Indictment — Brandon Fitzgerald-Holley (District of Maryland)

Summary

Indictment filed 07/07/21 in the District of Maryland against Brandon Fitzgerald-Holley, who is described as Chief Executive Officer of The Coalition for Social Justice and Reform Incorporated, a nonprofit registered with the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Counts One and Two charge wire fraud, and the caption also lists money laundering and forfeiture. It alleges a scheme between in or around March 2020 and continuing until in or around October 2020 to defraud the SBA and Institution 1 and to obtain EIDL and PPP loan proceeds. The forfeiture section seeks a money judgment of at least $305,854 in U.S. currency.

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

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 8:21-cr-00250-GJH Document1 Filed 07/07/21 Page1o

CRC: USAO 2020R00596

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT! ~~~ ~ |
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA iN
> * CRIMINAL NO. 4. cr- 00250- GTH

(Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343; Money
Laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1957;
Defendant ae Forfeiture, 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C)
* and 982(a)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 853, and 28
a U.S.C. § 2461))

*

BRANDON FITZGERALD-HOLLEY,

+ + &

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland charges that:

COUNTS ONE AND TWO
(Wire Fraud)

At all times relevant to this Indictment:

The Defendant

1. Defendant BRANDON FITZGERALD-HOLLEY (“FITZGERALD-
HOLLEY”) was a resident of Suitland, Maryland, until in or around August 2020. Thereafter,
|starting in or around August 2020, FITZGERALD-HOLLEY was a resident of Virginia.

Relevant Individuals and Entities

2h The Coalition for Social Justice and Reform Incorporated (“the Coalition”) was
registered with the Virginia State Corporation Commission as a nonprofit organization. The
Defendant, FITZGERALD-HOLLEY, was the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the
Coalition.

The Paycheck Protection Program

3} The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was a
Case 8:21-cr-00250-GJH Document1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 2 of 12

federal law enacted in or around March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial
assistance to the millions of Americans who were suffering the economic effects caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic. 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.

4. In order 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 (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: (a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number
of employees. These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the small business is
eligible to receive under the PPP. In addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan were required
to provide documentation showing their payroll expenses.

Bi A PPP loan application was required to be processed by a participating lender,
such as a financial institution. Ifa PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender
funded the PPP loan using its own monies, which were 100% guaranteed by the Small Business
Administration (“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 course of processing the loan.

6. PPP loan proceeds were required to be used by the business on certain permissible
Case 8:21-cr-00250-GJH Document1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 3 of 12

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 and used a certain percentage of the PPP
loan proceeds on payroll expenses.

The Economic Injury Disaster Relief Program

Ts 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.

8. Another source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization for the
SBA to provide EIDLs to eligible small businesses experiencing substantial financial disruption
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 within three days of applying for an EIDL. The
amount of the advance was determined by the number of employees the applicant certified
having. The advances did not have to be repaid.

9. In order 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 revenues 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 required to
also certify that all the information in the application was true and correct to the best of the
applicant’s knowledge.

10. EIDL applications were submitted directly to the SBA and processed by the
Case 8:21-cr-00250-GJH Document1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 4 of 12

agency with support from a government contractor. The amount of the loan, if the application
was approved, was determined based, in part, on the information provided by the application
about employment, revenue, and cost of goods, as described above. Any funds issued under an
EIDL or advance were issued directly by the SBA. EIDL funds could be used for payroll
expenses, sick leave, production costs, and business obligations, such as debts, rent, and
mortgage payments. Ifthe applicant also obtained a loan under the PPP, the EIDL funds could
not be used for the same purpose as the PPP funds.

Relevant Financial Institutions

Il. Institution | was an online financial technology company that specialized in small
business lending. Institution | participated as a non-bank PPP lender to small businesses.
Institution | utilized servers in Virginia for processing PPP loans.

ld: Bank | was a federally-insured financial institution with branches throughout the
United States, including in the District of Maryland. FITZGERALD-HOLLEY maintained at
least two accounts at Bank 1.

13. Bank 2 was a federally-insured financial institution. FITZGERALD-HOLLEY
maintained at least two accounts at Bank 2 in the name of the Coalition.

