Information — United States v. Darren Carlyle Sadler, Northern District of Illinois (Document 1)

Summary

This is an Information filed March 6, 2025, in Case 1:25-cr-00132, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in which the Acting United States Attorney charges Darren Carlyle Sadler. It alleges that from in or about March 2020 through in or around December 2020 the defendant, with Co-Schemer A and Co-Schemer B, participated in a scheme to obtain PPP funds through applications with false employee and payroll information. It alleges false PPP loan applications for Milan Equity, LLC, Milan Financial, LLC, and the Barber Colleges of America. The charge concerns a wire communication on or about May 6, 2020, related to the transfer of approximately $268,100 in PPP loan proceeds. The signature block names Michelle Petersen, Acting United States Attorney.

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.

BC

Case: 1:25-cr-00132 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/25 Page 1 of 7 PagelD #:1

ILED

3/6/2025

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

GMM

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ocd WARE RIETCouRT

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CFU

No. -XGJH7KRP DV0 1 XLNQ7

5$1' 20 &DW
Violation: 18 U.S.C. § 1348

)
)
)
Vs. )
)
)
DARREN CARLYLE SADLER )

The ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY charges:

1. At times material to the information:

a. The U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was a United
States government agency that provided support to small businesses.

b. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”)
Act was a federal law enacted in or around 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.

c. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the
authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for job
retention and certain other expenses, through a program called the Paycheck
Protection Program (“PPP”). Congress subsequently authorized an additional $465
billion in PPP Funding, for a total of about $814 billion.

d. To obtain a PPP loan, a business submitted 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)
Case: 1:25-cr-00132 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/25 Page 2 of 7 PagelD #:2

to acknowledge the program rules and make certain affirmative certifications
regarding its eligibility. In the application, the small business’s authorized
representative was required to provide, among other things, the business’s average
monthly payroll expenses and number of employees. These figures were used to
calculate the business’s eligibility and the amount of money it could receive under the
PPP. Applicants were also required to make good faith certifications, including that
economic uncertainties necessitated their loan requests for continued business
operations.

e. PPP loan proceeds were required to be used by the business for
certain permissible expenses, such as payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and
utilities. The PPP allowed the interest and principal on a PPP loan to be entirely
forgiven by the SBA if the business spent the loan proceeds on these items within a
designated period of time and used at least a certain percentage of the PPP loan for
payroll expenses.

f. To gain access to funds through the PPP, small businesses applied
through third-party lenders approved by the SBA. Participating lenders required
applicants for PPP loans to provide truthful information about the business and its
owner, including truthful information about the business’s operating expenses, the
business’s employees, and how the PPP loan would be used, which information was
material to lenders’ approval, terms, and funding of loans.

g. Defendant DARREN CARLYLE SADLER owned and operated

two entities, Milan Equity, LLC, and Milan Financial, LLC, that were registered,
Case: 1:25-cr-00132 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/25 Page 3 of 7 PagelD #:3

respectively, in the states of Wyoming and Alabama. Both businesses were engaged
in the business of obtaining loans and lines of credit through third-party lenders for
small businesses. Neither business had any employees.

h. Defendant registered a purported business called the Barber
Colleges of America with the state of Wyoming. The purported business had no
employees or physical office location.

2. From in or about March 2020, and continuing through in or around
December 2020, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,
DARREN CARLYLE SADLER,
defendant herein, along with others including Co-Schemer A and Co-Schemer B,
devised, intended to devise, and participated in a scheme to defraud and to obtain
money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,

representations, and promises.

3. It was part of the scheme that defendant for the purpose of fraudulently
obtaining PPP funds on behalf of himself and purported clients, submitted and caused
to be submitted fraudulent applications and supporting documents to third-party
lenders and to the SBA, which applications and supporting documents contained
materially false representations concerning, among other things, the applicant’s
purported employees and average monthly payroll.

