Indictment — United States v. Joseph Harding (N.D. Fla.)

Summary

A sealed grand jury indictment in United States v. Joseph Harding, Case 1:22-cr-00032-AW-MAL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division, filed December 6, 2022 as Document 1. It charges wire fraud in Counts One and Two, monetary transactions in criminally derived property in Counts Three and Four, and false statements under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a) in Counts Five and Six. The indictment alleges that Harding submitted SBA Economic Injury Disaster Loan applications for dormant business entities, The Vak Shack Inc. and Harding Farms LLC, that misstated employees and gross revenues, and obtained and attempted to obtain more than $150,000. The monetary transaction counts list transfers of $30,000 and $15,235.93 between Chase accounts. The document also includes a criminal forfeiture section.

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.

Case 1:22-cr-00032-AW-MAL Document1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SEALED
v. INDICTMENT

JOSEPH HARDING |:2202D2- Aw] MAL

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:
COUNTS ONE AND TWO
A. INTRODUCTION

At all times material to this Indictment:

1mm The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was an
executive-branch agency of the United States government that provides support to
entrepreneurs and small businesses. The mission of the SBA was to maintain and
strengthen the nation's economy by enabling the establishment and viability of
small businesses and by assisting in the economic recovery of communities after
disasters.

2. As part of this effort, the SBA enabled and provided for loans directly,
and through banks, credit unions, and other lenders.

3; A response to the COVID-19 outbreak was an expansion of an
existing disaster-related program — the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) —

to provide for loan assistance (including $10,000 advances) for small businesses
Case 1:22-cr-00032-AW-MAL Document1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 2 of 12

and other eligible entities for loans up to $2 million. The EIDL proceeds could
have been used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills that
could have been paid had the disaster not occurred; however, such loan proceeds
were not intended to replace lost sales or profits, or for the expansion of a business.

4. Unlike certain other types of SBA-guaranteed loans, EIDL funds were
issued directly from the United States Treasury, and applicants applied for EIDL
funds directly through the SBA via an online portal and application. The EIDL
application process, which also used certain outside contractors for system support,
collected information concerning the business and the business owner, including
information about the gross revenues for the business prior to January 31, 2020,
and the cost of goods sold. Applicants electronically certified that the information
provided was true and accurate and were warned that any false statement or
misrepresentation to the SBA, or any misapplication of loan proceeds may result in
sanctions, including criminal penalties.

5. EIDL applications were received in and processed using computer
servers located in the states of Iowa, Virginia, and Washington. EIDL
disbursement payments were initiated by the SBA using computer servers located
in the state of Colorado, which transmitted the payment information to the

Treasury using computer servers located in the state of Virginia.
Case 1:22-cr-00032-AW-MAL Document1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 3 of 12

B. THE CHARGE
Between on or about December 1, 2020, and on or about March 1, 2021, in
the Northern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,
JOSEPH HARDING,
did knowingly and willfully devise, and intend to devise, a scheme to defraud and
for obtaining money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations, and promises, and for the purpose of executing such
scheme, did cause a wire communication to be transmitted in interstate commerce.
C. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD

It was part of the scheme to defraud that:

1. JOSEPH HARDING made and caused to be made false and
fraudulent representations in SBA EIDL loan applications and in supporting loan
documents submitted to the SBA in the names of dormant business entities,
namely, The Vak Shack Inc. and Harding Farms LLC, in order to and in an attempt
to falsely qualify for SBA EIDL loans.

2. JOSEPH HARDING specifically attempted to cause and caused the
SBA to issue SBA EIDL loans, and to disburse SBA EIDL loan proceeds to him
based upon loan applications, loan documents, and emails that falsely represented

the number of employees and gross revenues for The Vak Shack Inc. and Harding
Case 1:22-cr-00032-AW-MAL Document1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 4 of 12

Farms LLC. Further, HARDING falsely represented that these business entities
were active businesses during 2019 and 2020 when in fact they were not.

3. JOSEPH HARDING knowingly obtained fraudulently-created bank
statements for Harding Farms LLC for September 2020 and October 2020 which
were used as supporting documentation for his fraudulent EIDL loan application.

