Complaint — United States v. Iseman & Associates, LLC and Vicki L. Iseman (No. 1:25-cv-00450, E.D. Va.)

Summary

A civil complaint filed March 12, 2025 as Document 1 in United States of America v. Iseman & Associates, LLC and Vicki L. Iseman, No. 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. The United States seeks treble damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33, penalties under FIRREA, 12 U.S.C. § 1833a, and damages for unjust enrichment and payment by mistake. It alleges false statements to the SBA and lenders on PPP loans by the firm and its manager and sole member. The complaint sets out SBA rules making businesses primarily engaged in political or lobbying activities, defined as deriving over 50% of gross annual revenue from them, ineligible for PPP loans. It demands a jury trial and is signed /s/ by Assistant United States Attorney John E. Beerbower.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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 — United States v. Iseman & Associates, LLC and Vicki L. Iseman (No. 1:25-cv-00450, E.D. Va.).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/complaint-no-1-25-cv-00450-dkt-1-e-d-va-7338837f1f/, SHA-256 258ffd7cf64d8d99d4d7ddbf047203fbfb91040ac8e454dcb0bf6b19bc393aab.

Full text

Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 1 of 26 PageID# 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. No.:

ISEMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC,

and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VICKI L. ISEMAN,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

The United States of America files its Complaint against Iseman & Associates, LLC and

Vicki L. Iseman and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. The United States brings this action to recover treble damages and civil penalties

under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33; to recover penalties under the

Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”), 12 U.S.C. § 1833a;

and to recover damages under the common law unjust enrichment and payment by mistake.

2. This action arises from false statements, records, and claims Iseman & Associates

LLC (“Iseman & Associates”) and its manager and sole member, Vicki Iseman, knowingly

presented to, or caused to be presented to, the United States and the United States Small Business

Administration (“SBA”), and lenders acting on the SBA’s behalf, in violation of the FCA,

FIRREA, and common law.

1
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 2 of 26 PageID# 2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This action arises under the FCA, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, FIRREA, 12 U.S.C. §

1833a, and the common law. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, 1355, 1367(a), 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a), and 12 U.S.C. § 1833a.

4. Venue is proper in this Court under 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a), 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), and

28 U.S.C. § 1395(a), and Local Civil Rule 3(C), because Defendants transact business within,

and the acts proscribed by 31 U.S.C. § 3729 and giving rise to the United States’ claim under 12

U.S.C. § 1833a took place within, the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is the United States of America.

6. Defendant Iseman & Associates is a Virginia limited liability company, with its

principal place of business at 700 South Rosemary Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401.

7. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Iseman & Associates was located at 1100

North Glebe Road, Suite 1010, Arlington, Virginia 22201.

8. From approximately January 30, 2015, until approximately January 17, 2018,

Iseman & Associates was known as Iseman & Szeliga LLC. On or about January 17, 2018,

Iseman & Szeliga LLC filed a name change with the Virginia State Corporation Commission

changing its named to Iseman & Associates.

9. Defendant Vicki Iseman is the manager and sole member of Iseman & Associates

and was a member of Iseman & Szeliga.

10. Upon information and belief, Vicki Iseman currently resides at 700 South

Rosemary Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401.

2
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 3 of 26 PageID# 3

FACTS

I. The CARES Act and Paycheck Protection Program

A. CARES Act Background

11. The SBA Section 7(a) Loan Guarantee Program authorizes the SBA to lend

money to eligible businesses by having the SBA provide guarantees to participating lenders.

Section 7(a) loans are the most basic and most frequently used loans within the SBA business

loan program. In the event of default on the loan, SBA pays the lender the guaranty amount and

receives a complete assignment of the loan.

12. On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security

(“CARES”) Act (Pub. L. 116-136) became law and provided emergency assistance and health

care response for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic.

SBA received funding and authority through the CARES Act to modify its existing loan

programs and establish a new loan program to assist small businesses nationwide adversely

impacted by the COVID-19 emergency.

13. Section 1102 of the CARES Act temporarily permitted the SBA to guarantee 100

percent of 7(a) loans under a new program titled the “Paycheck Protection Program” (“PPP”).

The PPP loan program was specifically placed under the existing SBA 7(a) loan program and

authorized the SBA to guarantee PPP loans “under the same terms, conditions, and processes” as

other 7(a) loans. 15 U.S.C. § 636(a)(36)(B).

14. Businesses that spent PPP loan proceeds on payroll costs and other eligible

business expenses could apply and qualify for loan forgiveness up to the full amount of the loan.

15. The SBA fully guaranteed each PPP loan and reimbursed the lender 100 percent

of the loan if the borrower filed an application for forgiveness and the loan was forgiven by the

3
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 4 of 26 PageID# 4

SBA, or if the borrower defaulted on the loan. In the event of forgiveness or default, the SBA

acquired the note following SBA’s payment to the lender.

