Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings United States v. Gregory Dennis Stipulated factual basis — U.S. v. Dennis

Court filing

Stipulated factual basis — U.S. v. Dennis

Filed April 4, 2023 in U.S. v. Dennis; one of 2 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
Filed2023-04-04

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60063-WPD · Doc. 13 · 2023-04-04 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
Case No. 23-60063-Cr-DIMITROULEAS/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
v. 
GREGORY DENNIS, 
Defendant. 
-------------------'' 
STIPULATED FACTUAL BASIS 
The United States and GREGORY DENNIS ("the defendant") hereby stipulate and 
agree that had this matter proceeded to trial, the United States would have offered 
evidence and testimony sufficient to establish a factual basis beyond a reasonable doubt 
for the crime charged, including the following: 
The defendant, who resided in Broward County, in the Southern District of Florida, 
was at all relevant times employed by the City of Miami as a Police Officer. At all relevant 
times, the defendant had accounts at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase Bank"). 
Chase Bank did business throughout the United States, including maintaining branches 
in the Southern District of Florida. 
The United States Small Business Administration ("SBA") was an agency of the 
executive branch of the Government of the United States. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, 
and Economic Security ("CARES") Act was a federal law enacted in or around March 
2020 that was designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of 
Americans who were suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Case 0:23-cr-60063-WPD   Document 13   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023   Page 1 of 5

One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of forgivable loans 
to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through a program 
referred to as the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"). 
In order to obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business, including a sole proprietorship, 
submitted a PPP loan application, which was 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 in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan. 
In the PPP Borrower 
Application Form for Schedule C Filers Using Gross Income (SBA Form 2483-C), the 
small business (through its authorized representative) was required to provide, among 
other things, its: (a) total amount of gross income reported on its Schedule C for either 
2019 or 2020; and (b) number of employees. The information on the application, and 
the supporting documentation submitted therewith, were used to calculate the amount of 
money the applicant was eligible to receive under the PPP. 
The PPP also allowed a qualifying business that had obtained a first draw PPP 
loan and experienced a required revenue reduction in 2020 to obtain a second PPP loan 
in 2021. These second PPP loans were also known as "second draw" loans. Starting 
on or about March 4, 2021, small businesses, including sole proprietorships, that filed an 
IRS Form 1040, Schedule C, could apply for this second draw loan based on their gross 
income by using the PPP Second Draw Borrower Application Form for Schedule C Filers 
Using Gross Income (SBA Form 2483-SD-C) that provided their gross income from either 
2019 or 2020 and their number of employees. This information on this second draw 
2 
Case 0:23-cr-60063-WPD   Document 13   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023   Page 2 of 5

application, and the supporting documentation submitted, were used to calculate the 
amount of second draw money the applicant was entitled to receive under the PPP. 
A PPP loan application was processed by a participating lender. If a PPP loan 
application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan using its own 
monies. While it was the participating lender that issued the PPP loan, the loan was 
100% guaranteed by the SBA. Data from the application, including information about 
the borrower, the total amount of the loan, and the listed number of employees, was 
transmitted by the lender to the SBA in the course of processing the loan. 
The entity identified in the Information as "the Lender" was a non-bank lender 
named Harvest Small Business Finance, LLC ("Harvest"). 
Harvest was an SBA-
approved lender for PPP loans, and processed PPP loan applications from applicants 
located throughout the United States. Harvest was based in Laguna Hills, California, 
and its servers were located outside the state of Florida. 
The entity identifi~d in the Information as "the Technology Company" was a 
company based in San Francisco, California, named Womply. Womply operated an 
online platform that received information and documents from PPP loan applicants 
throughout the United States, and Womply's servers were located outside the state of 
Florida. Womply was not a PPP lender, but rather was an independent business that 
served as a referral partner and technology services provider for multiple SBA-approved 
PPP lenders. Once an applicant submitted their information and documents through the 
online platform, Womply would make certain information and documents available to one 
of the lenders that retained its services for the lender's review, approval, and funding of 
3 
Case 0:23-cr-60063-WPD   Document 13   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023   Page 3 of 5

the PPP loan. Harvest was one of the lenders that contracted with Womply to receive 
PPP applications for funding by Harvest. 
On or about March 28, 2021, the defendant submitted to Womply, via interstate 
wire communications from the Southern District of Florida to outside the State of Florida, 
a false and fraudulent PPP first draw loan application (SBA Form 2483-C) claiming to be 
a sole proprietor operating a business under the tradename "Gregory Dennis." That PPP 
loan application falsely and fraudulently represented the business' 2020 gross income, 
and as part of the application process, the defendant submitted a false and fraudulent 
IRS Form 1040, including Schedule C, for tax year 2020, stating that his sole 
proprietorship was a "cleaning service." 
As a result of this false and fraudulent application, the defendant obtained 
approximately $20,833 in first draw PPP loan proceeds from Harvest that were 
electronically deposited by Harvest into one of the defendant's accounts at Chase Bank. 
This electronic deposit was made via interstate wire communications. 
On or about April 10, 2021, the defendant submitted to Womply, via interstate wire 
communications from the Southern District of Florida to outside the State of Florida, a 
false and fraudulent 2021 PPP second draw loan application (SBA Form 2483-SD-C), 
again claiming to be a sole proprietor operating a business under the tradename of 
"Gregory Dennis." 
This second draw PPP loan application falsely and fraudulently 
represented the business' 2020 gross income, and as part of this second draw application 
process, the defendant submitted the same false and fraudulent IRS Form 1040, including 
Schedule C, for tax year 2020, that he had submitted in support of his first draw PPP 
4 
Case 0:23-cr-60063-WPD   Document 13   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023   Page 4 of 5

.. 
application. 
As a result of this second false and fraudulent application, the defendant obtained 
approximately $20,833 in second draw PPP loan proceeds from Harvest that were 
electronically deposited by Harvest into one of the defendant's accounts at Chase Bank. 
This electronic deposit was made via interstate wire communications. 
The United States and the defendant agree that this Stipulated Factual Basis, while 
not containing all facts known to the United States, is sufficient to satisfy all the elements 
establishing the guilt of the defendant to the crime charged in the Information. 
By: 
By: 
Date#-
By: 
MARKENZY LAPOINTE 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
Edward N. Stamm 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Ro erick D. Vereen, Esq. 
Attorney for Defendant 
~b 
tfregoryoennfs 
Defendant 
5 
Case 0:23-cr-60063-WPD   Document 13   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/04/2023   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File
United_States_v._Dennis__flsd_0-23-cr-60063__doc13__gov.uscourts.flsd.638784.13.0.pdf
Size
69,615 bytes
SHA-256
cd26f876704d00376fb83e4b4a503019ca9fa61e1e1c5d81a3706995499744ff
Our copy
United_States_v._Dennis__flsd_0-23-cr-60063__doc13__gov.uscourts.flsd.638784.13.0.pdf
Original
storage.courtlistener.com
Back to top