Court filing

Crim Flsd Unknown Us V Shanrika Duhart Docx Complaint - Us V Shanrika Duhart

Summary

A criminal complaint in United States of America v. Shanrika Shantae Duhart in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, supported by an IRS-CI special agent's affidavit. It charges wire fraud, bank fraud, and attempt and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. The affidavit alleges that a cooperating source submitted a Paycheck Protection Program application for her company, Hair She Goes, Inc., with purported Forms 941 and a falsified bank statement, seeking $388,790 based on a stated average monthly payroll of $155,516 for 20 employees, in exchange for a kickback. It states that IRS records show the company filed no Forms 941 for any quarter of 2019. According to the affidavit, after the loan was funded she withdrew approximately $56,900 in cash and transferred approximately $122,027 to other businesses she owns.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

A 1.h1.
)1ication lbra t'.
-lllnl'
)laint1)5,'l-clejllhoneor()(1'jc1*Rt'
:liallle Illccllollic '
M eans

ITED

TA TES

ISTRICT

O RT

f0l-thc
Sotllllel-l)Ilistl-ictofFlol-ida
Ullited StatesofAmerica

)
)

.''-

) casexoz /-pyol -

SHANRIKA SHANTAE DUHART,

)
)
CRIM INA L CO M PLAINT
1,thecomplailantin thsscase, state thatthe '
lbllowillg istrtleto tllebestoflny knowledgcand belief.

Onoraboutthedatets)of

MavT l.M#kp-c.éM.
I
.
y.>9.2
.-0..
kW,..--.inlhecountyof
Districtof
F1prjù@.......... sthcdefendantts)vîotated:
Souttlvgp
Codevskefitln
tl//àn,
scDescri
ptioll
W ire Fraud
18 U S.C.jj 1343,2
-

Broward

inthe

Bank Fraud

18 U .S.
C.jj 1344,2

Conspiracy/attem ptto com m i
tw ire
fraud and bank fraud

18 U.S C.51349

Thiscril
minalcolnplaintisbased onthesefacts:
SEE AU ACHED AFFIDAVIT.

W Colltilltledontlleattachedsheet
-

('L)îltl,Itï?7t?z??'
J&iLit'
tllltt'
e

SA Bealfigx
.F.
qi
.
lg,.@p.
#ç.
i#lAg#qt
..I
.
;S-CI
v

-...- ...

77,.?'
?1/t?r/??T????ttzllt.l////e

Atlested to by the applicantinaccordancewith the
requiremcntsofFed.R.Criln.P.4.1bytelephone.

Date;

91/16/2021
-

Judge'$'b'igltalul'e

City and state:

FortLaudqr
/-.
qte-j-q% rjda-.
-

....- ..-

Hon,PatrickM.i
jy$,Ur
éted>l4tey Magj.trate?yjg.
t.-lk3ilîter/l:z;t,leçltït
ltil/e
..

AFFIDA VIT

1,Beatriz Feito,being firstduly sworn,hereby depose and state as follows:
INTRO DUC TIO N A ND A G EN T BA CK G R O UND
I m ake this Affidavit in supportof a crim inalcom plaint charging SHAN RIKA

SHANTAE DUHART (%CDUHART''or''Defendanf'),with wirefraud,bank fraud,andattempt
and conspiracy tocommitwirefraud and bank fraud,in violationof l8 U.S.C.jj1343,1344,
1349,and 2,from on oraboutM ay 22,2020,to atIeaston oraboutJuly 30,2020,in the Southern

DistrictofFlorida,and elsewhere(the-û-l-argetOffenses'').
Defendanthasparticipated in a conspiracy and scheme to obtain by fraud m illions

of dollars in forgivable loans through the Paycheck Protection Program (ç;PPP'') and other
governm entprogram s. Defendantcom m itted the TargetO ffenses w ith a person now cooperating

with the investigation (tCCHS 2'')and others. Defendantobtained a fraudulentPPP Ioan forher
own company,Hair She Goes,lnc.(iûHSG'')5with CHS 2 providing falsified docum ents and
subm itting the application on Defendant's behalf in exchange for a kickback from the loan
proceeds.To intlatethe sizeofthese PPP Ioans,and thecorresponding kickbacks,the conspirators

relied on a variety of false statem ents, including by subm itting falsified bank statem ents and
payrolltax form s. For exam ple,the conspirators used nearly identical versions of the sam e
fabricated bank statem ents,recycled in the PPP applications form ultiple com panies,w ith m inor
changes.

