Indictment — United States v. Shahriar Loloee and Karla Montoya, Eastern District of California (Document 1)

Summary

A grand jury indictment filed December 14, 2023 as Document 1 in United States v. Shahriar "Sean" Loloee and Karla Montoya, Case No. 2:23-cr-00320-TLN, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. It charges conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to defraud the Department of Labor, commit immigration document fraud and obstruct justice, possession and use of false immigration documents under 18 U.S.C. § 1546, obstruction of agency proceedings, falsification of records under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. It alleges that Loloee, owner of the Viva Supermarkets chain in the Sacramento area, and Montoya, its general manager, hired workers using fraudulent documents and paid them off the books to avoid overtime. It states Department of Labor investigations led to back-wage agreements of approximately $3,496.18 and $35,423.35.

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.

N HD WN

10 |

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 1of 26

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

AUDREY B. HEMESATH FILED
MATTHEW THUESEN Dec 14. 2023
KEVIN KHASIGIAN CLERK, U.S. istRICT COURT
Assistant United States Attorneys EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

501 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: 916-554-2700

Attorneys for Plaintiff
United States of America
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2:23-cr-0320 KJM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. )
Plaintiff, 18 U.S.C. § 371 — Conspiracy to Defraud the
Department of Labor, to Commit Immigration
Vv. Document Fraud, and to Obstruct Justice; 18 U.S.C.
§ 1546(a) — Possession of False Immigration
SHAHRIAR “SEAN” LOLOEE and Documents (14 counts); 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b) — Use of
KARLA MONTOYA, a False Immigration Document (2 counts); 18 U.S.C.
§ 1505(c) — Obstruction of Agency Proceedings (2
Defendants. counts); 18 U.S.C. § 1519 —Falsification of Records
(3 counts); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud (3 counts);
18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) —
Criminal Forfeiture
INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges:

INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS

At all relevant times:
Entities and Individuals
1. Viva Supermarkets was a chain of Sacramento-area grocery stores that included:
(a) SL One Global, Inc., doing business as Viva Supermarket #1, which was
incorporated on or about January 2, 2008, and located at 4211 Norwood Avenue,
Sacramento, California;

(b) Uni Foods, Inc., doing business as Viva Supermarket #2, which was incorporated

INDICTMENT
Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Documenti1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 2 of 26

on or about August 28, 2008, and located at 925 North Adams Street, Dixon,
California, until on or about September 3, 2021, when the store was sold;

(c) SMF Global, Inc., doing business as Viva Supermarket #3, which was
incorporated on or about June 24, 2014, and located at 3845 Marysville
Boulevard, Sacramento, California;

(d) Nari Trading, Inc., doing business as Viva Supermarket #4; which was
incorporated on or about June 24, 2014, and located at 10385 Folsom Boulevard,
Rancho Cordova, California.

2. Viva Supermarkets maintained a corporate office in an office park with the addresses
4750 and 4758 Duckhorn Drive, Sacramento, California.

3. Fresh Pak Produce, LLC, was a corporate entity, described as in the business of “produce
wholesale,” located in Sacramento, California, which was dissolved on or about April 1, 2020.

4. Food Plus, LLC, was a corporate entity located in Sacramento, California.

5. SHAHRIAR “SEAN” LOLOEE was an owner and managing shareholder of each of the
corporate entities identified in paragraphs | through 4 above. LOLOEE solely owned each corporation,
with the exception of Nari Trading, of which one of his family members owned 10%, and LOLOEE
owned the remaining 90%. As an owner and managing shareholder of the corporations, LOLOEE was
responsible for setting employee wages and hours, and had the authority to hire and fire employees.

6. KARLA MONTOYA was the General Manager of each of the Viva Supermarkets
identified in paragraph one. Her job responsibilities included hiring, firing, and disciplining employees,
determining work schedules, and employment practices. MONTOYA began working at the Viva
Supermarkets in or about November 2008, when LOLOEE employed her.

7. Across all Viva Supermarket locations and the corporate headquarters, LOLOEE
employed approximately 150 individuals at any given time.

8. Each of the Viva Supermarkets was an authorized agent of Western Union Financial
Services, Inc. (“Western Union”), and maintained an embedded Western Union office at each store
location. LOLOEE was the authorized signatory for each of the Western Union offices.

9. The United States Department of Labor (“Department of Labor”) was a United States

INDICTMENT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Documenti1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 3of 26

government agency with authority to investigate potential labor violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (“Fair Labor Standards Act”), among other statutes. The Wage and Hour
Division of the United States Department of Labor (“Wage and Hour Division”) had authority to
investigate, among other things, whether employees were being paid properly according to applicable
federal labor laws.

Employment of Undocumented Workers at the Viva Supermarkets

10. Background on J-9 Verification. Federal law required employers to verify a job

candidate’s eligibility to work in the United States before employment could commence. This
verification was accomplished by an employer and employee completing a United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. In addition to the form,
applicants were required to submit to the employer documents as evidence of their identity and
employment authorization. Among the acceptable list of documents to verify employment authorization
were a Permanent Resident Card and a Social Security card with an accompanying identity document.
Employers were required to examine the documents to determine whether they appeared genuine and

record the document information on the employee’s Form I-9. The employer also was required to

‘certify, among other things, that it reviewed the documents, the documents appeared genuine, and, to the

best of its knowledge, the employee was authorized to work in the United States.

11. Use of Fraudulent Documents at Viva Supermarkets. Beginning as early as in or about
November 2008 and continuing through in or about October 2023, LOLOEE and MONTOYA hired and
employed workers at the Viva Supermarkets who used fraudulent documents to satisfy the I-9
employment verification requirement.

