Court filing
Criminal Information — United States v. Dara Buck, a.k.a. Dara Butler
Filed May 13, 2022 in U.S. v. Dara Butler; one of 7 filings from this case.
No. 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR · Doc. 1 · 2022-05-13 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 10
FILED
John E. Triplett, Clerk of Court
United States District Court
By jburrell at 2:48 pm, May 13, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) INFORMATION NO. FU
)
v. ) 18 U.S.C. § 371
) Conspiracy to Commit an Offense
DARA BUCK ) Against the United States
A.K.A. DARA BUTLER )
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CHARGES THAT:
Introduction
At all times material to this Information:
1. Beginning no later than August 2017 and continuing through at least
May 2021, DARA BUCK, together with known and unknown co-conspirators, in the
Southern District of Georgia and elsewhere, conspired to engage in multiple schemes
to defraud the United States government.
2. BUCK, an active duty solider in the Army (Chief Warrant Officer 2)
stationed at Fort Stewart, Georgia, at the time of these events, lead a prolific fraud
scheme. BUCK and her co-conspirators submitted more than 150 fraudulent Payroll
Protection Program loan applications for COVID-19 relief funds. She and her co-
conspirators also submitted more than a dozen fraudulent student loan discharge
applications to the United States Department of Education. These schemes
ultimately caused millions of dollars in losses to the United States.
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 2 of 10
Background
A. The Small Business Administration
3. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was
a federal law enacted in or about March 2020 designed to provide emergency financial
assistance to the millions who are suffering the economic effects caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic.
4. Among other relief efforts, the United States sought to provide financial
support to eligible businesses that could be used to offset certain business expenses.
5. The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) is an executive branch
agency of the United States government that provides support to entrepreneurs and
small businesses. The SBA is headquartered in Washington, DC and maintains its
computer servers outside of the State of Georgia. The SBA’s mission is to maintain
and strengthen the nation’s economy by enabling the establishment and viability of
small businesses and by assisting in the economic recovery of communities after
disasters.
6. As part of this effort, the SBA enables and provides for loans through
banks, credit unions, and other lenders. These loans have government-backed
guarantees. In addition, the SBA provides loans that come directly from the U.S.
Government.
7. 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
2
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 3 of 10
Program (“PPP”). In or around April 2020, Congress authorized over $300 billion in
additional PPP funding.
8. To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business had to submit a PPP loan
application signed by an authorized representative of the business. The PPP loan
application required 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) had to state, among other things, its: (a)
average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of employees. These figures were
then used to calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible to receive
under the PPP. In addition, a business applying for a PPP loan had to provide
documentation showing its payroll expenses.
9. A PPP loan application must be processed by a participating lender,
such as a financial institution. If a PPP loan is approved, the participating lender
funds the PPP loan using its own monies, which are 100% guaranteed by the SBA.
Data from the application, including the information about the borrower, the total
amount of the loan, and the listed number of employees, is transmitted by the lender
to the SBA in the course of processing the loan.
10. The PPP loan proceeds must be used by the business on certain
permissible expenses—payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The
PPP allows the interest and principal of the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven if the
business spends the loan proceeds on these expense items within a designated period
3
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 4 of 10
of time and uses a certain percentage of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.
B. The Department of Education
11. Pursuant to Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (“Title IV”), as
amended, the Department of Education (the “Department”) oversees federal financial
aid programs that provide financial assistance to qualifying applicants.
12. Under Title IV, student loan borrowers with a total and permanent
disability (“TPD”) qualify to have the following loans discharged: William D. Ford
Direct Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, Federal Perkins
Loan Program, and Federal Perkins Loan Program (collectively, “Federal Student
Loans”).
13. To qualify for a TPD based discharge, an applicant had to electronically
submit an application to Nelnet, third-party contractor and servicer acting on behalf
of the Department. A TPD discharge applicant could make a TPD showing by
providing Nelnet with supporting documentation from three sources during the
timeframe of the conspiracy: (1) the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); (2) the
Social Security Administration; or (3) a physician’s certification.
14. With respect to the VA, an applicant was eligible for a TPD Federal
Student Loan discharge if the veteran had received a determination that the veteran
had a service-connected disability that is 100% disabling and/or the veteran had a
determination that the veteran was totally disabled based on an individual
unemployability rating.
4
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 5 of 10
COUNT ONE
Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States
18 U.S.C. § 371
15. Beginning no later than August 2017 and continuing through at least
May 2021, in Liberty County, within the Southern District of Georgia, and elsewhere,
the defendant, DARA BUCK, aided and abetted by others, did knowingly and
willfully combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with at least one other person to
commit the following offenses against the United States, that is:
a. wire fraud, that is to devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing
the schemes and artifice and to obtain money and property, caused to be
transmitted wires and signals in interstate and foreign commerce, namely
interstate communications to be made over the internet, in furtherance of
the scheme and artifice to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and
b. to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the Department, specifically its
student aid programs, of money by means of false and fraudulent promises,
representations, and pretenses, in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a).
The PPP Scheme
16. One object of the conspiracy was for BUCK and her co-conspirators to
unjustly enrich themselves by making fraudulent PPP applications to the SBA and
to financial institutions, to unlawfully induce the SBA and PPP lenders to dispense
5
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 6 of 10
money and funds to coconspirators to which they were not entitled, and who, in turn,
would pay a fee to BUCK.
