Article Pandemic Fraudsters Court Files (2025-09-11)

Summary

Nosa Stephen Edokpaigbe agreed to plead guilty to Count 5 of the indictment, wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, in a plea agreement filed 09/11/25 as Document 59 in Criminal Case No. 23-cr-442-RMR in the District of Colorado. The agreement makes Edokpaigbe liable for restitution to the Small Business Administration and lenders estimated at no less than $1,389,713, and the government agrees to move to dismiss Counts 1-4 and 6-10. Its factual basis states that from about July 2020 through about January 2021 Edokpaigbe prepared and submitted fraudulent EIDL applications for fictitious businesses using the names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers of real people. If the defense moves for a downward variance based on intended versus actual loss, the government agrees not to oppose a sentence of 60 months' imprisonment; the agreement does not bind the Court.

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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 23-cr-442-RMR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

NOSA STEPHEN EDOKPAIGBE,

Defendant.

PLEA AGREEMENT

The United States of America (the government), by and through Nicole Cassidy
and Anna Edgar, Assistant United States Attorneys for the District of Colorado, and the
defendant, Nosa Stephen Edokpaigbe, personally and by counsel, Harvey Steinberg,
submit the following Plea Agreement pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1. This
agreement binds only the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the
District of Colorado and the defendant.

L. AGREEMENT
A. Defendant’s Agreement.

The defendant agrees to:

(1) plead guilty to Count 5 of the Indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1343 (Wire Fraud);

(2) waive certain appellate and collateral attack rights, as explained in detail
below;

Page 1 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg2
of 24

(3) agree to the entry of a stipulated judicial removal order, as explained in
detail below;

(4) be liable for restitution to the Small Business Administration and lenders in
the amount estimated to be at least $1,389,713, plus interest accruing
through the date of the sentencing hearing and less any funds returned to
the SBA, with additional information about apportionment between the
SBA and lenders to be provided at the sentencing hearing; and

(5) agree not to contest forfeiture as more fully described below.

The defendant reserves the right to ask for a sentence of time served. The

government will oppose this request.

B. Government's Obligations:

This agreement is made pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P.14(c)(1){A) and (B). The
United States Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado agrees not to bring other
charges against the defendant based on information currently known to the United
States Attorney's Office, District of Colorado, concerning fraud against government
programs and the Internal Revenue Service and to move to dismiss Counts 1—4 and 6—
10 of the Indictment with prejudice. Should the plea of guilty be vacated on the motion
of the defendant, the government may, in its sole discretion, move to reinstate any or all
of the counts dismissed pursuant to this agreement and potentially file a superseding
indictment. The parties understand that this agreement is not binding on the Court.

The government agrees not to oppose a one-level motion for a downward
variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553({a) based on the difference between the defendant's

intended loss and actual loss.

Page 2 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg3
of 24

The government further agrees to file a motion for a downward variance under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) to reduce the defendant’s sentence by 10 months based on the
defendant’s agreement to the entry of a stipulated judicial removal order. The parties
understand that this agreement is not binding on the Court.

Provided that the defendant files a motion for a downward variance under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) based on the difference between the defendant's intended loss and
actual loss, the government agrees not to oppose a sentence of 60 months’
imprisonment. The parties understand that this agreement is not binding on the Court.

Provided the defendant does not engage in prohibited conduct or otherwise
implicate USSG §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1, cmt. n.4 between the guilty plea and sentencing in
this case, the government agrees that the defendant should receive a two-level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1(a) and agrees to
file a motion requesting that the defendant receive a one-level reduction for acceptance
of responsibility pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1({b).

lf the defendant engages in conduct which implicates USSG § § 3C1.1 cmt. n.4
between the guilty plea and sentencing in this case, in addition to any other
consequences, the government will be released from its obligations under the plea
agreement, and the defendant will not thereby have any right to withdraw from the plea

agreement.

