Criminal Complaint — United States v. Sean Schoepflin and Erika Leon (No. 2:22-cr-00121, C.D. Cal.)

Summary

A criminal complaint against Sean Schoepflin, aka "Sean Fitzgerald," and Erika Leon, aka "Erika Fitzgerald," Case No. 2:22-mj-01068-DUTY, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed March 15, 2022 as Document 1 in No. 2:22-cr-00121-FMO. It charges wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 between on or about April 10, 2020, and on or about October 25, 2021. The supporting affidavit of FBI Special Agent Scott Bierwirth states that the defendants made false statements to the Small Business Administration to secure over $300,000 in Economic Injury Disaster Loans for Capital Adventures Incorporated and Lady Capital Incorporated. It describes an April 10, 2020 application for an EIDL of $150,000 for Capital Adventures and also supports search warrants and a request for sealing.

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

“Criminal Complaint — United States v. Sean Schoepflin and Erika Leon (No. 2:22-cr-00121, C.D. Cal.).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/complaint-no-2-22-cr-00121-dkt-1-c-d-cal-331f8d2431/, SHA-256 b311bcb2c09c99793c422d43602006249ae7add199158a82aa3879c300c8cf60.

Full text

Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 1 of 46 Page ID #:1
AO 91 (Rev. 11/11) Criminal Complaint (Rev. by USAO on 3/12/20) ‫ ܆‬Original ‫ ܆‬Duplicate Original

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Central District of California 3/15/2022
FILED
VAM
United States of America CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

3/15/2022
v.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
bm
BY: ___________________ DEPUTY

Sean Schoepflin,
aka “Sean Fitzgerald,” Case No. 2:22-mj-01068-DUTY
Erika Leon,
aka “Erika Fitzgerald,”

Defendants

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT BY TELEPHONE
OR OTHER RELIABLE ELECTRONIC MEANS
I, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Between on or about April 10, 2020, and on or about October 25, 2021, in the county of Los Angeles in the

Central District of California, the defendants violated:

Code Section Offense Description

18 U.S.C. § 1343 Wire Fraud
This criminal complaint is based on these facts:

Please see attached affidavit.

_ Continued on the attached sheet.

Scott Bierwirth, Special Agent,
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Printed name and title
Attested to by the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 4.1 by telephone.

Date: March 15, 2022
Judge’s signature

City and state: Los Angeles, California Hon. Jean P. Rosenbluth, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Printed name and title
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 2 of 46 Page ID #:2

AFFIDAVIT
I, Scott Bierwirth, being duly sworn, declare and state as

follows:

I. PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT

This affidavit is made in support of a criminal

complaint and arrest warrants against Sean Schoepflin (aka “Sean

Fitzgerald”) (“SCHOEPFLIN”) and Erika Leon (aka “Erika

Fitzgerald”) (“LEON”) for a violation of Title 18, United States

Code, Section 1343 (Wire Fraud).

This affidavit is also made in support of applications

for warrants to search: (1) 727 W. 7Th Street, Apartment 1425,

Los Angeles, California 90017 (the “SUBJECT PREMISES”) as

described more fully in Attachment A-1; (2) the person of

SCHOEPFLIN, as described more fully in Attachment A-2; and (3)

the person of LEON, as described more fully in Attachment A-3.

The requested search warrants seek authorization to

seize evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of violations of

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 (Wire Fraud), 1001
(False Statements), 1014 (Loan Application Fraud), and 371

(Conspiracy) (collectively, the “Subject Offenses”), as

described more fully in Attachment B. Attachments A-1, A-2, A-

3, and B are incorporated herein by reference.

The facts set forth in this affidavit are based upon

my personal observations, my training and experience, and

information obtained from various law enforcement personnel and

witnesses. This affidavit is intended to show merely that there

is sufficient probable cause for the requested complaint, arrest
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 3 of 46 Page ID #:3

warrants, and search warrants, and does not purport to set forth

all of my knowledge of or investigation into this matter.

Unless specifically indicated otherwise, all conversations and

statements described in this affidavit are related in substance

and in part only, and all dates are approximate.

II. BACKGROUND OF AFFIANT
I am a Special Agent with Federal Bureau of

Investigation (“FBI”). I have been in this position since

January 2018. I am currently assigned to a counterterrorism

squad, where I specialize in the investigation of domestic

terrorism actors and groups. I attended 21 weeks of new Agent

training at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Prior to

joining the FBI, I was an Infantry Officer in the United States

Army, where I trained for counterterrorism related missions

across the globe for over four years. Through my training and

experience in the FBI and the US Army, I am familiar with and

have participated in white collar criminal investigations and

fraud investigations, to include those related to domestic

terrorism actors. I have received formal and informal training

from the FBI regarding computer-related investigations and

computer technology.

III. SUMMARY OF PROBABLE CAUSE

As detailed below, between April 2020 and October

2021, SCHOEPFLIN and LEON made numerous false statements to the

United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to secure

over $300,000 in Economic Injury Disaster Loans (“EIDLs”) for

their businesses, Capital Adventures Incorporated (“Capital

2
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 4 of 46 Page ID #:4

Adventures”) and Lady Capital Incorporated (“Lady Capital”), and

to attempt to secure additional EIDLs for Capital Adventures and

Lady Capital, and their other businesses, Digital Army Limited

Liability Corporation (“Digital Army”), and Lady Pictures

Limited Liability Corporation (“Lady Pictures”).
SCHOEPFLIN and LEON used digital devices to send

emails, place phone calls, and access Internet websites in

furtherance of their fraudulent scheme, and submitted the

fraudulent loan agreements from the residence where they lived

prior to moving into the SUBJECT PREMISES. SCHOEPFLIN and LEON

now reside at the SUBJECT PREMISES, and there is probable cause

to believe that evidence of their fraudulent scheme will be

found on their persons and at their residence, including on

physical files as well as digital devices on their persons and

at their residence.

IV. STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE

Based on my review of law enforcement reports,

conversations with other law enforcement agents, and my own
knowledge of the investigation, I am aware of the following:

A. Background on EIDLs

The SBA, through its Office of Disaster Assistance,

provides financial assistance to businesses of all sizes, most

private non-profit organizations, homeowners, and renters

following a declared disaster. In addition, SBA provides

eligible small businesses necessary working capital to help

overcome the economic injury of a declared disaster. Section

7(b)(2) of the Small Business Act, as amended, authorizes the

3
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 5 of 46 Page ID #:5

SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) Program. SBA can

make loans to eligible small businesses, eligible non-profit

organizations, and eligible small agricultural cooperatives

located in a disaster area that suffered substantial economic

injury as a result of a disaster.
On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States

determined that the ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

pandemic was of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an

emergency determination under section 501(b) of the Robert T.

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.

5121-5207 (the “Stafford Act”). Consequently, SBA declared all

states and territories eligible for EIDL assistance. The SBA

implemented a one-year deferment on EIDL loans provided due to

COVID-19, automatic deferment of previous disaster loans for

homeowners and businesses through 2020, and a six-month

deferment on current SBA 7(a), 504, and Microloans.

