Complaint, Federal False Claims Act — Relator LLC v. Change Lending (Central District of California)
Summary
A Complaint for Violations of Federal False Claims Act, Document 1 filed January 23, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:23-CV-00495, brought for the United States of America by Relator LLC against Change Lending, LLC (dba Change Home Mortgage), Dan Adams, Scott Simonich, The Captal Corporation, Commerce Home Mortgage LLC and Does 1-10. It is dated January 20, 2023. The complaint alleges fraud involving Paycheck Protection Program loans and states that money lenders such as the defendants were among the industries not allowed to take PPP loans. The prayer for relief seeks judgment of three times the damages the United States sustained plus a civil penalty of not less than $12,537.00 and not more than $25,076.00 for each false claim.
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
Cite this document
“Complaint, Federal False Claims Act — Relator LLC v. Change Lending (Central District of California).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/case-cacd-2-23-cv-00495-u-s-v-change-lending-doc1-complaint-2023-01-23-bc30618b9c/
, SHA-256 4655e2d36523bce833383d22d784cfbba0469c0d9e976569cbefb0adc144c487.Full text
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 FEE
Filed PAID
01/23/23 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:1
JAN 23 2023
rsm
1 Julian Brew (SBN 150615)
julian@cypressllp.com
2 CYPRESS LLP
3 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 500
Los Angeles, CA 90025
4
Telephone: (424) 901-0123
5 Facsimile: (424) 750-5100
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7 RELATOR LLC
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:23-CV-00495-SVW-PDx
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12
13
Plaintiff,
CYPRESS LLP
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 ex rel. RELATOR LLC, a California
OF FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS
Limited liability company,
15 ACT
(424) 901-0123
16 Relator,
FILED IN CAMERA UNDER SEAL
17 v. PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C. §
18 3730(b)(2)
CHANGE LENDING, LLC, dba
19 Change Home Mortgage, a California DO NOT PLACE ON PACER
20
limited liability company, DAN
ADAMS, an individual, SCOTT
21 SIMONICH, an individual, THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
22 CAPTAL CORPORATION, a South
Carolina corporation, COMMERCE
23 HOME MORTGAGE LLC, a
24 California limited liability company; and
DOES 1-10,
25
26 Defendants.
27
28
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:2
1 Plaintiff RELATOR LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) complains of
2 CHANGE LENDING, LLC, dba Change Home Mortgage, a California limited
3 liability company, DAN ADAMS, an individual, SCOTT SIMONICH, an
4 individual, THE CAPTAL CORPORATION, a South Carolina corporation,
5 COMMERCE HOME MORTGAGE LLC, a California limited liability
6 company and DOES 1-10,
7 I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
8 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claims
9 brought under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3279, et seq., pursuant to 31
10 U.S.C. §§ 3730 and 3732. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction to entertain the
11 common law and equitable causes of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 II. INTRODUCTION: FRAUD BY CORPORATIONS
13 2. Rogue Corporations. While some who defrauded government aid
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 programs during the Pandemic were lone individuals, some were CEO’s using the
15 capabilities of their corporations to commit fraud with devastating effectiveness.
(424) 901-0123
16 While most companies did not try to dishonestly take advantage of aid programs,
17 some overly aggressive executives saw an opportunity for “free money” for their
18 companies and decided to loot the public purse. Some corporations, such as these in
19 this case, falsely confirmed that their business type did not disqualify them for
20 financial assistance, when it did. Or, they blatantly lied about the economic
21 uncertainty making the loan necessary to pay payroll costs, when the companies
22 were actually making record profits. Other companies lied about their unnamed
23 affiliates, which also made them ineligible for the loans. Here the defendants
24 deceived the government about all these things, and more.
25 3. The Increased Danger with Corporate Fraud. Most corporations
26 did not abuse the aid programs. Even those that may have skirted the rules some,
27 did not act egregiously. However, some corporations and their executives did in
28 fact make the conscious decision to embezzle money from aid programs. These
2
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:3
1 executives actively engaged in a sustained effort to obtain ill-gotten aid loans,
2 meant for struggling businesses. This case is one example. As opposed to the lone
3 fraudster or small band of criminals, when a corporation directs its considerable
4 resources towards fraud it does so with great effectiveness. This heightened
5 capacity to defraud poses unique problems to the taxpayer and law enforcement. As
6 in the present case, corporate fraud is perpetrated with a higher level of
7 sophistication, and with the combined effort of many hands working in the
8 corporation, some unwittingly. The corporate scammer is veiled with a cover of
9 propriety that comes with being an established business. Corporate actors often
10 have the benefit of legal assistance which, if it cannot dissuade the dishonest
11 conduct, can at least assist in the defense of it. Corporate bad actors often have
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 ample financial means to help drive efforts to obtain prohibited funds, conceal
13 crimes and then oppose legal efforts by law enforcement to identify and rectify the
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 malfeasance.
15 4. Falsification of Economic Need. What all Paycheck Protection
(424) 901-0123
16 Program fraudsters have in common is payroll costs which they say they cannot
17 afford. Some created fake businesses. Some created fake personnel. However
18 some, like the Defendants, falsely certified to the government they have “economic
19 uncertainty” so detrimental that they were unsure they could afford payroll costs.
20 They lied about needing the money. They also falsified their industry type
21 eligibility. Some industries are prohibited from aid by the SBA. However, some
22 companies lied when they certified their eligibility. All these types of scammer
23 falsified claims in material ways. In big ways. In this case, in many big ways.
24 5. CEO, Board and Investor Bad Conduct. While most corporations
25 have acted responsibly, or at least not illegally, a number of corporations have
26 flagrantly crossed the line. The Defendants in this case are an example. These
27 corporations have been directed to provide many false statements to the
28 government. The statements were material. They were numerous. The false claims
3
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 4 of 29 Page ID #:4
1 were made in a continuing effort lasting many months. They were intended to
2 obtain a loan which was prohibited. This may be the result of willful indifference,
3 but more often, as in this case, it is the result of premeditated and deliberate action,
4 which manifests in a concerted campaign of dishonesty, which was successful. This
5 scheme to defraud the US taxpayer was no accident. Nor was it the result of an
6 innocent mistake in law or accounting. These concerted efforts were the result of
7 greedy CEOs, overly aggressive executives, and done under the auspices of
8 investors who looked the other way while enjoying a windfall. Whatever the origin,
9 the roads all led to embezzlement.
