Indictment — United States v. Christnel Orisca (D. Mass.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · No. 1:24-cr-10378-WGY · Doc. 1 · 2024-12-12 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Documenti Filed 12/12/24 Page1of17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

a 24cr10378
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AIRE Di
Violations:
V.
Counts One-Five: Wire Fraud; Aiding and
CHRISTNEL ORISCA, Abetting

18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2
Defendant ( 88 )
Count Six: False Statements to a Financial
Institution; Aiding and Abetting
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1014 and 2)

Wire Fraud Forfeiture Allegation:
(18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and
28 U.S.C. § 2461)

False Statement Forfeiture Allegation:
(18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A))

eet Nea Nae Nee NY NF Ne Na SS NM Re NAN eS Ge Ne NY

INDICTMENT

At all times relevant to this Indictment:

General Allegations

A. Relevant Individuals and Entities
1. The defendant, CHRISTNEL ORISCA (“ORISCA”), was a resident of Boston,
Massachusetts. ORISCA is presently a corrections officer with the Suffolk County Sheriff's
Department, who was hired in late 2021.
2. The “Security Company” was a company based in Connecticut that provided campus
security services to various higher education institutions in Massachusetts and other locations in
the Northeast. ORISCA worked as a full-time employee of the Security Company from

approximately March 2019 to October 2020.
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Document1 Filed 12/12/24 Page 2 of17

3. The “Delivery Company” was a company based in Connecticut that provided
package delivery services in Massachusetts and elsewhere through a subcontract with a national
parcel delivery company. ORISCA worked as a full-time employee of the Delivery Company
from approximately December 2020 to early December 2021.

4. | The Massachusetts Division of Unemployment Assistance (“DUA”) was a state
agency located in Boston, Massachusetts that administers unemployment benefits programs in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

5. 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. As part of this effort, the SBA enabled and provided for
loans through banks, credit unions, and other lenders. These loans have government-backed
guarantees.

6. Cross River Bank (“CrossRiver”), was a federally insured financial institution based
in New Jersey. CrossRiver participated as a lender in a program referred to as the Paycheck
Protection Program (“PPP”) operated by the SBA and, thus, was authorized to lend funds to
eligible borrowers under the terms of the PPP. CrossRiver accepted and processed PPP loan
applications through a loan referral agent called Bluevine Capital Inc. (“Bluevine”), a financial

services company headquartered in California.
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Documenti Filed 12/12/24 Page 3of17

B. Massachusetts Unemployment Insurance; Pandemic Unemployment Assistance

(s In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, unemployment insurance (“UI”) benefits
are funded by the UI Trust Fund, which is comprised of federal funds, as well as monies obtained
by state-imposed taxes on employers. DUA is responsible for administering the UI program in
Massachusetts.

8. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was a federal
law enacted in March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions
of Americans who were suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The
CARES Act created a new temporary federal unemployment insurance program called pandemic
unemployment assistance (“PUA”). PUA provided unemployment benefits for individuals who
were not eligible for UI or other types of unemployment (e.g., individuals who were self-
employed, independent contractors, gig economy workers). All COVID-19 UI claims, and PUA
claims, were eligible to receive additional monies and additional benefit weeks from temporary
federal programs created by the CARES Act. Eligibility for PUA claims was verified against
quarterly earnings reports of W-2 wage earners provided by employers to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

9. Along with the UI program, the DUA administered and managed the PUA program
in Massachusetts. CARES Act program monies were received by the DUA into a People’s United
bank account in Connecticut from the United States Treasury. The monies paid to the claimants
for these programs were transmitted via interstate wire communications from Connecticut to the
claimant’s designated bank account or the bank account for a Bank of America pre-paid debit card.

10. To receive PUA benefits, Massachusetts claimants were required, as applicable, to

(i) create an online account to submit the application (also known as PUA registration); (ii) provide
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Document1i Filed 12/12/24 Page 4of17

eligibility criteria; (iii) provide the reason(s) for unemployed status (e.g., how COVID-19 affected
employment); and (iv) certify that all the statements in the application were true, among other
things. PUA claims submitted online to the DUA were processed via a server in Colorado.

11. To continue to receive weekly PUA or UI benefits, as applicable, claimants were
required to submit weekly certifications online to the DUA that confirmed that the applicant (i)
did not work during the weekly reporting period; and (ii) did not receive any income during the
weekly reporting period. Weekly certifications submitted online to the DUA were also processed
via a server in Colorado. It was material to the DUA that it received truthful, complete, and
accurate information from applicants in the PUA registration, UI application, weekly
certifications, and eligibility verification process, so that PUA and UI funds were disbursed to
qualified and eligible recipients.

