Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings United States v. Gladys Harun Superseding Indictment — United States v. Gladys Harun

Court filing

Superseding Indictment — United States v. Gladys Harun

Filed September 8, 2022 in U.S. v. Gladys Harun; one of 11 filings from this case.

What This Document Is

This is the 13-page, seven-count Superseding Indictment filed 2022-09-08, replacing the one-count original Indictment (docket entry 1). It is the first document in the docket naming the defendant as Gladys Harun a/k/a "Gladys Chege," and it broadens the case to false-declaration, wire-fraud, and money-laundering charges, adding EIDL conduct involving another person's identity.

Factual Summary

Count One charges false declaration under 18 U.S.C. § 1623: on or about December 2, 2019, in case number 3:18-CV-051 in the same district, Harun allegedly declared under penalty of perjury in an Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees that she had not worked in the past four years, that she and her spouse had no employment history for two years, and that her only income was disability — claims the indictment alleges she knew were false. Count Two restates the original indictment's wire-fraud charge: a $299,913 PPP loan from Lendistry obtained in June 2021 by falsely representing $119,965 in average monthly payroll, supported by altered IRS forms. Counts Three through Six charge money-laundering transactions over $10,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 1957: two $150,000 Wells Fargo cashier's checks purchased on February 17, 2022 (one payable to Gladys Harun, one to Blue Sky), each deposited into Truist accounts on March 4, 2022. Count Seven charges a second wire fraud: Harun allegedly used the personal identifying information of an individual with the initials K.E.W. to submit EIDL Application 3322814905 to the SBA on or about July 27, 2021, falsely claiming K.E.W. had a business opened December 1, 2019 with $2,114 in 2019 gross revenues. Forfeiture allegations reach the proceeds of Counts Two and Seven and property involved in Counts Three through Six.

Key Facts

  • 13-page, seven-count Superseding Indictment filed 2022-09-08; charges span 18 U.S.C. §§ 1623, 1343, and 1957.
  • First filing in this docket to record the alias: Gladys Harun a/k/a "Gladys Chege."
  • Counts Three through Six trace $300,000 of alleged proceeds through cashier's checks and Truist deposits in February–March 2022, including an account in the name Blue Sky.
  • Count Seven's conduct — the K.E.W. EIDL application, number 3322814905, transmitted on or about July 27, 2021 — is the same conduct later charged as the single § 1001 false-statements count in the companion information case (3:23-CR-3), the count to which Harun pleaded guilty.
  • All seven counts were dismissed on 2024-01-26 by the judgment entered in the companion information case (docket entry 103 in this docket).

Source Caveats

  • OCR of this scanned filing is generally clean but contains scattered artifacts (e.g., "GLADYS EARUN" for GLADYS HARUN at paragraph 27, "pequry" for perjury); names are stated here per the document's clean occurrences.
  • The alias "Gladys Chege" is recorded exactly as the indictment presents it (a/k/a in the caption); the document does not explain the alias.
  • All counts state allegations, not adjudicated facts; none of the seven counts was tried or pleaded to — the docket resolves through the companion information case.

No. 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE · Doc. 38 · 2022-09-08 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

   Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE      Document 38     Filed 09/08/22   Page 1 of 13



                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
                              DUBLIN DIVISION
                                                                             -c    O 7:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                   SUPERSEDING INDICTMEN
                                           3:22-CR-09
             V.

                                           18 U.S.C. § 1623
GLADYS HARUN                               False Declaration
       a/k/a "GLADYS CHEGE"
                                           18 U.S.C. § 1343
                                           Wire Fraud


                                           18 U.S.C. § 1957
                                           Money Laundering Transaction
                                           Over $10,000



THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:


      At all times relevant to this Superseding Indictment:

                               INTRODUCTION


                           Defendant and Her Business


      1.    GLADYS HARUN was a resident of Georgia. She owned and operated

a franchise of Jackson Hewitt Inc., a tax-preparation business headquartered in New

Jersey. HARUN's tax-preparation business had locations in the Southern District of

Georgia and elsewhere and did business as "Jackson Hewitt."

                  The COVID-19 Pandemic and the CARES Act

      2.    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 suffered economic effects caused by the COVID-19

pandemic.
    Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE      Document 38      Filed 09/08/22   Page 2 of 13



      3.     Among other relief efforts, the United States sought to provide financial

support to eligible businesses that could be used to offset certain business expenses.

      4.     At all times material to this Indictment, the Small Business

Administration ("SBA") was an executive branch agency of the United States

government that provided support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The SBA

was headquartered in Washington, DC and maintained its computer servers outside

of the State of Georgia. The SBA's mission was to maintain and strengthen the

nation's economy by enabhng the establishment and viability ofsmall businesses and

by assisting in the economic recovery of communities after disasters.

