Plea Agreement — United States v. Minutolo

Source document: This letter confirms the plea agreement between your client, Vincenzo Minutolo (the; document type: criminal-prosecutions.

Full text

U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of Connecticut
C onne c ticltt Financial C e nle r
I 57 Church Street, 25't' Floor
Nett Hawn, Connecticut 065I0
(203)82 t -3700
Fax (203) 773-5376
lt)tv1v jus lice. got /us ao/cl
February 28,2025
Andrew Giering, Esq.
Federal Defenders
265 Church Street
Suite 702
New Haven, CT 06510-7005
United States v. Vincenzo Minutolo
Case No.
Dear Attorney Giering:
This letter confirms the plea agreement between your client, Vincenzo Minutolo (the
"defendant"), and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Connecticut (the
o'Government") in this criminal matter.
THE PLEA AND OFFENSE
In consideration for the benefits offered under this agreement, the defendant Minutolo
agrees to waive his right to be indicted and to plead guilty to a two-count Information charging
wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 1343.
The defendant understands that to be guilty of this offense of wire fraud, the following
essential elements must be satisfied:
There was a scheme or aftifice to defraud, which had money or property as its
object, or to obtain money or property by means of materially false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations or promises, as alleged in the Information;
The defendant knowingly participated in the scheme or artifice with knowledge of
its fraudulent nature and with the specific intent to defraud; and
In execution of the scheme, the defendant caused the use of interstate wires as
specified in the Information.
Re:
2.
J
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 1 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page 2
THE PENALTIES
Irnprisonment
Each count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment
Supervised Release
In addition, under each Count, the Court may impose a term of supervised release of not
morethanthreeyearstobeginafteranytermof imprisonment. l8U.S.C.$3583. The defendant
understands that, should he violate any condition of supervised release, he rTray be required to serve
a firther term of imprisonment of up to two years per revocation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 3583
with no credit for tirne already spent on supervised release.
Fine
Under 18 U.S.C. S 3571, under each count, the maximum fine that may be imposed on
the defendant is the greatest of the following amounts: (1) twice the gross gain to the defbndant
resulting from the offense or twice the gross loss resulting from the offbnse, whichever is greater;
or (2) $250,000. Here, the Government currently believes that tlie gross loss resulting from
Count One is approximately $145,831 and twice that figure is $291,662. Sirnilarly, the
Government currently believes that the gross loss resulting from Count Two is as much as
$272,361 and twice that figure is $544,722.
Special Assessment
In addition, the defendant is obligated by 18 U.S,C. $ 3013 to pay a special assessment of
$100 on each count of conviction, for atotal of $200. The defendant agrees to pay the special
assessment to the Clerk of the Court on the day the guilty plea is accepted.
Restitution
In addition to the other penalties provided by law, the Court also must order that the
defendant make restitution under 18 U.S.C. $ 36634, and the Government reserves its right to seek
restitution on behalf of victirns consistent with the provisions of $ 3663,4. The scope and effect of
the order of restitution are set forth in the attached Rider Concerning Restitution. Restitution is
payable irnrnediately unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
Regardless of restitution that rnay be ordered by the Court noted above, the defendant
agrees to make restitr"rtion in the amount of $ 145,83 1 to the Victim Lenders and/or the U.S. Small
Business Adrninistration ("SBA"), depending on whether the SBA has assumed (as guarantor) the
relevant Victim Lender's loan obligation as of sentencing. Further, the defendant agrees to make
restitution to the Connecticut Departmerit of Labor ("CT-DOL") in an amount found to be
appropriate by the Court at sentencing relating to the conduct set forth in Count Two, which the
parties agree is no less than $86,116 and which the Government submits rnay be as high as
$272,361.
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 2 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page 3
Interest. penalties. and fines
Unless otherwise ordered, sliould the Court impose a fine or restitution of more than $2,500
as part of the sentence, interest will be charged on the unpaid balance of the fine or restitution not
paid within 15 days after the judgrnent date. 18 U.S.C. $ 3612(0. Otlier penalties and fines may
be assessed on the unpaid balance of a fine or restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 3572(h), (i) and
$ 3612(g). The defendant reserves the right to request tliat the Court waive interest and penalties
as permitted by statute, and the Government reserves tlie right to oppose any such request.
THB SENTENCING GUIDELINES
Applicabilitv
l'he deferidant understands tliat the Court is required to consider any applicable Sentencing
Guidelines as well as other factors enumerated in I8 U.S.C. $ 3553(a) to tailor an appropriate
sentence in this case and is not bound by this plea agreernent. The defendant agrees that the
Sentencing Guideliries detenninations will be made by the Court, by a preponderance of the
evidence, based upon input from the defendant, the Government, and the United States Probation
Ol'fice. The defendant further understands that lie has no right to withdraw his guilty plea if his
sentence or the Guidelines application is other than he anticipated, including if the sentence is
outside any of the ranges set forlh iri this agreement.