B. The PPP Application and Forgiveness Process

16. The CARES Act was intended to quickly provide relief to America’s small

businesses and allowed SBA to delegate authority to lenders to process PPP loan applications.

17. Consistent with Congress’ intent for rapid action, SBA authorized hundreds of

new lenders to process PPP loan applications pursuant to a streamlined PPP loan-origination

process in which: (i) the usual Section 7(a) underwriting requirements were waived; (ii)

borrowers could self-certify their eligibility on their PPP loan applications; (iii) lenders could

rely (in good faith) on borrowers’ self-certifications, documentation, and calculations; and (iv)

lenders could obtain SBA’s guarantee for PPP loans by certifying to SBA that the borrower had

made the necessary certifications and had submitted the required documentation. See 85 Fed.

Reg. 20,811, 20,814–16 (2020).

18. To obtain a PPP loan, a borrower had to qualify as an eligible small business and

was required to submit a PPP loan application. The application was signed by an authorized

representative of the borrower. The application required the borrower to acknowledge the

program rules and make affirmative certifications that it was eligible for a PPP loan. Once the

PPP loan application was approved, the financial institution funded and disbursed the loan.

19. The borrower was required to use the PPP loan proceeds for certain permissible

expenses—payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. If the borrower spent the loan

proceeds on these expense items within a designated period of time and used a minimum

percentage of those funds on payroll expenses, the interest and principal on the PPP loan could

be entirely forgiven.

4
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 5 of 26 PageID# 5

20. To obtain forgiveness of a PPP loan, the borrower was required to apply to its

lender or directly to SBA depending on the size of the loan. As with the loan application, the

borrower was again required to make affirmative certifications regarding its eligibility for

forgiveness and its use of the PPP loan proceeds.

21. Upon the lender’s receipt of the loan forgiveness application, the lender would

review the application and recommend the amount of loan forgiveness to SBA. Subject to SBA’s

review, SBA remitted the appropriate amount to the lender pursuant to SBA’s guarantee of the

loan.

C. Businesses “Primarily Engaged” in “Lobbying Activities” are Ineligible for PPP Loans

22. On April 15, 2020, the SBA promulgated an Interim Final Rule (“IFR”)

addressing implementation of the PPP loan program (the “April 2020 IFR”). See 85 Fed. Reg.

20,811 (2020). The April 2020 IFR supplemented previous regulations and guidance on several

important, discrete issues.

23. Among other items, the April 2020 IFR confirmed that the PPP loan program

incorporated the long-standing restrictions on eligibility for 7(a) loans. In a section entitled “How

do I determine if I am ineligible?,” the April 2020 IFR stated that “Businesses that are not

eligible for PPP loans are identified in 13 C.F.R. § 120.110 and described further in SBA’s

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 10, Subpart B, Chapter 2, except that nonprofit

organizations authorized under the Act are eligible.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 20,812.

24. In turn, 13 C.F.R. § 120.110 identifies “types of businesses” that are categorically

“ineligible for SBA business loans.” This includes “[b]usinesses primarily engaged in political or

lobbying activities.” 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(r).

25. Under the SBA Standard Operating Procedure in effect at the time, a business was

“primarily engaged in political or lobbying activities” if the business “derives over 50% of its
5
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 6 of 26 PageID# 6

gross annual revenue from political or lobbying activities.” SBA, SOP 50 10 5(K), Standard

Operating Procedure for Lender and Development Company Loan Programs (effective April 1,

2019); see also SBA, SOP 50 10 6, Standard Operating Procedure for Lender and Development

Company Loan Programs (effective October 1, 2020) (same).

26. On December 27, 2020, the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses,

Nonprofits and Venues Act (“Economic Aid Act”) (Pub. L. 116-260) became law. Under the

Economic Aid Act, SBA was authorized to guarantee Second Draw PPP Loans to borrowers that

previously received a PPP loan through March 31, 2021.

27. The Economic Aid Act specified that most entities, including businesses primarily

engaged in lobbying activities, listed in 13 C.F.R. § 120.110 were not eligible for Second Draw

PPP Loans. 15 U.S.C. § 636(a)(37)(A)(iv)(iii)(aa). The Economic Aid Act further emphasized

that “any business concern or entity primarily engaged in political or lobbying activities, which

shall include any entity that is organized for research or for engaging in advocacy in areas such

as public policy or political strategy or otherwise describes itself as a think tank in any public

documents” was also ineligible for a Second Draw PPP Loan. 15 U.S.C.

§ 636(a)(37)(A)(iv)(iii)(aa)-(bb).