10 6. While millions of struggling Americans lost their jobs and small
11 businesses shuttered their doors, some unscrupulous corporate raiders robbed aid
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 programs which were supposed to help those struggling Americans. This is one of
13 those cases.
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 III. FRAUD SCHEME SUMMARY
15 7. In this matter a highly profitable investment banking company called
(424) 901-0123
16 The Capital Corporation used one of its subsidiaries, a mortgage lender, to obtain a
17 large loan from the PPP (Paycheck Protection Program, hereinafter “PPP”), falsely
18 certifying both its industry eligibility and economic uncertainty so that it could
19 qualify for a loan to pay its workers. It is inconvincible that these Defendants were
20 concerned about having enough money on hand to pay their workers. In 2020, the
21 year it applied for the loan, it raised an astonishing $50 million in equity from
22 investors, and made more than $7 billion in loans to 30,000 borrowers itself, yet it
23 falsely claimed it needed US taxpayer money to pay its 250 employees.1 The
24 payroll costs it received were also beyond allowable limits, breaking the salary cap
25 rules per employee. Defendants took money they did not need and were not allowed
26 1
The $50,000,000 raised by the Defendant mortgage company and its hundreds of
27 millions in 2020 revenues are not the only income accumulated by the Defendant
mortgage company. The parent company, The Capital Corporation, was also accumulating
28 tens of millions of dollars of income in 2020 alone, which should have been more than
enough to pay their workers.
4
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 5 of 29 Page ID #:5
1 to receive, and they took amounts for expenses which were not authorized. They
2 stole from the US taxpayer in almost every way possible.
3 8. Defendant embezzled $7,945,500.00 from the government’s PPP.
4 Defendants falsely made the representations, authorizations and certifications that:
5 “Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the
6 ongoing operations of the Applicant” which is the language prominently displayed
7 on the government’s loan application. The Defendant’s also falsely claimed that
8 their industry does not disqualify them from obtaining the loan. They are
9 disqualified. Lenders and investment bankers are prohibited from taking a PPP
10 loan. The Defendant claimed revenue loss, despite making hundreds of millions in
11 profits and raising tens of millions in investment capital in 2020. Defendant far
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 exceeded the allowable payroll costs.
13 9. No Economic Need, Objectively or Subjectively. The aid money was
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 not necessary. However, what makes this matter especially egregious is that the
15 Defendants knew the loan was not necessary. Even if there was economic
(424) 901-0123
16 uncertainly, it is impossible that the Defendant’s thought there was enough
17 uncertainly so as to prevent them from paying their workers. No reasonable person
18 could believe that the hundreds of millions in profits and capital investments could
19 not cover the salaries for 250 people. They did not have uncertainty: Defendants
20 were awash in profits from a lucrative business enjoying industry wide boom, and
21 new capital from investors.
22 IV. FALSE CLAIMS
23 10. Defendants raided the public purse, using the PPP as a free-for-all to
24 horde resources meant for others. The CEO’s and executives at the Defendants’
25 companies acted purposefully and dishonestly to capitalize on what they saw as an
26 opportunity to cash in for their companies. Both investment banking companies and
27 mortgage lenders are specifically restricted by the SBA. Neither company is
28 allowed take a loan based on their industry. Both companies are prohibited. Apart
5
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 6 of 29 Page ID #:6
1 from industry prohibition, there was also no economic need for the loan.
2 Defendants’ mortgage business was highly profitable when they took the loan.2
3 During 2020-2021, Defendants made billions of dollars in loans to others and made
4 hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue, yet they claimed it was necessary
5 to take $7,945,500.00 from the US taxpayers, purportedly to pay their own workers.
6 It is unconscionable. Defendants did not need any financial assistance from the US
7 taxpayer. They simply abused the PPP and used it as a profiteering opportunity.
8 They then falsified subsequent documents which were presented to the government
9 to obtain loan forgiveness, billing millions to the US taxpayer and draining the
10 program of aid funds. Now that program is running dry.
11 11. Dan Adams (hereinafter “ADAMS”) directed his mortgage lending
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 business, Commerce Home Mortgage, LLC (hereinafter “COMMERCE”) to
13 receive a PPP loan for a total of $7,945,500.00, purportedly to cover payroll costs,
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 however they:
15 a. Falsified their industry eligibility ;
(424) 901-0123
16 b. Falsified the economic need for the loan;
17 c. Falsified uncertainty about being able to pay their payroll;
18 d. Falsified allowable payroll costs;
19 e. Falsified affiliation with its parent company;
20 f. Falsified the use of the loans on authorized expenses; and
21 g. Falsified eligibility for loan forgiveness.
22 COMMERCE is prohibited from taking a loan, and so is its parent company
23 The Capital Corporation, which is an investment bank. On November 13, 2017,
24 The Capital Corps, LLC (aka The Capital Corporation) acquired COMMERCE.
25 They are affiliated and the SBA’s applications require COMMERCE to report its
26 2
The Defendant’s company is reported to have between $257,000,000 and $500,000,000
27 in yearly revenue. Defendant is also reported to have made $7 billion in loans in 2020, the
year they applied for the PPP loan. That same year, Defendant also raised $50,000,000 in
28 capital raised from investors. Yet, Defendants went to the government, claiming they were
uncertain they could pay their 250 employees.
6
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 7 of 29 Page ID #:7
1 affiliation with its various affiliate companies. In 2021, COMMERCE changed its
2 name to Change Home Mortgage.