Acceptance of Responsibil itv
At this time, the Government agrees to recommend that the Court reduce by two levels the
defendant's adjusted offense level under S 3E1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines, based on the
defendant's prornpt recognition and affirrrrative acceptance of personal responsibility for the
offense. Moreover, should tlie defendant qualify for a decrease under $ 3E1.1(a) and lTis offense
level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is level 1 6 or greater, the Governrnent will
file a motion with the Court pursuant to $ 3E1 .1 (b) which recommends that the Court reduce the
defendant's Adjusted Offense Level by one additional level based on his prornpt notification of
liis intention to enter a plea of guilty. The defendant understands that the Court is not obligated to
accept the Government's recommendations on the reductions.
The above-listed recommendations are conditioned upon the defendant's affirmative
demonstration of acceptance of responsibility, by (1) truthfully adrnitting the conduct cornplising
the offense(s) of conviction and truthfully admitting or not falsely denying any additional relevant
conduct for which the defendant is accountable under $ 1B1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines, and
(2) disclosing to the United States Attorney's Office and the United States Probation Office a
complete and truthful financial statement detailing the defendant's financial condition. The
defendant expressly authorizes the United States Attorney's Office to obtain a credit report
concerning the defendant.
ln addition, the Government expressly reserves the right to seek denial of the adjr"rstment
for acceptance of responsibility if the defendant engages in any acts, unknown to the Government
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 3 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page 4
atthetimeofthesigningofthisagreement,which(1) indicatethattliedefendanthasnotterminated
or withdrawn from crirninal conduct or associations ($ 3E1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines);
(2) could provide a basis for an adjustrnent for obstructirrg or impeding the adrnirristration of.iustice
($ 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Gr"ridelines); or (3) constitute a violation of any conditior, of release.
Moreover, the Government reserves the right to seek denial of the adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility if tlie defendant seeks to witlidraw his guilty plea or tal<es a position at sentencing,
or otherwise, which, in the Govemrnent's assessment, is inconsistent with affirrnative acceptance
of personal responsibility. The defendant understands that he may not withdraw his plea of guilty
if, for the reasons explained above, the Government does not make one or both of the
recommendations or seeks denial of the ad.iustrnent for acceptance of responsibility.
Stipulation
Pursuant to $ 68 1.4 of the Sentencing Guidelines, the defendant and the Government have
entered into the attached stipulation, wl-rich is a part of this plea agreement. Tlie defendant
understands that this stipulation does not set forth all of the relevant conduct and characteristics
that may be considered by the Court for purposes of sentencing. The defendant understands that
this stipulation is not binding on the Court. The defendant also understands that the Government
and the United States Probation Office are obligated to advise the Court of any additional relevant
facts that subsequently come to their attention.
Guidelines Stipulation
The parties agree as follows
The Guidelines Manual in effect on the date of sentencing is used to determine the
applicable Guidelines range.
The parties agree that the defendant's base offense level is 7 under U.S.S.G. $ 281.1(aX1).
The parties agree that the Guidelines losses total at least approxirnately $231,947. However, the
Government submits that the Guidelines loss is as high as approximately $41 8,192, but othelwise
falling in the range between $250,000 and $550,000, resulting in a 12-level upward adjustmerit
under U.S.S.G. $ 28 1 .1(bX1XG). The defendant, however, reserves his right to argue instead for
a total loss figure between $231,947 and $250,000, resulting in a 10-level upward adjustment under
U.S.S.G. $281.1(bXlXF). The parties intend to offer greater clarity on the scope of any
disagreement of losses before sentencing.
The parties agreethat two levels are added as there are ffrore than 10 victims in the case
under $ 28 I .1 (bX2)(A), resulting in an adjusted offense level of 21 .1 The parties furlher agree that
r 'l'he "victirns" include the five banks and the SBA regarding Count One, and then, on Count
Two, the CT-DOL and 4 or rnore individual victirns whose names/social secr"rrity numbers and/or
dates of birth were used to perpetuate the fraud set forth in Count Two. See U.S.S.G. Section
281,1, Application Notes 1, defining "Victim"; see also id. Application Notes 4, defining
"victil'n" to include "any individual whose means of identification [name, social security number,
date of birth] was used unlawfully or without authority."
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 4 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page 5
three levels are subtracted under U.S.S.G. $ 3El.l for acceptance of responsibility, as noted above,
resulting in a total offense level of I 8 under the Governrnent's calculation, with the defendant
reserving his right to argue for a total offense level of 16 in light of the loss argument noted above.
Based on an initial assessment, the parties agree that the defendant falls witliin Criminal
History Category I. Similarly, the parties agreethat, based on an initial assessment, the defendant
qualifies for a two-level reduction for "certain zelo-point ofl'enders" under U.S.S.G. S 4Cl.l,
which would further reduce the defendant's total offense level to 16 under the Governrnent's
calcr"rlation or atotaloffense levelof l4 underthe defendant's potentialcalculation.
