AO 91 (Rev. 1 l/1 1) CIiYIVI Complaint

Summary

Document 3 in Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB, entered on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida docket on October 11, 2023: a criminal cover sheet and an AO 91 criminal complaint in United States v. Stephanie Diane Smith, Case No. 23-mj-6477-PMH, sworn before United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt. The complaint charges wire fraud under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, for conduct alleged from March 29, 2021 through November 1, 2021 in Broward County. The affidavit of an FBI special agent describes the Paycheck Protection Program under the CARES Act and an investigation of Broward Sheriff's Office employees who received PPP loans. It alleges that the defendant obtained two sole-proprietor PPP loans, including one of $20,833, supported by a Schedule C the affiant states was not filed with the IRS. The filing runs 16 pages.

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

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. _23-mj-6477-PMH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D.C.

FILED BY.

OCT 11 2023

STEPHANIE DIANE SMITH, ANGELA E. NOBLE
CLERK U.S. DIST. CT.
S. D. OF FLA. - FT. LAUD.

VS.

Defendant.
/

MIN R E

1. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the United States
Attorney’s Office prior to August 8, 2014 (Mag. Judge Shaniek Maynard)? NO.

2. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the United States
Attorney’s Office prior to October 3, 2019 (Mag. Judge Jared Strauss)? NO.

Respectfully Submitted,

MARKENZY LAPOINTE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

DAVID A. SNIDER

Assistant United States Attorney
Court ID No. A5502260

500 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394

Tel: (954) 660-5696

Fax: (954) 356-7336

Email: david.snider@usdoj.gov

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 2 of 16

AO 91 (Rev. 11/11} Criminal Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Southern District of Florida

United States of America )
v. )
STEPHANIE DIANIE SMITH )  CaseNow
) 23-mj-6477-PMH
)
)
)
Defendant(s)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
I, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
On or about the date(s) of 03/29/2021 through 11/01/2021 __ in the county of Broward in the
Southern District of Florida , the defendant(s) violated:
Code Section Offense Description
18 U.S.C. § 1343 Wire Fraud.

This criminal complaint is based on these facts:

See attached Affidavit.

of Continued on the attached sheet.

Kalle GiPikiastorse

Complainant's signature

Kelly DiPietrantonio, Special Agent, FBI

Printed name and title

Sworn to and subscribed before me telephonically

this 11th day of October, 2023.
Date: 10/11/2023 lal / lt

Judge's signature

City and state: Fort Lauderdale, Florida Patrick M. Hunt, United States Magistrate Judge

Printed name and title

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 3 of 16

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

Your Affiant, Kelly DiPietrantonio, having been duly sworn, does hereby depose and say:

INTRODUCTION AND AGENT BACKGROUND

1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) assigned to
the Miami Division. As such, I am an investigative and law enforcement officer of the United
States empowered by law to conduct investigations of, and to make arrests for, certain federal
criminal violations including, in part, violations of the wire fraud statute. I have been a Special
Agent with the FBI since May 2018 and am currently assigned to a Public Corruption Squad in
Miami where I conduct investigations involving bribery, Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan
fraud, Economic Injury and Disaster Loan (EIDL) fraud, election crimes, and money laundering.

2. Through my training and experience, I became familiar with the types of records,
electronic and financial, that these schemes generate, and the methodologies used to perpetrate

~. such schemes. Much of my work involved analyzing these types of records to determine the
existence of criminal activity and to develop evidence. I have also received formal and on-the-job
training in criminal investigation procedures and criminal law. I have personally conducted
numerous physical and other surveillances, including wire and electronic surveillance.

3. The information contained in this affidavit is based on, among other things, my
participation in the investigation described herein, consensual witness interviews, my review of
relevant documents and electronic communications, information from other law enforcement
officers and other individuals, and knowledge gained from my personal training and experience.

4. I make this affidavit in support of a criminal complaint charging STEPHANIE

DIANE SMITH (hereinafter, “SMITH”) with violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section.

