Plea Agreement Letter — United States v. Reginald Hopkins (District of Maryland)

Summary

A plea agreement letter dated September 5, 2023 from Assistant United States Attorney Paul A. Riley to defense counsel Tyler Mann, filed September 27, 2023 as Document 7 in United States versus Reginald Hopkins, Case 1:23-cr-00316-RDB, in the District of Maryland. Hopkins agrees to plead guilty to a One Count Information charging Wire Fraud Conspiracy Affecting A Financial Institution under 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The parties agree to a loss amount of more than $1,500,000 but less than $3,500,000, a final anticipated adjusted offense level of 24, and, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), a sentence between 18 months and 41 months of imprisonment. The statement of facts states that the Defendant has made no payments to Celtic Bank or Cross River Bank on the PPP loans and received an EIDL Advance of $5,000 and an EIDL Advance of $4,000.

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.

Case 1:23-cr-00316-RDB Document? Filed 09/27/23 Page 1ofY6 rep __enrereo
haig.9.9.23 ____ LOGGED RECEIVED

U.S. Department of Justice. , 3 pm, Sep 27 2023

United States Attorney AT BALTIMORE

are) CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
District ryland ”
Nirihi of Ma y DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
orthern Division BY Deputy
Paul A. Riley Mailing Address: Office Location: DIRECT: 410-209-4959
Assistant United States Attorney 36 S. Charles Street, 4th Floor 36 S. Charles Street, 4th Floor MAIN; 410-209-4800
Paul. Riley@usdoj. gov Baltimore, MD 21201 Baltimore, MD 21201
September 5, 2023

Tyler Mann, Esq.

Law Offices of Mann & Risch
101 E. Chesapeake Ave.

Suite 403

Towson, MD 21286

Re: — United States v. Reginald Hopkins, Crim. No:

Dear Counsel:

This letter, together with the Sealed Supplement, confirms the plea agreement (this
“Agreement”) that has been offered to your client, Reginald Hopkins (hereinafter “Defendant”),
by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland (“this Office”). If the
Defendant accepts this offer, please have the Defendant execute it in the spaces provided below.
If this offer has not been accepted by September 8, 2023, it will be deemed withdrawn. The terms
of the Agreement are as follows:

Offense of Conviction

E, The Defendant agrees to plead guilty to a One Count Information, which will
charge the Defendant with Wire Fraud Conspiracy Affecting A Financial Institution, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The Defendant admits that the Defendant is, in fact, guilty of the offense and
will so advise the Court.

Elements of the Offense (Wire Fraud Conspiracy)

2. The elements of the offense to which the Defendant has agreed to plead guilty, and
which this Office would prove if the case went to trial, are as follows: That on or about the dates
alleged in the Information, in the District of Maryland,

a. Two or more persons agreed to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan to
commit the crime of Wire Fraud, as charged in the Information—that is:

b. transmitting or causing to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television
communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds

for the purpose of executing a scheme or artifice to defraud,

¢, having devised or intended to devise the scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain
money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, and

Rev. August 2018
Case 1:23-cr-00316-RDB Document7 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2of15

d. the Defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the plan and willfully joined it.
Penalties
3. The maximum penalties provided by statute for the offense to which the Defendant

is pleading guilty are as follows:

Minimum | Maximum | Supervised Maximum Special
Count Statute . : :
Prison Prison Release Fine Assessment

$250,000 or

twice the
1 ESE N/A 30 years 5 years gain or $100
§ 1349

loss from the

offense
a. Prison: If the Court orders a term of imprisonment, the Bureau of Prisons

has sole discretion to designate the institution at which it will be served.

b. Supervised Release: If the Court orders a term of supervised release, and
the Defendant violates the conditions of supervised release, the Court may order the Defendant
returned to custody to serve a term of imprisonment as permitted by statute, followed by an
additional term of supervised release.

c. Restitution: The Court may order the Defendant to pay restitution pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663, 3663A, and 3664.

d. Payment: Ifa fine or restitution is imposed, it shall be payable immediately,
unless the Court orders otherwise under 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d). The Defendant may be required to
pay interest if the fine is not paid when due.