3 12. Misappropriation. The PPP is and always was intended to help
4 struggling small businesses. It was not an invitation to the mega rich who did not
5 need a loan to drain “free money” out of the US economy. Many Americans lost
6 their jobs during the pandemic and many small businesses closed; some of these
7 because the PPP aid money which could have saved them ran out. Many people are
8 still losing their jobs. Part of the reason is because of those like the Defendants,
9 who bilked the PPP for millions of dollars in aid funds. Simply put, Defendants
10 marauded the PPP, breaking the rules to get as much money as they could,
11 maximizing their embezzlement. It was embezzlement for many reasons:
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 Defendant’s industry type restricted them: Lenders and investment banks are not
13 allowed to take PPP money. They also did not need the money. They were not
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 allowed to lie about whether the money was used on authorized expenses. They
15 used the money on unauthorized expenses, even on paper. They received loan
(424) 901-0123
16 money for amounts beyond the salary caps made clear by the SBA. As an added act
17 of corporate greed and misappropriation, they obtained total loan forgiveness,
18 billing millions of dollars to the US taxpayers.
19 13. Restriction Prohibiting Lenders. COMMERCE and ADAMS applied
20 for and received the large PPP loan despite knowing they were absolutely not
21 allowed. They are in the direct money lending business and therefore ineligible to
22 receive PPP loans.3 While the vast majority of American industries are allowed to
23 take PPP loans, a very few select industries are specifically not allowed, such as
24 money lenders like Defendants. The rationale for this restriction is that money
25 lenders have money readily available to cover their own payroll. This is not to
26 mention that mortgage lenders were not financially suffering like other business
27
28
3
After receiving the loan COMMERCE did not return the money, but rather
obtained loan forgiveness, foisting the cost onto the American taxpayer.
7
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 8 of 29 Page ID #:8
1 types were, especially in 2020. It would not be just or necessary to provide large
2 loans to companies like these. The government’s rules reflected this. There were
3 other reasons for the restrictions as well.
4 14. No Economic Necessity and Mortgage-Backed-Securities (MBS). The
5 SBA rules explaining the purpose of the loan are clear: to help struggling
6 businesses pay their workers. ADAMS and his business, all under the Capital
7 Corporation (“CAPITAL”) umbrella were highly profitable when they took the
8 loans in 2020. They were also highly profitable in 2021 when they asked for loan
9 forgiveness. Business was not suffering. COMMERCE is currently rumored to have
10 upwards of $257,000,000 in annual revenue. Some have reported their revenue as
11 high as $500,000,000 annually. To achieve this current level of revenue,
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 COMMERCE would have to have been awash in money in 2020 so they could
13 make the billions of dollars in loans it is now reaping interest income from. At the
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 time of the loans COMMERCE had tens of millions if not billions of dollars in
15 capital, yet Defendants falsely certified they had “economic uncertainty”, so they
(424) 901-0123
16 could take money from the US taxpayer. They did not need the money. Defendants
17 took advantage of the opportunity.
18 15. Economic uncertainty must exist to be eligible for this PPP loan. This
19 uncertainty must at the very least exist in the mind of borrower. There could not
20 have been economic uncertainly for these Defendants, even subjectively. Beyond
21 any reasonable doubt, the executives in these companies must have known they had
22 more than enough money to pay their 250 employees. There was no decline in
23 revenue in 2020 or 2021. Quite the opposite: Defendants were enjoying high profits
24 during an unprecedented boom in their industry. There was no “need” or “economic
25 necessity” to pay Defendant’s payroll expenses.4 No reasonable person could have
26 4
COMMERCE did not need the loans. They took advantage. COMMERCE is not a small
27 business in dire financial straits, but rather a well-financed finance company which was
enjoying higher profits. Public information shows their revenue was not declining, and
28 their own statements indicate massive growth and profits. Defendant cannot show
“economic necessity” in needing the loans to continue business operations.
8
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 9 of 29 Page ID #:9
1 had uncertainty in their mind. COMMERCE had a banner year. They also raised
2 money in the amount of $50,000,000 to expand their business. This is not only
3 because housing prices and purchases have dramatically increased since 2020 and
4 continue to increase, but also because of the Federal government’s policy to
5 purchase Mortgage-Backed-Securities (MBS) which provided mortgage lenders
6 like Defendant a steady source of high income.5 Defendant did not suffer any
7 economic downturn. Defendants enjoyed a major increase in revenue in 2020, 2021
8 and continues to grow in 2022, thanks to US taxpayer subsidies. Defendants did not
9 need the loan. COMMERCE had a very lucrative year and so did ADAMS.
10 COMMERCE offices remained open and business was actively continuing and
11 increasing in volume and profitability. It was a very lucrative year for
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 COMMERCE and its owners. They had absolutely no need for a PPP loan, let alone
13 for millions. They took advantage of the PPP program and used it as a windfall.
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 16. Unauthorized Expenses. PPP funds must only be used on authorized
15 expenses. PPP funds are:
(424) 901-0123
16 NOT authorized for lenders or banks,
17 NOT authorized for investment banks,
18 NOT authorized for a business which has no economic need for the loan;
19 NOT authorized for payroll costs of in excess of $100,000; and
20 NOT authorized for businesses or individuals who fraudulently submit
21 applications and supporting documents.
22 COMMERCE, CAPITAL and their CEOs broke all these rules.
23 17. Direct Lending. COMMERCE was ineligible to receive any SBA
24 loans whatsoever. They are not merely “a real estate credit” company as they
25
5
26 Agency MBS purchases are issued by the Federal government. The US Federal Reserve
has a $1.25 trillion program to purchase mortgages which was restarted on March 15.
27 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 crises. The result of this program is provide mortgage
lenders with a guaranteed way to sell their mortgage assets. Mortgage lenders like
28 Defendant enjoyed record profits during this time and benefited greatly from this
program.
9
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 10 of 29 Page ID
#:10
1 claimed in their loan applications. They are the actual lender, providing the money
2 directly to the home borrower. They are a direct lender, a mortgage provider. The
3 SBA rules are clear: while almost every industry type is allowed to take PPP loans,
4 a very few select number of industries are specifically not permitted, including
5 lenders like COMMERCE. Large cash rich money lenders have financial resources
6 readily available to pay their own payroll expenses. Their stock in trade is money.
7 The SBA correctly excluded such companies. They should not take away money
8 from small businesses which do not have ready access to liquid funds. Defendants’
9 industry type make them ineligible for PPP loans because they are lenders.6
10 Therefore, Defendants’ certification was false because they are the type of
11 business/industry which is prohibited from SBA loans. COMMERCE is a lender
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 that provides money loans to consumers, for mortgages.
