Superseding Indictment — U.S. v. David Redfern et al. (M.D.N.C.)

Summary

A superseding indictment in United States v. David Christopher Redfern, Joseph Marsell Cartlidge and Eric Alexander McMiller, Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA, filed December 1, 2020 as Document 21. It alleges that in or around June 2020 the defendants submitted PPP applications to Financial Institution 1 and FinTech 1 with false employee and payroll figures, false IRS Forms 941 and bank statements for Financial Institution 2 that were identical except for account details. The applications named are Wilder Effects LLC for $410,322, Company 1 for $403,120 using the identity of Individual 1 without authorization, LBRNO LLC for $463,530, and McMiller Enterprises LLC for at least $584,000, which was denied by letter dated June 5, 2020. It states that $410,322 was deposited into the Wilder Effects account on or about June 2, 2020. A forfeiture section follows.

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

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : SUPERSEDING

DAVID CHRISTOPHER REDFERN : 1:20CR340-1

JOSEPH MARSELL CARTLIDGE 1:20CR340-2

ERIC ALEXANDER MCMILLER 1:20CR340-3

The Grand Jury charges:

General Allegations

At all times material to this Superseding Indictment:
The Defendants and Related Entities

1. The defendant, DAVID CHRISTOPHER REDFERN, was a
resident of Trinity, North Carolina, in the Middle District of North Carolina.

2. REDFERN was the registered agent and owner of Wilder Effects
LLC (“Wilder Effects”), a company that was registered with the North Carolina
Secretary of State on or about January 17, 2020. The registered business
address for Wilder Effects was REDFERN’s residential address.

3. The defendant, JOSEPH MARSELL CARTLIDGE, was a resident
of Greensboro, North Carolina, in the Middle District of North Carolina.

4. CARTLIDGE was the registered agent and owner of LBRNO LLC

(“LBRNO”), a company that was registered with the North Carolina Secretary

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 23
of State on or about December 29, 2016. The registered business address for
LBRNO was an office building in Charlotte, North Carolina.

5. Defendant ERIC ALEXANDER MCMILLER was a resident of
Greensboro, North Carolina, in the Middle District of North Carolina.

6. MCMILLER was the registered agent and owner of McMiller
Enterprises LLC (“McMiller Enterprises”), a company that was registered with
the North Carolina Secretary of State on or about February 25, 2020. The
registered business address for McMiller Enterprises was a residential address
in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Ts Individual 1 was the registered agent and owner of Company 1, a
company that was registered with the North Carolina Secretary of State on or
about January 13, 2020. From in or around February 2020 through the date
of this Superseding Indictment, Individual 1 was incarcerated in correctional
facilities in North Carolina.

The Small Business Administration and the CARES Act

8. The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was an
executive-branch agency of the United States government that provided
support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The mission of the SBA was

to maintain and strengthen the nation’s economy by enabling the

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 23
establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in the
economic recovery of communities after disasters.

a. As part of this effort, the SBA enabled and provided for loans
through banks, credit unions, and other lenders that had government-backed
guarantees. The SBA also provided direct loans.

10. In or around March 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was enacted to provide emergency financial
assistance to the millions of Americans suffering negative economic effects
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established several new
programs and provided for expansion of others, including programs created
and/or administered by the SBA.

The Paycheck Protection Program

11. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the
authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for
job retention and certain other expenses, through a program referred to as the
Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). In or around April 2020, Congress
authorized over $300 billion in additional PPP funding.

12. Inorder to obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was required
to submit a PPP loan application, which was signed by an authorized

representative of the business. The PPP loan application required the business

3

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 23
(through its authorized representative) to acknowledge the program rules and
make certain affirmative certifications in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP
loan. In the PPP loan application, the small business (through its authorized
representative) was required to state, among other things, its: (i) average
monthly payroll expenses; and (ii) number of employees. These figures were
used to calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible to
receive under the PPP. In addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan were
required to provide documentation showing their payroll expenses.

13. A PPP loan application was required to be processed by a
participating lender. If a PPP loan application was approved, the lender
funded the PPP loan using its own moneys, which were 100% guaranteed by
the SBA. Data from the application, including 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 the cauaas of processing the loan.