C. Defendant’s Waiver of Appeal:
The defendant is aware that 18 U.S.C. § 3742 affords the right to appeal the
sentence, including the manner in which that sentence is determined. Understanding

Page 3 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 _ filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg4
of 24

this, and in exchange for the concessions made by the government in this agreement,
the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to appeal any matter in
connection with this prosecution, conviction, or sentence (including the restitution
order), unless it meets one of the following criteria:

(1) the sentence exceeds the maximum sentence provided in the statute of
conviction;

(2) the sentence exceeds the top end of the advisory guideline range from the
Sentencing Guidelines that applies for the defendant's criminal history (as
determined by the district court) at a total offense level of 28; or

(3) the government appeals the sentence imposed.

lf the first criterion applies, the defendant may appeal only the issue of how his
sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence. But if one of the latter two criteria
apply, the defendant may appeal on any ground that is properly available in an appeal
that follows a guilty plea.

The defendant also knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to challenge this
prosecution, conviction, or sentence (including the restitution order) in any collateral
attack (including, but not limited to, a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). This
waiver provision does not prevent the defendant from seeking relief otherwise available
in a collateral attack on any of the following grounds:

(1) the defendant should receive the benefit of an explicitly retroactive change
in the sentencing guidelines or sentencing statute;

(2) the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel; or

(3) the defendant was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct.

Page 4 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg5
of 24

The United States agrees not to argue a procedural bar to a prosecutorial
misconduct claim raised in a § 2255 petition based on the failure of the defendant to
raise that issue on direct appeal.

The defendant also waives the right to appeal any sentence imposed below or
within the Guideline range upon a revocation of supervised release in this case number,
except where the defendant unsuccessfully objects to the grade of violation applied by
the court during the district court revocation proceedings. In that event, this waiver does
not apply and the defendant may appeal the sentence imposed upon a revocation of
supervised release, even if that sentence falls below or within the guideline range
calculated by the court.

The defendant also waives the right to appeal the denial of any motion filed
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) where such denial rests in any part upon the court's
determination that a sentence reduction is not warranted under the factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This waiver does not apply to an appeal of a denied
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion where the district court, in denying the motion on § 3553(a)
grounds, failed to consider the facts allegedly establishing extraordinary and compelling
circumstances as part of its § 3553(a) analysis.

D. Defendant’s Voluntary Waiver of Rights:

The defendant agrees to the entry of a stipulated judicial order of removal
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1228(c)(5) and 1227(a)(2)(A)iili). Specifically, the defendant
admits that he is a native of Nigeria and a citizen of Nigeria and Italy. He further admits

that he is deportable from the United States, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ili), as

Page 5 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg6
of 24

he is an alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission to the United
States—to wit, an offense that involves fraud or deceit (Wire Fraud) in which the loss to
the victim or victims exceeds $10,000, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i).

After consultation with counsel and understanding the legal consequences of
doing so, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to the notice and
hearing provided for in 8 U.S.C. § 1228(c)(2), and he further waives any and all rights to
appeal, reopen, reconsider, or otherwise challenge this stipulated removal order. The
defendant understands and knowingly waives his right to a hearing before an
immigration judge or any other authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”) on the question of the defendant's deportability/removability from the United
States. The defendant further understands the rights the defendant would possess in a
contested administrative proceeding and waives these rights, including the defendant's
right to examine the evidence against him, to present evidence on his behalf, and to
cross-examine the witnesses presented by the government.

The defendant agrees to waive his rights to any and all forms of relief or
protection from removal, deportation, or exclusion under the Immigration and National
Act, as amended, and related federal regulations. These rights include, but are not
limited to, the ability to apply for the following forms of relief or protection from removal:
asylum; withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); any protection from
removal pursuant to Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture,
including withholding or deferral of removal under 8 C.F.R. § 208; cancellation of

removal; adjustment of status; registry; de novo review of a denial or revocation of

Page 6 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg/7
of 24

temporary protected status (current or future): waivers under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(h) or
1182(i); visa petitions; consular processing; voluntary departure; or any other possible
relief or protection from removal available under the Constitution, Jaws, or treaty
obligations of the United States. As part of this agreement, the defendant specifically
acknowledges and states that the defendant has not been persecuted in, and has no
present fear of persecution in, either Nigeria or Italy on account of his race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The defendant
further acknowledges and states that the defendant has not been tortured in and has no
present fear of state-sponsored torture in either Nigeria or Italy that would presently give
rise fo an asylum claim.

