Full text
Case 1:23-cr-00537-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/05/23 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 1
2023R00437/DAF/JMR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Crim. No. 23-537 (KMW)
:
v. : 18 U.S.C. § 1349
:
WILLIAM INGRAM :
INFORMATION
The defendant having waived in open court prosecution by Indictment,
the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey charges:
The Defendant and Co-Conspirators
1. At all times relevant to this Information:
a. The defendant, WILLIAM INGRAM, resided in Haddonfield,
New Jersey. Defendant WILLIAM INGRAM owned or controlled several New
Jersey businesses, including King of Aces Barbershop LLC, Leader of the Pack
Productions LLC, and East Coast Commercial LLC.
b. Co-Conspirator-1 (“CC-1”) was a co-conspirator but is not
named as a defendant herein.
c. Co-Conspirator-2 (“CC-2”) was a co-conspirator but is not
named as a defendant herein.
d. Co-Conspirator-3 (“CC-3”) was a co-conspirator but is not
named as a defendant herein.
e. Co-Conspirator-4 (“CC-4”) was a co-conspirator but is not
named as a defendant herein.
1
Case 1:23-cr-00537-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/05/23 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 2
f. Lender-1 was a financial institution that participated as
lender in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), as described herein.
Lender-1 was a “financial institution” within the meaning of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 20.
g. The U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was an
independent agency of the federal government created to aid, counsel, assist,
and protect the interests of small business concerns, preserve free competitive
enterprise, and maintain and strengthen the overall economy of the United
States.
The Paycheck Protection Program
h. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(“CARES”) Act was a federal law enacted in or around March 2020 and was
designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans
who suffered the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One
source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of billions of
dollars in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain
other expenses, through a program referred to as the Paycheck Protection
Program (“PPP”).
i. To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business had to submit a
PPP loan application signed by an authorized representative of the business.
The applicant of a PPP loan was required to acknowledge the program rules
and make certain affirmative certifications in order to be eligible to obtain the
PPP loan. In the PPP loan application, the applicant had to state, among other
2
Case 1:23-cr-00537-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/05/23 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 3
things, its average monthly payroll expenses and number of employees. These
figures were used to calculate the amount of money the business was eligible to
receive under the PPP. In addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan had to
provide documentation showing their payroll expenses.
j. A PPP loan application had to be processed by a participating
financial institution (the lender). If the PPP loan application was approved, the
lender funded the PPP loan using its own monies, which were 100%
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.
k. PPP loan proceeds could only be used by the business for
certain permissible expenses, including payroll costs, interest on mortgages,
rent, and utilities. The PPP allowed the interest and principal on the PPP loan
to be entirely forgiven if the business used the loan proceeds on these expense
items within a designated period of time after receiving the proceeds and used
a certain amount of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.
The Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program
l. The Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program was an
SBA program that provided low-interest financing to small businesses, renters,
and homeowners in regions affected by declared disasters.
3
Case 1:23-cr-00537-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/05/23 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 4
m. The CARES Act authorized the SBA to provide EIDLs of up to
$2 million to eligible small businesses that were experiencing substantial
financial disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
n. To obtain an EIDL, a qualifying business was required to
submit an application to the SBA and provide 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 addition, the business entity must have been in
operation on February 1, 2020.
o. The amount of the EIDL was determined based, in part, on
the information provided by the applicant regarding the revenue, employees,
and cost of goods of the business. The SBA directly issued any funds
disbursed under an EIDL to the applicant business. A business was permitted
to use EIDL funds for payroll expenses, sick leave, production costs, and
business obligations such as debts, rent, and mortgage payments. If a
business also obtained a PPP loan, the business was prohibited from using
EIDL funds for the same purpose as PPP funds.
The Conspiracy
2. From in or about October 2020 through in or about December
2021, in Camden County in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the
defendant,
WILLIAM INGRAM,
4
Case 1:23-cr-00537-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/05/23 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 5
did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with others, known and
unknown, to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud a financial institution,
namely Lender-1, and to obtain moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or
other property owned by, or under, the custody or control of, a financial
institution, namely Lender-1, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section
1344.
Object of the Conspiracy
3. The object of the conspiracy was for defendant WILLIAM INGRAM
and his co-conspirators to financially enrich themselves by obtaining federal
relief funds that were intended for small businesses distressed by the COVID-
19 pandemic by submitting fraudulent loan applications that included false
statements about their businesses’ number of employees, payroll, and
expenses, and by providing false documentation to financial institutions.
Manner and Means of the Conspiracy
4. It was part of the conspiracy that:
a. In or about October 2020, CC-1 introduced defendant
WILLIAM INGRAM to CC-2 and CC-3 and told defendant WILLIAM INGRAM
that CC-2 and CC-3 could assist defendant WILLIAM INGRAM in applying for
PPP and EIDL loans for defendant WILLIAM INGRAM’s businesses.
b. In or about December 2020, CC-2 prepared, and defendant
WILLIAM INGRAM electronically signed, a fraudulent EIDL application for King
of Aces Barbershop LLC.