12. Montoya Herself Used Fraudulent Documents. MONTOYA herself lacked employment

eligibility to work in the United States, but her personnel file at the Viva Supermarkets contained a
fraudulent Permanent Resident Card, in order to give the appearance of employment eligibility. In
addition, MONTOYA’s personnel file contained a Social Security card bearing a Social Security
number that belonged to a United States citizen who had passed away in September 2007, for the
purpose of giving the appearance that she was eligible to work in the United States.

13. Purpose of Hiring Undocumented Workers. MONTOYA, at LOLOEE’s direction,

INDICTMENT
ao nN DN

\o

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Documenti1 _ Filed 12/14/23 Page 4 of 26

regularly hired undocumented workers at the Viva Supermarkets because it was LOLOEE’s view that
undocumented workers were easier to control. LOLOEE had knowledge of the practice of hiring
undocumented workers and himself reviewed job applicants. By maintaining a workforce of
undocumented workers, LOLOEE enriched himself in various ways, including by not paying them
overtime wages that would otherwise be required.

14. | LOLOEE and MONTOYA used various means of controlling the undocumented
workforce at the supermarkets, including (a) stating that LOLOEE knew who was “illegal,” to create an
atmosphere of intimidation; (b) threatening workers with adverse immigration consequences if they
acted against LOLOEE’s interest; (c) requiring attendance at all-hands meetings at which adverse
immigration consequences were threatened; (d) requiring employees who did not speak English to sign
untranslated documents as a condition of employment, and then threatening the employees with the
content of the signed documents; (e) stating that they knew personal information such as where
undocumented workers lived, in order to suggest that these workers were vulnerable to being turned in
to immigration authorities; and (f) stating that LOLOEE knew many important people who could
investigate the members of the workforce in order to intimidate them.

15. MONTOYA and LOLOEE hired undocumented workers at the Viva Supermarkets to
reduce labor costs illegally, among other reasons. LOLOEE and MONTOYA deployed this system of
maintaining an undocumented labor force in all Viva Supermarkets across many years and through at
least in or about October 2023.

16. Methods of Hiring Undocumented Workers. In some instances, MONTOYA directed job

candidates who admitted that they did not possess lawful employment authorization documents to obtain
fraudulent documents from locations in South Sacramento. In at least one instance, MONTOYA herself
obtained a fraudulent document for an undocumented applicant. In other instances, MONTOYA
accepted for verification purposes documents that she knew were fraudulent.

17. In October 2023, fraudulent employment authorization information, including fraudulent
Social Security cards and fraudulent Permanent Resident cards, were contained in the personnel files of
at least 289 Viva Supermarket employees.

INDICTMENT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Documenti1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 5of.26

Irregular and Off-the-Books Payments of Viva Supermarkets Employees

18. | LOLOEE’s employment of undocumented employees allowed him to pay them in
irregular ways and off-the-books, because LOLOEE understood that these employees were vulnerable
and lacked negotiating leverage regarding the method of payment. The purpose of paying
undocumented employees in irregular ways and off-the-books was it allowed LOLOEE to avoid paying
overtime wages, among other benefits.

19. | LOLOEE evolved the methods by which he paid undocumented workers over time to
adapt to changing circumstances, but always with the goal of minimizing the expense of his labor force.

20. Payment in Cash. From at least in or about 2018 through in or about March 2020,

LOLOEE paid certain undocumented workers their wages in cash, and typically without providing a
paystub.

21. Payment From a Different Corporate Entity. From at least as early as in or about January

1, 2017, through in or about May 2017, LOLOEE paid certain Viva Supermarket workers, including
MONTOYA, with checks from Food Plus, LLC, the entity that provided administrative services to each
of the Viva Supermarkets, even though those employees did not work at or for Food Plus, LLC, but
rather worked at one of the Viva Supermarket locations.

22. Green Checks. From at least in or about May 2017 through in or about January 2020,
certain employees received wages via what purported to be a check from Fresh Pak Produce, LLC.
Employees understood that generally these “checks” could not be remitted at a financial institution—
indeed, in many instances, the “checks” said “void” on their face. Viva Supermarket employees referred
to these “checks” as “green checks” for the green paper on which they were printed.

23. LOLOEE and MONTOYA instructed Viva Supermarket employees that the green checks
were like receiving cash and had to be cashed at the Western Union offices within the Viva
Supermarkets. The “checks” contained a paycheck stub attached. As a means of maintaining secrecy
over this irregular payment method, LOLOEE and MONTOYA told employees that the green checks
were not real paystubs and were not to be photocopied or presented at any office.

24, Employees were charged 2% to cash their checks at the Viva Supermarket Western

Unions as a surcharge that benefitted LOLOEE. No taxes or withholdings were withheld from the green

INDICTMENT 5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Documenti1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 6 of 26

checks.
25. None of the green checks were reported as wages on any of the employment tax returns
filed for any of LOLOEE’s businesses.

26. Payment in Store Vouchers. LOLOEE occasionally required that a portion of employees’

pay be redeemed as a store voucher that could be used only for purchases at Viva Supermarkets.
LOLOEE carried out this directive by requiring green checks or cash pay to be facilitated via the
embedded Western Union franchises, which would distribute the vouchers as a portion of the
employees’ pay.

27. Payment in Part in Check and in Part in Cash. LOLOEE evolved his payment method

over time to include paying employees their regular hours per pay period via bank check, and then any
additional hours in cash, to avoid documentation of any overtime hours. The Fair Labor Standards Act
required overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek at a rate not less than one and a half
times an employee’s regular rate of pay, except for certain exempt workers. LOLOEE did not pay the
required overtime wage for the overtime hours; rather, he continued to pay the regular hours wage for
the overtime hours.

