Plea and Forfeiture Agreement — United States v. Manfred A. Pentzke Lemus (D.P.R., Dkt. 252)

Summary

Plea and Forfeiture Agreement, filed September 24, 2024 as Document 252 in Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC, United States of America v. Manfred A. Pentzke Lemus, District of Puerto Rico. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Counts One and Twenty-One of the Indictment. Count One charges a conspiracy to defraud the Small Business Administration and a bank by wire communications (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and Count Twenty-One charges a conspiracy involving financial transactions under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 1957. The maximum imprisonment stated is 30 years for Count One and 20 years for Count Twenty-One. The parties agree that the defendant is responsible for $2,552,381.73 in restitution, which they say is a matter for the Court, and agree to request a sentence within the Guidelines range at a total offense level of 28.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Plea and Forfeiture Agreement — United States v. Manfred A. Pentzke Lemus (D.P.R., Dkt. 252).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-d-p-r-no-3-23-cr-00130-dkt-252-d-p-r-6bea67f25b/, SHA-256 7a8444d483eb838caf38946647604bc38fd615b39367d598d99313db534f73ad.

Full text

Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 1 of 20
U.S.v.[l]ManfTedA.pentzks;Lemus,23^l36.(Al3C^/ L, }

V." U^
EST THE XJNTTED STATES DISTRICT COUSif'^f CL^^?^,^^
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO I S^v ' • ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NOi 23-130 (ADC)
Plaintiff, "^ 7/3_^?i'n,C-- ,-.r..^.
^;' .1^, ".^••''

[1] MANFRED A. PENTZKE LEMUS, aka
"Man", "Contable", "ElGestor",
Defendant.

PLEA AND FORFEITURE AGREEMENT

^
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

The United States of America, Defendant, Manfred A. Pentzke Lemus, and .

Defendant's counsel, Carlos J. Sagardla Abreu, Esq., pursuant to Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 11, state that they have reached a Plea Agreement, the terms and

conditions of which are as follows:

1. Charges to which Defendant will Plead Guilty
cr/
Defendant agrees to plead guilty to Counts One and Twenty-One of the

Indictment:

Count One:

From on or about April 2020, through March 30,2023, in the District of

Puerto Rico, and elsewhere, defendant [1] Manfred A. Pentzke Lemus did

knowingly a.nd intentionally combine, conspire, confederate and agree to devise a

scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money and property from the United

States Small Business Administration and Bank I, by means of false and fraudulent

USAO-DPR-PIea Agreement Page | 1
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 2 of 20
US.v.[I]ManftedA.PenEAeLemus.23-130(ADC)

pretenses, representations and promises; and for the purpose of executing the scheme

and artifice, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire

communications in interstate commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and

sounds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

Count Twentv-One:

Beginmng no later than in or around April 2020 and coatmuing until March

30, 2023, in Puerto Rico, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the

defendant [1] Manfred A. Pentzke Lemus knowingly conspired with others to

commit offenses against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 1957,

to wit:

® to knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct financial
transactions involving the proceeds of specified unlawful
activity, that is, wire fraud, lcnowing the transactions were

cTJr designed in whole and in part to conceal the nature,
location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of
specified unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956
(a)(l)(BXi);and
® to knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct financial
transactions involving the proceeds of specified unlawful
activity, that is, wire fraud, knowing the property involved
in the financial transactions represented the proceeds of
some form of unlawful activity with the intent to promote
the carrying on of specified unlawful activity, that is, wire
fraud, m violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(lXA)(i); and

® to knowingly engage and attempt to engage in monetary
transactions in criminally derived property of a value
greater than $10,000, such property having been derived
from a specified unlawful activity, that is, wire fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C $ 1957.

USAO-DPR-Plea Agreement page j 2
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 3 of 20
U.S, v. [I] Manfred A. Pcntzkc Lemus. 23-130 (ADC)

2. Maximum Penalties

Count One: The maximum statutory penalty for the offense charged in Count

One oftfae Indictment is a term of imprisonment of 30 years and a fine not to exceed

$1 million dollars pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and a supervised release tenn of not

more than five years, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(l).