Small Businesses and non-profit organizations of any

size affected by COVID-19 may apply for an EIDL if they meet one
of the following requirements: (1) be any business with 500 or

fewer employees that was in operation before February 1, 2020;

(2) be a business with more than five hundred (500) employees

that is considered small under SBA’s size standards and was in

operation before February 1, 2020; (3) be a sole proprietorship

or independent contractor; or (4) be a private non-profit

organization that is a non-governmental agency or entity that

currently has an effective ruling letter from the Internal

Revenue Service (“IRS”) granting tax exemption under sections

4
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 6 of 46 Page ID #:6

501(c), (d), or (e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or has

satisfactory evidence from the State that the non-revenue

producing organization or entity is a non-profit one organized

or doing business under State law, or is a faith-based

organization.
Eligible entities may qualify for loans up to $2

million with loan terms of up to thirty (30) years. The

interest rates are 3.75% for small businesses and 2.75% for non-

profit organizations. Proceeds may be used for working capital,

including payroll costs, salaries and sick leave, rent and/or

mortgage payments, material costs, and preexisting debt that

could have been paid had the disaster not occurred.

COVID-19 EIDL applicants are also eligible for an EIDL

Advance of up to $10,000 that may be requested immediately.

There is no requirement to repay the advance, even if the

applicant is denied for an EIDL loan. The EIDL advance can be

used for working capital to meet ordinary and necessary

financial obligations that cannot be met as a direct result of

the disaster, including payroll costs, salaries, sick leave,

rent and/or mortgage payments, material costs, and preexisting

debt.

Applications for COVID-19 EIDL loans and EIDL Advances

are conducted through the SBA COVID-19 web portal and the SBA

Rapid Decision System. Applicants must submit a COVID-19 Rapid

Intake Web Application, which is an Internet-based loan

application. SBA uses the information provided in the

application to determine whether the applicant is eligible for

5
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 7 of 46 Page ID #:7

an EIDL and/or EIDL Advance. Requested information includes

business legal name and trade name; employer identification

number or social security number for sole proprietorship;

organization type; business gross revenues from the previous

twelve (12) months prior to the date of the disaster; business

costs of goods sold from the previous twelve (12) months prior

to the date of the disaster; the business’s number of employees

as of January 31, 2020; date of business establishment; date of

start of current ownership; business activity details; business

contact information and address; biographical information of

business owner(s); contact information and address of business

owner(s); and criminal history of business owner(s).
SBA relies upon the self-certifications contained in

the application to verify that the applicant is an eligible

entity to receive the EIDL and/or EIDL Advance. The self-

certification section reads:

“CERTIFICATION AS TO TRUTHFUL INFORMATION: By signing

this application, you [the applicant] certify that all
information in your application and submitted with your

application is true and correct to the best of your knowledge,

and that you will submit truthful information in the future.”

“WARNING: Whoever wrongfully misapplies the proceeds

of an SBA disaster loan shall be civilly liable to the

Administrator [of the SBA] in an amount equal to one-and-one

half times the original principal amount of the loan under 15

U.S.C. 636(b). In addition, any false statement or

misrepresentation to the SBA may result in criminal, civil or

6
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 8 of 46 Page ID #:8

administrative sanctions including, but not limited to: 1) fines

and imprisonment, or both, under 15 U.S.C. 645, 18 U.S.C. 1001,

18 U.S.C. 1014, 18 U.S.C. 3571, and any other applicable laws;

2) treble damages and civil penalties under the False Claims

Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729; 3) double damages and civil penalties under

the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3802; and 4)

suspension and/or debarment from all Federal procurement and

non-procurement transactions.”
Loan approvals for COVID-19 EIDL loans are based on

the applicant’s gross revenues from the previous twelve (12)

months, the business’s costs of goods sold from the previous

twelve (12) months, and the business’s number of employees.

Applicants must also meet the minimum credit score of 570.

Approved EIDL loan amounts are based on a rough

calculation of the applicant’s net revenues over the past six

(6) months. The rough calculation takes the difference between

the previous annual gross revenues and the previous annual costs

of goods sold. That number is divided by two (2) to determine

the approved loan amount.

EIDL Advance amounts are based on the business’s

reported number of employees as of January 31, 2020. Applicants

are permitted to receive a maximum EIDL Advance of $10,000. In

practice, SBA provides $1,000 in EIDL Advance funds for each

employee on the applicant’s payroll up to the maximum amount of

$10,000.

7
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 9 of 46 Page ID #:9

B. April 2020: SCHOEPFLIN Made False Statements to Obtain
a $156,000 EIDL for Capital Adventures
Nevada Secretary of State records show the following:

a. Capital Adventures was incorporated on February

16, 2018, with an address of 2799 E. Tropicana Avenue, Suite H,

Las Vegas, Nevada 89121 (the “Tropicana Address”). Online

searches indicate 2799 E. Tropicana Avenue, Suite H, Las Vegas,

NV 89121 was the location for “Legal Forms Nevada”. The

proprietor is J.V.W. (“J.V.W.”), with email address

jake@legalformsnevada.com. The website states “Registrant is

not an attorney authorized to practice in this State and is

prohibited from providing Legal advise [sic] or Legal

representation to any person.”

b. From February 16, 2018 to April 8, 2020, the

President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Director of Capital

Adventures was listed as “Sean Fitzgerald.”

c. From April 8, 2020 to April 20, 2020, the

President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Director of Capital

Adventures were changed to “Sean Schoepflin.”

d. On April 20, 2020, the listed President,

Secretary, Treasurer, and Director of Capital Adventures were

changed back to “Sean Fitzgerald,” which has remained the listed

name since that time.

According to California Secretary of State records,

Capital Adventures was incorporated in California on May 26,

2020, with a Walnut, California commercial-mail-receiving-agency

8
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 10 of 46 Page ID #:10

address, and listed the Tropicana Address as its mailing

address. “Sean Fitzgerald” was listed as the incorporator.
Between December 2020 and February 2021, FBI Special

Agents interviewed multiple associates of SCHOEPFLIN, all of

whom knew him by the alias “Sean Fitzgerald.”

According to information SCHOEPFLIN provided to the

SBA, Capital Adventures provides business management and

development services.

SBA records show the following:

a. On April 10, 2020, an application was submitted

on behalf of Capital Adventures via the SBA’s online portal for

an EIDL of $150,000. SCHOEPFLIN’s email address was listed as

the business email address. According to records from the SBA

and Cox Communications, the Internet Protocol (“IP”) address for

the computer from which Capital Adventures’ application was

submitted to the online portal was registered to J.V.W.’s

company, Nevada Legal Forms, at the Tropicana Address.

b. The application required the company

representative to provide his or her name and Social Security

Number. On Capital Adventures’ application, the listed name was

SCHOEPFLIN. The listed Social Security Number was SCHOEPFLIN’s,

with the second and third digits transposed (“549” instead of

“594”).

c. The address on the application was 20687 Amar

Road Suite 2, #818, Walnut, California 91789, which a basic

Internet search shows is the location of a UPS Store. This is

the same address listed on the California incorporation

9
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 11 of 46 Page ID #:11

documents. According to records provided by the UPS Store,

SCHOEPFLIN leased Box 818 from April 8, 2020 to August 20, 2020.

d. The application provided a bank account number

for Capital Adventures, which was an account with Bank of

America.

e. The application required the applicant to check a

box certifying under penalty of perjury that the information in

the application was true and correct. The application also

included a warning that “any false statement or

misrepresentation to SBA may result in criminal, civil or

administrative sanctions including, but not limited to . . .

fines and imprisonment, or both.”
According to SBA records, on June 25, 2020, the SBA

emailed SCHOEPFLIN a loan authorization agreement for his

signature. On June 25, 2020, the SBA received a signed copy of

the agreement bearing SCHOEPFLIN’s digital signature. The loan

authorization agreement stated that “any false statement or

misrepresentation to SBA may result in criminal, civil or

administrative sanctions, including, but not limited to: 1)

fines, imprisonment or both, under 15 U.S.C. 645, 18 U.S.C.