C. The Paycheck Protection Program

12. Another 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 the PPP.
PPP loan proceeds were required to be used by the business on certain permissible expenses,
namely, 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 spent the loan proceeds on these
expenses within a designated period of time and used at least a minimum amount of the PPP loan
proceeds toward payroll expenses.

13. 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
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Documenti - Filed 12/12/24 Page5of17

program rules and make certain affirmative certifications in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP
loan.

14. Inthe PPP loan application, 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 their payroll expenses. For sole proprietorships (self-employed
individuals), this documentation included the applicant’s (sole proprietorship’s) IRS Form 1040
Schedule C, which showed the profit and loss for the business.

15. 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,
which were 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.

Scheme to Defraud the DUA

16. Beginning in or around May 2020, and continuing until at least in or around
September 2021, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, ORISCA devised a scheme to
defraud, and to obtain PUA and UI benefits, by filing false and fraudulent applications, weekly
certifications, and other documents with the DUA.

17. The purpose of the scheme was for ORISCA to obtain PUA and UI payments under
false and misleading pretenses, including false statements about his weekly income and weekly

employment status.
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Documenti Filed 12/12/24 Page 6of17

ORISCA Applies for PUA Benefits

18. On or about May 15, 2020, ORISCA caused an online application to be submitted
for PUA benefits (“PUA Registration”). After certifying that his statements were truthful and
accurate, and acknowledging that his statements were made under the penalty of perjury and that
he could be subject to criminal prosecution, (i) ORISCA checked the box stating that he was
unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work because of the following
COVID-19 reason: “I had to quit my job, was laid off, or had my hours reduced as a result of
COVID-19” and (ii) ORISCA stated that the first date that he was accordingly impacted by
COVID-19 was March 30, 2020.

19. In his PUA Registration, ORISCA stated that he was able and available to work
during the period from March 29, 2020 to May 9, 2020, but ORISCA denied earning in excess of

$89 in any work week between March 29, 2020 and May 9, 2020:

Did you have eermings in BACESS of $69.00 in ary work week between 29-Mar-2020 and 09-May-20207

20. Following the submission of his PUA Registration, ORISCA submitted weekly
certifications (“Weekly Certifications”) to the DUA for weeks ending May 16, 2020 and May 23,

2020, claiming that he did not work and did not receive any income during those weekly periods:

Earnings and Other Income
Did you work or telework between Sunday, May 10, 2020 and Saturday, May 16, 2020? This includes both full-time and part-time employment.
[ Yes No

Did you receive any other income between Sunday. May 10, 2020 and Saturday, May 16, 2020? This includes holiday pay, sick pay, and vacation pay.

[ |

Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Documenti Filed 12/12/24 Page 7 of17

Earnings and Other Income
Did you work or telework between Sunday, May 17, 2020 and Saturday, May 23, 2020? This includes both full-time and part-time employment.
res NO

Did you receive any other income between Sunday, May 17, 2020 and Saturday, May 23, 2020? This includes holiday pay, sick pay. and vacation pay.

21. Based upon ORISCA’s PUA Registration and ORISCA’s Weekly Certifications for

the weeks ending May 16, 2020 and May 23, 2020, ORISCA received the following PUA

payments, which were sent via direct deposit payments to ORISCA’s Bank of America account:

Weekly Work Period PUA Payment

April 4, 2020 $1,027!
April 11, 2020 $1,027
April 18, 2020 $1,027
April 25, 2020 $1,027
May 2, 2020 $1,027
May 9, 2020 $1,027
May 16, 2020 $1,027
May 23, 2020 $1,027
TOTAL $8,216

22. ORISCA knew that his PUA Registration and Weekly Certifications for the weeks

ending May 16, 2020 and May 23, 2020 were false because ORISCA earned weekly salary from

' Eligible PUA applicants could apply for and receive PUA benefits retroactive to March
2020. In ORISCA’s May 15, 2020 PUA Registration, ORISCA applied for and received PUA
benefits for weekly periods dating back to the week ending April 4, 2020 up to the week ending
May 9, 2020.
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Document1i Filed 12/12/24 Page 8 of17

the Security Company well in excess of $89 per week for each of the weekly work periods ending
April 4, 2020 to May 23, 2020.

23. Onor about May 30, 2020, ORISCA submitted a Weekly Certification for the week
ending May 30, 2020, but ORISCA’s claim for PUA was rejected because ORISCA had also filed
for UI unemployment benefits.

24. From in or about October 2020 to January 2021, ORISCA submitted 12 more Weekly
Certifications to the DUA to receive PUA funds, but these claims were rejected because ORISCA
was already collecting UI unemployment benefits.