Count Twentv-One: The maximum statutory penalty for the ofFense charged

in Twenty-One of the Indictment is a term of imprisonment of 20 years, a fine not to

exceed $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved m the transaction,

whichever is greater, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § l956(a), a supervised release term of

not more than three years pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), and a civil penalty not

to exceed the greater of the value of the property, funds, or monetary instruments

involved in the transaction or $10,000 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(bXl).
c-rr
3.

Defendant understands that the sentence -will be imposed by the Court m

accordance with 18 U.S.C §§ 3551-86, and the United States Sentencing GuideUnes

(hereinafter "GuideUnes"), which are advisory pursuant to the United States

Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, 543 US. 220 (2005). Further,

Defendant acknowledges that parole has been abolished, and that the imposition of

Defendants sentence may not be suspended.

USAO-DPR-Piea Agreement Page | 3
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 4 of 20
U.S, v. [1] Manfred A, Pentzke Lemus, 23-130 (ADC)

Defendant agrees to pay a special monetary assessment ("SMA") of one

hundred dollars ($100.00) per count of conviction. The SMA will be deposited m the

Crime Victim Fund, pursuant to 18 US.C. § 3013 (a)(2)(A).

5. Fines and Restitution

The Court may, pursuant to Section 5E1.2 of the Guidelines order Defendant

to pay a fine. The Court may also impose restitution. Defendant agrees to execute

and mafce available, prior to sentencing, a standardized financial statement (OBD

Form 500). The United States will advocate on behalf of any identified victim, and

comply with its obligations under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996.

The parties agree that Defendant is responsible for $2,552,381.73 in restitution. The

pardes agree, however, that restitution is a matter for the Court to decide.

6. Sentence to be Detenmaed by fhe Court

Defendant understands that the sentence to be imposed will be determined

solely by the United States District Judge. The United States cannot make and has

not made any promise or representation as to what sentence Defendant will receive.

Any discussions that the parties might have had about possible sentences are not

binding in any way on the Court, and do not constitute representations about what

the parties will seek^ or what the actual sentence will be.

USAO-DPR-PEea Agreemsnt Page [ 4
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 5 of 20
U.S. v. [!] Manfred A, Pcntzke Lemus.23-!30 (ADC)

7. Recommended Seiateacmg Guidelmes Calculations

After due consideration of the relevant factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), the United States and Defendant submit that the advisory Guidelines

calculations listed below apply to Defendant. However, Defendant acknowledges

that the Court is not required to accept those recommended Guidelines calculations.

SENTE1STCTNGGUIDELENES CALCULATIONS ' - •
Conuatl
18 XJ<SjC.§§ 1343,1349
Base Qffense_Level pursuant to U.S.S.G,§2Bl.l(a)(l) 7
Loss amount greater than $3.5 million pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§2BU(b)a)(J) +18
TOTAL OHFENSE LEVEL Fraud
25
- -SENTENCBSTG GUIDELINES CALCULATIONS
County!
18 US.C. §195601) _
JBase OffenseLevel pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Sl.l(a)(l) 25
Conviction under § 1956 US.S.G. § 2Sl.l(bX2)(B) ...+2

TOTAL OFFENSE LEVEL Money Lsimdermg 27
SEmENCmG ©CTDEtINES CALCULATIONS
Gronpmg Leatiership Acceptafflce
US.S.G. §§ 3D1.2(d) and 3D1.3(b)

crs Highest Offense Level Applies
27
Aggravating Role pursuant to U.S.S.G.§3Bl.l(a)
+4
Acceptance of Responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G.§3E1.1 -3

TOTAL ADJUSTED OFFENSE LEVEL 28
CH Cat. I CHCatH CHCatm CH Cat. IV CH Cat. V CH Cat. VI

78-97 87-108 97-121 110-137 130-162 140-175

USAO-DPR-PIea Agreement Page [ 5
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 6 of 20
U.S. v. [I] Manfrcd A. Penizke l-emus. 23-t30 (ADC)

8. Sentence Recomme&datioa

As to Counts One and Twenty-One, and after due consideration of the

relevant factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C § 3553(a), the parties agree to request a

sentence of imprisonment within the applicable Guidelines range at a total offense

level of 28 when combined with the criminal history category detennined by the

Court.