The Scheme to Defraud

14. Between in or around March 2020 and continuing until in or around October
2020, the Defendant,
BRANDON FITZGERALD-HOLLEY,
did knowingly and willfully devise and intend to devise, and with the intent to defraud, a scheme

and artifice to defraud the SBA and Institution 1, and to obtain money and property by means of
Case 8:21-cr-00250-GJH Document1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 5 of 12

materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and for the purpose of
executing and attempting to execute the scheme to defraud, did transmit and cause to be
transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings,
signs, pictures, and sounds, as further described below, in violation of 18 U.SC. § 1343.

Purpose of the Scheme to Defraud

15. It was the purpose of the scheme to defraud for FITZGERALD-HOLLEY: (1)
to unjustly enrich himself and others by fraudulently obtaining EIDL and PPP loan proceeds; and
(2) to conceal his misappropriation of the PPP loan proceeds by laundering them through other
accounts.

Manner and Means of the Scheme to Defraud

EIDL Loan Application for the Coalition

16. On or about March 31, 2020, FITZGERALD-HOLLEY submitted and caused
the submission of an application to the SBA on behalf of the Coalition for an EIDL loan in the
amount of $150,000, as well as an EIDL advance. The loan application listed FITZGERALD-
HOLLEY as the CEO of the Coalition.

17. On the EIDL loan application, FITZGERALD-HOLLEY falsely stated that the
Coalition had 25 employees and had $546,000 of gross revenue and $500,000 of nonprofit costs
for the 12-month period prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

18. In connection with the EIDL application, FITZGERALD-HOLLEY provided
the SBA with the number of an account at Bank | ending in 6421 (“Bank | Account 6421”), and
falsely indicated that this account was in the name of the Coalition. In reality, Bank | Account
6421 was FITZGERALD-HOLLEY’s personal account. At the time he submitted the EIDL

application, FITZGERALD-HOLLEY was the only signatory on the account.
5
Case 8:21-cr-00250-GJH Document1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 6 of 12

19. On or about June 3, 2020, the SBA denied the Coalition’s application for an EIDL
loan. On or about June 13, 2020, FITZGERALD-HOLLEY contacted the SBA to request
reconsideration of the EIDL application on behalf of the Coalition. Within the request for
reconsideration, FITZGERALD-HOLLEY provided new bank account for the Coalition, which
was an account at Bank 2 ending in 2073 (“Bank 2 Account 2073”).

20. FITZGERALD-HOLLEY opened Bank 2 Account 2073 on or about June 13,
2020 in the name of the Coalition. FITZGERALD-HOLLEY signed the account opening
documentation for Bank 2 Account 2073 as the president of the Coalition and was listed as the
sole signatory.

2 Nes On or about June 12, 2020, the SBA denied the Coalition’s request for
reconsideration of its EIDL loan advance. To date, the SBA has not issued the EIDL loan or
advance to the Coalition.

PPP Loan Application for the Coalition

22. On or about June 13, 2020, FITZGERALD-HOLLEY submitted an application
to Institution | for a PPP loan in the amount of $305,854. The application listed
FITZGERALD-HOLLEY as the CEO of the Coalition.

eee On the PPP loan application, FITZGERALD-HOLLEY again falsely
represented that the Coalition had 25 employees. FITZGERALD-HOLLEY also falsely stated
that the Coalition had average monthly payroll costs of $122,342.

24. On or about June 11, 2020, FITZGERALD-HOLLEY submitted a fraudulent
IRS Form W-3 Transmittal of Wages and Tax Statement (“Form W-3”) for the tax year 2019 to
Institution | to support the Coalition’s PPP loan application. The IRS Form W-3 was dated

March 12, 2020, and was signed by FITZGERALD-HOLLEY on behalf of the Coalition.
6
Case 8:21-cr-00250-GJH Document1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 7 of 12

25. The Form W-3 falsely stated that the Coalition had 25 employees with total wages
of $1,385,000 for the tax year 2019.

26. In addition, FITZGERALD-HOLLEY submitted a fraudulent IRS Form 940
Employers Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return (“Form 940”) for the tax year 2019,
which listed FITZGERALD-HOLLEY as the CEO of the Coalition.

27. | Onor about June 13, 2020, the Coalition’s PPP loan application was approved.
FITZGERALD-HOLLEY signed the note to the SBA as the CEO of the Coalition.