14. PPP loan proceeds were required to be used by the business on
certain permissible expenses: payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and
utilities. The PPP allowed the interest and principal on the PPP loan to be
entirely forgiven, if the business spent the loan proceeds on these expense items

within a designated period of time after receiving the proceeds and used a

certain amount of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.

4

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 4 of 23
The Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program

15. The Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program was an SBA
program that provided low-interest financing to small businesses, renters, and
homeowners in regions affected by declared disasters.

16. The CARES Act authorized the SBA to provide EIDLs to eligible
small businesses experiencing substantial financial disruptions due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the CARES Act authorized the SBA to issue
advances of up to $10,000 to small businesses. The amount of the advance was
determined by the number of employees the applicant certified having. The
advances did not have to be repaid.

17. Inorder to obtain an EIDL and advance, a qualifying business was
required to submit an application to the SBA and provide information about
its operations, such as the number of employees, gross revenue for the 12-
month period preceding the disaster, and cost of goods sold in the 12-month
period preceding the disaster. In the case of EIDLs for COVID-19 relief, the
12-month period was that preceding January 31, 2020. The applicant was also
required to certify that all of the information in the application was true and
correct to the best of the applicant’s knowledge.

18. EIDL applications were submitted directly to the SBA and

processed by the agency with support from a government contractor, Rapid

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 5 of 23
Finance. The amount of the loan, if the application was approved, was
determined based, in part, on the information provided in the application
concerning the number of employees, gross revenue, and cost of goods, as
described above. Any funds issued under an EIDL or advance were issued
directly by the SBA. EIDL funds were permitted to be used for payroll
expenses, sick leave, production costs, and business obligations, such as debts,
rent, and mortgage payments. If the applicant also obtained a loan under the
PPP, the EIDL funds were not permitted to be used for the same purpose as
the PPP funds.
Relevant Financial Institutions and Related Entities

19. Financial Institution 1 was a federally insured financial
institution based in Utah. Financial Institution 1 was an SBA Preferred
Lender and participated as a PPP lender to small businesses.

20. FinTech 1 was a financial technology company based in California.
FinTech 1 participated in the SBA’s PPP by, among other things, acting as a
service provider between small businesses and certain lenders, including
Financial Institution 1. Small businesses seeking PPP loans could apply
through FinTech 1 for PPP loans. FinTech 1 would review the loan

applications. If a loan application received by FinTech 1 was approved for

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 6 of 23
funding, a partner lender, such as Financial Institution 1, disbursed the loan
funds to the applicant.
21. Financial Institution 2 was a federally insured financial
institution based in California with branches throughout the United States.
22. Financial Institution 3 was a federally insured financial
institution based in North Carolina with branches throughout the United
States.
a. On or about January 14, 2020, CARTLIDGE opened a business
account in Company 1’s name at Financial Institution 3
(“Company 1 Account”), with Individual 1 as the purported
authorized signer. Individual 1 was unaware of and did not
authorize CARTLIDGE to use his identifying information to
open the Company 1 Account.
b. On or about January 23, 2020, REDFERN opened a business
account in Wilder Effects’ name at Financial Institution 3
(“Wilder Effects Account”).
23. Financial Institution 4 was a federally insured financial

institution based in Texas with branches throughout the United States.

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 7 of 23
a. Onor about January 13, 2020, CARTLIDGE opened an account
in LBRNO’s name at Financial Institution 4 (“LBRNO
Account”).

b. On or about June 2, 2020, REDFERN opened a business
account in Wilder Effects’ name at Financial Institution 4.

24. Financial Institution 5 was a federally insured financial
institution based in North Carolina with branches in North and South
Carolina. On or about May 6, 2020, MCMILLER opened an account in
McMiller Enterprises’ name at Financial Institution 5 (““McMiller Enterprises
Account”).

25. Financial Institution 6 was a federally insured financial
institution based in New York with branches throughout the United States.
On or about June 23, 2020, MCMILLER opened an account in his name at
Financial Institution 6 (““McMiller Account”).

The PPP Scheme to Defraud

26. In or around June 2020, REDFERN, CARTLIDGE, MCMILLER,
and others known and unknown to the Grand Jurors, devised a scheme to
defraud by submitting and causing to be submitted false and fraudulent loan

applications to Financial Institution 1 and FinTech 1 in order to obtain funds

through the PPP.