28. On January 15, 2021, the SBA promulgated an IFR to implement the Economic

Aid Act (the “January 2021 IFR”). 86 Fed. Reg. § 3,692 (2021). The January 2021 IFR

explained, inter alia, that “Paragraphs (a), (g), and (k) of 13 C.F.R. § 120.110 do not apply to

PPP loans. . . . Otherwise, a business is not eligible for a PPP loan if it is a type of business

concern (or would be, if the entity were a business concern) described in 13 C.F.R. § 120.110,

except as permitted by subsections B.1.d and B.1.g of this rule or otherwise permitted by PPP

rules.” Id. at 3,698.

6
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 7 of 26 PageID# 7

29. The Economic Aid Act also specified that no portion of any PPP loan could be

used for “(I) lobbying activities, as defined in section 1602 of title 2; (II) lobbying expenditures

related to a State or local election; or (III) expenditures designed to influence the enactment of

legislation, appropriations, regulation, administrative action, or Executive order proposed or

pending before Congress or any State government, State legislature, or local legislature or

legislative body.” 15 U.S.C. § 636(a)(36)(F)(6). The January 2021 IFR confirmed that “None of

the proceeds of a PPP loan may be used for (1) lobbying activities, as defined in section 3 of the

Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602); (2) lobbying expenditures related to a State or

local election; or (3) expenditures designed to influence the enactment of legislation,

appropriations, regulation, administrative action, or Executive order proposed or pending before

Congress or any State government, State legislature, or local legislature or legislative body.” 86

Fed. Reg. at 3,705.

30. On March 3, 2021, SBA published answers to Frequently Asked Questions which

confirmed, inter alia, that SBA had incorporated the definition of “lobbying activities” from the

Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (“LDA”), 2 U.S.C. § 1602, for the purposes of determining

eligibility for PPP loans. See Question No. 57, “Paycheck Protection Program Loans Frequently

Asked Questions,” available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Paycheck-Protection-

Program-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf.

31. Under the LDA, “lobbying activities” are defined as “lobbying contacts and

efforts in support of such contacts, including preparation and planning activities, research and

other background work that is intended, at the time it is performed, for use in contacts, and

coordination with the lobbying activities of others.” 2 U.S.C. § 1602(7).

7
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 8 of 26 PageID# 8

II. The False Claims Act

32. The FCA prohibits fraudulent conduct in connection with federal programs,

including the knowing submission of false claims for payment to the government.

See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A).

33. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the FCA provide that:

(1) . . . any person who—

(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for
payment or approval; [or]

(B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement
material to a false or fraudulent claim,

...

(G) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement
material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government, or
knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to
pay or transmit money or property to the Government,

is liable to the United States Government.

31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A), (B), and (G).

34. As used in the FCA, a “claim”

(A) means any request or demand, whether under a contract or otherwise, for money or
property and whether or not the United States has title to the money or property,
that—

(i) is presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the United States; or

(ii) is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the money or property
is to be spent or used on the Government’s behalf or to advance a Government
program or interest, and if the Government—

(I) provides or has provided any portion of the money or property
requested or demanded; or

(II) will reimburse such contractor, grantee, or other recipient for any
portion of the money or property which is requested or demanded; . . .

31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2).

8
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 9 of 26 PageID# 9

35. A person who violates the FCA “is liable for a civil penalty as adjusted, plus 3

times the amount of damages which the United States Government sustains because of the act

of that person.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). See 28 C.F.R. § 85.3(a)(9); Civil Monetary Penalties

Inflation Adjustments for 2024, 89 Fed. Reg. 9,764 (Feb. 12, 2024).

III. FIRREA

36. FIRREA authorizes civil enforcement of enumerated criminal predicate

offenses—as established by a preponderance of the evidence—that involve financial institutions

and certain government agencies. See 12 U.S.C. § 1833a(e).

37. There are two enumerated predicate offences that form the basis of liability under

FIRREA in this Complaint. First, 15 U.S.C. § 645(a) prohibits any person from “mak[ing] any

statement knowing it to be false . . . for the purpose of obtaining for himself or for any applicant

any loan, or extension thereof by renewal, deferment of action, or otherwise, or the acceptance,

release, or substitution of security therefor, or for the purpose of influencing in any way the

action of the [SBA].” Second, 18 U.S.C. § 1344 prohibits any person from “knowingly

execut[ing], or attempt[ing] to execute, a scheme or artifice to (1) to defraud a financial

institution; or (2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property

owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or

fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”

38. FIRREA provides that the United States may recover “a civil penalty in an

amount assessed by the court in a civil action” for each violation of 15 U.S.C. § 645(a) or 18

U.S.C. § 1344. 12 U.S.C. § 1833a(a).