1343, that is, wire fraud. Based upon the facts set forth herein, there is probable cause to believe

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 4 of 16

that, on or about March 29, 2021, and continuing through in or around November 1, 2021, in
Broward County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, SMITH did knowingly, and
with the intent to defraud, devise, and intend to devise, a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to
obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations,
and promises, knowing that the pretenses, representations, and promises were false and fraudulent
when made, and, for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice, did knowingly transmit and
cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate commerce, certain writings,
signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

5. Because I submit this affidavit for the limited purpose of establishing probable

cause, it does not include all the facts that I have learned during the course of the government’s

investigation.
BACKGROUND
The Small Business Administration
6. The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was an 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 disasters.

7. As part of this effort, the SBA enabled and provided loans through banks, credit
unions, and other lenders. These loans had government-backed guarantees.

The Paycheck Protection Program

8. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was a federal

law enacted in or around March 2020, designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the

millions of Americans who were suffering from the economic effects caused by the COVID-19

2

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 5 of 16

pandemic. One source of relief that the CARES Act provided was the Paycheck Protection
Program (“PPP”), which authorized forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and
certain other expenses.

9. The SBA promulgated regulations concerning eligibility for a PPP loan. 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, including that the business was in
operation on February 15, 2020, and either had employees for whom it paid salaries and payroll
taxes or paid independent contractors. Payments to independent contractors are typically reported
to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on a “Form 1099-MISC.” In the PPP loan application
(SBA Form 2483), the small business (through its authorized representative) was required to state,
among other things, its: (a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of employees
(including owners). These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the small business
was eligible to receive under the PPP.

10. In addition, a business applying for a PPP loan was required to provide
documentation showing its payroll expenses. This payroll information was material to the
application because, pursuant to statutory requirements and implementing regulations, the amount
of the loan that typically could be approved was a function of the applicant’s historical payroll
costs, consisting of compensation to its employees whose principal place of residence was the
United States, subject to certain exclusions.

11. Individuals who operated a business under a “sole proprietorship” business

structure were eligible for a PPP loan. To qualify for such a PPP loan, individuals had to report

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 6 of 16

and document their income and expenses from the sole proprietorship. Sole proprietorships
typically report their income and expenses yearly to the IRS on a “Form 1040, Schedule C.” As
with other PPP loans, this information and supporting documentation was used to calculate the
amount of money the individual was entitled to receive under the PPP. The maximum PPP loan
amount for a sole proprietor with no employees was $20,833.

12. PPP loan applications were processed by participating lenders and third-party loan
processors. If a PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan
using its own monies, including by electronic transfer through the Automated Clearing House
(ACH) system. While it was the participating lender that issued the PPP loan, the loan was 100%
guaranteed by the SBA. Data from the application, including information about the borrower, 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.

13. After the lender funded the PPP loan to the borrower, the lender submitted
disbursement details into the SBA E-Tran system, with servers located in Sterling, VA. The SBA’s
Denver Finance Center, located in Denver, Colorado, created payment files and authorized
payments of the PPP processing fee to the lender through the Financial Management System to
the Treasury. The primary server for the Financial Management System was in Sterling, VA. The
PPP processing fee varied depending on the amount of the loan. Once created, the payment files
were then transmitted via wire to the U.S. Treasury disbursing office in Kansas City, Missouri,

| which, in turn, sent instructions for payment of funds to the Federal Reserve Bank ACH processing
site in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

14. The proceeds of a PPP loan could be used only for certain specified items, such as

payroll costs, costs related to the continuation of group health care benefits, or mortgage interest

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 7 of 16

payments for the business. The proceeds of a PPP loan were not permitted to be used by the
borrowers to purchase consumer goods, automobiles, personal residences, clothing, or 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.

15. The PPP allowed the interest and principal on the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven
if the borrower utilized 60% of the loan in the 24 weeks post-disbursement toward payroll costs
and utilized the remaining 40% on qualified expense items (e.g., mortgage, rent, and utilities).

16. Applying for PPP loan forgiveness was a separate process that required additional
affirmations that the applicant satisfied the eligibility for PPP loan forgiveness. Whatever portion
of the PPP loan was not forgiven was serviced as a loan.

