Indictment — United States v. Melissa Turasky, Northern District of Illinois (Document 1)
Summary
An indictment returned by the Special May 2019 Grand Jury in United States of America v. Melissa Turasky, Case 1:20-cr-00560, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, filed August 27, 2020 as Document 1. Count One cites bank fraud under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344, and Count Two cites false statements to Bank A under Section 1014. The indictment alleges that Turasky, as owner of Gifford's Bar and Restaurant in Elgin, Illinois, applied for a PPP loan of $176,822 while representing that the loan would support the restaurant's "ongoing operations." It states that Gifford's had been evicted and had terminated all of its employees by the end of March 2020, and that Bank A disbursed the loan on or about May 1, 2020. A forfeiture allegation seeks a personal money judgment of approximately $176,822.
Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Indictment — United States v. Melissa Turasky, Northern District of Illinois (Document 1).”
Original at www.justice.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/indictment-no-1-20-cr-00560-dkt-1-n-d-ill-6e4689192d/
, SHA-256 4c5c2c6dda77ae56b284a9022c461d8ebb6ae04bb1c64d4bcaad062b47715935.Full text
Case: 1:20-cr-00560 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
/ F ILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 7 20?0
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
cLIh'8Utl,E,EEYE8U',
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
caseNo.:
P0 f n I
VA f'r
Violations: Title 18, United States
MELISSA TURASKY Code, Sections L0L4 and 1344
COUNT ONE
zOCR 560
The SPECIAL MAY 2019 GRAND JURY charges:
JUDGE SEEGER
1. At times material to this indictment: iltAGIST.ffi,AT.E, SUtsGE IIAR.TANI
a. Bank A was a financial institution, the deposits of which were
insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
b. Gifford's Bar and Restaurant ("Gifford's") was a Limited Liability
Company doing business as Gifford's Kitchen and Social, a restaurant located in
Elgin, Illinois.
c. MELISSA TURASKY was the owner of Gifford's.
d. As of in or around early March 2020, Gifford's was no longer
operational. On or about March 2, 2020, Gifford's was evicted from its restaurant
rental space and had vacated the property. By in or around the end of March 2020,
all of Gi-fford's employees had been terminated.
e. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security ('CARES")
Act was a federal law enacted in or around March 2O2O and designed to provide
emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans who were suffering the
economic effects caused by the COVID-l9 pandemic. One source of relief provided by
Case: 1:20-cr-00560 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
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 called the
Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"). In or around April 2020, Congress authorized
over $320 billion in additional funding for PPP loans.
f. In order to obtain a PPP loan, a business submitted 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
regarding its eligibility. In the application, the small business's authorized
representative was required to provide, among other things, the business's average
monthly payroll expenses and number of employees. These figures were used to
calculate the business's eligibility and the amount of money it could receive under the
PPP. In addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan were required to provide
documentation showing their payroll expenses.
g. PPP loan proceeds were required to be used by the business for
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 by the Small Business Administration if the business spent the loan proceeds
on these items within a designated period of time and used at least a certain
percentage ofthe PPP loan for payroll expenses.
Case: 1:20-cr-00560 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
h. To gain access to funds throughthe PPP, smallbusinesses applied
through financial institutions participating in the PPP and received the loans directly
from those financial institutions as the lender.
i. Participating financial institutions required applicants for PPP
loans to provide truthfirl information, including truthful information about the
business's operating expenses and how the PPP loan would be used, which
information was material to lenders' approval, terms, and funding of Ioans.
2. Beginning in or around April 2020, and continuing until in or around
June 2020, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,
MELISSA TIIRASKY,
defendant herein, participated in a scheme to defraud a financial institution, namely,
Bank A, the deposits of which were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, and to obtain money and funds owned by and under the custody and
control of Bank A by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises, as further described below.
3. It was part of the scheme that defendant TURASI(Y applied for and
obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars in PPP funds for Gifford's by submitting
and causing to be submitted. to Bank A a false and fraudulent loan application and
related documents.
4. It was part of the scheme that, on or about April LO, 2020, TURASKY,
in her capacity as authorized representative of Gifford's, applied for a PPP loan in the
amount of $176,822 fuom Bank A.
