Indictment — United States v. Marcus Eichelberger, Middle District of Florida (Document 1)

Summary

An indictment in United States v. Marcus Eichelberger, Case 3:25-cr-00241-TJC-PDB, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, filed November 20, 2025 as Document 1. Counts One through Four charge wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1343. The grand jury alleges that Eichelberger, a pastor, directed a church attendee identified as Witness-1 to submit two PPP loan applications through Fountainhead Commercial Capital as a food catering contractor, listing 2019 gross income of $164,872 that did not exist. The loans were for $20,833 and $29,166, and the indictment states the SBA forgave both on or about February 16, 2022. The forfeiture section seeks an order of forfeiture for at least $19,000.

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 3:25-cr-00241-TJC-PDB Documenti Filed 11/20/25 Page1of11 PagelD 35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:25-cr- 24-|-TJC-PDB
18 US.C. § 1343

MARCUS EICHELBERGER

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges:

COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR
(Wire Fraud)

A. Introduction

At all times material to this indictment:

L. Fountainhead Commercial Capital (Fountainhead) was a direct
commercial lender that specialized in helping small to midsize businesses finance and
develop through Small Business Administration (SBA) programs, and assisted
businesses in accessing the SBA Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).

2. Fountainhead utilized and accessed computer servers/data centers

outside of the state of Florida, as part of conducting business lending in connection

with PPP loans.

3. Witness-1 was a resident of Jacksonville, Florida and was a United States
Department of Veterans Affairs employee in Jacksonville. Witness-1 did not own or
operate any business eligible to receive PPP loans that operated in the food catering

industry, or otherwise. Witness-1 did not own or operate any business that had a

- 00S
32: Thd GZ0 02 NON
Case 3:25-cr-00241-TJC-PDB Document1 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 11 PagelD 36

license from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation to
conduct food operations.

A, Marcus Eichelberger was resident of Jacksonville, Florida, and a pastor
at a church, which Witness-1 attended. Marcus Eichelberger approached Witness-1
and convinced Witness-1 to apply for two PPP loans in Witness-1’s own name, which
presented Witness-1 as an independent contractor of a food catering business, when in
fact she was not.

5. On or about March 30, 2021, Witness-1, at the direction of Marcus
Eichelberger, electronically submitted the SBA Form 2483-C (PPP Borrower
Application Form for Schedule C Filers Using Gross Income) from the Middle District
of Florida to Fountainhead for a PPP loan (loan number ending 8706 for $20,833)
stating that she was an independent contractor performing food catering services under
the business name “Talia McIntyre.” On or about February 11, 2022, at the direction
of Marcus Eichelberger, Witness-1 electronically submitted the SBA Form 3508S (PPP
Loan Forgiveness Application Form) from the Middle District of Florida to
Fountainhead seeking loan forgiveness from the SBA. On or about February 16, 2022,
the SBA forgave the PPP loan in the full loan amount.

6. On or about April 12, 2021, Witness-1, at the direction of Marcus
Eichelberger, electronically submitted the SBA Form 2483-SD (PPP Second Draw
Borrower Application Form for Schedule C Filers Using Gross Income) from the
Middle District of Florida to Fountainhead for a second draw of the PPP loan (loan

number ending 8900 for $29,166) making the same or similar representations as in the
Case 3:25-cr-00241-TJC-PDB Document1 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 11 PagelD 37

original loan application. On or about February 11, 2022, at the direction of Marcus
Eichelberger, Witness-1 electronically submitted the SBA Form 3508S from the
Middle District of Florida to Fountainhead seeking loan forgiveness from the SBA.
On or about February 16, 2022, the SBA forgave the second draw PPP loan in the
amount of $29,166.

The Small Business Administration

7. 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.

8. The SBA enabled and provided for loans through banks, credit unions,
and other lenders. These loans had government-backed guarantees. In addition to
traditional SBA funding programs, The CARES Act established several new
temporary programs and provided for the expansion of others to address the COVID-
19 outbreak.

The Paycheck Protection Program

9. One of the new programs was the SBA Paycheck Protection Program
(“PPP”), which was a loan designed to provide a direct incentive for small businesses
to keep their workers on the payroll and / or make payroll costs. Under this program,
the SBA could forgive all or part of loans, if employees were kept on the payroll for
eight weeks and borrowers submitted documentation confirming that the loan

proceeds were used for certain qualifying business purposes and expenses. The PPP
Case 3:25-cr-00241-TJC-PDB Documenti Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 11 PagelD 38

forgiveness process required the applicant to electronically submit a PPP Loan
Forgiveness Application Form, a SBA Form 3508S.