4, On or about the day that he submitted his false and fraudulent EIDL
loan applications to the SBA for The Vak Shack Inc. and Harding Farms LLC,
JOSEPH HARDING opened bank accounts at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank
(“Chase”) for The Vak Shack Inc. and Harding Farms LLC. In his false and
fraudulent EIDL loan applications, JOSEPH HARDING directed the SBA to
deposit the loan proceeds into these newly-opened bank accounts.

5. JOSEPH HARDING electronically mailed and submitted, and
caused to be electronically mailed and submitted, false and fraudulent
documentation to the SBA in support of the EIDL loan applications.

6. Just days before he submitted his false and fraudulent SBA EIDL loan
application to the SBA for The Vak Shack Inc., and on the day that he submitted
his false and fraudulent SBA EJDL loan application to the SBA for Harding Farms
LLC, JOSEPH HARDING filed 2020 Florida Limited Liability Company

Reinstatements for The Vak Shack Inc. and Harding Farms LLC with the State of
Case 1:22-cr-00032-AW-MAL Document1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 5 of 12

Florida Department of State Division of Corporations in order to make it appear
that The Vak Shack Inc. and Harding Farms LLC had been active businesses.

7. JOSEPH HARDING communicated, via email and telephone, with
the SBA about the false and fraudulent EIDL loan applications and their status, and
the funding of such loans.

8. By this conduct, JOSEPH HARDING fraudulently obtained and
attempted to obtain more than $150,000 in funds from the SBA to which he was
not entitled.

D. EXECUTION OF THE SCHEME

On or about the following dates, for the purpose of executing and attempting

to execute the scheme to defraud, the defendant,
JOSEPH HARDING,
knowingly did cause wire communications to be transmitted in interstate

commerce, as set forth below:

COUNT DATE WIRE COMMUNICATION

Between on or about
One December 18, 2020, and on
or about December 21, 2020

Submission of an EIDL application for
The Vak Shack Inc. to the SBA

Between on or about Submission of an EIDL application and
Two December 18, 2020, and on | supporting documentation for Harding
or about December 21, 2020 Farms LLC to the SBA

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.

5
Case 1:22-cr-00032-AW-MAL Document1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 6 of 12

COUNTS THREE AND FOUR
A. INTRODUCTION
The allegations of Sections A and C of Counts One and Two are hereby
realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
B. THE CHARGE
Between on or about December 21, 2020, and on or about March 1, 2021, in

the Northern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

JOSEPH HARDING,
did knowingly engage and attempt to engage in a monetary transaction by,
through, and to a financial institution, affecting interstate commerce, in criminally
derived property of a value greater than $10,000, namely, the withdrawal, deposit,
and transfer of funds and monetary instruments, as identified below, such property
having been derived from a specified unlawful activity, that is, wire fraud, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, as charged in Counts One

and Two of this Indictment:

COUNT DATE MONETARY TRANSACTION
Transfer of $30,000 from Chase
Three On or about January 5, 2021 account ending in 1365 to Chase

account ending in 3103

Transfer of $15,235.93 from Chase
Four On or about February 3, 2021 account ending in 1365 to Chase
account ending in 8513
Case 1:22-cr-00032-AW-MAL Document1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 7 of 12

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957 and 2.

COUNT FIVE
A. INTRODUCTION
The allegations of Sections A and C of Counts One and Two are hereby
realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
B. THE CHARGE
On or about December 18, 2020, in the Northern District of Florida and
elsewhere, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the
Government of the United States, that is, the SBA’s administration of its EIDL
program, the defendant,
JOSEPH HARDING,
did knowingly and willfully falsify a material fact; make materially false, fictitious,
and fraudulent statements and representations; and make and use a false document
knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry, to wit, the defendant falsely stated in an SBA EIDL application
that he submitted to the SBA to obtain EIDL funds that:
a. The Vak Shack Inc. had gross revenues of $420,874.00 for the
twelve months prior to January 31, 2020, the date of the disaster (namely,

the COVID-19 pandemic),
Case 1:22-cr-00032-AW-MAL Document1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 8 of 12

b. The Vak Shack Inc. had Costs of Goods Sold of $32,998.00 for
the twelve months prior to January 31, 2020, the date of the disaster
(namely, the COVID-19 pandemic),