1001, 18 U.S.C. 1040, 18 U.S.C.3571, and any other applicable

laws” and “under penalty of perjury of the United States of

America, I hereby certify that I am authorized to apply for and

obtain a disaster loan on behalf of Borrower, in connection with

the effects of the COVID-19 emergency.” IP records show that

the signed loan authorization agreement was submitted to the SBA

from 24151 High Knob Road #C, Diamond Bar, California 91765 (the

10
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 12 of 46 Page ID #:12

“Diamond Bar Residence”), which public records and agent

surveillance confirm was SCHOEPFLIN and LEON’s residence until

June, 2021.
According to SBA records, on June 25, 2020, the SBA

provided Capital Adventures an EIDL of $149,900 (reflecting the

$150,000 EIDL minus a $100 filing fee). On July 7, 2020, the

SBA provided an additional $6,000 as an EIDL advance, which

consisted of $1,000 for each of the six employees claimed by

Capital Adventures on its EIDL application.

As detailed below, based on my review of the EIDL

application, as well as bank records, law enforcement databases,

Google records, and information provided by other law

enforcement officers, SCHOEPFLIN appears to have made at least

four false statements in connection with the EIDL application.

1. False Statement One: Capital Adventures Had Six
Employees

According to SBA records, SCHOEPFLIN stated on the

EIDL application that Capital Adventures had six employees.

Based on my and other agents’ review of IRS records
and records provided by the Nevada Development of Employment,

Training, and Rehabilitation and the California Employment

Development Department, none of those entities has any records

indicating that Capital Adventures has ever had any listed

employees, paid any payroll taxes, or filed any documentation

such as W-2 forms indicating that it had any employees.

According to a Special Agent from the Treasury Office

of Inspector General for Tax Administration, there is no record

11
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 13 of 46 Page ID #:13

of Capital Adventures filing any tax information until August

2021, when it submitted a Form 1065 for the year 2019 after its

request for an EIDL increase was denied, as discussed below. No

records indicative of wages paid to employees of Capital

Adventures, such as W-2, 1099-MISC or 1099-R forms, were found

to exist. Additionally, there were no Forms 940 (Employer’s

Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return) or 941 (Employer’s

Federal Quarterly Tax Return) on file for Capital Adventures.

Employers file these forms annually and quarterly, respectively,

prior to filing an annual tax return to make an estimated tax

payment to the IRS.
As set forth below, records provided by Wells Fargo

and Bank of America for Capital Adventures’ bank accounts do not

show withdrawals of any significant amount or on a consistent

basis that would indicate either account was used to pay

employee salaries.

a. Capital Adventures maintained a bank account with

Wells Fargo from February 16, 2018 to January 18, 2019. During

the 11 months when that Wells Fargo account was active, it had

total cash deposits of $35,008.74. When the account closed in

January 2019, it had a negative balance of $33.23.

b. I and other FBI special agents reviewed credit

reports, bank records, and other public databases for SCHOEPFLIN

and Capital Adventures and were unable to identify any bank

account for Capital Adventures from January 18, 2019 to April 8,

2020.

12
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 14 of 46 Page ID #:14

c. On April 8, 2020, two days before SCHOEPFLIN

submitted the EIDL application, Capital Adventures opened a bank

account with Bank of America with a $100 initial deposit.

2. False Statement Two: Capital Adventures Had
$560,000 in Revenue in 2019

According to SBA records, in Capital Adventures’ EIDL

application, SCHOEPFLIN stated that Capital Adventures had

revenues of $560,000 in the 12-month period of February 1, 2019

to January 31, 2020.

According to SBA records, on June 18, 2020, an SBA

employee sent an email to SCHOEPFLIN requesting Capital

Adventures’ business tax return to show proof of Capital

Adventures’ existence as a business entity.

According to Google records, shortly after receiving

the email, SCHOEPFLIN sent an email to J.V.W. SCHOEPFLIN later

sent an email to the SBA stating that he planned to meet with

his accountant the next day. The next day, SBA records show

that SCHOEPFLIN sent the SBA an unsigned IRS Form 1120, U.S.

Corporation Income Tax Return, for 2019. The tax form stated

that Capital Adventures had gross sales or receipts of $625,112

in 2019.

According to a Special Agent from the United States

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Capital

Adventures did not file an IRS Form 1120 for 2019 until July

2021, after it requested and was denied an increase of its EIDL,

as discussed below.

13
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 15 of 46 Page ID #:15

Furthermore, as discussed above, Capital Adventures’

bank accounts do not show deposits or any form of financial

activity consistent with the receipt of $560,000 or $625,112 in

revenue in 2019. Instead, between February 2018 and April 2020,

Capital Adventures’ bank accounts had total deposits of

approximately $35,000.

3. False Statement Three: SCHOEPFLIN Had No Prior
Criminal Convictions

According to SBA records, on Capital Adventures’ EIDL

application, SCHOEPFLIN answered “No” to the following question:

“For any criminal offense - other than a minor vehicle violation

- have you ever been convicted, plead guilty, plead nolo

contendere, been placed on pretrial diversion, or been placed on

any form of parole or probation (including probation before

judgment)?”

According to law enforcement databases, SCHOEPFLIN has

sustained two felony convictions: (1) In January 2005,

SCHOEPFLIN was convicted in the State of Texas of possession of

a controlled substance and sentenced to 10 years’ probation and
a fine of $25,000; and (2) in November 1998, SCHOEPFLIN was

convicted in the State of Florida of burglary and sentenced to

one year and six months’ imprisonment.

4. False Statement Four: Capital Adventures Would
Use the EIDL for Working Capital

According to SBA records, on June 25, 2020, SCHOEPFLIN

signed a Loan Authorization and Agreement on behalf of Capital

Adventures, stating that “Borrower will use all the proceeds of

this Loan solely as working capital to alleviate economic injury

14
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 16 of 46 Page ID #:16

caused by disaster occurring in the month of January 31, 2020

and continuing thereafter.”
According to Bank of America records provided through

May 31, 2021, after receiving the EIDL, Capital Adventures did

not spend all of the EIDL funds on expenses related to the

operations of Capital Adventures. As noted above, Capital

Adventures opened a bank account with Bank of America on April

8, 2020, with a $100 initial deposit. Before receiving the EIDL

funds, Capital Adventures’ Bank of America account had a balance

of $47.01.

After receiving the EIDL funds, according to Bank of

America records provided through October 30, 2020, Capital

Adventures did not appear to spend money on payroll expenses.

Between September 16, 2020 and May 31, 2021, Capital

Adventures transferred $9,140 to a Venmo account for “Sean

Fitzgerald,” made numerous purchases of gasoline and food, and

made wire transfers totaling $120,500 to LEON’s company, Lady

Capital. As of May 31, 2021, the account had $186 remaining.

C. April 2020: LEON Made False Statements to Obtain a
$154,000 EIDL for Lady Capital

According to multiple witnesses interviewed by FBI

Special Agents, LEON is SCHOEPFLIN’s girlfriend and lives with

SCHOEPFLIN at the SUBJECT PREMISES.

Nevada Secretary of State records show the following:

a. Lady Capital was incorporated in Nevada on August

24, 2019 with the Tropicana Address listed as the mailing

address. According to records provided by Google, on August 21,

15
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 17 of 46 Page ID #:17

2019, SCHOEPFLIN directed J.V.W. to set up the corporation for

LEON.

b. From September 16, 2019, to August 31, 2020, LEON

was listed as the President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Director

of Lady Capital.

c. On August 31, 2020, LEON was replaced in those

positions by “Erika Fitzgerald,” which I believe to be an alias

for LEON.
According to SBA records, on its EIDL application,

Lady Capital stated that it was in the “Business Services”

industry.

