forth

in this Indictment regarding JASMINE SPENCER.

5. 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;

has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with,
a third party;

has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the
court;

has been substantially diminished in value; or

32
e. has been commingled with other property which
cannot be divided without difficulty,

the United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of
substitute property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated
by 18 U.S.C. § 982(b) (1) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981
(a) (1) (C), 982(a) (2) and Title 28, United States Code, Section

2461 (c).

WILLIAM S. THOMPSON
United States Attorney

By: ‘
Hilly J/# Wilson
Assistant United States Attorney

33

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240502.1.0.pdf

Size

9,530,821 bytes

SHA-256

c0f332b572296d96716b4e66b06354f50b320e64a024c8c140aaf7ae7479687a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240502.1.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)