Information — United States v. Yani Stancioff (District of Maine)
Summary
A criminal information filed December 3, 2024 in United States v. Yani Stancioff, Case 2:24-cr-00138-LEW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. It alleges that from about June 23, 2020 to about September 10, 2021 Stancioff caused false EIDL advance and PPP applications to be submitted, claiming an agriculture business and gross income from a sole proprietorship, and later false loan forgiveness applications. The information lists an EIDL advance of $10,000 and PPP applications of $20,833 on April 18, 2021 and May 28, 2021, and states Stancioff received approximately $51,666. Count One charges wire fraud under Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2, and the forfeiture notice seeks a money judgment in the amount of the proceeds.
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
Cite this document
“Information — United States v. Yani Stancioff (District of Maine).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/1-information-as-to-yani-stancioff-1-count-s-1-clp-modified-on-10a982aebf/
, SHA-256 b0f1d7c87d446fe51a582a153646766d48422d94e9a1331d2b90f68e7ccc5bc2.Full text
Case 2:24-cr-00138-LEW Document 1 Filed 12/03/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. No. 2:24-
YANI STANCIOFF
INFORMATION
The United States Attorney charges:
General Allegations
At times relevant to this Information:
1. The defendant resided in Portland, Maine, in the District of Maine.
2. 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.
3. 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 obtain the PPP loan, including that the business was
in operation and either had employees for whom it paid salaries and payroll taxes
Case 2:24-cr-00138-LEW Document 1 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2
or paid independent contractors. A business applying for a PPP loan was required
to provide documentation showing its payroll expenses.
4. The proceeds of a PPP loan could be used for certain specified
items, such as 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 pay personal expenses unrelated to the
specified authorized expenses.
5. The Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program was an SBA
program providing low-interest financing to small businesses, renters, and
homeowners affected by declared disasters. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) authorized the SBA to provide EIDLs of up
to $2 million to eligible small businesses experiencing substantial financial
disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the CARES Act and
subsequent legislation authorized the SBA to issue advances of up to $10,000 to
small businesses within three days of applying for an EIDL.
6. In order to obtain an EIDL and advance, a qualifying business was
required to submit an application to the SBA and provide information about its
operations, such as the number of employees, gross revenue for the 12-month
period preceding the disaster, and cost of goods sold in the 12-month period
preceding the disaster. In the case of EIDLs for COVID-19 relief, the 12-month
period was the period preceding January 31, 2020. For a business to be eligible
for an EIDL, the business must have been in operation before February 1, 2020.
2
Case 2:24-cr-00138-LEW Document 1 Filed 12/03/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3
The applicant was also required to certify that all of the information in the
application was true and correct to the best of the applicant’s knowledge.
7. All EIDL applications were submitted online. Upon approval of an
application for an EIDL or advance, SBA would disburse the funds.
The Scheme and Artifice
8. Beginning on about June 23, 2020, and continuing to about
September 10, 2021, in the District of Maine and elsewhere, the Defendant,
YANI STANCIOFF,
knowingly and willfully devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and
fraudulent pretense, representations and promises.
Manner and Means
9. The manner and means by which the defendant sought to
accomplish the scheme and artifice included, among others, the following:
a. The defendant caused to be prepared and submitted PPP loan
applications and an EIDL advance application that included
materially false and fraudulent representations and pretenses,
such as:
i. False statements on an EIDL advance application that
the defendant owned a business in the agriculture
industry and that the supposed business employed 12
3
Case 2:24-cr-00138-LEW Document 1 Filed 12/03/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4
people;
ii. False statements on an EIDL advance application about
his supposed business’s gross revenue;
iii. False statements on the PPP application about the
defendant’s gross income from a supposed sole
proprietorship;
iv. False statements that the PPP loan proceeds were
necessary to support payroll and other specified items
approved under the PPP;
v. Affirming under penalty of perjury that the statements
in the applications were true and correct.
b. The defendant caused to be prepared and submitted false and
fraudulent IRS documents in support of the PPP applications;
c. The defendant caused to be prepared and submitted false loan
forgiveness applications for his PPP loans.
10. As part of the scheme, the defendant caused to be filed the following
EIDL and PPP loan applications:
APPROXIMATE APPLICATION APPROXIMATE
DATE TYPE APPLICATION
AMOUNT
June 23, 2020 EIDL $10,000
ADVANCE
April 18, 2021 PPP $20,833
4
Case 2:24-cr-00138-LEW Document 1 Filed 12/03/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5
May 28, 2021 PPP $20,833
11. Stancioff received approximately $51,666 as a result of the above
referenced applications. The funds were deposited electronically into bank
accounts Stancioff controlled.
COUNT ONE
Wire Fraud
12. Paragraphs 1 – 11 and all subparts are incorporated herein.
13. On about the dates specified below, in the District of Maine and
elsewhere, the defendant,
YANI STANCIOFF
having devised and intending to devise a scheme to defraud, and to obtain money
and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises, did transmit and cause to be transmitted by
means of wire communications in interstate commerce, writings, signs, signals,
pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing the scheme to defraud, as set
forth below:
DATE DESCRIPTION
June 29, 2020 Electronic fund transfer of $10,000 from the SBA into a bank
account held by Yani Stancioff.
May 5, 2021 Electronic fund transfer of $20,833 of PPP funds into a bank
account controlled by Yani Stancioff.
June 25, 2021 Electronic fund transfer of $20,833 of PPP funds into a bank
account controlled by Yani Stancioff.
5
Case 2:24-cr-00138-LEW Document 1 Filed 12/03/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6
Thus, the Defendant violated Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343
and 2.
FORFEITURE NOTICE
1. Upon conviction of the offense alleged in Count One of this
Information, charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the defendant shall forfeit
to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c),
any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from proceeds traceable to
the offense and, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2), any property constituting, or
derived from, proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as the result of the offense.
The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, a money judgment in
the amount of those proceeds and property derived from those proceeds.
2. If any of the property described in Paragraph 1, above, as being
forfeitable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2), as a result of any act or omission of the
defendant—
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;
it is the intention of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) and 18
6
Case 2:24-cr-00138-LEW Document 1 Filed 12/03/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7
U.S.C. § 982(b)(1), incorporating 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any
other property of the defendant up to the value of the property described in
paragraph 1 above.
All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), and
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), and Title 18, United States Code,
Section 982(a)(2).
Dated this 3rd day of December, 2024, in Portland, Maine.
Respectfully submitted
Darcie N. McElwee
United State Attorney
_______________
Sean M. Green
Assistant United States Attorney
7
File and source
- File
- 1-information-as-to-yani-stancioff-1-count-s-1-clp-modified-on.pdf
- Size
- 102,777 bytes
- SHA-256
- b0f1d7c87d446fe51a582a153646766d48422d94e9a1331d2b90f68e7ccc5bc2
- Original
- No public link identified.