The conspirators in the schem e planned or prepared at least 90 fraudulent
applications,m ostofwhich were subm itted. Based on the evidence investigators have review ed
to date,CH S 2,Defendant,and theirco-conspirators applied forPPP Ioansthataretogetherworth

more than $34 million,w ith atleastapproximately 42 ofthose Ioansapproved and funded fora

totalofapproximately $17.6 m illion. Certain ofthose loan recipientsthen wired a kickback of
varying am ounts, often approxim ately 25% of the fraudulent loan proceeds, to an account
controlled by CH S 2.
Iam a SpecialAgentw ith the United States Departm entofthe Treasury,lnternal

RevenueService,Criminallnvestigation(:iIRS-Cl'')andhavebeenemploycdinthiscapacitysince
January 20l9. Iam presently assigned to the M iam iField O ffice. M y duties as a SpecialA gent

includethe investigation ofpossiblecrim inalviolationsoftheInternalRevenueCode(Title26 of
theUnitedStatesCode),theBank Secrecy Act(Title31oftheUnited StatesCode),andtheM oney
Laundering Statutes (Title l8 of the United States Code). graduated from the Criminal
InvestigatorTraining Program atthc FederalLaw Enforcem entTraining Centerin M ay 20l9 and
the Special Agent Investigative Techniques program at the N ational Crim inal lnvestigation
Training Academy in August20I9. In thesetwo program s,Istudied a variety oflaw enforcem ent
tacticsand crim inalinvestigatortechniques relating to tax and financialcrim es. Since becom ing
an IRS-CISpecialAgent,Ihave personally investigated and assisted in investigationsrelating to
the InternalRevenue Law sand financialcrim es. Recently,lhave been assigned to w ork w ith the
U.S.DepartmentofJustice and other Iaw enforcem entpartners,including the FederalBureau of

Investigation and the SmallBusiness Adm inistration Office of Inspector General,to investigate

possible fraud associated w ith the stim ulus and econom ic assistance program s created by the
federalgovernm entin response to the CO VID-I9 pandem ic.
The facts in this Affidavitcom e from m y personalobservations,m y training and
experience,and information obtained from otherm em bersoflaw enforcem entand from w itnesses.

Page 2 of17

ThisA ffidavit is intended to show m erely thatthere is sufficientprobable cause and does notset
forth allofm y know ledge aboutthis matter.l
PRO BABLE C AUSE

The Pavcheck Protection Prouram

TheCoronavirusAid,Relief,andEconomicSccurity(-CCARES'')Actwasafederal

Iaw enacted in or around M arch 2020 and designed to provide em ergency financialassistance to
the m illions of A m ericans who are suffering the econom ic effects caused by the CO VID-l9
pandem ic. One source of reliefprovided by the CA RES Actwasthe authorization offorgivable

Ioanstosmallbusinessesforjobretentionandcertainotherexpensessthroughaprogram referred
toasthePaycheckProtectionProgram (:;PPP'').
In order to obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business subm itted a PPP Ioan

application,w hich w as signed by an authorized representative of the business. The PPP loan

application required the business (through its authorized representative) to acknowledge the
program rulesand m ake certain affirm ative certifications in orderto be eligible to obtain the PPP

loan.InthePPPloanapplication(SmaIIBusinessAdministration(*$SBA'')Form 2483),thesmall
business(through itsauthorizedrepresentative)wasrequiredtoprovide,amongotherthings,its:
(a)averagemonthly payrollexpenses;and (b)numberofemployees.Thesefigureswereused to
calculate the am ount of m oney the sm all business was eligible to receive under the PPP. ln

addition,businessesapplying fora PPP loan were required to provide docum entation confirm ing
theirpayrollexpenses.
1
The conductand chargesdescribed in this Affidavitare partof a largerinvestigation that
is being conducted in this D istrictand elsew here. As a result,not aIInum bered sources and
anonym ousindividualsand entitiesare described in every filing. Ihave included in thisA ffidavit
only those individualsand entitiesIhave deem ed necessary to explain the particularfactssetforth
here.

Page3 of 17

A PPP Ioan application w as processed by a participating lender. lf a PPP loan

application was approved,the participating lender funded the PPP loan using its own m onies.
W hile itwasthe participating lenderthatissued the PPP loan,the Ioan w as l00% guaranteed by
the SBA . Data from the application,including inform ation aboutthe borrow er,the totalamount
ofthe loan,and thc listed num berOfem ployces,wastransm itted by the lenderto the SBA in the
course ofprocessing the Ioan.