28. Salary Payments. In or about 2020, in an effort to avoid paying overtime wages, among

other purposes, LOLOEE transitioned employees who were previously paid hourly to “salary” positions.
The purportedly salaried employees were assigned no higher than the hourly wage the employees were
making, and, in some instances, the salaried wage was lower. LOLOEE deemed these positions to be
“salary” positions even if the employee job responsibilities did not correspond to job duties exempted
from the overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. By reassigning employees to a
salaried position, LOLOEE tried to avoid paying his employees overtime wages for overtime work and
also tried to reduce his employment tax liability.
Labor Violations and Obstruction of Labor Investigations

29. The United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division conducted three
investigations involving Viva Supermarkets. During these investigations, Department of Labor
investigators conducted interviews and site visits to verify, among other things, that workers at Viva

Supermarkets were paid properly according to applicable federal labor laws.

INDICTMENT
Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Documenti1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 7 of 26

30. The employment of undocumented workers emboldened LOLOEE and MONTOYA to
commit labor violations based on the assumption that undocumented workers would be less likely to
complain about the employment conditions. LOLOEE exercised control over his undocumented
workforce to attempt to thwart federal labor investigations into his supermarkets.

31. First Department of Labor Investigation. The Wage and Hour Division began an

investigation into the wage and hour practices of SL One Global, Inc. (Viva Supermarket), and
LOLOEE, from on or about November 10, 2008, through on or about May 26, 2009. In the course of
this investigation, the Wage and Hour Division determined that SL One Global, Inc., and LOLOEE had
violated multiple provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et. seq.), including a
finding that LOLOEE and his corporate entity owed employees of Viva Supermarkets back wages.
LOLOEE and his corporate entity entered into a written agreement to pay approximately $3,496.18 in
back wages.

32. Second Department of Labor Investigation. The Wage and Hour Division began a

second investigation into the wage and hour practices of LOLOEE from between on or about February
20, 2018, through on or about February 19, 2020. The second investigation focused on the Norwood
Viva Supermarket location. This second investigation revealed that LOLOEE had again violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act, including its overtime pay requirements set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 207. The
agency made a finding that LOLOEE and his corporate entity once again owed employees back pay.
LOLOEE and his corporate entity entered a written agreement to pay approximately $35,423.35 in back
wages.

33. Third Department of Labor Investigation. The Wage and Hour Division began a third

investigation in or about September 2020 into the wage and hour practices of LOLOEE. This third
investigation initially also focused on the Norwood Viva Supermarket location, and only from between
in or about February 2020 to in or about November 2020. In or about F ebruary 2021, the agency
expanded the investigation to include all Viva Supermarket locations and a three-year period from
between in or about October 23, 2017 through in or about May 16, 2021. As part of this third
investigation, the Wage and Hour Division sent an agency investigator to the Viva Supermarket stores

for the purpose of encountering employees in their workplace and conducting interviews. Agency

INDICTMENT
SI HD WN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
26
Del
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Documenti1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 8 of 26

investigators also conducted interviews of both LOLOEE and MONTOYA in furtherance of their
investigation. In 2022, the Department of Labor filed a lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act
relating to the agency’s investigation of LOLOEE, MONTOYA, and the Viva Supermarkets. At the
conclusion of this third investigation, the Wage and Hour Division informed LOLOEE that the agency
was seeking to collect approximately $1,500,000 in back wages, liquidated damages, and civil monetary
penalties.

34. Obstructive Conduct. To discourage Viva Supermarket employees from complying with

the Department of Labor investigations, LOLOEE and MONTOYA employed various tactics, including:
(a) threatening adverse immigration consequences if employees cooperated with the agency’s
investigation; (b) directing employees to lie about aspects of their employment, including the start date
of their Viva Supermarkets employment; (c) directing employees to work in secluded areas of the store
in order to prevent contact with agency investigators; (d) instructing employees not to speak with agency
investigators; (e) directing some employees to impersonate agency investigators in order to gather
information and identify other employees who cooperated with the agency’s investigation; (f) directing
employees to take off their store uniforms to make them look like customers when agency investigators
were present; (g) listening in on at least one employee interview with agency investigators to influence |
the answers provided; (h) hiring someone to act as though they were a customer while following the
agency investigator through the store to learn what the investigator was asking about and being told; and
(i) manipulating employee schedules to avoid having undocumented workers and other employees who
may be forthright with the investigator present when the investigator visited the stores.

35. Return of Back Wages. In addition, without the knowledge or approval of the

Department of Labor, LOLOEE and MONTOYA asked employees who had received back wage
payments in resolution of the second Wage and Hour Division investigation to return those.payments to
LOLOEE.

36. Loloee Made False Statements to Investigators. LOLOEE was interviewed by

Department of Labor investigators and made false statements, including the false statements that he
never paid employees in green checks, cash, or any other irregular manner.

37. “Montoya Made False Statements to Investigators. MONTOYA also made false

INDICTMENT
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 9 of 26

statements to a Department of Labor investigator, including, among others, that no employee had ever

received cash payments, and that all employees had always been paid with paychecks.