      5.     As part of this effort, the SBA enabled and provided for loans through

banks, credit unions, and other lenders.      These loans had government-backed

guarantees. In addition, the SBA provided loans that came directly from the U.S.

Government.


                          The Pavcheck Protection Program


      6.     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 ("PPF'). In or around April 2020, Congress authorized over $300 biUion in

additional PPP funding.

      7.     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
    Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE      Document 38     Filed 09/08/22   Page 3 of 13



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) bad 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.

      8.     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, was transmitted by the

lender to the SBA in the course of processing the loan.

      9.     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

of time and uses a certain percentage of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.

      10.    Lendistry SBLC,LLC was a wholly owned subsidiary of B.S.D. Capital,

Inc. ("Lendistry") and was based in California. Lendistry was an approved lender

authorized to receive and process PPP applications and supporting documentation,

and then make loans as part of the PPP.
    Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE      Document 38     Filed 09/08/22   Page 4 of 13



                          Economic Im'urv Disaster Loans

      11.    Another source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the

authorization for the SBA to provide EIDLs to eligible small businesses experiencing

substantial financial disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

      12.   In order to obtain an EIDL, a qualifying business had to submit an

online apphcation to the SBA and provide information about its operations, such as

the number of employees, gross revenues for the twelve-month period preceding the

disaster, and the cost of goods the business sold in the twelve-month period preceding

the disaster. In the case of EIDLs, the twelve-month period was that preceding

January 31, 2020. The applicant also had to certify that all the information in its

application was true and correct to the best of the applicant's knowledge.

      13.    In addition, the CARES Act authorized the SBA to issue advances of up

to $10,000 to small businesses within three days of applying for an EIDL ("EIDL

Advance"). The amount of the EIDL Advance was determined the number of

employees the applicant certified having.

      14.    EIDL applications were submitted directly to the SBA online at

https://covidl9relief.sba.gOv/#/ and processed by the agency with support from a

government contractor. Rapid Finance. The amount of each loan was determined

based, in part, on the information provided by the application about employment,

revenue, and cost of goods. Any funds issued under an EIDL were issued directly by

the SBA. EIDL funds could be used for payroll expenses, sick leave, production costs,

and business obligations, such as debts, rent, and mortgage payments.
    Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE        Document 38      Filed 09/08/22   Page 5 of 13



                                     COUNT ONE
                                   False Declaration
                                    18 U.S.C. § 1623

      15.      On or about December 2, 2019, within the Southern District of Georgia,

defendant,

                                   GLADYS HARUN
                                 a/k/a "GLADYS CHEGE,"

in a declaration under penalty of pequry in case number 3:18-CV-051 before the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, knowingly did make

a false material declaration in an Application to Proceed in District Court Without

Prepaying Fees or Costs, to wit:

          a.   Defendant falsely claimed she had not worked in the past four years;

          b.   Defendant falsely claimed that neither she nor her spouse had any
               employment history for the previous two years; and

          c.   Defendant falsely claimed that her only income source during the
               previous 12 months was from disabihty,

when, in truth and in fact, as the Defendant knew, she had worked in 2019 and in

years prior, and she and her spouse had derived income in 2019 for which she did not

report.

      All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
    Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE        Document 38      Filed 09/08/22   Page 6 of 13




                                     COUNT TWO
                                      Wire Fraud
                                    18 U.S.C. § 1343

      16.    The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-
14 above in their entirety as if fully set forth herein.

                                     The Scheme

      17.    From in or about May 2021, through in or about June 2021, defendant

GLADYS HARUN devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud Lendistry,
and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent

pretenses, representations, and promises. Defendant GLADYS HARUN's scheme

was to unjustly enrich herself by obtaining PPP proceeds under false and misleading

pretenses, including by making false statements in a PPP appHcation and providing

false and altered supporting documentation.

      18.    In reliance on false representations and records submitted in and with

Defendant's PPP application, Lendistry, headquartered in California, approved the

requested loan and deposited nearly $300,000 into a bank account in Georgia

controlled by Defendant.

                                 Manner and Means

      19.    It was part of the scheme that defendant GLADYS HARUN submitted,

or caused the submission of, a PPP loan application to Lendistry.            The loan

appHcation sought $299,913 and fraudulently represented that Defendant's business

averaged $119,965 in monthly payroll.

      20.   It was further part of the scheme that, to substantiate the amount of
    Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE      Document 38     Filed 09/08/22      Page 7 of 13



average monthly payroll represented in the PPP loan application, defendant

submitted, or caused the submission of, altered and false IRS Forms and other

records with amounts that were fraudulently inflated.

      21.   On or about June 18, 2021, in the Southern District of Georgia, and

elsewhere, GLADYS HARUN,for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice

described above, caused to be transmitted in interstate commerce, by means of a wire

communication, certain signs, signals, and sounds: that is, Defendant GLADYS

HARUN,caused to be transmitted via electronic signature closing documents for the

PPP loan from the Southern District of Georgia to Lendistry in California, which

caused Lendistry to deposit the requested loan amount into Defendant's hank

account.


