Indictment — United States v. Mo Yuong Kang, District of Massachusetts (Document 1)

Summary

A grand jury indictment of Mo Yuong Kang, Case No. 1:25-cr-10349-BEM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, filed August 26, 2025 as Document 1. Counts One-Four charge wire fraud and aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2. The indictment alleges that Kang, a full-time Industrial Hygienist with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration earning approximately $86,667 in 2020 and $90,738 in 2021, applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance on or about April 20, 2020 as self-employed and certified weekly through September 4, 2021 that no work or income was received. It alleges Kang received PUA payments totaling $45,868, and the charged wires include DUA transfers of $292 and $592. The forfeiture allegation seeks a money judgment of $45,868.

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 1:25-cr-10349-BEM Document1 Filed 08/26/25 Pagei1of8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal No. 25cr10349

Violations:
V.
Counts One-Four: Wire Fraud; Aiding and
Abetting

(18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2)

MO YUONG KANG

Defendant

Wire Fraud Forfeiture Allegation:
(18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and
28 U.S.C. § 2461)

INDICTMENT

At all times relevant to this Indictment:

General Allegations

1. The defendant, MO YUONG KANG (KANG), was a resident of Woburn, and
Dracut, Massachusetts. KANG was a full-time Industrial Hygienist with the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA), an agency of the United States Department of Labor (DOL),
from June 2016 until July 2023.

2. The Massachusetts Division of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) was a state agency
located in Boston, Massachusetts that administers unemployment benefits programs in the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Case 1:25-cr-10349-BEM Document1 Filed 08/26/25 Page 2of8

3. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, unemployment insurance (UI) benefits are
funded by the UI Trust Fund, which is comprised of federal funds, as well as monies obtained by
state-imposed taxes on employers. DUA is responsible for administering the UI program in
Massachusetts.

4. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was a federal
law enacted in 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. The
CARES Act created a new temporary federal unemployment insurance program called pandemic
unemployment assistance (PUA). PUA provided unemployment benefits for individuals who were
not eligible for UI or other types of unemployment (e.g., individuals who were self-employed,
independent contractors, gig economy workers). All COVID-19 UI claims, and PUA claims, were
eligible to receive additional monies and additional benefit weeks from temporary federal
programs created by the CARES Act. Eligibility for PUA claims was verified against quarterly
earnings reports of W-2 wage earners provided by employers to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

5. Along with the UI program, the DUA administered and managed the PUA program
in Massachusetts. CARES Act program monies were received by the DUA into a People’s United
bank account in Connecticut from the United States Treasury. The monies paid to the claimants
for these programs were transmitted via interstate wire communications from Connecticut to the
claimant’s designated bank account or the bank account for a Bank of America pre-paid debit card.

6. To receive PUA benefits, Massachusetts claimants were required, as applicable, to
(i) create an online account to submit the application (also known as PUA registration); (ii) provide

eligibility criteria; (iii) provide the reason(s) for unemployed status (e.g., how COVID-19 affected
Case 1:25-cr-10349-BEM Document1 Filed 08/26/25 Page 3of8

employment); and (iv) certify that all the statements in the application were true, among other
things. PUA claims submitted online to the DUA were processed via a server in Colorado.

7. To continue to receive weekly PUA or UI benefits, as applicable, claimants were
required to submit weekly certifications online to the DUA that confirmed whether or not the
applicant (i) worked during the weekly reporting period; and (ii) recetved any income during the
weekly reporting period. Weekly certifications submitted online to the DUA were also processed
via a server in Colorado. It was material to the DUA that it received truthful, complete, and
accurate information from applicants in the PUA registration, UI application, weekly
certifications, and eligibility verification process, so that PUA and UI funds were disbursed to

qualified and eligible recipients.

Scheme to Defraud the DUA

8. Beginning in or around April 2020, and continuing until at least in or around
September 2021, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere, KANG devised a scheme to
defraud, and to obtain PUA benefits, by filing a false and fraudulent application and weekly
certifications with the DUA.

9. The purpose of the scheme was for KANG to obtain PUA payments under false and
misleading pretenses, including false statements about his weekly income and weekly employment
status.