COUNT ONE: [18 U.S.C. § 371 — Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Violate 18 U.S.C. §§
1546 and 1505]

The Grand Jury charges:

SHABRIR “SEAN” LOLOEE and
KARLA MONTOYA,

defendants herein, as follows:

THE CONSPIRACY AND ITS OBJECTS

1. Beginning in at least in or about April 2014 and continuing through in or about October
2023, in the State and Eastern District of California and elsewhere, LOLOEE and MONTOYA did
knowingly and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other and with others
known and unknown to the Grand Jury to defraud the United States and an agency thereof, to wit, the
United States Department of Labor, and to commit offenses against the United States of America, to wit,
to violate Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1546(a), 1546(b), and 1505. The following were each
objects of the conspiracy:

(a) To defraud the United States and the United States Department of Labor by and through
deceitful and dishonest means for the purpose of impeding, impairing, obstructing, and
defeating the lawful governmental functions of the Department of Labor in investigating,
assessing, and enforcing violations of applicable federal labor laws, to wit, federal
overtime pay requirements; |

| (b) To knowingly use, attempt to use, possess, obtain, accept, and receive any document
prescribed by statute and regulation as evidence of authorized employment in the United
States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, and falsely made, and to have been
otherwise procured by fraud and unlawfully obtained, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1546(a);

(c) To use an identification document, knowing and having reason to know that the
document was not issued lawfully for the use of the possessor, and knowing and having

reason to know that the document was false, for the purpose of satisfying a requirement

_ INDICTMENT ?
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ae

23

24
25
26
2/7
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1° Filed 12/14/23 Page 10 of 26

of section 274A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1546(b); and

(d) To corruptly influence, obstruct, and impede, and endeavor to influence, obstruct, and

| impede, the due and proper administration of the law under which a pending proceeding
regarding potential violations of federal labor laws was being had before the United
States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1505.
MANNER AND MEANS

In furtherance of the conspiracy, LOLOEE and MONTOYA employed, among others, the
following ways and means: |

2. It was a part of the conspiracy that LOLOEE and MONTOYA engaged in and caused
others to engage in the conduct described in the Introductory Allegations of this Indictment. Paragraphs
1 through 37 of the Introductory Allegations of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.

3. It wa also a part of the conspiracy that LOLOEE and MONTOYA committed and
caused to be committed the overt acts listed below.

OVERT ACTS

4. In furtherance of said conspiracy and to accomplish its objects, at least one of the
conspirators committed, or caused to be committed, in the State and Eastern District of California, the
following overt acts, among others: |

(a) In or about November 2008, LOLOEE employed MONTOYA at the Viva Supermarket
Norwood location. MONTOYA lacked employment eligibility in the United States and
has never been eligible for employment in the United States.

(b) In or about April 2014, MONTOYA instructed Employee 1 to go to a location in South
Sacramento in order to obtain fraudulent employment documents. MONTOYA then
accepted these fraudulent documents for verification of Employee 1’s employment
eligibility.

(c) In or about April 2014, LOLOEE and MONTOYA hired Employee 1 for a position at

INDICTMENT 10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 11 of 26

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(k)

(m)

(n)

INDICTMENT

Viva Supermarkets.

In or about August 2016, MONTOYA accepted a fraudulent Social Security card to hire
Employee 2 at Viva Supermarkets.

In or about February 2017, LOLOEE and MONTOYA accepted a fraudulent Social
Security card and a fraudulent Permanent Resident Card to hire Employee 16 at Viva
Supermarkets.

In or about March 2017, MONTOYA accepted a fraudulent Social Security card to hire
Employee 3 at Viva Supermarkets.

In or about April 2020, LOLOEE and MONTOYA hired Employee 4 for a position at
Viva Supermarkets.

In or about April 2020, MONTOYA accepted a fraudulent Social Security card to hire
Employee 4 at Viva Supermarkets.

In or about February 2020, MONTOYA directed one or more individuals to follow Wage
and Hour Division investigators while they conducted site visits at the Viva Supermarket
locations, to listen to investigators’ conversations with employees.

In or about February 2020, MONTOYA and LOLOEE directed and caused others to
direct certain employees to hide during one or more Wage and Hour Division investigator

In or about February 2020, during the second Department of Labor investigation,
LOLOEE held an all-hands meeting of Viva Supermarket employees at which LOLOEE
stated that he wanted to know if workers were with him or against him, and indicated that
if they were against him that they should leave.

In or about February 2020, MONTOYA stated to a Department of Labor investigator that
no employee works more than 40 hours per week.

On or about May 14, 2020, LOLOEE told a Department of Labor investigator that he did
not pay any Viva Supermarket employees in cash.

In or about May 2020, LOLOEE provided the Department of Labor a list of Viva

Supermarket employees in connection with the second investigation. The list that

11
aI DN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 12 of 26

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

INDICTMENT

LOLOEE provided listed a 2020 hire date for employees who had actually been
employed by LOLOEE for years.

In or about 2020, LOLOEE called Employee 5 into his office. LOLOEE instructed

Employee 5 to deposit the back wages check she had received from the settlement of the
second Department of Labor investigation into a bank, but then to give the money back to
LOLOEE.

In or about 2020, MONTOYA instructed Employee 6 that she had to return the back
wages she had received from the settlement of the second Department of Labor
investigation to LOLOEE. MONTOYA said that LOLOEE does not owe anyone money
and that every employee was paid what they were owed. MONTOYA further stated that
LOLOEE was obligated to pay his employees with those settlement checks but
reemphasized that nothing was owed to the employees.

In or about late 2020, MONTOYA directed Employee 3 into a Viva Supermarket
administrative office and informed her that Viva Supermarkets was once again being
investigated by the Department of Labor. MONTOYA instructed Employee 3 to tell the
investigators that she started working at the Viva Supermarkets that same year, 2020,
when in truth and as MONTOYA knew, Employee 3 had been a Viva Supermarkets
employee since at least in or about 2017.