According to California Secretary of State records,

Lady Capital was incorporated in California on June 1, 2020, by

“Erika Fitzgerald.” The listed address was 20687 Amar Road,

Suite 2, #818, Walnut, California 91789, which is the same UPS

box that SCHOEPFLIN leased and listed on Capital Adventures’

Loan Application, as discussed in paragraph 25(c) above.

SBA records show the following:
a. On April 8, 2020, an application was submitted on

behalf of Lady Capital via the SBA’s online portal for an EIDL

of $150,000. LEON’s email account was listed on the application

as the business email address. According to records from the

SBA and Cox Communications, the IP address for the computer from

which Lady Capital’s application was submitted to the online

portal was registered to J.V.W.’s company, Nevada Legal Forms,

at the Tropicana Address.

16
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 18 of 46 Page ID #:18

b. The application required the company

representative to provide his or her name and Social Security

Number. On Lady Capital’s application, the listed name was

LEON. The listed Social Security Number was LEON’s.

c. The address on the application was nearly

identical to the Diamond Bar Residence, except that it contains

an extra “5” at the end of the street address (the actual street

address is “24151” whereas the street address listed in the

application is “241515”).

d. The application listed a bank account number for

Lady Capital for an account with JP Morgan Chase bank (the

“Chase Account”).

e. The application required the applicant to check a

box certifying under penalty of perjury that the information in

the application was true and correct. The application also

included a warning that “any false statement or

misrepresentation to SBA may result in criminal, civil or

administrative sanctions including, but not limited to . . .

fines and imprisonment, or both.”
According to SBA records, on June 17, 2020, SBA

emailed LEON a loan authorization agreement for her signature.

On June 18, 2020, SBA received a signed copy of the agreement

bearing LEON’s digital signature. The loan authorization

agreement stated “. . . any false statement or misrepresentation

to SBA may result in criminal, civil or administrative

sanctions, including, but not limited to: 1) fines, imprisonment

or both, under 15 U.S.C. 645, 18 U.S.C. 1001, 18 U.S.C. 1040, 18

17
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 19 of 46 Page ID #:19

U.S.C.3571, and any other applicable laws . . .” and “under

penalty of perjury of the United States of America, I hereby

certify that I am authorized to apply for and obtain a disaster

loan on behalf of Borrower, in connection with the effects of

the COVID-19 emergency.” IP records show that the signed loan

authorization agreement was submitted to the SBA from the

Diamond Bar Residence.
According to SBA records, on May 1, 2020, the SBA

granted Lady Capital’s application and provided an EIDL advance

of $4,000, which consisted of $1,000 for each of the four

employees claimed by Lady Capital on its EIDL application. On

June 22, 2020, the SBA provided Lady Capital a loan of $149,900

(reflecting the $150,000 EIDL minus a $100 filing fee).

As detailed below, based on my review of the EIDL

application, as well as bank records, Google records, and

information provided by other law enforcement officers, LEON

appears to have made at least three false statements in

connection with the EIDL application.

1. False Statement One: Lady Capital Had Four
Employees

According to SBA records, LEON stated on the EIDL

application that Lady Capital had four employees.

Based on my and other agents’ review of IRS records

and records provided by the Nevada Development of Employment,

Training, and Rehabilitation and the California Employment

Development Department, none of those entities has any records

indicating that Lady Capital has ever had any listed employees,

18
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 20 of 46 Page ID #:20

paid any payroll taxes, or filed any documentation such as W-2

forms indicating that it had any employees.
According to a Special Agent from the Treasury Office

of Inspector General for Tax Administration, there is no record

of Lady Capital filing any tax information until August 2021,

when it submitted a Form 1065 for the year 2019 after its

request for an EIDL increase was denied, as discussed below. No

records indicative of wages paid to employees of Lady Capital,

such as W-2, 1099-MISC or 1099-R forms, were found to exist.

Additionally, there were no Forms 940 (Employer’s Annual Federal

Unemployment Tax Return) or 941 (Employer’s Federal Quarterly

Tax Return) on file for Lady Capital. As noted above, employers

file these forms annually and quarterly, respectively, prior to

filing an annual tax return to make an estimated tax payment to

the IRS.

JP Morgan Chase records for Lady Capital’s bank

account do not show withdrawals of any significant amount or on

a consistent basis that would indicate it was used to pay
employee salaries.

a. As noted above, Lady Capital was first

incorporated in Nevada on August 24, 2019. JP Morgan Chase

records show Lady Capital opened a business bank account with JP

Morgan Chase bank on September 14, 2019 (the Chase Account).

The Chase Account was opened with a deposit of $1,500 and

received an initial bonus for opening a new checking account.

After that, between September 2019 and April 2020, the Chase

Account did not receive any deposits.

19
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 21 of 46 Page ID #:21

b. Between May 2020 and July 2020, the only deposits

into the Chase Account were the EIDL and EIDL advance, as well
D
as the $64,000 transfer that SCHOEPFLIN made from the Capital

Adventures account, as discussed in paragraph 32(e) above. The

Chase Account did not show withdrawals of any significant amount

or on a consistent basis that would indicate that it was used to

pay employee salaries.
Navy Federal Credit Union records show the following:

a. In May 2021, LEON opened a business account for

Lady Capital as well as a personal account with Navy Federal

Credit Union.

b. Between May 2021 and September 2021, the business

account received $49,500 in transfers from Capital Adventures,

$75,500 in deposits from a medical firm for which LEON worked as

an employee, refunds of $154, a transfer from her personal

account, and dividends. There was no other income. The

business account did not show withdrawals of any significant

amount or on a consistent basis that would indicate that it was

used to pay employee salaries.

I also reviewed records from LEON’s separate personal

bank accounts and did not identify any deposits or expenses that

appear to be related to Lady Capital.

2. False Statement Two: Lady Capital Had $485,000 in
Revenue From January 31, 2019 to January 31, 2020

According to SBA records, in Lady Capital’s EIDL

application, LEON stated that Lady Capital had revenues in the

20
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 22 of 46 Page ID #:22

12-month period of February 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020 of

$485,000.
As discussed above, Lady Capital’s bank account does

not show deposits or any form of financial activity consistent

with the receipt of $485,000 in revenue in 2019. On the

contrary, Lady Capital’s account was opened in September 2019

with a deposit of $1,500 and received no additional deposits

between September 2019 and April 2020.

3. False Statement Three: Lady Capital Would Use the
EIDL for Working Capital

According to SBA records, on June 17, 2020, LEON

signed a Loan Authorization and Agreement on behalf of Lady

Capital stating that “Borrower will use all the proceeds of this

Loan solely as working capital to alleviate economic injury

caused by disaster occurring in the month of January 31, 2020

and continuing thereafter.”

As noted above, in addition to receiving the EIDL

funds, Lady Capital also received $125,500 from Capital

Adventures between September 2020 and May 2021. Between October
2020 and April 2021, LEON also received $35,000 from a medical

firm into the Chase Account (Lady Capital’s business bank

account). According to California EDD records, LEON was

employed by that medical firm throughout that time period.

According to Chase bank records for Lady Capital

provided through December 1, 2020, Lady Capital did not spend

all the EIDL funds on expenses related to the operations of Lady

Capital.