Ss Forfeiture: The Court may enter an order of forfeiture of assets directly
traceable to the offense, substitute assets, and/or a money judgment equal to the value of the
property subject to forfeiture.

f Collection of Debts: If the Court imposes a fine or restitution, this Office’s
Financial Litigation Unit will be responsible for collecting the debt. If the Court establishes a
schedule of payments, the Defendant agrees that: (1) the full amount of the fine or restitution is
nonetheless due and owing immediately; (2) the schedule of payments is merely a minimum
schedule of payments and not the only method, nor a limitation on the methods, available to the
United States to enforce the judgment; and (3) the United States may fully employ all powers to
collect on the total amount of the debt as provided by law. Until the debt is paid, the Defendant
agrees to disclose all assets in which the Defendant has any interest or over which the Defendant
exercises direct or indirect control. Until the money judgment is satisfied, the Defendant
authorizes this Office to obtain a credit report in order to evaluate the Defendant’s ability to pay,
and to request and review the Defendant’s federal and state income tax returns. The Defendant
agrees to complete and sign a copy of IRS Form 8821 (relating to the voluntary disclosure of
federal tax return information) and a financial statement in a form provided by this Office.

Rev. August 2018
Waiver of Rights

4. The Defendant understands that by entering into this Agreement, the Defendant
surrenders certain rights as outlined below:

a. The Defendant has the right to have his case presented to a Grand Jury,
which would decide whether there is probable cause to return an indictment against him. By
agreeing to proceed by way of Information, he is giving up that right, and understands that the
charges will be filed by the United States Attorney without the Grand Jury.

b. If the Defendant had pled not guilty and persisted in that plea, the Defendant
would have had the right to a speedy jury trial with the close assistance of competent counsel.
That trial could be conducted by a judge, without a jury, if the Defendant, this Office, and the
Court all agreed.

Ci If the Defendant elected a jury trial, the jury would be composed of twelve
individuals selected from the community. Counsel and the Defendant would have the opportunity
to challenge prospective jurors who demonstrated bias or who were otherwise unqualified, and
would have the opportunity to strike a certain number of jurors peremptorily. All twelve jurors
would have to agree unanimously before the Defendant could be found guilty of any count. The
jury would be instructed that the Defendant was presumed to be innocent, and that presumption
could be overcome only by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

d. If the Defendant went to trial, the Government would have the burden of
proving the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant would have the right to
confront and cross-examine the Government’s witnesses. The Defendant would not have to
present any defense witnesses or evidence whatsoever. If the Defendant wanted to call witnesses
in defense, however, the Defendant would have the subpoena power of the Court to compel the
witnesses to attend.

e. The Defendant would have the right to testify in the Defendant’s own
defense if the Defendant so chose, and the Defendant would have the right to refuse to testify. If
the Defendant chose not to testify, the Court could instruct the jury that they could not draw any
adverse inference from the Defendant’s decision not to testify.

E If the Defendant were found guilty after a trial, the Defendant would have
the right to appeal the verdict and the Court’s pretrial and trial decisions on the admissibility of
evidence to see if any errors were committed which would require a new trial or dismissal of the
charges. By pleading guilty, the Defendant knowingly gives up the right to appeal the verdict and
the Court’s decisions.

g. By pleading guilty, the Defendant will be giving up all of these rights,
except the right, under the limited circumstances set forth in the “Waiver of Appeal” paragraph
below, to appeal the sentence. By pleading guilty, the Defendant understands that the Defendant
may have to answer the Court’s questions both about the rights being given up and about the facts
of the case. Any statements that the Defendant makes during such a hearing would not be
admissible against the Defendant during a trial except in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false
statement.

Rev. August 2018
Case 1:23-cr-00316-RDB Document7 Filed 09/27/23 Page 4of15

h. If the Court accepts the Defendant’s plea of guilty, the Defendant will be
giving up the right to file and have the Court rule on pretrial motions, and there will be no further
trial or proceeding of any kind in the above-referenced criminal case, and the Court will find the
Defendant guilty.

i. By pleading guilty, the Defendant will also be giving up certain valuable
civil rights and may be subject to deportation or other loss of immigration status, including possible
denaturalization. The Defendant recognizes that if the Defendant is not a citizen of the United
States, or is a naturalized citizen, pleading guilty may have consequences with respect to the
Defendant’s immigration status. Under federal law, conviction for a broad range of crimes can
lead to adverse immigration consequences, including automatic removal from the United States.
Removal and other immigration consequences are the subject of a separate proceeding, however,
and the Defendant understands that no one, including the Defendant’s attorney or the Court, can
predict with certainty the effect of a conviction on immigration status. The Defendant is not
relying on any promise or belief about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. The
Defendant nevertheless affirms that the Defendant wants to plead guilty regardless of any potential
immigration consequences.

Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Apply

oo The Defendant understands that the Court will determine a sentencing guidelines
range for this case (henceforth the “advisory guidelines range”) pursuant to the Sentencing Reform
Act of 1984 at 18 U.S.C. § 3551-3742 (excepting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1) and 3742(e)) and 28
U.S.C. §§ 991 through 998. The Defendant further understands that the Court will impose a
sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act, as excised, and must take into account the
advisory guidelines range in establishing a reasonable sentence.

Factual and Advisory Guidelines Stipulation

6. This Office and the Defendant stipulate and agree to the Statement of Facts set forth
in Attachment A, which is incorporated by reference herein.

Count One

a. This Office and the Defendant further agree that the applicable base offense
level is 7 (seven) pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) §§ 2B1.1(a)(1),
and 2X1.1.

b. This Office and the Defendant further agree that there is a 16 (sixteen) level

increase, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I), because the loss amount was more than
$1,500,000 but less than $3,500,000 (subtotal: 23).

Si This Office and the Defendant further agree that there is a 2 (two) level

increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(12) because the offense involved conduct described in
18 U.S.C. § 1040 (subtotal: 25).

Rev. August 2018
Case 1:23-cr-00316-RDB Document7 Filed 09/27/23 Page5of15

d. This Office and the Defendant further agree that there is a 2 (two) level
increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(17) because the Defendant derived more than $1,000,000
in gross receipts from one or more financial institutions (subtotal: 27).

e. This Office does not oppose a 2 (two) level reduction in the Defendant’s
adjusted offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), based upon the Defendant’s apparent
prompt recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for the Defendant’s
criminal conduct. This Office agrees to make a motion pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) for an
additional 1 (one) level decrease in recognition of the Defendant’s timely notification of the
Defendant’s intention to enter a plea of guilty. This Office may oppose any adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) and may decline to make a motion pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), if the Defendant: (i) fails to admit each and every item in the factual
stipulation; (ii) denies involvement in the offense; (iii) gives conflicting statements about the
Defendant’s involvement in the offense; (iv) is untruthful with the Court, this Office, or the United
States Probation Office; (v) obstructs or attempts to obstruct justice prior to sentencing; (vi)
engages in any criminal conduct between the date of this Agreement and the date of sentencing;
(vii) attempts to withdraw the plea of guilty; or (viii) violates this Agreement in any way.

LE Thus, the final anticipated adjusted offense level is 24.

i There is no agreement as to the Defendant’s criminal history and the Defendant
understands that the Defendant’s criminal history could alter the Defendant’s offense level.
Specifically, the Defendant understands that the Defendant’s criminal history could alter the final
offense level if the Defendant is determined to be a career offender or if the instant offense was a
part of a pattern of criminal conduct from which the Defendant derived a substantial portion of the
Defendant’s income.

8. Other than as set forth above, no other offense characteristics, sentencing guidelines
factors, potential departures or adjustments set forth in the United States Sentencing Guidelines
are in dispute or will be raised in calculating the advisory guidelines range.

Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Plea

9. The parties stipulate and agree pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
11(c)(1)(C) that a sentence between 18 months and 41 months of imprisonment in the custody
of the Bureau of Prisons is the appropriate disposition of this case taking into consideration the
nature and circumstances of the offense, the Defendant’s criminal history, and all of the other
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This Agreement does not affect the Court’s discretion to
impose any lawful term of supervised release or fine or to set any lawful conditions of probation
or supervised release. And the parties each reserve the right to argue for any reasonable term of
supervised release and fine. In the event that the Court rejects this Agreement, except under the
circumstances noted below, either party may elect to declare the Agreement null and void. Should
the Defendant so elect, the Defendant will be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his plea
pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(5). The parties agree that
if the Court finds that the Defendant engaged in obstructive or unlawful behavior and/or failed to
acknowledge personal responsibility as set forth herein, neither the Court nor the Government will
be bound by the specific sentence contained in this Agreement, and the Defendant will not be able
to withdraw his plea.

Rev. August 2018
Obligations of the Parties

10. At the time of sentencing, this Office and the Defendant reserve the right to
advocate for a reasonable sentence, period of supervised release, and/or fine considering any
appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This Office and the Defendant reserve the right to
bring to the Court’s attention all information with respect to the Defendant’s background,
character, and conduct that this Office or the Defendant deem relevant to sentencing, including the
conduct that is the subject of any counts of the Information. At the time of sentencing, this Office
will move to dismiss any open counts against the Defendant.

