Indictment — United States v. Edward Baker Harrington, District of Colorado (Document 1)

Summary

An Indictment in United States v. Edward Baker Harrington, Criminal Case No. 22-cr-00324-NYW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, filed October 18, 2022 as Document 1. It charges Counts 1–8 of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and Counts 9–13 of money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957. The grand jury alleges that the defendant submitted fraudulent PPP applications to Banks 1–7 and Lender 1 for businesses including Arapaho Consulting LLC and obtained more than $1,000,000 in PPP loans from at least April 2020 to at least September 2021. The money laundering counts list transfers including $75,000.00 and $85,000.00 from an Arapaho Consulting LLC account. The Indictment seeks forfeiture of a money judgment and is signed by Assistant United States Attorney Nicole C. Cassidy.

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. Edward Baker Harrington, District of Colorado (Document 1).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/indictment-no-1-22-cr-00324-dkt-1-d-colo-68e49c4ce3/, SHA-256 1e8cb671f2c1de2c01a42c01c06930163dc5eba759437195849e77cbc785c65d.

Full text

Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 22-cr-00324-NYW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

1. EDWARD BAKER HARRINGTON,
a/k/a E. BAKER HARRINGTON,
a/k/a EDWARD BAKER HARRINGTON II,
a/k/a BAKER HARRINGTON,

Defendant.

INDICTMENT
Counts 1–8, 18 U.S.C. § 1343
Counts 9–13, 18 U.S.C. § 1957

The Grand Jury charges:

Counts 1–8
WIRE FRAUD, 18 U.S.C. § 1343

Background on COVID-19 Relief Programs

1. The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) is an executive-

branch agency of the United States government that provides support to entrepreneurs

and small businesses.

2. On March 27, 2020, the President of the United States signed into law the

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, which provided

emergency assistance to small business owners suffering adverse economic effects

1
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10

caused by the Coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic. The CARES Act established

several new temporary programs and expanded existing programs, including programs

created or administered by the SBA.

3. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the Paycheck

Protection Program (“PPP”), a program administered by the SBA that provided

forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses. A

business entity must have been in existence on or before February 15, 2020 to be

eligible for a PPP loan.

4. To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying small business was required to submit

a PPP loan application, signed by an authorized representative of the business, in

which the applicant acknowledged the program rules and made certain affirmative

certifications. The applicant was also required to state the business’s: (a) average

monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of employees. These figures were used to

calculate the loan amount that the business was eligible to receive under the PPP.

Businesses were also required to provide documentation showing their payroll

expenses, such as filed federal income tax documents.

5. PPP loan applications were received and processed, in the first instance,

by a participating lender. If a PPP loan application was approved, the participating

lender funded the loan using its own monies, but the loans were 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 course of processing the loan. The SBA paid participating lenders a

2
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10

processing fee for each funded PPP loan.

6. The proceeds of a PPP loan could be used for certain specified items,

such as payroll costs, mortgage interest payments, and utilities. The proceeds of a PPP

loan were not permitted to be used by the borrowers to purchase consumer goods,

automobiles, real estate, to pay the borrower’s personal federal income taxes, or to fund

the borrower’s ordinary day-to-day living expenses unrelated to the specified authorized

expenses.

7. Small businesses could request forgiveness of up to the full amount of the

PPP loan by filing a forgiveness application with the same lender. The forgiveness

application required the business to certify, among other things, that the loan was used

for eligible payroll and other business costs, and that the business had verified the

eligible payroll and nonpayroll costs for which the business requested forgiveness. The

business also was required to submit documentation to the lender verifying payroll

costs.

Individuals and Entities

8. At all times relevant to the Indictment, EDWARD BAKER HARRINGTON

(“HARRINGTON”), a/k/a E. BAKER HARRINGTON, EDWARD BAKER HARRINGTON

II, and BAKER HARRINGTON, was a resident of the State and District of Colorado.

9. HARRINGTON was a purported owner of the following businesses: Alpine

Search Partners LLC, Arapaho Consulting LLC, Elk Ridge Consulting, LLC, Spruce

Lake Consulting LLC, Spruce Lake Search LLC, and Summit Consulting Services LLC.