The parties agree that any recommendation by either party for a term of

imprisonment below or above the stipulated sentence recommendation will constitute

a material breach of the Plea Agreement.

9. No Stipalatioa as to Criminal Histoxy Categoiy

The pardes do not stipulate as to any Criminal History Category for

Defendant.

lO.Waiver of Appeal

Defendant knowingly and voluntarily agrees that, if the sentence imposed by

the Court is within or below the Guidelines range for the total offense level

c^ calculated in this Plea Agreement when combined with Defendant's criminal history

category as determined by the Court, Defendant waives the right to appeal any

aspect of this case's judgment and sentence, including, but not limited to the term of

imprisonment or probation, restitution, fines, forfeiture, and the term and conditions

of supervised release.

USAO-DPR-Plea Aareement Page I 6
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 7 of 20
U.S. v. [t] Manfted A. PentAe Lemus. 23-130 (ADC)

ll.No Farther Adjustments or Departures

The United States and Defendant agree that no farther adjustments or

departures to Defendant's total adjusted base offense level and no variant sentence

under 18 U.S.C. § 3553—other than any explicitly provided for in this Plea

Agreement—shall toe sought by Defendant. The parties agree that any request by

Defendant for an adjustment or departure that is not explicitly provided for in this

Plea Agreement will be considered a material breach of this Plea Agreement, and the

United States will be free to ask for any sentence, either guideline or statutory.

12. Satisfaction witfc Comase!

Defendant is satisfied with counsel, Carlos J. Sagardia Abreu, Esq. , and

asserts that counsel has rendered effective legal assistance.

13.Bights Sairendexed fey Defeadant TIiroisgfe Guiity Plea

Defendant understands that by entering into this Plea Agreement, Defendant

surrenders and waives certain rights as detailed in this agreement. Defendant

understands that the rights ofcrimmal defendants include the following:

a. If Defendant had persisted in a plea of not guilty to the charges,
Defendant would have had the right to a speedy jury trial with the
assistance of counsel. The trial may be conducted by a Judge sitting
without a jury if Defendant, the United States and the Judge agree.

b. If a jury trial is conducted, the jury would be composed of twelve lay
persons selected at random. Defendant and Defendant's attorney would
assist in selecting the Jurors by removing prospective jurors for cause
where actual bias or other disqualification is shown, or by removing
prospective jurors without CSLUSC by exercising peremptory challenges.
The jury would have to agree, unanimously, before it could return a
verdict of either guilty or not guilty. The jury would be instructed that

USAO-DPR-P3ea Agreement Page [ 7
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 8 of 20
U.S. v. [1] Manfrcd A. PemzkeLemus. 23-130 (ADC)

Defendant is presumed innocent, that it could not convict Defendant
unless, after hearing all the evidence, it was persuaded of Defendant's
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it was to consider each charge
separately.

c. If a trial is held by the judge without a jury, the judge would find the
facts and, after hearing all the evidence and considering each count
separately, determine whether or not the evidence established
Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

d. At a trial, tfae United States would be required to present its witnesses
and other evidence against Defendant. Defendant would be able to
confront those witnesses and Defendant's attorney would be able to
cross-examme them. In turn. Defendant could present witnesses and
other evidence on Defendant's own behalf. If the witnesses for
Defendant would not appear voluntarily^ Defendant could require their
attendance through the subpoena power of the Court.

e. At a trial, Defendant could rely on the privilege against self-
uicrimination to decline to testify, and no inference ofguUt could be
drawn from Defendant's refusal to testify. If Defendant desired to do so,
Defendant could testify on Defendant's own behalf.