      All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
    Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE          Document 38    Filed 09/08/22     Page 8 of 13




                          COUNTS THREE THROUGH SIX
                     Money Laundering Transaction Over $10,000
                                    18 U.S.C. § 1957

        22.    The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1—

14 and 16-21 above in their entirety as if fully set forth herein.

        23.    On or about the dates set forth below, in the Southern District of

Georgia, and elsewhere, the defendant,

                                   GLADYS HARUN
                              a/k/a "GLADYS CHEGE,"

did knowingly engage and attempt to engage in the following monetary transactions

by, through, or to a financial institution, affecting interstate or foreign commerce, in

criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, such property having

been derived firom a specified unlawful activity, that is. Wire Fraud, in violation of

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1343, knowing that the property was criminally derived:

 COUNT           DATE          DESCRIPTION OF MONETARY TRANSACTION
                              The purchase of a Wells Fargo cashier's check of
    3         Feb. 17, 2022   $150,000 fi:om Defendant's Wells Fargo account
                              ending in 5484 payable to Gladys Harun
                              The purchase of a Wells Fargo cashier's check of
    4         Feb. 17, 2022   $150,000 from Defendant's Wells Fargo account
                              ending in 5484 payable to Blue Sky
                            The deposit of a cashier's check of $150,000 payable to
    5         March 4, 2022 Gladys Harun into Defendant's Truist account ending
                              in 6416
                            The deposit of a cashier's check of $150,000 payable to
    6         March 4, 2022 Blue Sky into a Truist account Defendant controlled
                              ending in 7890

        All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957.
    Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE        Document 38      Filed 09/08/22   Page 9 of 13




                                   COUNT SEVEN
                                       Wire Fraud
                                    18 U.S.C. § 1343

      24.    The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-

14 above in their entirety as if fully set forth herein.

                                     The Scheme

      25.    In or about July 2021, through in or about August 2021, defendant

GLADYS HARUN devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud the SBA,and

to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,

representations, and promises. Defendant GLADYS HARUN's scheme was to use

the personal identifying information ofan individual with the initials K.E.W. to cause

the SBA to pay out EIDL funds based on false and misleading pretenses, including

false statements in an EIDL application Defendant caused to be transmitted

electronically.

                                 Manner and Means


      26.    It was part of the scheme that defendant GLADYS HARUN submitted,

or caused the submission of, false EIDL applications to the SBA. The EIDL

applications falsely claimed that an individual with the initials K.E.W. had a

business opened on December 1, 2019, and that such business generated $2,114 in

gross revenues in 2019, and had $165 in cost of goods sold in 2019.

      27.    On or about July 27, 2021, in the Southern District of Georgia, and

elsewhere, GLADYS EARUN,for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice

described above, caused to be transmitted in interstate commerce, by means of a wire

communication, certain signs, signals, and sounds: that is. Defendant GLADYS
   Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE      Document 38      Filed 09/08/22      Page 10 of 13




HARUN,caused to be transmitted via electronic wire EIDL Application 3322814905

into the Southern District of Georgia and to the SBA's servers outside the State of

Georgia.

      All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                         10
   Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE        Document 38     Filed 09/08/22    Page 11 of 13




                          FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS


      The allegations contained in Counts Two through Seven of this Superseding

Indictment are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of

alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981(a)(1)(C),

982(a)(1), 982(a)(3), and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)-

      Upon conviction of one or more of the offenses in violation of Title 18, United

States Code, Section 1343 set forth in Counts Two and Seven of this Superseding

Indictment, the defendant, GLADYS HARUN, shall forfeit to the United States of

America, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28,

United States Code, Section 2461(c), any property, real or personal, which constitutes

or is derived from proceeds traceable to the offenses.

      Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1), upon conviction

of an offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957, set forth in

Counts Three through Six, the defendant, GLADYS HARUN,shall forfeit to the

United States of America any property, real or personal, involved in such offense,

and any property traceable to such property.

      If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or commission of

the defendant:


              a.     cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

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

              c.     has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

              d.     has been substantially diminished in value; or




                                          11
   Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE       Document 38    Filed 09/08/22   Page 12 of 13




             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 Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28,

United States Code, Section 2461(c).




                                         12
  Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE       Document 38     Filed 09/08/22   Page 13 of 13




                                              A True Bill.




David H. Estes                              Chris Howard
United States Attorney                      Assistant United States Attorney
                                         *Lead Counsel




Patricia G. Rhodes
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division




                                       13


File and source

File
gov.uscourts.gasd.87462.38.0.pdf
Size
827,290 bytes
SHA-256
9acb17cf6c48e541dd8f1c6a88dcd3558650891f092388825d8e542a070ebd17
Our copy
gov.uscourts.gasd.87462.38.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top