Indictment — No. 8:25-cr-00517 (Dkt. 1, M.D. Fla.)

Summary

An indictment filed November 6, 2025 as Document 1 in United States v. Neil Rashad Bryant, Case 8:25-cr-00517-CEH-CPT, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Count One is captioned Wire Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and alleges a scheme beginning no later than in or around July 2020 and continuing through at least in or around July 2021 to obtain an Economic Injury Disaster Loan. It alleges false applications that overstated the number of employees and gross income of B.O.E. Entertainment LLC. A table lists the wire by date and description, and a forfeiture section states an order of forfeiture of approximately $52,400.00.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below 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

Cite this document

“Indictment — No. 8:25-cr-00517 (Dkt. 1, M.D. Fla.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/indictment-no-8-25-cr-00517-dkt-1-m-d-fla-21ff6e616c/, SHA-256 c9756839e08fcbd2ceb6707b4238d3525b147ad4f8e7fc9c00727cc14a4b38e6.

Full text

Case 8:25-cr-00517-CEH-CPT Document 1 Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DMSION tr- - ·:· ,. .-, - ;:-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V. CASE NO. t."2)-d'-5"/7~ c.f i- <..PT

NEIL RASHAD BRYANT 18 U.S.C. § 1343

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges:

COUNT ONE
(Wire Fraud)

A. Introduction

At times relevant to this Indictment:

1. NEIL RASHAD BRYANT, a resident of the Middle District of

Florida, submitted false and fraudulent information in order to obtain a federal

Economic Injury Disaster Loan ("EIDL") to which he was not entitled.

2. B.O.E. Entertainment LLC was a business owned by BRYANT located

in the Middle District of Florida.

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

entrepreneurs and small businesses.
Case 8:25-cr-00517-CEH-CPT Document 1 Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID 2

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

Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic of sufficient severity and

magnj.tude 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

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, which was declared a nationwide disaster by the President on

March 13, 2020.

6. One government response to the COVID-19 outbreak was an expansion

of an existing disaster-related program-the Economic Injury Disaster Loan

("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.

7. 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

2
Case 8:25-cr-00517-CEH-CPT Document 1 Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID 3

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.

8. Financial Institution # 1 was a financial institution as defined in 18

U.S.C. § 20. BRYANT maintained an account at Financial Institution #1 ending in

4502.

B. The Scheme and Artifice

9. Beginning on an unlmown date, but no later than in or around July

2020, and continuing through at least in or around July 2021, in the Middle District

of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

NEIL RASHAD BRYANT,

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.

C. Manner and Means of the Scheme and Artifice

10. The manner and means by which the defendant 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 applications to the SBA's EIDL, which program was tailored to

provide benefits and relief to businesses and workers negatively impacted by the

COVID-19. pandemic.

3
Case 8:25-cr-00517-CEH-CPT Document 1 Filed 11/06/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID 4

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

induce the SBA to fund the EIDL, the defendant would and did prepare and submit,

and cause to be prepared and submitted, to the SBA an application that contained

multiple materially false and fraudulent representations and pretenses, including:

i. overstating the number of employees for the business;

ii. overstating the gross income for the business;

iii. representing and certifying that loan proceeds would be

used for business-related purposes; and

iv. fraudulently affirming the truth of statements in the

application.

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

would and did cause the SBA to approve the EIDL application and cause to be

transmitted EIDL proceeds via interstate wire transfer to Financial Institution # 1.

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

would and did use the EIDL funds, and cause the EIDL funds to be used, for

unauthorized purposes and for his own personal enrichment and the enrichment of

others.

e. 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 committed in furtherance thereof.

4
Case 8:25-cr-00517-CEH-CPT Document 1 Filed 11/06/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID 5

D. Execution of the Scheme and Artifice

11. On or about the date set forth below, in the Middle District of Florida

and elsewhere, the defendant,

NEIL RASHAD BRYANT,

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:
- - .
COUNT DATEOFWIRE DESCRIPTION OF WIRE
Defendant caused a wire transfer in the amount of
$52,400 in EIDL funds, sent from outside Florida to
One September 2, 2020 a Financial Institution #1 account in the defendant's
name within the Middle District of Florida

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

5
Case 8:25-cr-00517-CEH-CPT Document 1 Filed 11/06/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID 6

FORFEITURE

1. The allegations contained in Count One are incorporated by reference

for the purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 98l(a)(l)(C) and 28

U.S.C. § 246l{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){l){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 in the amount of approximately $52,400.00, which represents the proceeds

the defendant obtained from the offense.

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;

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,

6
Case 8:25-cr-00517-CEH-CPT Document 1 Filed 11/06/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID 7

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).

Foreperson

GREGORY W. KEHOE
United States Attorney

By:
1'w~ • =
i-ioemye;
Merr·; ~
Assistant United States Attorney

By:
Gregory D. Pizzo
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Economic Crimes Section

7
FORMOBD-34 Case 8:25-cr-00517-CEH-CPT Document 1 Filed 11/06/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID 8
November25 No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Middle District of Florida
Tampa Division

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

NEIL RASHAD BRYANT

INDICTMENT

Violations: 18 U.S.C. § 1343

A true bill,

Filed in open court this 6th day

Bail$- - - - - -- -

GP0863 S2S

File and source

File: 1.pdf
Size: 903,491 bytes
SHA-256: c9756839e08fcbd2ceb6707b4238d3525b147ad4f8e7fc9c00727cc14a4b38e6
Our copy: 1.pdf
Original: No public link identified.