Indictment — United States v. Jeanty Cherilus, Middle District of Florida (Document 1)

Summary

A grand jury indictment against Jeanty Cherilus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Case 8:24-cr-00409-MSS-SPF, filed September 12, 2024 as Document 1. Counts One Through Five charge wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, alleging that from in or around June 2020 through at least in or around March 2021 Cherilus, an owner of NATRANSUSA CORPORATION, submitted PPP and EIDL applications with an inflated number of employees and average monthly payroll. The charged wires include a $350,000 PPP transfer on July 28, 2020 and EIDL transfers of $5,000 and $15,000. The forfeiture section seeks an order of forfeiture of approximately $370,000, and the signature block names United States Attorney Roger B. Handberg.

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 8:24-cr-00409-MSS-SPF Document1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 1 of 10 PagelD 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. | CASENO. BUC er God HSTAHSKE

JEANTY CHERILUS 18 U.S.C. § 1343

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges:

COUNTS ONE THROUGH FIVE
(Wire Fraud)

A. Introduction

At times relevant to this Indictment:

\. JEANTY CHERILUS, a resident of the Middle District of Florida, was
an owner of NATRANSUSA CORPORATION (“NATRANS’”), a business that
advertised to provide automobile salvage and transportation services.

2. CHERILUS, through NATRANS, submitted applications to obtain
federal [Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans and an Economic Injury
Disaster Loan (‘““EIDL”) to which CHERILUS and NATRANS were not entitled

and that included materially false and fraudulent representations and documentation.
Case 8:24-cr-00409-MSS-SPF Document1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 2 of 10 PagelD 2

The Small Business Administration

3. The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was an

executive branch agency of the United States government that provided support to

entrepr

eneurs and small businesses.

4, In or around March 2020, the President declared the ongoing

virus Disease 2019 (‘““COVID-19”) pandemic of sufficient severity and

magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration for all states, tribes, territories, and

the District of Columbia pursuant to section 501(b) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207. The President also

signed

into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act

and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

5. The SBA enabled and provided for loans through banks, credit unions,

and other lenders. These loans had government-backed guarantees. In addition to

traditio

tempor.

nal SBA funding programs, The CARES Act, established several new

ary programs and provided for the expansion of others to address the

COVID-19 outbreak, which was declared a nationwide disaster by the President on

March

Payche

13, 2020.

ck Protection Program

6. One of the new loan programs was the SBA PPP, which was a loan

designed, in part, to provide a direct incentive for small businesses to keep their

workers on the payroll. Under this program, the SBA could forgive all or part of the

borrowing businesses’ loans provided that employees were kept on the payroll for
Case 8:24-cr-00409-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 3 of 10 PagelD 3

eight weeks and borrowers submitted documentation confirming that the loan
proceeds were used for certain qualifying business expenses (i.e., payroll, rent,

mortgage interest, or utilities).
|

7. Interested applicants applied through an existing SBA lender or any
other participating federally-insured financial institution. The PPP application
process required applicants to submit a Borrower Application Form through an SBA-
approved financial entity. The application contained information as to the purpose of
the loan, average monthly payroll, number of employees, 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.

Economic Injury Disaster Relief Program

8. One government response to.the COVID-19 outbreak was an
expansion of an existing disaster-related program—the EIDL—to provide for loan
assistance (including $10,000 advances) for small businesses and other eligible

entities|for loans up to $2 million. The EIDL proceeds could be used to pay certain

qualifying expenses (i.e., fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills) that
could have been paid had the disaster not occurred.
9. EIDL funds were issued directly from the United States Treasury, and

applicants applied through the SBA via an online portal and application. The EIDL

application process collected information concerning the business and the business
Case 8:24-cr-00409-MSS-SPF Document1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 4 of 10 PagelD 4

owner. Applicants electronically certified that the information provided was accurate
and were warned that any false statement or misrepresentation to the SBA or any
misapplication of loan proceeds may result in sanctions, including criminal penalties.
10. To obtain an EIDL and advance, a qualifying business had to submit an
application to the SBA and provide information about its operation, such as the
number of employes, gross revenue for the 12-month period preceding the disaster,
and cost of goods sold in the 12-month period preceding the disaster. In the case of
EIDLs for COVID-19 relief, the 12-month period was that preceding January 31,
2020. Applicants electronically certified that the information provided was accurate
and were warned that any false statement or misrepresentation to the SBA or any
misapp ication of loan proceeds may result in sanction, including criminal penalties.
Applicants also completed loan agreements with the SBA.
Financial Institution
11. Financial Institution #1 was a financial institution that had computer

servers sed for processing financial transactions located outside the State of Florida.