PPP loan proceedswere required to be used by the businesson certain perm issible
expenses payrollcosts,intereston m ortgages,rent,and utilities. The PPP allowed the interest

and principalon the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven ifthe business spentthe loan proceeds on
these expense item sw ithin a designated period oftime and used a defined portion ofthe PPP Ioan
proceeds On payrollexpenses.

FinanclalInstitutions
ThisA ffidavitreferencesfinancialinstitutionsthatare headquartered in the United
Statesand insured by the FederalDepositInsurance Corporation,including Bank I,Bank 3,Bank
5,Bank 6,and Bank 7.
The Schem e to Obtaln FraudulentPPP Loans

On oraboutM ay l3,2020,Phillip J.Augustin (çiAugustin'')and CHS 2 worked
togetherto subm ita fraudulentPPP Ioan application on behalfofa com pany ow ned by Augustin.

Augustin subm itted a PPP loan of $84,515 to a federally insured bank (hereinafterikBank 3'-),
through a third-party company processor (hereinafter SsBank Processor l''). The application

Page 4 of 17

included bank statem entsthatare clearforgeries, and CHS 2 has adm itted thatthe application was
based on docum ents thathe falsified forAugustin.z
Follow ing the successofthatinitialfraudulentPPP application, Augustin and CHS
2 began to work on obtaining m ore and Iarger PPP loans for Augustin's associates and others,

generally forseveralhundred thousand dollarsforeach Ioan, uptoasmuchasapproximately $1.24
m illion. Based on the evidence investigators have reviewed so far, CHS 2 and Augustin

collectively coordinated applicationsforPPP Ioansthataretogetherworth morethan$34m illion

dollars.TheevidencealsoshowsmanymorePPPloanswereattemptedbutrejected bybanksor
their partners,or w ere planned and prepared, but not subm itted before CHS 2's arrest. The
evidence suggests that all or nearly al1 of those loan applications w ere fraudulent, including
Defendant's loan application.
Investigators have obtained m any other PPP loan applications that CH S 2 has

adm itted he subm itted aspartofthisschem e, based on falsified docum ents,and have also obtained
draftdocum entsused orintended to be used in those applicationsorothers. TheseapplicationsaIl
follow the sam e pattern of fraud m any w ith obviously counterfeit February 2020 bank

statements,and aIIwith fabricated IRS Forms 941 (titled,bkEmployer's Quarterly FederalTax

Return'')withthesameindiciaoffraudtbundinAugustin'sinitialapplication butgenerallywith

O n June 25, 2020,investigators arrested CHS 2 and anotherperson now cooperating w ith

theinvestigation('iCHS39')andexecuted searchwarrantsattheirresidences Following hisarrest,
.

CH S 2 chose to cooperate w ith the investigation in the hope ofobtaining favorable consideration
in connection w ith hispending charges. CH S 2 wasinterview ed on thatday, and hascontinued to
cooperate w ith the investigation after obtaining counsel. M ost of his statem ents related herein
have been corroborated by rccords obtained from third parties or recovered from his electronic
devices.

Page 5 of17

even larger intlated payrollnum bers,thusyielding m uch larger loans.3 CH S 2 hasexplained to
investigatorsthatthe fsgures in the Form s 94 1were the productofa form ula thatallow ed him to
startwith atargetIoan amount,and then -ûback into''the payrollfigureson the form . Heexplained

how he used figuresthatw ould producean average monthly payrollfor2019 that,w hen m ultiplied

by 2.5,w ould yield the rcqucsted Ioan am ount. ln turn,the num ber of em ployees reported w as
chosen based on fictionalpayrollfigures,chosen to avoid an average em ployee salary thatm ight
raise suspicion.

l4.

CH S 2 has also explained thathe tried to use bank statem ents show ing thatthe

com pany had a Iarge balance. Because so few com panies had such a statem ent,and likely also
because itwaseasierthan keeping track oftheirtrue statem ents,CHS 2 repeatedly subm itted nearreplicasofthe sam e falsifsed bank statem ents. In particular,CH S 2 appearsto have recycled one
statem ent each from Bank l,Bank 6,and Bank 7. In recycling a statem ent,CHS 2 generally
changed only the account num ber and the account holder's nam e and address, such that each
version ofthe statem enthad identicalfsgures and line item sthroughoutthe statem ent.
A review ofrecords forbank accountscontrolled by CH S 2 atBank 5 confirmed
C HS 2's adm issions that he received num erous kickbacks,often of approxim ately 25% of the

am ountofthe Ioans,and thathe regularly w ired A ugustin a share ofthat kickback in the early
stagesofthe schem e. CHS 2 explained thatthey w ere doing so m any loansby theend ofM ay that
he changed course,instead w iring Iargerlum p sum s,collecting Augustin'ssharesofthe kickbacks
form ultiple Ioans in one w ire.