The defendant hereby requests that an order be issued by this Court for his
removal to Nigeria. The defendant agrees to accept a written order of removal as a final
disposition of any immigration proceedings and waives any and all rights to challenge
any provision of this agreement in any United States or foreign court or tribunal.

The defendant hereby agrees to make the judicial order of removal a public
document, waiving his privacy rights, including his privacy rights under 8 C.F.R. § 208.6.
At the request of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) concurs with the government's request for a judicial
order of removal. As a result of the above-referenced order, upon the completion of the
defendant's criminal proceedings, including any sentence of incarceration, the

defendant shall be removed to Nigeria.

Page 7 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg8
of 24

E. Assistance in the Execution of Removal:

The defendant agrees to assist ICE in the execution of his removal. Specifically,
the defendant agrees to assist ICE in the procurement of any travel or other documents
necessary for the defendant's removal; to meet with and to cooperate with
representatives of the country or countries to which the defendant's removal is directed;
and to execute those forms, applications, or waivers needed to execute or expedite the
defendant's removal. The defendant further understands that his failure or refusal to
assist ICE in the execution of his removal shall breach this plea agreement and may
subject the defendant to criminal penalties under 8 U.S.C. § 1253.

F. Re-entry and Penalties:

The defendant concedes that the entry of this judicial order of removal renders
him permanently inadmissible to the United States as those terms are defined in the
Immigration and Nationality Act. He agrees that he will not enter, attempt to enter, or
transit through the United States without first seeking and obtaining permission to do so
from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security or another designated
representative of the United States government.

G. Forfeiture of Assets:

The defendant admits the forfeiture allegations. The defendant further agrees to
forfeit to the United States immediately and voluntarily any and all assets and property,
or portions thereof, subject to forfeiture, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28
U.S.C. § 2461(c), whether in the possession or control of the United States, the

defendant, the defendant’s nominees, or elsewhere. The assets to be forfeited

Page 8 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg9
of 24

specifically include but are not limited to: a money judgment in the amount of the
proceeds of the offense of conviction, which is $681,694.' The defendant agrees and
consents to the forfeiture of these assets pursuant to any federal criminal, civil, and/or
administrative forfeiture action. The defendant understands that pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 983, the seizing agency is required to send notice in non-judicial civil forfeiture
matters. Having been advised of said rights regarding notice, the defendant hereby
knowingly and voluntarily waives his/her rights to notice being sent within the time
frames in 18 U.S.C. § 983 and to having the property returned to him/her if notice is not
sent within the prescribed time frames. The defendant further agrees to the forfeiture of
any substitute assets up to the value of any property described above pursuant to 21
U.S.C. § 853(p) and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2(e).

Forfeiture of the defendant's assets shall not be treated as satisfaction of any
fine, restitution, cost of imprisonment, or any other penalty this Court may impose upon
the defendant in addition to forfeiture.

The United States Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado will recommend to
the Attorney General that any net proceeds derived from the sale of the judicially
forfeited assets be remitted or restored to eligible victims of the offense, for which the
defendant has pleaded guilty, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(e), 28 C.F.R. pt. 9, and any

other applicable laws, if the legal requirements for recommendation are met. The

1 This amount includes the $12,500 EIDL that the defendant obtained in his own name
for Stephen N Trucking LLC; and (2) $294,200 of fraudulent EIDLs and $374,994 of
fraudulent PPP loans associated with debit cards seized from the defendant's residence
at the time of his arrest.

Page 9 of 24
of 24

defendant understands that the United States Attorney's Office only has authority to
recommend such relief and that the final decision of whether to grant relief rests solely
with the Department of Justice, which will make its decision in accordance with
applicable law.