39. The maximum penalty is specified by law and generally may not exceed

$1,000,000 per violation. 12 U.S.C. § 1833a(b)(1)-(2); 28 C.F.R. § 85.3(a)(6), (7). FIRREA

9
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 10 of 26 PageID# 10

provides that the penalty can exceed that cap in certain instances, allowing the United States to

recover the amount of any gain to the person committing the violation, or the amount of the loss

to a person other than the violator stemming from such conduct, up to the amount of the gain or

loss. 12 U.S.C. § 1833a(b)(3)

IV. Iseman & Associates was not Eligible to Apply for or Receive any PPP Loans

40. At all times between 2019 and 2022, Iseman & Associates, while located in

Arlington, Virginia, was primarily engaged in lobbying activities.

41. For Tax Years 2019 through 2022, Vicki Iseman reported the profit or loss from

Iseman & Associates to the Internal Revenue Service on Schedule C of her personal tax return.

For each of those years, Iseman signed her tax return, declaring that “I have examined this return

and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they

are true, correct, and complete.”

42. With the exception discussed below, infra ¶¶ 77–78, on each Schedule C that

Vicki Iseman filed with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for Tax Years 2019 through 2022,

Vicki Iseman identified the “principal business or profession” of Iseman & Associates as

“LOBBYING.”

43. Pursuant to the LDA, a lobbyist is required to register with Congress each client

on behalf of whom it acts as a lobbyist. 2 U.S.C. § 1603(a). Such reports are submitted to the

Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives.

44. Between 2019 and 2022, Iseman & Associates registered as a lobbyist with

respect to every client for whom it provided any professional services.

45. In addition, the LDA requires a lobbyist to file a quarterly report with Congress

for each client for whom it provided lobbying services. 2 U.S.C. § 1604(a). The quarterly report

must contain, inter alia, “a list of the specific issues upon which a lobbyist employed by the
10
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 11 of 26 PageID# 11

registrant engaged in lobbying activities;” “a statement of the Houses of Congress and the

Federal agencies contacted by lobbyists employed by the registrant on behalf of the client;” “a

list of the employees of the registrant who acted as lobbyists on behalf of the client;” and “a good

faith estimate of the total amount of all income from the client (including any payments to the

registrant by any other person for lobbying activities on behalf of the client) during the quarterly

period, other than income for matters that are unrelated to lobbying activities.” 2 U.S.C.

§ 1604(b).

46. Each LDA report filed by Iseman & Associates between 2019 and 2022 was

signed by Vicki Iseman.

47. For each year, between 2019 and 2022, Iseman & Associates reported all or

nearly all of its annual gross revenue as derived from “lobbying activities” on its required

quarterly reports to Congress.

48. The following table shows Iseman & Associates’ revenue derived from lobbying,

as reported to Congress, and its annual gross revenue, as reported to the IRS, from 2019 to 2022:

Lobbying Revenue Gross Revenue
Year
(as reported to Congress) (as reported to the IRS)
2019 $728,000.00 $639,151.00
2020 $607,250.00 $614,221.00
2021 $188,000.00 $248,250.00
2022 $192,000.00 $199,000.00

49. Because Iseman & Associates was a business primarily engaged in lobbying

activities, it was categorically ineligible for any SBA 7(a) loan, including a PPP loan.

11
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 12 of 26 PageID# 12

V. Defendant’s Application for and Receipt of PPP Loans

50. In the fall of 2020, Vicki Iseman instructed Iseman & Associates staff to research

PPP loans and forgiveness.

51. As early as September 23, 2020, Iseman & Associates staff informed Vicki

Iseman that Iseman & Associates was not eligible for a PPP loan because it was a “lobbying

firm.” Specifically, they informed Vicki Iseman that a business was not eligible for a PPP loan if

more than 50 percent of its business was lobbying.

A. Defendants’ First Application to Bank of America for a PPP Loan

52. On or about January 20, 2021, Iseman & Associates (using its prior name Iseman

& Szeliga) applied for a PPP Loan from Bank of America N.A., a “financial institution” as

defined in 18 U.S.C. § 20, (“Bank of America”), requesting $55,687 (the “First Application”).

The First Application was assigned reference number ending -1854.

53. The First Application was signed by Vicki Iseman.

54. In signing the First Application, Vicki Iseman, on behalf of Iseman & Associates,

affirmatively certified, inter alia, that: “The Applicant is eligible to receive a loan under the rules

in effect at the time this application is submitted that have been issued by the [SBA] and the

Department of the Treasury implementing the Paycheck Protection Program. . .”

55. Vicki Iseman further certified that “the information provided in this application

and the information provided in all supporting documents and forms is true and accurate in all

material respects.”

56. Vicki Iseman certified that her signature represented that she was the “Authorized

Representative of the Applicant” and that “the Applicant remains eligible to receive a loan under

the” PPP.

12
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 13 of 26 PageID# 13

57. Along with the First Application, Vicki Iseman, on behalf of Iseman &

Associates, submitted various supporting documents, including a copy of her filed 2019 IRS

Schedule C, which accurately identified the “principal business or profession” of Iseman &

Associates as “LOBBYING.”