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 8 of 23
Purpose of the PPP Scheme to Defraud

27. It was the purpose of the PPP scheme to defraud for REDFERN,
CARTLIDGE, and MCMILLER to unjustly enrich themselves and others by
obtaining loan proceeds authorized by the CARES Act under false and
misleading pretenses, including by making false statements about the number
of employees and the intended use of the loan proceeds for each company and

by providing false documentation.

Manner and Means of the PPP Scheme

28. On or about June 1, 2020, REDFERN caused an electronic PPP
application in the name of Wilder Effects to be sent to FinTech 1 (Wilder
Effects PPP Application”). The Wilder Effects PPP Application requested a
loan in the amount of $410,322. In the Wilder Effects PPP Application,
REDFERN falsely affirmed or caused to be falsely affirmed, among other
information, that: (i) he was the sole owner of Wilder Effects; and (i) Wilder
Effects had twenty employees and an average monthly payroll of $164,129.

29. The Wilder Effects PPP Application appended as supporting
documentation: (i) a false and fraudulent purported IRS Form 941 for the first
quarter of 2020 showing $492,389.01 paid in wages to twenty employees; and
(ii) a false and fraudulent Financial Institution 2 bank statement for Wilder

Effects dated February 27, 2020, showing a balance of $290,028.70.
9

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 9 of 23
30. On or about June 1, 2020, CARTLIDGE caused an application in
the name of Company 1 to be sent to FinTech 1 (“Company 1 PPP Application’).
The Company 1 PPP Application requested a loan in the amount of $403,120.
CARTLIDGE used the name and other personal identifying information of
Individual 1 to complete the Company 1 PPP Application. Individual 1 was
unaware of and did not authorize CARTLIDGE to use his identifying
information in connection with the Company 1 PPP Application.

31. The Company 1 PPP Application appended as supporting
documentation: (i) a false and fraudulent purported IRS Form 941 for the first
quarter of 2020 showing $483,746.04 paid in wages to twenty-four employees
and purportedly signed by Individual 1; and (i) a false and fraudulent
Financial Institution 2 bank account statement for Company 1 dated February
27, 2020, showing a balance of $290,028.70.

32. On or about June 2, 2020, CARTLIDGE caused an application in
the name of LBRNO to be sent to FinTech 1 (““LBRNO PPP Application”). The
LBRNO PPP Application requested a loan in the amount of $463,530. In the
LBRNO PPP Application, CARTLIDGE falsely affirmed or caused to be falsely
affirmed, among other information, that: (i) he was the sole owner of LBRNO;
and (ii) LBRNO had twenty-three employees and an average monthly payroll

of $185,412.
10

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 10 of 23
33. The LBRNO PPP Application appended as_ supporting
documentation: (i) false and fraudulent purported IRS Forms 941 for all four
quarters of 2019 showing $556,237.44 paid in wages to twenty-three employees
per quarter; and (ji) a false and fraudulent Financial Institution 2 bank
statement for LBRNO dated February 27, 2020, showing a balance of
$290,028.70.

34. On or about June 3, 2020, MCMILLER caused an electronic PPP
application in the name of McMiller Enterprises to be sent to FinTech 1
(“McMiller Enterprises PPP Application”). The McMiller Enterprises PPP
Application requested at least $584,000 to support McMiller Enterprises’
purported payroll. In the McMiller Enterprises PPP Application, MCMILLER
falsely affirmed or caused to be affirmed, among other information, that: (i) he
was the sole owner of McMiller Enterprises; and (ii) McMiller Enterprises had
twenty-seven employees and an average monthly payroll of $229,144. The
McMiller Enterprises PPP Application was denied by letter dated June 5, 2020.
| 35. The McMiller Enterprises PPP Application appended as
supporting documentation: (i) false and fraudulent purported IRS Forms 941
for all four quarters of 2019 showing $687,432.60 paid in wages to twenty-

seven employees per quarter; and (ii) a false and fraudulent Financial

11

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 11 of 23
Institution 2 bank statement for McMiller Enterprises dated February 27,
2020, showing a balance of $290,028.70.