13 18. Admission of Industry: Real Estate Credit. On its application,
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 Defendant admits to its business function as a lender by reporting its industry type
15 as being “Real Estate Credit”, in other words, lending money to buy real estate.
(424) 901-0123
16 COMMERCE proudly states on its website that is a “state-licensed mortgage
17 lender”. Despite all this, the company falsely reported to the SBA that it was
18 permitted to take the loans even though the SBA has clear rules prohibiting loans to
19 finance companies and lenders.
20 19. Falsified Number of Jobs Reported. In its loan applications,
21 COMMERCE with its affiliate The Capital Corporation deceptively claimed to
22 have fewer than 500 jobs. It is a fabricated round number which was falsely
23 reported to the government by Defendants in order to get below the 500 employee
24 threshold in order to qualify for the loans. The number of jobs The Capital
25 Corporation reportedly has is 216. COMMERCE is reported to have 473 jobs. This
26 brings their total to at least 679. Defendants are not a “small business” but rather a
27
6
28 COMMERCE is a direct lender, mortgages specifically. They specialize in home
mortgage loans and have Lender Licenses in many states.
10
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 11 of 29 Page ID
#:11
1 large one. It is a large conglomerate, which was certainly not suffering financially
2 to the point that it could not pay its workers.
3 20. Defendants Clearly Knew the Loan Applications were False.
4 Defendants falsified their eligible business expenses on their loan application as
5 well as the forgiveness application. ADAMS is a sophisticated businessman.
6 COMMERCE is a sophisticated company with extensive history in the lending
7 industry. They knew full well lenders and venture capital companies are not eligible
8 to receive SBA 7(a) loans or PPP loans, nor were they eligible for loan forgiveness.
9 Defendants intentionally ripped off a government aid program needed by working
10 families to survive.
11 21. Payroll Cap Violated. The PPP assistance is not supposed to be used
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 for partner draws or distributions. It was not supposed to be used to pay for lavish
13 salaries for executives. It is evident here that the $100,000 per employee cap was
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 violated by Defendants given the large amount of the loan and the relatively small
15 number of jobs reported. The amount of the loan was beyond the authorized payroll
(424) 901-0123
16 limits, given the limited number of jobs reported. Defendant’s use of the loan
17 money violated the $100K Salary Expense Cap (as defined below) which was
18 confirmed in the applications. It was promised that 100% of loan proceeds would
19 be used for salaries. Based on the relatively small number of jobs reported, the
20 amount of the loan was beyond the government instruction not to exceed the
21 $100,000 salary cap per person.
22 22. Money Not Returned. The loan was taken by a business which was not
23 allowed to take even one penny in loans, let alone millions of dollars. The
24 $7,945,500.00 in aid funds should have been returned immediately. These loans
25 should never have been sought in the first place.
26 23. Further Falsification on Loan Forgiveness. Defendants falsified further
27 documents in order to receive loan forgiveness, foisting the costs on the American
28 taxpayer while depriving small businesses and their employees of funding to stay
11
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 12 of 29 Page ID
#:12
1 open and keep working. Defendants had to attest as to the use of the funds and the
2 amount used on authorized purposes. They lied on these documents and application
3 also in order to receive forgiveness.
4 24. Defendants’ False Statements and Fraud. Defendants knowingly and
5 intentionally made many material false statements to the government and bank to
6 obtain the loans.
7 25. Defendants did in fact receive the loans. The Defendants have not
8 returned the loan money.
9 26. Defendants used the loans for unauthorized purposes.
10 27. Defendants sought and obtained loan forgiveness. They could not have
11 complied with the requirements of forgiveness given their business type, assuming
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 the CEOs and executives did not simply pocket the money.
13 28. Defendants’ communication of false statements constitutes Wire Fraud
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1343, which occurred when Defendants used “the
15 wires” (this includes using the internet or the phone) to steal money by making
(424) 901-0123
16 false statements or promises.
17 29. Defendants’ communication of false statements also constitutes Bank
18 Fraud (18 U.S.C. Section 1344) – by making false statements to a bank or other
19 financial institution.
20 30. Defendants communicated in writing, deceptive statements, including
21 without limitation, with respect to the eligibility of the company obtaining the
22 loans, economic necessity of the loan, the intended purpose of the loan, and the
23 actual use of the proceeds, among others.
24 31. Plaintiff-Relator, Relator LLC on behalf of the United States of
25 America brings this action to recover treble damages, civil penalties, and costs
26 under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33, and to recover
27 damages and other monetary relief under the common law and equitable theories of
28 unjust enrichment and payment by mistake.
12
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 13 of 29 Page ID
#:13
1 32. This action arises from numerous false statements and claims that the
2 Defendant knowingly presented to the United States and the United States Small
3 Business Administration (“SBA”) and lenders acting on the SBA’s behalf, in
4 violation of the FCA and common law.
5 33. The Defendants unlawfully obtained millions of dollars of PPP
6 Proceeds (as defined below), and failed to return or repay the money. In fact, they
7 went further and obtained total loan forgiveness. The US taxpayer unfairly
8 subsidized their highly profitable businesses, while deserving small businesses
9 found they could no longer get loans. Businesses like COMMERCE and CAPITAL
10 drained the program.
11 34. In summary, Defendants used the pandemic to swindle millions of
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 dollars from the government. They deceptively completed the SBA loan
13 applications by seeking money for businesses which they knew are INELIGIBLE to
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 receive even 1 dollar of PPP loans. The industries in which Defendants belong are
15 expressly prohibited from receiving SBA loans. Defendants did not need the loans.
(424) 901-0123
16 They had oceans of cash reservoirs on hand to pay their small payroll, more than
17 enough to pay their workers. Defendants’ stock in trade is money. They are in the
18 business of providing loans themselves. Both the mortgage company and the
19 investment bank provide loans. Business was booming when they applied in 2020.
20 Not only were the loans impermissible, but they obtained forgiveness. The loans
21 were only made because the government and SBA relied on the many false
22 statements made by Defendants. Defendants knew full well that they were making
23 many false statements to the government and SBA. They knew full well that their
24 active pursuit in seeking out this money was illegal, but they persisted and kept the
25 money.