Hi. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE

The parties agree that the elements of Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) charged in
Count 5 of the Indictment are as follows:

First: the defendant devised or intended to devise a
scheme to defraud, as alleged in the Indictment;

Second: the defendant acted with specific intent to defraud;

Third: the defendant used interstate wire communications
facilities or caused another person to use interstate wire
communications facilities for the purpose of carrying out the
scheme;

Fourth: the scheme employed false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises that were material.

ill. STATUTORY MAXIMUM SENTENCE

The maximum sentence for a violation of Count 5 of the Indictment is: not more
than 20 years’ imprisonment, a fine of not more than the greater of $250,000 or twice
the gain or loss from the offense, or both fine and imprisonment; not more than 3 years’
supervised release; a $100 mandatory victim's fund assessment fee; plus, restitution

and forfeiture in amounts to be determined at the time of sentencing.

2 Tenth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases), 2025 Edition, § 2.57.
Page 10 of 24
Pe * §

Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pgii

of 24

IV. COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES

The conviction may cause the loss of civil rights, including, but not limited to, the
rights to possess firearms, vote, hold elected office, and sit on a jury.

lf the defendant is an alien, the conviction may cause the defendant to be
deported and removed from the United States, or confined indefinitely if there is no
country to which the defendant may be deported, denied future admission into the
United States, and/or to be denied citizenship.

V. STIPULATION OF FACTS

The factual basis for this plea is set forth below. Because the Court must, as part
of its sentencing methodology, compute the advisory guideline range for the offense of
conviction, consider relevant conduct, and consider the other factors set forth in 18 |
U.S.C. § 3553, additional facts may be included below which are pertinent to those
considerations and computations. To the extent the parties disagree about the facts set
forth below, the stipulation of facts identifies which facts are known to be in dispute at
the time of the execution of the plea agreement.

This stipulation of facts does not preclude either party from presenting non-
contradictory additional facts which are relevant to the Court's guideline computation, to
other 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors, or to the Court's overall sentencing decision. The

parties stipulate that the following facts are true and correct.

Page 11 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg12
of 24

Background on the CARES Act Programs

The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) is an executive-branch
agency of the United States government that provides support to entrepreneurs and
small businesses.

On March 27, 2020, the President of the United States signed into law the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, which provided
emergency assistance to small business owners suffering adverse economic effects
caused by the Coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic. The CARES Act established
several new temporary programs and expanded existing programs, including programs
created or administered by the SBA. Two sources of funding for small businesses were
the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan
(‘EIDL’) program. The CARES Act mandated that only businesses in operation on
February 15, 2020, for PPP, or before February 1, 2020, for EIDL, were eligible under
the programs.

The EIDL program was an SBA program that provided low-interest financing to
small businesses in regions affected by declared disasters. The CARES Act authorized
the SBA to provide EIDLs to eligible small businesses experiencing substantial financial
disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Until April 2021, under the EIDL program, a small business could receive a loan
from the SBA in an amount of up to six months of working capital with a maximum of
$150,000. In order to obtain an EIDL, a qualifying business was required to submit an

application to the SBA and provide information about its operations, such as the number

Page 12 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg13
of 24

of employees and the entity’s gross business revenues and cost of goods sold in the
twelve months prior to January 31, 2020. The amount of the loan, if approved, was
determined in part based on the information provided concerning the gross revenue and
cost of goods sold. For loans greater than $25,000, the SBA withheld a $100 fee from
the total EIDL loan amount for filing a UCC-1 lien on the borrower's business assets.
EIDL funds were issued directly by the SBA and were permitted to be used for payroll
expenses, sick leave, production costs, and business obligations, such as debts, rents,
and mortgage payments. Before the SBA disbursed EIDL funds, an applicant generally
had to digitally sign a contract, referred to as a Loan Authorization and Agreement.

The CARES Act further authorized the PPP program, which provided forgivable
loans to small businesses. To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying small business was
required to submit a PPP loan application, signed by an authorized representative of the
business, in which the applicant acknowledged the program rules and made certain
affirmative certifications. The applicant was also required to state the business's:

(a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of employees. These figures
were used to calculate the loan amount that the business was eligible to receive under
the PPP. Businesses were also required to provide documentation showing their
payroll expenses, such as filed federal income tax documents.

