Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings United States v. Cornell McCoy Information — United States v. Cornell McCoy

Court filing

Information — United States v. Cornell McCoy

Filed March 14, 2022 in U.S. v. Mccoy; one of 11 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
Filed2022-03-14

U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · No. 1:22-cr-00186-KMW · Doc. 1 · 2022-03-14 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
2020R01278/DAF/JMR 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
: 
: 
 
v. 
:
Crim. No. 22-186 (KMW)   
18 U.S.C. § 1344 
: 
CORNELL MCCOY 
: 
I N F O R M A T I O N 
The defendant having waived in open court prosecution by indictment, 
the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey charges: 
1.
At all times relevant to this Information:
a.
The defendant, CORNELL MCCOY, was a resident of
Lawnside, New Jersey. 
b.
Defendant MCCOY was the owner of Silver Cup Services
Group LLC (“Silver Cup”), a company that was incorporated in the State of New 
Jersey on or about September 6, 2018.  
c.
Financial Institution 1 was a financial institution
incorporated in Maryland and headquartered in New York.  Financial 
Institution 1 participated as a lender in the Paycheck Protection Program 
(“PPP”), as described herein. 
d.
Silver Cup maintained a business bank account at Financial
Institution 2, a federally insured financial institution incorporated and 
headquartered in Ohio (“Account 1”). 
Case 1:22-cr-00186-KMW     Document 1     Filed 03/14/22     Page 1 of 7 PageID: 1

2 
 
The Paycheck Protection Program 
e. 
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 
(“CARES”) Act was a federal law enacted in or around March 2020 and was 
designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans 
who suffered the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.  One 
source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of billions of 
dollars in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain 
other expenses, through a program referred to as the Paycheck Protection 
Program (“PPP”). 
f. 
To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business had to submit a 
PPP loan application signed by an authorized representative of the business.  
The applicant of a PPP loan was required 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, the applicant had to state, among other 
things, its average monthly payroll expenses and number of employees.  These 
figures were used to calculate the amount of money the business was eligible to 
receive under the PPP.  In addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan had to 
provide documentation showing their payroll expenses. 
g. 
A PPP loan application had to be processed by a participating 
financial institution (the lender).  If the PPP loan application was approved, the 
lender funded the PPP loan using its own monies, which were 100% 
guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).  Data from the 
application, including information about the borrower, the total amount of the 
Case 1:22-cr-00186-KMW     Document 1     Filed 03/14/22     Page 2 of 7 PageID: 2

3 
 
loan, and the listed number of employees, was transmitted by the lender to the 
SBA in the course of processing the loan. 
h. 
PPP loan proceeds could only be used by the business for 
certain permissible expenses, including payroll costs, interest on mortgages, 
rent, and utilities.  The PPP allowed the interest and principal on the PPP loan 
to be entirely forgiven if the business used the loan proceeds on these expense 
items within a designated period of time after receiving the proceeds and used 
a certain amount of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses. 
The Scheme to Defraud 
2. 
From in or around February 2021 through in or around April 
2021, in Camden County in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, 
defendant 
CORNELL MCCOY 
knowingly and intentionally devised and intended to devise a scheme and 
artifice to defraud Financial Institution 1 and to obtain money and property by 
means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and 
promises, which scheme and artifice was in substance as set forth below. 
Purpose of the Scheme to Defraud 
3. 
The purpose of the scheme was for defendant MCCOY to unjustly 
enrich himself by obtaining PPP proceeds under false and misleading 
pretenses, including by making false statements about the number of Silver 
Cup employees and Silver Cup’s payroll, and by providing false documentation. 
Case 1:22-cr-00186-KMW     Document 1     Filed 03/14/22     Page 3 of 7 PageID: 3

