Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Information - United States v. Andrew Marnell PPP fraud case (2021-09-13)

Information - United States v. Andrew Marnell PPP fraud case (2021-09-13)

Issuer
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Document type
Information
Date
2021-09-13
Case
United States v. Andrew Marnell
Case number
2:20-cr-00319

Summary

The First Superseding Information in United States of America v. Andrew Marnell, CR No. 20-319(A)-RGK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed September 13, 2021 as Document 45. It charges bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) and money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957, with criminal forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 982. The introductory allegations name entities the defendant is alleged to have controlled, including Shale Creek LLC, Slatestone LLC and Quicksilver LLC, and describe the Paycheck Protection Program, stating that the CARES Act authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans and that Congress authorized over $300 billion more in April 2020. The 12-page filing alleges a scheme to defraud beginning in or about March 2020 and continuing until on or about July 16, 2020.

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

                                                                                  FILED
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 45    Filed 09/13/21   Page 1 of 12U.S. DISTRICT
                                                                     CLERK,    Page ID  COURT#:293


                                                                      09/13/2021

                                                                     CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1                                                                            DM
                                                                       BY: ___________________ DEPUTY



2

3

4

5

6

7
                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
                        FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                  CR No. 20-319(A)-RGK

11               Plaintiff,                      F I R S T
                                                 S U P E R S E D I N G
12               v.                              I N F O R M A T I O N

13    ANDREW MARNELL,                            [18 U.S.C. § 1344(2): Bank Fraud;
        aka “Andrew Maxwell,”                    18 U.S.C. § 1957: Money
14      aka “Andrew Merrill,”                    Laundering); 18 U.S.C. § 982:
        aka “Tyler Lerman,”                      Criminal Forfeiture]
15
                 Defendant.
16

17          The Acting United States Attorney charges:
18                                          COUNT ONE
19                             [18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(2), 2(b)]
20    A.    INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS
21          At times relevant to this First Superseding Information:
22          Defendant MARNELL and the MARNELL-Controlled Entities
23          1.    Defendant ANDREW MARNELL, also known as (“aka”) “Andrew
24    Maxwell,” aka “Andrew Merrill,” aka “Tyler Lerman,” was a resident of
25    Los Angeles, California.
26          2.    Defendant MARNELL owned and controlled corporate entities
27    registered in various states under various names, including Shale
28
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 45   Filed 09/13/21   Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:294



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

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

3           The Paycheck Protection Program

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

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

6     designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of

7     Americans who were suffering the economic effects caused by the

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

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

10    small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses,

11    through a program referred to as the Paycheck Protection Program

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

13    billion in additional PPP funding.

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

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

16    representative of the business.        The PPP loan application required

17    the business (through its authorized representative) to acknowledge

18    the program rules and make certain affirmative certifications in

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

20    application, the applicant (through its authorized representative)

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

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

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

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

25    provide documentation showing its payroll expenses.

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

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

28    PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender funded

                                              2
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 45     Filed 09/13/21   Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:295



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

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

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

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

5     processing the loan.

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

7     on certain permissible expenses:          payroll costs, interest on

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

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

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

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

12    of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.

13    Financial Institutions & Bank Account Controlled By Defendant MARNELL

14          7.    Lender A was a financial institution based in Texas and was

15    an SBA approved lender of PPP loans.

16          8.    Casino 1 was a casino and gaming establishment with an

17    annual gaming revenue of more than $1,000,000 and was licensed under

18    the laws of the State of Nevada, and qualified as a “financial
19    institution” for the purpose of 31 U.S.C. § 5312 and 18 U.S.C.

20    § 1957.

21          9.    Bank A was a financial institution based in San Francisco,

22    California.

23          10.   Defendant MARNELL controlled and was a signatory to

24    multiple accounts at an affiliate of Bank A, which was a broker

25    registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the

26    Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78a et seq.), and

27    qualified as a “financial institution” for the purpose of 31 U.S.C.

28    § 5312 and 18 U.S.C. § 1957.          Among the accounts that defendant

                                                3
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 45   Filed 09/13/21   Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:296



1     MARNELL controlled at the Bank A affiliate was an individual

2     brokerage account in the name of “Andrew Justin Marnell,” account

3     number ending in 2627 (the “2627 account”).

4     B.    THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD

5           11.   Beginning in or about March 2020, and continuing until on

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

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

8     with others known and unknown to the Acting United States Attorney,

9     knowingly and with intent to defraud, devised, participated in,

10    executed, and attempted to execute a scheme to obtain moneys, funds,

11    credits, assets, and other property owned by and in the custody and

12    control of Lender A by means of materially false and fraudulent

13    pretenses, representations, and promises, and the concealment of

14    material facts.

15          12.   The fraudulent scheme operated and was carried out, in

16    substance, as follows:

17                a.    Defendant MARNELL submitted, and caused to be

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

19    loans purportedly on behalf of the MARNELL-controlled entities

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

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

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

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

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

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

26    expenses of $175,600;

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

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

                                              4
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK    Document 45   Filed 09/13/21   Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:297



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

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

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

4     expenses of $536,680; and

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

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

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

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

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

10    expenses of $727,200.

11                b.    Defendant MARNELL submitted, and caused to be

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

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

14    entities, including the following:

15                      i.     A false identification document concerning the

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

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

18    defendant MARNELL’s picture;

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

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

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

22    the IRS for those entities; and

23                      iii. False payroll data and documentation for Shale

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

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

26    to employees of those entities.