PPP loan applications were received and processed, in the first instance, by a
participating lender. If a PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender
funded the loan using its own monies, but the loans were guaranteed by the SBA. Data

from the application, including information about the borrower, the total amount of the

Page 13 of 24
of 24

loan, and the listed number of employees, was transmitted by the lender to the SBA in
the course of processing the loan. The SBA paid participating lenders a processing fee
for each funded PPP loan.

The proceeds of a PPP loan could be used for certain specified items, such as
payroll costs, mortgage interest payments, and utilities. The proceeds of a PPP loan
were not permitted to be used by the borrowers to purchase consumer goods,
automobiles, real estate, 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.

Small businesses could request forgiveness of up to the full amount of the PPP
loan by filing a forgiveness application with the same lender. The forgiveness
application required the business to certify, among other things, that the loan was used
for eligible payroll and other business costs, and that the business had verified the
eligible payroll and nonpayroll costs for which the business requested forgiveness. The
business also was required to submit documentation to the lender verifying payroll

Background on Federal Tax Refunds

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) is an agency of the U.S. Department of the
Treasury responsible for administering and enforcing the tax laws of the United States
and collecting taxes owed to the United States.

The tax laws of the United States require every citizen or resident of the United

States who received gross income in excess of the minimum filing amount established

Page 14 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pgi15
of 24

by law for a particular tax year to annually file with the IRS a United States Individual
Income Tax Return for that calendar year. If a taxpayer paid more in taxes (for example
through employer withholdings or quarterly payments) than was due for a given year,
the taxpayer may request a refund. The IRS relies in part on the taxpayer's tax return to
determine whether a refund is due. Upon receipt of a filed tax return by the IRS
showing that a refund is due to a particular taxpayer, if the refund was not blocked, then
the IRS issues a refund to the taxpayer in the form of either a paper United States
Treasury check, or electronically, as directed by the particular taxpayer. Electronic
refunds are directed to an electronic routing number indicated on the filed tax return.
Modernized E-File (“"MeF”) is an internet-based, electronic filing platform that
allows taxpayers and tax return originators to transmit returns electronically to the IRS
through a process known as e-filing. The MeF system tracks taxpayer claims against

the government for refunds, which is part of the federal tax return process.

The Defendant’s Submission of Fraudulent EIDL Applications

From in or around July 2020 through in or around January 2021, the defendant
prepared and submitted fraudulent EIDL applications on behalf of fictitious business
entities using the personal identifying information (“PII”) belonging to other real
individuals, including their names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. In these
EIDL applications, the defendant made materially false statements regarding, inter alia,
the business’s owner, number of employees, gross revenues, and cost of goods sold.
He also submitted fraudulent business documentation to the SBA as part of the EIDL

application process, inciuding fictitious tax records, driver's license images, and

Page 15 of 24
of 24

business licenses.? He further falsely certified that the information provided in the EIDL
applications was true and accurate and that the funds would be used to pay permissible
business expenses.

As part of his scheme, the defendant submitted many of these EIDL applications
to the SBA using iterations of the same email addresses with dots placed in different
locations of the email addresses. He did this to deceive the SBA’s systems from
recognizing that the same email addresses were used to apply for multiple EIDL
applications.* For example, the defendant submitted numerous EIDL applications from

the following email addresses:

Email addresses® Number of Number of Amount of
EIDLs submitted | EIDLs funded Funded EIDLs

3 Some of these records contained authentication features within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. § 1028(d)(1). For example, in connection with EIDL application 3312750345, the
defendant, using huns.ch.er.d.a.le@gmail.com, submitted to the SBA: (1) a purported
State of Illinois business license for a business with the initials G.H.R., which contained
a fictitious state seal, QR code, and license numbers, and (2) a purported lilinois driver's
license for an individual with the initials G.O., which contained a hologram.

