Indictment — United States v. Chad Brandon Thomas (E.D. Tenn.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division · No. 2:22-cr-00053-JRG-CRW · Doc. 18 · 2022-06-14 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
AT GREENEVILLE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
JUN 1 4 2022 
V. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Clerk, U. S. District Court 
Eastern District of Tennessee 
At Greeneville 
No. ~t'- )'}- C(-'53 
JUDGE Gca r { W'-f rkl'_ 
CHAD BRANDON THOMAS 
The Grand Jury charges: 
A. 
Background 
INDICTMENT 
COUNTS ONE TO THREE 
(Wire Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1343) 
1. 
At all times material to this indictment, the defendant, CHAD BRANDON 
THOMAS, was a resident ofBlountville, Tennessee, in the Eastern District of Tennessee. 
2. 
At all times material to this indictment, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS was the 
primary owner, or claimed to be the primary owner, of three small businesses, two of which were 
purportedly incorporated in Tennessee and all of which were headquartered in the Eastern District of 
Tennessee. 
3. 
At all times material to this indictment, Chad Thomas Enterprises ("CTE") was 
incorporated in the State of Tennessee and listed its principal address in the Eastern District of 
Tennessee. At all times relevant to this indictment, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS was the owner 
and person with primary decision-making authority for CTE. 
4. 
At all times material to this indictment, Kingdom of God, Inc. ("KOG") was 
incorporated in the State of Tennessee and listed its principal address in the Eastern District of 
Tennessee. At all times relevant to this indictment, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS was the owner 
and person with primary decision-making authority for KOG. 
Case 2:22-cr-00053-JRG-CRW     Document 18     Filed 06/14/22     Page 1 of 8     PageID
#: 23

5. 
At all times material to this indictment, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS operated a 
purported sole proprietorship and did business under the name The Triangle Group ("TG") in the 
Eastern District of Tennessee. 
Paycheck Protection Program 
6. 
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act") is a 
federal law enacted in or around March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial 
assistance to the millions of Americans who were suffering the economic effects of the COVID-19 
pandemic. One source ofrelief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization ofup to $349 
billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through a 
program referred to as the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"). In or around April 2020, 
Congress authorized over $300 billion in additional PPP funding. The purpose of loans issued 
under the PPP was to enable small businesses suffering from the economic downturn to continue to 
pay salaries or wages to their employees. 
7. 
The PPP was administered by the Small Business Administration ("SBA"), which 
promulgated regulations concerning eligibility for a PPP loan. Eligible businesses seeking a loan 
under the PPP could apply for such a loan through a federally insured depository institution. 
8. 
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 
program rules and make certain affirmative certifications to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan. In 
the PPP loan application, the small business (through its authorized representative) was required to 
state, among other things, its average monthly payroll expenses and its number of employees. 
These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible to receive 
2 
Case 2:22-cr-00053-JRG-CRW     Document 18     Filed 06/14/22     Page 2 of 8     PageID
#: 24

under the PPP. In addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan were required to include 
documentation, such as tax forms or payroll listings, showing their payroll expenses and other 
infmmation as part of the application. 
9. 
A PPP loan application was required to be 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 100% guaranteed by the SBA. Data from the PPP loan application, including 
info1mation about the bonower, 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. 
10. 
PPP loan recipients were required to use PPP loan proceeds on certain permissible 
expenses: 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 
expense items within a designated period ohime after receiving the proceeds and used a certain 
amount of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses. 
11. 
The proceeds of a PPP loan were not permitted to be used to purchase consumer 
goods, automobiles, personal residences, clothing, jewelry, to pay the borrower's personal federal 
income taxes, or to fund the borrower's ordinary day-to-day living expenses unrelated to the 
specified authorized expenses. 
B. 
The Scheme 
Beginning in or about May 2020 and continuing through in or about July 2020, the 
defendant, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS, knowingly and willfully devised and intended to devise 
a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and prope1iy, by means of materially false 
and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises. 
3 
Case 2:22-cr-00053-JRG-CRW     Document 18     Filed 06/14/22     Page 3 of 8     PageID
#: 25

C. 
Purpose and Object of the Scheme 
It was the purpose and object of the scheme for CHAD BRANDON THOMAS to unjustly 
enrich himself and others by obtaining PPP loan proceeds under false and misleading pretenses, 
including by making false statements about the number of employees and historical payroll 
expenses of CTE, TG, and KOG. 
D. 
Manner and Means 
1. 
It was paii of the scheme that defendant, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS, submitted 
electronic PPP loan applications, or caused to be submitted electronic PPP loan applications, for 
small businesses that purportedly employed persons and purpmiedly made monthly payroll 
expenditures, all for the purpose of obtaining loans that were intended for distressed small 
businesses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
2. 
It was further part of the scheme that CHAD BRANDON THOMAS created 
fraudulent Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") documents, including Forms 941, as well as monthly 
payroll listings, all containing false representations about the number of employees working for 
CTE, TG, and KOG, as the case may be. 
3. 
It was further part of the scheme that CHAD BRANDON THOMAS concealed and 
attempted to conceal the scheme by transferring loan proceeds among various bank accounts that he 
controlled. 
E. 
Execution of the Scheme 
On or about each of the dates set forth in the table below, in the Eastern District of 
Tennessee and elsewhere, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS, for the purpose of executing the scheme 
described above, and attempting to do so, caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication 
4 
Case 2:22-cr-00053-JRG-CRW     Document 18     Filed 06/14/22     Page 4 of 8     PageID
#: 26