26 V. THE PARTIES
27 35. Plaintiff Relator LLC, is a California limited liability company with its
28 principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.
13
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 14 of 29 Page ID
#:14
1 36. Defendant Change Lending, LLC is a California limited liability
2 company formed on April 4, 2018 with its principal place of 16845 Von Karman
3 Avenue, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92606.
4 37. Defendant Daniel Adams is an individual and, at all relevant times
5 herein, is and was the Chief Executive Officer, director of The Capital Corporation.
6 38. Defendant The Capital Corporation is a South Carolina limited liability
7 company, formed in 1991 with its principal place of 84 Villa Drive Greenville, SC
8 29615.
9 39. Defendant Scott Simonich is an individual and, at all relevant times
10 herein, is and was the Chief Executive Officer, director of Commerce Home
11 Mortgage, LLC. Commerce Home Mortgage changed its name to Change Mortgage
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 in 2017. Scott Simonich is also the CEO of Change Lending, LLC.
13 40. Defendant Commerce Home Mortgage LLC is a California limited
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 liability company, formed on January 1, 1993 with its principal place of 16845 Von
15 Karman Avenue, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92606.
(424) 901-0123
16 41. COMMERCE is a mortgage lender which directly provides cash loans
17 to people in return for an ownership interest in their homes.
18 42. CAPITAL is an investment banking company focusing on mergers and
19 acquisitions of lower middle market companies across a broad range of industries.
20 43. During round 1 of the paycheck protection program, Defendant
21 COMMERCE applied for a PPP loan for $7,945,500.00. It was approved on
22 April 3, 2020 by the SBA for the full amount, which was disbursed. The loan was
23 facilitated by Cornerstone Community Bank. Defendant received 100% of the
24 approved amount. On its application for this loan, Defendant stated that it had 250
25 employees for which it needed the loan.
26 VI. The CARES Act and Paycheck Protection Program
27 44. On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
28 Security Act (“the CARES Act” or “the Act”) (Pub. L. 116-136) became law and
14
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 15 of 29 Page ID
#:15
1 provided emergency assistance and health care response for individuals, families,
2 and businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic. SBA received funding and
3 authority through the Act to modify existing loan programs and establish a new
4 loan program to assist small businesses nationwide adversely impacted by the
5 COVID-19 emergency.
6 45. The CARES Act authorized loans to eligible small businesses
7 struggling to pay employees and other business expenses as a result of the
8 devastating effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.
9 46. Section 1102 of the CARES Act temporarily permitted the SBA to
10 guarantee 100 percent of 7(a) loans under a new program titled the “Paycheck
11 Protection Program” (“PPP”).
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 47. On April 24, 2020, the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
13 Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 116-139) became law and provided additional funding
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 and authority for the PPP. On June 5, 2020, the Paycheck Protection Program
15 Flexibility Act of 2020 (Flexibility Act) (Pub. L. 116-142) became law and changed
(424) 901-0123
16 key provisions of the Paycheck Protection Program, including provisions relating to
17 the maturity of PPP loans, the deferral of PPP loan payments, and the forgiveness
18 of PPP loans.
19 48. Under the PPP, in 2020, eligible businesses could obtain one SBA
20 guaranteed PPP loan. Businesses were required to spend loan proceeds for
21 employee compensation, rent or mortgage, and other specified expenses and,
22 depending on their use of the loan proceeds, could qualify for loan forgiveness, up
23 to the full amount of the loan.
24 49. The SBA delegated authority to third-party lenders to underwrite and
25 approve the PPP loans. In order to obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business (through
26 its authorized representative) signed and submitted a PPP loan application (SBA
27 Form 2483) online through the lender’s application platform. The PPP loan
28 application (SBA Form 2483) required the business (through its authorized
15
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 16 of 29 Page ID
#:16
1 representative) to acknowledge the PPP program rules and make certain affirmative
2 certifications in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan.
3 50. Once the Borrower submitted its PPP loan application (SBA Form
4 2483) to a Lender, the participating lender processed the PPP loan application. If a
5 PPP loan application (SBA Form 2483) was approved by the participating lender, it
6 thereafter funded the PPP loan using its own monies, which were 100% guaranteed
7 by the SBA.
8 51. After the Lender processed and approved a borrower’s PPP loan
9 application (Form 2483), but prior to the closing of the PPP loan, the Lender
10 submitted to the SBA, the Lender’s Application - Paycheck Protection Program
11 Loan Guaranty (SBA Form 2484) to the SBA applying for a guarantee on the loan.
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 For a PPP loan to be approved, the Lender was required to Answer Yes to the
13 following questions in the Lender’s Application - Paycheck Protection Program
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 Loan Guaranty (SBA Form 2484) as to the Borrower’s certification of its General
15 Eligibility to receive a PPP Loan:
(424) 901-0123
16
x The Applicant has certified to the Lender that (1) Yes No
17
it was in operation on February 15, 2020, has not
18 permanently closed, and was either an eligible
19 self-employed individual, independent contractor,
or sole proprietorship with no employees or had
20
employees for whom it paid salaries and payroll
21 taxes or paid independent contractors, as reported
on Form(s) 1099MISC; (2) current economic
22
uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
23 support the ongoing operations of the Applicant;
24 (3) the funds will be used to retain workers and
maintain payroll, or make payments for mortgage
25 interest, rent, utilities, covered operations
26 expenditures, covered property damage costs,
covered supplier costs, and covered worker
27
protection expenditures; and (4) the Applicant has
28 not and will not receive another loan under the
16
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 17 of 29 Page ID
#:17
1 Paycheck Protection Program, section 7(a)(36) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36))
2 (this does not include Paycheck Protection
3 Program second draw loans, section 7(a)(37) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(37)).
4
5
6 SBA Form 2484 (emphasis added). Therefore, if a PPP borrower lied on its
7 PPP loan application (SBA Form 2483), the PPP borrower’s false certification
8 caused the Lender to submit to the SBA with respect to that PPP Loan, a Lender’s
9 Application - Paycheck Protection Program Loan Guaranty (SBA Form 2484) that
10 contained the PPP borrower’s False Statement.
