Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Justice Cisternino Indictment Doc1

Justice Cisternino Indictment Doc1

Issuer
Source documents
Document type
Justice Cisternino Indictment Doc1
Date
2026-07-01
Case
Justice Cisternino Indictment Doc1

Summary

The indictment in United States v. Don V. Cisternino, Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI, filed February 3, 2021 as Document 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. It charges wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 in Counts One and Two, aggravated identity theft in Counts Three through Five, and illegal monetary transactions under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 in Counts Six through Eight. The grand jury alleges that a PPP loan application for Magnifico, Inc. certified 441 employees with an average monthly payroll of $2,880,000, and that the SBA issued approximately $7,210,000 in PPP funds. The monetary transaction counts list vehicle purchases and a $3,104,000.00 wire to buy a residence. A forfeiture section seeks an order of forfeiture of $7,210,000 and lists seized bank funds and real property.

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 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 1 of 15 PageID 1




                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                         ORLANDO DIVISION

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

        v.                               CASE NO. 6:21-cr- llO-ORL - 1-S DC\
                                                  18 U.S.C. § 1343
                                                  18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l)
 DON V. CISTERNINO                                18 u.s.c. § 1957


                                INDICTMENT

        The Grand Jury charges:

                          COUNTS ONE AND TWO
                              (Wire Fraud)

                               A.     Introduction

        At times material to this Indictment:

        The Defendant and his Business Operations

        1.    DON V. CISTERNINO was a resident of the Middle District of

 Florida.

        2.    Magnifico, Inc. ("MagnifiCo") was a State of New York

 corporation established in or about May 2014 by CISTERNINO.

  CISTERNINO listed himself as MagnifiCo's president and registered agent.

        3.    CISTERNINO advertised Magnifico as a consulting company.

  During 2019 and 2020, Magnifico had few or no employees other than




                                         1
Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 2 of 15 PageID 2




  CISTERNINO and his girlfriend, L.Q. For 2019, Magnifico did not report

  any payroll or wages to federal agencies.

        4.     On or about April 12, 2020, CISTERNINO opened an account

  for Magnifico ending in 7809 (" Account -7809") at Radius Bank, an online

 bank headquartered in Boston, MA. At this time CISTERNINO listed a

  mailing address for himself in Bradenton, Florida, in the Middle District of

 Florida.

        The Paycheck Protection Program

        5.     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. As part of this effort, the SBA enabled and

 provided for loans through banks, credit unions, and other lenders. These

 loans had government-backed guarantees.

        6.     In March 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic

  Security Act, or the "CARES Act," was enacted to provide immediate

  assistance to individuals, families, and organizations affected by the COVID-

  19 emergency. Among its various provisions, the CARES Act authorized the




                                         2
Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 3 of 15 PageID 3




 SBA to guarantee loans under the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), and

 the full principal amount of the loans could qualify for forgiveness.

        7.     Borrowers were required to use PPP loan proceeds only for

 enumerated purposes, including payroll costs, rent and utilities, and mortgage

 interest payments. Knowing misuse of PPP funds would subject borrowers to

 additional liability, such as charges for fraud.

        8.     Under the PPP, the maximum loan amount was the lesser of $10

 million or an amount calculated using a payroll-based formula specified in the

 CARES Act. The payroll-based formula considered the borrower's total

 payroll costs from the preceding twelve months for all domestic employees.

 Once an average monthly payroll cost was established, the borrower would

 multiply that figure by 2.5 to arrive at a total maximum PPP loan amount.

 This payroll-based formula expressly excluded the compensation of an

 individual employee in excess of an annual salary of$100,000, prorated as

 necessary, and, with limited exceptions, businesses with more than 500

 employees did not qualify to obtain PPP loans.

        9.    To apply for a PPP loan, a potential borrower electronically

 submitted an SBA Form 2483 with supporting payroll documentation to a

 financial institution that would administer the loan and serve as custodian of

 the funds. On the SBA Form 2483, an authorized representative of the



                                          3
Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 4 of 15 PageID 4




 business was required to certify information regarding business operations.