ORISCA Applies for UI Benefits

25. Onor about May 24, 2020, ORISCA submitted an application for UI benefits. In his
UI application (“UI Application”), ORISCA claimed that his full-time employment with the
Security Company was scheduled to end on or about May 31, 2020.

26. From approximately June 2020 to October 2020, ORISCA reported part-time work
for the Security Company and, consequently, received UI benefits that corresponded to benefit
amounts generally received by claimants that declared income from part-time employment.

27. From approximately December 2020 to September 2021, however, while ORISCA
was working for, and receiving regular income as an employee of, the Delivery Company,
ORISCA submitted dozens of false and fraudulent Weekly Certifications to the DUA in which
ORISCA claimed to not have worked or received income.

28. For example, for the week ending September 4, 2021, ORISCA stated that he did not

work during such period, nor did he receive any income during such work week:
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Document1i - Filed 12/12/24 Page9of17

Please review your responses for the week of Sunday, 8/29/2021 through Saturday, 9/4/2021.
Initial Questions

1. Did you work during the reporting period listed above? N
This includes full-time, part-time, temporary, self or
military employment.

2. During the week listed above:

Were you offered employment? N
Quit a job?
Were you discharged from a job? N

3. During the week listed above, did you receive or apply N
for income from any other sources that you have not
previously reported to us?

ORISCA certified to the DUA that the information he provided was true and correct:

Acknowledgement

I certify that the information I have provided is true and correct. I know that Massachusetts Law provides
penalties and or imprisonment for false statements to obtain benefits and that DUA actively pursues fraudulently
collected benefits. I hereby acknowledge that DUA will verify my information to assure its accuracy.

29. ORISCA knew that his Weekly Certification for the week ending September 4, 2021
was false because he was working for, and receiving regular income from, the Delivery Company

during such period, as reflected by ORISCA’s Delivery Company pay records and personal bank

records:
09/03/21 (§BBJCORP DES:PAYROLL —1D:01820000-0339-0 INDN:CHRISTNEL ORISCA CO 707.5449
1D:1462800242 PPD
09/07/21 (
09/07/21
7/21
09/08/21 | MADUA DES: MAUI TAX ID: — XXXXXXXXX INDN:CHRISTNEL ORISCA CO 696.00

ID:IXXXXXXXXX PPD
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Document1 Filed 12/12/24 Page 10 of 17

30. From approximately December 2020 to September 2021, ORISCA fraudulently
collected at least approximately $26,484 in UI funds through intentionally submitting false Weekly
Certifications to the DUA in which ORISCA claimed that he did not work or receive any income.

Scheme to Defraud the SBA

31. Beginning in or around March 2021, and continuing until at least in or around
September 2021, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, ORISCA devised a scheme to
defraud, and to obtain PPP funds, by filing a false and fraudulent PPP loan application.

32. The purpose of the scheme was for ORISCA to obtain PPP loan proceeds under false
and misleading pretenses, including false statements about his purported business’s average
monthly payroll, gross receipts, and expenses.

ORISCA Applies for a PPP Loan

33. In furtherance of the scheme, on or about March 20, 2021, ORISCA submitted a false
and misleading PPP loan application to CrossRiver seeking approximately $20,000 in PPP loan
funds (the “PPP Loan Application”). ORISCA caused the PPP Loan Application to be digitally
signed and certified that the application and the information provided in all supporting documents
and forms was true and accurate.

34. The PPP Loan Application falsely stated that average monthly payroll for ORISCA’s
business, listed as a local freight trucking business, was $8,000. In addition, ORISCA submitted
with the PPP Loan Application what purported to be the Profit or Loss from Business for calendar
year 2020 (“IRS Form Schedule C”) for his alleged sole proprietorship. On the purported IRS
Form Schedule C, ORISCA falsely claimed that his business had $115,347 in gross receipts and

$15,981 in total expenses in 2020.

10
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Document1 Filed 12/12/24 Page 11 of17

35. ORISCA knew that his PPP Loan Application was false because (i) ORISCA did not,
in fact, file any IRS Form Schedule C for 2020 with the IRS; and (ii) ORISCA did not have
$115,347 in gross receipts or $15,981 in total expenses from any sole proprietorship business
during 2020.

36. On or about March 22, 2021, ORISCA’s PPP Loan Application was approved and
on or about March 23, 2021, CrossRiver’s loan referral agent, Bluevine, issued a $20,000 payment
to ORISCA’s bank account at Bank of America via a wire transfer in interstate commerce.
Following the deposit of the $20,000 in PPP loan proceeds, ORISCA issued $7,000 in wire
payments to a family member, withdrew approximately $8,200 in cash, and paid thousands of
dollars in personal bills, including over $800 in outstanding parking tickets.