In or about late 2020, LOLOEE held an all-hands meeting regarding the third Department
of Labor investigation. At this meeting, LOLOEE demanded that any employee who
received a letter communication from the Wage and Hour Division should provide the
letter to him. |

On or about April 2, 2021, after LOLOEE came to possess letters from the Department of
Labor attempting to contact Viva Supermarket employees regarding the third
investigation commenced in September 2020, LOLOEE claimed to a Department of
Labor investigator that the employees had given him the letters voluntarily.

On or about November 19, 2020, LOLOEE told a Department of Labor investigator that

it was not true that he had requested back wage money to be paid back to him from any

12
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 13 of 26

(k)

(1)

(m)

(n)

(p)

(q)

(r)

(s)

INDICTMENT

Viva Supermarket employees.

In or about November 2020, LOLOEE provided the Department of Labor a list of
Norwood location Viva Supermarket employees in connection with the third Wage and
Hour Division investigation. The list that LOLOEE provided listed a 2020 employment |
hire date for employees who had actually been employed by LOLOEE for much longer.
In or about December 2020, LOLOEE and MONTOYA directed that undocumented
employee Employee 7 repay LOLOEE the back wages that LOLOEE had paid to him as
a result of the second Department of Labor investigation and settlement.

In or about December 2020, LOLOEE directed undocumented employee Employee 7 to
deposit the back wages check before repaying the back wages to LOLOEE.

On or about March 22, 2021, during the third Department of Labor investigation,
MONTOYA joined and listened in on an employee interview with an agency investigator
to influence that employee into denying that he had been asked to repay back wages that
LOLOEE had paid him.

On or about February 19, 2021, LOLOEE told Department of Labor investigators that he
never told any employees to “bring the money back,” in reference to the returned back
wage payments.

On or about February 19, 2021, LOLOEE told Department of Labor investigators that
employees had never been paid in cash or in green checks.

In or about February 2021, LOLOEE provided the Department of Labor with Excel
spreadsheets of Viva Supermarket employees at all four Viva Supermarket locations for
the period of October 23, 2017, through in or about May 16, 2021. These spreadsheets
indicated a 2020 hire date for employees who had been hired well before 2020.

On or about March 12, 2021, LOLOEE told a Department of Labor investigator that “we
have never paid anyone in cash.”

On or about March 16, 2021, MONTOYA told a Department of Labor investigator that

‘she was not aware of any Viva Supermarket employees returning back wage payments to

LOLOEE, and that she did not ask any employees to return the back wage payments.

13
Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 14 of 26

(t) © Onor about March 16, 2021, MONTOYA told a Department of Labor investigator that
no Viva Supermarket employee had ever received cash payments, and that all employees
_ have always been paid in paychecks.
. (u) On or about June 17, 2021, LOLOEE stated to Wage and Hour Division Investigators
that none of his employees was ever paid in cash, voucher, or green check.

(v) | Onor about June 17, 2021, specific to the green checks, LOLOEE posited to Department
of Labor investigators that his office was broken into a few years ago, and that perhaps
the green checks were stolen at that time, as a way to explain Viva Supermarkets
employees receiving pay via the green checks.

(w) Onor about June 17, 2021, LOLOEE stated to Department of Labor investigators that
Fresh Pak Produce, LLC, had been inactive for four years and had no relation to Viva
Supermarkets.

(x) | Onor about June 17, 2021, LOLOEE claimed to Department of Labor investigators that
he was not affiliated with the Western Union locations in his stores.

(y) Inor about October 2021, MONTOYA and LOLOEE hired Employee 8 for a position at
Viva Supermarkets. . |

(z) In or about October 2021, MONTOYA accepted a fraudulent Social Security card to hire

Employee 8 at Viva Supermarkets.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

COUNTS TWO THROUGH FIFTEEN: [18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) — Possession of False Immigration
Documents; 18 U.S.C. § 2 — Aiding and Abetting]

The Grand Jury further charges: TH A T

SHAHRIAR “SEAN” LOLOEE and
KARLA MONTOYA,

defendants herein, on or about the dates listed below, in the State and Eastern District of California, did
knowingly use, attempt to use, possess, obtain, accept, and receive any document prescribed by statute
or regulation as evidence of authorized employment in the United States, knowing it 40 be forged,
counterfeited, altered, and falsely made, and to have been otherwise procured by fraud and unlawfully

obtained, and did knowingly aid, abet, assist, counsel, command, induce, and procure the same, in

INDICTMENT 14
Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN

Document 1

Filed 12/14/23

Page 15 of 26

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1546(a), as set forth more fully in the table

below:

Count | On or About Possession Date Fraudulent Document Name of Employee
2 June 2018 to October 2023 Bocial Security card and d Employee 9
3 January 2016 to October 2023 social Secutity card and d Employee 10

Social Security card and
4 August 2018 to October 2023 Permanent Resident Card Employee 11
Social Security card and
5 March 2017 to March 2021 Permanent Resident Card Employee 3
6 September 2014 to October 2023 Social Security card and Employee 12
P Permanent Resident Card Ploy
7 November 2018 to October 2023 Social Security card and Employee 13
Permanent Resident Card Ploy
8 J Social Security card and
anuary 2016 to September 2020 Permanent Resident Card Employee 14
] Social Security card and
9 January 2015 to March 2020 Permanent Resident Card Employee I
10 August 2016 to May 2021 Social Security card Employee 2
Social Security card and
11 November 2018 to October 2023 Permanent Resident Card Employee 15
12 February 2017 to October 2023 Social Security card and Employee 16
ary 26 Permanent Resident Card Ploy
13 | April 2018 to October 2023 Social Security cardand |= | Faployee 17
P Permanent Resident Card Ploy
14 | July 2017 to October 2023 Social Security cardand | pmployee 18
y Permanent Resident Card Ploy
: Social Security card and
15 April 2016 to October 2023 Permanent Resident Card Karla MONTOYA

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1546(a).