21
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 23 of 46 Page ID #:23

a. In August 2020, LEON used the Chase Account to

pay off a personal credit card bill in August 2020 in the amount

of $11,471.85, which was a balance that the credit card had

accumulated over multiple years, including before Lady Capital

was incorporated in February 2019, from what appear to be

various personal expenses such as food, gas, and other retail

expenses.

b. Between June 2020 and April 2021, LEON used the

Chase Account to make thousands of dollars of purchases at gas

stations, car washes, restaurants, and convenience stores. LEON

also used the Chase Account to spend money on travel expenses

and various retail items such as clothing, cameras, tactical

gear such as ballistic helmets, and ammunition.

c. In July and August 2020, Lady Capital made

approximately $20,000 in payments from the Chase Account to a

law firm which, according to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,

filed trademark requests on behalf of Lady Capital for multiple

entities, with Lady Capital listed as the applicant. The

trademark applications were for, among other things, Lady

Pictures, Capital Adventures, and Digital Army.

d. Finally, between June 2020 and April 2021, LEON

withdrew over $126,500 in cash.

D. February 2021: SCHOEPFLIN Made False Statements to
Apply for a $150,000 EIDL for Digital Army
Nevada Secretary of State records show the following:

a. Digital Army was incorporated on September 23,

2020, listing the Tropicana Address as the mailing address.

22
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 24 of 46 Page ID #:24

b. The “For God and Country Trust” was listed as the

Manager until February 2, 2021 (the date of the EIDL Loan

application), when SCHOEPFLIN was listed as the Manager. On

August 10, 2021, the Manager was changed to “Sean Fitzgerald.”

c. The registered agent is Nevada State Filing

Services LLC, which is run by J.V.W.

d. The address listed is 3419 Via Lido, Newport

Beach, CA 92663, which is the same address, minus the apartment

number, that SCHOEPFLIN provided to Beverly Hills police

officers as his residential address when he was stopped for a

traffic violation in October 2020. The address is a known

commercial-mail-receiving agency, where SCHOEPFLIN rented a Post

Office box.
California Secretary of State records show Digital

Army was incorporated in California on October 2, 2020.

Digital Army’s website describes the company as “a

group of ‘digital soldiers’ . . . [i]nspired by messages

published by online truth-seekers . . . Furthermore, we have
worked alongside the great awakening developing 15+ brands . . .

Ownership of all brands will be chosen from our community of

digital soldiers.” The website features imagery including

bullet holes in logos of large mainstream media and other

corporations.

SBA records show the following:

a. On February 2, 2021, an application was submitted

on behalf of Digital Army via the SBA’s online portal for an

EIDL of $150,000. The listed business email address was

23
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 25 of 46 Page ID #:25

Digitalarmy702@gmail.com, which Google records show was created

that same day, and was registered to SCHOEPFLIN and linked to

SCHOEPFLIN’s Capital Adventures email account. According to Cox

Communications, the IP address for the computer from which

Digital Army’s application was submitted to the online portal

was registered to J.V.W.’s company, Nevada Legal Forms, at the

Tropicana Address.

b. The application required the company

representative to provide his or her name and Social Security

Number. On Digital Army’s application, the listed name was SEAN

SCHOEPFLIN II and the listed Social Security Number was

SCHOEPFLIN’s Social Security Number.

c. The address listed on the application was the

street address for the Tropicana Address, but listed Suite G

instead of Suite H. SCHOEFPLIN also listed his “residential

street address” as the Newport Beach commercial-mail-receiving

agency described above.

d. The application listed a bank account number for

Digital Army for an account with Bank of America.

e. The application required the applicant to check a

box certifying under penalty of perjury that the information in

the application was true and correct. The application also

included a warning that “any false statement or

misrepresentation to SBA may result in criminal, civil or

administrative sanctions including, but not limited to . . .

fines and imprisonment, or both.”

24
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 26 of 46 Page ID #:26

As detailed below, based on my review of the EIDL

application, as well as bank records, law enforcement databases,

Google records, and information provided by other law

enforcement officers, SCHOEPFLIN appears to have made at least

three false statements in connection with the EIDL loan

application for Digital Army.

1. False Statement One: Digital Army Was
Incorporated in February 2019

According to SBA records, in Digital Army’s EIDL

application, SCHOEPFLIN stated that Digital Army was established

on February 1, 2019.

According to the SBA, to be eligible for an EIDL, a

company was required to have been created prior to January 31,

2020. As set forth above, Nevada Secretary of State records

show that Digital Army was incorporated in September 2020.

Furthermore, according to the SBA, IRS records show that Digital

Army did not file any tax return for 2019.

Digital Army’s EIDL application listed its bank

account number with Bank of America. According to records
provided by Bank of America, Digital Army first opened that bank

account on the date of the EIDL application February 2021 with a

deposit of $100. There was one deposit of $60 in May 2021, and

a few minor withdrawals. As of June 30, 2021, the balance on

the account was $42.06. The FBI was unable to find evidence of

any other accounts associated with Digital Army.

25
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 27 of 46 Page ID #:27

On February 10, 2021, the SBA sent SCHOEPFLIN a letter

stating that the EIDL application was declined because the

“business started in 2020 and 2021 and is ineligible.”

On February 11, 2021, according to SBA records,

SCHOEPFLIN called the SBA and inquired about submitting a

request to the SBA to reconsider the application. The SBA

representative provided SCHOEPFLIN an email address to which he

could submit a reconsideration request and advised SCHOEPFLIN to

provide new information and documentation to overcome the

declination, including a signed and scanned IRS 4506-T, Disaster

Request for Transcript of Tax Return. The IRS form 4506-T is a

form authorizing the SBA to request tax returns from years

authorized. By providing that form to the SBA, SCHOEPFLIN

authorized the SBA to seek returns filed by Digital Army.

According to the SBA, the IRS reported that it did not find tax

returns for Digital Army for 2018 or 2019.

In March 2021, SBA processed SCHOEPFLIN’s request for

reconsideration of the EIDL for Digital Army, which included
supporting documentation such as a 2019 Form 1120S, a scanned

copy of SCHOEPFLIN’s driver’s license, an unsigned IRS Form 1065

Return of Partnership Income, an SBA Form 2202-Schedule of

Liabilities, and an IRS Form 4506T that allowed the SBA to

request tax documentation from the IRS. The unsigned Form 1065

listed an incorrect Employer Identification Number (“EIN”) (86-

1285049 instead of 1825049), stated that Digital Army was formed

on January 10, 2019 (not the February 1, 2019 date listed on the

26
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 28 of 46 Page ID #:28

application), and stated that it had $535,136 in gross receipts

or sales in 2019.
According to Google records, the unsigned 2019 IRS

Form 1065 was not created until on or after February 12, 2021,

when J.V.W. provided a tax preparer the information used to

populate the form.

In May 2021, according to SBA records, after the SBA

informed SCHOEPFLIN that it had been unable to obtain from the

IRS any tax returns filed by Digital Army, SCHOEPFLIN replied

that his accountant had inadvertently flipped two numbers on the

EIN, and SCHOEPFLIN submitted to the SBA a corrected (unsigned)

tax return containing the correct EIN. The SBA again sought to

obtain IRS records associated with the revised EIN and again

received a response from the IRS that no return had been filed

with the IRS under that EIN.

2. False Statement Two: Digital Army Had Six
Employees

According to SBA records, SCHOEPFLIN stated on the

EIDL application that Digital Army had six employees as of
January 31, 2020.

Based on my and other agents’ review of IRS records

and records provided by the Nevada Development of Employment,

Training, and Rehabilitation and the California Employment

Development Department, none of those entities has any records

indicating that Digital Army has ever had any listed employees,

paid any payroll taxes, or filed any documentation such as W-2

forms indicating that it had any employees.

