Information — U.S. v. LaRoche

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (Fort Myers Division) · No. 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM · Doc. 13 · 2023-01-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document13_ Filed 01/27/23 Page 1 of 10 PagelD 76

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ~~ 8
FORT MYERS DIVISION mE
wey ae
245 = -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA nat § =
aia aes ry
v. CASE NO. 2:23-cr-|Z-TPR ney = o
AL CLINT LAROCHE 18 U.S.C. § 1344 oy

INFORMATION

The United States Attorney charges:

COUNTS ONE AND TWO
(Bank Fraud)

A. Introduction

At all times material to this Information:

1. AL CLINT LAROCHE (“LAROCHE”) was a resident of the
Southern District of Florida (“SDFL”). LAROCHE owned and operated
Bornwild, LLC, which was a Florida Limited Liability Company.

2. The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was
an executive-branch agency of the United States government that provided

support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The mission of the SBA was 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.

\b
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document13_ Filed 01/27/23 Page 2 of 10 PagelD 77

The Paycheck Protection Program

3. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(“CARES”) Act was a federal law enacted in or around March 2020 designed
to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans who
were suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 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”).

4, To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was required to
submit 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 loan application (SBA Form 2483), the small business
(through its authorized representative) was required to state, among other
things, its: (a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of
employees. These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the
small business was eligible to receive under the PPP. In addition, businesses

applying for a PPP loan were required to provide documentation showing
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document13_ Filed 01/27/23 Page 3 of 10 PagelD 78

their payroll expenses. Individuals who operated under a sole proprietorship
or as an independent contractor or eligible self-employment individual were
also eligible to apply for a PPP loan.

5. PPP loan applications were processed by a participating lender. If
a PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP
loan using its own monies, which were 100% 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 in the course of processing the loan.

6. PPP loan proceeds were required to be used for certain
permissible expenses, including payroll costs, mortgage interest, rent, and
utilities. Under the applicable PPP rules and guidance, the interest and
principal on the PPP loan was eligible for forgiveness if the business spent the
loan proceeds on these expense items within a designated period of time and
used a certain portion of the loan towards payroll expenses.

7. The Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Business, Nonprofits and
Venues Act (“Economic Aid Act”) was a federal law enacted in or around
December 2020. The Economic Aid Act authorized the SBA to guarantee
Second Draw PPP loans under generally the same terms and conditions

available under the original PPP (“First Draw PPP Loans”). Only First Draw
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document13_ Filed 01/27/23 Page 4 of 10 PagelD 79

PPP Loan borrowers who had used, or will have used, the full amount of the
First Draw PPP Loan on or before the expected date on which the Second
Draw PPP Loan was disbursed could receive a Second Draw PPP loan.
Further, a borrower would be eligible for a Second Draw PPP loan only if it
had 300 or fewer employees and experienced a revenue reduction of 25% or
greater in 2020 relative to 2019. Second Draw PPP loan applicants were also
required to make the same or similar certifications and representations
concerning the use of PPP funds.

PPP Lender and Service Provider

8. The Lender was a federally-insured financial institution based in
Luray, Virginia. The Lender participated in the SBA’s PPP as a lender and
was authorized to lend funds to eligible borrowers under the terms of the PPP.

9. The Service Provider was a financial services and technology
company based in Naples, Florida. The Service Provider participated in the
SBA’s PPP by, among other things, acting as a service provider between small
businesses and the Lender. Small businesses seeking PPP loans could apply
through the Service Provider for PPP loans. The Service Provider would
receive and review the loan application. If a loan application received by the
Service Provider was approved for funding, the Lender disbursed the loan

funds to the applicant.
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document13_ Filed 01/27/23 Page 5 of 10 PagelD 80

B. The Scheme and Artifice
10. Beginning on an unknown date, but no later than in or around
April 2020, and continuing through the present, in the Middle District of
Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,
AL CLINT LAROCHE,
did knowingly and intentionally execute, and attempt to execute, a scheme
and artifice to defraud a financial institution, and to obtain monies, funds,
credits, assets, and other property owned by, and under the custody and
control of, a financial institution, by means of materially false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations and promises.