27

28

                                               5
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 45   Filed 09/13/21   Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:298



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

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

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

4                       i.    Defendant MARNELL falsely represented that the

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

6     payroll and other business expenses of the MARNELL-controlled

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

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

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

10    to pay other personal expenses;

11                      ii.   Defendant MARNELL falsely represented that “the

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

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

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

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

16    loans under the Paycheck Protection Program for the MARNELL-

17    controlled entities and all the MARNELL-controlled entities had

18    common management; and

19                      iii. Defendant MARNELL falsely represented that “Tyler

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

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

22    then knew, he owned and controlled those entities.

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

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

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

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

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

28

                                              6
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 45   Filed 09/13/21   Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:299



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

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

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

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

5     transfer, approximately $1,341,700 to the 2627 account; and

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

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

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

9     name on which defendant MARNELL was the sole signer.

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

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

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

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

14    futures trading activities, to engage in gambling and entertainment

15    activities, and to pay other personal expenses.

16    C.    EXECUTION OF THE SCHEME

17          13.   On or about April 29, 2020, in Los Angeles County, within

18    the Central District of California, and elsewhere, defendant MARNELL
19    committed and willfully caused others to commit an act which

20    constituted an execution of the fraudulent scheme, namely, the

21    submission of an application to Lender A for a PPP loan in the name

22    of Slatestone.

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                              7
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 45    Filed 09/13/21   Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:300



1                                           COUNT TWO

2                               [18 U.S.C. §§ 1957, 2(b)]

3           14.   On or about June 5, 2020, in Los Angeles County, within the

4     Central District of California, and elsewhere, defendant ANDREW

5     MARNELL, aka “Andrew Maxwell,” aka “Andrew Merrill,” aka “Tyler

6     Lerman,” knowing that the funds involved represented the proceeds of

7     some form of unlawful activity, engaged in and willfully caused

8     others to engage in a monetary transaction, in and affecting

9     interstate commerce, in criminally derived property of a value

10    greater than $10,000, namely, the transfer of $150,000 from the 2627

11    Account to Casino 1, which property, in fact, was derived from

12    specified unlawful activity, namely, bank fraud, in violation of

13    Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344(2), as charged in Count

14    One of this First Superseding Information.

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                                8
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 45   Filed 09/13/21   Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:301



1                               FORFEITURE ALLEGATION ONE

2                                [18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)]

3           15.   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), in the event of the conviction

7     of defendant ANDREW MARNELL, aka “Andrew Maxwell,” aka “Andrew

8     Merrill,” aka “Tyler Lerman,” of the offense set forth in Count One

9     of this First Superseding Information.

10          16.   Defendant MARNELL, if so convicted, shall forfeit to the

11    United States of America the following:

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

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

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

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

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

17    described in subparagraph (a).

18          17.   Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p),

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

20    defendant MARNELL, if so convicted, shall forfeit substitute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28

                                              9
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 45 Filed 09/13/21   Page 10 of 12 Page ID
                                        #:302


1    been commingled with other property that cannot be divided without

2    difficulty.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                           10
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 45 Filed 09/13/21   Page 11 of 12 Page ID
                                        #:303


1                             FORFEITURE ALLEGATION TWO

2                              [18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1)]

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

4    Procedure, notice is hereby given that the United States will seek

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

6    States Code, Section 982(a)(1), in the event of the conviction of

7    defendant ANDREW MARNELL, aka “Andrew Maxwell,” aka “Andrew Merrill,”

8    aka “Tyler Lerman,” of the offense set forth in Count Two of this

9    First Superseding Information.

10        19.   Defendant MARNELL, if so convicted, shall forfeit to the

11   United States of America the following:

12              (a)   Any property, real or personal, involved in such

13   offense, and any property traceable to such property; and

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

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

16   described in subparagraph (a).

17        20.   Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p),

18   as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(1),

19   and Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(2), the defendant,

20   if so convicted, shall forfeit substitute property, if, by any act or

21   omission of the defendant, the property described in the preceding

22   paragraph, or any portion thereof: (a) cannot be located upon the

23   exercise of due diligence; (b) has been transferred, sold to, or

24   deposited with a third party; (c) has been placed beyond the

25   jurisdiction of the court; (d) has been substantially diminished in

26   value; or (e) has been commingled with other property that cannot be

27   divided without difficulty. Substitution of assets shall not be

28   ordered, however, where the convicted defendant acted merely as an

                                           11
     Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK   Document 45 Filed 09/13/21   Page 12 of 12 Page ID
                                        #:304


1    intermediary who handled but did not retain the property in the

2    course of the money laundering offense unless the defendant, in

3    committing the offense giving rise to the forfeiture, conducted three

4    or more separate transactions involving a total of $100,000.00 or

5    more in any twelve-month period.

6

7                                      TRACY L. WILKISON
                                       Acting United States Attorney
8

9

10                                     SCOTT M. GARRINGER
                                       Assistant United States Attorney
11                                     Chief, Criminal Division

12                                     RANEE A. KATZENSTEIN
                                       Assistant United States Attorney
13                                     Chief, Major Frauds Section

14                                     JOSEPH BEEMSTERBOER
                                       Chief, Fraud Section
15                                     United States Department of Justice

16                                     MONICA E. TAIT
                                       Assistant United States Attorney
17                                     Deputy Chief, Major Frauds Section

18                                     KERRY L. QUINN
                                       Assistant United States Attorney
19                                     Major Frauds Section

20                                     SCOTT ARMSTRONG
                                       Trial Attorney, Fraud Section
21                                     United States Department of Justice

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                           12


File and source

File
gov.uscourts.cacd.790198.45.0.pdf
Size
156,289 bytes
SHA-256
a13869cd8a1a0c584c3072cfb4191c069c567b2734895005074f5ddf732790e0
Our copy
gov.uscourts.cacd.790198.45.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top