Som e loan applications also included voided checksthatappearto be falsifsed,such as a

purported check from abank (-kBank 59')thatappearsto havebeen produced on a computerand,

asthesubjectlineofanemailtransmittingthevoided check read,bkconvertedto PDF(,1''rather
than a scan ofan authentic check.

Page 6 of17

l6.

Investigatorsare stillreceiving and analyzing records, butbased on a prelim inary

analysis,asofAugust31, 2020,investigatorshad identisedatotalofapproximately$2,367,765.82

in transfersto CHS 2'saccountsfrom entitiesthateach obtained a sizable PPP loan and thatw ere
identified in the PPP files seized from CH S 2's and another co- conspirator's residences, as

described below orfrom individuals associated w ith thosc entities.
The PPP loans identified above as implicated in the foregoing kickback paym ents
to CHS 2 representonly a fraction of the overallschem e. In executing search warrants at the
respective residences ofCHS 2 and CHS 3, federalagents found stacks ofpaperprinted outand
organized by entity,containing an itintake form ,''fabricated Form s 94 1,or both for each entity,

The intake form s contained fields forthe information needed to fabricate the docum ents and f5ll
outotheraspects ofthe PPP application:identifying inform ation aboutthe owner and com pany,
aswellasbank accountinform ation forreceiving the loan. A section atthe end m arked IEBELO W

IS OFFICE USE ONLY''included blank fieldsforthe tlNumberofEmployeesg,j''kiMonthly
PayrollExpenseg,l''and tLSBA Loan Pre-ApprovalAmount.'' Between CHS 2'sand CHS 3's
residences,investigatorsseized paperfilesforPPP Ioan applicationsforapproxim ately 80 different
entities.

Data obtained from the SBA showed additional PPP loan applications from

additionalentities that text m essage and em ailrecords show had been referred to CHS 2 by
m em bersofthe conspiracy.

The FraudulentPPP Loan D isbursed to H SG

According to Florida's Division ofCorporationswebsite ('CSunbiz''), Hair She
Goes,Inc.($1HSG'')wasestablishedasaFloridafor-profitcorporationonoraboutM arch20, 20 l5,
'
DUHA RT isIisted asthe com pany'sincorporatorand president;and the principaladdressofHSG

Page 7 of17

is 5379 Lyons Rd.,U nit l56l,CoconutCreek,Florida 33073. A check ofthis business address
revealed itwasthe address forPak M ailofCoconutCreek.'
l
On oraboutM ay 26,2020,a PPP Ioan application package on behalfofH SG w as

electronically subm itted to Bank 3 through Bank Processor l. The Ioan application package

includcd,among otherdocuments:(l)fourpurportedForms94lforeachquartcrof2019inthc
nameofHSG;(2)apurported company bankstatementforHSG from Bank 6;and(3)aBorrower
Application Form fora PPP loan requestof$388,790 forHSG based upon a purported average

monthly payroll of $155,516 for 20 employees (the SSPPP Application Form''). The PPP
A pplication Form listed DUH ART asthe l00% ownerofH SG ,and also Iisted D UHA RT'Saddress
aslocated in M iam i-Dade County,Florida.
The purported Form s 941 subm itted with HSG 'S PPP loan application package

show quarterly payrollofover$300,000each quarter,and do notstate thenumberofemployees
w ho w ere paid wages. Thatquarterly payrollfigure yielded the PPP Ioan application'sSûA verage

M onthly Payroll''Ggure of$155,516,which determ ined the$388,790 am ountofthe loan. Each
Form 94lw as signed by hand w ith the nam e 'ûshanrika Duhart''asthe company ow ner,and also
listed tûshanrika Duhart''asthe com pany-s designee and asatipaid Preparer,''although DUHA RT
isnota paid tax preparer.s

4
Pak M ailis a business thatoffers a w ide variety of services such as:m ailbox services'
,
copying,printing and faxing services'
,packing and m oving services;as w ellas notary services,
office suppliesand documentshredding.
CHS 2 adm itted during interview s w ith Iaw enforcem entthatCHS 2 signed m any ofthe
Forms 941 included in the PPP applications. W hen CHS 2 was show n the four Form s 941 for
H SG ,CH S 2 adm itted thathe signed aIIofthem .