10. The PPP application process required interested applicants to
electronically submit a Borrower Application Form, a SBA Form 2483. The
application contained information as to the purpose of the loan, average monthly
payroll, number of employees, payroll costs and background of the business and its
owner. Applicants were also required to make certain good faith certifications,
including that economic uncertainties had necessitated their loan requests for
continued business operations, and that they intended to use loan proceeds only for
the authorized purposes.

11. Further, when submitting the SBA Form 2483, the authorized
representative certified his understanding that, should the PPP funds be knowingly
used for unauthorized purposes, the United States could hold him or her legally liable,
including for charges of fraud. The applicant was also required to certify the truth and
accuracy of any information provided on the SBA Forms 2483 and 3508S, and in all
supporting documents, to include any documents intended to verify the applicant’s
business expenses. The applicant was required to certify an understanding that
knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from the SBA is

punishable under the law and subject to criminal penalties.
B. The Scheme and Artifice

12. Beginning on an unknown date, but no later than in or around March
2021, and continuing through at least in or around February 2022, in the Middle
District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,
MARCUS EICHELBERGER,
knowingly devised and intended to devise and aided and abetted a scheme and artifice
to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises.

C. Manner and Means of the Scheme and Artifice

13. The manner and means by which the defendant sought to accomplish
and aid and abet the scheme to defraud included, among others, the following:

a. It was part of the scheme and artifice that in March 2021, Witness-
1, at the direction of the defendant, would and did fraudulently complete and
electronically submit a SBA Form 2483-C (PPP Borrower Application Form for
Schedule C Filers Using Gross Income) (loan ending 8706) for “Talia McIntyre” as an
Independent Contractor along with an IRS Form 1040, Schedule C, for purposes of
applying for a PPP loan to which Witness-1 and the defendant were not entitled.

b. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that when
fraudulently completing the SBA Form 2483-C for the loan ending 8706 in March
2021, Witness-1 and the defendant would and did list the gross income from 2019 IRS
Form, Schedule C, line 7 as $164,872, when there was no such gross income for that

business.
Case 3:25-cr-00241-TJC-PDB Documenti_ Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 11 PagelD 40

c. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that when
fraudulently completing the SBA Form 2483-C for the loan ending 8706 in March
2021, Witness-1 and the defendant would and did claim the purpose of the loan was
for payroll costs (including proprietor expenses, equal to business expenses plus owner
compensation), corresponding to a loan amount of $20,833.

d. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that when |
fraudulently completing and electronically submitting the SBA Form 2483-C for the
loan ending 8706 in March 2021, Witness-1 and the defendant would and did certify
that the funds would be used to maintain payroll and cover operations expenditures
and supplier costs, as specified under the PPP Rules, when in fact they were not.

e. It was part of the scheme and artifice that in April 2021, Witness-
1 and the defendant would and did fraudulently complete and electronically submit a
SBA Form 2483-SD (PPP Second Draw Borrower Application Form for Schedule C
Filers Using Gross Income) for a second draw for Talia McIntyre (loan ending 8900)
for purposes of applying for a second draw on the loan to which they were not entitled.

f. It was further a part of the scheme. and artifice that when
fraudulently completing the SBA Form 2483-SD for the second draw loan ending 8900
in April 2021, Witness-1 and the defendant would and did list the gross income from
2019 IRS Form, Schedule C, line 7 as $164,872, when there was no such gross income
for that business.

g. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that when

fraudulently completing the SBA Form 2483-SD for the loan ending 8900 in April
Case 3:25-cr-00241-TJC-PDB Documenti_ Filed 11/20/25 Page 7 of 11 PagelD 41

2021, Witness-1 and the defendant would and did claim the purpose of the loan was
for payroll costs (including proprietor expenses, equal to business expenses plus owner
compensation), corresponding to a loan amount of $29,166.

h. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that when
fraudulently completing and electronically submitting the SBA Form 2483-SD for the
loan ending 8900 in April 2021, Witness-1 and the defendant would and did certify
that the funds would be used to maintain payroll costs and cover operations
expenditures and supplier costs, as specified under the PPP Rules, when in fact they
were not.