The parties reserve the riglit to recalculate the defendant's Criminal History Category,
eligibility for azero-poirit-offender reduction, and corresponding sentencing ranges if this initial
assessment proves inaccurate. The Government feserves its right to argue that any such re-
calculation is not a basis for any downward departure or variance and its right to oppose any
request from the defendant for such a departure or variance.
Under the Government's calculation, a total offense level of 16, assuming the zero-point-
offender and Crirninal History I classifications, would result in a Gr"ridelines range of 21 to 27
months of imprisonment (sentencing table) and a fine iange of $10,000 to $95,000 (U.S.S.G. $
5E1.2(c)(3)). Tlie defendant also is subject to a supervised release term of one to three years.
u.s.s.G. $ sDr.2.
Under the defendant's potential calculation, a total offense level of 14, assuming the zero-
point-offender and Criminal History I classifications, would result in a Guidelines range of 15 to
21 months of imprisonment (sentencing table) and a fine range of $7,500 to $75,000 (U.S.S.G. $
5E1.2(c)(3)). The defendant also is subject to a supervised release term ofone to three years.
u.s.s.G. $ sD1.2.
The Government and the defendant reserve their rights to seek a departure or a non-
Guidelines sentence, and both sides reserve their right to object to a departure or a non-Guidelines
sentence. Moreover, the defendant reserves the right to argue that a fine is not appropriate in this
case, and the Governrnent reserves the right to argue that a fine is appropriate in this case.
The defendant understands that the Court is not bound by this agreement on the Gr"rideline
ranges specified above. The defendant further understands that he will not be pennitted to
withdraw the guilty plea if the Court imposes a sentence outside any of the ranges set forth in tliis
agreement.
In the event the United States Probation Office or the Court contemplates any sentencing
calculations different from those stipulated by the parties, the parties reserve the right to respond
to any inquiries and make appropriate legal arguments regarding the proposed alternate
calculations. Moreover, the parties reserve tlie right to defend any sentencing deterrnination, even
if it differs frorn that stipulated by the parties, in any post-sentencing proceeding.
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 5 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page 6
Information to the Court
The parties resel've their rights to address the Court with respect to an appropriate sentence
to be imposed in this case. Moreover, the Government will discr-rss the facts of tliis case, including
information regarding tlie defendant's background and character, l8 U.S.C, $ 3661, with tlie
United States Probation Office and will provide the Probation Officer with access to material in
its file, with the exception of grand.jury material.
WAIVER OF RIGHTS
The defendant acknowledges and agrees that he is knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
waiving the following rights:
Waivcr of Risht to lndiclrnent
The defendant understands tl-rat he has the right to have the facts of this case presented to a
federalgrand jury, consisting of between sixteen and twenty-three citizens, twelve of whom would
have to find probable cause to believe that he committed the offense set forth in the infonnation
before an indictment could be returned. The defendant acknowledges that he is waiving his right
to be indicted.
Waiver of Trial Rights arid Conseqr"rences of Guilt)z PIea
The delendant understands that he has the right to be represented by an attorney at every
stage of the proceeding and, if necessary, one will be appointed to represent him.
The defendant understands that he has the right to plead not guilty or to persist in that plea
if it has already been made, the light to a public trial, the right to be tried by a jury with the
assistance of counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, the right
not to be compelled to incriminate himsell', the right to testify and present evidence, and the right
to compel the attendance of witnesses to testify in his defense. The defendant understands that by
pleading guilty he waives those rights and that, if the plea of guilty is accepted by the Court, there
will not be a further trial of any kind.
The defendant understands that, if he pleads guilty, the Court may ask hirn questions about
each offense to wliich lie pleads guilty, and if he answers those questions falsely under oath, on
the record, and in the presence of counsel, his answers may later be used against him in a
prosecution for perjury or making false statements.
Waiver of Statute of Limitations
Tlie defendant agrees that, should the conviction following the defendant's guilty plea be
vacated for any reason, then any prosecution that is not time-barred by the applicable statute of
lirnitations on the date of the signing of this plea agreement (including any indictment or counts
the Government has agreed to disrniss at sentencing pursuant to this plea agreement) rnay be
commenced or reinstated against the defendant, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 6 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page 7
lin,itations between the signing of this plea agreement and the commencement or reirrstatement of
such prosecr"rtion. Tlie del'er-rdant agrees to waive all defenses based on the statute of limitations
witli respect to any prosecution that is not time-barred on the date the plea agreement is signed.
