Indictment — United States v. Pierre Rogers and Joshua Leavitt

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire · No. 1:22-cr-00074-PB · Doc. 1 · 2022-06-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
v. 
PIERRE ROGERS and 
JOSHUA LEAVITT, 
Defendants 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Criminal Case No. 1:22-cr- 
Counts 1-6:  Bank Fraud 
         (18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 2) 
Count 7:  Wire Fraud 
         (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2) 
Counts 8-9:  Attempted Wire Fraud 
         (18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1343, 2) 
Count 10:  Money Laundering 
         (18 U.S.C. § 1957) 
INDICTMENT 
The Grand Jury charges: 
Background 
At all times material to this indictment: 
1.
TD Bank was a financial institution as defined by Title 18, United States Code,
Section 20, the deposits of which were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
(“FDIC”). 
2.
The defendant, PIERRE ROGERS, was a resident of New Hampshire, until on or
around July 23, 2021, when he became a resident of California. 
3.
The defendant, JOSHUA LEAVITT, was a resident of New Hampshire.
4.
Dark Matter Associates, Demeter Project, Monticello Transnational, Puro Trader
(d/b/a Yahyn), Puro Lounge, Puro Group, and Sunju (collectively, the “Companies”) were 
corporate entities with business addresses or operations in New Hampshire.   
5.
At all relevant times, JOSHUA LEAVITT owned or controlled Dark Matter
74-PB (1/2)
Case 1:22-cr-00074-PB     Document 1     Filed 06/27/22     Page 1 of 9

 
 
2 
Associates and Demeter Project. 
6. 
At all relevant times, PIERRE ROGERS owned or controlled Sunju. 
7. 
At all relevant times, JOSHUA LEAVITT and PIERRE ROGERS owned or 
controlled Monticello Transnational, Puro Trader, Puro Lounge, and Puro Group.  
COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX 
Bank Fraud 
[18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2] 
 
8. 
Paragraphs 1 through 7 are realleged. 
CARES Act Payroll Protection Program 
9. 
The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) is an executive- 
branch agency of the United States government that provides support to entrepreneurs and small 
businesses. 
10. 
In or around March 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 
(“CARES”) Act was enacted to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of 
Americans suffering adverse economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES 
Act established several new temporary programs and expanded existing programs, including 
programs created or administered by the SBA. 
11. 
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”). 
12. 
To obtain a PPP loan, the authorized representative of a business was required to 
state the business’s average monthly payroll expenses and number of employees. These figures 
were used to calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible to receive under the 
PPP. 
Case 1:22-cr-00074-PB     Document 1     Filed 06/27/22     Page 2 of 9

 
 
3 
13. 
A participating lender would then process the PPP loan application. If the PPP 
loan application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan using its own 
monies, which were fully guaranteed by the SBA. 
14. 
TD Bank participated in the PPP as a lender to small businesses. 
The Scheme and Artifice to Defraud 
15. 
Between on or about April 6, 2020, and continuing through on or about January 
21, 2021, in the District of New Hampshire and elsewhere, the defendants, 
PIERRE ROGERS 
and  
JOSHUA LEAVITT, 
aided and abetted by each other, knowingly and willfully executed and attempted to execute a 
scheme and artifice to defraud TD Bank.   
16. 
The defendants applied for approximately 14 PPP loans from TD Bank.   
17. 
The principal amount of these loans totaled approximately $2 million. 
18. 
As part of the PPP loan applications, the defendants were required to provide 
supporting documents substantiating their request for funds.  For each PPP application, the 
defendants presented tax documents that were purportedly filed with the Internal Revenue 
Service (“IRS”).  The supporting tax documents were fraudulent because they were either never 
filed with the IRS or because they overstated the Companies’ actual payrolls and earnings 
reported to the IRS.  
19. 
Because the amount of a PPP loan was based, in part, on a loan applicant’s 
monthly payroll, the defendants obtained larger PPP loans than they were eligible to receive by 
fraudulently inflating the Companies’ payrolls.   
Case 1:22-cr-00074-PB     Document 1     Filed 06/27/22     Page 3 of 9

 
 
4 
20. 
TD Bank relied, in part, on the fraudulent documents in making determinations 
about whether to approve the loans. 
The Offenses 
21. 
On or about the dates listed below, in the District of New Hampshire and 
elsewhere, the defendant and defendants identified below executed and attempted to execute the 
scheme by submitting false documentation to TD Bank to fraudulently obtain loans. 
Count 
Date 
Defendant(s) 
Entity 
Amount 
Awarded 
1 
04/14/20 
Rogers, Leavitt 
Puro Trader 
$132,756 
2 
04/27/20 
Leavitt 
Dark Matter Associates 
$30,052 
3 
04/27/20 
Rogers, Leavitt 
Puro Lounge 
$100,000 
4 
05/06/20 
Rogers, Leavitt 
Puro Group 
$175,000 
5 
07/07/20 
Rogers 
Sunju 
$175,000 
6 
07/14/20 
Leavitt 
Demeter Project 
$34,667 
 
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344 and 2. 
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00074-PB     Document 1     Filed 06/27/22     Page 4 of 9

