Indictment — United States v. Yahya Z. Yaghmour, Eastern District of California (Document 20)

Summary

A grand jury Indictment filed August 21, 2025 as Document 20 in United States v. Yahya Z. Yaghmour, Case No. 1:25-cr-00164 JLT-SKO, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, charging four counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 with criminal forfeiture. It alleges that from around April 2021 through around September 2021 the defendant submitted initial and second draw PPP loan applications to Lender 1 claiming $100,940 in 2020 gross income from "furniture" as owner of BC Outlet, supported by a fake Schedule C, although BC Outlet burned down and ceased operations in 2019. The indictment states the SBA and Lender 1 funded and later forgave the loans after false forgiveness applications. The charged wires include the second draw application on May 18, 2021 and the initial and second loan forgiveness applications on September 16, 2021.

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.

Oo CO NY DH

10
2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28

Case 1:25-cr-00164-JLT-SAB

ERIC GRANT

United States Attorney
JEFFREY A. SPIVAK
Assistant United States Attorney
2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401
Fresno, CA 93721

Telephone: (559) 497-4000
Facsimile: (559) 497-4099

Attomeys for Plaintiff
United States of America

Document 20

Filed 08/21/25 Pagelof5

FILED

Aug 21, 2025

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
YAHYA Z. YAGHMOUR,

Defendant.

CASENO. | 1:25-cr-00164 JLT-SKO

18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud (Four Counts); 18
U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(1), and 28 U.S.C. §
2461(c) — Criminal Forfeiture

INDICTMENT

COUNTS ONE through FOUR: [18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud]

The Grand Jury charges:

YAHYA Z. YAGHMOUR,

defendant herein, as follows:

L

At all relevant times:

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendant YAHYA Z. YAGHMOUR resided in Fresno County in the State and Eastern

District of California.

Dy YAGHMOUR purported to be the sole owner a California-based company called

BC Outlet, which burned down and ceased operations in 2019.

INDICTMENT
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 1:25-cr-00164-JLT-SAB Document 20 _ Filed 08/21/25 Page2of5

I. THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM

Bie The United States Small Business Administration (the “SBA”) was an agency of the
United States government that provided support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The mission of
the SBA was to maintain and strengthen the nation’s economy by enabling the establishment and
viability of small businesses and by assisting in the economic recovery of communities after disasters.

4. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was a federal law
enacted in March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of
Americans who were suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of
relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of forgivable loans to small businesses for job
retention and certain other expenses through the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”), which was
administered by the SBA.

Ds To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was required to submit a PPP loan
application that 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 make
certain affirmative certifications to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan. In the PPP loan application, the
small business (through its authorized representative) was required to state, among other things, its
average monthly payroll expenses and number of employees. These figures were used to calculate the
amount of money the small business was eligible to receive. In addition, businesses applying for a PPP
loan typically were required to provide documentation showing their payroll expenses.

6. A PPP loan application was processed by a participating lender. Ifa PPP loan application
was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan using its own monies, which were 100
percent guaranteed by the SBA. Data from the application, including information about the borrower,
the total amount of the loan, and the listed number of employees, was transmitted by the lender to the
SBA in the course of processing the loan.

dic PPP loan proceeds were required to be used on certain permissible business expenses,
including payroll costs for employees whose principal places of residence were in the United States, and
business mortgage interest, rent, and utilities. Under the applicable PPP rules and guidance, interest and

principal on a PPP loan were eligible for forgiveness if the business spent the loan proceeds on

INDICTMENT
\O

10
iD
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 1:25-cr-00164-JLT-SAB Document 20 _ Filed 08/21/25 Page3of5

authorized expenses within a designated period and used a certain portion towards payroll expenses.

Til. SCHEME TO DEFRAUD

8. From in or around April 2021 through in or around September 2021, in the State and
Eastern District of California, and elsewhere, YAGHMOUR intentionally devised, participated in, and
executed a material scheme and artifice to defraud the SBA and Lender 1, and to obtain money from
them, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises.

IV. MANNER AND MEANS OF THE SCHEME
9. In furtherance of the scheme and artifice to defraud, YAGHMOUR employed, among

others, the following manner and means:

10. YAGHMOUR caused initial draw PPP and second draw PPP loan applications to be
submitted to the SBA and Lender 1. YAGHMOUR signed the applications digitally and caused them to
be transmitted to the SBA and Lender 1 via the internet.

