Information — United States of America v. Butherde Darius
Summary
An Information in United States v. Butherde Darius in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed after he waived prosecution by indictment and charging conspiracy to commit bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and a monetary transaction count under 18 U.S.C. § 1957. It describes Darius as the owner of a purported business, Business 1, and names an uncharged co-conspirator, CC-1. The Information alleges that Darius submitted a PPP application to Victim-Lender 1 for Business 1 seeking approximately $852,205, which the lender disbursed on or about June 3, 2020 to an account he controlled. It alleges a transfer of approximately $85,221 to CC-1, and the second count charges a transfer of approximately $26,575 derived from bank fraud.
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
- Captured
- 2026-09-25
- Source site
- www-justice-gov
Archived web capture. Preserved source — captured from www-justice-gov; archived 2026-09-25.
Full text
202200875/DED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon.
:
v. : Crim. No.
:
BUTHERDE DARIUS : 18 U.S.C. § 1349
: 18 U.S.C. § 1957
:
INFORMATION
The defendant having waived in open court prosecution by Indictment, the
United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey charges:
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud)
Background
Individuals and Entities
1. At all times relevant to this Information:
a. Defendant BUTHERDE DARIUS (“DARIUS”) resided in New
Jersey.
b. DARIUS owned and controlled a purported business (“Business
1”) through which he submitted an application for federal COVID-19 emergency relief
funds.
c. CC-1 was a co-conspirator not charged in this Information who
agreed with DARIUS to submit a fraudulent loan application for federal COVID-19
emergency relief funds.
d. Victim-Lender 1 was a financial institution and a member bank
of the Federal Home Loan Bank system headquartered in Utah.
e. Bank 1 was a financial institution and a member bank of the
Federal Home Loan Bank system headquartered in San Francisco, California.
f. Bank 2 was a financial institution and a member bank of the
Federal Home Loan Bank system headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
Paycheck Protection Program
g. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”)
Act was a federal law enacted in or about 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 up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small
businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through a program referred
to as the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). In or about April 2020, Congress
authorized over $300 billion in additional PPP funding. The PPP ended on May 31,
2021.
h. To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was required to
submit a PPP loan application, 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 in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan. In the loan application,
the small business was required to state, among other things, its: (a) average monthly
payroll expenses; and (b) number of employees. These figures were used to calculate
2
the amount of money the small business was eligible to receive under the PPP. In
addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan had to provide documentation showing
their payroll expenses.
i. A PPP loan application had to be processed by a participating
lender. If the PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender funded
the PPP loan using its own money, which was 100% guaranteed by the U.S. Small
Business Administration (“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 while processing the loan.
j. PPP loan proceeds could only be used by the business on certain
permissible expenses—payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The
PPP allowed the interest and principal on the PPP loan to be forgiven if the business
spent the loan proceeds on these eligible 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 Bank Fraud Conspiracy
2. From at least in or around April 2020 through in or around June 2020,
for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute the scheme and artifice to
defraud, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant
BUTHERDE DARIUS
did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with others, including CC-1, to
execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud one or more financial
institutions, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 20, namely, Victim-Lender 1, the deposits of
3
which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and to obtain any
of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, and other property owned by, and
under the control of, such financial institution by means of false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations, and promises, contrary to Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1344.
Goal of the Conspiracy
3. The goal of the conspiracy was for DARIUS and CC-1 to profit by
fraudulently obtaining federal COVID-19 emergency relief funds from Victim-Lender
1 and the SBA by submitting a fraudulent loan application and then diverting the
money for personal use and other business ventures.
Manner and Means of the Conspiracy
4. It was part of the conspiracy that:
a. On or about June 2, 2020, DARIUS and CC-1 submitted a PPP
application to Victim-Lender 1 for Business 1 seeking a loan for approximately
$852,205 (the “Business 1 PPP Application”). The Business 1 PPP Application was
submitted in DARIUS’s name and listed DARIUS as the owner of Business 1.
b. The Business 1 PPP Application and supporting documentation
contained materially false and fraudulent information, including false tax documents
and false claims about the number of employees and the monthly payroll of Business
1.
c. The fraudulent Business 1 PPP Application caused Victim-
Lender 1 to disburse approximately $852,205 in PPP funds on or about June 3, 2020
4
to an account that DARIUS controlled at Bank 1. DARIUS and CC-1 then caused the
transfer of approximately $85,221 from Bank 1 to an account controlled by CC-1.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.
5
COUNT TWO
(Transacting in Criminal Proceeds)
5. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of Count One of this
Information are realleged here.
6. On or about October 19, 2020, in the District of New Jersey and
elsewhere, defendant
BUTHERDE DARIUS
knowingly engaged in a monetary transaction by, through, and to a financial
institution, affecting interstate and foreign commerce, in criminally derived property
of a greater value than $10,000, that is the transfer of approximately $26,575 from a
bank account at Bank 1 to a bank account at Bank 2, such property having been
derived from a specified unlawful activity, that is bank fraud.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957.
6
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNT ONE
1. As a result of committing the offense charged in Count One of this
Information, defendant BUTHERDE DARIUS shall forfeit to the United States,
pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A), any property, real or
personal, constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a
result of the offense charged in Count One of this Information, the value of which
totaled $852,205.
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNT TWO
2. As a result of committing the money laundering offense charged in
Count Two of this Information, defendant BUTHERDE DARIUS shall forfeit to the
United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1), all
property, real or personal, involved in such money laundering offense, and all
property traceable to such property.
SUBSTITUTE ASSET PROVISION
(Applicable to All Forfeiture Allegations)
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,
7
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section
853(p), as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1) and Title
28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of
such defendant up to the value of the forfeitable property described above.
______________________
PHILIP R. SELLINGER
United States Attorney
8
CASE NUMBER: 22-_________
═════════════════════════════════
United States District Court
District of New Jersey
═════════════════════════════════
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BUTHERDE DARIUS
═════════════════════════════════
INFORMATION FOR
18 U.S.C. § 1349
18 U.S.C. § 1957
═════════════════════════════════
PHILIP R. SELLINGER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
═════════════════════════════════
DAVID E. DAUENHEIMER
KATHERINE M. ROMANO
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
(973) 353-6095
═════════════════════════════════
File and source
- File
- dl_bc756889a9760ea4.pdf
- Size
- 174,259 bytes
- SHA-256
- 7f42b5e283656d0934393ffb7f1a0a8cdea825bee4737e857ac997e498a17c54
- Our copy
- dl_bc756889a9760ea4.pdf
- Original
- www.justice.gov