Indictment — United States v. Robert William Burns, Middle District of Florida (Document 1)

Summary

A grand jury Indictment in United States v. Robert William Burns, Case 6:24-cr-00087-PGB-RMN, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, filed April 10, 2024. Counts One through Three charge wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, each tied to the electronic transmission of a PPP loan application in the name of Robert Burns on March 30, 2021, April 4, 2021 and April 13, 2021. The indictment alleges that Burns, sole proprietor of RB3 Ventures, LLC and The Social Wizards, submitted applications with false gross income and fictitious federal income tax documents. It alleges that at least three applications were approved, resulting in approximately $57,186 in PPP funds, which Burns used for purposes including cryptocurrency purchases and gambling. The forfeiture section seeks an order for at least $57,186.

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.

Cas

e 6:24-cr-00087-PGB-RMN Document1 Filed 04/10/24 Page 1 of 9 PagelD 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Ta0 - GW14 -

ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CASE NO. 6:24-cr- @]- PG@B- RAV
18 U.S.C. § 1343
ROBERT WILLIAM BURNS

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges:

COUNT ONE THROUGH THREE
(Wire Fraud)

A. Introduction

At all times material to this Indictment:

1. Robert William Burns (“Burns”) was a resident of the Middle District

of Florida (“MDFL”), who was the sole proprietor of RB3 Ventures, LLC (“RB3”)

and Robert Burns dba The Social Wizards, LLC (“The Social Wizards”).

princip

2. Burns owned and operated RB3, a Florida company with the stated

consulting services.

3. Burns owned and operated The Social Wizards, a Florida company

with the stated principal place of business in Brevard, Florida. The Social Wizards

purported to provide advertising services.

al place of business in Brevard, Florida. RB3 purported to provide marketing
Cas

le 6:24-cr-00087-PGB-RMN Document1 Filed 04/10/24 Page 2 of 9 PagelD 2

4, 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.

As part of this effort, the SBA enabled and provided for loans through banks, credit

union:

was a

s, and other lenders. These loans had government-backed guarantees.
The Paycheck Protection Program
5. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act

federal law enacted in or around March 2020 designed to provide emergency

financial assistance to the millions of Americans who were suffering the economic

effects|caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the

CARES Act was the authorization of forgivable loans to small businesses for job

retention and certain other expenses, through a program referred to as the Paycheck

Protection Program (“PPP”).

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

PPP loan application, which was signed by an authorized representative of the

business. The PPP loan application required the business (through its authorized

representative) to acknowledge the program rules and make certain affirmative

certifications in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan. In the PPP loan

application (SBA Form 2483), the small business (through its authorized

representative) was required to state, among other things, its: (a) average monthly
Case 6:24-cr-00087-PGB-RMN Document1 Filed 04/10/24 Page 3 of 9 PagelD 3

payr

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

the amount of money the small business was eligible to receive under the PPP. In

additi

docun

PPP |

using

n, businesses applying for a PPP loan were required to provide

nentation showing their payroll expenses.

7. PPP loan applications were processed by a participating lender. If a
ban application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan

its own monies, which were 100% guaranteed by the SBA. Data from the

application, including information from the borrower, the total amount of the loan,

and te listed number of employees, was transmitted by the lender to the SBA in the

course of processing the loan.

8. PPP loan proceeds were required to be used for certain permissible

expenses, including payroll costs, mortgage interest, rent, and utilities. Under the

applicable PPP rules and guidance, the interest and principal on the PPP loan was

eligible for forgiveness if the business spent the loan proceeds on these expense items

within|a designated period of time and used a certain portion of the loan towards

payroll expenses.

D. Provider 1 was a non-bank small business lender service provider.

Provider 1 participated in the SBA’s PPP as a loan processor and approved PPP

loans Gn behalf of Lender 1.

10. Lender 1 was a financial institution based in Bedford, Texas that

participated in the SBA’s PPP as a lender and was authorized to lend funds to

eligible borrowers under the terms of the PPP.
Case 6:24-cr-00087-PGB-RMN Documenti1 Filed 04/10/24 Page 4 of 9 PagelD 4

11. Lender 2 was a non-bank small business lender based in Lake Mary,

Florida, that was authorized to lend funds to eligible borrowers under the terms of

the PPP.