i. It was part of the scheme and artifice that in February 2022,
Witness-1 and the defendant would and did fraudulently complete and electronically
submit two SBA Forms 3508S (PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form) seeking
forgiveness for both loans, to which they were not entitled because of the fraudulent
misrepresentations included in both PPP loan applications.

j. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that Witness-1
would and did provide financial institution account information into which the
fraudulently-obtained PPP funds would be transferred via a ACH payment / wire
transfer for the loans to Witness-1’s Bank of America (BOA) account.

k, It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that Witness-1 and
the defendant would and did cause a SBA Participating Lender (Fountainhead) to
send PPP loan proceeds via a ACH payment / wire transfer to Witness-1’s bank

account at BOA for both loans.
Case 3:25-cr-00241-TJC-PDB Document1 Filed 11/20/25 Page 8 of 11 PagelD 42

1. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that Witness-1 and
the defendant would and did retain loan proceeds for Witness-1 and the defendant’s
personal use from both PPP loans, which was not for any legitimate PPP loan purpose.

m. It was further a part of scheme and artifice that Witness-1 and the
defendant would and did perform acts, and make statements to promote and achieve
the object of the scheme and artifice and to misrepresent, hide, and conceal, and cause
to be misrepresented, hidden, and concealed, the purpose of the scheme and artifice
and the acts committed in furtherance thereof.

D. Execution of the Scheme and Artifice

14. Onor about the dates listed below, in the Middle District of Florida and
elsewhere, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme and artifice to
defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of materially false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises,

MARCUS EICHELBERGER,
the defendant herein, did knowingly transmit, cause to be transmitted, and aid and
abet the transmission of, the following writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds,

by means of wire communication in interstate commerce:

COUNT DATE WIRE COMMUNICATION

ONE March 30, 2021 Electronic submission of the SBA Form
2483-C (PPP Borrower Application Form
for Schedule C filers Using Gross Income)
to Fountainhead requesting a PPP loan.
Case 3:25-cr-00241-TJC-PDB Document1 Filed 11/20/25 Page 9of11PagelD 43

TWO April 12, 2021 Electronic submission of the SBA Form
2483-SD (PPP Second Draw Borrower
Application Form for Schedule C Filers
Using Gross Income) to Fountainhead
requesting a second draw.

THREE February 11, 2022 | Electronic submission of the SBA Form
3508S (PPP Loan Forgiveness Application
Form) to Fountainhead for forgiveness of
the Talia McIntyre loan ending 8706 in the
amount of $20,833.

FOUR February 11, 2022 | Electronic submission of the SBA Form
3508S (PPP Loan Forgiveness Application
Form) to Fountainhead for forgiveness of
the Talia McIntyre loan ending 8900 in the
amount of $29,166.

All in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1343.
FORFEITURE

1. The allegations contained in Counts One though Four are incorporated
by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)
and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

2. Upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the defendant shall
forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. §
2461(c), any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds
traceable to the violation.

3. The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, an order of
forfeiture for at least $19,000, which represents the proceeds that the defendant
obtained as a result of the fraud scheme charged in Counts One, Two, Three, and

Four.
Case 3:25-cr-00241-TJC-PDB Document 1

Filed 11/20/25 Page 10 of 11 PagelD 44

4, 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;

G; has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

d. has been substantially diminished in value; or

c. has been commingled with other property which cannot be

divided without difficulty,

the United States shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to 21

U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

GREGORY W. KEHOE
United States Attorney

¢

| / ~ F

\

KELLI A. SWANEY
Assistant United States Attorney

MICHAEL J,COOLICAN

Assistant Urfited States Attorney

Deputy Chief, Jacksonville Division
/

A TRUE BILL,

Foreperson
FORM OBD-34
11/14/25 Revised No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Middle District of Florida
Jacksonville Division

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS.

MARCUS EICHELBERGER

INDICTMENT

Violations: Cts 1-4: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2

A true bill

Filed in open pe this 2°" day of November 2025.

‘J Clerk

Bail $

GPO 863 525


File and source

File

1-indictment.pdf

Size

1,155,679 bytes

SHA-256

2c03240e7f6b6b279d4ee17c8c8f87ff2bb7a2454abc8d6f141ece8d81dcc259

Our copy

1-indictment.pdf

Original

archive.org