4 In routing emails to a gmail.com account, Google disregards periods within an email
address (e.g., email sent to huns.che.rda.l.e@gmail.com,
"huns.ch.er.d.a.le@gmail.com,” or “huns.che.r.d.al.e@gmail.com would all be routed to
hunscherdale@gmail.com). However, because the SBA's online portal for EIDL
applications recognized dots as unique characters in an email address, the defendant
was able to file numerous EIDL applications using the same email accounts without the
SBA’s systems detecting this anomaly.

§ Google records reflect that huncherdale@gmail.com, secregeneral010@gmail.com,
and jacksecretary12@gmail.com share the same recovery email address:
chasemark111@yahoo.com. During an August 16, 2021, border search, the defendant
was carrying a second phone that was set up in the name of “Chase Mark” with the
email address secregeneral010@gmail.com.

Google records also reflect that hunscherdale@gmail.com was “linked by cookies” to
secregeneral010@gmail, jacksecretary12@gmail.com, and freshlivesO34@gmail.com.

Page 16 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pgi17

of 24
hunscherdale@gmail.com 491 58 $627,200
FreshlivesO34@gmail.com 141 30 $293,100
Jacksecretary12@gmail.com | 14 0 $0
Secregeneral010@gmail.com | 24 0 $0

In addition to these EIDLs, the defendant also submitted fraudulent EIDL
applications using Pll belonging to other real people from additional unique email
addresses. The EIDL proceeds were deposited into Green Dot Bank accounts set up in
the names of other people, after which time proceeds were withdrawn in cash or used to
purchase money orders.

The defendant attempted to conceal his involvement in the submission of these
fraudulent EIDLs by using a Verizon Hotspot assigned to phone number (470) 630-2553
(the “Verizon Hotspot”), which was set up using a fictitious name. Over 200 EIDL
applications were submitted to the SBA using IP addresses tied to the Verizon Hotspot.
The Verizon Hotspot was seized from the defendant's residence at the time of his arrest
on October 19, 2023.

In addition to the EIDLs submitted using Pll belonging to other people, the
defendant also submitted one fraudulent EIDL application in his own name on behaif of
a company he controlled, Stephen N Trucking LLC. In the Stephen N Trucking LLC
application, the defendant made materially false statements regarding the business's
gross revenues and cost of goods sold. He further falsely certified that the information
provided in the EIDL application was true and accurate and that the funds would be
used to pay payroll and other permissible business expenses when, in fact, the funds

Page 17 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg18
of 24

were used for his personal benefit. The SBA approved and funded this EIDL in the
amount of $12,500, which was deposited into a Bank of America account controlled by
the defendant.

In total, the defendant is tied to email addresses that submitted approximately
713 EIDLs using more than 600 identities. Of these, the SBA approved and funded
approximately 90 EIDLs for a total amount of $936,700. The government estimates that
the total amount sought in connection with all EIDLs identified above is $7,104,400.

Fraudulent PPP Loans

From in or around April 2021 through in or around May 2021, the defendant
prepared and submitted fraudulent PPP loan applications on behalf of fictitious business
entities using Pll belonging to other real individuals, including their names, dates of
birth, and Social Security numbers. In these PPP applications, the defendant made
materially false statements regarding, inter alia, the business's owner and average
monthly payroll. These applications were submitting using iterations of the email
address secregeneral010@gmail.com.

These PPP applications initially were submitted online to a third-party lending
agent, who completed certain processing steps—inciuding identity verification—before
sending the loan applications to one of four approved-PPP lenders. To conceal his own
involvement in the scheme, the defendant submitted to the lending agent: (1) fabricated
passport images; and (2) identity verification “selfies” depicting a mannequin head
instead of a real person.