in interstate commerce the writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds described below for each 
count, each transmission constituting a separate count: 
COUNT 
DATE 
DESCRIPTION OF WIRE COMMUNICATION 
1 
May 3, 2020 
PPP loan application on behalf of CTE to the computer servers 
of CDC Small Business Finance located outside the state of 
Tennessee 
2 
May 18, 2020 
PPP loan application on behalf of TG to the computer servers 
of CDC Small Business Finance located outside the state of 
Tennessee 
3 
July 6, 2020 
PPP loan application on behalf ofKOG to the computer 
servers of CDC Small Business Finance located outside the 
state of Tennessee 
All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. 
COUNTS FOUR TO EIGHT 
(Money Laundering: 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)) 
On or about the dates set forth in the table below, at the financial institution in the Eastern 
District of Tennessee set forth in the table below, the defendant, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS, did 
knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct a financial transaction as described in the table below 
affecting interstate and foreign commerce, which involved the proceeds of a specified unlawful 
activity, that is, wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 as alleged in count three, above, with the 
intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity, to wit: wire fraud in violation of 18 
U.S.C. § 1343, and knowing that the transaction was designed in whole and in part to conceal and 
disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified 
unlawful activity and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transaction 
knew that the property involved in the financial transaction represented the proceeds of some form 
of unlawful activity: 
5 
Case 2:22-cr-00053-JRG-CRW     Document 18     Filed 06/14/22     Page 5 of 8     PageID
#: 27

COUNT 
DATE 
FINANCIAL 
FINANCIAL TRANSACTION 
INSTITUTION 
4 
July 28, 2020 
Regions Bank in 
Card purchase at Pal S 19 in the amount 
Kingsport, Tennessee 
of$31.09 
5 
July 30, 2020 
Regions Bank in 
Card purchase at Subway in the amount 
Kingsport, Tennessee 
of $33.52 
6 
July 31, 2020 
Regions Bank in 
Online bank payment to 
Kingsport, Tennessee 
Bb&tolbbankcard in the amount of 
$1,081.71 
7 
July 31, 2020 
Regions Bank in 
Harland Clarke check order in the 
Kingsport, Tennessee 
amount of $60.00 
8 
August 5, 2020 
Regions Bank in 
Wire transfer in the amount of $6,400 to 
Kingsport, Tennessee 
CHAD BRANDON THOMAS 
All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a). 
COUNTS NINE TO TEN 
(Aggravated Identity Theft, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(l)) 
On or about the dates and at the locations in the Eastern District of Tennessee corresponding 
to the felony offense listed in the table below, the defendant, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS, during 
and in relation to the felony violation enumerated in the table below did knowingly transfer, possess, 
and use, without lawful authority, the means of identification of another person, that is, the actual 
person identified in the table below: 
COUNT 
DATE 
FELONY OFFENSE 
MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION 
AND PERSON 
9 
July 6, 2020 
Wire fraud as alleged 
The name of the real person whose 
in count three, above 
initials are C.S. 
10 
July 6, 2020 
Wire fraud as alleged 
The name of the real person whose 
in count three, above 
initials are A.S. 
6 
Case 2:22-cr-00053-JRG-CRW     Document 18     Filed 06/14/22     Page 6 of 8     PageID
#: 28

All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l). 
FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS 
The allegations contained in this Indictment are hereby realleged and incorporated by 
reference for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 
982(a)(l) and 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c). 
Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States 
Code, Section 2461(c), upon conviction of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 
as alleged in Counts One through Three of this Indictment, the defendant, CHAD BRANDON 
THOMAS, shall forfeit to the United States, any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds 
defendant obtained directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation. 
The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, the following: 
a. 
$161,938.01 of United States currency seized from Regions Bank on or about March 
2, 2022, which represents proceeds the defendant personally derived from violations 
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. 
b. 
A personal money judgment in the amount of $145,761.99 in favor of the United 
States and against the defendant, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS, which represents 
proceeds the defendant personally derived from the offense of Title 18, United States 
Code, Section 1343. 
Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(l), upon conviction of violations of 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956, as alleged in Counts Four through Eight of this 
Indictment, the defendant, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS, shall forfeit to the United States any 
property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or any property traceable to such property. The 
property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, the following: 
a. 
$161,938.01 of United States currency seized from Regions Bank on or about March 
2, 2022, which represents proceeds the defendant personally derived from violations 
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. 
7 
Case 2:22-cr-00053-JRG-CRW     Document 18     Filed 06/14/22     Page 7 of 8     PageID
#: 29

b. 
A personal money judgment in the amount of $145,761.99 in favor of the United 
States and against the defendant, CHAD BRANDON THOMAS, which represents 
proceeds the defendant personally derived from the offense of Title 18, United States 
Code, Section 1343. 
If any of the property subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act or omission of defendant, 
a. 
cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; 
b. 
has been transferred, 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 that cannot be divided 
without difficulty; 
the United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to 
Title 21 , United States Code, Section 853(p ), as incorporated by Title 18, United States 
Code, Section 982(b )(1 ). 
M. HAMIL TON III 
By: 
ac D. Heavener, III 
Assistant United States Attorney 
8 
Case 2:22-cr-00053-JRG-CRW     Document 18     Filed 06/14/22     Page 8 of 8     PageID
#: 30

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.tned.105171.18.0.pdf

Size

1,524,774 bytes

SHA-256

fb7e1164e2b38a6b9d9218ab8921a3c85abe8fc2d0e671961c0fa81b86b06ccf

Our copy

gov.uscourts.tned.105171.18.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)