Waiver of Right to Cliallenge Conviction
The defendant acknowledges tl-rat under certain circumstances he is entitled to challenge
his conviction. By pleading guilty, the defendant waives his right to appeal or collaterally attack
his conviction in any proceeding, including but not lirnited to a motion under 28 U.S.C. 5 2255
ar'dlor $ 2241. In addition to any other claims the defendant rnight raise, the defendant waives the
right to challenge the conviction based on (1) any non-iurisdictional defects in tl,e proceedings
before entry of this plea, (2) a claim that the statute(s) to which the defendant is pleading guilty is
unconstitutional, and (3) a clairn that the adrnitted conduct does not fall within the scope of the
statute. This waiver does not preclude the del'endant fi'om raising a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel in an appropriate forum.
Waiver of Right to Appeal or Collaterally Attack Sentence
The defendant acknowledges that under certain circumstances, the defendant is entitled to
challenge his sentence. In consideration fbr the benefits offered under this agreement, the
defendant agrees not to appeal or collaterally attack the sentence in any proceeding, including but
not lirnited to a motion under 28 U.S.C. 5 2255 and/or 5 2241, if that sentence does not exceed 21
months of imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release, a $200 special assessment, a $95,000 fine,
$ 145,831 in restitution to the Victirn Lenders or SBA, and restitution to the CT-DOL in an amount
found as appropriate by the Court at sentencing relating to the conduct set forth in Count Two as
long as no greater than$272,361, even if the Court imposes such a sentence based on an analysis
different frorn that specified above. Sirnilarly, the defendant will not challenge any condition of
supervised release imposed by the Court for which he had notice and an opportunity to object. The
Government and the defendant agree tl,at this waiver applies regardless of whether the term of
imprisonment is irnposed to run consecutively to or concurrently with, in whole or in part, the
undischarged porlion of any other sentence that has been imposed on the defendant at the tin,e of
sentencing in this case. Furthenrrore! the parties agree that any cl-rallenge to the defendant's
sentence that is not foreclosed by this provision will be limited to that portion of the sentencing
calculation that is inconsistent with (or not addressed by) this waiver. This waiver does not
preclude the defendant from raising a claim of irieffective assistance of counsel in an appropriate
forum.
The defendant understands that pleading guilty may have consequences with respect to his
irnrnigration status if the deferidant is not a citizen of the United States. Under federal law, non-
citizens are subject to removal for a broad range of crimes, including the offense(s) to which the
defendant is pleading guilty. Likewise, if the defendant is a rraturalized citizen of the United States,
pleading guilty may result in denaturalization and removal. Removal, denaturalization, and other
imrnigration consequences are the subject of a separate proceeding, however, and the defendant
understands that no one, including the defendant's attorney or the district court, can predict to a
Waiver of Challenge to Plea Based on hnrnigration Consequences
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 7 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page 8
certainty the effect of his conviction on his in-unigration status. The defendant nevertheless affirms
that he wants to plead guilty regardless of any irnmigration consequences that tlie guilty plea may
entail, ever-r if the consequence is automatic removal from the United States.
The deferidant understands that he is bound by the guilty plea regardless of the inrrnigratioti
consequences of tlie plea. Accordingly, the defendantwaives any and all cliallenges to the guilty
plea and to the sentence based on those consequences, and agrees not to seek to withdraw the guilty
plea, or to file a direct appeal or any lcind of collateral attack challenging the guilty plea, conviction,
or sentence, based on the irnrnigration consequences of the guilty plea, conviction, or sentence.
This waiver does not preclude the defendant from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of
courrsel in the appropriate forum.
ACKNOWLBDGMENT OF GUILT AND VOI,IINTARTNIISS OF' PT,EA
The defendant acknowledges that he is er,tering into this agreement and is pleading guilty
freely and voluntarily because the defendant is guilty. The defendant fufther acknowledges tliat he
is entering into this agreement without reliance upon any discussions between the Government and
the defendant (other than those described in the plea agreement letter), without promise of beriefit
of any kind (otlier than the concessions contained in the plea agreement letter), ar,d without threats,
force, intimidation, or coercion of any kind. The defendant further acknowledges his understanding
of the nature of the offense to which the defendant is pleading guilty, including tl,e penalties
provided by law. The deferrdant also acknowledges his cornplete satisfaction with the
representation and advice received fron'r his undersigned attorney. The defendant and his
undersigned counsel are unaware of any conflict of interest concerning counsel's representation of
the defendant in the case.
SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT
The defendant acknowledges tliat this agreement is lirnited to the undersigned parties and
cannot bind any other federal authority, or any state or local authority. The defendant
acknowledges that no representations have been made to hirn with respect to any civil or
administrative consequences that may result from this plea of guilty because such matters are
solely within the province arid discretion of the specific adrninistrative or governmental entity
involved. Finally, tlie defendant acknowledges that this agreement has been reached without regard
to any civil tax matters that rnay be pending or which may arise involving the defendant.
COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES
The defendant understands that he will be adjudicated guilty of each offense to which the
defendant has pleaded guilty and will be deprived of certain rights, such as the right to hold public
office, to serve on a jury, to possess firearms and ammunition, and, in some states, the riglit to
vote. Further, the defendant understands that if he is not a citizen of the United States, a plea of
guilty may result in removal from the United States, denial of citizenship, and denial of adrnission
to the United States in the future. The defendant understands that pursuant to sectiorr 203(b) of the
.lustice For A11 Act, the Federal Bureau of Prisons or the United States Probation Office will collect
a DNA sample frorn the defendant for analysis and indexing. Finally, the defendant understands
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 8 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page 9
that the Government reserves the right to notify any state or federal agency by which the defendant
is licensed, or with which the defendant does business, as well as any current or future employer
of the fact of liis conviction.
SATISFACTION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY; BREACH
The defendant's guilty plea, il'accepted by the Court, will satisfy the federal criminal
liability of the defendant irr tl-re District of Connecticut as a result of the defendant's participation
in the specific PPP loan fraud and unemployment insurance fraud, wliich forms the basis of the
Information in this case. This provision does not apply to any conduct unknown to the Government
at the tirne of the signing of this agreement.
The defendant understands tl-rat if, belbre sentencing, he violates any term or condition of
this agreement, engages in any criminal activity, or fails to appear for sentencing, the Government
may void all or part of this agreement. If the agreement is voided in whole or in part, the defendant
will not be pennitted to withdraw tlie guilty plea.
NO OTHBR PROMISES
The defendant acknowledges that no other prornises, agreelnents, or conditions have been
entered into other than those set forth in this plea agreement, and none will be entered into unless
set forth in writir.rg, signed by all the parties.
This letter shall be presented to the Couft, in open court, and filed in this case
Very
fS,
M
SILVERMAN
N
UNI
STA'|ES ATTORNEY
PHER W. SCHMEISSER
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES AT'TORNEY
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 9 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page 10
The defendant certifies that he has read this plea agreement letter and its attachment(s) or
has had it read or translated to him, that he has had ample time to discuss this agreement and its
attachment(s) with counsel and that he fully understands and accepts its terms.
\* [4*
t/, s/ as
Na-8/tS
VINCENZO MINUTOLO
The Defendant
Date
I have thoroughly read, reviewed, and explained this plea agreement and its attachment(s)
to my client who advises me that he understands and accepts its terms.
ANDREW G
ESQ
Attorney for the Defendant
Date
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 10 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page I 1
STIPULATION OF OFFENSE CONDUCT AND RBLEVANT CONDUCT
The deferidant and the Governrnent stipulate to the following offense conduct and relevant
conduct that give rise to the defendant's agreement to plead guilty to the Information.
At all relevant times, the defendant MINUTOLO resided in Shelton, Connecticut.
MINUTOI-O clairned an ownership interest or representative relationship with City Sounds
Productions LLC ("City Sounds").
Background of the PPP loan F-raud
The U.S. Small Business Administration ("SBA") was an agency of the U.S. government
that provided support to srnall businesses.
As discussed in greater detail below, MINUTOLO sought loans from various lending
institutions authorized by the SBA to extend loans, inch"rding, among others, Irountainhead SBF
LLC ("Fountainhead"); I{arvest Srnall Business Finance LLC; Bentworth Capital Partners LLC;
Capital Plus Financial, LLC; and Amur Equipment liinance, Inc. These authorized lenders are
collectively referred to herein as "Victim Lenders."
The CARES Act: Payqheck Protection Program Loans
In March 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Secr-rrity ("CARES") Act
provided emergency financial assistance to Americans suffering the economic effects caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization
of forgivable loans to srnall businesses for job retention and certain other expenses through the
Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"). In or around April 2020, Congress authorized over $300
billion in PPP funding. fhe PPP allowed qualifying srnall businesses and other organizations to
receive unsecured loans at an interest rate of 1o/owith the loan proceeds required to be primarily
used by businesses on payroll costs, leases or mortgage interest, and utilities.
ln order 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, to a designated
lender. The PPP loan application required the business, through its authorized representative, to
acknowledge the program rules and make certain affirrnative certifications in order to be eligible
to obtain a PPP loan, including, for Schedule C filers clairning to be sole proprietors, providing
the gross income for the business for tax year 2019 or 2020 as reported on IRS Forrn 1040
(Schedule C). If the sole-proprietor borrower had a gross income greater than $100,000 in the
given year, the prograrn capped the loan amount at $8,333.33 in allowable costs times 2.5 for an
applicable total loan amount of $20,833. fhe applicant further represented that the applicant had
not and would not receive another PPP loan, excluding permissible second draw loans. The
applicant would further provide documents supporting the application, including relevant tax
records, such as the relevant 1040 for the sole proprietor and the relevant attached Schedule C,
setting forth details regarding the ongoing business.