Banks and Lenders

3
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10

10. At all times relevant to the Indictment:

a. Bank 1 was a financial institution based in South Dakota whose

deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (“FDIC”). Bank 1 was an approved SBA lender of PPP

loans.

b. Bank 2 was a financial institution based in Wyoming whose

deposits were insured by the FDIC. Bank 2 was an approved SBA

lender of PPP loans.

c. Bank 3 was a financial institution based in Colorado whose

deposits were insured by the FDIC. Bank 3 was an approved SBA

lender of PPP loans.

d. Bank 4 was a financial institution based in Colorado whose

deposits were insured by the FDIC. Bank 4 was an approved SBA

lender of PPP loans.

e. Bank 5 was a financial institution based in Minnesota whose

deposits were insured by the FDIC. Bank 5 was an approved SBA

lender of PPP loans.

f. Bank 6 was a financial institution based in Minnesota whose

deposits were insured by the FDIC. Bank 6 was an approved SBA

lender of PPP loans.

g. Bank 7 was a financial institution based in Montana whose deposits

were insured by the FDIC. Bank 7 was an approved SBA lender of

4
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10

PPP loans.

h. Lender 1 was an approved SBA lender of PPP loans based in

Minnesota.

The Scheme to Defraud

11. Beginning in or around April 2020, and continuing until at least in or

around September 2021, within the State and District of Colorado and elsewhere,

defendant EDWARD BAKER HARRINGTON devised and intended to devise a scheme

to defraud and obtain money and property from the United States, Banks 1–7, and

Lender 1 by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and

promises (hereinafter referred to as the “Scheme”). It was part of the Scheme that:

12. HARRINGTON submitted a number of fraudulent PPP applications to

Banks 1–7 and Lender 1 on behalf of business entities that he controlled. These PPP

applications contained a number of false and fraudulent certifications and

representations regarding, inter alia, HARRINGTON’S social security number,

HARRINGTON’S criminal history, HARRINGTON’S ownership of other businesses, as

well as the businesses’ average monthly payroll and number of employees.

HARRINGTON further falsely represented that all PPP funds would be used to pay

eligible business expenses, when, in fact, the proceeds were used for HARRINGTON’s

personal benefit. HARRINGTON also submitted false and fraudulent documentation in

support of the PPP applications to Banks 1–7 and Lender 1.

13. From at least April 2020 to at least September 2021, HARRINGTON

obtained more than $1,000,000 in PPP loans as a result of the Scheme.

5
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10

14. HARRINGTON routinely transferred PPP funds derived from his Scheme

between bank accounts and utilized PPP funds to purchase goods and property,

including real estate and vehicles.

15. HARRINGTON also sought loan forgiveness for PPP loans by submitting

loan forgiveness applications in which he made false representations and certifications

regarding his businesses and his compliance with the PPP program rules, including

rules related to the eligible uses of PPP loan proceeds.

Execution of the Scheme

16. HARRINGTON made numerous false statements in each of the eight PPP

loan applications referenced in the wire fraud counts below, to include false statements

regarding his ownership of other businesses, his criminal history, and the business’s

average monthly payroll and number of employees.

17. For purposes of executing the Scheme described in paragraphs 11

through 16 above, on or about the dates listed below, HARRINGTON transmitted and

caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign

commerce the writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds set forth below:

Count Date Description of Wire

Payment file for Bank 1 processing fee of $1,041.60 from
SBA finance center in Colorado to U.S. Treasury
1 6/10/2020 disbursing office outside of Colorado caused by
HARRINGTON’s submission of Elk Ridge Consulting,
LLC’s PPP loan application.

Payment file for Bank 2 processing fee of $3,322.08 from
2 6/12/2020 SBA finance center in Colorado to U.S. Treasury
disbursing office outside of Colorado caused by

6
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10

HARRINGTON’s submission of Alpine Search, LLC’s PPP
loan application.

Payment file for Bank 3 processing fee of $4,987.75 from
SBA finance center in Colorado to U.S. Treasury
3 6/25/2020 disbursing office outside of Colorado caused by
HARRINGTON’s submission of Arapaho Consulting LLC’s
PPP loan application.

Payment file for Bank 4 processing fee of $4,987.80 from
SBA finance center in Colorado to U.S. Treasury
4 7/1/2020 disbursing office outside of Colorado caused by
HARRINGTON’s submission of Summit Consulting
Services LLC’s PPP loan application.

Payment file for Bank 5 processing fee of $7,460.00 from
SBA finance center in Colorado to U.S. Treasury
5 7/31/2020 disbursing office outside of Colorado caused by
HARRINGTON’s submission of Spruce Lake Search LLC’s
PPP loan application.