17. In furtherance of this scheme, and to effect the objects thereof, the
following acts were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy:
a. It was part of the conspiracy that BUCK filed fraudulent online PPP loan
applications to lenders located outside of the State of Georgia on behalf of
several businesses that she purportedly owned. For each of these
businesses, BUCK falsely represented that the respective business had
approximately $100,000 in 2019 gross income and a monthly payroll of
approximately $8,333.30. Defendant did so in order to receive PPP loans of
approximately $20,833.00 each, which represents the maximum PPP loan
available for a business that employs a single employee. BUCK secured
more than $100,000 in fraudulent loans on behalf of her purported
businesses.
b. It was also part of the conspiracy that BUCK, and other co-conspirators,
known and unknown, filled out fraudulent PPP loan applications for other
individuals and businesses in exchange for a fee. BUCK and her co-
conspirators utilized cellular devices, email, and the internet to create these
fraudulent PPP applications. Co-conspirators would send personal
identifying information and banking information to BUCK. BUCK, in turn,
would use the Internet to submit PPP loan applications to lenders located
outside of the State of Georgia using this information.
6
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 7 of 10
c. Similar to BUCK’s personal fraudulent PPP applications, the fraudulent
PPP applications she and her co-conspirators did for third parties also
falsely claimed the applicant had a 2019 gross income of approximately
$100,000 and a monthly payroll of approximately $8,333.00—with the goal
of securing each client a $20,883.00 PPP loan. Also similar to BUCK’s
personal applications, BUCK created fictitious tax documents that
included ginned up financial numbers for the applicants and supplied them
to PPP lenders in support of the loan request.
d. In reliance on false representations made in PPP applications created by
BUCK in conjunction with her co-conspirators, banks headquartered
outside the State of Georgia, by means of wire communication, deposited
millions of dollars into co-conspirators’ bank accounts resulting from this
scheme.
e. In exchange for BUCK completing a fraudulent PPP application, BUCK’s
co-conspirators paid BUCK a fee ranging from $500 to $1000 per PPP
application. Co-conspirators transmitted this to BUCK via CashApp, Zelle,
or by cash transactions.
18. Between in or around December 2020 through in or around May 2021,
BUCK, in the Southern District of Georgia and elsewhere, caused to be submitted
more than 150 fraudulent PPP applications on behalf of herself and co-conspirators,
which resulted in more than $3,500,000 being disbursed from banks to members of
the conspiracy.
7
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 8 of 10
Overt Act in Execution of PPP Scheme
19. On or about February 9, 2021, in the Southern District of Georgia, and
elsewhere, DARA BUCK, aided and abetted by others, for the purpose of executing
the scheme and artifice described above, and attempting to do so, caused to be
transmitted in interstate commerce, by means of a wire communication, certain signs,
signals, and sounds: that is, BUCK and Co-conspirator 1 caused to be transmitted a
fraudulent electronic PPP application and supporting fictious Schedule C tax
document from the Southern District of Georgia to Bank 1 in Utah, which caused
Bank 1 to deposit $20,834 into Co-conspirator 1’s account at Bank 2, and in exchange,
Co-conspirator 1 paid BUCK $500, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1343.
The Federal Student Loan Discharge Scheme
20. Another object of the scheme was for BUCK and her Co-conspirators to
unjustly enrich themselves by submitting fraudulent discharge applications and
supporting documents in an effort to wrongfully discharge Federal Student Loans
under false pretenses.
21. In furtherance of this scheme, and to effect the objects thereof, the
following acts relating to TPD applications to fraudulently discharge Federal Student
Loans were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy:
a. BUCK and co-conspirators, known and unknown, submitted fraudulent
TPD applications to discharge Federal Student Loans on behalf of BUCK and
others. For each, BUCK submitted TPD discharge applications that falsely
8
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 9 of 10
claimed the applicant was a qualifying disabled veteran. To support the
application, BUCK created fictitious letters that purported to come from the
VA that claimed the applicant had a 100% disability rating.
b. In reliance on these false representations, the Department would
discharge the applicant’s Federal Student Loans.
c. BUCK’s co-conspirators paid her a fee of approximately $350 to $500
for each fraudulent TPD application she submitted.
22. Between in or around August 2017 through in or around March 2021,
BUCK, while in the Southern District of Georgia, caused to be submitted more than
a dozen fraudulent TPD applications on behalf of herself and co-conspirators, in an
effort to discharge more than $1,000,000 in Federal Student Loans.
Overt Act in Execution of Federal Student Loan Discharge Scheme
23. On or about November 18, 2018, DARA BUCK submitted, or caused to
be submitted, an application seeking to discharge Co-conspirator 2’s Federal Student
Loans on the basis that he was unemployable due to a service-connected disability.
In support of Co-conspirator 2’s application, BUCK submitted a fictitious letter that
purported to come from the VA claiming that Co-Conspirator 2 had a 100% service-
connected disability. Co-conspirator 2 is not a veteran and is not disabled. In reliance
on BUCK false representations, Co-conspirator 2 had approximately $17,108 in
federal student loans discharged in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a).
All done in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
9
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 10 of 10
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.gasd.87047.1.0.pdf
- Size
- 344,162 bytes
- SHA-256
- e264123f780c1a1c2c98bc4f626cb989d5acb4d385c51e8c0aabbeea71526e87
- Our copy
- gov.uscourts.gasd.87047.1.0.pdf
- Original
- PACER (login required)