11 52. SBA Form 2483 provides the following certification, among others “I
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 have read the statements included in this form, including the Statements Required
13 by Law and Executive Orders, and I understand them” (hereafter the
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 “Understanding Certification”).
15 53. SBA Form 2483 provides the following certification, among others
(424) 901-0123
16 “The Applicant is eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time this
17 application is submitted that have been issued by the Small Business
18 Administration (SBA) implementing the Paycheck Protection Program under
19 Division A, Title I of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
20 (CARES Act) (the Paycheck Protection Program Rule)” (hereafter the “Eligibility
21 Certification”).
22 54. SBA Form 2483 provides the following certification, among others
23 “All SBA loan proceeds will be used only for business-related purposes as specified
24 in the loan application and consistent with the Paycheck Protection Program Rule”
25 (hereafter the “Use of Proceeds Certification”)
26 55. SBA Form 2483 additionally provides the following certification,
27 among others: “Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
28
17
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 18 of 29 Page ID
#:18
1 support the ongoing operations of the Applicant” (hereafter the “Economic
2 Necessity Certification”).
3 56. SBA Form 2483 additionally provides the following certification,
4 among others: “The funds will be used to retain workers and maintain payroll or
5 make mortgage interest payments, lease payments, and utility payments, as
6 specified under the Paycheck Protection Program Rule; I understand that if the
7 funds are knowingly used for unauthorized purposes, the federal government may
8 hold me legally liable, such as for charges of fraud” (hereafter the “Worker
9 Retention and Payroll Certification.”)
10 57. SBA Form 2483 additionally provides the following certification,
11 among others: “During the period beginning on February 15, 2020 and ending on
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 December 31, 2020, the Applicant has not and will not receive another loan under
13 the Paycheck Protection Program.” (hereafter the “Single Loan Certification.”)
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 58. SBA Form 2483 additionally provides the following certification,
15 among others: “I further certify that the information provided in this application and
(424) 901-0123
16 the information provided in all supporting documents and forms is true and accurate
17 in all material respects. I understand that knowingly making a false statement to
18 obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under the law, including under 18
19 USC 1001 and 3571 by imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a fine of
20 up to $250,000; under 15 USC 645 by imprisonment of not more than two years
21 and/or a fine of not more than $5,000; and, if submitted to a federally insured
22 institution, under 18 USC 1014 by imprisonment of not more than thirty years
23 and/or a fine of not more than $1,000,000” (hereafter the “No False Statements
24 Certification”).
25 59. After the borrower submitted the PPP loan application, that application
26 was then processed by a participating lender. If a PPP loan application was
27 approved, the participating lender funded the loan using its own monies, which
28 were then guaranteed by the SBA. Generally, in the event that the borrower
18
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 19 of 29 Page ID
#:19
1 defaulted on a PPP loan, the SBA would purchase the borrower's debt from the
2 lending financial institution and take on the responsibility for paying back the loan.
3 60. Under the applicable PPP rules and guidance, recipients of PPP loans
4 could apply to have the interest and principal on the PPP loan fully forgiven,
5 meaning that the borrower would owe nothing and would have no obligation to
6 repay the PPP loan. To obtain full forgiveness of the PPP loan, borrowers had to
7 attest that they had "not reduced the number of employees or the average paid hours
8 of [their] employees" during the loan period, that the loan proceeds had been spent
9 on payroll costs and other permitted expenses and that at least 60% of the loan
10 proceeds had been spent on payroll costs (hereafter the “Loan Forgiveness
11 Certification”).
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 61. Loans could only be used for certain permitted expenses, such as to
13 fund payroll costs and employee benefits, such as health insurance, to pay for,
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 mortgage interest, rent, utilities or worker protection costs related to COVID19.
15 62. 13 CFR§ 120.110 provides a list of what type of business are
(424) 901-0123
16 INELIGIBLE for SBA loans. This list includes lenders like Defendant …
17 “(b) Financial businesses primarily engaged in the business of lending,
18 such as banks, finance companies, and factors (pawn shops, although
19 engaged in lending, may qualify in some circumstances)”
20 63. On April 2, 2020, the SBA posted the First PPP Interim Final Rule
21 announcing the implementation of the CARES Act. SBA posted additional interim
22 final rules on April 3, 2020, and April 14, 2020. On April 28, 2020, SBA posted an
23 interim final rule supplementing the previously posted interim final rules with
24 additional guidance. See, Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 28,
25 2020 / Rules and Regulations at, 23450-52, available at
26 https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Interim-Final-Rule-on-Requirements-
27 for-Promissory-Notes-Authorizations-Affiliation-and-Eligibility.COMMERCE.
28 This interim final rule supplemented previous regulations and guidance on several
19
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 20 of 29 Page ID
#:20
1 important, discrete issues. The April 28, 2020, Interim Final Rule was immediately
2 effective without advance notice and public comment because section 1114 of the
3 CARES Act authorized SBA to issue regulations to implement Title I of the
4 CARES Act without regard to notice requirements. Id.
5 64. With respect to the PPP, the January 6, 2021, Interim Final Rule
6 provided Clarification Regarding Eligible Businesses, specifically 13 CFR Parts
7 113, 120 and 121.
8 “Are businesses that are generally ineligible for 7(a) loans under 13 CFR
9 120.110 eligible for a PPP loan?
10 Paragraphs (a), (g), and (k), of 13 C.F.R. 120.110 do not apply to PPP
11 loans. For PPP loans, the ineligibility restriction in 13 C.F.R. 120.110(n)
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 is superseded by subsection B.2.a.iii. of this interim final rule. Otherwise,
13 a business is not eligible for a PPP loan if it is a type of business concern
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 (or would be, if the entity were a business concern) described in 13
15 C.F.R. 120.110, except as permitted by subsections B.1.d and B.1.g of
(424) 901-0123
16 this rule or otherwise permitted by PPP rules. Businesses that are not
17 generally eligible for a 7(a) loan under 13 C.F.R. 120.110 are described
18 further in SBA’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 10 6, Part 2,
19 Section A, Chapter
20 65. The SBA’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 10 6, Part 2,
21 Section A, Chapter states as follows:
22
23
24
25
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
20
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 21 of 29 Page ID
#:21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12
13
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14
15
(424) 901-0123
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 66. COMMERCE is a lender. They admit to being a direct lender in fact.