37. On or about August 27, 2021, ORISCA submitted a PPP Loan Forgiveness
Application (“PPP Loan Forgiveness Application”) to CrossRiver. In the PPP Loan Forgiveness
Application, ORISCA falsely claimed that the entire $20,000 PPP loan was spent on payroll costs
for his business. ORISCA knew that this claim was false because he had wired $7,000 of the PPP
loan funds to a family member and used the remainder of the PPP loan funds to make cash
withdrawals, satisfy outstanding parking tickets, and pay for personal bills, including car
insurance. On or about September 9, 2021, ORISCA’s PPP Loan Forgiveness Application was

approved.

1]
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Document1 Filed 12/12/24 Page 12 of17

The Grand Jury charges:

COUNTS ONE - FIVE

Wire Fraud; Aiding and Abetting

(18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2)

38. The Grand Jury re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-37 of this

Indictment.

39. Onor about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere,

the defendant,

CHRISTNEL ORISCA,

having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money

and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises,

did transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate and foreign

commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing the scheme

to defraud, as set forth below:

Count | Approximate Date

Description

1

May 15, 2020

The PUA Registration caused to be electronically submitted
by ORISCA, in Massachusetts, and routed interstate through
servers outside of Massachusetts.

March 20, 2021

The PPP Loan Application caused to be electronically
submitted by ORISCA, in Massachusetts, and routed
interstate through servers outside of Massachusetts.

March 22, 2021

Wire transfer of $20,000 from Bluevine to ORISCA’s
account at Bank of America.

September 4, 2021

The Weekly Certification for the Week Ending September 4,
2021 caused to be electronically submitted by ORISCA, in
Massachusetts, and routed interstate through servers outside
of Massachusetts.

September 8, 2021

DUA wire transfer of $696 to ORISCA’s account at Bank of
America.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.

12
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Document1 Filed 12/12/24 Page 13 of17

COUNT SIX
False Statements to a Financial Institution; Aiding and Abetting
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1014 and 2)

The Grand Jury further charges:

40. The Grand Jury re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-37 of this
Indictment.

41. On or about March 20, 2021, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the
defendant,

CHRISTNEL ORISCA,

knowingly made and caused to be made a false statement and report for the purpose of influencing
in any way the actions of Cross River Bank, an institution the accounts of which are insured by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, upon any loan, as follows: in the PPP Loan
Application, ORISCA falsely represented that ORISCA’s business had average monthly payroll
of $8,000, and in support of the loan application, ORISCA submitted a falsified IRS Form
Schedule C.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1014 and 2.

13
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Document1 Filed 12/12/24 Page 14 of17

WIRE FRAUD FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
(18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c))

The Grand Jury further finds:
42. Uponconviction of one or more of the offenses in violation of. Title 18, United States
Code, Section 1343, set forth in Counts One through Five, the defendant,
CHRISTNEL ORISCA,

shall forfeit to the United States, 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. The property to be forfeited
includes, but is not limited to, the following assets:

a. $54,700, to be entered in the form of a forfeiture money judgment.

43. Ifany of the pronarty described in Paragraph 42, above, as being fixTehalls pursuant
to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), and Title 28, United States Code, Section
2461(c), 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;

it is the intention of the United States, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c),
incorporating Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property

of the defendant up to the value of the property described in Paragraph 42 above.

14
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Document1 Filed 12/12/24 Page 15 of17

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

States Code, Section 2461(c).

15
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Document1 Filed 12/12/24 Page 16 of 17

FALSE STATEMENT FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
(18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A))
The Grand Jury further finds:

44. Upon conviction of the offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
1014, set forth in Count Six, the defendant,
CHRISTNEL ORISCA,
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A), any
property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained directly or indirectly, as a result of such offense.
The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, the following assets:
a. $20,000, to be entered in the form of a forfeiture money judgment.

45. Ifany of the property described in Paragraph 44, above, as being forfeitable pursuant
to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2), 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;

it is the intention of the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b),
incorporating Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property

of the defendant up to the value of the property described in Paragraph 44 above.

16
Case 1:24-cr-10378-WGY Document1 Filed 12/12/24 Page17 of17

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2).

A TRUE BILL

, FOREPERSON
ae

rf

ADAM W. DEITCH /

DUSTIN CHAO

ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

District of Massachusetts: DECEMBER 12 _ , 2024
Returned into the District Court by the Grand Jurors and filed.

/s/ Noreen A. Russo
DEPUTY CLERK

at 4:14 PM

17

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.278745.1.0.pdf

Size

17,334,767 bytes

SHA-256

0cc3ce3ae82414f0e6986391fce0296e552230ce44d660bb931e7974627a5c34

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.278745.1.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)