Indictment — United States v. Louis Paiva, Jr., Northern District of Florida (Document 1)

Summary

A grand jury indictment of Louis Paiva, Jr., Case No. 4:22-cr-00031-MW-MAL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, filed June 7, 2022 as Document 1. Count One charges theft of government money under Title 18, United States Code, Sections 641 and 2. The indictment alleges that Paiva, employed by the Transportation Security Administration between on or about March 3, 2019 and on or about May 22, 2021, falsely denied federal employment and unreported income in unemployment applications to Florida's Department of Economic Opportunity. It charges that between on or about March 15, 2020 and on or about March 8, 2021 Paiva obtained unemployment benefits, including PEUC, FPUC and Lost Wages Assistance payments, in excess of $16,000, paid to Navy Federal Credit Union accounts. The indictment includes a criminal forfeiture allegation.

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 4:22-cr-00031-MW-MAL Documenti- Filed 06/07/22 Page1of7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ve INDICTMENT
- MAY
LOUIS PAIVA, JR. 4:7202.3\- MW

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:
COUNT ONE
A. INTRODUCTION
At all times material to this Indictment:

Unemployment Insurance

1. Unemployment Insurance (“UT”) was a state-federal program that
provided monetary benefits to eligible lawful workers. Although state workforce
agencies (“SWAs”) administered their respective UI programs, they did so in
accordance with federal laws and regulations. UI payments (benefits) were
intended to provide temporary financial assistance to lawful workers who were
unemployed through no fault of their own. Each state set its own additional
requirements for eligibility, benefit amounts, and length of time that benefits were
paid. Generally, UI weekly benefit amounts were based on a percentage of a one's

earnings over a base period.
2. UI benefits were generally funded by state employer taxes with
administrative costs funded by the federal government. The UI program required
states to make weekly benefit payments while ensuring claimants met eligibility
requirements.

3. In the State of Florida, the Department of Economic Opportunity
(“DEO”) was the SWA that administered the UI program. DEO was
headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida. All UI applications, certifications, and
recertifications were received by DEO at its Tallahassee headquarters, and all UI

payment transactions were initiated from there once approved.

Federally-Enacted COVID-19 Pandemic Relief

4. In March 2020, the President signed the Families First Coronavirus
Response Act (“FFCRA”) into law. The FFCRA provided additional flexibility for
state UI agencies.and additional administrative funding to respond to the COVID-
19 pandemic.

5. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security ("CARES") Act
was also signed into law in March 2020. It expanded states’ ability to provide UI
for many workers impacted by COVID-19, including for workers who were not
ordinarily eligible for UI benefits. The CARES Act provided for three new UI

programs: Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (“PUA”); Federal Pandemic
Case 4:22-cr-00031-MW-MAL Documenti- Filed 06/07/22 Page 3of7

Unemployment Compensation (“FPUC”’); and Pandemic Emergency
Unemployment Compensation (“PEUC’”).

6. To further offset the pandemic impact on American workers, on
August 8, 2020, the President authorized the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) to expend up to $44 billion dollars from the Disaster Relief Funds
for lost wage payments. The President authorized the FEMA Administrator to
provide grants to participating states, territories, and the District of Columbia to
administer delivery of Lost Wages Assistance (“LWA”) to those receiving
unemployment insurance.

7. Thus, extensions and expansions of UI coverage and benefits, such as
those provided by the CARES Act and subsequent legislation, such as FFCRA,
were normally funded by the federal government.

Financial Institutions

8. The Automated Clearing House (hereinafter “ACH”) was a network
that coordinated electronic payments and automated money transfers. ACH
transactions were a way to move money between banks without using paper
checks, wire transfers, credit card networks, or cash. Examples of ACH
transactions included direct deposits of employment wages, automatic payments of

recurring bills, and payments from businesses to is vendors and suppliers.
Case 4:22-cr-00031-MW-MAL Documenti- Filed 06/07/22 Page4of/7

9. Once benefit payments were approved to be issued by DEO, UI
benefit payments were paid to UI claimants electronically via direct deposit (ACH)
from DEO’s financial institution, JP Morgan Chase Bank, which was
headquartered in New York, New York.

10. Navy Federal Credit Union was a financial institution that was
headquartered in Vienna, Virginia.

11. JP Morgan Chase Bank and Navy Federal Credit Union both
processed ACH transactions through computer servers located outside of the State
of Florida.

False UI Benefits Applications

12. The Defendant, LOUIS PAIVA, JR., was employed by the United
States Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration
(“TSA”) between on or about March 3, 2019, and on or about May 22, 2021.

13. The Defendant, LOUIS PAIVA, JR., made various materially false
and fraudulent representations and promises in his UI benefits applications that he
submitted to DEO in Tallahassee, Florida. Specifically, PAIVA made false
responses and omissions in response to questions on the applications about his
federal employment status with TSA and to questions on the applications about
receiving income from sources that were not reported to DEO. PAIVA also

falsely denied in his UI benefits applications that he was a federal employee.
4
Case 4:22-cr-00031-MW-MAL Documenti Filed 06/07/22 Page5of7

14. The Defendant, LOUIS PAIVA, JR., directed that fraudulently-
obtained UI payments, which include PEUC, FPUC, and LWA benefits, be sent
electronically to his bank accounts at Navy Federal Credit Union.

B. THE CHARGE
Between on or about March 15, 2020, and on or about March 8, 2021, in the
Northern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,
LOUIS PAIVA, JR.,
did knowingly and willfully embezzle, steal, and convert to his use and to the use
of another, and without authority did convey and dispose of money of the United
States of a value of more than $1,000, namely, UI benefits, including PEUC,
FPUC, and LWA benefits, in excess of $16,000.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 641 and 2.

CRIMINAL FORFEITURE

The allegations in Count One of this Indictment are hereby realleged and
incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeiture. From the
defendant’s engagement in the violations alleged in Count One of this Indictment,
the defendant,

LOUIS PAIVA, JR.,
shall forfeit to the United States of America pursuant to Title 18, United States

Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c),
5
upon conviction of an offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

641, any and all of the defendant’s right, title, and interest in any property, real and

personal, constituting and derived from proceeds traceable to such offenses.

The United States will also seek a forfeiture money judgment for a sum of

money equal to the value of any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is

derived from proceeds traceable to these offenses.

If any of the property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a

result of any act or omission of the defendant:

i.

il.

iil.

iv.

cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person;
has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of this Court;

has been substantially diminished in value; or

has been commingled with other property that cannot be divided

without difficulty,
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code,
Section 853(p), as incorporated by reference in 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 said defendant up to the value of the forfeitable

property.
A TRUE BILL:
FOREPERSON
Que 7 2022.
DATE —
United

|
JUSTIN M. KIEEN’
Assistant United States Attorney


File and source

File

1-indictment-redacted-as-to-louis-paiva-jr.pdf

Size

284,837 bytes

SHA-256

37034a56b58ae18414c753d8246414ee6945c79c93d0190795bf8de5d52a5086

Our copy

1-indictment-redacted-as-to-louis-paiva-jr.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)