Waiver of Appeal

Ll. In exchange for the concessions made by this Office and the Defendant in this
Agreement, this Office and the Defendant waive their rights to appeal as follows:

a. The Defendant knowingly waives all right, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or
any other statute or constitutional provision, to appeal the Defendant’s conviction on any ground
whatsoever. This includes a waiver of all right to appeal the Defendant’s conviction on the ground
that the statute(s) to which the Defendant is pleading guilty is unconstitutional, or on the ground
that the admitted conduct does not fall within the scope of the statute(s), to the extent that such
challenges legally can be waived.

b. The Defendant and this Office knowingly and expressly waive all rights
conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to appeal whatever sentence is imposed (including any term of
imprisonment, fine, term of supervised release, or order of restitution) for any reason (including
the establishment of the advisory sentencing guidelines range, the determination of the
Defendant’s criminal history, the weighing of the sentencing factors, and any constitutional
challenges to the calculation and imposition of any term of imprisonment, fine, order of forfeiture,
order of restitution, and term or condition of supervised release), except as follows:

i. The Defendant reserves the right to appeal any sentence that exceeds
the statutory maximum; and

il. This Office reserves the right to appeal any sentence below a
statutory minimum.

ec. The Defendant waives any and all rights under the Freedom of Information
Act relating to the investigation and prosecution of the above-captioned matter and agrees not to
file any request for documents from this Office or any investigating agency.

Forfeiture
12. The Defendant understands that the Court may enter an Order of Forfeiture as part
of the Defendant’s sentence, and that the Order of Forfeiture may include assets directly traceable

to the offense(s), substitute assets, and/or a money judgment equal to the value of the property
derived from, or otherwise involved in, the offenses.

Rev. August 2018
Case 1:23-cr-00316-RDB Document7 Filed 09/27/23 Page 7 of15

13. Specifically, but without limitation on the Government’s right to forfeit all property
subject to forfeiture as permitted by law, the Defendant agrees to forfeit to the United States all of
the Defendant’s right, title, and interest in the following items that the Defendant agrees constitute
money, property, and/or assets derived from or obtained by the Defendant as a result of, or used
to facilitate the commission of, the Defendant’s illegal activities: a money judgment in the amount
of at least $1,016,224.

14. If specific direct or substitute assets are forfeited and liquidated, any net proceeds
of the asset shall be applied to the money judgment. The Defendant acknowledges that, due to his
acts or omissions, the total proceeds he obtained as a result of the scheme to defraud are not
available to the government for forfeiture, and the government is entitled to the forfeiture of
substitute assets because at least one of the conditions in 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) has been met.

15; The Defendant agrees to consent to the entry of orders of forfeiture for the property
described herein and waives the requirements of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(J),
32.2, and 43(a) regarding notice of the forfeiture in the charging instrument, advice regarding
forfeiture during the change of plea hearing, announcement of the forfeiture at sentencing, and
incorporation of the forfeiture in the judgment.

16. The Defendant agrees to assist fully in the forfeiture of the above property. The
Defendant agrees to disclose all assets and sources of income, to consent to all requests for access
to information related to assets and income, and to take all steps necessary to pass clear title to the
forfeited assets to the United States, including executing all documents necessary to transfer such
title, assisting in bringing any assets located outside of the United States within the jurisdiction of
the United States, and taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure that assets subject to forfeiture
are made available for forfeiture.

17, The Defendant waives all challenges to any forfeiture carried out in accordance
with this Agreement on any grounds, including any and all constitutional, legal, equitable,
statutory, or administrative grounds brought by any means, including through direct appeal, habeas
corpus petition, or civil complaint. The Defendant will not challenge or seek review of any civil
or administrative forfeiture of any property subject to forfeiture under this Agreement, and will
not assist any third party with any challenge or review or any petition for remission of forfeiture.

Collection of Financial Obligations

18. The Defendant expressly authorizes the U.S. Attorney’s Office to obtain a credit
report in order to evaluate the Defendant’s ability to satisfy any financial obligation imposed by
the Court. If restitution is not paid by the date of sentencing, in order to facilitate the collection
of financial obligations to be imposed in connection with this prosecution, the Defendant agrees
to disclose fully all assets in which the Defendant has any interest or over which the Defendant
exercises control, directly or indirectly, including those held by a spouse, nominee or other third
party. If restitution is not paid by the date of sentencing, the Defendant will promptly submit a
completed financial statement to the United States Attorney’s Office, in a form this Office
prescribes and as it directs. The Defendant promises that any financial statement and disclosures
the Defendant submits will be complete, accurate and truthful, and understands that any willful
falsehood on the financial statement will be a separate crime and may be punished under 18
U.S.C.§ 1001 by an additional five years’ incarceration and fine.