PPP Lender

12. Lender #1 participated in the SBA’s PPP as a lender, and as such, was
authorized to lend funds to eligible borrowers under the terms of the PPP.
B. The Scheme and Artifice
13. Beginning in or around June 2020, and continuing through at least in or
around March 2021, in the Middle District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

JEANTY CHERILUS,

4
Case 8:24-cr-00409-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 5 of 10 PagelD 5

|
did knowingly and intentionally devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent

pretenses, representations, and promises about a material fact.

Cc. Manner and Means of the Scheme and Artifice

14. The manner and means by which the defendant and others sought to
accomplish the scheme and artifice included, among others, the following:

a. It was part of the scheme and artifice that the defendant would
and did! prepare and submit, and cause to be prepared and submitted, materially false
and fraudulent PPP and EIDL applications to the SBA, which programs were
tailored to provide benefits and relief to businesses and workers negatively impacted
by the COVID-19 pandemic.

b. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that, in order to

induce fhe SBA and financial institutions to fund PPP and EIDL loans, the
defendant would and did prepare and submit, and cause to be prepared and
submitted, to the SBA and Lender #1 applications that contained multiple materially

false and fraudulent representations and pretenses, including:

i. stating an inflated number of employees;
il. stating an inflated average monthly payroll; and
| iii. representing and certifying that loan proceeds would be

used for business-related purposes.
|
Case 8:24-cr-00409-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 6 of 10 PagelD 6

c. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that, in order to
induce the SBA and financial institutions to fund PPP and EIDL loans, the
defendant would and did submit fraudulent supporting documentation, including a
2019 and 2020 Form 940: Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment (“FUTA”)
Tax Return form.

d. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that the defendant
would and did cause the SBA and Lender #1 to approve a PPP and an EIDL loan
application and cause to be transmitted PPP and EIDL loan proceeds via interstate
wire transfers to Financial Institution #1.

e. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that the defendant
would and did use the PPP and EIDL funds, and cause the PPP and EIDL funds to
be used) for unauthorized purposes and for his own personal enrichment and the
enrichment of others.

f. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that the defendant

would and did perform acts and make statements to promote and achieve the scheme

and artifice and to misrepresent, hide, and conceal the scheme and artifice and the

acts co itted in furtherance thereof.

D. Execution of the Scheme and Artifice
15. On or about the dates set forth below in each count, in the Middle
District! of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

JEANTY CHERILUS,
Case 8:24-cr-00409-MSS-SPF Document1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 7 of 10 PagelD 7

|
|

for the| purpose of executing the aforesaid scheme and artifice, knowingly and

intentionally transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire

communication in interstate and foreign commerce the writings, signs, signals,

pictures, and sounds described below, each transmission constituting a separate

count:
|

COUNT

DATE OF WIRE

DESCRIPTION OF WIRE

ONE -

June 30, 2020

Defendant caused a wire transfer in the
amount of $5,000 in EIDL funds, sent from
outside of Florida to a Financial Institution
#1 account in the defendant’s name within

the Middle District of Florida

TWO

July 28, 2020

Defendant caused a wire transfer in the
amount of $350,000 in PPP funds, sent from
outside of Florida to a Financial Institution
#1 account in the defendant’s name within
the Middle District of Florida

THREE

September 27, 2020

Defendant caused a wire transfer in the
amount of $15,000 in EIDL funds, sent from
outside of Florida to a Financial Institution
#1 account in the defendant’s name within
the Middle District of Florida

FOUR

March 16, 2021

Defendant caused a submission of a loan
application, sent from the Middle District of
Florida via the Internet to servers outside of

Florida
Case 8!

24-cr-00409-MSS-SPF Document1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 8 of 10 PagelD 8

COUNT DATE OF WIRE DESCRIPTION OF WIRE

FIVE March 20, 2021 Defendant caused a submission of a loan

application, sent from the Middle District of
Florida via the Internet to servers outside of
Florida

1.

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

FORFEITURE

The allegations contained in Counts One through Five 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).

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)

traceabl

the defe

3.

any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds
e to the violation.

The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, an order of
fe in the amount of approximately $370,000, which represents the proceeds

ndant obtained from the offenses.

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;

Cc. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;
Case 8:24-cr-00409-MSS-SPF Document1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 9 of 10 PagelD 9

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).
A TRUE BILL,

Foreperson

ROGER B. HANDBERG
United States Attorney

Gregory D. Pizzo
Assistant United States Attorney

Carlton C. Gammons
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Economic Crimes Section
FORM OBD-34
September 24

Case 8:24-cr-00409-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/12/24 Page 10 of 10 PagelD 10

No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Middle District of Florida
Tampa Division

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS.

JEANTY CHERILUS

INDICTMENT

Violations: 18 U.S.C. § 1343

A true bill,

Foreperson

Filed in open court this 12th day
of September 2024.

Bail $


File and source

File

1-indictment.pdf

Size

921,070 bytes

SHA-256

73303429acd0dc71f3edf28ef47c921ca4f2b2211f20e2212255bbb32691cf84

Our copy

1-indictment.pdf

Original

archive.org