Payment file for Bank 6 processing fee of $6,420.00 from
SBA finance center in Colorado to U.S. Treasury
6 8/12/2020 disbursing office outside of Colorado caused by
HARRINGTON’s submission of Spruce Lake Consulting,
LLC’s PPP loan application.

Payment file for Bank 7 processing fee of $4,985.00 from
SBA finance center in Colorado to U.S. Treasury
7 8/24/2020 disbursing office outside of Colorado caused by
HARRINGTON’s submission of Alpine Search Partners
LLC’s PPP loan application.

Payment file for Lender 1 processing fee of $7,460.00 from
SBA finance center in Colorado to U.S. Treasury
8 8/28/2020 disbursing office outside of Colorado caused by
HARRINGTON’s submission of Alpine Search Partners
LLC’s PPP loan application.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

COUNTS 9– 13
MONEY LAUNDERING, 18 U.S.C. § 1957

7
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10

18. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 26 are re-alleged and

incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

19. On the dates set forth below, in the State and District of Colorado, and

elsewhere, EDWARD BAKER HARRINGTON, a/k/a E. BAKER HARRINGTON,

EDWARD BAKER HARRINGTON II, and BAKER HARRINGTON, did knowingly

engage and attempt to engage in monetary transactions, as defined in Title 18, United

States Code, Section 1957(f)(1), in criminally derived property of a value greater than

$10,000.00, which was derived from a specified unlawful activity, that is, wire fraud,

a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

Count Date Financial Transaction
Wire transfer of $75,000.00 from FMS Bank account
xxxx2592 in the name of Arapaho Consulting LLC to Bank of
9 6/9/2020
America account xxxxxxxx1816 in the name of Arapaho
Consulting LLC.
Wire Transfer of $47,500.00 from HPB account
xxxxxxxx5210 in the name of Summit Consulting Services
10 6/25/2020
LLC to Bank of America account xxxxxxxx6420 in the name
of Elk Ridge Consulting LLC.
Wire transfer of $24,000.00 from FMS Bank account
xxxx2592 in the name of Arapaho Consulting LLC to Bank of
11 10/9/2020
America account xxxxxxxx1816 in the name of Arapaho
Consulting LLC.
Wire transfer of $85,000.00 from FMS Bank account
xxxx2592 in the name of Arapaho Consulting LLC to Bank of
12 1/28/2021
America account xxxxxxxx1816 in the name of Arapaho
Consulting LLC.
Wire Transfer of $43,498.56 from Bank of America account
xxxxxxxx6417 in the name of Elk Ridge Consulting LLC to
13 3/31/2021
US Bank xxxxxxxx6875 in the name of Chicago Title of
Colorado for “Lot 75 Brook Drive Full and Final.”

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957.

8
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10

Forfeiture Allegation

20. The allegations contained in Counts 1 through 13 of this Indictment are

hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeiture

pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981(a)(1)(C),

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

21. Upon conviction of the violations alleged in Counts 1 through 13 of this

Indictment involving the commission of violations of Title 18, United States Code,

Sections 1343 and 1957, defendant EDWARD BAKER HARRINGTON, a/k/a E. BAKER

HARRINGTON, EDWARD BAKER HARRINGTON II, and BAKER HARRINGTON, shall

forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections

981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c) any and all of the

defendant‘s right, title and interest in all property constituting and derived from any

proceeds the defendant obtained directly and indirectly as a result of such offense,

including, but not limited to: a money judgment in the amount of proceeds obtained by

the defendant.

22. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission

of the defendant:

a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third
party;
c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;
d) has been substantially diminished in value; or
e) has been commingled with other property which
cannot be subdivided without difficulty;

9
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10

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 the defendant up to the value of the forfeitable

property.

A TRUE BILL: Ink Signature on File in Clerk’s Office
FOREPERSON

COLE FINEGAN
United States Attorney

By: s/ Nicole C. Cassidy
Nicole C. Cassidy
Martha A. Paluch
Assistant United States Attorneys
United States Attorney’s Office
1801 California Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 454-0100
Fax: (303) 454-0409
E-mail:
nicole.cassidy@usdoj.gov
martha.paluch@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States

File and source

File: 1-indictment-harrington.pdf
Size: 240,816 bytes
SHA-256: 1e8cb671f2c1de2c01a42c01c06930163dc5eba759437195849e77cbc785c65d
Our copy: 1-indictment-harrington.pdf
Original: archive.org