Rev. August 2018
Case 1:23-cr-00316-RDB Document7 Filed 09/27/23 Page 8of15

Defendant’s Conduct Prior to Sentencing and Breach

19. Between now and the date of the sentencing, the Defendant will not engage in
conduct that constitutes obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1; will not violate any federal,
state, or local law; will acknowledge guilt to the probation officer and the Court; will be truthful
in any statement to the Court, this Office, law enforcement agents, and probation officers; will
cooperate in the preparation of the presentence report; and will not move to withdraw from the
plea of guilty or from this Agreement.

20. ‘If the Defendant engages in conduct prior to sentencing that violates the above
paragraph of this Agreement, and the Court finds a violation by a preponderance of the evidence,
then: (i) this Office will be free from its obligations under this Agreement; (ii) this Office may
make sentencing arguments and recommendations different from those set out in this Agreement,
even if the Agreement was reached pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C); and (iii) in any criminal or civil
proceeding, this Office will be free to use against the Defendant all statements made by the
Defendant and any of the information or materials provided by the Defendant, including
statements, information, and materials provided pursuant to this Agreement, and statements made
during proceedings before the Court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure. A determination that this Office is released from its obligations under this Agreement
will not permit the Defendant to withdraw the guilty plea. The Defendant acknowledges that the
Defendant may not withdraw the Defendant’s guilty plea—even if made pursuant to Rule
11(c)(1)(C)—f the Court finds that the Defendant breached the Agreement. In that event, neither
the Court nor the Government will be bound by the specific sentence or sentencing range agreed
and stipulated to herein pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C).

Restitution

e).. The Defendant agrees to the entry of a restitution order for the full amount of the
victims’ losses. The Defendant agrees that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 and 3663A and
3563(b)(2) and 3583(d), the Court may order restitution of the full amount of the actual, total loss
caused by the offense conduct set forth in the factual stipulation, which the parties stipulate is at
least $1,016,224. The total amount of restitution shall be due immediately and shall be ordered to
be paid forthwith. Any payment schedule imposed by the Court establishes only a minimum
obligation. Defendant will make a good faith effort to pay any restitution. Regardless of
Defendant’s compliance, any payment schedule does not limit the United States’ ability to collect
additional amounts from Defendant through all available collection remedies at any time. The
Defendant further agrees that the Defendant will fully disclose to this Office, the probation officer,
and to the Court, subject to the penalty of perjury, all information (including but not limited to
copies of all relevant bank and financial records) regarding the current location and prior
disposition of all funds obtained as a result of the criminal conduct set forth in the factual
stipulation. The Defendant further agrees to take all reasonable steps to retrieve or repatriate any
such funds and to make them available for restitution. If the Defendant does not fulfill this
provision, it will be considered a material breach of this Agreement, and this Office may seek to
be relieved of its obligations under this Agreement.

Court Not a Party

Rev. August 2018
22. Subject to paragraph 9 above, the Court is not a party to this Agreement. The
sentence to be imposed is within the sole discretion of the Court. The Court is not bound by the
Sentencing Guidelines stipulation in this Agreement. The Court will determine the facts relevant
to sentencing. The Court is not required to accept any recommendation or stipulation of the parties.
The Court has the power to impose a sentence up to the maximum penalty allowed by law. If the
Court makes sentencing findings different from those stipulated in this Agreement, or if the Court
imposes any sentence up to the maximum allowed by statute, the Defendant will remain bound to
fulfill all of the obligations under this Agreement. Neither the prosecutor, defense counsel, nor
the Court can make a binding prediction, promise, or representation as to what guidelines range or
sentence the Defendant will receive. The Defendant agrees that no one has made such a binding
prediction or promise.

Entire Agreement

23. This letter, together with the Sealed Supplement, constitutes the complete plea
agreement in this case. This letter, together with the Sealed Supplement, supersedes any prior
understandings, promises, or conditions between this Office and the Defendant. There are no other
agreements, promises, undertakings, or understandings between the Defendant and this Office
other than those set forth in this letter and the Sealed Supplement. No changes to this Agreement
will be effective unless in writing, signed by all parties and approved by the Court.

If the Defendant fully accepts each and every term and condition of this Agreement, please
sign and have the Defendant sign the original and return it to me promptly.

Very truly yours,

Erek L. Barron
United States Attorney

Paul A. Riley
Assistant United States Attorney

[have read this Agreement, including the Sealed Supplement, and carefully reviewed every
part of it with my attorney. I understand it and I voluntarily agree to it. Specifically, I have
reviewed the Factual and Advisory Guidelines Stipulation with my attorney and I do not wish to
change any part of it. Iam completely satisfied with the representation of my attorney.