10. KANG’s compensation from OSHA was approximately $86,667 in 2020, and
approximately $90,738 in 2021.

11. Onor about April 20, 2020, KANG caused an online application to be submitted for
PUA benefits (the PUA Registration). After certifying that his statements were truthful and

accurate, and acknowledging that his statements were made under the penalty of perjury and that
Case 1:25-cr-10349-BEM Document1 Filed 08/26/25 Page4of8

he could be subject to criminal prosecution, (i) KANG checked the box stating that he was “self
employed, an independent contractor, or a gig worker and COVID-19 has severely limited my
ability to perform my normal work” and (ii) KANG stated that the first date that he was accordingly
impacted by COVID-19 was March 7, 2020.

12. In his PUA Registration, KANG stated that he was not able and available to work
during the period from March 8, 2020 to April 18, 2020, and KANG denied earning in excess of

$89 in any work week between March 8, 2020 and April 18, 2020:

Did you have earnings in excess of $89.00 in any work week between 05-

Mar-2020 and 18-Apr-2020?

13. Following the submission of his PUA Registration, KANG submitted weekly
certifications (the Weekly Certifications) to the DUA for weeks ending March 7, 2020 through
September 4, 2021, claiming that he did not work and did not receive any income during those
weekly periods. For example, KANG submitted the following Weekly Certification for the week

ending March 7, 2020:

Earnings and Other Income

Did you work or telework between Sunday, March 1, 2020 and Saturday, March 7, 2020? This includes both full-time end part-time employment.

Did you receive any other income between Sunday, March 1, 2020 and Saturday, March 7, 2020? This inciuces holiday pay, sick pay, and vacat’on pay.

14. Based upon KANG’s PUA Registration and KANG’s Weekly Certifications for the
weeks ending March 7, 2020 through September 4, 2021, KANG received PUA payments totaling
$45,868, which payments were sent via direct deposit payments to KANG’s Bank of America

checking account.
Case 1:25-cr-10349-BEM Document1 Filed 08/26/25 Page5of8

15. KANG knew that his PUA Registration and Weekly Certifications for the weeks
ending March 7, 2020 through September 4, 2021 were false because KANG earned weekly salary
from the DOL well in excess of $89 per week for each of the weekly work periods ending March

7, 2020 through September 4, 2021.
Case 1:25-cr-10349-BEM Document1 Filed 08/26/25 Page 6of8

COUNTS ONE - FOUR
Wire Fraud; Aiding and Abetting
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2)

The Grand Jury charges:

16. The Grand Jury re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-15 of this
Indictment.

17. Onor about the dates set forth below, in the District of Massachusetts and elsewhere,
the defendant,

MO YUONG KANG,

having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining 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 and foreign
commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing the scheme

to defraud, as set forth below:

Count | Approximate Date Description

1 September 27, 2020 | The Weekly Certification for the Week Ending September
; 26, 2020, caused to be electronically submitted by KANG, in
Massachusetts, and routed interstate through servers outside

of Massachusetts.

2 September 30, 2020 | DUA wire transfer of $292 to KANG’s account at Bank of
America.

3 August 22, 2021 The Weekly Certification for the Week Ending August 21,

2021, caused to be electronically submitted by KANG, in
Massachusetts, and routed interstate through servers outside
of Massachusetts.

4 August 25, 2021 DUA wire transfer of $592 to KANG’s account at Bank of
America,

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.
Case 1:25-cr-10349-BEM Document1 Filed 08/26/25 Page/7of8

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
(18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c))

The Grand Jury further finds:
18. Uponconviction of one or more of the offenses in violation of. Title 18, United States
Code, Section 1343, set forth in Counts One through Four, the defendant,
MO YUONG KANG,

shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C),
and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), any property, real or personal, which
constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the offenses. The property to be forfeited
includes, but is not limited to, the following assets:

a. $45,868, to be entered in the form of a forfeiture money judgment.

19. Ifany of the property described in Paragraph 18, above, as being forfeitable pursuant
to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), and Title 28, United States Code, Section
2461(c), 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 divided without
difficulty;

it is the intention of the United States, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c),
incorporating Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property
of the defendant up to the value of the property described in Paragraph 18 above.

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), and Title 28, United

States Code, Section 2461(c).
Case 1:25-cr-10349-BEM Document1 Filed 08/26/25 Page 8of8

A TRUE BILL

KRI A ESBARCLAY “7
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

District of Massachusetts: August 26 , 2025
Returned into the District Court by the Grand Jurors and filed.

/s/ Noreen A. Russo
DEPUTY CLERK

at 11:22 AM


File and source

File

1-indictment.pdf

Size

4,842,541 bytes

SHA-256

9400d1a11c9e2aaa623f1ae80396b4159a52a7527820150beacf60c95cf1d6a0

Our copy

1-indictment.pdf

Original

archive.org