36. On or about June 11, 2020, MCMILLER emailed FinTech 1 to
“clear up any problems” in connection with the denied McMiller Enterprises
PPP Application.

37. CHS 1 prepared the false and fraudulent supporting
documentation for the Wilder Effects, Company 1, LBRNO, and McMiller
Enterprises PPP Applications. The false and fraudulent Financial Institution
2 bank account statements submitted in connection with the Wilder Effects,
Company 1, LBRNO, and McMiller Enterprises PPP Applications were
identical except for account identifying information listed on the first page of
each eight-page statement.

PPP Loan Proceeds

38. On or about June 2, 2020, $410,322 in PPP funds were deposited
into the Wilder Effects Account.

a. On or about June 2, 2020, an attempt was made to wire
$102,580 from the Wilder Effects Account to an account in
Florida controlled by CHS 1.

b. On or about June 3, 2020, an $8,000 counter check written to

“cash” was withdrawn from the Wilder Effects Account.

12

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 12 of 23
39. Onor about June 2, 2020, $403,120 in PPP funds were deposited
into the Company 1 Account.

a. On or about June 3, 2020, an attempt was made to wire $75,000
from the Company 1 Account to the Wilder Effects Account.

b. On or about June 10, 2020, MCMILLER attempted to deposit a
$250,000 check drawn from the Company 1 Account and
purportedly signed by Individual 1 into the McMiller
Enterprises Account. On or about June 12, 2020, a $250,000
chargeback posted to the McMiller Enterprises Account.

40. On or about June 3, 2020, $463,530 in PPP funds were deposited
into the LBRNO Account.

a. Between on or about June 3, 2020 and on or about June 19,
2020, approximately $454,000 was withdrawn via cash and
cashier’s check from the LBRNO Account.

b. On or about June 18, 2020, a $649 debit card purchase was
made at Louis Vuitton in Northbrook, Illinois.

c. On or about June 19, 2020, a $979 debit card purchase was
made at Neiman Marcus in Northbrook, Illinois.

d. Onor about Stine 20, 2020, a $1,526.33 debit card purchase was

made at Gucci in Dallas, Texas.

13

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 13 of 23
e, On or about June 30, 2020, a $2,350 debit card purchase was
made at Get My Boat, a boat and yacht rental company.

The EIDL Scheme to Defraud

41. From in or around March 2020, continuing up to and including at
least in or around June 2020, REDFERN, CARTLIDGE, and MCMILLER, and
others known and unknown to the Grand Jurors, devised a scheme to defraud
by submitting and causing to be submitted false and fraudulent loan
applications to the SBA in order to obtain funds through the EIDL program.

Purpose of the EIDL Schemes to Defraud

42. It was the purpose of the EIDL scheme to defraud for REDFERN,
CARTLIDGE, and MCMILLER respectively to unjustly enrich himself and
others by obtaining EIDL proceeds under false and misleading pretenses,
including by making false statements about the number of employees, the

gross revenues, and the cost of goods sold for their respective companies.

Manner and Means of the EIDL Scheme

EIDL Applications Submitted to the SBA
43. On or about March 31, 2020, CARTLIDGE applied electronically
for an EIDL from the SBA (““EIDL Application -2386”). In connection with
EIDL Application -2386, CARTLIDGE falsely affirmed, among other

information, that LBRNO had seven employees and in the twelve months prior

14

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 14 of 23
to the disaster had $148,000 in gross revenues and $87,000 in cost of goods
sold. EIDL Application -2386 was denied.

44. On or about April 12, 2020, REDFERN applied electronically for
an EIDL from the SBA (“EIDL Application -4729”). In connection with EIDL
Application -4729, REDFERN falsely affirmed, among other information, that
Wilder Effects had two employees, had suffered $3,000 in rental losses due to
the disaster, and in the twelve months prior to the disaster had $21,000 in
gross revenues and $13,000 in cost of goods sold. On or about June 16, 2020,
EIDL Application -4729 was approved for an EIDL (““EIDL Loan -7904”) in the
amount of $2,000.