COUNTS SIXTEEN THROUGH SEVENTEEN: [18 U.S.C. § 1546(b) — Use of a False Immigration

Document; 18 U.S.C. § 2 — Aiding and Abetting]

The Grand Jury further charges: TH A T

SHAHRIAR “SEAN” LOLOEE and
KARLA MONTOYA,

defendants herein, on or about the dates listed below, in the State and Eastern District of California, did

use an identification document, knowing and having reason to know that the document was not issued

INDICTMENT

15
SN HD WN

10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
26
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 16 of 26

lawfully for the use of the possessor, and knowing and having reason to know that the document was

false, for the purpose of satisfying a requirement of section 274A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality

-Act, and did knowingly aid, abet, assist, counsel, command, induce, and procure the same, in violation

of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1546(b), as set forth more fully in the table below:

Count | On or About Use Date Fraudulent Document Name of Employee
16 October 2021 Social Security card Employee 8
17 April 2020 Social Security card Employee 4

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1546(b).
COUNT EIGHTEEN: [18 U.S.C. § 1505 — Obstruction of Agency Proceeding]

The Grand Jury further charges:

SHAHRIAR “SEAN” LOLOEE and
KARLA MONTOYA,

defendants herein, as follows:

iF The factual Slsgstions contained in paragraphs | through 37 of the Introductory
Allegations and paragraphs 3 through 4 of Count One of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated
by reference as though fully set forth herein.

Da From in or about January 2020 through in or about September 2020, in the State and
Eastern District of California and elsewhere, LOLOEE and MONTOYA did corruptly influence,
obstruct, and impede and endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper administration
of the law under which a pending proceeding was being had before any department or agency of the
United States, that is, the second Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigation of Viva
Supermarkets, by, among other actions, directing and causing others to direct certain workers to hide to
prevent those workers from being questioned by agency investigators, and by providing materially false
statements to a Department of Labor investigator regarding the employees working at Viva

Supermarkets and overtime pay, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1505.

//

INDICTMENT 16
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 17 of 26

COUNT NINETEEN: [18 U.S.C. § 1505 — Obstruction of Agency Proceeding]

The Grand Jury further charges:

SHAHRIAR “SEAN” LOLOEE and
KARLA MONTOYA,

defendants herein, as follows:

1. The factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 of the Introductory
Allegations and paragraphs 3 through 4 of Count One of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated
by reference as though fully set forth herein.

2. From in or about November 2020 through in or about July 2021, in the State and Eastern
District of California and elsewhere, LOLOEE and MONTOYA did corruptly influence, obstruct, and
impede, and endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper administration of the law
under which a pending proceeding was being had before any department or agency of the United States,
that is, the third Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigation of Viva Supermarkets, by,
among other actions, demanding investigation letters. received by employees as a means of obstructing
employee participation in the investigation, by directing at least one employee to lie to agency
investigators about her employment start date, by listening in on an employee interview with an agency
investigator for the purpose of influencing the employee to make materially false statements, and by
providing materially false statements to Department of Labor investigators regarding the manner of
payments to employees working at Viva Supermarkets and overtime pay, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 2 and 1505.

COUNTS TWENTY THROUGH TWENTY-TWO: [18 U.S.C. § 1519 — Falsification of Records]

The Grand Jury further charges:
SHAHRIAR “SEAN” LOLOEE,
defendant herein, as follows:
1. The factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1| through 37 of the Introductory
Allegations and paragraphs 3 through 4 of Count One of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated
as though fully set forth herein.

2. On or about the following dates, in the State and Eastern District of California and

INDICTMENT 17
a DH WN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22,
23
24
25
26
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 18 of 26

elsewhere, LOLOEE did knowingly alter, falsify, and make a false entry in a record and document with
the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence the investigation and proper administration of a matter
within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States, that is, the Department of

Labor Wage and Hour Division investigations of Viva Supermarkets, as detailed more fully in the table

below:
Count | On or About Date Document Matter
List of Viva Supermarket (Norwood
20 May 2020 location) employees from February Seen ineectinatio a

2018 through February 2020

List of Viva Supermarket (Norwood ;
21 November 2020 location) employees from February Third Wage and Hour

2020 through November 2020 Division investigation

Excel Spreadsheet lists of Viva
Supermarket (all locations) employees | Third Wage and Hour
22 February 2021 from October 2017 through February | Division investigation
2021

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 1519.
COUNTS TWENTY-THREE THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE: [18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud]

The Grand Jury further charges:
SHAHRIAR “SEAN” LOLOEE,

defendant herein, as follows:

BACKGROUND

At all relevant times,

The Small Business Administration
1. The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was an executive-branch
agency of the United States government that provided 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. |

INDICTMENT 18
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 19 of 26

The Restaurant Revitalization Fund
2. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARP”) was a federal law enacted in or around
March 2021 that was designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans
suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the

ARP was the authorization of up to $28.6 billion in funding to restaurants and other eligible businesses

for payroll and certain other expenses, through a program referred to as the Restaurant Revitalization

Fund (“RRF”). The purpose of the RRF was to support the restaurant industry by providing funding to
those that had suffered significant pandemic-related revenue loss. The RRF also included specific
requirements to ensure equitable distribution to small business concerns owned by women, veterans, and
socially and economically disadvantaged applicants. .