Page 8 of17

22.

The purported Form s 941 subm itted w ith H SG 'S PPP loan application package

follow the sam e style and pattern, including the indicia offraud asthe m any otherForm s941that
,

CHS 2 acknowledged thathe helped create and subm itin the course ofthe schem e

as described

above.f M oreover, lRS recordsshow thatH SG did not in fact,f5le any Form s94l forany quarter
,

of2019 orthe firstquarterof2020, and Florida Depadm cntofRevenue records show thatH SG
did notreportany w agesorem ployees forthatsam e period.
The purported com pany bank statem ent for HSG subm itted w ith its PPP Ioan
application package, w hich w as subm itted in electronic form atas a PD F has indicia offorgery
,

A ccording to the PD F f5le bûproperties,'' the February 2020 statem ent w as created using
-tPDFFILLER,'-a program used to editelectronic PDF files, and wasksm odified using il-ext.
'' The
metadata shows thatthe file was created on or about M ay l4, 2020,and m odified on M ay 23

2020. Further, the statem entisa recycled version ofthe sam e falsified Bank 6 statem entu
sed in

othcrfraudulentapplications subm itted as pal4 ofthisschem e.

A s noted above,D UHA RT was Iisted as170th owner and paid
eparer. Dozens ofother
Form s 941 subm itted in this schem e evidence the sam e error. CH SPr
2 has adm itted thatthese
docum ents share thatfeature because he m isunderstood the form ,
andhe(orsomeonefollowing
his instructions) prepared the Forms 941 at issue. The content of the form s also indicate
falsification. H SG subm itted four identical941s,dow n to the penny in reported fsgures. They
also evidence a pattern of payroll spending that is likely false: each of the quarters shows

significant(butidenticalquarteroverquarter)increasesfrom thefirsttosecondtothirdmonthof
the quarter. Foreach identicalform , the sam e figures are reported forthe tax Iiability incurred in
the fsrstm onth ofeach quarter, thesame figure forthe second month ofeach quarter(increased

substantiallyfrom thefirstmonth),andthesamefijureforthethirdmonthofthequarter(increased
substantially from the second month).Theresultlsthatthecompany reportsaperfectly repeating
cycle ofascending payrollcostsw ithin each quarter. CHS 2 hasexplained thatthisw asdue to a
form ulaheused, allocating differentpercentagesofthe quarterly payrolltax Iiability to each m
onth
ofeach quarter.

Page 9 of17

24.

The PPP A pplication Form required the borrower to electronically initialand/or

sign (via Docusign,as explained below) a number of:kcertifications,''including:(l)thatthe
applicantbusiness w as in operation on February l5,2020,and had employees to whom itpaid

salaries/payrolltaxesorpaid independentcontractors,asreported on Formts) 1099,
.(2)thatthe
funds would be used to retain w orkcrs,m aintain payroll,or m ake m odgage/interesvlcase/utility
paymentsas specified by the PPP rule and thatunauthorized use could resultin chargesforfraud;

and (3)thatthe information provided in theapplication,including in supporting documents,was
-ltrue and accurate in a1I material respects,'' and that m aking false statem ents could result in
crim inalcharges. Each certification was electronically initialed tCSD,''the loan application w as
electronically signed tishanrika Duhart,-' and the printed nam e on the loan application was

'kshanrikaDuhartl.l''
Thepromissorynote,Iabeledatthetop-ipaycheckProtectionProgram Loang,l''set
forththeamountofthe loan ($388,790)and itsterms(including thatthe proceedscould only be
used for business purposes). The terms also specified thatthe borrowermay apply for loan
forgivenessonly in an am ountequalto thesum ofcertain specified costs:payrollcosts,intereston

m ortgageobligations,rentobligations,and utility paym ents.The prom issory notefurtherspecified
thatnotm ore than 25% of the am ountof forgiveness could be attributable to non-payrollcosts.
Additionally,the prom issory note contained a illtepresentations and W arranties''section for the
borrow erto acknow ledge,am ong otherthings,that-ùthe inform ation provided in allsupporting

docum ents and form s to obtain this Loan''w ere true and accurate. The prom issory note was
electronically signed 'ûshanrika D uhart'' and the printed nam e on the prom issory note was

bishanrikaDuhartg.l''

Page 10 of 17

26.