27
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 29 of 46 Page ID #:29

Furthermore, as noted above, based on my review of

records provided by Bank of America, Digital Army’s bank account

was not created until February 2021. Accordingly, no bank

records exist documenting payment of any expenditures, such as

employee salaries, for 2019 (or any other year).

3. False Statement Three: Digital Army Had $535,156
in Sales in 2019

According to SBA records, in Digital Army’s EIDL

application, SCHOEPFLIN stated that Digital Army had revenues of

$535,000 in the 12-month period of February 1, 2019 to January

31, 2020.

On March 15, 2021, as set forth above, SCHOEPFLIN sent

the SBA an unsigned 2019 IRS Form 1065 for Digital Army. That

form stated that Digital Army had gross sales in 2019 of

$535,156.

As noted above, Bank of America records show Digital

Army’s bank account was not created until February 2021. From

February until June 30, 2021, there was one deposit of $60 and

withdrawals from gas stations and local markets. FBI agents
were unable to find any bank records documenting any bank

accounts or revenues for Digital Army in 2019 (or any other

year).

E. February 2021: LEON Made False Statements to Apply for
an EIDL for Lady Pictures

Nevada Secretary of State records show the following:

a. Lady Pictures was incorporated on July 8, 2020.

The listed address was the Tropicana Address with Suite G

instead of Suite H.

28
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 30 of 46 Page ID #:30

b. LEON was listed as the Manager. No other names

were listed in the incorporation documentation.
According to California Secretary of State records,

Lady Pictures has never been incorporated in California.

Chase records show Lady Pictures opened a bank account

on January 11, 2021 with a deposit of $100. The bank account

received no deposits before being closed in February 2021.

FBI special agents also reviewed Bank of America

records associated with Lady Pictures. On March 12, 2021, a

Bank of America account was opened for Lady Pictures with a

deposit of $100. The only activity on the account was service

fees of $16/month beginning in June 2021. As of January 31,

2022, the account had a negative balance of $28.00.

FBI agents were unable to find any bank records

documenting any other bank accounts or revenues for Lady

Pictures in 2019 (or any other year).

SBA records show the following:

a. On February 17, 2021, an application was
submitted on behalf of Lady Pictures via the SBA’s online portal

for an EIDL of $150,000. The listed business email address was

Ladypicturesceo@gmail.com, which Google records show was created

that same day and is registered to LEON. According to records

from the SBA and Cox Communications, the IP address for the

computer from which Lady Pictures’ application was submitted to

the online portal was registered to J.V.W.’s company, Nevada

Legal Forms, at the Tropicana Address.

29
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 31 of 46 Page ID #:31

b. The application required the company

representative to provide his or her name and Social Security

Number. On Lady Pictures’ application, the listed name was LEON

and the listed Social Security Number was LEON’s.

c. The address listed on the application was the

Tropicana Address, with Suite G instead of Suite H. LEON’s

residential street address was listed as the Tropicana Address,

also with Suite G instead of Suite H.

d. The application listed a bank account number for

Lady Pictures for a bank account with JP Morgan Chase bank.

e. The application required the applicant to check a

box certifying under penalty of perjury that the information in

the application was true and correct. The application also

included a warning that “any false statement or

misrepresentation to SBA may result in criminal, civil or

administrative sanctions including, but not limited to . . .

fines and imprisonment, or both.”
As detailed below, based on my review of the EIDL
application, as well as bank records, law enforcement databases,

Google records, and information provided by other law

enforcement officers, LEON appears to have made at least three

false statements in connection with the EIDL loan application

for Lady Pictures.

30
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 32 of 46 Page ID #:32

1. False Statement One: Lady Pictures Was
Incorporated in February 2019
According to SBA records, in Lady Pictures’ EIDL

application, LEON stated that Lady Pictures was established on

April 1, 2019.

As stated above, according to the SBA, to be eligible

for an EIDL, a company was required to have been created prior

to January 31, 2020. Because Nevada Secretary of State records

showed that Lady Pictures was formed in July 2020, on February

18, 2021, according to SBA records, the SBA informed LEON via

telephone that the EIDL application for Lady Pictures would be

denied, and that if LEON wanted the SBA to reconsider the

application, she could submit a letter of reconsideration.

According to Google records, on February 19, 2021,

J.V.W. sent an email to SCHOEPFLIN directing him to email “Tina”

a list of financial numbers, to include “Total Income generated”

of $402,366.00. SCHOEPFLIN forwarded the email to his tax

preparer, A.M., on February 26, 2021. A.M. responded the same

day with an IRS Form 1065 for Lady Pictures, listing the date

the business started as February 1, 2019 (not the April 1, 2019

date listed on the application) and gross receipts for 2019 of

$402,366.

On February 26, 2021, LEON submitted a request to SBA

for reconsideration. In support of that request, in March 2021,

LEON emailed the SBA an SBA Form 2202 – Schedule of Liabilities,

and the unsigned IRS Form 1065 for Lady Pictures for 2019 that

J.V.W. and A.M. prepared for her in February 2021. The IRS form

31
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 33 of 46 Page ID #:33

stated that Lady Pictures was formed on February 1, 2019 and had

gross receipts for 2019 of $402,366. LEON also provided the SBA

an IRS Form 4506-T for Lady Pictures for tax years 2017, 2018,

and 2019.
According to the SBA, the SBA requested tax records

from the IRS and the RIS responded that it had no record of Lady

Pictures filing the Form 1065 or any other tax returns for any

year.

According to the SBA, on March 30, 2021, the SBA sent

LEON a declination letter to the reconsideration request,

stating, “[d]uring the loan underwriting process there were one

or more items that were reviewed that caused the SBA to question

the validity of certain information you submitted as part of

your application.”

2. False Statement Two: Lady Pictures Had Six
Employees

According to SBA records, LEON stated on the EIDL

application that Lady Pictures had six employees as of January

31, 2020.

Based on my and other agents’ review of IRS records

and records provided by the Nevada Development of Employment,

Training, and Rehabilitation and the California Employment

Development Department, none of those entities has any records

indicating that Lady Pictures has ever had any listed employees,

paid any payroll taxes, or filed any documentation such as W-2

forms indicating that it had any employees.

32
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 34 of 46 Page ID #:34

Furthermore, as noted above, based on my review of

bank records, Lady Pictures’ bank account was not created until

January 2021. Accordingly, no bank records exist documenting

payment of any expenditures, such as employee salaries, for 2019

(or any other year).

3. False Statement Three: Lady Capital Had $436,200
in Revenue

According to SBA records, in Lady Pictures’ EIDL

application, LEON stated that Lady Pictures had $436,200 in

gross revenue in the 12-month period of February 1, 2019 to

January 31, 2020.

On March 17, 2021, as set forth above, LEON sent the

SBA an unsigned 2019 IRS Form 1065 for Lady Pictures. That form

stated that Lady Pictures had gross sales in 2019 of $402,366.

As set forth above, however, Lady Pictures was first

incorporated in July 2020, first opened a bank account in

January 2021 with a deposit of $100, filed no tax forms for the

year 2019, and does not appear to have had any bank accounts,

operations, or revenues in 2019.

F. April-October 2021: SCHOEPFLIN Made False Statements
to Apply for a $350,000 EIDL Increase for Capital
Adventures

According to SBA records, on April 7, 2021, SCHOEPFLIN

sent an email to the SBA requesting an increase in Capital

Adventures’ EIDL from $150,000 to $500,000.