Investigation of Certain Broward Sheriff’s Office Employees Who Received PPP Loans

17. During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal and state law enforcement agencies,
including the FBI, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Office of Inspector
General (“FRB-OIG”), and the Broward Sheriff's Office (“BSO”), became aware that certain
current and former BSO employees, including, but not limited to, sworn law enforcement officers,
had received one or more PPP loans while they were employed by BSO.

18. In and around May 2022, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern
District of Florida (“USAO”), in coordination with FRB-OIG, BSO, and FBI, opened a criminal
investigation to determine whether any current or former BSO employee had violated federal law
in connection with obtaining or attempting to obtain a PPP loan or any other form of pandemic
relief authorized under the CARES Act, such as loans and advances made available through the

SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program (hereinafter, the “Investigation”’).

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 8 of 16

19. | SMITH is one such current BSO employee whom the USAO and its law
enforcement partners investigated after learning that SMITH had received PPP loans while
employed by BSO. SMITH has been employed by BSO since approximately March 1996 and
held the title of Deputy Sheriff in BSO’s Department of Law Enforcement.

20. More specifically, law enforcement learned from SBA records and other sources
described below that SMITH received the following two PPP loans while employed by BSO:

a. SBA loan number 1892748707 in the amount of $20,833.00, which was disbursed
on or about April 1, 2021, from a PPP lender (“Lender 1”) to borrower “Stephanie
Smith” as a sole proprietor doing business as “Children 1st Basketball Training”

(hereinafter, the “Children 1st PPP Loan”); and

b. SBA loan number 7928598808 in the amount of $10,275.00, which was disbursed
on or about May 11, 2021, from a PPP lender (“Lender 2”) to borrower “Stephanie
Smith” as a sole proprietor doing business as “Agape Smith Vending” (hereinafter,
the “Agape PPP Loan’).

21. | As more particularly described below, pursuant to federal grand jury subpoenas, ex
parte court orders, consensual interviews, and other investigative sources and methods, the
Investigation has obtained evidence establishing probable cause to believe that, in connection with
the Children 1st PPP Loan and the Agape PPP Loan, SMITH committed violations of the wire
fraud statute. That is, SMITH knowingly devised and participated in a scheme to defraud in which
SMITH, among other things: (a) submitted and caused the submission of false and fraudulent PPP
loan applications; (b) caused the disbursement of fraudulently obtained PPP loan proceeds to
herself by means of wire communication transmitted in interstate commerce; and (c) submitted

and caused the submission of false and fraudulent applications for forgiveness of her PPP loans.

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 9 of 16

PROBABLE CAUSE THAT SMITH COMMITTED WIRE FRAUD

SMITH Fraudulently Obtained the Children Ist PPP Loan

22. Loan records obtained by federal grand jury subpoena show that, on or about March
29, 2021, SMITH caused the submission of a PPP loan application to Lender | for “Stephanie
Smith” (the business legal name) as a sole proprietor doing business as “Children 1st Basketball
Training” (hereinafter, the “Children 1st PPP Application”). The Children Ist PPP Application
included SMITH’s social security number, home address, cell phone number, and email address.
It also listed “STEPHANIE SMITH” as the primary contact, and SMITH’s Florida driver’s license
was submitted therewith.

23. . The Children 1st PPP Application claimed that Children 1st Basketball Training

(hereinafter, “Children Ist”) had a total gross income of $100 000 for the tax year 2019. Based
upon this claimed total gross income for the tax year 2019, the Children Ist PPP Application
requested a PPP loan in the amount of $20,833.32. The Children 1st PPP Application also claimed
that the purpose of the PPP loan was for payroll costs, rent/mortgage interest, utilities, and covered
operations expenditures. As explained below, evidence shows that Children Ist in fact had zero
gross income for the tax yar 2019.

24. Submitted with the Children 1st PPP Application was an IRS Form 1040 Schedule
C, purportedly for the tax year 2019. The name of the proprietor on the Schedule C was “Stephanie
D Smith” and the business name was “Children 1 st Basketball Training.” The Schedule C reflected
in line.7 that Children 1st had $100,236 in gross income and reflected in line 31 a net profit of
$88,193. As explained below, evidence shows that the Schedule C submitted with the Children

1st PPP Application was fabricated and was not filed with IRS.