Bank Processor 1's lnternet protocol(-CIP'') address records for the HSG Ioan

application show thata computerwith an IP address(ending in 170)associated with CHS 2's
residence in Broward County,Florida, logged into the H SG Ioan accountas early as on or about
M ay 23,2020,asw ellassubsequently on oraboutM ay 26, 2020,M ay 28,2020,and June 2,2020.

ThesessionrccordsalsorcvealthatacomputerwithIPaddress(endingin 104),associatedwitha
residentialaddress in M iam i,Florida,Iogged onto the HSG Ioan accountto view and sign the PPP
loan application on or about M ay 26, 2020. l interviewed the occupantof this residence, w ho

stated thathe/she knew DU HA RT and thatD UHA RT has stayed athis/herresidence in the past.
The occupantofthis residence also stated thatitis com m on forhim /herto share his/herinternet
password w ith his/hervisitorsbecause the cellphone reception in the apartm entisnotvery good.
27.

Recordsreccived from Docusign indicated that, on oraboutM ay 26,2020,at6:55

aam.(UTC),Bank Processor 1sentthe PPP Application Form to the Docusign userSsshanrika

Duhart''attheemailaddressSûhairshegoesinc@ yahoo.com.''Recordsobtainedfrom Yahooshow
thatEûshanrikaDuhart''istheaccountholderfortheemailaddress-ûhairshegoesinc@yahoo.com.''
DU HA RT also provided this em ailaddressto a co-conspiratorw ho has separately been charged

aspartofthescheme,KeyairaBostic(ù;Bostic''),7viatextmessagewhenDUHART wasapplying
forthe PPP Ioan on behalfofhercom pany HSG . Rccordsreceivcd from Docusign also indicated
thaton oraboutM ay 27,2020, usertûshanrika Duhart''logged onto the HSG Ioan accountwith a

computerwith an IP address(ending in l20). This IP address was assigned to DU HA RT atan
addressw here D UHA RT livcd atthe tim e.

1
On Decem ber 8, 2020,Bostic w as indicted in the Southern Districtof Florida w ith w ire
fraud,bank fraud,and conspiracy to com m itw ire fraud and bank fraud forherrole in thisscheme.
See CaseN o.20-cr-60139-W PD .

Page 11 of17

28.

Based upon these records from Docusign and Y ahoo,itis reasonable to inferthat

D UHA RT viewed the PPP Application Form on oraboutM ay 26,2020,at6:56 a

m.(UTC),and

thatD UHA RT signed the PPP A pplication Form on oraboutM ay 26,2020,at6:57 a

m.(UTC).

29.

Based on the representations m ade in the l
oan application paperwork and

supporting docum ents, the PPP loan application forH SG w as approved

and on or aboutJune l,

2020,Bank 3 wired approximately $388,790.00 in loan proceeds into the HSG bank accountat
Bank 12.
Em ails.TextM essakes. and Bank wecsrts congrm p -f
w a pwy K nowiytkya pw cypw s w ya tjte
Fraud

A s partof the investigation, law enforcem ent obtained com m unications betw een
Bosticand D UHA RT, and betw een Bostic and CH S 2, including textm essagesand em ails

lhave

reviewed a num berofthese com m unications, which discussed,am ong otherthings the PPP loan
,

for HSG. These com m unications occurred betw een on or aboutM ay 22 2020,and on orabout
,

July 2,2020. Bostic com m unicated w ith DUH ART atDU HA RT'Sphone num ber 305-915-2006,
,

the sam e phone num berassociated w ith HSG .

Ihave also reviewed Bank 12 recordsforHSG and Bank 5 recordsfora com pany
controlled by CHS 2,w hich confirm ed DUHA RT'Sreceiptofthe H SG PPP Ioan proceedsand the
subsequentkickback paym entto CH S 2. Bank records show thatHSG had an accountatBank 12

endingin*3256(iûBank l2*3256'5).A signaturecardfortheBank 12*3256accountshowsthat
DUHA RT opened the accounton or aboutA pril30, 2020,listed her position as ikdancer
'had
,'
100% ow nership overHSG , and w astheonly signerforthe Bank l2 *3256 account. The signature
card also show s a m ailing address in M iam i- Dade County, Florida, and a physicaladdress in

M iam i, Florida. On or aboutJune 1, 2020,the Bank l2 *3256 account received via bank w ire

Page 12 of17

approximately $388,790 in loan proceedsfrom Bank 3 asaresultofHSG'SfraudulentPPP loan
application.