3, Under the RRF, the SBA provided funding of up to $5,000,000 per location (not to
exceed $10,000,000 total for the applicant and any affiliated businesses) for applicants who met certain
conditions. The amount of an applicant’s RRF award was calculated as the applicant’s 2019 gross
receipts, minus the applicant’s 2020 gross receipts, minus the amount of any loans the applicant may
have received under the Paycheck Protection Program, which was a source of relief provided by the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

4, RRF awardees were not required to repay funds received under the RRF unless the funds
were used for unauthorized purposes, if the funds were not used by March 11, 2023, or the awardee
permanently closed before using all funds on authorized purposes. Authorized purposes included,
among other things, payroll costs, payments on any business mortgage, business rent payments, business
debt service, business utility payments, business maintenance expenses, construction of outdoor seating,
business supplies, business food and beverage expenses, covered supplier costs, and business operating
expenses.

5. To obtain RRF funds, a qualifying business had to submit an application signed by an
Authorized Representative of the business. The RRF application required the business, through its
Authorized Representative, to make certain affirmative certifications to be eligible to obtain the RRF
funds. In the RRF application, the business, through its Authorized Representative, had to state, among

other things: (a) its 2019 gross receipts as reported on its 2019 federal tax return; (b) its 2020 gross

INDICTMENT 19
1]
12

. 13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 20 of 26

receipts as reported or to be reported on its 2020 federal tax return; (c) that the business had not
permanently closed; and (d) that current economic uncertainty made the funding request necessary to
support the ongoing or anticipated operations of the applicant. The Authorized Representative also had
to certify that, by March 11, 2023, he or she would certify to the SBA that the business used all of the
RRF funds only for authorized purposes. Additionally, the Authorized Representative had to certify that
he or she understood that knowingly making a false statement to obtain a grant from SBA is punishable
as a crime.

6. RREF applications were received through a cloud-based platform through the AWS GOV
server located in Oregon. The SBA transmitted RRF funds to awardees through the United States
Department of Treasury’s Financial Management Service (“FMS”) server located in Virginia.

SCHEME TO DEFRAUD

7. From on or about May 3, 2021, through on or about March 11, 2023, in the State and
Eastern District of California, defendant SHAHRIAR “SEAN” LOLOEE knowingly devised, intended
to devise, and participated in a material scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money by means of
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, half-truths, and the concealment of

material facts.

PURPOSE OF THE SCHEME

8. The purpose of the scheme and artifice to defraud was for LOLOEE to enrich himself
unlawfully by obtaining RRF funds through the submission of fraudulent RRF applications to the SBA.
MANNER AND MEANS

In furtherance of the scheme and artifice to defraud, LOLOEE employed, among others, the
following manner and means:

9. LOLOEE submitted and caused to be submitted two fraudulent RRF applications to the
SBA for the purpose of obtaining RRF funds.

10. On or about May 3, 2021, LOLOEE submitted and caused to be submitted to the SBA an
RRF application on behalf of SMF Global, Inc., that he signed as the corporation’s Authorized
Representative. In the application, LOLOEE listed himself as the 100% owner of SMF Global, Inc., and

requested that RRF funds be deposited in a Cathay Bank account he controlled that was held in the name

INDICTMENT 20
BR Wb

aI HD WN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26 |

28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 21 of 26

of SMF Global, Inc. LOLOEE included in the SMF Global, Inc., application materially false and
fraudulent information, including a representation that SMF Global, Inc.’s 2020 gross receipts were
approximately $3,800,000, when he ene the actual gross receipts were much greater than that amount
and, in fact, were approximately $5,800,000. LOLOEE fraudulently reported SMF Global, Inc.’s gross
receipts because he knew that, if he reported the actual amount, SMF Global, Inc., would be ineligible to
receive RRF funds. Based on his false and fraudulent representation of SME Global, Inc.’s 2020 gross
receipts, LOLOEE requested approximately $1,039,000 in RRF funds. The SBA denied LOLOEE’s
request because he was unable to establish that SMF Global, Inc., qualified as a type of business eligible
to receive RRF funds.

11. On or about May 3, 2021, LOLOEE submitted and caused to be submitted to the SBA an
RRF application on behalf of Nari Trading, Inc., that he signed as the corporation’s Authorized |
Representative. In the application, LOLOEE listed himself as the 100% owner of Nari Trading, Inc.,
and requested that RRF funds be deposited in a Cathay Bank account he controlled that was held in the
name of Nari Trading, Inc. LOLOEE made materially false and fraudulent representations in the Nari
Trading, Inc., application, including a representation that Nari Trading, Inc.’s 2020 gross receipts were
approximately $5,200,000, when he knew the actual gross receipts were much greater than that amount
and, in fact, were approximately $7,700,000. LOLOEE fraudulently reported Nari Trading, Inc.’s gross
receipts because he knew that, if he reported the actual amount, Nari Trading, Inc., would be ineligible
to receive RRF funds. Based on his false and fraudulent representation of Nari Trading, Inc.’s 2020
gross receipts, LOLOEE requested and received approximately $1,200,000 in RRF funds.

12. | LOLOEE’s false representations regarding the 2020 gross receipts of SMF Global, Inc.
and Nari Trading, Inc. in his RRF applications had a natural tendency to influence, and were capable of
influencing, SBA’s decision whether to provide these companies RRF funds, and if so how anak to
provide. Businesses with a net increase in gross receipts from 2019 to 2020 were not eligible to receive
RRF funds at all. For businesses with a net decrease in gross receipts from 2019 to 2020, the amount of
RRF funding available depended on the size of that net decrease. By falsely reducing the 2020 gross
receipts reported on his RRF applications, LOLOEE made his businesses appear eligible for over $2

million in RRF funding to which they were not entitled.

