Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Indictment - United States v. Andrew Marnell PPP fraud case (2020-07-28)

Indictment - United States v. Andrew Marnell PPP fraud case (2020-07-28)

Issuer
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Document type
Indictment
Date
2020-07-28
Case
United States v. Andrew Marnell
Case number
2:20-cr-00319

Summary

A grand jury indictment in United States v. Andrew Marnell, CR No. 2:20-cr-00319-RGK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed July 28, 2020 as Document 19. It charges Counts One through Three of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) and includes a forfeiture allegation under 18 U.S.C. § 982. The indictment alleges the defendant submitted PPP loan applications to a Texas-based lender for three entities he controlled, Shale Creek, Slatestone and Quicksilver, seeking $439,000, $1,341,700 and $1,818,000, using false identities, tax forms and payroll records. It alleges the lender funded the loans and the proceeds were used for options and futures trading, gambling and personal expenses. The nine-page indictment is signed by the grand jury foreperson and federal prosecutors.

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 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 19   Filed 07/28/20   Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:132



1

2
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                       CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
3
                                                                         07/28/2020
4
                                                                            DM
                                                                     CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5                                                                      BY: ___________________ DEPUTY



6

7

8                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9                       FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10                               January 2020 Grand Jury

11    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                CR No. 2:20-cr-00319-RGK

12               Plaintiff,                    I N D I C T M E N T

13               v.                            [18 U.S.C. § 1344(2): Bank Fraud;
                                               18 U.S.C. § 982: Criminal
14    ANDREW MARNELL,                          Forfeiture]
        aka “Andrew Maxwell,”
15          “Andrew Merrill,” and
            “Tyler Lerman,”
16
                 Defendant.
17

18

19         The Grand Jury charges:
20                              COUNTS ONE THROUGH THREE
21                            [18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(2), 2(b)]
22    A.   INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS
23         At times relevant to this Indictment:
24         Defendant MARNELL and the MARNELL-Controlled Entities
25         1.    Defendant ANDREW MARNELL, also known as “Andrew Maxwell,”
26    “Andrew Merrill,” and “Tyler Lerman,” was a resident of Los Angeles,
27    California, within the Central District of California.
28
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 19   Filed 07/28/20   Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:133



1          2.    Defendant MARNELL owned and controlled corporate entities

2     registered in various states under various names, including Shale

3     Creek LLC (“Shale Creek”), Slatestone LLC (“Slatestone”), and

4     Quicksilver LLC (“Quicksilver”) (the “MARNELL-controlled entities”).

5          The Paycheck Protection Program

6          3.    The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security

7     (“CARES”) Act was a federal law enacted in or around March 2020 and

8     designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of

9     Americans who were suffering the economic effects caused by the

10    COVID-19 pandemic.      One source of relief provided by the CARES Act

11    was the authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to

12    small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses,

13    through a program referred to as the Paycheck Protection Program

14    (“PPP”).   In or around April 2020, Congress authorized over $300

15    billion in additional PPP funding.

16         4.    In order to obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was

17    required to submit a PPP loan application signed by an authorized

18    representative of the business.       The PPP loan application required

19    the business (through its authorized representative) to acknowledge

20    the program rules and make certain affirmative certifications in

21    order to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan.           In the PPP loan

22    application, the applicant (through its authorized representative)

23    was required to state, among other things, its: (a) average monthly

24    payroll expenses; and (b) number of employees.            These figures were

25    used to calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible

26    to receive under the PPP.      In addition, the applicant was required to

27    provide documentation showing its payroll expenses.

28

                                              2
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 19   Filed 07/28/20   Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:134



1          5.    A business’s PPP loan application was received and

2     processed, in the first instance, by a participating lender.               If a

3     PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender funded

4     the PPP loan using its own monies.          Data from the application,

5     including information about the borrower, the total amount of the

6     loan, and the listed number of employees, was transmitted by the

7     lender to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) in the course of

8     processing the loan.

9          6.    PPP loan proceeds were required to be used by the business

10    on certain permissible expenses:       payroll costs, interest on

11    mortgages, rent, and utilities.       The PPP allowed the interest and

12    principal on the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven if the business

13    spent the loan proceeds on these expense items within a designated

14    period of time after receiving the proceeds and used a certain amount

15    of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.