Approximately 137 PPP applications were submitted using iterations of the

Page 18 of 24
of 24

secregeneral010@gmail.com address using more than 100 identities. Of these,
approximately 58 PPP loan applications were assigned a SBA loan number, and
lenders ultimately approved and funded 22 PPP loans totaling $453,013. These funded
loans were deposited into Green Dot Bank accounts set up using Pll of other
individuals. The government estimates that the total amount sought in connection with
ail PPPs identified above that were assigned a loan number is $1,170,928.
Fraudulent Tax Returns

From in or around February 2022 through February 2023, the defendant
prepared and submitted fraudulent tax filings to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)
using Pll belonging to other real individuals, including their names, dates of birth, and
Social Security numbers. Over 800 tax filings were filed using iterations of the email
address secregeneral010@gmail.com using other identities. None of these were
funded. The government estimates that the total amount of refunds sought is
$13,609,895.
Search of the Defendant's Residence

At the time of the defendant's arrest, law enforcement searched the defendant's
apartment pursuant to a search warrant and seized, inter alia, the Verizon Hotspot, 574

" debit cards, as well as various devices associated with the defendant containing Pll

belonging to other real individuals. Approximately 46 of those debit cards were
associated with Green Dot Bank accounts that received fraudulent EIDLs (totaling
$294,200) or PPP loans (totaling $374,994) as part of the defendant's scheme.

Moreover, other debit cards were associated with Green Dot Bank accounts that were

Page 19 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 20
of 24

listed on fraudulent tax filings submitted using iterations of
secregenerai010@gmail.com.
Count $

On September 3, 2020, the defendant submitted EIDL Application Number
3314240993 to the SBA on behalf of T.H.R. using E.T.’s Pil and the email address
hun.sc.her.da.le@gmail.com. In this application, the defendant made materially false
representations regarding the business’s gross revenues and cost of goods sold. The
SBA approved and funded this EIDL in the amount of $27,000. These funds, minus a
$100 processing fee for each EIDL that was paid by the SBA, were sent to a Green Dot
bank account controlled by the defendant. On or about September 10, 2020, the SBA
in Denver, Colorado created and certified the payment file for the EIDL pertaining to
T.H.R. and transmitted it via interstate wire communications from Colorado to the U.S.
Treasury processing site located in the Kansas City Regional Operations Center in
Kansas City, Missouri. After a computer operator at the U.S. Treasury disbursing office
in Kansas City, Missouri performed payment operations to complete the processing of
the file, an Automated Clearing House (ACH) payment file was transmitted to the
Federal Reserve Bank ACH processing site in New Jersey. The Federal Reserve Bank
in New Jersey processed the payment file and sent $26,900 to Green Dot Bank account
ending 1031, with T.H.R. designated as the payee. This Green Dot Bank account was
controlled by the defendant; specifically, this bank account is associated with a debit
card ending 2526, which was seized from the defendant's residence at the time of his

arrest.

Page 20 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg21
of 24

Restitution

The defendant understands and agrees that he has an obligation to pay
restitution on the amount of the funded EIDLs and PPP loans during the course of his
scheme, as well as the $100 UCC fee paid by the SBA on each funded EIDL greater
than $25,000, less any funds returned to the SBA. The total amount of restitution is
currently estimated to be $1,389,713. He also agrees to pay the amount of interest
accruing on these EIDL and PPP loans through the date of sentencing. Final interest
figures will be presented prior to the time of sentencing.

VI. ADVISORY GUIDELINE CALCULATION

The parties understand that the imposition of a sentence in this matter is
governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553. In determining the particular sentence to be imposed,
the Court is required to consider seven factors. One of those factors is the sentencing
range computed by the Court under advisory guidelines issued by the United States
Sentencing Commission. In order to aid the Court in this regard, the parties set forth
below their estimate of the advisory guideline range called for by the United States
Sentencing Guidelines. To the extent that the parties disagree about the guideline
computations, the recitation below identifies the matters which are in dispute.

The Guideline calculation below is the good-faith estimate of the parties, but it is
only an estimate. The parties understand that the government has an independent
obligation to assist the Court in making an accurate determination of the correct
guideline range. To that end, the government may argue that facts identified in the

presentence report, or otherwise identified during the sentencing process, affect the

Page 21 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado’ pg 22

estimate below.
a)

b)

9)
h)

of 24

Under USSG § 2B1.1(a)(1), the base offense level is 7.

