Court filing
Indictment — United States v. Virdure (E.D. Mo.) (E.D. Mo.)
Filed September 25, 2024 in Virdure; one of 4 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2024-09-25 |
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · No. 4:24-cr-00505-JAR-PLC · Doc. 2 · 2024-09-25 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRCT COURT
EASTERN DISTRCT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
FILED
SEP 2 5 2024
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT Of MO
ST, LOUIS
V.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4:24CR505 JAR/ PLC
ANTHONY VIRDURE II,
Defendant.
INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges that:
INTRODUCTION
At all times material to this Indictment, unless otherwise specified below:
1.
Defendant Anthony Virdure II ("Defendant Virdure") was a resident of St. Louis,
Missouri, in the Eastern District of Missouri.
2.
Defendant Virdure was employed by the United States Postal Service as a mail
handler. Defendant Virdure was assigned to the United States Postal Service Processing and
Distribution Center, located at 1720 Market Street, St. Louis, MO 63155 in the Eastern District of
Missouri.
3.
As a mail handler, Defendant Virdure had access to all first-class mail routed
through the Market Street Processing and Distribution Center.
4.
Searches of three separate locations in the Eastern District of Missouri revealed
more than $1,500,000 in checks stolen from correspondence sent to the Market Street Processing
and Distribution Center. Defendant Virdure's fingerprints were recovered from numerous checks
recovered from each of the three separate search locations.
Case: 4:24-cr-00505-JAR-PLC Doc. #: 2 Filed: 09/25/24 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #:
10
COUNT 1
Mail Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1708)
On or about November 15, 2023, in the Eastern District of Missouri, the defendant,
ANTHONY VIRDURE II,
did steal and take from and out of an authorized depository for mail matter, to wit, the United
States Postal Service St. Louis Processing and Distribution Center, located at I 720 Market Street,
St. Louis, MO 63155, a letter enclosing a check, addressed to "WOP," at 500 East Broadway,
Alton, IL 62002, in violation of Title I 8, United States Code, Section 1708.
COUNT2
Mail Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1708)
On or about November 17, 2023, in the Eastern District of Missouri, the defendant,
ANTHONY VIRDURE II,
did steal and take from and out of an authorized depository for mail matter, to wit, the United
States Postal Service St. Louis Processing and Distribution Center, located at l 720 Market Street,
St. Louis, MO 6315 5, a letter enclosing a check, addressed to "CC," at PO Box 94188, Palatine,
IL 60094, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1708.
COUNT3
Mail Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1708)
On or about April 11, 2024, in the Eastern District of Missouri, the defendant,
ANTHONY VIRDURE II,
did steal and take from and out of an authorized depository for mail matter, to wit, the United
States Postal Service St. Louis Processing and Distribution Center, located at 1720 Market Street,
St. Louis, MO 63155, a letter enclosing a check, addressed to "C," at PO Box 952366, St. Louis,
MO 63 I 95, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1708.
2
Case: 4:24-cr-00505-JAR-PLC Doc. #: 2 Filed: 09/25/24 Page: 2 of 7 PageID #:
11
COUNT4
Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343)
5.
The United States Small Business Administration (hereinafter "SBA") is an
executive-branch agency of the United States government that provides support to entrepreneurs
and small businesses. The mission of the SBA is to maintain and strengthen the nation's economy
by enabling the establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in economic
recovery after disasters.
6.
To aid this effort, the SBA enabled and provided for loans through banks, credit
unions, and other lenders. These loans have government-backed guarantees.
The Paycheck Protection Program
7.
The Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") was a COVID-19 pandemic relief
program administered by the Small Business Administration ("SBA") that provided forgivable
loans to small businesses 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 during, and resulting from, the COVID-19 pandemic. PPP loans were fully guaranteed
by the SBA.
8.
To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business had 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 obta in the PPP loan, including that the
business was in operation and either had employees for whom it paid salaries and payroll taxes or
paid independent contractors. A business applying for a PPP loan was required to provide
documentation showing its payroll expenses, such as filed federal income tax documents.
3
Case: 4:24-cr-00505-JAR-PLC Doc. #: 2 Filed: 09/25/24 Page: 3 of 7 PageID #:
12
9.
The types of businesses e ligible for a PPP loan included individuals who were self-
employed or operated as a sole proprietorship, and who did not have any employees. The PPP
loan application for a self-employed individual or sole proprietorship required such an individual
to certify the individual's annual income or net profit, as typically reported to the Internal Revenue
Service on Form I 040, Schedule C, for a given tax year and to provide documentation showing
the individual's annual income or net profit.
I 0.
PPP loan applications were electronically submitted or caused to be submitted by
the borrower and received through SBA servers located in 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.