The PPP was overseen by the SBA, which had authority over all PPP loans. Individual PPP
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 11 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page 12
loans, however, were issued by private approved lenders, such as the Victin, Lenders, wliich
received and processed PPP applications and supporting documentation, and then made loans
using tl,e lenders' own funds, which were gLlaranteed by tlie SBA if conditions were met.
Under the PPP loan program, after PPP loans were disbursed to approved borrowers and
to incentivize the continued business operations, the CARES Act provided a process for
borrowers' loans to be forgiven if tlie borrower used the funds for specific authorized purposes.
Under those circumstances and consistent witli the SBA regulatior-rs, the borrower could
subsequently apply to the lender and SBA for loan forgiveness; make various representations
regarding program cornpliance; and, if meeting the requisite conditions, the SBA would relnove
or "forgive" the borrower's requirement to repay the loan.
Applicants submitted the original PPP loan applications, and approved borrowers
submitted forgiveness applications, through online use of a document processing service, typically
tlirough DocuSign, a company that facilitates tlie processing of paperwork executed online. As
relevant to this Information, certain of the Victim l,enders, including Fountainhead, and tlie SBA
would provide finalized PPP loan applications or forgiveness applications through the DocuSign
service, indicating where the applicant or borrower needed to electronically sign and emailing the
relevant loan applicant or borrower the link to access and electronically sign the documents. The
applicant, in this case MINUTOLO, would sign the final loan documents, with the electronic
signature and relevant documents electronically wired from MINUTOLO's home in Connecticut
with a distinot Internet Protocol address to a DocuSign server outside of Connecticut, in
Washington, Illinois, Texas, or Canada, and with the final processed documents then electronically
wired frorn DocuSign servers to the respective Victirn i-ender.
The Scherne and Artifice to Defi'aud Victim Lenders (PPP Fraud)
From in or about March 2021 through in or abor"rt September 2021, in the District of
Connecticut and elsewhere, the defendant MINUTOLO, knowingly and with intent to defraud,
devised a scheme to defraud the Victim Lenders, including Fountainhead, and the SBA, and to
obtain ffroney and property of those entities by means of rnaterially false and fi'audulent pretenses,
representations and promises. The PPP loan scheme, which resulted in losses of over $145,000,
involved providing the Victirn Lenders with false and fraudulent information when seeking loans
through the PPP loan program and then providing additional fraudulent information to obtain
forgiveness of certain of those loans.
Material misrepresentations in furtherance of the scheme on the initial or second draw loan
applicatioris included: (a) overstating the yearly gross income for the sole proprietorship; (b)
misrepresenting that sirnilar PPP loans had not been or would not be sought by MINUTOLO, as
sole proprietor or doing business as City Sounds or any other entity, when he in fact had sought
and obtained, and intended to seek and obtain, such loans; and (c) providing purportedly genuine
IRS tax filings supporting the business gross income figures that had, in fact, never been filed with
the IRS and falsely represented the true gross income of the business. Similarly, on the forgiveness
applicatioris submitted, MINUTOLO rnaterially niisrepresented having complied with all the
requirements of the PPP rules, when he had not cornplied with those rules by fraudulently obtaining
monies in the first place.
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 12 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page I3
By way of example, on or about March 13,2021, MINUTOLO submitted and caused the
submission of loan application #------8605 to Fountainhead for a $20,833 PPP loan to
MINUTOLO doing business as City Sounds. The submission included nTaterial misrepresentations
on the application itself and in the documents subrnitted in snpport, including:
a. That the total amount of gross income for City Sounds was $468,950 for 2019 (purportedly
taken fTom MINUTOLO's 20l9IRS Form 1040, Schedule C, LineT), when City Sounds had not
earned that annual gross income;
b. Providing alorrg with the application, the pr-rrported 2019 Fonn 1040, including tlie attached
Schedule C, listing gross irrcorne of $468,950 for City Sounds Productioris LLC when, in fact, the
Schedule C was false and had not been hled with the IRS; and
c. Providirig along with the application, purported estimated tax payment vouchers for the four
quarters of 2020 for $31,883 per quarter, when such vouchers and the represented payments had
not been subrnitted or made to the IRS.
In execution of the above-described scherne, from inside tlie District of Connecticut to
outside the District of Connecticut, on or about Marol, 13, 2021, MINUTOLO caused a
transmission of certain writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds by means of wire
communications in interstate comrrrerce, that is, the transmission of the original PPP application
noted above, including relevant forms, using the DocuSign platform, fiorn MINUTOLO'S home
address in Connecticut to the DocuSign servers outside of Connecticut.
Background of the Unemployment Insurance Fraud
The Connecticut Department of Labor ("CT-DOL") was the state agency in Connecticut
that adrniriistered unemployment insurance benefits for residents of Connecticut.