4. It was further part of the scheme that, in or around March 2020,

defendant began to solicit previous clients of Milan Equity, LLC, and Milan Financial,
Case: 1:25-cr-00132 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/25 Page 4 of 7 PagelD #:4

LLC, to offer his assistance in obtaining PPP loans for their businesses and to find
additional clients by using recruiters, including Co-Schemer B.

5. It was further part of the scheme that, with the assistance of Co-
Schemer A, defendant developed a list of information and documents that potential
applicants needed to gather and provide to him for purposes of applying for PPP loans
through his loan brokerage businesses, and defendant provided this list of
information and documents to clients who responded to his solicitations or were
otherwise referred to him for assistance in obtaining PPP loans.

6. It was further part of the scheme that, with the assistance of Co-
Schemer B and other recruiters, defendant recruited over 63 business owner clients
interested in obtaining PPP loans.

7. It was further part of the scheme that, after receiving information and
documents from these business owner clients interested in obtaining PPP loans,
defendant caused the creation and completion of PPP loan applications for these
business owner clients that contained false information regarding the number of their
employees and their payroll.

8. It was further part of the scheme that defendant caused the loan
applications containing this false information to be submitted to various third party
lenders for the purpose of obtaining PPP loans for his business owner clients.

9. It was further part of the scheme that defendant and Co-Schemer A

caused the submission of false and fictitious documents created by Co-Schemer A,
Case: 1:25-cr-00132 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/25 Page 5 of 7 PagelD #:5

including false tax forms and payroll summaries, in connection with the false PPP
loan applications submitted to the third-party lenders.

10. It was further part of the scheme that defendant created false email
addresses that he controlled for his business owner clients and provided those false
email addresses to the third-party lenders in order to conceal his involvement with
the PPP loan applications. Defendant also utilized virtual personal networks to make
it appear that the applications were being submitted by the business owner clients
from an IP address in the area where they did business.

11. It was further part of the scheme that defendant caused the business
owner clients for whom he fraudulently obtained PPP loans to pay him with a fee
from the loan proceeds with the amount of the fee being based upon percentage of the
loan amount, a portion of which he shared with others.

12. It was further part of the scheme that defendant filed false PPP loan
applications for his own purported businesses, namely, Milan Equity, LLC, Milan
Financial, LLC, and the Barber Colleges of America, containing false information
regarding the number of employees and monthly payrolls for those business in order
to receive PPP loans that he was not entitled to receive for those businesses.

13. It was further part of the scheme that defendant misrepresented,
concealed, and hid and caused to be misrepresented, concealed, and hidden, certain
material facts, including the acts and purposes of the acts done in furtherance of the

scheme.
Case: 1:25-cr-00132 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/25 Page 6 of 7 PagelD #:6

14. On or about May 6, 2020, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern

Division, and elsewhere,
DARREN CARLYLE SADLER,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the scheme, knowingly caused to be
transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce certain
writings, signs, signals, and sounds, namely, a communication related to the transfer
of approximately $268,100 from Customer’s Bank in Pennsylvania, into the First
American Bank account of Business Owner A in Elk Grove Village, Illinois,
representing the proceeds of a PPP loan;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
Case: 1:25-cr-00132 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/25 Page 7 of 7 PagelD #:7

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

The ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY further alleges:

1. Upon conviction of an offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1348, as set forth in this Information, defendant shall forfeit to the United
States of America any property which constitutes and is derived from proceeds
traceable to the offense, as provided in Title 18, United States Code, Section
981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c).

2. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission
by a defendant: cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; has been
transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; has been placed beyond the
jurisdiction of the Court; has been substantially diminished in value; or has been
commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty, the
United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property, as
provided in Title 21, United States Code Section 853(p).

MICHELLE PETERSEN guissrssonmcnssrsmc Np
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY


File and source

File

1-information.pdf

Size

154,220 bytes

SHA-256

f064e3a408e84fe8e47f88a703763f1b1c015e1111dd958275720090249f45fb

Our copy

1-information.pdf

Original

archive.org