Text m essages indicate that DU HA RT made m isrepresentations to Bank 3 about
how DU HA RT intended to use the PPP loan m oney. Specifically,on oraboutJune 3,2020,tw o
days afterDU HA RT received the PPP Ioan m oney,Bostic scntw ire instructionsvia textmcssagc
to DU HA RT. The w ire instructions included CH S 2'sbank nam e,com pany nam e,hom eaddress,
account num ber,and routing num ber. D UHA RT w as supposed to follow these instructions in
order to w ire approxim ately 25% of HSG 'S PPP loan to an accountCH S 2 controlled atBank 5.
AfterBostic sentthe w ire instructionsto D UHA RT,Bostic senta textm essage to CHS 2 which
confirm ed that D UHA RT had received the PPP Ioan m oney,and which inform ed CHS 2 that

Bostic had sentthe w ire instructionsto D UHA RT. The textm essagethatBostic sentCH S 2 read

asfollows:iCLDUHARTIgotherdepositin today Isentherthe instructionsaswell.'' CHS 2
replied5tûG reat-''
ln response to the w ire instructions from Bostic,DU HART senta textm essage to
Bostic,which said:$kU w antm e to w ire thatto a businessthatlooks Iike I'm buying a hom e.'' ln

response,Bostic texted DU HART'
.çkl-le said add to notes for rem odeling for Business'
,Orcovid
businessupgrade'
,Im ean on the instructionsforw ire.''

A review of D UHA RT'S bank records show ed that on or about June 4, 2020,

DUHART wired $47,000toCHS2 by goingtoaBank 12branch location inM iami-DadeCounty,
Florida. D UHA RT w ired this m oney from the Bank 12 *3256 accountto an accountcontrolled
by CH S 2 at Bank 5. The m em o line for the w ire indicated it was for :ICO VID business
upgrading/l-lair She Goes - Shanrika Duhart.'' In interview s w ith law enforcem ent,CH S 2
confirmed thatthis money was partof his kickback paym ent. In addition,on oraboutJune 9,

Page 13 of 17

2020,DUHART wired $40,000 toCHS 2 by going to a Bank 12 branch Iocation in M iam iDade
-

County,Florida. DUH ART w ired this m oney from the Bank 12 *3256 account to an account

controlled by CH S 2 atBank 5. Them em o Iine forthew ire indicated itwasfor:ûCOV ID Business
Upgrading.'' CH S 2 confirm ed thatthism oney was also partofhiskickback paym ent.

Asmcntioned above,acheck ofHSG'Sbusinessaddress, w hich was provided on
the PPP Ioan application, showed that itwas notan addressfora business storefront and instead
,

itwasthe address forPak M ailofCoconutCreek. In addition,CH S 2 did notperform oragreeto
perform any businessupgrading servicesforDU HA RT.
36.

On oraboutJune 9, 2020,DUHA RT and Bostic com m unicated abouttherem aining

fundsowed to CH S 2. On oraboutJune 9,2020, Bostic senta textm essage to DU HART w hich
,

stated'
.$$H e said it's 7k m ore was supposed to be 94 in total.'' DUHA RT responded:KiM an' I'm
,

notgoing back in right now .That's alm osta hrwaitevery time Igo.'' ln response,Bostic sent
DU HART a textm essage, whichsai
d:'Clustwriteacheckimajustgiveittohim atpoint.'-Bostic
then sentD UHA RT a follow -up textstating'
. i
klustwrite him a check he w illbe ok.''

On oraboutJune2,2020,the day afterD UHA RT received the PPP Ioan proceeds,
DUH ART created an account at Intuit, a software com pany that offers various products and

services including payroll. Intuitrecords show thatDU HA RT listed only seven purported HSG
em ployees,including herself, herm other,hersister,herbrother, and herdaughter.B
38.