16         SBA-Approved Lender

17         7.    “Lender A” was a financial institution based in Texas whose

18    deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

19    Lender A was an approved SBA lender of PPP loans.

20    B.   THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD

21         8.    Beginning in or about March 2020, and continuing until on

22    or about July 16, 2020, in Los Angeles County, within the Central

23    District of California, and elsewhere, defendant MARNELL, together

24    with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, knowingly and with

25    intent to defraud, devised, participated in, executed, and attempted

26    to execute a scheme to obtain moneys, funds, credits, assets, and

27    other property owned by and in the custody and control of Lender A by

28

                                              3
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 19   Filed 07/28/20   Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:135



1     means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations,

2     and promises, and the concealment of material facts.

3          9.    The fraudulent scheme operated and was carried out, in

4     substance, as follows:

5                a.    Defendant MARNELL submitted, and caused to be

6     submitted, false and fraudulent applications to Lender A for PPP

7     loans purportedly on behalf of the MARNELL-controlled entities

8     (collectively, the “PPP Applications”).          Specifically:

9                      i.     On or about April 14, 2020, defendant MARNELL

10    submitted, and caused to be submitted, an application for a PPP loan

11    in the amount of $439,000 for borrower Shale Creek, which was

12    represented to be a Montana-headquartered firm, owned and controlled

13    by “Tyler Lerman,” having 26 employees and average monthly payroll

14    expenses of $175,600;

15                     ii.    On or about April 29, 2020, defendant MARNELL

16    submitted, and caused to be submitted, an application for a PPP loan

17    in the amount of $1,341,700 for borrower Slatestone, which was

18    represented to be a Wyoming-headquartered firm, owned and controlled

19    by “Andrew Merrill,” having 75 employees and average monthly payroll

20    expenses of $536,680; and

21                     iii.   On or about May 11, 2020, defendant MARNELL

22    submitted, and caused to be submitted, an application for a PPP loan

23    in the amount of $1,818,000 for borrower Quicksilver, which was

24    represented to be a Montana-headquartered firm, owned and controlled

25    by “Andrew Maxwell,” having 129 employees and average monthly payroll

26    expenses of $727,200.

27               b.    Defendant MARNELL submitted, and caused to be

28    submitted, false documents and information to Lender A to obtain and

                                              4
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 19   Filed 07/28/20   Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:136



1     to try to obtain PPP loans in the names of the MARNELL-controlled

2     entities, including the following:

3                      i.     A false identification document concerning the

4     ownership and control of Quicksilver, namely, a photograph of a fake

5     United States passport in the name of “Andrew Maxwell,” with

6     defendant MARNELL’s picture;

7                      ii.    False Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Form 940

8     tax forms for Shale Creek, Slatestone, and Quicksilver, purporting to

9     be Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Act Returns filed with

10    the IRS for those entities; and

11                     iii. False payroll data and documentation for Shale

12    Creek, Slatestone, and Quicksilver, including documents purporting to

13    be payroll registers for 2019 and 2020, purporting to show wages paid

14    to employees of those entities.

15               c.    Defendant MARNELL made, and caused to be made, false

16    statements in the PPP Applications, which defendant MARNELL knew were

17    false when he made them and caused them to be made.             For example:

18                     i.     Defendant MARNELL falsely represented that the

19    funds sought through the PPP Applications would be used to pay

20    payroll and other business expenses of the MARNELL-controlled

21    entities, when, in fact, defendant MARNELL intended to use and did

22    use the PPP loan proceeds to fund options and futures trading

23    activities, to engage in gambling and entertainment activities, and

24    to pay other personal expenses;

25                     ii.    Defendant MARNELL falsely represented that “the

26    Applicant has not and will not receive another loan under the

27    Paycheck Protection Program,” and that the applicant did not own any

28    other business or have common management with any other business,

                                              5
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 19   Filed 07/28/20   Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:137



1     when, in fact, defendant MARNELL intended to and did obtain other

2     loans under the Paycheck Protection Program for the MARNELL-

3     controlled entities and all the MARNELL-controlled entities had

4     common management; and

5                      iii. Defendant MARNELL falsely represented that “Tyler

6     Lerman,” “Andrew Merrill,” and “Andrew Maxwell” were the owners of

7     the MARNELL-controlled entities, when, in fact, as defendant MARNELL

8     then knew, he owned and controlled those entities.