58. Between February 1, 2021, and February 10, 2021, Vicki Iseman had repeated

calls with Bank of America regarding the status of the First Application.

59. Bank of America took no action on the First Application.

60. On or about February 17, 2021, Vicki Iseman, on behalf of Iseman & Associates,

withdrew the First Application.

B. Defendants’ Second Application to Bank of America for a PPP Loan

61. Vicki Iseman became convinced that the First Application was not approved

because Iseman & Associates’ “principal business” was identified as “LOBBYING” on the 2019

IRS Schedule C that she had submitted as part of the application.

62. Accordingly, Vicki Iseman, or another individual acting at Iseman’s direction and

on behalf of Iseman and Iseman & Associates, created an altered 2019 IRS Schedule C that

replaced the term “LOBBYING” with “PUBLIC AFFAIRS” as Iseman & Associates’ “primary

business.”

63. On or about February 18, 2021, Iseman & Associates (using its prior name

Iseman & Szeliga) submitted an application for a PPP Loan to Bank of America, requesting

$51,205 (the “Second Application”). The Second Application was assigned loan reference

number ending -3401.

64. The Second Application was signed by Vicki Iseman.

65. In signing the Second Application, Vicki Iseman, on behalf of Iseman &

Associates, affirmatively certified, inter alia, that: “The Applicant is eligible to receive a loan
13
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 14 of 26 PageID# 14

under the rules in effect at the time this application is submitted that have been issued by the

[SBA] and the Department of the Treasury implementing the Paycheck Protection Program. . .”

66. Vicki Iseman further certified that “the information provided in this application

and the information provided in all supporting documents and forms is true and accurate in all

material respects.”

67. Vicki Iseman certified that her signature represented that she was the “Authorized

Representative of the Applicant” and that “the Applicant remains eligible to receive a loan under

the” PPP.

68. These certifications were false, because Iseman & Associates was not eligible to

receive a PPP loan, because it was “primarily engaged” in “lobbying activities.”

69. Vicki Iseman knew that these certifications were false, because she knew that

Iseman & Associates was ineligible to obtain a PPP loan because it was “primarily engaged” in

“lobbying activities.”

70. Vicki Iseman knew that these false certifications were material, because she knew

that the lender would rely on the applicant’s certifications to determine eligibility for a PPP loan,

according to the directions on the PPP application.

71. These false certifications were made with the intent to influence SBA and Bank of

America to issue a PPP loan to Iseman & Associates for which it was not eligible

72. Along with the Second Application, Vicki Iseman, on behalf of Iseman &

Associates, submitted various supporting documents. With the Second Application, Iseman

included the unfiled altered version of her 2019 IRS Schedule C, which had been altered to

indicate that Iseman & Associates’ “primary business” was “PUBLIC AFFAIRS.”

14
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 15 of 26 PageID# 15

73. The altered IRS Schedule C was submitted with the intent to influence SBA and

Bank of America to issue a PPP loan to Iseman & Associates for which it was not eligible.

74. Vicki Iseman knew that the altered Schedule C was material to the issuance of the

PPP loan because the lender used the Schedule C, in part, to confirm eligibility for a PPP loan.

75. On or about February 24, 2021, Bank of America approved the Second

Application and Iseman & Associates received its first draw loan for $51,205 from Bank of

America (the “First Draw Loan”).

76. SBA paid $2,560.25 in processing fees in connection with the application and

approval of the First Draw Loan.

77. On or about February 26, 2021, Vicki Iseman instructed her accountant to file an

amended 2019 IRS tax return, changing only the “primary business” for Iseman & Associates on

the Schedule C.

78. On or about March 15, 2021, an amended 2019 tax return was filed on behalf of

Vicki Iseman.

79. As noted above, supra ¶ 42, this amended return was the only state or federal tax

return between 2019 and 2022 that did not identify Iseman & Associates’ “primary business” as

“LOBBYING.”

C. Defendant’s Third Application to Bank of America for a PPP Loan

80. On or about April 23, 2021, Iseman & Associates (using its prior name Iseman &

Szeliga) applied for a Second Draw PPP Loan from Bank of America, requesting $51,200 (the

“Third Application”). The Third Application was assigned loan reference number ending -2654.

81. The Third Application was signed by Vicki Iseman.

82. In signing the Third Application, Vicki Iseman, on behalf of Iseman &

Associates, affirmatively certified, inter alia, that: “The Applicant is eligible to receive a loan
15
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 16 of 26 PageID# 16

under the rules in effect at the time this application is submitted that have been issued by the

[SBA] and the Department of the Treasury implementing the Paycheck Protection Program. . .”

83. The Third Application required an express certification that the applicant was not

“primarily engaged in political or lobbying activities,” to which Vicki Iseman certified:

84. Vicki Iseman further certified that “the information provided in this application

and the information provided in all supporting documents and forms is true and accurate in all

material respects.”