INDICTMENT 21
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

uy

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 22 of 26

. USE OF THE INTERSTATE WIRES

r. On or about the dates listed below, in the State and Eastern District of California and
elsewhere, for the purpose of executing the aforementioned scheme and artifice to defraud and
attempting to do so, LOLOEE, as more specifically charged below, knowingly transmitted and caused to
be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate and foreign commerce the following

writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds:

Count On or About Date | Wire Description

Transmission of an RRF application to the SBA on behalf of SMF
Global, Inc. ;

23 May 3, 2021

Transmission of an RRF application to the SBA on behalf of Nari

aA May 3, 2021 Trading, Inc.

. | ACH transfer of approximately $1,198,486.71 from the SBA
25 May 25, 2021 through the FMS to a Cathay Bank account ending 8380 in the name
of Nari Trading, Inc., dba Viva Supermarket #4

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

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION: [18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) — Criminal
Forfeiture]

1, Upon conviction of one or more of the offenses alleged in Counts Twenty-Three through
Twenty-Five of this Indictment, defendant SHAHRIAR “SEAN” LOLOEE shall forfeit to the United
States pursuant to 18 ULS.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C: § 2461(c), all property, real and personal,
which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such violations, including but not limited to
the following: .

a. Approximately $949,900.00 seized from Bank of America account number 0024
5216 6504,

b. Approximately $50,000.00 seized from Five Star Bank account number 3303096,

é. Approximately $22,465.94 seized from Cathay Bank account number
0022214070, and

d. A sum of money equal to the total amount of proceeds traceable to such offenses,
for which defendant is convicted.

2. If any property subject to forfeiture, as a result of the offenses alleged in Counts Twenty-
Three through Twenty-Five of this Indictment, for which defendant is convicted:

a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

INDICTMENT 22
Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 23 of 26

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 intent of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), incorporating 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), to
seek forfeiture of any other property of defendant, up to the value of the property subject to forfeiture.
A TRUE BILL.

/s/ Signature on file w/AUSA

PHILLIP A. TALBERT ~
United States Attorney

INDICTMENT 23
Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 24 of 26

2:23-cr-0320 KJM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Eastern District of California
Criminal Division

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS.

SHAHRIAR “SEAN” LOLOEE
KARLA MONTOYA

INDICTMENT
VIOLATION(S): 18 U.S.C. § 371 — Conspiracy to Defraud the Department of Labor, to Commit Immigration
Document Fraud, and to Obstruct Justice
18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) — Possession of False Immigration Documents (14 Counts)
18 U.S.C. § 1546(b) — Use of False Immigration Document (2 Counts)
18 U.S.C. § 1505(c) — Obstruction of Agency Proceedings (2 counts)
18 U.S.C. § 1519 — Falsification of Records (3 Counts)
18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud (3 Counts)
18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) — Criminal Forfeiture

A true bill, /s/ Signature on file w/AUSA

14th

Filedinopencowtthis day

Clerk.
Bail, $

No bail bench warrants for both defendants.

December 14, 2023 — | ticand

PAS onan BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 25 of 26

2:23-cr-0320 KIM

United States vy. Loloee, Montoya
Penalties for Indictment

Defendants

SHAHRIAR LOLOEE

KARLA MONTOYA

COUNT 1: ALL DEFENDANTS
VIOLATION: 18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy
PENALTIES: Up to five years’ imprisonment; or

Fine of up to $250,000; or both fine and imprisonment
Supervised release of up to 3 years

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: $100 (mandatory on each count)

COUNTS 2-15:

VIOLATION:

PENALTIES:

ALL DEFENDANTS
18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) — Possession of False Immigration Documents
Up to ten years’ imprisonment; or

Fine of up to $250,000; or both fine and imprisonment
Supervised release of up to 3 years

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: $100 (mandatory on’ each count)

COUNTS 16-17:

VIOLATION:

PENALTIES:

COUNTS 18-19:

VIOLATION:

PENALTIES:

ALL DEFENDANTS

18 U.S.C. § 1546(b) — Use of False Immigration Documents
Up to ten years’ imprisonment; or

Fine of up to $250,000; or both fine and imprisonment
Supervised release of up to 3 years

ALL DEFENDANTS

18 U.S.C. § 1505 — Obstruction of Agency Proceeding

Up to five years’ imprisonment; or

Fine of up to $250,000; or both fine and imprisonment
Supervised release of up to 3 years

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: $100 (mandatory on each count)
Case 2:23-cr-00320-TLN Document1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 26 of 26

COUNT 20-22: LOLOEE
VIOLATION: 18 U.S.C. § 1519 — Falsification of Record
PENALTIES: Up to twenty years’ imprisonment; or

Fine of up to $250,000; or both fine and imprisonment
Supervised release of up to 3 years

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: $100 (mandatory on each count)

COUNTS 23-25: LOLOEE

VIOLATION: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud
PENALTIES: Up to twenty years’ imprisonment; or

Fine of up to $250,000; or both fine and imprisonment
Supervised release of up to 3 years

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION: LOLOEE

VIOLATION: 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) — Criminal Forfeiture

PENALTIES: As stated in the charging document


File and source

File

1-indictment.pdf

Size

13,476,656 bytes

SHA-256

1f528a15b1baa9e0b3d5ae350e85bfa162e27b4de5c54ba768791f42b7a9431c

Our copy

1-indictment.pdf

Original

archive.org