45. Onor about May 17, 2020, REDFERN applied electronically for an
EIDL from the SBA (“EIDL Application -4452”). In connection with EIDL
Application -4452, REDFERN falsely affirmed, among other information, that
Wilder Effects had nine employees, and in the twelve months prior to the
disaster had $30,000 in gross revenues and $27,500 in cost of goods sold. ETDL
Application -4452 was subsequently denied.

46. Onor about June 16, 2020, MCMILLER applied electronically for
an EIDL from the SBA (““EIDL Application -1277”). In connection with EIDL
Application -1277, MCMILLER falsely affirmed, among other information,

that McMiller Enterprises had ten employees, had suffered $9,428 in rental
15

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 15 of 23
losses due to the disaster, and in the twelve months prior to the disaster had
$140,000 in gross revenues and $345,000 in cost of goods sold. That same day,
a $10,000 EIDL advance was approved by the SBA. EIDL Application -1277
listed the “business open date” as February 13, 2020. EIDL Application -1277
was subsequently denied due to verification that the entity formation date
post-dated the disaster date.

47. Onor about June 29, 2020, MCMILLER applied electronically for
an EIDL from the SBA (“EIDL Application -4708) in the name of an “Hric
memiller” sole proprietorship. In connection with EIDL Application -4708,
MCMILLER falsely affirmed, among other information, that the sole
proprietorship had ten employees, and in the twelve months prior to the
disaster had $98,232 in gross revenues and $84,230 in cost of goods sold. That
same day, a $10,000 EIDL advance was approved by the SBA. EIDL
Application -4708 listed the “business open date” as February 13, 2015. EIDL
Application -4708 was subsequently denied for failure to substantiate economic
injury.

48. On or about August 14, 2020, MCMILLER applied electronically
for an EIDL from the SBA (““EIDL Application -1854) in the name of an “Eric
memiller” sole proprietorship. In connection with EIDL Application -1854,

MCMILLER falsely affirmed, among other information, that the sole
16

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 16 of 23
proprietorship had ten employees, and in the twelve months prior to the
disaster had $98,345 in gross revenues and $82,321 in cost of goods sold. EIDL
Application -1854 listed the “business open date” as April 12, 2015. EIDL
Application -1854 was subsequently flagged as a duplicate application.

EIDL Proceeds

49. On or about May 5, 2020, $2,000 in EIDL advance funds were
deposited into the Wilder Effects account.

50. On or about June 18, 2020, $10,000 in EIDL advance funds were
deposited into the LBRNO account, in connection with EIDL Application -1277
for McMiller Enterprises.

51. On or about June 18, 2020, $2,000 in EIDL funds in connection
with EIDL Loan -7904 were deposited into the business account in Wilder
Effects’ name at Financial Institution 4.

52. On or about June 30, 2020, $10,000 in EIDL advance funds were
deposited into the McMiller Account, in connection with EIDL

Application -4708 for the sole proprietorship.

17

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 17 of 23
COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR
(Wire Fraud —- PPP Scheme)

53. Paragraphs 1 through 52 of the General Allegations section of this
Superseding Indictment are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.

54. On or about the dates specified as to each count below, in the
Counties of Guilford and Randolph, in the Middle District of North Carolina,
and elsewhere, DAVID CHRISTOPHER REDFERN, JOSEPH MARSELL
CARTLIDGE, and ERIC ALEXANDER MCMILLER, having knowingly
devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain
money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises, did transmit and cause to be transmitted by
means of wire communications in interstate commerce, writings, signs,
signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme and

artifice, as set forth below:

Count | Defendant | Approximate Description
Date

1 REDFERN June 2, 2020 | Wire transfer of $410,322 that
Financial Institution 1, in Utah,
caused to be routed in interstate
commerce to the Wilder Effects
Account at Financial Institution 3
in North Carolina.

18

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 18 of 23
CARTLIDGE

June 2, 2020

Wire transfer of $403,120 that
Financial Institution 1, in Utah,
caused to be routed in interstate
commerce to the Company 1
Account at Financial Institution 3
in North Carolina.

CARTLIDGE

June 3, 2020

Wire transfer of $463,530 that
Financial Institution 1, in Utah,
caused to be routed in interstate
commerce to the LBRNO Account
at Financial Institution 4 in North
Carolina.