26 They are expressly prohibited from receiving SBA loans, including PPP loans.
27 COMMERCE’s CEO, WILLIAMS is a sophisticated businessman and is not new
28 to the lending world. He knew about the restrictions, full well. The legal and
21
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 22 of 29 Page ID
#:22
1 financial experts he has hired over the years, would have known this. He
2 intentionally broke these clear rules knowing full well what he was doing.
3 67. Defendant’s certification was false because they are the type of
4 business/industry which is prohibited from SBA loans: The Defendants are
5 lenders.
6 68. In addition to applying any applicable business type ineligibility rules,
7 all borrowers should carefully review the required certification on the Paycheck
8 Protection Program Borrower Application Form (SBA Form 2483) stating that
9 ‘‘[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the
10 ongoing operations of the Applicant.’’
11 69. While some opportunistic fraudsters were lone charlatans making up
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 businesses or bands of hucksters, the CEO fraudster is the most dangerous and
13 harmful to the public. Some of these unscrupulous businesses used their advanced
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 knowledge of business and considerable professional acumen to great effectiveness,
15 to maximize fraud, far beyond the abilities of the average fraudster. The problems
(424) 901-0123
16 of CEO and corporate fraud are more detrimental to the PPP than has been made
17 public. Part of the reason is that they did more damage, but were able to conceal it
18 better.
19 70. COMMERCE is an obviously successful money lending business.
20 CAPITAL is also a successful and highly profitable investment bank. They took
21 advantage of every aspect of the PPP program, from faking economic uncertainty to
22 willfully ignoring prohibitions on their industry, to breaking the $100,000 salary
23 cap, to maximizing the amount of the loan and then loan forgiveness. The CEOs are
24 seasoned and cunning businessmen, well versed in the laws regulating the lending
25 industry. Discovery will reveal where the millions in PPP funds were actually
26 spent, but what is obvious is that Defendants did not need any money from US
27 taxpayers. The business was lending other people money. Public sources report that
28 COMMERCE is and was highly profitable, during the pandemic, just like most in
22
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 23 of 29 Page ID
#:23
1 their industry. COMMERCE did not suffer any business loss and certainly had the
2 money to pay their own worker wages. Their “stock in trade” is money and
3 business was booming. Defendants simply ripped off the PPP program and had the
4 US taxpayers subsidize their lending business, at best, or to subsidize the CEOs
5 luxury lifestyle, at worst.
6 VII. Defendants’ False Statements and Misuse of Proceeds
7 71. Defendants applied for and received the PPP Loans in the total amount
8 of $7,945,500.00. In order to receive the loans, Defendants would have to have
9 completed SBA Form 2483 entitled “Borrower Application Form”. In doing so,
10 Defendants intentionally made materially false statements with respect to the
11 Eligibility Certification, the Use of Proceeds Certification, the Economic Necessity
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 Certification, the Worker Retention and Payroll Certification, the No False
13 Statements Certification and the Single Loan Certification.
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 72. Defendants signed the loan applications, thereby endorsing the
15 Understanding Certification, which means that they agreed that they understood the
(424) 901-0123
16 rules and guidelines of the PPP, including, without limitation the rules regarding
17 use of proceeds and the certifications made.
18 73. The proceeds of the PPP Loans were not and could not have been used
19 only for authorized purposes consistent with the Paycheck Protection Program
20 Rule, because, among other things, the Defendant was obviously not allowed to
21 take PPP loans because of their industry type - money lenders. Therefore when
22 Defendants made the Use of Proceeds Certification, the certification was false.
23 74. The proceeds of the PPP Loans were not necessary to support the
24 ongoing operations of COMMERCE. The company’s enjoyed record high business
25 achievements since 2020 until today. It is no secret that mortgage lenders, like the
26 Defendants’ were highly profitable during the housing market price increases and
27 high demand in 2020 and 2021. This company had considerable financial resources
28 to pay its own workers, assuming that is where the money was spent rather than
23
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 24 of 29 Page ID
#:24
1 into the pocket of the CEO and its executives. Therefore, when Defendants made
2 the Economic Necessity Certification, the certification was false.
3 75. The PPP loan money was only allowed to be used on authorized
4 expenses. The proceeds of the PPP Loan were not permitted to be used to pay
5 business costs for a business in the lending industry, therefore when Defendant
6 made the Worker Retention and Payroll Certification, the certification was false.
7 76. The Defendants actively pursued and obtained loan forgiveness. As a
8 mortgage lender, COMMERCE is prohibited from obtaining any PPP loans,
9 therefore any expenditures using PPP loan money was not authorized. In their
10 forgiveness application, Defendant’s falsely reported that they spent 100% of the
11 loan proceeds on eligible expenses. Therefore, they lied on this application and
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 certification statements to obtain this forgiveness.
13 77. On their loan applications, Defendant intentionally made many key
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 statements which were obviously false and intended to deceive. These key false
15 statements by Defendant made it possible for them to get the loans and get them
(424) 901-0123
16 written off with forgiveness.
17 78. By virtue of the above false statements, when Defendants made the No
18 False Statements Certification, that certification was false.
19 VIII. THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT
20 79. Plaintiff alleges that, from at least April 30, 2020, through the time of
21 the filing of this Complaint, Defendants violated the FCA by “knowingly”
22 submitting and/or causing the submission of false claims for payment to lenders
23 authorized by the SBA to process PPP loan applications in the form of PPP
24 Applications and the resulting receipt and failure to return PPP loans. These claims
25 for payment were false because Defendants: (1) made knowingly false statements
26 and certifications in their PPP applications, and in certifications accompanying its
27 receipt of federal PPP funds, that it was complying with, and would continue to
28 comply with, applicable laws and regulations governing the award of PPP loans;
24
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 25 of 29 Page ID
#:25
1 and/or (2) made, or caused to be made, false representations in loan applications
2 that the Defendants were eligible to receive such PPP loans. Moreover, Defendants’
3 false claims caused the bank that they used to facilitate the loan on numerous
4 occasions submit to the SBA, a Lender’s Application - Paycheck Protection
5 Program Loan Guaranty (SBA Form 2484) that contained Defendants’ false
6 statement concerning Defendants’ general eligibility for the PPP loans, on which
7 the SBA relied and paid to the lenders. The bank relied on these false statements
8 and passed them along to the government.
