Statement of Facts — United States v. Tony Sentel Stephens

Record facts

U.S. District Court, E.D. Va., Richmond Division · No. 3:25-cr-00070-JAG · Doc. 11 · 2025-05-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
RICHMOND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case No. 3:25-CR-70
V.
TONY SENTEL STEPHENS,
Defendant.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The United States and the defendant, 'FONY SENTEL STEPHENS, agree that at trial, the
United States would have proven the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt with admissible
and credible evidence:
Introductory Allegations
At all times relevant and material to this Statement of Facts:
The defendant, TONY SENTEL STEPHENS (hereafter, “STEPHENS” or
1.
“defendant”), was a resident of the Eastern District of Virginia. Janiqua Kiara Wright (hereafter.
“Wright”) was also a resident of the Eastern District of Virginia.
The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was an
2.
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 disaster.
1
Case 3:25-cr-00070-JAG     Document 11     Filed 05/15/25     Page 1 of 8 PageID# 42

Paycheck Protection Program
The Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) was a COVID-19 pandemic relief
3.
program administered by the SBA that provided forgivable loans to small businesses, sole
proprietors, and other entities for job retention and certain other expenses. The PPP permitted
participating third-party lenders to approve and disburse SBA-backed PPP loans to cover payroll,
fixed debts, utilities, rent/mortgage, accounts payable and other bills incurred by qualifying
businesses and sole proprietors during, and resulting from, the COVID-19 pandemic. PPP loans
were fully guaranteed by the SBA.
To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying applicant had to submit a PPP loan application.
4.
which was signed by an authorized representative of the business or sole proprietorship. The PPP
loan application required the applicant (through its authorized representative) to acknowledge the
program rules and make certain affirmative certifications to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan,
including that the applicant was
in operation on February
15, 2020.
In addition, applicants
seeking a PPP loan as sole proprietors without employees (other than the owners) were required
to provide documentation showing the business’s gross income from either 2019 or 2020.
PPP loan applications were electronically submitted or caused to be submitted by
5.
the borrower and received through SBA servers located in either the Commonwealth of Virginia
or Oregon. Once approved, the business received the PPP loan proceeds via an electronic funds
transfer from the third-party lender to a financial account under the control of the business.
The proceeds of a PPP loan could be used for certain specified items, such as
6.
payroll costs, costs related to the continuation of group health care benefits, or mortgage interest
payments. The proceeds of a PPP loan were not permitted to be used by the borrowers to
purchase consumer goods, automobiles, personal
residences,
clothing, jewelry,
to pay the
2
Case 3:25-cr-00070-JAG     Document 11     Filed 05/15/25     Page 2 of 8 PageID# 43

borrower’s personal federal income taxes, or to fund the borrower’s ordinary day-to-day living
expenses unrelated to the specified authorized expenses.
While the first draw PPP program ended on May 31, 2021, certain borrowers
7.
were eligible to apply for second draw PPP loans. Eligible borrowers included businesses that:
had no more than 300 employees; which had previously received a PPP loan and would or had
already used the full amount only for authorized uses; and which could demonstrate at least a
25% reduction in gross receipts between comparable quarters in 2019 and 2020. Second draw
PPP loans were approved with the same general loan terms as the first draw PPP loans.
Count One
(Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud)
The
allegations
contained
in
paragraphs
I
through
7
are
realleged
and
8.
incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
From on or about April of 2021, and continuing through at least on or about July
9.
2021, the exact dates being unknown, in the Eastern District of Virginia and within the jurisdiction
of this Court, TONY SENTEL STEPHENS, the defendant herein, knowingly and intentionally
combined, conspired, confederated, and agreed with others, known and unknown, to devise a
scheme and artifice to defraud and for obtaining money by means of materially false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises through the transmission of signs, signals, and
writings in interstate commerce.
The purpose of this conspiracy was for the defendant and Wright to unjustly enrich
10.
themselves by fraudulently obtaining COVID-19 relief funds through the submission of false and
misleading applications to Womply, a fintech company assisting businesses in applying for PPP
loans, and financial institutions.
3
Case 3:25-cr-00070-JAG     Document 11     Filed 05/15/25     Page 3 of 8 PageID# 44

Manner and Means of the Conspiracy
The manner and means through which the defendant and Wright sought to
11.
accomplish the purpose of their conspiracy included, but was not limited to, the following.
On or about April 7, 2021, Wright, with the assistance of STEPHENS, knowingly
12.
and deliberately submitted a false and misleading PPP application and supporting documentation
to Womply. Wright sought a PPP loan for a purported sole proprietorship in her name, and she
included false information in her application to create the impression she was eligible to receive
this loan, including, but not limited to, the following falsehoods and misrepresentations:
a.
Wright falsely represented that her sole proprietorship was established on January
1,2019, when, in truth and fact, no such business existed; and
b.
Wright falsely represented that her sole proprietorship generated gross income in
the amount of $117,000 for tax year 2019, when, in truth and fact, her nonexistent
sole proprietorship had generated no income.
Wright’s application also contained false certifications. For instance, Wright
13.
falsely certified that her sole proprietorship was in operation on February 15, 2020, when, as the
defendant and Wright then and there knew, Wright did not own or operate a sole proprietorship at
or before that time.
To substantiate the false infoiTnation provided in her PPP application, Wright,
14.
with the assistance of STEPHENS, submitted fraudulent supporting documentation to Womply.
For instance, Wright submitted a fraudulent bank statement that falsely represented Wright having
$84,210 in funds between her purported checking and savings accounts at Navy Federal Credit
Union in February 2019. In truth and fact, Wright did not have any bank accounts with Navy
Federal Credit Union in 2019, and she only began banking with Navy Federal Credit Union in or
around August of 2020. The fraudulent bank statement was created by altering a legitimate bank
statement issued to STEPHENS by Navy Federal Credit Union.
4
Case 3:25-cr-00070-JAG     Document 11     Filed 05/15/25     Page 4 of 8 PageID# 45