U.Stipulation of Facts

The accompanying Stipulation of Facts signed by Defendant is hereby

incorporated into this Plea Agreement. Defendant adopts the Stipulation of Pacts

and agrees that the facts therein are accurate in every respect. Defendant agrees and

CTI accepts that had the matter proceeded to trial, the United States would have proven

those facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

This Plea Agreement binds only the United States Attorney's Office for the

District of Puerto Rico and Defendant It does not bind any other federal district,

state, or local authorities.

USAO-DPR-Pfea Agreement page f 8
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 9 of 20
U.S. v. [t] ManfrodA. Pentzke Lemus, 23-130 (ADC)

This written agreement constitutes the complete Plea Agreement between the

United States, Defendant, and Defendant's counsel. The United States has made no

promises or representations except as set forth in writing in this Plea Agreement and

denies the existence of any other terms and conditions not stated herein.

IP.Amesdments to PIeaAgreemesEt

No other promises, terms or conditions will be entered into between the

parties unless they are in writing and signed by all parties.

IS.DismissaE ofBLeittaiuing Counts

At sentencing should there be any pending counts and should the Defendant

comply with the terms of this Plea Agreement, the United States will move to

dismiss the remamiag counts of the Indictment pending against Defendant in this

case.

Defendant acknowledges that no threats have been made against Defendant
cvl and that Defendant is pleading guilty freely and voluntarily because Defendant is

guilty.

Defendant agrees that defendant will have breached this Plea Agreement if,

after entering into this Plea Agreement, Defendant: (a) fails to perform or to fulfill

completely each and every one of Defendant's obligations under this Plea

USAO-DPR-PSea Agreement Page | 9
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 10 of 20
US. v, [3] Manfrcd A. Penfake Lemus, 23-130 (ADC)

Agreement; (b) engages in any criminal activity prior to sentencing; or (c) attempts to

withdraw Defendant's guilty plea. In the event of such a breach, the United States

will be free from its obligation under this Plea Agreement and Defendant will not

have the right to withdraw the guilty plea. Moreover, Defendant agrees that if

Defendant is in breach of the Plea Agreement, Defendant is deemed to have waived

any objection to the reinstatement of any charges under the Indictment, Information,

or complaint which may have previously been dismissed or which may have not

been previously prosecuted.

21.PoteatiaS Impact on Immigratioa Sta?s

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 1 l(b)(l)(0), Defendant

hereby agrees and recognizes that if convicted, a Defendant who is not a United

States citizen may be removed from the United States, denied citizenship, and denied

admission to the United States m the future.

22.FeSony Conviction

c^5 Defendant hereby agrees and recognizes that the plea of guilty in tfais case will

be recognized as a felony conviction, which will result m the loss of certain rights,

inchiding but not limited to the right to vote m a federal election^ to serve as a juror,

to hold public office, and to lawfully possess a &reaTm.

USAO-DPR-PIea Agreement Page | 10
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 11 of 20
U.S, v. [1] Manfred A. Pentzke Leraus, 23.130 (ADC)

23.Forfeitnre Provision

Defendant agrees to waive and forgo any interests or claims over all property,

real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to tile

offense of conviction charged in Count One of the Indictment, pursuant to Titie 18,

United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C), and Title 28, United States Code, Section

2461 (c), and all property, real or personal, involved in the oflfense of conviction

charged in Count Twenty-One of the Indictment, and any property traceable to such

property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(l), including the foUowing specific property:

s Oriental Bank Manager's Check ending in 7639 for the amount of

$4,200.00 seized from an account held in the name ofManfred Arno

Pentzke-Lemus;

» Oriental Bank Manager's Check ending in 7640 for the amount of

$242,920.91 seized from an account held m the name of Major Group

Inc.;

» Oriental Bank Manager's Check ending m 7641 for the amount of

c^ $11,950.58 seized from an account held in the name ofMGE LLC;

e Oriental Bank Manager's Check ending in 7642 for the amount of

$229,602.79 seized from an account held in the name of Social Club

LLC.