85. These certifications were false because Iseman & Associates was not eligible to

receive a PPP loan, because it was “primarily engaged” in “lobbying activities.”

86. Vicki Iseman knew that these certifications were false, because she knew that

Iseman & Associates was ineligible to obtain a PPP loan because it was “primarily engaged” in

“lobbying activities.”

87. Vicki Iseman knew that these false certifications were material, because she knew

that the lender would rely on the applicant’s certifications to determine eligibility for a PPP loan.

88. These false certifications were made with the intent to influence SBA and Bank of

America to issue a PPP loan to Iseman & Associates for which it was not eligible

89. On or about April 26, 2021, Bank of America approved the second draw PPP loan

application and Iseman & Associates received $51,200 in PPP funds from Bank of America (the

“Second Draw Loan”).

90. SBA paid $2,560 in processing fees in connection with the application and

approval of the Second Draw Loan.

16
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 17 of 26 PageID# 17

VI. Defendants’ Fraudulent Forgiveness Applications

A. Defendants’ First Loan Forgiveness Application

91. On or about September 14, 2021, Iseman & Associates (using its prior name

Iseman & Szeliga) submitted a forgiveness application to Bank of America for the First Draw

Loan (the “First Forgiveness Application”).

92. The First Forgiveness Application was signed by Vicki Iseman.

93. In signing the First Forgiveness Application, Vicki Iseman, on behalf of Iseman &

Associates, affirmatively certified that Iseman & Associates had “complied with all requirements

in the [PPP] Program Rules.”

94. These certifications were false, because Iseman & Associates was not eligible to

receive a PPP loan, because it was “primarily engaged” in “lobbying activities.”

95. These certifications were also false because Iseman & Associates used PPP funds

to pay employees engaged in “lobbying activities,” which was a prohibited use of PPP loan

proceeds.

96. Vicki Iseman knew that these certifications were false, because she knew that

Iseman & Associates was ineligible to obtain a PPP loan because it was “primarily engaged” in

“lobbying activities.”

97. Vicki Iseman knew that these false certifications were material, because she knew

that SBA and the lender would rely on the applicant’s certifications to determine whether to

forgive the PPP loan.

98. These false certifications were made with the intent to influence SBA and Bank of

America to forgive a PPP loan to Iseman & Associates that it had not been eligible to receive.

17
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 18 of 26 PageID# 18

99. Based on the false certifications in the First Forgiveness Application, SBA

forgave the First Draw Loan and paid Bank of America $51,498.20 (consisting of $51,205 in

principal and $293.20 in interest).

100. If SBA had known that the certifications on the First Forgiveness Application

were false, it would not have forgiven the loan.

B. Defendants’ Second Loan Forgiveness Application

101. On or about February 9, 2022, Iseman & Associates (using its prior name Iseman

& Szeliga) submitted a forgiveness application to Bank of America for the Second Draw Loan

(the “Second Forgiveness Application”).

102. The Second Forgiveness Application was signed by Vicki Iseman.

103. In signing the Second Forgiveness Application, Vicki Iseman, on behalf of

Iseman & Associates, affirmatively certified that Iseman & Associates had “complied with all

requirements in the [PPP] Program Rules.”

104. These certifications were false, because Iseman & Associates was not eligible to

receive a PPP loan, because it is a business that was “primarily engaged” in “lobbying

activities.”

105. These certifications were also false because Iseman & Associates used the PPP

funds to pay employees engaged in “lobbying activities,” which was a prohibited use of PPP loan

proceeds.

106. Vicki Iseman knew that these certifications were false, because she knew that

Iseman & Associates was ineligible to obtain a PPP loan because it was “primarily engaged” in

“lobbying activities.”

18
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 19 of 26 PageID# 19

107. Vicki Iseman knew that these false certifications were material, because she knew

that SBA and the lender would rely on the applicant’s certifications to determine whether to

forgive the PPP loan.

108. These false certifications were made with the intent to influence SBA and Bank of

America to forgive a PPP loan to Iseman & Associates that it had not been eligible to receive.

109. Based on the false certifications in the Second Forgiveness Application, SBA

forgave the Second Draw Loan and paid Bank of America $51,625.03 (consisting of $51,200 in

principal and $425.03 in interest).

110. If SBA had known that the certifications on the Second Forgiveness Application

were false it would not have forgiven the loan.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I
False or Fraudulent Claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A))
(Iseman & Associates)

111. The United States re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 110 of this

Complaint.

112. Defendant Iseman & Associates knowingly presented or caused to be presented

four false or fraudulent claims for payment involving two fraudulent PPP applications and two

fraudulent applications for loan forgiveness, in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §

3729(a)(1)(A).

113. Defendant Iseman & Associates, through its false or fraudulent claims for PPP

loans and the forgiveness thereof, caused the Government to pay a total of $5,120.25 in

processing fees and $103.123.23 in loan forgiveness (consisting of $102,405 in principal and

$718.23 in interest).

