Information — United States of America v. Diana Valteri

Summary

An Information in United States v. Diana Valteri in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed after she waived prosecution by indictment and charging wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and a monetary transaction count under 18 U.S.C. § 1957. It describes Diana Valteri Accounting and DValteri as shell companies with no business operations, and sets out the background of the SBA's Economic Injury Disaster Loan program under the CARES Act. The Information alleges that Valteri submitted an EIDL application for Valteri Accounting with false statements about employees, cost of goods sold and gross revenue, and that the SBA disbursed approximately $150,000 into her personal checking account. It alleges a second application for DValteri on or about August 7, 2020.

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

2021R01287/FMC/AE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon.
:
v. : Crim. No. 24-
:
DIANA VALTERI : 18 U.S.C. § 1343
: 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
(Wire Fraud)

1. At all times relevant to this Information:

a. Defendant Diana Valteri (“VALTERI”) resided in Sparta, New

Jersey.

b. VALTERI was the purported owner of Diana Valteri Accounting

(“Valteri Accounting”) and DValteri a/k/a DValteri Best Service (“DValteri”), both of

which were shell companies that had no actual business operations.

c. Bank 1 is a financial institution headquartered in New York,

New York.

d. Bank 2 is a financial institution headquartered in San

Francisco, California. VALTERI and her spouse held a joint personal checking

account at Bank-2.

Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (“EIDL”)

e. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”)
Act was a federal law enacted in or around March 2020 designed to provide

emergency financial assistance to millions of Americans suffering economic effects

caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act

was the authorization of the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program.

EIDL was a Small Business Administration (“SBA”) program that provided low-

interest financing to small businesses, renters, and homeowners in regions affected

by declared disasters.

f. In order 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

the case of EIDLs for COVID-19 relief, the 12-month period constituted the 12

months preceding January 31, 2020. In addition, the business entity must have

existed in an operational condition on February 1, 2020.

g. The amount of the EIDL was determined based, in part, on the

information the applicant provided regarding the revenue, employees, and cost of

goods of the company. The SBA directly issued any funds disbursed under an EIDL

to the applicant company. A company was permitted to use EIDL funds for payroll

expenses, sick leave, production costs, and business obligations, such as debts, rent,

and mortgage payments.

The Scheme to Defraud

2. From in or around July 2020 through in or around August 2020, in the

District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant

2
DIANA VALTERI

knowingly and intentionally devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to

defraud the SBA, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false

and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, as set forth below.

Goal of the Scheme to Defraud

3. The goal of the scheme was for VALTERI to enrich herself by submitting

fraudulent loan applications to obtain federal COVID-19 emergency relief funds from

the SBA that were meant for distressed small businesses.

Manner and Means of the Scheme to Defraud

4. It was part of the scheme that:

a. On or about July 21, 2020, VALTERI submitted an EIDL

application (“Application-1”) to the SBA on behalf of Valteri Accounting seeking a

loan for approximately $150,000. Application-1 contained materially false and

fraudulent statements concerning Valteri Accounting’s number of employees, cost of

goods sold, and annual gross revenue for the purported business. In reality, Valteri

Accounting was a shell company with no employees or business operations.

b. On or about August 7, 2020, based on the false and fraudulent

representations and omissions submitted by VALTERI in Application-1, the SBA

disbursed approximately $150,000 into VALTERI’s personal checking account at

Bank-1, which VALTERI used for personal purposes.

c. Also, on or about August 7, 2020, VALTERI submitted an EIDL

application on behalf of DValteri (“Application-2”) to the SBA, which contained

materially false and fraudulent misrepresentations concerning DValteri’s number of

3
employees, cost of goods sold, and annual gross revenue for the purported business.

In reality, DValteri was a shell company with no employees or business operations.

d. On or about August 11, 2020, based on the false and fraudulent

representations and omissions submitted by VALTERI in Application-2, the SBA

disbursed approximately $150,000 into VALTERI’s personal checking account,

which VALTERI used for personal purposes.

Execution of the Scheme to Defraud

5. On or about August 11, 2020, in the District of New Jersey and

elsewhere, defendant

DIANA VALTERI

for the purpose of executing the scheme described above, caused to be transmitted

by means of wire communication in interstate commerce certain writings, signs,

signals, pictures, and sounds, namely a wire transfer of approximately $150,000 in

EIDL funds from the SBA into VALTERI’s personal account.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

4
COUNT TWO
(Money Laundering)

6. The allegations in paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of this Information are

realleged here.

7. On or about August 11, 2020, in the District of New Jersey and

elsewhere, defendant

DIANA VALTERI

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

$25,000 from VALTERI’s personal checking account at Bank-1 to a joint checking

account at Bank-2, such property having been derived from a specified unlawful

activity, that is, wire fraud.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957.

5
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNT ONE

1. Upon conviction of the offense in violation of Title 18, United States

Code, Section 1343, as charged in Count One of this Information, defendant DIANA

VALTERI shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States

Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), any

property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to

the commission of such offense.

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNT TWO

2. Upon conviction of the offense in violation of Title 18, United States

Code, Section1957, as charged in Count Two of this Information, defendant DIANA

VALTERI shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States

Code, Section 982(a)(1), any property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or

any property traceable to such property.

SUBSTITUTE ASSETS PROVISION
(Applicable to All Forfeiture Allegations)

3. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, 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

person;

(d) has been substantially diminished in value; or

6
(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be

subdivided without difficulty,

it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code,

Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), to

seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of the above

forfeitable property.

r
f ~
__________________________
PHILIP R. SELLINGER
United States Attorney

7
CASE NUMBER: 24-
═════════════════════════════════
United States District Court
District of New Jersey
═════════════════════════════════
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DIANA VALTERI
═════════════════════════════════
INFORMATION FOR
18 U.S.C. § 1343
18 U.S.C. § 1957
═════════════════════════════════
PHILIP R. SELLINGER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
═════════════════════════════════
FATIME MEKA CANO
AJA ESPINOSA
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
973-856-9384
═════════════════════════════════

File and source

File: dl_13702051c2b3347f.pdf
Size: 136,846 bytes
SHA-256: 32f508e41e108689e7a5707681fc7e2e71137fc806a0a32ddf0154b2179a80da
Our copy: dl_13702051c2b3347f.pdf
Original: www.justice.gov