Defendant further agrees to waive all interest in any such asset in any

administrative or judicial forfeiture proceeding, whether criminal or civil, state or

USAO-DPR-PleB Agreement Page] 11
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 12 of 20
U.S. v. [I] Manfrcd A. Pcnt&s Lemus, 23.130 (ADC)

federal. Defendant agrees to consent to the entry of orders of forfeiture for such

property and waives the requirements of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2

and 43(a) regarding notice of the forfeiture in the charging instrument,

announcement of the forfeiture at sentencing, and mcoiporation of the forfeiture in

the judgment. Defendant acknowledges that the forfeiture of assets is part of the

sentence that may be imposed in this case and waives any failure by the court to

advise Defendant of this, pursuant to Rule 1 l(b)(l)(J), at the time Defendant's guilty

plea is accepted.

Defendant further agrees to waive all constinitional and statutory challenges in

any manner (including direct appeal, habeas corpus, or any other means) to any

forfeiture carried out in accordance with this Plea Agreement on any grounds,

including that the forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine or pmushment Defendant

agrees to talce all steps as requested by the United States to pass clear title to

forfeitable assets to the United States, and to testify truthftiUy in any judicial

forfeiture proceeding. Defendant acknowledges that all property covered by this

agreement is subject to forfeiture as proceeds of illegal conduct, giving rise to

forfeiture and/or substitute assets for property otherwise subject to forfeiture.

Defendant, by agreeing to the forfeiture stated above, acknowledges that such

forfeiture is not grossly disproportionate to fhe gravity of the offense conduct to

which Defendant is pleading guilty. Defendant agrees that the forfeiture provisions of

this Plea Agreement are intended to and wiU survive Defendant, notwithstanding the

USAO-DPR-PIea Agreement Page | 12
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 13 of 20
U.S. v. [1J Manfred A. Pentike Lemus, 23-130 (ADO

abatement of any underlying crimmal conviction after the execution of this

agreement.

The forfeitability of any particular property pursuant to this agreement shall be

detemiined as if Defendant had sumved, and tfaat determination shall be binding

upon Defendant's heirs, successors and assignees until the agreed forfeiture,

^
including any agreed money judgment, is collected in full.

W. Stephen Muldrow
United States attorney

^A^\\^
Myriairi^.t Fei^dez-Oor CaBOST Sagflfcy^A'tireu, Esq.
Assistant TO. A^omey Counsel^&rEfefendant
Chief, Asset ^cc/veiy& MeAey
Laundering Division

^Dat)
\.
/
^¥^.
Date
•^_« t/tj

CTjT -I
I,
1\-fc
)lmiihoi
^ ' ——-—"-
^ /^7^
Ma^fred A. Pentzke Lemus
Assistant corney Defendant

Date '/
^L7R^- /• r
^^4^ ^
Date-
/

USAO-DPR-Plea Agreement Page I 13
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 14 of 20
U,S, v. [1] Manired A. Pcntzite Lemus, 23-130 (ADQ

I have consulted with counsel and fully understand all of my rights as to the

charges pending against me. Further, I have consulted with my attorney and fuUy

understand my rights as to the provisions of the Guidelines that may apply in my

case. I have read this Plea Agreement and carefully reviewed every part of it with my

attorney. My counsel has translated the Plea Agreement to me in the Spanish

language and I have no doubts as to the contents of the agreement. I fully understand

this agreement and voluntarily agree to it.

Manfred A. Pentzke Lemus
Defendant

I am the attorney for Defendant. I have fully explained Defendant's rights to

Defendant with respect to the pending charges. Further, I have reviewed the

applicable provisions of the Guidelines and I have fully explained to Defendant the

provisions of those Guidelines &at may apply in this case. I have carefully reviewed

CT/ every part of this Plea Agreement with Defendant. I have translated the Plea

Agreement and explained it in the Spanish language to the Defendant who has

expressed having no doubts as to the contents of the agreement. To my knowledge,

Defendant is entering into this Plea Agreement voluntarily, intelligently^ and with

full knowledge of all consequences of Defendant's plea of guilty.