On April 22, 2021, SBA records show that SCHOEPFLIN

provided the SBA an IRS Form 4506-T, Disaster Request for

33
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 35 of 46 Page ID #:35

Transcript of Tax Return for Capital Adventures for tax years

2018 and 2019 to support his request for an increased EIDL.
According to the SBA, the IRS responded that Capital

Adventures did not file taxes at all in 2018 or 2019. On June

23, 2021, the IRS reported to the SBA that for tax years 2018

and 2019, the IRS had “No record of return filed” for Capital

Adventures.

On July 2, 2021, the SBA sent a letter to SCHOEPFLIN,

stating “there were one or more items that were reviewed that

caused the SBA to question the validity of certain information

you submitted as part of your application.”

According to the SBA, on October 1, 2021, SCHOEFPLIN

contacted the SBA to request reconsideration of the declined

increased request. Shortly thereafter, SCHOEFPLIN also sent in

a signed Form 1120 for 2019, stamped by the IRS on July 30,

2021. The IRS form appears to contain the same information as

the unsigned Form 1120 that SCHOEPFLIN submitted in June 2020,

as discussed above. The IRS form stated, among other things,

that Capital Adventures revenues in 2019 were $625,112. As set

forth above, however, bank records show that between February

2018 and April 2020, Capital Adventures’ bank accounts had total

deposits of only approximately $35,000.

On November 1, 2021, SCHOEPFLIN again contacted the

SBA via email, stating, “I would like to request a

reconsideration for loan increase. Additionally, we were

informed we may qualify for an increase up to $2,000,000. If

34
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 36 of 46 Page ID #:36

that is accurate information, we would like to apply for that

increase and sincerely appreciate its offer . . . .”

G. April-October 2021: LEON Made False Statements to
Apply for a $350,000 EIDL Increase for Lady Capital
According to SBA records, on April 11, 2021, Lady

Capital submitted a request for an increase in its EIDL from

$150,000 to $500,000.

On July 2, 2021 the SBA declined the loan increase for

Lady Capital. According to SBA records, the SBA declined the

loan increase after requesting information from IRS regarding

Lady Capital’s tax filings, and receiving a response from the

IRS that it had no records of any tax returns filed by Lady

Capital.

On July 2, 2021, the SBA sent a declination letter for

the loan increase, stating, “[t]he SBA has been unable to verify

the existence of an eligible business as reflected in the

application. The SBA has been unsuccessful in our attempts to

obtain documentation from multiple sources (public records) and

we attempted to obtain documentation from you that would

validate the existence of your business.”

According to IRS records, in August 2021, Lady Capital

submitted an IRS Form 1120 for the year 2019. In that form,

Lady Capital stated that it was incorporated on August 24, 2018,

and had gross receipts or sales in 2019 of $401,112.

According to SBA records, on October 25, 2021, LEON

submitted that Form 1120 to the SBA in support of her request

for an EIDL increase for Lady Capital. As set forth above,

35
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 37 of 46 Page ID #:37

Nevada Secretary of State records show that Lady Capital was

incorporated on August 24, 2019, not August 2018, and bank

records show that Lady Capital’s account was opened in September

2019 with a deposit of $1,500 and received no additional

deposits between September 2019 and April 2020.

H. January 2022: SCHOEPFLIN Acknowledged That He
Submitted the EIDL Applications for Capital Adventures
and Digital Army and Affirmed the Statements in Those
Applications
On January 21, 2022, SCHOEPFLIN participated in a

recorded phone call with an individual he believed to be a

representative of the SBA, but who was in fact an undercover

agent working for the FBI (the “UC”). During the call,

SCHOEPFLIN confirmed that he was the person who completed the

EIDL application for Capital Adventures in April 2020, who

signed the loan authorization agreement in June 2020, and who

requested the EIDL increase in April 2021. SCHOEPFLIN also said

that the representations he made both on the original EIDL

application and in requesting an EIDL increase, namely, that

Capital Adventures had six employees and roughly $560,000 in

revenues in 2019 and would use the EIDL for working capital,

were accurate. SCHOEPFLIN also said that Capital Adventures had

no other bank accounts beyond the Bank of America account listed

on the original EIDL application. While answering questions

regarding his EIDL application, SCHOEPFLIN also indicated that

he was reviewing certain loan related documents in his

possession at the time of the call. SCHOEPFLIN also told the UC

that he was in the process of compiling reports concerning his

36
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 38 of 46 Page ID #:38

business’s past activities, including those related to its

inventory and assets.
During that call, SCHOEPFLIN also confirmed that he

was the person who submitted the EIDL application for Digital

Army in February 2021, and that the statements in that

application were accurate.

On November 29, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge

Karen L. Stevenson issued a warrant for cell-site location data

for SCHOEPFLIN and LEON’s phone numbers. Cell-site location

data for SCHOEPFLIN’s phone shows that it communicated with a

cell phone tower in the area in which the SUBJECT PREMESIS is

located during the call with the FBI UC.

I. January 2022: LEON Acknowledged That She Submitted the
EIDL Applications for Lady Capital and Lady Pictures
and Affirmed the Statements in Those Applications

On January 12, 2022, LEON participated in a recorded

phone call with an individual she believed to be a

representative of the SBA, but who was in fact the UC. At the

time of the call, cell-site location data shows that LEON’s cell

phone communicated with a cell phone tower in the area in which

the SUBJECT PREMESIS is located during the call.

During the call, LEON confirmed that she was the

person who completed the EIDL application for Lady Capital in

April 2020, who signed the loan authorization agreement in June

2020, and who requested the EIDL increase in April 2021. LEON

said that no one else assisted her with her EIDL application.

LEON said that the representations she made both on the original

EIDL application and in requesting an EIDL increase, namely,

37
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 39 of 46 Page ID #:39

that Lady Capital had four employees and roughly $485,000 in

revenues in 2019 and would use the EIDL for working capital,

were accurate. LEON also said that Lady Capital had used two

bank accounts, the Chase Account and the Navy Federal Credit

Union account, both of which are discussed above. LEON did not

identify any other bank accounts that Lady Capital had used.
LEON further said that since submitting the EIDL

application in April 2020, Lady Capital had hired two additional

employees in Nevada, and requested an EIDL increase to $2

million.

LEON similarly confirmed that she was the person who

completed the EIDL application for Lady Pictures in February

2021. LEON said that the representations she made in that

application were accurate.

LEON further said that her residence continued to be

the Diamond Bar residence listed in the EIDL application, even

though she in fact had sold that house in approximately June

2021. LEON expressed interest in reconsideration for the LADY

PICTURES EIDL loan. LEON confirmed that the statements in her

EIDL application for LADY PICTURES were accurate.

J. Investigation of the SUBJECT PREMISES

According to public Internet searches, LEON sold the

Diamond Bar residence in June 2021. According to Google

records, leasing records, and an interview with the property

manager, on June 26, 2021, Leon applied to rent the SUBJECT

PREMESIS, with a move in date of July 1, 2021.

38
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 40 of 46 Page ID #:40

According to information provided by the property

management company for the SUBJECT PREMISES, LEON provided that

company with both her personal bank statements and statements

from Lady Capital to verify her income, and stated that she had

100% ownership in the company. On June 30, 2021, LEON signed

the lease agreement, which is due to expire on September 29,

2022. SCHOEPFLIN was not listed on the documents.

I and another FBI Special Agent interviewed multiple

employees who work at the SUBJECT PREMISES, and they recognized

SCHOEPFLIN from his California Department of Motor Vehicles

photographs as the person who lived at the SUBJECT PREMISES

along with LEON.