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD.Docket 10/11/2023 Page 10 of 16

25. The Children 1st PPP Application was initialed and signed electronically by

SMITH via DocuSign. Specifically, a DocuSign Certificate of Completion for the Children Ist

- PPP Application showed that “STEPHANIE SMITH,” using the email address
“smithsd417@aol.com,” signed the Children 1st PPP Application on March 29, 2021, at
approximately 7:19 p.m.

26. Subpoenaed bank records show that, on April 1, 2021, SMITH received the
proceeds of the Children 1st PPP Loan in the amount of $20,833. More specifically, Lender 1
funded the Children 1 st PPP loan by depositing the loan proceeds into SMITH’s checking account
ending in 3536 in her name at Bank | via ACH transfer. Based on my training and experience and
understanding of the ACH system, and my review of records obtained in the Investigation, the
disbursement of the Children Ist PPP loan to SMITH caused the transmission of a wire
communication in interstate commerce.

27. Subpoenaed loan records further show that SMITH applied for forgiveness of the
Children 1st PPP Loan, and that the principal loan amount and interest was forgiven by the SBA.
In particular, a “PPP Loan Forgiveness Application From 3508S Revised January 19, 2021”
produced by Lender 1 bears SMITH’s electronic signature and is dated July 19, 2021. The
forgiveness application claimed that $12,499.80 in loan proceeds was spent on payroll costs, and
certified that the borrower (SMITH) had complied with the requirements of the PPP rules. Lender
1’s records show that it received the Children 1st PPP Loan’s then-outstanding principal balance
($20,833) and interest ($68.49) from the SBA on or about July 29, 2021.

28. As indicated above, the Investigation obtained evidence by ex parte court order,

federal grand jury subpoenas, and other sources, establishing that the 2019 gross income claimed

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 11 of 16

in the Children 1st PPP Application ($100,000) was materially false, and that the IRS Form 1040
Schedule C submitted therewith was a fictitious document not filed with the IRS. In particular:

a. Pursuant to an ex parte Order issued by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Title 26, United States Code, Section 6103(i)(1),
the IRS disclosed to the USAO for purposes of the Investigation certain federal tax
returns and tax return information relating to SMITH. This disclosure included a
copy of SMITH’s IRS From 1040 and Schedule C thereto for the tax year 2019 that
was filed with the IRS. This tax return showed that, for the tax year 2019, SMITH
reported that Children’s 1st had $0.00 in gross income (Schedule C, line 7) and a
net loss of -$31,911 (Schedule C, line 31). Furthermore, the version of the Schedule
C submitted with the Children’s 1st PPP Application was not filed with the IRS,
and the IRS had no record of any separate business tax return filed for Children’s
Ist for the tax years 2019 or 2020.

b. Bank account statements for SMITH’s checking account at Bank 1 ending in 3536,
which received the proceeds of the Children Ist PPP Loan, do not show any
deposits consistent with or otherwise supporting the purported $100,000 in gross
income in 2019 that SMITH claimed on the Children 1st PPP Application. Bank
account statements for SMITH’s savings account at Bank 1 likewise show no
deposits consistent with or otherwise supporting such gross income.

c. As part of her employment with BSO, SMITH was required to disclose to BSO any
outside employment she had while employed by BSO. SMITH did not disclose to

BSO that she had any outside employment relating to Children Ist at any time.

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 12 of 16

29. Based on my training and experience, and familiarity with PPP loan applications,
there is probable cause to believe that SMITH fraudulently obtained the Children 1st PPP loan by,
among other things, falsely and fraudulently inflating Children Ist’s gross income for the tax year
2019, and submitting a fabricated IRS tax document to support such material misrepresentations.