28. On or about June 16, 2020, Institution 1 sent $305,854 in PPP loan proceeds via

interstate wire into FITZGERALD-HOLLEY’s personal checking account, Bank | Account

6421.
The Charges
29. On or about the dates listed below, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere, the
Defendant,

BRANDON FITZGERALD-HOLLEY,

did knowingly and willfully, and with the intent to defraud, having devised and intending to
devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, and omissions, transmit and
cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce,
writings, signs, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice to

defraud, as set forth below:
Case 8:21-cr-00250-GJH Document1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 8 of 12

COUNT | APPROXIMATE DATE

DESCRIPTION OF WIRE

Interstate wire transmission caused by

June 16, 2020

1 Tune 11. 2020 FITZGERALD-HOLLEY, in Maryland,
° submitting Form W-3 to Institution 1, outside of
Maryland.
Interstate wire transmission caused by transfer of
2 $305,854 representing PPP loan disbursement,

from Institution 1, outside of Maryland, to
FITZGERALD-HOLLEY Bank | Account 6421,
in Maryland.

18 U.S.C. § 1343
Case 8:21-cr-00250-GJH Document1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 9 of 12

COUNT THREE
(Money Laundering)

The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges that:

l. The allegations in Paragraphs | through 27 of Counts One and Two are re-alleged
and incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

Ds On or about June 22, 2020, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere, the
Defendant,

BRANDON FITZGERALD-HOLLEY,

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, that is, a transfer and withdrawal of funds—to wit, a cashier’s check drawn
on Bank | account ending in -9825 in the amount of $75,799, to purchase a 2020 Dodge Charger
that is registered to FITZGERALD-HOLLEY—such property being derived from a specified
unlawful activity, that is, wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, as described in Counts One

and Two of this Indictment.

18 U.S.C. § 1957
Case 8:21-cr-00250-GJH Document1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 10 of 12

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further finds that:

ls Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2, notice is hereby given to the
Defendant that the United States will seek forfeiture as part of any sentence in accordance with
18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(c) and 982(a)(1), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), in the event of the
Defendant’s convictions on any of the offenses charged in Counts One through Three of this
Indictment.

Wire Fraud Forfeiture

2. Upon conviction of the offenses set forth in Counts One and Two of this
Indictment, the Defendant,

BRANDON FITZGERALD-HOLLEY,

shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c),
any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from, proceeds traceable to the offenses.

Money Laundering Forfeiture

3. Upon conviction of the offenses set forth in Count Three of the Indictment, the
Defendant,
BRANDON FITZGERALD-HOLLEY
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1), any property, real or

personal, involved in such offense, or any property traceable to such property.
Case 8:21-cr-00250-GJH Document1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 11 of 12

Property Subject to Forfeiture

4, The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, a money judgment of
at least $305,854 in U.S. currency equal to the total proceeds obtain by the Defendant as the
result of his offenses and the following property to be forfeited in partial satisfaction of the
money judgment: a 2020 Dodge Charger Scat, Vehicle Identification Number
2C3CDXGJ5LH128652 seized during execution of a search and seizure warrant at the

Defendant’s residence in Fredericksburg, Virginia on or about October 28, 2020.

Substitute Assets
es If any of the property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a result of
any act or omission of any defendant:
a. cannot be located upon exercise of due diligence;
b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person;
c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;
d. has been substantially diminished in value; or
cs has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided

without difficulty,

it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C.
Case 8:21-cr-00250-GJH Document1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 12 of 12

§ 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendant up to the value of the

forfeitable property.

18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)
18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1)
21 U.S.C. § 853(p)

28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)

Jonathan F. Lenzner
Acting United States Attorney

Joseph S. Beemsterboer
Acting Chief, Fraud Section
Criminal Division, Department of Justice

SIGNATURE REDACTED pae: | | 7 le


File and source

File

CRIM_MDD_8-21-cr-00250_US-v-Brandon-Fitzgerald-Holley_doc1_INDICTMENT_2021-07-07.pdf

Size

4,806,933 bytes

SHA-256

6d12a57c12f6b27560f4498e04003772b5839a33c922688121e5877395bfd6c5

Our copy

CRIM_MDD_8-21-cr-00250_US-v-Brandon-Fitzgerald-Holley_doc1_INDICTMENT_2021-07-07.pdf

Original

No public link identified.