C. The Vak Shack Inc. had four employees, and

d. the information and supporting documentation submitted with
the SBA EIDL application was true and correct,

whereas, in truth and in fact, and as the defendant well knew:

a. The Vak Shack Inc. had been a dormant business entity with
the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations between on or
about May 2017 and on or about December 16, 2020, and therefore, had no
gross revenues for the twelve months prior to January 31, 2020, the date of
the disaster (namely, the COVID-19 pandemic),

b. The Vak Shack Inc. had no business activity in years 2019 or
2020; and therefore, had no revenues or Costs of Goods Sold in years 2019 or
2020,

c. The Vak Shack Inc. had no employees, and

d. the information and supporting documentation submitted with
the SBA EIDL application for The Vak Shack Inc. was false.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a).
Case 1:22-cr-00032-AW-MAL Document1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 9 of 12

COUNT SIX
A. INTRODUCTION
The allegations of Sections A and C of Counts One and Two are hereby
realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
B. THE CHARGE
On or about December 18, 2020, in the Northern District of Florida and
elsewhere, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the
Government of the United States, that is, the SBA’s administration of its EIDL
program, the defendant,
JOSEPH HARDING,
did knowingly and willfully falsify a material fact; make materially false, fictitious,
and fraudulent statements and representations; and make and use a false document
knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry, to wit, the defendant falsely stated in an SBA EIDL application
that he submitted to the SBA to obtain EIDL funds that:
a. Harding Farms LLC had gross revenues of $392,000.00 for the
twelve months prior to January 31, 2020, the date of the disaster (namely,
the COVID-19 pandemic),

b. | Harding Farms LLC had two employees, and
Case 1:22-cr-00032-AW-MAL Document1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 10 of 12

C. the information and supporting documentation submitted with
the SBA EIDL application was true and correct,
whereas, in truth and in fact, and as the defendant well knew:
a. Harding Farms LLC had been a dormant business entity with the
Florida Department of State Division of Corporations between on or about
May 2017 and on or about December 18, 2020, and therefore, had no gross
revenues for the twelve months prior to January 31, 2020, the date of the
disaster (namely, the COVID-19 pandemic),
b. Harding Farms LLC had no employees, and
c. the information and supporting documentation submitted with
the SBA EIDL application for Harding Farms LLC was false.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 (a).
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE
The allegations contained in Counts One through Four of this Indictment are
hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging
forfeiture. From his engagement in the violations alleged in Counts One through
Four of this Indictment, the defendant,
JOSEPH HARDING,

shall forfeit to the United States of America:

10
Case 1:22-cr-00032-AW-MAL Document1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 11 of 12

(A) pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2), and Title
28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), upon conviction of an offense in violation
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, as alleged in Counts One and Two
of this Indictment, any and all of the Defendant’s right, title, and interest in any
property, real and personal, constituting and derived from proceeds traceable to
such offense;

(B) pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1), upon
conviction of an offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957,
as alleged in Counts Three and Four of this Indictment, any and all of the
Defendant’s right, title, and interest in any property, real and personal, involved in
such offense, and any property traceable to such property.

The United States will also seek a forfeiture money judgment in an amount
that is equal to the value of any property, real or personal, which: 1) constitutes or
is derived from proceeds traceable to these offenses, and 2) is involved in such
offenses and any property traceable to such property.

If any of the property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a
result of acts or omissions of the defendant:

1. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
ii. has been transferred, sold to, or deposited with a third party;

iii. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of this Court;
11
Case 1:22-cr-00032-AW-MAL Document 1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 12 of 12

iv. has been substantially diminished in value; or
V. has been commingled with other property that cannot be

subdivided without difficulty,
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code,
Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c),

to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendant up to the value of the

forfeitable property.

FOREPERSON

126 [2022

DATE

JUSTIN M. KEEN

Assistant United States Attorney

}

DAVID BYRON ©
Assistant United States Attorney


File and source

File

1.pdf

Size

855,049 bytes

SHA-256

98335c7ea7fd83ac52503eb46101ff9ae83e94b5622a8433348589cead222c30

Our copy

1.pdf

Original

archive.org