Date Regingld Hopkins
Defendant

I am the Defendant’s attorney. I have carefully reviewed every part of this Agreement,
including the Sealed Supplement with the Defendant. The Defendant advises me that the
Defendant understands and accepts its terms. To my knowledge, the Defendant’s decision to enter
into this Agreement is an informed and voluntary one.

Rev. August 2018
Date Tyler Mann>Fsq.
Counsel to Defendant

Rev. August 2018
10
Case 1:23-cr-00316-RDB Document7 Filed 09/27/23 Page11of15

ATTACHMENT A

STIPULATION OF FACTS

The undersigned parties stipulate and agree that if this case had proceeded to trial, this
Office would have proven the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt. The undersigned parties
also stipulate and agree that the following facts do not encompass all of the evidence that would
have been presented had this matter proceeded to trial.

Defendant Reginald A. Hopkins, born March 1971, is a resident of Prince George’s
County, Maryland. Beginning in June 2020 and continuing through March 2021 in the District of
Maryland, Defendant and co-conspirator #1 engaged in a scheme to defraud financial institutions,
including Cross River Bank, Bluevine, Celtic Bank, and the United States Small Business
Administration (SBA), to obtain fraudulent loans for various purported businesses under the
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which was part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act, and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program.

For the purpose of executing and attempting to execute this scheme to defraud, Defendant
and his co-conspirator knowingly and willfully transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means
of wire communications, in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and
sounds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349.

Ultimately, Defendant fraudulently obtained $1,007,224 in fraudulent PPP funds and:
$9,000 EIDL funds as part of this scheme. He attempted to obtain more than $3,132,224 in PPP
and EIDL funds. Defendant’s criminal acts are described in further detail below.

PPP Loan Applications and Kickback Payments
PPP Loan #1 ($291,090) — Prestige Executive Transportation

On June 11, 2020, co-conspirator # 1, with the assistance of Defendant, submitted a
fraudulent PPP loan application to Bluevine (a loan processor) and Celtic Bank for Prestige
Executive Transportation, a business owned by the Defendant.

The PPP loan application contained multiple material misrepresentations, including that
Prestige Executive Transportation in 2019 had 15 employees and an average monthly payroll of
$116,436. In support of the loan application, a fabricated 2019 Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Form 944—Employer’s Annual Federal Tax Return—was submitted, which falsely indicated that
the entity’s “[t]otal payments to all employees” in 2019 was $1,397,237.78.

The IRS Form 944 was not legitimate, and the information within it was false. In fact,
Prestige Executive Transportation did not report paying any wages to or withholding federal
income tax from any employees during the 2019 tax year—as confirmed by IRS records.

Additionally, Defendant provided co-conspirator # 1 copies of various documents to be
submitted in in connection with the PPP loan application, including photographs of his driver’s
license, and a voided check from Prestige Executive Transportation’s bank account, which
Defendant had previously opened and controlled.

Based on the false representations and fraudulent submissions made on behalf of Defendant
as the owner of Prestige Executive Transportation on June 14, 2020, the PPP loan was funded, and
approximately $291,090 was distributed by Celtic Bank to Prestige Executive Transportation’s
bank account controlled by Defendant.

Rev. August 2018
11
Case 1:23-cr-00316-RDB Document7 Filed 09/27/23 Page12of15

Defendant agreed to pay co-conspirator # 1 a kickback payment for his work in submitting
the false application and obtaining the fraudulent PPP loan. After the PPP loan funds were
received by Defendant, he provided co-conspirator # 1 a check dated June 16, 2020 in the amount
$58,000—or approximately 20 percent of the PPP loan amount. The memo line on the check noted
“loan program.”

PPP Loan #2 ($294,771) — Prestige 24/7

On March 14, 2021, co-conspirator # 1, with the assistance of Defendant, submitted a
fraudulent PPP loan application to Cross River Bank for Prestige 24/7 Auto Sales & Services LLC
(“Prestige 24/7”), another business owned by Defendant.

The PPP loan application contained multiple material misrepresentations, including that
Prestige 24/7 in 2019 had 15 employees and an average monthly payroll of $120,409. In support
of the loan application, a fabricated 2019 IRS Form 940 was submitted; it falsely indicated that
the entity’s “[t]otal payments to all employees” in 2019 was $1,444,902.60 in wages to all
employees in 2019.