Case: 1:20-cr-00560 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
5. It was further part of the scheme that, on the PPP loan application,
TURA.SKY knowingly provided false information about Gifford's to Bank A to make
it falsely appear that Gifford's was still open and operating.
6. It was further part of the scheme that, in order to obtain a loan from
Bank A, TURASKY represented to Bank A on the PPP loan application that the PPP
loan was necessary to support the "ongoing operations" of the business. TURASKY
knew at the time that Gifford's had closed and had no "ongoing operations."
7. It was further part of the scheme that, in order to obtain a loan from
Bank A, TTIRASKY represented on the loan application that the PPP loan would be
used to "retain workers and maintain payroll or make mortgage interest payments,
Iease payments, and utility payments." TURASKY knew at the time that Gifford.'s
had been evicted from the restaurant space, all Giffords employees had been
terminated, and Gifford,'s would not use the PPP funds for these expenses.
8. It was further part of the scheme that, in order to obtain a loan from
Bank A, TLIRASKY fraudulently provided figures approximating Gifford's monthly
payroll and other business expenses, to make it falsely appear that Gifford's
continued to have payroll and business operating expenses.
9. It was further part of the scheme that, through the submission of the
false and fraudulent PPP loan application, TURASKY caused Bank A to disburse a
PPP loan of $176,822 on or about May 1, 2020 into a bank account that defendant
and her husband, Individual A, maintained at Bank A in the name of Giffords Bar
Case: 1:20-cr-00560 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
and Restaurant LLC, and of which defendant was a signatory. TURASI(Y knew at
the time that neither she nor Gifford's was entitled to the PPP loan funds.
10. It was further part of the scheme that TURASKY used some of the PPP
funds to make payments on a credit card in her name.
11. It was further part of the scheme that TURASKY misrepresented,
concealed, and hid and caused to be misrepresented, concealed, and hidden, certain
material facts, including the acts and purposes of the acts done in furtherance of the
scheme.
L2. On or about April L0,2020, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, and elsewhere,
MELISSA TURASKY,
defendant herein, knowingly executed and attempted to execute the scheme to
defraud by causing Bank A, a financial institution, to fund a Paycheck Protection
Program loan in the amount of approximately $L76,822;
In violation of Title L8, United States Code, Section L344.
Case: 1:20-cr-00560 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
COUNT TWO
The SPECIAL MAY 2019 GRAND JURY turther charges:
1. Paragraph 1 of Count One is incorporated here.
2. On or about April L0,2020, in the Northern District of lllinois, Eastern
Division, and elsewhere,
MELISSA TURAKSY,
defendant herein, knowingly caused false statements to be made to Bank A, the
deposits of which were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with
the intent to influence the actions of Bank A concerning a Paycheck Protection
Program loan application, in that defendant stated:
(a) the loan was necessary to support the "ongoing operations" of Gifford's; and
(b) the loan funds would be used to retain workers and maintain payroll or
make mortgage interest payments, lease payments, and utility payments;
when d.efendant knew that such statements were false;
In violation of Titl,e 18, United States Code, Section 1014.
Case: 1:20-cr-00560 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
The SPECIAL MAY 2019 GRAND JURY turther alleges:
1. Upon conviction of an offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 1014 and 1344, as set forth in this Indictment,
MELISSA TURASKY,
defendant herein, shall forfeit to the United States of America any property which
constitutes and is derived from proceed.s obtained directly and indirectly as a result
of the offense, as provided in Tit1e 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A).
2. The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, a personal
money judgment in the amount of approximately $176,822.
3. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission
by a defendant: cannot be located upon the exercise of due ditigence, has been
transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party, 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, the
United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property, as
provided in Title 21, United States Code, Section 853ftr).
A TRIIE BILL:
FOREPERSON
signed by Matthew F. Madden on behalf of the
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
File and source
- File
- 1-indictment.pdf
- Size
- 3,112,629 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4c5c2c6dda77ae56b284a9022c461d8ebb6ae04bb1c64d4bcaad062b47715935
- Our copy
- 1-indictment.pdf
- Original
- www.justice.gov