5
Case 1:23-cr-00537-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/05/23 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 6
c. From in or about March 2021 through in or about May
2021, CC-3 prepared, and defendant WILLIAM INGRAM electronically signed,
fraudulent PPP applications for King of Aces Barbershop LLC, Leader of the
Pack Productions LLC, and East Coast Commercial LLC.
d. Each of the PPP and EIDL loan applications prepared by CC-
2 and CC-3 and submitted by defendant WILLIAM INGRAM contained
materially false and fraudulent information, including the number of
individuals employed by the applicant business and the business’s payroll,
expenses, and revenue. These figures did not accurately represent the
business’s true operations and were inflated, which caused each business to
obtain a loan it would not have been qualified to receive, or to receive a loan in
an amount higher than it would have qualified for had the applications been
accurate.
e. As part of the loan applications, CC-2 and CC-3 prepared,
and defendant WILLIAM INGRAM signed, materially false and fraudulent IRS
Forms, including Forms 941 (Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return) and
Form 1040 (U.S. Individual Income Tax Return), that were created solely for
purposes of applying for the PPP and EIDL loans and were never submitted to
the IRS.
f. Based on these fraudulent loan applications submitted by
CC-2, CC-3, and defendant WILLIAM INGRAM, Lender-1 and the SBA approved
three PPP loans and one EIDL loan and disbursed approximately $551,600.
6
Case 1:23-cr-00537-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/05/23 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 7
g. For CC-1’s role in introducing defendant WILLIAM INGRAM
to CC-2 and CC-3, defendant WILLIAM INGRAM paid CC-1 kickbacks of
approximately 15 percent of the loan amounts.
h. After defendant WILLIAM INGRAM received three PPP loans
based on fraudulent applications, CC-1 and CC-2 told defendant WILLIAM
INGRAM that CC-4 could help defendant WILLIAM INGRAM structure the loan
proceeds and prepare fake payroll paperwork to conceal that the proceeds were
being spent on non-payroll expenses. This would make it appear that the PPP
loans were eligible for forgiveness because more than 60 percent would appear
to have been paid via payroll.
i. Defendant WILLIAM INGRAM provided CC-4 with the
identities of associates and family members to be paid from defendant
WILLIAM INGRAM’s PPP loan proceeds and determined the amounts that each
individual would receive. CC-4 then printed “payroll” checks and provided
them to defendant WILLIAM INGRAM. Defendant WILLIAM INGRAM provided
the “payroll” checks to his associates and family members, who then cashed
the checks and returned most of the cash to defendant WILLIAM INGRAM.
Furthering the Conspiracy
5. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its objects, defendant
WILLIAM INGRAM and his co-conspirators committed and caused to be
committed the following acts, among others.
7
Case 1:23-cr-00537-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/05/23 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 8
6. On or about March 19, 2021, CC-2 submitted—and defendant
WILLIAM INGRAM electronically signed—a PPP loan application to Lender-1 on
behalf of King of Aces Barbershop (the “King of Aces PPP Application”).
7. The King of Aces PPP Application contained materially false and
fraudulent information, including that King of Aces Barbershop LLC had seven
employees and had an average monthly payroll of $48,916.00
8. The King of Aces PPP application also included purported 2019
Forms 941 in the name of King of Aces Barbershop. Per the Forms 941, King
of Aces Barbershop reported paying seven employees $146,750 in wages, tips,
and other compensation each quarter of 2019.
9. The Forms 941 were created solely for purposes of applying for the
PPP loan and were never submitted to the IRS. On or about March 19, 2021,
CC-2 emailed four Forms 941 for King of Aces Barbershop, one for each
quarter of 2019, to defendant WILLIAM INGRAM. Defendant WILLIAM INGRAM
signed each of them and they were then uploaded as part of the King of Aces
PPP loan application.
10. In fact, King of Aces Barbershop paid no wages in 2019.
11. On or about May 4, 2021, King of Aces Barbershop was approved
for a PPP loan in the amount of $122,000. The loan proceeds were disbursed
to a Lender-1 business checking account in the name of King of Aces
Barbershop, which was controlled by defendant WILLIAM INGRAM.
8
Case 1:23-cr-00537-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/05/23 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 9
12. On or about May 17, 2021, defendant WILLIAM INGRAM wrote two
checks totaling $18,300 (15 percent of the loan amount) to companies
controlled by CC-1.
13. On or about December 6, 2021, CC-2 submitted—and defendant
WILLIAM INGRAM electronically signed—a PPP Loan Forgiveness Application
for the King of Aces Barbershop PPP loan. The PPP Loan Forgiveness
Application indicated that King of Aces Barbershop spent $79,300 (65 percent
of the loan proceeds) on payroll costs from May 4, 2021 through August 28,
2021. However, the loan proceeds were not paid to actual employees, but
rather were distributed via check to defendant WILLIAM INGRAM’s associates
and family members, who cashed the checks and returned most of the cash to
defendant WILLIAM INGRAM. In December 2021, the King of Aces Barbershop
PPP loan was forgiven based on the fraudulent forgiveness application.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.
9
Case 1:23-cr-00537-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/05/23 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 10
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
1. As a result of committing the offense charged in Count One of this
Information, defendant WILLIAM INGRAM shall forfeit to the United States,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2), all property, real or personal, constituting or
derived from proceeds traceable to the offense charged in this Information, the
value of which totaled $551,600.00.
SUBSTITUTE ASSETS PROVISION
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, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as
incorporated by 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), to forfeiture of
any other property of the defendant up to the value of the above-described
forfeitable property.
_______________________
PHILIP R. SELLINGER
United States Attorney
10
Case 1:23-cr-00537-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/05/23 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 11
CASE NUMBER: _____________
═════════════════════════════════
United States District Court
District of New Jersey
═════════════════════════════════
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
WILLIAM INGRAM
═════════════════════════════════
INFORMATION FOR
18 U.S.C. § 1349
═════════════════════════════════
PHILIP R. SELLINGER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
═════════════════════════════════
DANIEL A. FRIEDMAN
JASON M. RICHARDSON
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS
CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY
(856) 757-5026
═════════════════════════════════