The IRS Form 940 was not legitimate, and the information within it was false. In fact,
Prestige 24/7 did not report paying any wages to or withholding federal income tax from any
employees during the 2019 tax year—as confirmed by IRS records.

Defendant again provided co-conspirator # 1 copies of various documents to be submitted
in in connection with the PPP loan application, including photographs of his driver’s license, and
a voided check from Prestige 24/7’s bank account, which Defendant had previously opened and
controlled.

Based on the false representations and fraudulent submissions made on behalf of Defendant
as the owner of Prestige 24/7 on March 23, 2021, the PPP loan was funded, and approximately
$294.771 was distributed by Cross River Bank to Prestige 24/7’s bank account controlled by
Defendant.

After learning of the approval of the loan, Defendant wrote to co-conspirator #1 on

man who has watched over me since I met him then[.]” Defendant again paid co-conspirator # 1
a kickback payment for his work in submitting the false application and obtaining the fraudulent
PPP loan. After the PPP loan funds were received by Defendant, he provided co-conspirator # 1
with eight checks each dated between March 23, 2021 and March 25, 2021, totaling $75,000.00—
approximately 25% of the PPP loan amount—which were ultimately drawn on Prestige 24/7’s
bank account controlled by Defendant.

The checks were signed by Hopkins and in the amounts of $12,000, $7,500, $8,000,
$15,000, $6,000, $10,000, $7,000 and $9,500. On each of those checks, Defendant left the payee
name blank. Thereafter, co-conspirator # 1—to launder the proceeds and attempt to conceal their
nature and purpose—wrote a different payee name on each of those checks and deposited them in
accounts he controlled.

PPP Loan #3 ($423,363) — Prestige Assisted Living

On March 23, 2021, co-conspirator # 1, with the assistance of Defendant, submitted a
fraudulent PPP loan application to Cross River Bank for Prestige Assisted Living Inc. (“Prestige
Assisted Living”), another business owned by Defendant.

Prior to the submission of the application Defendant on March 4, 2021 reached out to co-
conspirator # 1 over Whatsapp, writing “Hey Sir I want to apply for the PPP with my asst living

Rev. August 2018
12
Case 1:23-cr-00316-RDB Document7 Filed 09/27/23 Page13 of 15

company” and later sent co-conspirator # 1 a photograph of the front and back of Defendant’s
license for inclusion with the PPP application.

The PPP loan application contained multiple material misrepresentations, including that
Prestige Assisted Living in 2019 had 24 employees and an average monthly payroll of $168,545.
In support of the loan application, a fabricated 2019 IRS Form 940 was submitted; it falsely
indicated that the entity in 2019 paid $2,022,544.12 in wages to all employees in 2019.

The IRS Form 940 was not legitimate, and the information within it was false. In fact,
Prestige Assisted Living did not report paying any wages to or withholding federal income tax
from any employees during the 2019 tax year—as confirmed by IRS records.

Prestige Assisted Living did not even obtain a license to operate as an assisted living
facility until December 18, 2020. It was authorized to have four beds. Moreover, even after it
obtained its license, Prestige Assisted Living never paid wages to any employee.

The PPP loan application also included a fabricated February 2020 Wells Fargo Bank
statement for Prestige Assisted Living’s Wells Fargo bank account. The actual beginning balance
on the Wells Fargo Bank statement was negative $3.50, not $123,538.50 as shown on the purported
February 2020 statement submitted to Cross River Bank. Likewise, the actual ending balance on
the Wells Fargo Bank statement was negative $17.50, not $123,475.77 as shown on the purported
February 2020 statement submitted to Cross River Bank.

Based on the false representations and fraudulent submissions made on behalf of Defendant
as the owner of Prestige Assisted Living on March 25, 2021, the PPP loan was funded, and
approximately $421,363 was distributed by Cross River Bank to Prestige Assisted Living’s bank
account controlled by Defendant.

Defendant again paid co-conspirator # 1 a kickback payment for his work in submitting the
false application and obtaining the fraudulent PPP loan. After the PPP loan funds were received
by Defendant, he provided co-conspirator # 1 with five checks each with a different date in March
2021 totaling $44,000—approximately 10.5% of the PPP loan amount—which were ultimately
drawn on Prestige Assisted Living’s bank account controlled by Defendant.

The checks were signed by Hopkins and in the amounts of $8,000, $9,000, $7,000, $5,000,
and $15,000. On each of those checks, Defendant again left the payee name blank. Thereafter,
co-conspirator # 1—to launder the proceeds and attempt to conceal their nature and purpose—
wrote a different payee name on each of those checks and deposited them in accounts he controlled.