Date: ^ft^y f^S/1{
Carlos J.<Sas3fdia-Ai3^u
Counsel for Defendant

USAO-DPR-Plea Agreement Page | 14
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 15 of 20
U,S. v. [1] Manficd A. PentAe Lemns, 23.130 (ADC)

In conjunction with the submission of the accompanying Plea Agreement in

this case, the Defendant [1] Manfred A. Pentzke Lemus admits that Defendant is

guilty as charged in Counts One and Twenty-One of the Indictment and admits the

following:

From on or about April 2020, through March 30, 2023, in the District of

Puerto Rico, and elsewhere, defendant [1] Manfred A. Pentzke Lemus:

1. did knowingly and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate and

agree to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money and property

from the United States Small Business Administration and Bank 1, by means of false

and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises; and for the purpose of

executing the scheme and artifice, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means

of wire communications in interstate commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures,

and sounds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and

2. knowingly conspired with others to commit offenses against the United

States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956, mcluding:

® to knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct financial
transactions involving the proceeds of specified unlawful
activity, that is, wire fraud, knowing the transactions were
designed in whole and in part to conceal the nature,
location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of
specified unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § Z956
(a)(l)(B)(i); and
® to lcnowingly conduct and attempt to conduct financial
transactions involving the proceeds of specified unlawful
activity, that is, wire fraud, knowing the property involved

USAO-DPR-Plea Agreement Page | 15
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 16 of 20
U.S. v, [i] Manfred A, Penizkc Lemus. 23-130 (ADC)

in the financial transactions represented the proceeds of
some form of unlawful activity with the intent to promote
the carrying on of specified unlawful activity, that is, wire
firaud, m violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(l)(A)(i); and

Specifically, Defendant was a principal orgamzer and leader of a conspiracy to

defraud the United States Small Business Administration by submittmg and causing

to be submitted false and fraudulent applications for COVID-19 relief funds issued

under the authority of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security

("CARES") Act. The CARES Act was a federal law enacted in early 2020 that was

intended to provide emergency financial assistance to Americans suffering the

economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The fraudulent scheme targeted two programs authorized under the CARES

Act: The Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") and Economic Injury Disaster Loan

("EIDL") program. As a result of the scheme^ 223 fraudulent PPP loans were

6}
processedt resulting in the disbursement of $5,915,290.33. The SBA also disbursed

$3,105,300 m EIDL funds as a result of the scheme.

PPP loans were forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and

certain other expenses. To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was required to

submit an application signed by an authorized representative of the busmess. The

application required the business to acknowledge the program rules and make certain

USAO-DPR-PIea Agreement Page | 16
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 17 of 20
U.S. v. [1J Manfred A. Pentike Lems, 23.130 (ADQ

affirmative certifications. The business was required to provide, among other

things, its average monthly payroll expenses and number of employees. These

figures were used to calculate the amount of money the business was eligible to

receive under PPP. In addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan were required to

provide documentation showing their payroll expenses.

PPP loan applications were processed by participating financial institutions.

If an application was approved, the participating lender funded the loan using its

own monies, which were 100% guaranteed by the SBA. Data from the application,

mcluding information about the borrower, the total amount of the loan, and the

listed number of employees, was transmitted by the lender to the SBA in processing

the loan.

PPP loan proceeds could only be used by fhe business on certain permissible

expenses, such as payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent and utilities. The PPP

allowed the interest and principal on the loan to be entirely forgiven if She business

spent the loan proceeds on the allowable expenses within a designated period and

^ used a certain percentage of the loan proceeds for payroll expenses.

EIDL loans were loans •with favorable terms for certain businesses. To

qualify for an ED3L loan, a business had to, among other requirements, be in

operation prior to February I, 2020. Applicants also had to certify that the

mformation in the application was tme and correct, under penalty of perjury and

applicable crimma! statutes. EIDL loan proceeds could only be used by the affected

business for certain permissible expenses. The loans could be used to pay fixed

USAO-DPR-Plea Agreement page | 17
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 18 of 20
US. v. [1] Manfred A. Pentzkc Lemus, 23-130 (ADC)

debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the

CO VID-19 disaster not occurred.