The CARES Act: Unemployment Insurance
In March 2020,the CARES Act created a new temporary federal unemployment insurance
program for pandemic unemployment assistance, unemployment compensation and lost wages
("Pandemic Unemployment Assistance"). Pandemic Unemployment Assistance provided
unernployment insurance ("UI") benefits for previously working individuals who were not eligible
for other types of UI due to their employment status (e.g., they are self-employed, irrdependent
contractors, or gig economy workers). Pandemic Unemployment Assistance provided
unemployment payments beginning on or after January 27,2020, and continuing, after two
extensions of the program, to an ending date of Septerrber 4,2021. The CARES Act also created
a new temporary federal program called Federal Pandemic Unemployrnent Compensation
("FPUC") that provided an additional $600 in weekly benefits to those eligible for Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance and/or regular UI. Claimants were eligible to receive FPUC irraddition
to tlre Pandemic Unemployment Assistance or UI berrefits from March 29,2020 to July 25,2020.
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 13 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page l4
Irrom the week ending Ar-rgust 1,2020, to Septen-rber 5,2020, Pandemic Unernployment
Assistance and UI claimants were also eligible to receive Federal Lost Wages Assistance
("LWA") in tlie amount of $300 per week, funded by the lrederal Emergency Managernent
Agency ("FEMA") through tl.re DisasterRelief Fund. E,ligible claimants could receive as much
as $1,800 in LWA. Claimants did not need to apply separately forthe LWA program to receive
supplemental benefits. Clairnants were eligible to receive LWA if they received at least $ 1 00 per
week from an existing pander-nic UI prograrn and self-certified they were unemployed or partially
unenrployed because of disruptions caused by the pandemic. On or about December 27, 2020,
tlre Contirrued Assistance for Unernployed Wolkers of 2020 Act was signed into law, whicli
provided an additional $300 in FPUC per weekfor UI and Pandernic Unemployment Assistance
claims.
A person seeking standard unemployment benefits from the CT-DOL would apply for
benefits by filing a claim or reopening a previously filed claim. A person would file or reopen a
clain-r online through the CT-DOL's website or by telephone. Once a claim was established or
reopened a person was required to file a weekly claim, either online or by teleplione, to receive
benefits each week.
T'o qualify for Pandemic Unen-rployment Assistance, a claimant was first reqr-rired to file
Ibr UI benefits and tlien be denied due to the absence of W-2 wages previously earned, after
which the clairnant was able to apply for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance. As part o{'the
Pandemic Unernployment Assistance application process, a claimant was required to provide a
first and last name, SSN, DOB, and a residential and/or rnailing address. In addition, the clairnant
was required to select their preferred payment n'rethod: direct deposit to a bank account ol'the
applicant's choice or a pre-paid debit card issr-red by KeyBank. The base weekly benefit rate for
Pandemic Unernployrlent Assistance, for which no proof of income was required, was $198.
Starting in May 2021 , individuals had to provide prool'of prior income or face subsequent claim
derrial.
A clairnant filing for Pandemic Unernployment Assistance with no proof of income
could receive a weekly base rate of $198, plus an additional $600 per week in FPUC payments
for 17 weeks, plus an additiorial $300 per week in LWA payments for six weeks. For example,
a claimant filing in Septernber 2020,with a request to backdate the clairn back to March2020,
would have received a lurnp-sum payment averaging more than $16,000.
Pandemic Unernployrnent Assistance claims submitted to the CT-DOL were processed
through Bluewolf "NA2l servers" located in Chicago, Illinois, or in the District of Columbia,
as well as Amazon Web Services, located on a setver in Ohio. Clairnants could only sr,rbrnit
applications via the internet. lndividuals in Connecticut wlio transmitted Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance related information to the CT-DOL via the internet thereby caused
wires to be transmitted to and/or from their originating IP address in Connecticnt to servers
outside of Connecticnt.
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 14 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page I5
For tl,e direct deposit of unemployment benefits to a recipient's banl< account or debit card,
the CT-DOL electronically transmitted a payment file to JP Morgan Chase, which is a finar,cial
institution, for processing. The payment file contained inforrnation about how much money should
be directly deposited to a recipient's bank accourrt or to a l(eyBank debit card associated with a
specific recipient and bank account number. JP Morgan Chase subsequently transrnitted
information througli the electronic payments network utilized by financial institutions in the
United States so that the designated payrnent fr"rnds would be directly deposited to the recipient's
bank account or to a KeyBar.rk debit card sent to the recipient. In addition to the application-based
wirings noted above, the CT-DOL electronically transrnitted the payment file in interstate
colrlnerce from its servers in Connecticut to JP Morgan Chase's servers, which are outside of
Connecticut.
'I-he Scherne and Artifice to Defraud (UI l.-raud)
From in or about March 2020 through in or about April 2027,in the District of Connecticut
and elsewhere, the defendant MINUTOLO, knowingly and with intent to defraud, devised a
scheme to defrar"rd the CT-DOL, and to obtair.r money and property of the CT-DOL, by means of
rnaterially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises. The scherne, which
resulted in losses of more than $86,000 and as much as approximately $273,000, involved
MINUTOLO providing the CT-DOL with false and fraudulent Pandemic Unemployment
Assistance applications seeking unemployment insurance payments in others' llalnes, with the
applications submitted online by MINUTOLO frorn his horne in Connecticut.