4 
 
Manner and Means of the Scheme 
4. 
It was part of the scheme that: 
a. 
On or about February 6, 2021, defendant MCCOY submitted 
a PPP application to Financial Institution 1 on behalf of Silver Cup seeking a 
loan for approximately $237,500.00 (the “Application”).  MCCOY submitted the 
Application in his name and listed himself as the owner of Silver Cup. 
b. 
The Application contained materially false and fraudulent 
information, including that Silver Cup had 12 employees and had an average 
monthly payroll of $95,000.00.  In fact, Silver Cup had no employees and no 
payroll. 
c. 
As part of the Application, MCCOY submitted to Financial 
Institution 1: (1) materially false and fraudulent IRS Forms 941 (Employer’s 
Quarterly Federal Tax Return) for 2019 showing that Silver Cup paid $300,000 
in wages to 12 employees during each quarter of 2019; and (2) a materially 
false and fraudulent Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return showing 
that MCCOY purportedly earned more than $800,000 in income from Silver 
Cup in 2019.  These supporting documents were created for purposes of 
applying for the PPP loan and were never submitted to the IRS. 
d. 
Based on the Application, Financial Institution 1 approved 
the loan to Silver Cup and, on or about April 6, 2021, Financial Institution 1 
disbursed approximately $237,500.00 to Account 1, which was controlled by 
MCCOY. 
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344. 
Case 1:22-cr-00186-KMW     Document 1     Filed 03/14/22     Page 4 of 7 PageID: 4

5 
 
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION 
1. 
As a result of committing the offense charged in this Information, 
defendant CORNELL MCCOY shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. § 982(a)(2), all property, real or personal, constituting or derived from 
proceeds traceable to the offense, the value of which totaled $237,500.00, 
including but not limited to: 
a. 
The contents of Financial Institution 2 Account Number 
XXXXXXXX4316, in the name of Silver Cup Services Group LLC. 
SUBSTITUTE ASSETS PROVISION 
2. 
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; 
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 
e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided 
without difficulty, 
the United States shall be entitled, 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), to forfeiture of  
 
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00186-KMW     Document 1     Filed 03/14/22     Page 5 of 7 PageID: 5

6 
 
any other property of the defendant up to the value of the above-described 
forfeitable property. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_______________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
PHILIP R. SELLINGER 
United States Attorney 
Case 1:22-cr-00186-KMW     Document 1     Filed 03/14/22     Page 6 of 7 PageID: 6

 
CASE NUMBER:  _____________ 
═════════════════════════════════ 
United States District Court 
District of New Jersey 
═════════════════════════════════ 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
CORNELL MCCOY 
 
═════════════════════════════════ 
INFORMATION FOR 
 
18 U.S.C. § 1344 
 
═════════════════════════════════ 
PHILIP R. SELLINGER 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY  
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
═════════════════════════════════ 
DANIEL A. FRIEDMAN 
JASON M. RICHARDSON 
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS 
CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY 
(856) 757-5026 
═════════════════════════════════ 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00186-KMW     Document 1     Filed 03/14/22     Page 7 of 7 PageID: 7

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.njd.492536.1.0.pdf
Size
142,614 bytes
SHA-256
79f54b4e3c31d0bf7a61a6e9c00be08ea02210f37d1ecf5ed06374aae34bf6e3
Our copy
gov.uscourts.njd.492536.1.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
  1. Consent Judgment and Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) and Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Cornell McCoy (D.N.J.)same docket · 2022-03-15
  2. Information filed — USA v. McCoy (D.N.J.)same docket · 2022-03-14
  3. Partial Amendment of Consent Judgment of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) and Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Cornell McCoy (D.N.J.)same docket · 2022-05-03
  4. Partial Amendment of Consent Judgment of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) — USA v. McCoy (Dkt. 13, D.N.J.)same docket · 2022-05-04
  5. Plea Agreement — United States v. Cornell McCoy (D.N.J.)same docket · 2021-12-07
  6. Information — USA v. McCoy (D.N.J.)same docket · 2022-07-26
  7. Judgment in a Criminal Case — United States v. Cornell McCoysame docket · 2022-07-27
  8. Amended Judgment in a Criminal Case — United States v. Cornell McCoy (D.N.J.)same docket · 2022-08-09
  9. Final Order of Forfeiture (As to Specific Property) — United States v. Cornell McCoy (D.N.J.)same case · 2022-08-10
  10. Motion for Order Directing Clerk of Court to Amend Victim List — United States v. Cornell McCoy (D.N.J.)same case · 2025-07-14
  11. Amended Judgment in a Criminal Case (As to Victim List Only) — United States v. Cornell McCoy (D.N.J., 2026-01-08)same case · 2026-01-08

Part of: United States v. Cornell McCoy — U.S. District Court, D.N.J. · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) · Criminal prosecutions · Complaints and indictments · 2022 · Court filings

Back to top