In October 2021, I and other FBI Special Agents

encountered SCHOEPFLIN exiting the elevator on floor PH2, the

floor where the SUBJECT PREMESIS is located. According to the

property manager, there is only one other apartment on the

floor.

On November 29, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge
Karen L. Stevenson issued a warrant for cell-site location data

for the phone numbers that LEON and SCHOEPFLIN listed on their

EIDL applications, which are the same phone numbers at which the

FBI UC contacted LEON and SCHOEPFLIN in February 2022, as

discussed above. Cell-site location data for those phones shows

that both phones have regularly communicated with cell phone

towers in the area in which the SUBJECT PREMESIS is located,

including during the calls with the FBI UC in January 2022, and

regularly in the late evening and early morning hours, further

39
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 41 of 46 Page ID #:41

indicating that both LEON and SCHOEPFLIN are residing at the

SUBJECT PREMISES and possess there the digital devices that they

used in furtherance of the fraudulent schemes discussed herein.
According to Charter Communications, Lady Capital,

with the email address LEON provided for the Lady Capital EIDL

application, was the subscriber of the Internet service being

provided at the SUBJECT PREMESIS. The billing address was

listed as the Newport Beach commercial mail receiving agency

that SCHOEPFLIN listed on various documents, as noted above.

TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE ON DIGITAL DEVICES 1

Based on my training, experience, and information from

those involved in the forensic examination of digital devices, I

know that the following electronic evidence, inter alia, is

often retrievable from digital devices:

a. Forensic methods may uncover electronic files or

remnants of such files months or even years after the files have

been downloaded, deleted, or viewed via the Internet. Normally,

when a person deletes a file on a computer, the data contained

in the file does not disappear; rather, the data remain on the

hard drive until overwritten by new data, which may only occur

after a long period of time. Similarly, files viewed on the

1 As used herein, the term “digital device” includes any
electronic system or device capable of storing or processing
data in digital form, including central processing units;
desktop, laptop, notebook, and tablet computers; personal
digital assistants; wireless communication devices, such as
paging devices, mobile telephones, and smart phones; digital
cameras; gaming consoles; peripheral input/output devices, such
as keyboards, printers, scanners, monitors, and drives; related
communications devices, such as modems, routers, cables, and
connections; storage media; and security devices.

40
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 42 of 46 Page ID #:42

Internet are often automatically downloaded into a temporary

directory or cache that are only overwritten as they are

replaced with more recently downloaded or viewed content and may

also be recoverable months or years later.

b. Digital devices often contain electronic evidence

related to a crime, the device’s user, or the existence of

evidence in other locations, such as, how the device has been

used, what it has been used for, who has used it, and who has

been responsible for creating or maintaining records, documents,

programs, applications, and materials on the device. That

evidence is often stored in logs and other artifacts that are

not kept in places where the user stores files, and in places

where the user may be unaware of them. For example, recoverable

data can include evidence of deleted or edited files; recently

used tasks and processes; online nicknames and passwords in the

form of configuration data stored by browser, e-mail, and chat

programs; attachment of other devices; times the device was in

use; and file creation dates and sequence.

c. The absence of data on a digital device may be

evidence of how the device was used, what it was used for, and

who used it. For example, showing the absence of certain

software on a device may be necessary to rebut a claim that the

device was being controlled remotely by such software.

d. Digital device users can also attempt to conceal

data by using encryption, steganography, or by using misleading

filenames and extensions. Digital devices may also contain

“booby traps” that destroy or alter data if certain procedures

41
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 43 of 46 Page ID #:43

are not scrupulously followed. Law enforcement continuously

develops and acquires new methods of decryption, even for

devices or data that cannot currently be decrypted.
Based on my training, experience, and information from

those involved in the forensic examination of digital devices, I

know that it is not always possible to search devices for data

during a search of the premises for a number of reasons,

including the following:

a. Digital data are particularly vulnerable to

inadvertent or intentional modification or destruction. Thus,

often a controlled environment with specially trained personnel

may be necessary to maintain the integrity of and to conduct a

complete and accurate analysis of data on digital devices, which

may take substantial time, particularly as to the categories of

electronic evidence referenced above. Also, there are now so

many types of digital devices and programs that it is difficult

to bring to a search site all of the specialized manuals,

equipment, and personnel that may be required.

b. Digital devices capable of storing multiple

gigabytes are now commonplace. As an example of the amount of

data this equates to, one gigabyte can store close to 19,000

average file size (300kb) Word documents, or 614 photos with an

average size of 1.5MB.

The search warrant requests authorization to use the

biometric unlock features of a device, based on the following,

which I know from my training, experience, and review of

publicly available materials:

42
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 44 of 46 Page ID #:44

a. Users may enable a biometric unlock function on

some digital devices. To use this function, a user generally

displays a physical feature, such as a fingerprint, face, or

eye, and the device will automatically unlock if that physical

feature matches one the user has stored on the device. To

unlock a device enabled with a fingerprint unlock function, a

user places one or more of the user’s fingers on a device’s

fingerprint scanner for approximately one second. To unlock a

device enabled with a facial, retina, or iris recognition

function, the user holds the device in front of the user’s face

with the user’s eyes open for approximately one second.

b. In some circumstances, a biometric unlock

function will not unlock a device even if enabled, such as when

a device has been restarted or inactive, has not been unlocked

for a certain period of time (often 48 hours or less), or after

a certain number of unsuccessful unlock attempts. Thus, the

opportunity to use a biometric unlock function even on an

enabled device may exist for only a short time. I do not know

the passcodes of the devices likely to be found in the search.

c. Thus, the warrant I am applying for would permit

law enforcement personnel to, with respect to any device that

appears to have a biometric sensor and falls within the scope of

the warrant: (1) depress SCHOEPFLIN’s or LEON’s thumb and/or

fingers on the device(s); and (2) hold the device(s) in front of

SCHOEPFLIN’s or LEON’s face with his or her eyes open to

activate the facial-, iris-, and/or retina-recognition feature.

43
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 45 of 46 Page ID #:45

VI. REQUEST FOR SEALING
It is respectfully requested that this Court issue an

order sealing, until further order of the Court, all papers

submitted in support of these applications, including the

application and the complaint and search warrant affidavit. I

believe that sealing is necessary because the items and

information to be seized is relevant to an ongoing investigation

into criminal conduct involving SCHOEPFLIN and LEON who are

unaware that they are being investigated. In addition, some of

their suspected criminal activity was facilitated by additional

persons and businesses located in Nevada. Disclosure of the

complaint and search warrant affidavit at this time would

seriously jeopardize the investigation, as such disclosure may

provide an opportunity to destroy evidence, change patterns of

behavior, or allow flight from prosecution. Premature

disclosure of the contents of this affidavit and related

documents may have a significant and negative impact on this

continuing investigation and may severely jeopardize its

effectiveness.

VII. CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons described above, there is

probable cause to believe that SCHOEPFLIN and LEON have

committed a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

1343 (Wire Fraud). There is also probable cause that the items

to be seized described in Attachment B will be found in a search

44
Case 2:22-cr-00121-FMO Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 46 of 46 Page ID #:46

of the SUBJECT PREMISES described in Attachment A-1, and on the

person of SCHOEPFLIN and LEON as described in Attachments A-2

and A-3.

Attested to by the applicant in
accordance with the requirements
of Fed. R. Crim. P. 4.1 by
telephone on this ____
15th day of
March
_________, 2022.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

File and source

File: 1-complaint.pdf
Size: 555,602 bytes
SHA-256: b311bcb2c09c99793c422d43602006249ae7add199158a82aa3879c300c8cf60
Our copy: 1-complaint.pdf
Original: archive.org