 Those certifications included that: (i) the applicant was in operation on

 February 15, 2020 and had employees for whom it paid salaries and payroll

 taxes or paid independent contractors, as reported on a Form 1099-MISC; (ii)

 current economic uncertainty made the loan request necessary to support the

 applicant's ongoing operations; and (iii) the PPP funds would be used to retain

 workers and to maintain payroll or pay other qualifying expenses.

        10.   Further, when submitting the SBA Farm 2483, the authorized

 representative certified his understanding that, should the PPP funds be

 knowingly used for unauthorized purposes, the United States could hold him

 legally liable, including for charges of fraud. The applicant was also required

 to certify the truth and accuracy of any information provided on the SBA

 Form 2483 and in all supporting documents, including any documents

 submitted to verify the applicant's payroll expenses. Such supporting

 documents could include payroll processor records, bank records, wage

 records, payroll tax filings with the Internal Revenue Service, or other records

 sufficient to demonstrate the qualifying payroll amount.

        11.   Finally, the applicant was required to certify the following

 warning regarding false statements and other criminal penalties:

       I understand that knowingly making a false statement to obtain a
       guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under the law, including under
       18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 3571 by imprisonment of not more than five


                                         4
Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 5 of 15 PageID 5




       years and/or a fine of up to $250,000; under 15 U.S.C. § 645 by
       imprisonment of not more than two years and/ or a fine of not more
       than $5,000; and, if submitted to a federally insured institution, under
       18 U.S.C. § 1014 by imprisonment of not more than thirty years and/or
       a fine of not more than $1,000,000.

       12.    PPP loan applications would then be processed by participating

  lenders. If a PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender

  funded the PPP loan using its own monies, which were 100% guaranteed by

  the SBA. Data from the application, including information from 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.

       PPP Lender F.H. and Brokers R.A. and Q.C.C.

       13.    F.H., a financial institution located in the Middle District of

 Florida, participated in the SBA's PPP as a lender and, as such, was

 authorized to lend funds to eligible borrowers under the terms of PPP.

        14.   R.A. and Q.C.C. were New York companies that provided loan

 brokerage services to help client businesses obtain financing. R.A. and Q.C.C.

 (hereinafter, the "Brokers") helped clients apply for SBA-guaranteed PPP

 loans, including through F .H. (hereinafter, the "Lender").




                                          5
Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 6 of 15 PageID 6




                              B.     The Scheme and Artifice

       15.        Beginning in or about April 2020, and continuing through in or

 about December 2020, in the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District

 of New York, and elsewhere, the defendant,

                                   DON V. CISTERNINO,

 did knowingly, and with intent to defraud, devise and intend to devise, a

 scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by

 means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and

 promises, the substance of which scheme and artifice is described below.

                  C.     Manner and Means of the Scheme and Artifice

       16.        The manner and means by which the defendant sought to

 accomplish the scheme and artifice to defraud included, among others, the

 following:

             a.        It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the

 defendant would and did submit and cause the submission of a false and

 fraudulent PPP loan application to the Lender (through the Brokers) on behalf

 ofMagnifiCo seeking a PPP loan from the SBA.

             b.        It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that

 the defendant would and did falsely and fraudulently certify that the PPP

 funds acquired from the requested loan would be used to retain workers,



                                              6
Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 7 of 15 PageID 7




  maintain payroll, or make mortgage interest payments, lease payments, and

  utility payments.

            c.    It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that

  the defendant would and did falsely and fraudulently certify that Magnifico

  had 441 employees with an average monthly payroll of$2,880,000.

            d.    It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that

 the defendant would and did submit and cause to be submitted false and

 fraudulent supporting documentation to the Lender (through the Brokers),

 including, among others, false MagnifiCo bank statements, false MagnifiCo

  quarterly Federal tax returns, a false Magnifico U.S. Corporation Income Tax

 Return, and false 2019 Form W-2s for Magnifi.Co's purported employees,

  many of which listed the name and social security numbers of persons who

  were not in fact Magnifico employees in 2019.

            e.    It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that

  the defendant's materially false, fraudulent, and misleading representations

  and documentation would and did cause the SBA to approve the PPP

  application and the SBA to issue approximately $7,210,000 in PPP funds to

  the Lender, which the Lender then deposited into Account -7809 under the

  defendant's control.