9                d.    In reliance on defendant MARNELL’s materially false

10    statements and his concealment of material facts, Lender A approved

11    and funded the PPP loans sought by defendant MARNELL in the names of

12    the MARNELL-controlled entities.       Specifically, on or about the

13    following dates, Lender A sent the following funding wires:

14                     i.     On or about April 16, 2020, Lender A wired, via

15    ACH transfer, approximately $439,000 to an account ending 2842 at

16    Interactive Brokers LLC, maintained in defendant MARNELL’s name;

17                     ii.    On or about May 11, 2020, Lender A wired, via ACH

18    transfer, approximately $1,341,700 to an account ending 2627 at

19    Charles Schwab Inc., maintained in defendant MARNELL’s name; and

20                     iii. On or about May 12, 2020, Lender A wired, via ACH

21    transfer, approximately $1,818,000 to an account ending 6279 at Live

22    Oak Banking Company, which was a business account in Quicksilver’s

23    name on which defendant MARNELL was the sole signer.

24               e.    From on or about April 16, 2020, through on or about

25    July 16, 2020, in contravention of defendant MARNELL’s

26    representations to Lender A and PPP rules, defendant MARNELL used PPP

27    loan proceeds from Lender A to, among other things, fund options and

28

                                              6
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 19    Filed 07/28/20   Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:138



1     futures trading activities, to engage in gambling and entertainment

2     activities, and to pay other personal expenses.

3     C.    EXECUTIONS OF THE SCHEME

4           10.   On or about the following dates, in Los Angeles County,

5     within the Central District of California, and elsewhere, defendant

6     MARNELL committed and willfully caused others to commit the following

7     acts, each of which constituted an execution of the fraudulent

8     scheme:

9     COUNT        DATE                ACT
10    ONE          4/14/2020           Submission of application to Lender A
                                       for PPP loan in the name of Shale Creek.
11    TWO          4/29/2020           Submission of application to Lender A
12                                     for PPP loan in the name of Slatestone.
      THREE        5/11/2020           Submission of application to Lender A
13                                     for PPP loan in the name of Quicksilver.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                               7
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 19   Filed 07/28/20   Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:139



1                                 FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

2                                   [18 U.S.C. § 982]

3          11.   Pursuant to Rule 32.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

4     Procedure, notice is hereby given that the United States of America

5     will seek forfeiture as part of any sentence, pursuant to Title 18,

6     United States Code, Section 982(a)(2), and Title 28, United States

7     Code, Section 2461(c), in the event of the conviction of defendant

8     ANDREW MARNELL, also known as “Andrew Maxwell,” “Andrew Merrill,” and

9     “Tyler Lerman,” of the offenses set forth in any of Counts One

10    through Three of this Indictment.

11         12.   Defendant MARNELL, if so convicted, shall forfeit to the

12    United States of America the following:

13               (a) All right, title and interest in any and all property,

14    real or personal, constituting, or derived from, any proceeds

15    obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the offense; and

16               (b) To the extent such property is not available for

17    forfeiture, a sum of money equal to the total value of the property

18    described in subparagraph (a).

19         13.   Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p),

20    as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b),

21    defendant MARNELL, if so convicted, shall forfeit substitute

22    property, up to the total value of the property described in the

23    preceding paragraph if, as the result of any act or omission of

24    defendant MARNELL, the property described in the preceding paragraph,

25    or any portion thereof: (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of

26    due diligence; (b) has been transferred, sold to or deposited with a

27    third party; (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the

28    court; (d) has been substantially diminished in value; or (e) has

                                              8
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 19   Filed 07/28/20   Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:140



1     been commingled with other property that cannot be divided without

2     difficulty.

3                                                 A TRUE BILL
4

5                                                    /s/
                                                  Foreperson
6

7     NICOLA T. HANNA
      United States Attorney
8

9

10
      BRANDON D. FOX
11    Assistant United States Attorney
      Chief, Criminal Division
12
      RANEE A. KATZENSTEIN
13    Assistant United States Attorney
      Chief, Major Frauds Section
14
      ROBERT ZINK
15    Chief, Fraud Section
      United States Department of Justice
16
      MONICA E. TAIT
17    Assistant United States Attorney
      Deputy Chief, Major Frauds Section
18
      KERRY L. QUINN
19    Assistant United States Attorney
      Major Frauds Section
20
      SCOTT ARMSTRONG
21    Trial Attorney, Fraud Section
      United States Department of Justice
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                              9


File and source

File
gov.uscourts.cacd.790198.19.0.pdf
Size
73,715 bytes
SHA-256
7825df6cdd6035afa6f4f2df51001147bbb217670b97cc38a548c903b54b3919
Our copy
gov.uscourts.cacd.790198.19.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top