11.
The proceeds of a PPP loan could be used for certain specified items, such as payroll
costs, mortgage interest payments, rent, and uti I ities for the business. The proceeds of a PPP loan
were not permitted to be used by the borrower to purchase consumer goods or to fund the
borrower's ordinary day-to-day living expenses unrelated to the specified authorized expenses.
12.
Capital Plus Financial ("Capital Plus") acted as a participating lender in the PPP
program, and in that capacity, accepted and processed PPP loan applications.
13.
Loan applications submitted electronically to participating lenders caused interstate
wire communications, including communications with the SBA and the subsequent wiring of
funds.
14.
Capital Plus wired funds by means of interstate wire transmission to loan recipients
once loans were reviewed and approved.
15.
Defendant Virdure maintained an account with US Bank ending in 7703.
4
Case: 4:24-cr-00505-JAR-PLC Doc. #: 2 Filed: 09/25/24 Page: 4 of 7 PageID #:
13
The Scheme to Defraud
16.
It was part of the scheme to defraud that Defendant Yirdure applied for a PPP loan
on behalf of a sole proprietorship-Yirdure Dynamics-through Capital Plus with the intent to
fraudulently obtain loan proceeds.
17.
It was further part of the scheme to defraud that Defendant Virdure falsely
represented in his PPP loan application that the total income reflected on his 2020 Schedule C
2020 was $100,000.
18.
It was further part of the scheme that Defendant Yirdure submitted and caused to
be submitted with the First Draw PPP loan application a fraudulent IRS Form 1040, Schedule C
(Profit or Loss from Business), purporting to have been filed by Defendant Yirdure and reporting
$100,000 in Gross Income in 2020. In truth and fact, the Schedule C was falsified, and had not
in fact been submitted to the Internal Revenue Service.
I 9.
It was further part of the scheme to defraud that Defendant Yirdure falsely
represented in the PPP loan application that he was the sole proprietor of a tobacco store, despite
the fact that he was employed full-time as a mail handler with the United States Postal Service.
20.
It was further part of the scheme to defraud that Defendant Yirdure listed an address
for Virdure Dynamics, purportedly a tobacco store, that was in fact the residential address of his
grandmother's home.
21.
It was further part of the scheme to defraud that Capital Plus relied on the
truthfulness of the defendant's representations as to his income in reaching its decision to issue the
loan.
22.
On or about April 6, 2021, 111 St. Louis, Missouri, 111 the Eastern District of
Missouri, the defendant,
ANTHONY VIRDURE II,
5
Case: 4:24-cr-00505-JAR-PLC Doc. #: 2 Filed: 09/25/24 Page: 5 of 7 PageID #:
14
devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means
of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and willfully
participated in such a scheme with knowledge of its fraudu lent nature, and for the purpose of
executing the scheme described above, and attempting to do so, caused to be transmitted by means
of wire communication in interstate commerce the signals and sounds described below:
COUNT
DATE
1---------
4
April 6, 2021
LOAN APPLICATION
SBA Loan # 8866728710
Application for Anthony
Virdure submitted to obtain
funds from Capital Plus
Financial
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
The Grand Jury further finds by probable cause that:
AMOUNT
$20,832.00
1.
Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2), upon conviction of an
offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, as set forth in Count 4, the
Defendant(s) shall forfeit to the United States of America any property constituting, or derived
from, proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation(s).
Subject to
forfeiture is a sum of money equal to the total value of property obtained directly or indirectly as
a result of such violation.
2.
Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981 (a)( I )(C) and Title 28, United
States Code, Section 2461, upon conviction of an offense in violation of Title I 8, United States
Code, Section 1708, as set forth in Counts 4, the Defendant(s) shall forfeit to the United States any
property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such violation.
Subject to forfeiture is a sum of money equal to the total value of property, real or personal,
constituting or derived from any proceeds traceable to such violation.
6
Case: 4:24-cr-00505-JAR-PLC Doc. #: 2 Filed: 09/25/24 Page: 6 of 7 PageID #:
15
3.
If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of the
Defendant( s):
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, the United States of America will be entitled to the forfeiture of substitute property
pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p).
SAYLER A. FLEMING
United States Attorney
cfwendoly:Carroll #4657003NY
Assistant United States Attorney
7
A TRUE BILL.
FOREPERSON
Case: 4:24-cr-00505-JAR-PLC Doc. #: 2 Filed: 09/25/24 Page: 7 of 7 PageID #:
16File and source
- File
- doc-002-2024-09-25-Redacted-Indictment-Virdure.pdf
- Size
- 593,448 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4dcbe83e1a179d751ae8191237a1239995ecb50ced7d1b2257026658a98135a5
- Original
- No public link identified.