SMITH Fraudulently Obtained the Agape PPP Loan

30. | Loan records obtained by federal grand jury subpoena show that, on or about April
15, 2021, SMITH caused the submission of a PPP loan application to Lender 2 for “Stephanie
Smith” (the business legal name) as a sole proprietor doing business as “Agape Smith Vending”
(hereinafter, the “Agape PPP Application”). The Agape PPP Application included SMITH’s
social security number, home address, cell phone number, and email address. It also listed
“Stephanie Smith” as the primary contact.

31. The Agape PPP Application claimed that Agape Smith Vending (hereinafter,

“A gape”) had a total gross income of $49,326 for the tax year 2019. Based upon this claimed total

gross income for the tax year 2019, the Agape PPP Application requested a PPP loan in the amount
of $10,275. The Agape PPP Application also claimed that the purpose of the PPP loan was for
payroll costs, rent/mortgage interest, utilities, and covered operations expenditures. As explained
below, evidence shows that Agape in fact had gross income of only $1,452 for the tax yar 2019.
32. Submitted with the Agape PPP Application was an IRS Form 1040 Schedule C,
purportedly for the tax year 2019. The name of the proprietor on the Schedule C was “Stephanie
D Smith” and the business name was “Agape Smith Vending LLC.” The Schedule C reflected in
line 7 that Agape had $49,326 in gross income and reflected in line 31 a net profit of $43,172. As
explained below, evidence shows that the Schedule C submitted with the Agape PPP Application

was fabricated and was not filed with IRS.

10

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 13 of 16

33. The Agape PPP Application was initialed and signed electronically by SMITH via
DocuSign and dated April 15, 2021. Lender 2’s loan file for the Agape PPP Loan showed that
SMITH’s identity was verified through an electronic facial similarity comparison between her
Florida driver license and a photograph of herself that SMITH provided in connection with the
submission of the Agape PPP Application. I have compared photograph of the person submitted
with Agape PPP Application and the picture on SMITH’s Florida driver license, and it appears to
be the same person.

34. | Subpoenaed bank records show that, on May 11, 2021, SMITH received the
proceeds of the Agape PPP Loan in the amount of $10,275. More specifically, Lender 2 funded
the Agape PPP loan by depositing the proceeds into a checking account ending in 1130 in the name
of “Agape Smith Vending LLC” at Bank 2 via Automated Clearing House (ACH) transfer.
SMITH is the sole signatory on this bank account. Based on my training and experience and
understanding of the ACH system, and my review of records obtained in the Investigation, the
disbursement of the Agape PPP loan caused the transmission of a wire communication in interstate
commerce.

35. Subpoenaed loan records further show that SMITH applied for forgiveness of the
Agape PPP Loan, and that the principal amount and interest was forgiven by the SBA. In
particular, a “PPP Loan Forgiveness Application From 3508S Revised July 30, 2021” received by ©
Lender 2 was electronically signed by SMITH via DocuSign on October 18, 2021. The forgiveness
application claimed that $6,365 in loan proceeds was spent on payroll costs, and certified that the
borrower (SMITH) had complied with the requirements of the PPP rules. A notice from the SBA

maintained in Lender 2’s records shows that the SBA made a forgiveness payment to Lender 2 for

11

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 14 of 16

the Agape PPP Loan’s then outstanding principal balance ($10,275) and interest ($51.95) on
November 1, 2021.

36. As indicated above, the Investigation obtained evidence by ex parte court order,
federal grand jury subpoenas, and other sources, establishing that the 2019 gross income claimed
in the Agape PPP Application ($49,326) was materially false, and that the IRS Form 1040
Schedule C submitted therewith was a fictitious document not filed with the IRS. In particular:

a. SMITH’s IRS From 1040 and Schedule C thereto for the tax year 2019 filed with
the IRS shows that SMITH reported that, for the tax year 2019, Agape had $1,452

in gross income (Schedule C, line 7) and a net loss of -$32,239 (Schedule C, line

31). Furthermore, the version of the Schedule C submitted with the Agape PPP
Application was not filed with the IRS, and the IRS had no record of any separate
business tax return filed for Agape for the tax years 2019 or 2020.

b. Bank account statements for SMITH’s checking account for Agape at Bank 2
ending in 1130, which received the proceeds of the Agape PPP Loan, do not show
any deposits consistent with or otherwise supporting the purported $49,326 in gross
income in 2019 that was claimed on the Agape PPP Application.

c. As part of her employment with BSO, SMITH was required to disclose to BSO any
outside employment she had while employed by BSO. SMITH did not disclose to
BSO that she had any outside employment related to Agape at any time.