                                         7
Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 8 of 15 PageID 8




              f.      It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that

 the defendant would and did use and cause the PPP funds to be used for

 unauthorized purposes and for his own personal enrichment, including the

 purchase of Lincoln Navigator, Maserati, and Mercedes-Benz vehicles, and an

 approximately 12,579 sq. ft. residence in Seminole County, FL.

              g.       It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that

 the defendant would and did misrepresent, hide, and conceal, and cause to be

 misrepresented, hidden, and concealed, the purpose of acts performed in

 furtherance of the scheme to defraud.

                       D. Executions of the Scheme and Artifice

        17.        On or about the dates set forth below, in the Middle District of

 Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

                                DON V. CISTERNINO,

  for the purpose of executing the aforesaid scheme and artifice to defraud and

  for obtaining money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent

  pretenses, representations and promises, did knowingly, and with intent to

  defraud, transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire

  communication in interstate and foreign commerce, the following writings,

  signs, signals, pictures, and sounds:




                                             8
Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 9 of 15 PageID 9




                         .
 Count        On or ~out;Date     ·,"
                                                            ·. Interstate Wire
                                  ·.·                                  ,


                                        Email from Don Cistemino in the Middle District of
                                        Florida to Q.C.C. in the Eastern District of New York with
  ONE           May 5, 2020
                                        the subject line "Re: Page Two" attaching "MAGNIFICO
                                        INC PPP Application Form"

                                        Wire transfer in the amount of$7,210,000 from F.H.'s
                                        Capital One N.A. account ending in 5588 into MagnifiCo's
 TWO            May 28, 2020
                                        Radius Bank account ending in 7809, processed using a
                                        server located outside of Florida

         All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

                      COUNTS THREE THROUGH FIVE
                              (Aggravated Identity Theft)

         1.    The paragraphs of Parts A and C of Counts One and Two of this

 Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth

 herein.

         2.    On or about May 17, 2020, in the Middle District of Florida, and

 elsewhere, the defendant,

                               DON V. CISTERNINO,

  did knowingly transfer, possess and use without lawful authority, a means of

  identification of another person, as indicated below, during and in relation to a

  felony violation of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, as charged in

  Counts One and Two of this Indictment, knowing that such means of

  identification belonged to an actual person:




                                                9
Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 10 of 15 PageID 10




                Count                           Description

                              Victim J.S.'s name and Social Security Number
               THREE                in support of PPP loan application

                              Victim J.D.'s name and Social Security Number
                FOUR
                                    in support of PPP loan application

                              Victim C.J. 's name and Social Security Number
                FIVE
                                    in support of PPP loan application


              In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A and 2.


                        COUNTS SIX THROUGH EIGHT
                         (illegal Monetary Transaction)

         1.      The paragraphs of Parts A and C of Counts One and Two of this

   Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth

   herein.

         2.      On or about the dates set forth below, in the Middle District of

   Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

                               DON V. CISTERNINO,

   did knowingly engage and attempt to engage in the described monetary

   transaction, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, in criminally

   derived property of a value greater than $10,000, such property having been

   derived from specified unlawful activity, that is, wire fraud, in violation of 18

   u.s.c. § 1343:


                                           10
Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 11 of 15 PageID 11




         '                        •.

                                                        '
                  OnorAbout
     CoUtrt                            Ap~()X. Amount                   Tr@;DSaction
                    ·Date·
                                                                            .