EIDL applicants were required to provide information relating to the size and

ownership of the affected business entity, and other mfonnation about the relevant

business for the 12 months prior to COVID-I9 impactmg the national economy, such

as the number of employees in the business, the gross business revenues realized, and

the cost of goods sold. This information, submitted by the applicant directly to the

SBA, was then used by SBA systems to calculate the amount of money tfae applicant

was eligible to receive.

Defendant submitted, and recruited numerous people to submit, fraudulent

PPP loan applications to Bask 1 and ED3L applications to the SBA. Some of the

people he recruited also recruited other people to the scheme. Defendant

sometimes paid recruiters a commission for recruiting additional people to the

scheme. Defendant facilitated the completion of the loan applications using the

recruits' personally identifying mformation and fictitious information he and his co-

conspirators created. Once the applications were submitted to Bank 1 and the SBA,

Defendant monitored the acceptance^ processing, and disbursement of the funds.

The applications generally contained materially false and fraudulent

information and supporting documentation, including Internal Revenue Service form

1040PR and Puerto Rico Department of Treasury form 480.6. Defendant was one

of the principal creators of fraudulent documents that were submitted with the loan

applications. The documents commonly reflected inflated income amounts for tax

USAO-DPR-Piea Agreement Page j 18
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 19 of 20
U.S. v. [1] ManiredA. Pentske LOTUS. 23.130 (ADC)

year 2019 which did not appear in true fUmgs with the Puerto Rico Department of

Treasury or the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The applications also contained

false statements and false representations regarding 2019 income and false

ceitifications that the loans would be used for permissible business purposes.

Recruits whose loans were approved and disbursed were instructed to provide

kickback payments to organizers of the scheme. The amounts differed but were

generally around $5,000 per fraudulent loan obtained. Recruits often paid the

kickbacks with checks, but sometimes they paid with cash. Over the course of the

conspiracy, at least 154 kickback checks totaling $682,775.50 were provided.

Defendant, or companies that he controlled, received 100 of those Idckback checks,

which totaled $486,277.70.

The kickback transactions were designed to resemble bona fide business

expenditures to disguise the true nature of the financial transactions, which were in

fact remittances to organizers of the scheme which were not permissible under the

PPP or EIDL programs. Disguising the transactions in this manner also helped

further the goals of the wire fraud conspiracy and provided a basis for the SBA to

forgive the loans. Co-conspirators collected the checks and cash and aggregated

them for later distribution to Defendant and others. Defendant conducted

numerous transactions involving more than $10,000 of the loan proceeds and

kickback funds.

For purposes of this Plea Agreement, the parties agree that Defendant is

responsible for a loss amount of greater than $3.5 million, but less than $9 million.

USAO-DPR-Plea Agreement Page | 19
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 252 Filed 09/24/24 Page 20 of 20
U.S. v. [1] Manfred A. Pentzke Lemus. 23-130 (ADC)

Had this matter proceeded to trial, the United States would have presented

evidence through the testimony of witnesses as well as physical evidence and

documentary evidence, which would have proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Defendant's guilt.

At trial, the United States would have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that

defendant [1] Manfred A. Pentzlks Lemus is guilty as charged in Counts One and

Twenty-One of the Indictment. Discovery was timely made available to Defendant

for review. /_,
<;~"'"'"/^\
>•.... A '\

y \
L\
Danie^^/OJinghoi Carlos f. S^gaf3ia^A;6reu, Esq.
^tant'U^S.Atta^iey Counsel fofUefendant

\/^7
'</
h, ^/
Dat^ / 7 Date

7^ /^
Manfired A. Pentzke Lemus
Defendant

/y^w^/-^ ^t^)
Date
>afe

USAO-DPR-Plea Agreement Page I 20

File and source

File: 252.pdf
Size: 1,018,819 bytes
SHA-256: 7a8444d483eb838caf38946647604bc38fd615b39367d598d99313db534f73ad
Our copy: 252.pdf
Original: No public link identified.