A 20-level increase applies because the defendant's intended loss
was greater than $9,500,000 but less than $25,000,000.
§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(K).

A 2-level increase applies because the defendant's offense
involved 10 or more victims. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i).

A 2-level increase applies because the defendant's offense
involved sophisticated means, and the defendant intentionally
engaged in or caused the conduct constituting sophisticated
means. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C).

A 2-level increase applies because the defendant's offense
involved: (1) the possession or use of an authentication feature;
and (2) the unauthorized transfer or use of any means of
identification unlawfully to produce another means of

The parties anticipate that the defendant will be eligible for a "zero
point offender” reduction. Assuming his eligibility, this will result in
a 2-level reduction. § 4C1.1.

The adjusted offense level is 31.

Acceptance of Responsibility: Provided the defendant does not
engage in prohibited conduct or otherwise implicate USSG

§§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1, cmt. n.4 between the guilty plea and
sentencing in this case, the government agrees that the defendant
should receive a two-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1(a) and agrees to file a
motion requesting that the defendant receive a one-level

6 Application Note 10(c) provides an illustrative example to which USSG §
2B1.1(b)(11)(C){i) applies: “A defendant obtains an individual's name and social security
number from a source (e.g., from a piece of mail taken from the individual's mailbox)
and obtains a bank loan in that individual’s name. In this example, the account number
of the bank loan is the other means of identification that has been obtained unlawfully.”

In this case, the defendant utilized other real individuals’ names and social security
numbers to obtain EIDL loans in those individuals’ names.

Page 22 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado’ pg 23

k)

of 24

reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to USSG

§ 3E1.1(b). The resulting total offense level is 28.

The parties understand that the defendant's criminal history
computation is tentative and based on the defendant's prior
convictions. The parties believe the defendant is in criminal
history category I.

The career offender/criminal livelihood/armed career criminal
adjustments do not apply.

The advisory guideline range resulting from these calculations is
78-97 months. However, in order to be as accurate as possible,
with the criminal history category undetermined at this time, the
offense level estimated above could conceivably result in a range
from 78 months (bottom of Category |) to 175 months (top of
Category VI). The guideline range would not exceed, in any case,
the cumulative statutory maximum applicable to the count of
conviction.

Pursuant to guideline § 5E1.2, assuming the estimated offense
level above is correct, the fine range for this offense would be
$25,000 to $250,000, plus applicable interest and penalties.

Pursuant to guideline § 5D1.2, if the Court imposes a ferm of
supervised release, that term at least 1 year, but not more than 3
years.

Pursuant fo USSG § 5E1.1, the Court shall enter a restitution order
in the amount estimated to be at least $1,389,713, plus interest
accruing through the date of the sentencing hearing and less any
funds returned to the SBA, with information about apportionment
between the SBA and lenders to be provided at the sentencing
hearing.

The parties understand that the Court is free, upon consideration and proper

application of all 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors, to impose that reasonable sentence it deems

appropriate in the exercise of its discretion and that such sentence may be less than

that called for by the advisory guidelines (in length or form), within the advisory

guideline range, or above the advisory guideline range up to and including

Page 23 of 24
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 59 filed 09/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 24
of 24

imprisonment for the statutory maximum term, regardless of any computation or position
of any party on any 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factor.

Vil. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
The agreement disclosed to the Court is the entire agreement. There are no

other promises, agreements or "side agreements,” terms, conditions, understandings, or
assurances, express or implied. In entering this agreement, neither the government nor
the defendant has relied, or is relying, on any other terms, promises, conditions or

assurances.

ot | NOSA STEPHEN EDOKPAIGBE
Defendant

Date: 4{ 4 Li |Z
[ | Lf se RG

Attorney for Defendant

. NICOLE CASSIDY
Assistant U.S. Attorye

Date: Wi) og
ee ANNA EDGAR
Assistant U.S. Attorney

Page 24 of 24


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cod.228367.59.0.pdf

Size

649,389 bytes

SHA-256

fa3b349241755f278a037d2e6405006dcd040ca2869bedbc26576a053dd31296

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cod.228367.59.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)