9 80. The False Claims Act prohibits fraudulent conduct in connection with
10 federal programs, including the knowing submission of false claims for payment to
11 the government. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). In these circumstances, liability
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 may attach if the omission renders those representations misleading. 41. 31 U.S.C.
13 § 3729(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the FCA provide that:
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 (1) . . . any person who—
15 (A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent
(424) 901-0123
16 claim for payment or approval; [or]
17 (B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false
18 record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim,
19 ...
20 (G) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false
21 record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property
22 to the Government, or knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or
23 decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government,
24 is liable to the United States Government . . .
25 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A), (B), and (G) (2020).
26 42. The scope of a false or fraudulent claim is to be broadly construed.
27 As used in the FCA, a “claim”
28
25
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 26 of 29 Page ID
#:26
1 (A) means any request or demand, whether under a contract or
2 otherwise, for money or property and whether or not the United States has title to
3 the money or property, that—
4 (i) is presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the United States;
5 or
6 (ii) is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the money or
7 property is to be spent or used on the Government’s behalf or to advance a
8 Government program or interest, and if the United States Government—
9 (I) provides or has provided any portion of the money or property requested or
10 demanded; or
11 (II) will reimburse such contractor, grantee, or other recipient for any
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 portion of the money or property which is requested or demanded; . . .
13 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2) (2020).
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 81. A person who violates the False Claims Act during the time period at
15 issue “is liable for a civil penalty as adjusted, plus 3 times the amount of damages
(424) 901-0123
16 which the United States Government sustains because of the act of that person.” 31
17 U.S.C. § 3729(a). See 28 C.F.R. § 85.3(a)(9); Department of Justice, 28 CFR Part
18 85, Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments for 2022 published at:
19 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-05-09/COMMERCE/2022-
20 09928.COMMERCE.
21 IX. PERSONAL JURISDICTION & VENUE
22 82. Plaintiff The United States of America is also located in the Central
23 District of California. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants
24 pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) because at all times material hereto, Defendants
25 transacted business and are located in the Central District of California, and acts
26 proscribed by 31 U.S.C. § 3729 occurred in this district.7
27
28 7
COMMERCE operates throughout California and is headquartered in California.
26
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 27 of 29 Page ID
#:27
1 83. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a), and
2 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1395(a), because the Defendant’s acts that form the
3 basis of this Complaint occurred in the Central District of California.
4 84. Relator’s claims and this Complaint are not based upon prior public
5 disclosures of allegations or transactions in a federal criminal, civil, or
6 administrative hearing in which the Government or its agent is a party; in a
7 congressional, Government Accountability Office, or other federal report, hearing,
8 audit, or investigation; or from the news media. To the extent that there has been a
9 public disclosure unknown to Relator, it is the “original source” within the meaning
10 of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(B) and/or the public disclosure is a result of Relator
11 voluntarily providing this information to the United States Government prior to
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 filing this qui tam action.
13 X. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 FALSE OR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (31 U.S.C. § 3729.(a)(1)(A-B))
15 85. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
(424) 901-0123
16 allegation contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint.
17 86. This is a claim for treble damages and penalties under the False Claims
18 Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq., as amended.
19 87. By virtue of the acts described above, Defendants knowingly
20 presented, or caused to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States
21 government, false or fraudulent claims for payment or approval, in violation of the
22 FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(l)(A).
23 88. By virtue of the acts described above, Defendants knowingly made or
24 used, or caused to be made or used, false or fraudulent records or statements
25 material to false or fraudulent claims for payment by the Government.
26 89. Because of the Defendants’ acts, the United States sustained damages
27 in an amount to be determined at trial and, therefore, is entitled to treble damages
28 under the FCA, plus civil penalties of not less than $12,537.00 and not more than
27
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 28 of 29 Page ID
#:28
1 $25,076.00 for each and every violation arising from Defendants’ unlawful conduct
2 alleged herein.
3 XI. CONCLUSION
4 90. ADAMS, SIMONICH, and their companies abused the PPP. They
5 abused the American public. But they did it with the ecumenical prowess of their
6 sophisticated corporations. Corporate abuse of the PPP, while uncommon, has
7 devastated the PPP’s ability to help small businesses that actually need the money.
8 The PPP was not meant as a gravy train for opportunistic CEOs. It was not meant
9 as a way for aggressive executives to make their board happy. The PPP was meant
10 for struggling businesses. Now that program is dry. The American people have a
11 right to ask for reconciliation.
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13 WHEREFORE, qui tam Plaintiff Relator LLC prays for judgment against
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14 Defendants, as follows:
15 1. That this Court enter judgment against each Defendant in an amount equal
(424) 901-0123
16 to three times the damages that the United States has sustained because of
17 Defendants’ action, plus a civil penalty of not less than $12,537.00 and
18 not more than $25,076.00 for each and every false claim as are required
19 by law, together with all such further relief as may be just and proper.
20 2. Such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper, together with
21 interest and costs of this action.
22 3. Reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit.
23
24
25
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
28
COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-00495-KK-PD Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 29 of 29 Page ID
#:29
1 JURY DEMAND
2 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
3
4 Dated: January 20, 2023 CYPRESS LLP
5
6 By: /s/ Julian Brew
7 Julian Brew
AttorneyV for Plaintiff
8 RELATOR LLC
9
10
11
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
12
13
CYPRESS LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
14
15
(424) 901-0123
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
COMPLAINT
File and source
- File
- CASE_CACD_2-23-cv-00495_US-v-Change-Lending_doc1_COMPLAINT_2023-01-23.pdf
- Size
- 473,057 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4655e2d36523bce833383d22d784cfbba0469c0d9e976569cbefb0adc144c487
- Original
- No public link identified.