B. The Scheme and Artifice

12. Beginning on an unknown date, but no later than on or about April 1,

2021, and continuing through on or about June 1, 2021, in the Middle District of

Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant,

ROBERT WILLIAM BURNS,

knowingly devised and intended to devise 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

the scheme and artifice to defraud included, among others, the following:

a. It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the defendant did

fraud

ai in a scheme to obtain money from PPP lenders by submitting false and

lent PPP loan application to Provider 1 and Lender 2.

b. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the

defendant would and did falsely certify that the funds would be used to retain

workers, maintain payroll, and for other business-related expenses as specified

under|the PPP program rules.
Case 6:24-cr-00087-PGB-RMN Documenti1 Filed 04/10/24 Page 5 of 9 PagelD 5

c. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the

defendant would and did make and cause to be made materially false, fraudulent,

and misleading representations to Provider 1 and Lender 2, in PPP loan

applications, including false and fraudulent representations regarding the applicant’s

gross

income in order to increase loan funding.

d. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the

Gefenflant would and did submit and cause the submission of materially false and

fictio}

defen

us documents to Provider 1 and Lender 2 in support of his fraudulent PPP loan
rations, including false and fictitious federal income tax documents.
e. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the

dant’s materially false, fraudulent, and misleading representation would and

did cause Provider 1 and Lender 2 to approve at least three PPP loan applications,

resulting in Lender 1 and Lender 2 depositing approximately $57,186 in PPP funds

into ai Chase Bank account controlled by the defendant.

f. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the

defendant would and did use and cause to be used the PPP funds for unauthorized

purposes and for his own personal enrichment, including various cryptocurrency

purchases and gambling related transactions.

g. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the

defendant would and did misrepresent, hide, and conceal, and cause to be

misre

of the

resented, hidden, and concealed, the purpose of acts performed in furtherance

scheme to defraud.
Case 6:24-cr-00087-PGB-RMN Document1 Filed 04/10/24 Page 6 of 9 PagelD 6

and elsewhere, the defendant,

for the

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

D. Execution of the Scheme and Artifice

14. On or about the dates set forth below, in the Middle District of Florida,

ROBERT WILLIAM BURNS,

purpose of executing the scheme and artifice described above, transmitted and

commerce the writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds described below, each

transmission constituting a separate count:

COUNT DATE OF

WIRE

INTERSTATE WIRE TRANSMISSION

ONE March 30, 2021

Electronic transmission of fraudulent PPP
loan application in the name of Robert
Burns from the MDFL to Provider 1’s

servers located outside the State of Florida

TWO April 4, 2021

Electronic transmission of fraudulent PPP
loan application in the name of Robert
Burns from the MDFL to Lender 2’s servers
located outside the State of Florida

THREE | April 13, 2021

Electronic transmission of fraudulent PPP
loan application in the name of Robert
Burns from the MDFL to Lender 2’s servers
located outside the State of Florida

FORFEITURE

1. The allegations contained in Count One through Three are

brated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

\(1(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).
Case 6:24-cr-00087-PGB-RMN Document1 Filed 04/10/24 Page 7 of 9 PagelD 7

forfeit!

2. Upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the defendant shall

to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. §

2461(¢), any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds

traceable to the violation.

follow

3. The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, the

ing: an order of forfeiture for at least $57,186, which represents the proceeds

the defendant obtained as a result of the offenses.

of the

4. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission
defendant:

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

b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
Cc. 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,
Case 6:24-cr-00087-PGB-RMN Document1 Filed 04/10/24 Page 8 of 9 PagelD 8

the United States shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property under the

provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

A TRUE BILL,

oreperson

ROGER B. HANDBERG
United States Attorney

Shannon Laurie
Assistant United States Attorney

Chauncey A. Bratt
Assistant United States Attorney
Deputy Chief, Orlando Division
Case 6:24-cr-00087-PGB-RMN Document 1 Filed 04/10/24 Page 9 of 9 PagelD 9

FORM OBD-34
APR 1991 No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Middle District of Florida
Orlando Division

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

ROBERT WILLIAM BURNS

INDICTMENT

Violation: 18 U.S.C. § 1343

Foreperson

Filed in open court this 10" day

of April, 2024.

Clerk

Bail $


File and source

File

1-indictment.pdf

Size

873,478 bytes

SHA-256

bc0bb75cec489200b2ff525083fdb7dabee3c4ce5deeda76906c45189cc40c97

Our copy

1-indictment.pdf

Original

archive.org