19
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 20 of 26 PageID# 20

114. Because of Defendant Iseman & Associates’ acts, the United States sustained

damages and, therefore, is entitled to treble damages under the False Claims Act, as well as civil

penalties of $13,946 to $27,894 for each violation.

COUNT II
False Records or Statements Material to False Claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B))
(Iseman & Associates)

115. The United States re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 110 of this

Complaint.

116. Defendant Iseman & Associates knowingly made and used false records and/or

false statements and certifications material to false and fraudulent claims to obtain two PPP

loans, and the forgiveness of those loans, in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.

§ 3729(a)(1)(B).

117. Defendant Iseman & Associates, through its use of false records and/or statements

to obtain PPP loans, caused the Government to pay a total of $5,120.25 in processing fees and

$103.123.23 in loan forgiveness (consisting of $102,405 in principal and $718.23 in interest).

118. Because of Defendant Iseman & Associates acts, the United States sustained

damages and, therefore, is entitled to treble damages under the False Claims Act, as well as civil

penalties of $13,946 to $27,894 for each violation.

COUNT III
False Statements (15 U.S.C. § 645)
(Iseman & Associates)

119. The United States re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 110 of this

Complaint.

120. Defendant Iseman & Associates for the purposes of fraudulently obtaining two

federally guaranteed PPP loans and unlawfully inducing the SBA to forgive the PPP loans

20
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 21 of 26 PageID# 21

unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly made false statements and/or certifications to SBA lenders

and to the SBA.

121. Specifically, Defendant Iseman & Associates unlawfully, willfully, submitted

fake federal tax return forms and false certifications for the purpose of influencing the SBA

and/or obtaining PPP loan proceeds, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 645(a), which is a predicate

violation of FIRREA, 12 U.S.C. § 1833a.

122. Because of Defendant Iseman & Associates’ actions, it is liable for civil penalties

up to the maximum amount authorized under 12 U.S.C. § 1833a.

COUNT IV
Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344)
(Iseman & Associates)

123. The United States re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 110 of this

Complaint.

124. Defendant Iseman & Associates knowingly executed a scheme or artifice for the

purposes of fraudulently obtaining money owned or under the custody or control of a financial

institution (viz., Bank of America), by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or

promises.

125. Specifically, Defendant Iseman & Associates unlawfully, willfully, submitted

fake federal tax return forms and made false statements and certifications to Bank of America for

the purpose of obtaining PPP loan proceeds from Bank of America, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1344, which is a predicate violation of FIRREA, 12 U.S.C. § 1833a.

126. Because of Defendant Iseman & Associates’ actions, it is liable for civil penalties

up to the maximum amount authorized under 12 U.S.C. § 1833a.

21
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 22 of 26 PageID# 22

COUNT V
False or Fraudulent Claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A))
(Vicki Iseman)

127. The United States re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 110 of this

Complaint.

128. Defendant Vicki Iseman knowingly presented or caused to be presented four false

or fraudulent claims for payment involving two fraudulent PPP applications and two fraudulent

applications for loan forgiveness, in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.

§ 3729(a)(1)(A).

129. Defendant Vicki Iseman, through her false or fraudulent claims for PPP loans and

the forgiveness thereof, caused the Government to pay a total of $5,120.25 in processing fees and

$103,123.23 in loan forgiveness (consisting of $102,405 in principal and $718.23 in interest).

130. Because of Defendant Vicki Iseman’s acts, the United States sustained damages

and, therefore, is entitled to treble damages under the False Claims Act, as well as civil penalties

of $13,946 to $27,894 for each violation.

COUNT VI
False Records or Statements Material to False Claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B))
(Vicki Iseman)

131. The United States re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 110 of this

Complaint.

132. Defendant Vicki Iseman knowingly made and used false records and/or false

statements and certifications material to false and fraudulent claims to obtain two PPP loans, and

the forgiveness of those loans, in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B).

133. Defendant Vicki Iseman, through her use of false records and/or statements to

obtain PPP loans, caused the Government to pay a total of $5,120.25 in processing fees and

$103,123.23 in loan forgiveness (consisting of $102,405 in principal and $718.23 in interest).

22
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 23 of 26 PageID# 23

134. Because of Defendant Vicki Iseman’s acts, the United States sustained damages

and, therefore, is entitled to treble damages under the False Claims Act, as well as civil penalties

of $13,946 to $27,894 for each violation.

COUNT VII
False Statements (15 U.S.C. § 645)
(Vicki Iseman)

135. The United States re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 110 of this

Complaint.

136. Defendant Vicki Iseman, for the purposes of fraudulently obtaining two federally

guaranteed PPP loans and unlawfully inducing the SBA to forgive the PPP loans unlawfully,

willfully, and knowingly made false statements and/or certifications to SBA lenders and to the

SBA.