Textm essagesbetw een DUHA RT and Bostic appearto show thatDUHA RT was

concerned abouthaving to repay the PPP loan and, asa result,began to m ake payrollpaym entsto
different individuals in order to qualify for PPP Ioan forgiveness. On or aboutJune 4,2020
,

8
A sdescribed above, the PPP loan application forDUH A RT'Sbusiness listed 20 purported
em ployees.

Page 14 of 17

DUHART sentatextmessagetoBosticthatsaid:itl-leyIsent47000tellhkim)I'm callmeifthere
isalnlissue.Causehecan getthe restwhen hehelpsmeforgivethis.Causeeven now lhave
questions aboutthe cap of 100k on payroll. Igotinto this w ith the know ledge ofitbeing forgive.
N otofm e struggling trying to Ggure outhow to getitforgiven.'' A pproxim ately one m inute later,

D UHA RT sentanothertextm essageto Bostic thatsaid:çklhave to startrunning payrolltom orrow
and stillnotsure ofthe am ountto do and stay w ithin forgiveness.''
A review of DU HART'S bank records show thatfrom approxim ately on orabout

June 10,2020,through approxim ately on or aboutJuly 24,2020,DU HA RT paid approxim ately

$40,300 in purported payrollto differentindividuals,including herself,hermother,hersister,her
brother,and her daughter.g For exam ple, on oraboutJune 19,2020,DUHART wrote a$4,000
check m ade payable to her m other for kipayroll.'' Subsequently, on or about July 24, 2020,

DUHART wrotea$1,000 check madepayableto hermotherfore'payroll.'' On October5,2020,
1aw enforcem entagentsinterviewed D UHA RT'Sm other,who stated,among otherthings,thatshe
hasneverworked forDU HA RT and thatD UHA RT gave herthis m oney in orderto help herstal't

abusinessand to purchaseaprinter.On oraboutJune26,2020,DUHART wrotea $2,000check
m ade payable to her sister forvlpayroll.'' O n O ctober9,2020,Iinterview ed DU HART'S sister,

who stated,am ong otherthings,thatshe hasneverworked forDUHA RT,and thatDU HART gave
herthis money in orderto help herw ith herbills and other expenses. A review of DUHA RT'S
bank recordsalso show thatno evidence ofthesetypesofpayrollexpensesexisted priorto the date

w hen D UHA RT obtained the PPP loan. In addition,as previously m entioned,lRS records show

9
A review ofthese bank recordsalso show thatin the m onth ofJune 2020, D UHA RT m ade
varioustransactionsand w ithdraw alsfrom the Bank 12 *3256 accountatbranch locationslocated
in M iam i-Dade County,Florida.

Page 15 of17

thatHSG did not,in fact, f5le any Form s 94 lforany quarterof20l9 orthe firstquarterof2020

and Florida Departm entofRevenuerecordsshow thatHSG did notreportany w agesorem ployees
forthatsam e period.
40.

According to m y review ofbank records, injusttwomonths,from onoraboutJune

3,2020,through on oraboutJuly 31, 2020,DUHART spenttheapproximately $388790 in PPP
,

funding thatDUHA RT had received. She appearsto have spentvery little ofthis m oney ifany,
,

on actualbusiness-related or legitim ate payroll-related expenses. Specifically,during thistim e

period,approximately$396,394wasdebitedfrom theBank 12 *3256wherethePPP loanproceeds
had been deposited. Besides paying C HS 2 hiskickback and m aking purported payroll

paym ents

to herself and others, DUHART also withdrew approximately $56,900 in cash, transferred

approximately $122,027 to other businesses thatDUHART owns, paid her personalapartm ent
rent,made a carpaym ent,and m ade otherpersonaldebitcard paym ents.

LTHISSPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKI

Page 16 of17

CO NCLUSION
4l.

Based on the forgoing, Ircspcctfully subm itthatthere isprobablecatlse to beIieve

thatSI-IANRIKA SIIAN TAE DUHART com m ltted the TargetOffbnses, fi'oln on orabotptM ay
22s2020,to atleaston orabotltJuly 30, 2020,in the Southern D istrictofFlorida alld elsewhere.
,

FURTHER YO UR AFFIA NT SAYETH NAUG HT .

Beatrlz Feito
SpecialAgent
IRS-CI

Attested to by the applicantin accordance
w iththe requirelnentsof -ed.R. Crim .P.4.l
by telephonc,on this
y ofM arch, 2021,
atFol4Lauderdale,Florida.

HONO RABLE PATRICK .HUNT
UNITED S'I-ATES M AGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 17 of17

File and source

File: CRIM_FLSD_unknown_US-v-Shanrika-Duhart_docX_COMPLAINT.pdf
Size: 837,227 bytes
SHA-256: 9ba4e3a8fb5b2f0b9fc10e9fb114a23aceb9315c2816b69fc9573647776d0a73
Our copy: CRIM_FLSD_unknown_US-v-Shanrika-Duhart_docX_COMPLAINT.pdf
Original: www.justice.gov