C. Manner and Means of the Scheme

11. The manner and means by which the defendant sought to
accomplish the scheme and artifice to defraud included, among others, the |
following:

a. It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did engage in a scheme to obtain money from the
Lender and SBA by submitting false and fraudulent PPP applications to the
Lender, through the Service Provider, in the name of a businesses owned and
controlled by the defendant.

b. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Documenti3_ Filed 01/27/23. Page 6 of 10 PagelD 81

that the defendant would and did make and cause to be made materially false
and fraudulent statements to the Lender in PPP loan applications, including
false and fraudulent representations regarding the applicant’s average monthly
payroll and the number of persons employed by the loan applicant.

c. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant would and did submit and cause the submission of
materially false and fictitious documents to the Lender, through the Service
Provider, in support of his fraudulent PPP loan applications, including false
and fictitious quarterly federal tax returns, payroll documents, and other
corporate financial documents.

d. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant would and did falsely and fraudulently certify that the PPP
funds acquired from the requested PPP loans would be used to retain workers,
maintain payroll, or make mortgage interest payments, lease payments, and
utility payments on behalf of the applicant.

e. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant’s materially false, fraudulent, and misleading
representations would and did cause the Lender to approve First and Second
Draw PPP loan applications, resulting in the Lender depositing approximately

$1,078,652.50 in PPP funds into accounts controlled by the defendant.
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document13 _ Filed 01/27/23 Page 7 of 10 PagelD 82

f. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant would and did open and cause the opening of bank
accounts for the purpose of receiving PPP proceeds.

 g. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant would and did use and cause PPP funds to be used for
unauthorized purposes and for his own personal enrichment.

h. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant would and did misrepresent, hide, and conceal, and cause
to be misrepresented, hidden and concealed, the purpose of the acts performed
in furtherance of the scheme to defraud.

D. Execution of the Scheme

12. Onor about the dates set forth below, in the Middle District of

Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,
AL CLINT LAROCHE,

knowingly and with intent to defraud executed and attempted to execute the
scheme and artifice to defraud a financial institution whose deposits were
insured by the FDIC, as described above, and knowingly and with intent to
defraud executed and attempted to execute the scheme and artifice to obtain
moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities and other property owned by and

under the custody and control of a financial institution whose deposits were
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document13_ Filed 01/27/23 Page 8 of 10 PagelD 83

insured by the FDIC, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises, as described above, in that AL CLINT
LAROCHE caused, and attempted to cause, the following PPP loans to be

made:

COUNT| +#$£DATE EXECUTION

ONE April 18, 2020 First Draw PPP application in the name of
Bornwild, LLC, to the Service Provider for a
loan from the Lender in the amount of
$449,500.

TWO April 15, 2021 Second Draw PPP application in the name of
Bornwild, LLC, to the Service Provider for a
loan from the Lender in the amount of
$629,352.

In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2.
FORFEITURE

1. The allegations contained in Counts One and Two are
incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A).

2. Upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, the
defendant,

AL CLINT LAROCHE,

shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A), any
property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds

traceable to the violation.
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document13_ Filed 01/27/23 Page 9 of 10 PagelD 84

3. The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, an

order of forfeiture in the amount of approximately $1,078,652.50, which

represents the proceeds obtained from the offenses charged in Counts One and

Two.

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

omission of the defendant:

a.

b.

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

has been commingled with other property which cannot be

divided without difficulty;
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 13

Filed 01/27/23 Page 10 of 10 PagelD 85

the United States shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property under the

provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 18 U.S.C. §§ 982(b)(1) and

1029(c)(2).

By:

10

ROGER B. HANDBERG
United States Attorney

Trenton J. Reichling )
Assistant United States Attorney

ov Clavaadh Conan

© us M. Casas
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Fort Myers Division

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.410261.13.0.pdf

Size

675,082 bytes

SHA-256

697395c3906d0f5b36577e991c33755f51f2657f8d7895fe645c4ac8b35cb85d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.410261.13.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)