Indictment, United States v. Nikenson Jean Mathurin, No. 3:24-cr-00432-MAS (D.N.J.), ECF No. 16

Summary

Indictment in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, against Nikenson Jean Mathurin, a/k/a Nik Mathurin (Crim. No. 24-432, Hon. Michael A. Shipp), filed 07/02/24. It charges wire fraud in Counts One through Three under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and money laundering in Count Four under 18 U.S.C. § 1957. The indictment alleges Mathurin controlled shell entities Innovation Partners Plus, Inc. and Opulence Motor Group, LLC and submitted at least five falsified PPP loan applications and at least one falsified EIDL application. It describes wires of approximately $164,666, $149,900 and $261,897 and a transfer of approximately $47,000 on or about July 17, 2020, and includes forfeiture allegations.

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

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Document16 Filed 07/02/24 Page 1 of PEED

2023R00424/FMC/DH JUL -2 ach
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ., At830 1c bas

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT - DNJ
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY a

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Michael A. Shipp
Vv. : Crim. No. 24-432
NIKENSON JEAN MATHURIN, : 18 U.S.C. § 1343 18 U.S.C. § 1957

a/k/a “Nik Mathurin,”
a/k/a “Jean Mathurin”

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury in and for the District of New Jersey, sitting at Newark,
charges as follows:

COUNTS ONE THROUGH THREE
(Wire Fraud)

1. At all times relevant to this Indictment:
a. Defendant Nikenson Jean Mathurin, a/k/a “Nik Mathurin,” a/k/a
“Jean Mathurin” (““MATHURIN’) resided in Sparta, New Jersey (the “Sparta
Residence”). MATHURIN owned and controlled at least the following shell entities:
1. Innovation Partners Plus, Inc. (“Innovation”), purportedly
located in Valley Stream, New York; and
ll. Opulence Motor Group, LLC (“Opulence”), purportedly
located in Sparta, New Jersey.
b. Bank 1 was a financial institution headquartered in California.
Cc. Bank 2 was a financial institution headquartered in New Jersey,
where Innovation had a checking account ending in 0741 (“Account 0741”).

MATHURIN was the sole signatory for Account 0741.
Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Documenti16 Filed 07/02/24 Page 2 of 12 PagelD: 39

d. Bank 3 was a financial institution headquartered in Alabama,
where Opulence had a checking account ending in 4948 (“Account 4948”).
MATHURIN controlled Account 4948 and his Sparta Residence was listed on this
account.

e. Lender 1 was a financial services company headquartered in
California.

The Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”)

f. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
(“CARES Act”) was a federal law enacted in and around March 2020 designed to
provide emergency financial assistance to Americans suffering economic effects
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act
was the authorization of up to approximately $349 billion in forgivable loans to
small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through a program
referred to as the PPP. In and around April 2020, Congress authorized over
approximately $300 billion in additional PPP funding.

g. To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business had 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 to make certain affirmative
certifications to be eligible to obtain the PPP money. In the PPP loan application,
the business (through its authorized representative) had to state truthfully, among
other things, its: (a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of

employees. These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the business

2
Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Document16 Filed 07/02/24 Page 3 of 12 PagelD: 40

was eligible to receive under the PPP. In addition, a business applying for PPP
money had to provide truthful supporting documentation, which could include the
business’s tax information, such as Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Forms 941
(Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Returns) and Forms 940 (Employer’s Annual
Federal Unemployment Tax Returns).

h. A PPP loan application had to be processed by a participating
financial institution (the lender). If a PPP loan application was approved, the
participating financial institution funded the PPP loan using its own monies, which
were 100% guaranteed by the United States Small Business Administration
(“SBA”). Data from the application, including information about the borrower, total
amount of the loan, and listed number of employees was transmitted by the lender
to the SBA in the course of processing the loan.

1. PPP money had to be used by the business on certain
permissible expenses—payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The
PPP allowed the interest and principal on the PPP loan to be forgiven entirely if the
business spent the money on these expense items within a designated period
(usually eight weeks of receiving the money) and used at least 75% of the PPP
money on payroll expenses.

The Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (“EIDL Program”)

j. Another source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the
EIDL Program, which was an SBA program that provided low-interest financing to
small businesses, renters, and homeowners in regions affected by declared

disasters.
Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Documenti16 Filed 07/02/24 Page 4 of 12 PagelD: 41

k. To obtain an EIDL Program loan, a qualifying business was
required to submit an application to the SBA and provide truthful information
about its operations, such as the number of employees, gross revenues 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 EIDL Program loans for COVID-19
relief, the 12-month period constituted the 12 months preceding January 31, 2020.
In addition, the business entity must have existed in an operational condition on
February 1, 2020.

l. The amount of the EIDL Program loan was determined partly
on the information the applicant provided regarding the revenue, employees, and
cost of goods of the company. The SBA directly issued any money disbursed under
an EKIDL Program loan to the applicant company. A company was required to use
all EIDL Program money as working capital including for payroll expenses, sick
leave, production costs, and business obligations, such as debts, rent, and mortgage
payments.

m. As part of the EIDL Program application, applicants could apply
for up to a $10,000 grant, known as an EIDL Program advance, which did not need
to be repaid.

The Scheme to Defraud

2. From at least in and around April 2020 through at least in and around
November 2022, MATHURIN devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud
Lender 1 and the SBA, and to obtain federal COVID-19 emergency relief money by

means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises.

4
Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Documenti16 Filed 07/02/24 Page 5 of 12 PagelD: 42

Goal of the Scheme to Defraud

3. The goal of the scheme was for MATHURIN to enrich himself by
fraudulently obtaining and misusing federal COVID-19 emergency relief money.

Manner and Means of Scheme to Defraud

4. It was part of the scheme that:

a. MATHURIN submitted and caused to be submitted at least five
falsified and fraudulent PPP loan applications and at least one falsified and
fraudulent EIDL Program application, including an EIDL Program advance,
seeking federal COVID-19 emergency relief money. MATHURIN’s fraudulent
applications included false information concerning, among other things, an
applicant entity’s average monthly payroll, gross revenue, and number of
employees, and fake supporting tax documents for an applicant entity including IRS
Forms 940 and IRS Forms 941. In order to receive the PPP and EIDL Program
money, MATHURIN was required to sign and complete certain forms, some of
which he digitally signed.

b. As a result of his fraudulent applications, MATHURIN
unlawfully obtained millions of dollars in federal COVID-19 emergency relief
money.

Fraudulent Application 1

C. On or about May 11, 2020, MATHURIN submitted a PPP loan
application to Lender 1 on behalf of Innovation requesting approximately $198,233
(“Application 1”). Application 1 listed MATHURIN as Innovation’s sole owner and

primary contact. Application 1 and its supporting documents contained materially

5
Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Document16 Filed 07/02/24 Page 6 of 12 PagelD: 43

false and fraudulent information.

d. In support of Application 1, MATHURIN provided Lender 1
various supporting documents that contained materially false and fraudulent
information, including fabricated copies of Innovation’s purported IRS Form 940 for
2019 and IRS Forms 941 for 2019 and 2020.

e. MATHURIN also represented falsely that Innovation had an
average monthly payroll of $79,305 and 15 employees.

f. On or about May 20, 2020, MATHURIN’s false and fraudulent
representations and omissions in Application 1 caused Lender 1 to disburse
approximately $164,666 into Account 0741 using Bank 1, resulting in an interstate
wire transmission.

Fraudulent Application 2

g. On or about March 31, 2020, MATHURIN submitted an EIDL
Program application to the SBA on behalf of Innovation (“Application 2”).
Application 2 listed MATHURIN as Innovation’s sole owner. Application 2
contained materially false and fraudulent information.

h. In support of Application 2, MATHURIN represented falsely
that for the 12 months prior to January 31, 2020, Innovation had $1,200,000 in
gross revenues and $70,000 in cost of goods sold, and as of January 31, 2020,
Innovation had 20 employees.

1. On or about May 22, 2020, MATHURIN’s false and fraudulent

representations and omissions in Application 2 caused the SBA to disburse
Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Document16 Filed 07/02/24 Page 7 of 12 PagelD: 44

approximately $149,900 into Account 0741, resulting in an interstate wire
transmission.

Fraudulent Application 3

j. On or about June 1, 2020, MATHURIN submitted a PPP loan
application to Lender 1 on behalf of Opulence requesting approximately $205,115
(“Application 3”).

k. In support of Application 3, MATHURIN submitted materially
false and fraudulent information, including fabricated copies of Opulence’s
purported IRS Form 940 for 2019 and IRS Forms 941 for 2019 and 2020.