MCMILLER

June 11, 2020

Email sent by MCMILLER to
FinTech1 in connection with the
McMiller Enterprises PPP
Application.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1348 and 2.

COUNTS FIVE THROUGH EIGHT
(Wire Fraud - EIDL Scheme)

Paragraphs 1 through 52 of the General Allegations section of this

Superseding Indictment are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth

On or about the dates specified as to each count below, in the

19

Counties of Guilford and Randolph, in the Middle District of North Carolina,
and elsewhere, DAVID CHRISTOPHER REDFERN and ERIC ALEXANDER
MCMILLER, having knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme and

artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 19 of 23
false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, did transmit
and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate
commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of

executing such scheme and artifice, as set forth below:

Count

Defendant

Approximate
Date

Description

REDFERN

May 5, 2020

Wire transfer of $2,000 that the
SBA, in Colorado, caused to be
routed in interstate commerce to
the Wilder Effects Account at
Financial Institution 3 in North
Carolina.

REDFERN

June 18, 2020

Wire transfer of $2,000 that the
SBA, in Colorado, caused to be
routed in interstate commerce to
the Wilder Effects account at
Financial Institution 4 in North
Carolina.

MCMILLER

June 18, 2020

Wire transfer of $10,000 that the
SBA, in Colorado, caused to be
routed in interstate commerce to
the LRBRNO Account at Financial
Institution 4 in North Carolina.

MCMILLER

June 30, 2020

Wire transfer of $10,000 that the
SBA, in Colorado, caused to be
routed in interstate commerce to
the McMiller Account at Financial
Institution 6 in North Carolina.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 13438 and 2.

20

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 20 of 23
COUNT NINE
(Bank Fraud)

57. Paragraphs 1 through 52 of the General Allegations section of this
Superseding Indictment are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.

58. In or around June 2020, the exact dates to the Grand Jurors
unknown, in the Counties of Guilford and Randolph, in the Middle District of
North Carolina, and elsewhere, DAVID CHRISTOPHER REDFERN and
JOSEPH MARSELL CARTLIDGE knowingly executed and attempted to
execute a scheme and artifice to obtain moneys, funds, credits, assets,
securities, and other property owned by, and under the custody or control of, a
financial institution, to wit, Financial Institution 1, by means of false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344(2) and 2.

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

59. The allegations contained in this Superseding Indictment are
hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging
forfeiture pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981(a)(1)(C) and

982(a)(2), and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c).

21

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 21 of 23
60. Upon conviction of one or more of the offenses set forth in Counts
One through Nine of this Superseding Indictment, the defendants, DAVID
CHRISTOPHER REDFERN, JOSEPH MARSELL CARTLIDGE, and ERIC
ALEXANDER MCMILLER shall forfeit to the United States any property, real
or personal, constituting, or derived from, proceeds traceable to or obtained
directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation. Such forfeitable property
may include a money judgment in an amount to be determined, representing
the value of the property subject to forfeiture as a result of such offense.

61. Ifany of the property described above as being subject to forfeiture
as a result of any act or omission of the defendants cannot be located upon the
exercise of due diligence, has been transferred or sold to or deposited with a
third person, has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, has been
substantially diminished in value, or has been commingled with other property
which cannot be divided without difficulty, it is the intent of the United States,
pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by
Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(1), and Title 28, United States
Code, Section 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of said

defendants up to the value of the above forfeitable property.

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 22 of 23
All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981(a)(1)(C) and

982(a)(2), Rule 32.2, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Title 28, United

States Code, Section 2461(c).

DATED: December 1, 2020

MATTHEW G. T. MARTIN
United States Attorney

BY: MEREDITH C. RUGGLES
Assistant United States Attorney

DANIEL S. KAHN

Acting Chief, Fraud Section

United States Department of Justice
Criminal Division

Y: JESSEE ALEXANDER-HOEPPNER

Trial Attorney, Fraud Section

FOREPERSON

23

Case 1:20-cr-00340-UA Document 21 Filed 12/01/20 Page 23 of 23


File and source

File

21.pdf

Size

7,914,771 bytes

SHA-256

77f1c1510472d2d397242d07c96de3dc6a2975e2219e923cdd35731e7653c138

Our copy

21.pdf

Original

www.justice.gov