37. Based on my training and experience, and familiarity with PPP loan applications,
there is probable cause to believe that SMITH fraudulently obtained the Agape PPP loan by, among
other things, falsely and fraudulently inflating Agape’s gross income for the tax year 2019, and

submitting a fabricated IRS tax document to support such material misrepresentations.

12
Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 15 of 16

SMITH Acted Knowingly and With Intent to Defraud
When She Obtained the Children Ist and the Agape PPP Loans

38.. On August 7, 2023, FBI special agents conducted a consensual interview of SMITH
in Broward County. During that interview, agents showed SMITH the Children Ist PPP
Application and the Agape PPP Application. In response to questions from the interviewing
agents, SMITH acknowledged that: 1) SMITH had signed the respective PPP applications for
Children Ist and Agape via DocuSign; and 2) SMITH had received the respective PPP loan
proceeds on behalf of Children Ist and Agape. When the interviewing agents asked SMITH if
the information contained in the Children Ist and Agape PPP Applications was accurate, SMITH
stated that it was. At the conclusion of the interview, SMITH asked the interviewing agents
whether she (SMITH) was in trouble. Based on my training and experience, and familiarity with
the evidence obtained in the Investigation, I do not believe that SMITH was truthful when she told
the FBI that the information in the Children Ist and Agape PPP Applications was accurate.

39. During SMITH’s August 7 interview, SMITH also told the interviewing agents that
she had received assistance with the Children 1st and Agape PPP Applications from a tax preparer
(hereinafter, “Preparer 1”). More specifically, SMITH stated that Preparer | had created the IRS
documents, including the Schedule C forms, that were submitted with the Children Ist and Agape
PPP Applications.

40. On September 22, 2023, FBI special agents conducted a consensual interview of
Preparer 1 in Broward County. During that interview, Preparer | stated that SMITH had told
Preparer 1 the amounts to list on the Schedule C forms that were submitted with the Children Ist
and Agape PPP Applications. More specifically, Preparer 1 believed that SMITH had called
Preparer 1 and provided the information for the Schedule C forms over the phone. Preparer 1

believed that SMITH provided such information over the phone because Preparer 1 had made

13

Case 0:23-cr-60203-BB Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 16 of 16

handwritten notes on a sheet of paper recording the amounts that were included in the Schedule C
forms. Preparer 1 provided this sheet with the handwritten notes to the FBI, which I have reviewed.
Among other things, the sheet contains the notation “100,000 — Line 7,” along with SMITH’s
phone number, email address, social security number, home address, among other things.

41. Preparer 1 did not independently verify whether the information that SMITH
provided to Preparer 1 was accurate. Preparer 1 stated that she has never met SMITH in person.
Preparer 1 stated that she sent the completed Schedule C forms (containing the information
provided by SMITH), but could not remember if she did so by email or regular mail.

42. Preparer 1 stated that she did not prepare SMITH’s 2019 actual income tax return
and that she did not have a copy of such return. Based upon my review of SMITH’s actual 2019 |
income tax return, I believe that SMITH’s 2019 income tax return was prepared by someone other
than Preparer 1.

CONCLUSION

43. Based upon the foregoing facts, your affiant submits there is probable cause to
support a criminal complaint charging STEPHANIE DIANE SMITH with violations of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1343, that is, wire fraud.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

KELL i MP iada wacker

Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Sworn to and subscribed before me telephonically this 11" day of October 2023.

Be m lit

PATRICK M. HUNT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

14

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.656142.3.0.pdf

Size

799,950 bytes

SHA-256

38d1c2e0ee9158703300cc46dcc52b59951877307d58df5afb3fe5207206faec

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.656142.3.0.pdf

Original

www.courtlistener.com