On the submissions, MINUTOLO typically (a) rnaterially rnisrepresented the existence of
viable applicants by using as applicants individuals who liad died or otherwise did not know that
their name and sometimes other personal information was being used; and/or (b) misstated the
applicants' prior and ongoing employment history, where accurate information would have made
the applicants ineligible for unemployment insurance.
By way of example, on July 22, 2020, MINUTOLO subrnitted an online Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance application to the CT-DOL for W.H., MINUTOLO's grandfather who
had been deceased since 2014. On that application, MINUTOI-O made various material
misrepresentations, including that W.H. was eligible for unemployment insurance because W.FI.
was last self-employed at Joe's Steaks and was currently available for full time worl<. The
application also included a current telephone number for W.H., a number actually associated with
MINUTOLO. Additionally, tlie application manufactured a false social security number for W.H.
And, in fuftherance of the scherne, MINUTOLO continued to make online weekly certifications
to CT-DOL attesting that the information contained in W.H.'s application remained true in order
to receive continued unemployment insurance benefits.
Wirine in Furtherance of the Scheme and Artifice
On or about July 22,2020, in execution of the above-described scheme and relating to the
example of the original applicatiori subrnitted by MINUTOLO for W.H., from inside the District
of Connecticut to or"rtside the District of Connecticut, MINUTOLO caused the transmission of
certain writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds by means of wire communications in interstate
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 15 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page 16
commerce, that is, on or about July 22, 2020 (and on additional periodic dates thereafter),
MINUTOLO caused the transmission of Pandemic Unemployment Assistance application
information to the CT-DOL.
This written stipulation is part of the plea agreement. The defendant and the Government
reserve their right to present
connection with sentencing.
VINCENZO MINUTOLO
The Defendant
additional offense
and relevant conduct to the Court in
TOPHER W. SCHMEISSER
ASSISTANT TINITED STATES ATTORNEY
ANDREW GIERING, ESQ
Attorney for the Defendant
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 16 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page l7
IIIDER CONCBRNING RBSTITUTION
Tl're Cor-rrt shall order that the defendant make restitution under 18 U.S.C. $ 3663,{ as
follows:
L If the offense resulted in damage to or loss or destruction of property of a victim of tlie offense:
A. Return the property to the owner of the property or someone designated by the owner; or
B. If return of the property is inrpossible, impracticable, or inadequate, pay an amount equal
to:
T'he greater of -
(l) the value of the property on the date of the damage, loss, or destruction; or
(ll) the value of the property on the date of sentencing, less the value as of the date the
property is returned.
2. In the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury to a victirn -
A. Pay an amount equal to the costs of necessary rnedical and related professional services
and devices related to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care; including non-rnedical
care and treatment rendered in accordance with a method of healing recognized by the law
of the place of treatment;
B. Pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary physical and occupational therapy and
rehabilitation; and
C. Reirnburse the victin-r for income lost by such victim as a result of such offense
3. In the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury that results in the death of the victim, pay
an amount equal to the cost ofnecessary funeral and related services.
4. In any case, reimburse the victim for lost irrcome and necessary child care, transportation, and
other expenses incurred duririg participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense
or attendance at proceedings related to the offense.
The order of restitution has the effect of a civil judgrnent against the defendant. In addition
to the Court-ordered restitution, the Court may order that the conditions of its order of restitution
be made a condition of probation or supervised release. Failure to make restitution as ordered may
result in a revocation of probation, 18 U.S.C. $ 3565, or a rnodification of the conditions of
supervised release, 18 U.S.C. $ 3583(e). Failure to pay restitution also may result in the defendant
being held in contempt, or the defendant's re-sentencing to any sentence which might originally
lrave been imposed by the Court. See 18 U.S.C. $$ 3613A,3614. MoreoveL, in the event of default,
notwithstanding any instalhnent schedule for the payment of restitution, the Court may order
payment of the entire amount of restitution due within 30 days after notification of the default,
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 17 of 18

Andrew Giering, Esq
Page 1B
sub.iect to the provisions of 1B U.S.C. $$ 3572(i) and 3613,A.. The Court also may older that tl,e
defendant give notioe to any victini(s) of tlie offense under 18 U.S.C. $ 3555.
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD     Document 9     Filed 02/28/25     Page 18 of 18

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ctd.163679.9.0.pdf

Size

2,579,409 bytes

SHA-256

35f83829dbc7ee2099eca731fde68a3b1b5b9c3edc113530993ba20941311c04

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ctd.163679.9.0.pdf

Original

www.courtlistener.com