1. MATHURIN also represented falsely that Opulence had an
average monthly payroll of $82,046 and 17 employees.

m. On or about June 8, 2020, MATHURIN’s false and fraudulent
representations and omissions in Application 3 caused Lender 1 to disburse
approximately $261,897 into Account 4948 using Bank 1, resulting in an interstate
wire transmission.

Execution of the Scheme to Defraud

5. On or about the dates set forth below, in the District of New Jersey
and elsewhere, the defendant,

NIKENSON JEAN MATHURIN,
a/k/a “Nik Mathurin,”
a/k/a “Jean Mathurin,”

for the purpose of executing the scheme described above, transmitted and caused to

be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate commerce the
Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Document16 Filed 07/02/24 Page 8 of 12 PagelD: 45

writings, signs, and signals described below for each count, each transmission

constituting a separate count:

Count

Approximate Date

Description of Interstate Wire

ONE

May 20, 2020

An electronic transfer of approximately $164,666
by Lender 1 to MATHURIN’s Account 0741 via an
interstate wire that traveled through the States of
Texas and New Jersey

TWO

May 22, 2020

An electronic transfer of approximately $149,900
by the SBA to MATHURIN’s Account 0741 via an
interstate wire that traveled through the States of
Colorado, Missouri, and New Jersey

THREE

June 8, 2020

An electronic transfer of approximately $261,897
by Lender 1 to MATHURIN’s Account 4948 via an
interstate wire that traveled through the States of
Texas and New Jersey

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Document16 Filed 07/02/24 Page 9 of 12 PagelD: 46

2023R00424/FMC/DH

COUNT FOUR
(Money Laundering)

6. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 5 of this Indictment are
realleged here.
7. On or about July 17, 2020, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere,
the defendant,
NIKENSON MATHURIN,
a/k/a “Nik Mathurin,”
a/k/a “Jean Mathurin,”
did knowingly engage and attempt to engage in a monetary transaction by, through,
and to a financial institution, affecting interstate and foreign commerce, in
criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, that is, causing a
transfer of approximately $47,000 from MATHURIN’s Account 4948 to
MATHURIN’s Account 0741, such property having been derived from a specified
unlawful activity, that is, wire fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Section 1343.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957.
Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Document16 Filed 07/02/24 Page 10 of 12 PagelD: 47

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS ONE, TWO, AND THREE

Upon conviction of the offenses in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1343, as charged in Counts One through Three of this Indictment,
defendant NIKENSON JEAN MATHURIN shall forfeit to the United States,
pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United
States Code, Section 2461(c), any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is
derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of such offenses.

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNT FOUR

Upon conviction of the offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1957, as charged in Count Four of this Indictment, defendant NIKENSON
JEAN MATHURIN shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United
States Code, Section 982(a)(1), any property, real or personal, involved in such
offense, or any property traceable to such property.

SUBSTITUTE ASSETS PROVISION
(Applicable to All Forfeiture Allegations)

If by any act or omission of NIKENSON JEAN MATHURIN any of the property

subject to forfeiture:
a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

b. has been transferred of 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,

10
Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Document16 Filed 07/02/24 Page 11 of 12 PagelD: 48

it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section
853(p), as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(1) and Title
28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of

such defendant up to the value of the forfeitable property described above.

A TRUE BILL

FOREPERSON .

GLENN S. LEON, PHILIP R. SELLINGER

Chief United States Attorney

United States Department of Justice United States Attorney’s Office
Criminal Division, Fraud Section District of New Jersey

11
Case 3:24-cr-00432-MAS Document16 Filed 07/02/24 Page 12 of 12 PagelD: 49

CASE NUMBER: 24-432 MAS

United States District Court
District of New Jersey

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Vv.

NICKENSON JEAN MATHURIN,
a/k/a “Nik Mathurin,”
a/k/a “Jean Mathurin”

INDICTMENT FOR

18 U.S.C. § 1343
18 U.S.C. § 1957

Foreperson

PHILIP R. SELLINGER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MATTHEW STARK
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
973-645-2700


File and source

File

dl_76d67f1218.pdf

Size

822,079 bytes

SHA-256

c2f66ccbd972a78b3b630c7cab0d96a6c65927380c20bf189927aec21f6b3ac1

Our copy

dl_76d67f1218.pdf

Original

www.justice.gov