5 
COUNTS SEVEN THROUGH NINE 
Wire Fraud and Attempted Wire Fraud 
[18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349 and 2] 
22.
Paragraphs 1 through 10 are realleged.
CARES Act Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program 
and Economic Injury Disaster Grants 
23.
The Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program was another source of
financial assistance provided by the CARES Act.  It provided low-interest financing to small 
businesses, renters, and homeowners in regions affected by declared disasters.  The EIDL 
program was administered by the SBA. 
24.
The CARES Act authorized the SBA to provide EIDLs to eligible small
businesses experiencing substantial financial disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  In 
addition, the CARES Act authorized the SBA to issue advances of up to $10,000 to small 
businesses, known as Economic Injury Disaster Grants (EIDGs).  The amount of the advance 
was determined by the number of employees the applicant certified having.  The advances did 
not need to be repaid. 
25.
To obtain an EIDL and/or EIDG, a qualifying business was required to apply to
the SBA and provide information about its operations, such as the number of employees and the 
entity’s gross business revenues and cost of goods sold in the 12 months prior to January 31, 
2020.  The amount of the loan, if approved, was determined based, in part, on the information 
provided concerning the number of employees, gross revenue, and cost of goods. 
26.
Any funds issued under an EIDL or EIDG 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. 
27.
EIDL and EIDG applications were received by a cloud-based platform through a
Case 1:22-cr-00074-PB     Document 1     Filed 06/27/22     Page 5 of 9

 
 
6 
server located in Des Moines, Iowa. 
The Scheme and Artifice to Defraud 
28. 
Between on or about March 30, 2020, and continuing through on or about 
November 23, 2021, in the District of New Hampshire and elsewhere, the defendants, 
PIERRE ROGERS  
and  
JOSHUA LEAVITT, 
aided and abetted by each other, knowingly and willfully executed and attempted to execute a 
scheme and artifice to defraud the SBA and to obtain money by means of false and fraudulent 
pretenses, representations, and promises.   
29. 
The defendants applied for approximately 12 EIDLs from the SBA.   
30. 
The total principal amount of the loans was approximately $3 million. 
31. 
As part of the loan applications, the defendants were required to provide certain 
information about the Companies.  For each EIDL application, the defendants misrepresented the 
Companies’ financial health and payroll.  Sometimes, the defendants also provided tax 
documents that were purportedly filed with the IRS.  The supporting tax documents were 
fraudulent because they were either never filed with the IRS or because they overstated the 
Companies’ actual payrolls and earnings reported to the IRS.  The SBA relied, in part, on the 
false information provided in the loan applications, including the supporting documents, in 
making determinations about whether to approve the loans. 
The Wire Fraud Offense 
32. 
On or about the date listed below, in the District of New Hampshire and 
elsewhere, for the purpose of executing the scheme to defraud, the defendants transmitted and 
Case 1:22-cr-00074-PB     Document 1     Filed 06/27/22     Page 6 of 9

 
 
7 
caused to be transmitted writings, signs, and signals in interstate commerce by sending the 
fraudulent loan application listed below to the SBA through the SBA server located in Des 
Moines, Iowa.  
Count 
Date 
Defendant(s) 
Entity 
Amount 
Awarded 
7 
03/31/20 
Rogers, Leavitt 
Monticello 
Transnational 
$29,000 EIDL 
plus $7,000 
EIDG 
 
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2. 
 
The Attempted Wire Fraud Offenses 
 
33. 
On or about the dates listed below, in the District of New Hampshire and 
elsewhere, for the purpose of attempting to execute the scheme to defraud, the defendant and 
defendants identified below transmitted and caused the transmission of writings, signs, and 
signals in interstate commerce by sending the email communications listed below to the SBA 
through SBA servers located outside of New Hampshire.  
Count 
Date 
Defendant(s) 
Entity 
Transmission 
Approx. 
Amount 
Sought 
8 
06/15/21 
Leavitt 
Dark Matter 
Associates 
Email 
requesting 
reconsideration 
of loan denial. 
$256,000 
9 
11/23/21 
Rogers, Leavitt 
Puro Trader 
Email 
requesting 
reconsideration 
of loan 
modification 
request. 
$500,000 
 
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349, 1343 and 2. 
 
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00074-PB     Document 1     Filed 06/27/22     Page 7 of 9

 
 
8 
COUNT TEN 
Money Laundering  
[18 U.S.C. § 1957] 
 
34. 
On or about July 9, 2020, in the District of New Hampshire and elsewhere, the 
defendant, 
PIERRE ROGERS, 
did knowingly engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater 
than $10,000 that was derived from specified unlawful activity, namely, Bank Fraud as alleged 
in Count 4 of this Indictment.  Specifically, ROGERS wired $107,780 from a Puro Group bank 
account at TD Bank ending in 1828 to Private Collection Motors to purchase a 2011 Rolls Royce 
Ghost with a VIN ending 0157.   
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957. 
 
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00074-PB     Document 1     Filed 06/27/22     Page 8 of 9

9 
NOTICE OF FORFEITURE 
Upon conviction of one or more of the offenses set forth in Counts One through Nine of 
this Indictment, the defendants shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§§ 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), any property, real or personal, which
constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the offense, including a sum of money equal 
to the proceeds of the charged offenses. 
Upon conviction of the money laundering offense alleged in Count Ten, the defendant 
shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) any property, real or personal, 
involved in such offense, or any property traceable to such property. 
 All in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §§ 982(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) and 
Rule 32.2(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 
A TRUE BILL 
Dated:  June 27, 2022 
/s/GJ Foreperson 
FOREPERSON 
JANE E. YOUNG 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
By: 
/s/ Alexander S. Chen   
Alexander S. Chen 
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Case 1:22-cr-00074-PB     Document 1     Filed 06/27/22     Page 9 of 9

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nhd.59346.1.0.pdf

Size

157,255 bytes

SHA-256

5427f00d15343b6226df8f3b1c6e0d3a8fa0a2ef2f7946086b5450716a5c1ed1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nhd.59346.1.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)