                                                            A draft from MagnifiCo's Radius
                                                            Bank account ending in 7809 to a
      SIX         May 30, 2020           $89,413.71         dealership in the Middle District of
                                                            Florida to purchase a Lincoln
                                                            Navigator vehicle

                                                            A draft from MagnifiCo's Radius
                                                            Bank account ending in 7809 to a
    SEVEN         June 22, 2020          $251,436.21        dealership in the Middle District of
                                                            Florida to purchase a Mercedes-
                                                            Benz vehicle

                                                            A wire transfer from MagnifiCo's
                                                            Radius Bank account ending in
                                                            7809 to a title company in the
    EIGHT          July 6, 2020         $3,104,000.00
                                                            Middle District of Florida to
                                                            purchase a residence in Seminole
                                                            County, FL


         In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2.

                                        FORFEITURE

             1.   The allegations contained in Counts One, Two, and Six through

   Eight are incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeiture

   pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(l)(C), 982(a)(l), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

         2.       Upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the

   defendant shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

   § 981(a)(l)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 246l(c), any property, real or personal, which

   constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the violation.

             3.   Upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, the

   defendant shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(l),


                                               11
Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 12 of 15 PageID 12




   any property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or any property

  traceable to such property.

         4.     The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, the

  following:

                a.     an order of forfeiture in the amount of$7,210,000, which

                      represents the proceeds obtained from the offenses;

                b.     approximately $446,580.86 seized from Wells Fargo Bank

                       account number 1040205207573, held in the name of

                      Victor A. Cistemino and/or Mary Jo Cistemino;

                c.     approximately $439,576.96 seized from TD Bank account

                       number 7919290655, held in the name of Victor A

                       Cistemino and/ or Mary J Cistemino;

                d.     approximately $94,726.07 seized from JP Morgan Chase

                       Bank account number 650710970, held in the name of

                       Victor A. Cistemino or Mary J. Cisternino;

                e.     approximately $5,000.21 seized from JP Morgan Chase

                       Bank account number 3838760727, held in the name of

                       Victor A. Cistemino or Mary J. Cistemino;




                                          12
Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 13 of 15 PageID 13




               f.     approximately $86,039.88 seized from Citibank account

                      number 6866323510, held in the name of Denise L Fieck,

                      ITF Keith Fieck; and

               g.     the real property, including all improvements thereon and

                      appurtenances thereto, located at 3018 Kingfisher Pt.,

                      Chuluota, FL, titled in the name of Don Cistemino and

                      Lori Quasky.

         5.    If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or

   omission of the defendant:

               a.     cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

               b.     has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third

                      party;

               c.     has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;

               d.     has been substantially diminished in value; or

               e.     has been commingled with other property which cannot be

                      divided without difficulty,




                                         13
Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 14 of 15 PageID 14




  the United States shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property under the

  provisions of21 U.S.C § 853(p), as incorporated by 18 U.S.C § 982(b)(l) and

  28 U.S.C. § 246l(c).


                                           A TRUE BILL,



                                              Foreperson

         MARIA CHAPA LOPEZ
         United States Attorney


   By:   ti-'"              ~             >
         Chauncey A. ~ tt
         Assistant United States Attorney


   By:
         Roger B. Handberg
         Assistant United States Attorney
         Chief, Orlando Division




                                          14
FORMOBD-34            Case 6:21-cr-00016-WWB-DCI Document 1 Filed 02/03/21 Page 15 of 15 PageID 15
A PR 199 1                               No.


                                               UNITED STATES D ISTRICT COURT
                                                    Middle District of Florida
                                                       Orlando Division

                                               THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                                  vs.

                                                     DON V. CISTERNINO


                                                         INDICTMENT

             Violations: 18 U.S.C. § 1343
                        18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l)
                        18 U.S.C. § 1957



         A true bill,

               ,11J~ /41-
                    Foreperson


             Filed in open court this 3rd day of February, 2021
                    ~
                    ~
                                     (




             Bail   $- - - - - - - -

                                                                                                     GPO 863 525


File and source

File
justice_cisternino_indictment_doc1.pdf
Size
255,116 bytes
SHA-256
0f310ad85169db70bf8ccc6083b2a19325965c08b7db30e0c74940bc781e2f96
Our copy
justice_cisternino_indictment_doc1.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top