Wright also created and submitted as part of her application a fictitious Internal
15.
Revenue Service (“IRS”) Form Schedule C for tax year 2019 that was not filed with the IRS. This
document was created to corroborate Wright’s false assertion on her PPP application that her sole
proprietorship had gross income in the amount of $117,000.
Wright’s PPP loan application was ultimately denied, but she assisted STEPHENS
16.
in successfully obtaining two fraudulent PPP loans.
On or about April 15,2021, STEPHENS, assisted by Wright, submitted a false and
17.
misleading PPP application to Womply for STEPHENS’S purported sole proprietorship. In this
application, STEPHENS claimed that his sole proprietorship was established on January 1, 2019
and that the business generated gross income of $ 117,000 in tax year 2019. These representations
were false, as STEPHENS and Wright well knew.
To substantiate the false information in his PPP application, STEPHENS, assisted
18.
by Wright, submitted fraudulent supporting documentation that was closely similar to the
fraudulent documents Wright submitted in her PPP application. For instance, STEPHENS
submitted a forged Navy Federal Credit Union bank statement reflecting the exact same account
balances and statement period as the fraudulent bank statement Wright submitted in her PPP
application. Likewise, STEPHENS submitted a fraudulent IRS Form Schedule C for tax year 2019
that listed identical income and expenses as the fraudulent tax return Wright submitted in her PPP
application.
STEPHENS’S PPP application was ultimately approved, and on or about April 16,
19.
2021, STEPHENS signed the promissory note. Thereafter, on or about July 13, 2021, $20,833 in
PPP loan proceeds were ultimately disbursed by a financial institution to STEPHENS’S bank
account.
5
Case 3:25-cr-00070-JAG     Document 11     Filed 05/15/25     Page 5 of 8 PageID# 46

20.
On or about May 20,2021, STEPHENS, with the assistance of Wright, submitted a
second draw PPP application for his purported sole proprietorship to Womply. This application
contained many of the same false statements and misrepresentations as STEPHENS’s first PPP
application, including, but not limited to, a false representation that STEPHENS’s sole
proprietorship generated $117,000 in gross income in tax year 2019.
To substantiate the false information in this second draw PPP application,
21.
STEPHENS submitted the same fraudulent bank statement and fraudulent IRS Form Schedule C
that STEPHENS and Wright had submitted in STEPHENS’s first PPP application.
STEPHENS’s second draw PPP application was ultimately approved, and on or
22.
about May 28, 2021, STEPHENS signed the promissory note. Thereafter, on or about June 7,
2021, $20,833 in PPP loan proceeds were disbursed by a financial institution to STEPHENS’s
personal bank account.
In furtherance of this conspiracy, STEPHENS and Wright caused wire
23.
transmissions in interstate commerce, including wire transmissions of fraudulent PPP applications
from the Eastern District of Virginia to servers outside the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Overt Acts in Furtherance of the Scheme
In furtherance of the conspiracy, STEPFIENS and Wright did commit and cause
24.
to be committed the following overt acts, among others, in the Eastern District of Virginia:
On or about April 7, 2021, STEPHENS provided Wright with a fraudulent bank
a.
statement purportedly issued by Navy Federal Credit Union so that Wright could
submit this fraudulent document in her PPP application to Womply.
b.
On or about April 7, 2021, Wright electronically submitted her false and
misleading PPP application to Womply for her purported sole proprietorship.
6
Case 3:25-cr-00070-JAG     Document 11     Filed 05/15/25     Page 6 of 8 PageID# 47

c.
On or about April 15, 2021, STEPHENS, with the assistance of Wright,
electronically submitted a fraudulent PPP application to Womply which included
false and misleading supporting documentation.
This statement of facts includes those facts necessary to support the plea
25.
agreement between the defendant and the United States. It does not include each and every fact
known to the defendant or to the United States, and it is not intended to be a full enumeration of
all of the facts surrounding the defendant’s case.
The actions of the defendant, as recounted above, were in all respects knowing
26.
and deliberate, and were not committed by mistake, accident, or other innocent reason.
Respectfully submitted,
Erik S. Siebert
United Stages Attorney
Date:
By:
Avi Panth
Assistant United States Attorney
7
Case 3:25-cr-00070-JAG     Document 11     Filed 05/15/25     Page 7 of 8 PageID# 48

After consulting with my attorney and pursuant to the plea agreement entered into this
day between the defendant, TONY SENTEL STEPHENS, and the United States,
I hereby
stipulate that the above Statement of Facts is true and accurate, and that had the matter proceeded
to trial, the United States would have proved the same beyond a reasonable doubt.
7
SENTEL STEPHENS
Date:
TONY
1 am
Stephanie
Henkle,
defendant’s
attorney.
I have carefully reviewed the above
Statement of Facts with him. To my knowledge, his decision to stipulate to these facts
is an
informed and voluntary one.
Date
Mephanie Henkle, Esq.
Attorney for TONY SENTEL STEPHENS
8
Case 3:25-cr-00070-JAG     Document 11     Filed 05/15/25     Page 8 of 8 PageID# 49

File and source

File

United_States_v._Stephens__vaed_3-25-cr-00070__doc11__gov.uscourts.vaed.573644.11.0.pdf

Size

537,572 bytes

SHA-256

e5bc82fddf5fd03251f4378f808aa0a4014587fb7b3b0dfddb9eea2a92a5939e

Our copy

United_States_v._Stephens__vaed_3-25-cr-00070__doc11__gov.uscourts.vaed.573644.11.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com