11. —_ In the loan applications, YAGHMOUR falsely and fraudulently represented, among other
things, that he had earned $100,940 as the owner and sole employee of BC Outlet in 2020. For both
loan applications, YAGHMOUR submitted a fake 2020 Internal Revenue Service Schedule C (Form
1040) (Profit and Loss From Business), which stated he and BC Outlet had gross income from
“furniture” of $100,940 for the year of 2020. As YAGHMOUR knew, however, he and BC Outlet did
not earn gross income from “furniture” of $100,940 in 2020, and BC Outlet was not an operating
company in 2020.

12. Based on YAGHMOUR’s false and fraudulent representations, the SBA and Lender 1 approved
and funded the loans. The SBA and Lender 1 would not have done so had they known the
YAGHMOUR’s representations were false and fraudulent.

ise After receiving the loans, YAGHMOUR caused materially false and fraudulent
applications to be submitted to the SBA and Lender 1 seeking forgiveness of the balances due on the
loans. In the forgiveness applications, YAGHMOUR falsely and fraudulently represented, among other
things, that BC Outlet used the proceeds from the loans on eligible expenditures, such as payroll to
retain employees whose principal places of residence were in the United States. As YAHGMOUR

knew, however, BC Outlet had ceased operations and YAGHMOUR used the loan proceeds on

INDICTMENT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Dl
22
24
25
26
28

Case 1:25-cr-00164-JLT-SAB Document 20 Filed 08/21/25 Page4of5

unauthorized expenses.

14. Based on YAGHMOUR’s false and fraudulent representations, the SBA and Lender 1
forgave the loans.

IS At all relevant times, YAGHMOUR acted with the intent to defraud.

V. THE WIRES

16. On or about the dates set forth below, in the State and Eastern District of California, and
elsewhere, for the purpose of executing his scheme and artifice to defraud, YAGHMOUR knowingly
transmitted, and caused to be transmitted, by means of wire and radio communication in interstate

commerce, the following writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds:

Count | On or About Date Wire (all dollar amounts approximate)

Wire transmission of YAGHMOUR’s initial draw PPP loan
application from the State and Eastern District of California to

L Earle GEO Lender 1 that was routed through computer servers located
outside California.
Wire transmission of YAGHMOUR’s second draw PPP loan
,) May 18, 2021 application from the State and Eastern District of California to

Lender 1 that was routed through computer servers located
outside California.

Wire transmission of YAGHMOUR’s initial loan forgiveness

3 application from the State and Eastern District of California to the
September 16, 2021 | SBA and Lender | that was routed through computer servers
located outside California.

Wire transmission of YAGHMOUR’s second loan forgiveness

application from the State and Eastern District of California to the
4 September 16, 2021 SBA and Lender 1 that was routed through computer servers
located outside California.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION: [18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C) 982(a)(2)(A), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) —
Criminal Forfeiture]

I Upon conviction of one or more of the offenses alleged in Counts One through Four of

this Indictment, YAGHMOUR 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

INDICTMENT
10
11
3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 1:25-cr-00164-JLT-SAB Document 20 Filed 08/21/25 Page5of5

traceable to a violation of such violations, and, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A), any property, real
or personal, involved in such offenses, or any property traceable to such property, including but not
limited to the following:

a. A sum of money equal to the amount of proceeds traceable to or involved in such
offenses, or property traceable to such property, because of such offenses, for which defendant is
convicted.

2. If any property subject to forfeiture because of the offenses alleged in Counts One
through Four of this Indictment, for which defendant is convicted:

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

EE has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without
difficulty;

it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c),
incorporating 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendant, up to the

value of the property subject to forfeiture.

A TRUE BILL.

/s/ Signature on file w/AUSA

FOREPERSON

ERIC GRANT
United States Attorney

INDICTMENT


File and source

File

20-indictment-as-to-yahya-z-yaghmour.pdf

Size

605,862 bytes

SHA-256

b86fe0c4a8bec20fccbb324e66399a6987e814b24c4badc1ae7e7381fe5c3d94

Our copy

20-indictment-as-to-yahya-z-yaghmour.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)