Spending of PPP Funds

Defendant spent the fraudulently obtained loan proceeds in various ways that were
impermissible under the PPP program, including by paying $177,000 in kickbacks to co-
conspirator #1, providing PPP funds to various friends, family members and associates for
purposes unrelated to employment, making large cash withdrawals for himself, and paying off
various personal debts.

On or about March 31, 2021, Defendant also used $30,000 of the PPP funds to purchase
an auto body repair shop called B&G Auto Repair LLC. Defendant planned to seek and obtain a
fraudulent PPP loan for this entity as well. He likewise used the fraudulently obtained loan
proceeds in connection with another business venture “flipping” houses.

Attempts To Obtain PPP Loans For Other Purported Businesses

Rev. August 2018
13
On March 19, 2021, co-conspirator # 1, with the assistance of Defendant, submitted a
fraudulent PPP loan application to Cross River Bank for Prestige Executive Protection Services,
LLC, another business owned by Defendant seeking a loan in the amount of $250,723. This
application falsely claimed, among other things, that the business had $100,289 in average monthly
payroll. It also included a fabricated 2019 IRS Form 940, which stated that total payments to all
employees in 2019 were $1,203,471.52. In fact, this business did not report paying any wages to
or withholding federal income tax from any employees during the 2019 tax year—as confirmed
by IRS records. The loan was ultimately declined.

In addition to obtaining the PPP loans discussed above, Defendant also conspired with co-
conspirator #1 to obtain PPP loans for various other purported businesses, including Prestige
Paradise Promotions, LLC, Prestige Executed Protection Services II, LLC, Prestige Real Estate &
Development, LLC, and B&G Auto Repair LLC, as noted above. Defendant repeatedly sought
co-conspirator #1°s assistance in obtaining PPP loans for these entities but the loans never closed.

Defendant likewise referred various friends and associates to co-conspirator #1 so that they
could attempt to obtain PPP loans with his assistance too.

Attempts to Obtain EIDL Funds
Defendant also caused to be submitted numerous fraudulent EIDL applications.

For example, on or about April 1, 2020, an EIDL application was submitted for Prestige
Executive Transportation. The application falsely claimed that the business had five employees,
2019 gross revenue of $250 million, and cost of goods sold of $100 million. This equated to a
requested loan amount of $2 million according to SBA’s formula for calculating eligible EIDL
amounts (gross revenues minus cost of goods sold, divided by two, with a maximum allowable
loan amount of $2 million). This loan was ultimately declined; however, Defendant received a
EIDL Advance of $5,000, which was deposited into an account Defendant controlled.

Likewise, on or about April 2, 2020, an EIDL application for Prestige Executive Protection
Services II was submitted to the SBA. Financial information supplied on the application stated
that Prestige Executive Protection had gross revenues of $200,000 and a monthly revenue of
$16,666.66, which equated to a requested loan amount of $100,000 according to SBA’s formula
for calculating eligible EIDL amounts (gross revenues minus cost of goods sold, divided by two).
This loan was ultimately declined; however, Defendant received an EIDL Advance of $4,000,
which was deposited into an account Defendant controlled.

On or about July 1, 2020, an EIDL application was submitted for Prestige 24/7. It falsely
claimed that the business had gross revenues of $700,000 and cost of goods sold of $650,000. The
loan was ultimately declined.

Defendant has to date made no payments to Celtic Bank or Cross River Bank in connection
with the fraudulently-obtained PPP loan funds, and the entire loan balance for both loans is
outstanding.

Defendant and co-conspirator #1 executed the fraud scheme discussed herein, in part,
through the use of mobile phones, the internet, multiple email accounts, and bank deposits and
transfers, all of which involved interstate wires, and Defendant and co-conspirator #1 were in
Maryland when each transmitted wires in furtherance of the conspiracy and the scheme to defraud.

Rev. August 2018
14
SO STIPULATED:
Paul A. Riley ,
Assistant United States Attorney
Date
Defendant
Date Tyler MarfeFsq.

Counsel to Defendant

Rev. August 2018
15


File and source

File

7-plea-agreement-as-to-reginald-a-hopkins-yks-deputy-clerk-ent.pdf

Size

5,947,471 bytes

SHA-256

d4950414a329d981c526ded2635fe0695331b999232520d35196c202626b6732

Our copy

7-plea-agreement-as-to-reginald-a-hopkins-yks-deputy-clerk-ent.pdf

Original

No public link identified.