Indictment — United States v. Clarence Gardener, Middle District of Florida (Document 1)

Summary

An indictment filed October 7, 2025 as Document 1 in United States v. Clarence Gardener, Case 8:25-cr-00481-TPB-LSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, charging wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 in COUNT ONE. It states the defendant owned Gardener Enterprises of Florida LLC. The grand jury charges that beginning on an unknown date, but no later than in or around April 2020, and continuing through at least in or around October 2020, the defendant submitted a PPP application to a lender that overstated the business's employees and average monthly payroll and was supported by a fraudulent 2019 Form 1120-S. Count One concerns a wire transfer of $261,253.00 in PPP funds on or about July 7, 2020 to an account in the defendant's name. The forfeiture allegation seeks an order of forfeiture of approximately $261,253.00.

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. Page 7 of 8 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 8:25-cr-00481-TPB-LSG Document1 Filed 10/07/25 Page1of8PagelD 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3.25-cr- 491 - TPB - L8G
CLARENCE GARDENER 18 U.S.C. § 1343
INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges:
COUNT ONE
(Wire Fraud)

A. Introduction

At times relevant to this Indictment:

1. CLARENCE GARDENER, a resident of the Middle District of
Florida, submitted false and fraudulent information in order to obtain a federal
Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan to which he was not entitled.

2. Gardener Enterprises of Florida LLC was a business owned by
CLARENCE GARDENER 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-00481-TPB-LSG Document1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 2 of 8 PagelD 2

4, In or around March 2020, the President declared the ongoing
Coronavirus 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
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 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
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
Case 8:25-cr-00481-TPB-LSG Document1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 3 of 8 PagelD 3

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.

8. Financial Institution #1 was a financial institution as defined in 18
U.S.C. § 20.

9. 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

10. Beginning on an unknown date, but no later than in or around April
2020, and continuing through at least in or around October 2020, in the Middle
District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

CLARENCE GARDENER,
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
11. The manner and means by which the defendant sought to accomplish

the scheme and artifice included, among others, the following:
Case 8:25-cr-00481-TPB-LSG Document1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 4 of 8 PagelD 4

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, a materially
false and fraudulent application to the PPP, which program was 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 Lender #1 to fund the PPP loan, the defendant would and did prepare and
submit, and cause to be prepared and submitted, to Lender #1 an application that

contained multiple materially false and fraudulent representations and pretenses,

including:
1. overstating the number of employees for the business
il. overstating the average monthly payroll 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 submit fraudulent supporting documentation, including a 2019 Form
1120-S United States Tax Return for an S Corporation;

d. It was further a part of the scheme and artifice that the defendant
would and did cause Lender #1 to approve the PPP loan application and cause to be

transmitted PPP loan proceeds via interstate wire transfer to Financial Institution #1;

4
Case 8:25-cr-00481-TPB-LSG Document1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 5of8PagelD5

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

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 committed in furtherance thereof.

D. Execution of the Scheme and Artifice

12. Onor about the date set forth below, in the Middle District of Florida
and elsewhere, the defendant,
CLARENCE GARDENER,
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} DATE OF WIRE DESCRIPTION OF WIRE

Defendant caused a wire transfer in the amount of
$261,253.00 in PPP funds, sent from outside Florida
One July 7, 2020 to 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.
Case 8:25-cr-00481-TPB-LSG Document1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 6 of 8 PagelD 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. § 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 in the amount of approximately $261,253.00, 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,
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).
FORM OBD-34
October 25

Case 8:25-cr-00481-TPB-LSG Document1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 8 of 8 PagelD 8
No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Middle District of Florida
Tampa Division

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.

CLARENCE GARDENER

INDICTMENT

Violations: 18 U.S.C. § 1343

A trae-bill —

Foreperson

Filed in open court this 7th day

of October 20

—Cler}EREMIAH SMITH

Bail $

GPO 863 525


File and source

File

1-indictment-as-to-clarence-gardener.pdf

Size

900,385 bytes

SHA-256

50598d2a8b6936238de8d0b1649b57b8265925002dc7d5bcfe9eb007f2035246

Our copy

1-indictment-as-to-clarence-gardener.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)