137. Specifically, Defendant Vicki Iseman unlawfully, willfully, submitted fake

federal tax return forms and false certifications for the purpose of influencing the SBA and/or

obtaining PPP loan proceeds, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 645(a), which is a predicate violation of

FIRREA, 12 U.S.C. § 1833a.

138. Because of Defendant Vicki Iseman’s actions, she is liable for civil penalties up to

the maximum amount authorized under 12 U.S.C. § 1833a.

COUNT VIII
Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344)
(Vicki Iseman)

139. The United States re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 110 of this

Complaint.

140. Defendant Vicki Iseman knowingly executed a scheme or artifice for the purposes

of fraudulently obtaining money owned or under the custody or control of a financial institution

(viz., Bank of America), by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.

23
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 24 of 26 PageID# 24

141. Specifically, Defendant Vicki Iseman unlawfully, willfully, submitted fake

federal tax return forms and made false statements and certifications to Bank of America for the

purpose of obtaining PPP loan proceeds from Bank of America, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344,

which is a predicate violation of FIRREA, 12 U.S.C. § 1833a.

142. Because of Defendant Vicki Iseman’s actions, she is liable for civil penalties up to

the maximum amount authorized under 12 U.S.C. § 1833a.

COUNT IX
Unjust Enrichment
(Iseman & Associates)

143. In the alternative, the United States re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1

through 110 of this Complaint.

144. By reason of the foregoing conduct and violation of federal law, Defendant

Iseman & Associates was unjustly enriched and is liable to account for and pay such amounts,

which are to be determined at trial, to the United States.

COUNT X
Payment by Mistake
(Iseman & Associates)

145. The United States re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 110 of this

Complaint.

146. By reason of the foregoing conduct of the Defendant Iseman & Associates,

lenders acting on behalf of the SBA and the United States made payments under mistake of fact.

147. As a result of these payments made by lenders acting on behalf of the SBA and

the United States under mistake of fact, the United States has sustained damages in an amount to

be proven at trial.

24
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 25 of 26 PageID# 25

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the United States prays that judgment in its favor and against Defendants

as follows:

A. Under Counts I & II (FCA), against Defendant Iseman & Associates, jointly and

severally with Defendant Vicki Iseman, for treble the amount of the United States’

single damages to be proven at trial, plus civil penalties for each and every false claim

as required by law, costs, and expenses, together with all such further relief as may be

just and proper;

B. Under Counts III & IV (FIRREA), against Defendant Iseman & Associates, jointly

and severally with Defendant Vicki Iseman, for civil penalties pursuant to 12 U.S.C.

§ 1833a up to the maximum allowed by law per violation, or the amount of gain to

Defendant, or, if greater, the amount of loss to SBA stemming from such conduct,

costs, and expenses, together with all such further relief as may be just and proper;

C. Under Counts V & VI (FCA), against Defendant Vicki Iseman, jointly and severally

with Defendant Iseman & Associates, for treble the amount of the United States’

single damages to be proven at trial, plus civil penalties for each and every false claim

as required by law, costs, and expenses, together with all such further relief as may be

just and proper;

D. Under Counts VII & VIII (FIRREA), against Defendant Vicki Iseman, jointly and

severally with Defendant Iseman & Associates, for civil penalties pursuant to 12

U.S.C. § 1833a up to the maximum allowed by law per violation, or the amount of

gain to Defendant, or, if greater, the amount of loss to SBA stemming from such

conduct, costs, and expenses, together with all such further relief as may be just and

proper;
25
Case 1:25-cv-00450-MSN-LRV Document 1 Filed 03/12/25 Page 26 of 26 PageID# 26

E. Alternatively, under Count VIII (Unjust Enrichment), against Defendant Iseman &

Associates, for the amount by which Defendant was unjustly enriched, costs, and

expenses, and all such further relief as may be just and proper;

F. Alternatively, under Count IX (Payment by Mistake), against Defendant Iseman &

Associates, for the amount lenders acting on behalf of the SBA and the United States

paid to the Defendant, costs, and expenses, and all such further relief as may be just

and proper;

G. Such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), the United States demands a trial by

jury of all issues properly triable to a jury in this case.

Dated: March 12, 2025

Respectfully submitted,

ERIK S. SIEBERT
United States Attorney

By: __/s/ John E. Beerbower______________
JOHN E. BEERBOWER
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
Counsel for the United States of America
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
Tel: 703.299.3841
Fax: 703.299.3898
john.beerbower@usdoj.gov

File and source

File: 1-complaint.pdf
Size: 311,329 bytes
SHA-256: 258ffd7cf64d8d99d4d7ddbf047203fbfb91040ac8e454dcb0bf6b19bc393aab
Our copy: 1-complaint.pdf
Original: archive.org