Information — United States of America v. Tommy Hawkins

Summary

An Information in United States v. Tommy Hawkins in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed after he waived prosecution by indictment and any venue objection, charging conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1349. It describes Hawkins as branch manager at the Conshohocken, Pennsylvania location of Lender-1, a Paycheck Protection Program lender, until May 2021, and sets out how PPP applications and forgiveness worked. The Information alleges that from about January 2021 through about May 2021 Hawkins conspired with others to obtain PPP loans for non-operating companies, opening their accounts at Lender-1. It alleges that Lender-1 approved at least 38 PPP loans and distributed approximately $5,000,000 on applications he and his co-conspirators facilitated.

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

2024R00193/DAF/JMR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Crim. No. 24-
:
v. : 18 U.S.C. § 1349
:
TOMMY HAWKINS :

INFORMATION

The defendant having waived in open court prosecution by Indictment

and any objection based on venue, the United States Attorney for the District of

New Jersey charges:

1. At all times relevant to this Information:

a. 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.

b. The defendant, TOMMY HAWKINS, was the branch manager

at the Conshohocken, Pennsylvania location of Lender-1 until May 2021.

The Payroll Protection Program (“PPP”)

c. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”)

Act was a federal law enacted in or about March 2020 and was 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 billions of dollars in forgivable loans to small businesses
1
for job retention and certain other expenses, through a program referred to as the

Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).

d. To obtain a PPP loan, a 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 things, its average

monthly payroll expenses and number of employees. These figures were used to

determine whether the business was eligible for a PPP loan and 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, such as tax forms and bank statements.

e. 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.

f. 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

2
designated period of time after receiving the proceeds and used a certain amount of

the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.

g. To obtain loan forgiveness of a loan in the amount of $150,000 or

less, a borrower was required to submit a PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form

3508S. Form 3508S required the borrower to report the amount of loan proceeds

spent on payroll costs. It also required the borrower to certify that the information

provided in the forgiveness application was true and correct.

The Conspiracy

2. From in or about January 2021 through in or about May 2021, in

Camden County in the District of New Jersey, Montgomery County, in the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, the defendant,

TOMMY HAWKINS,

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 TOMMY HAWKINS

and his co-conspirators to financially enrich themselves by obtaining federal relief

funds that were intended for small businesses distressed by the COVID-19

3
pandemic through the submission of fraudulent loan applications for companies

with little or no operations (“Non-Operating Companies”) that included false

statements about the Non-Operating Companies’ number of employees, payroll, and

expenses, and by providing false documentation to Lender-1.

Manner and Means of the Conspiracy

4. It was part of the conspiracy that:

a. It was part of the conspiracy that Defendant TOMMY

HAWKINS learned that Lender-1 was accepting applications for PPP loans.

Lender-1 required that applicants first open a business bank account with Lender-

b. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant TOMMY

HAWKINS agreed with other co-conspirators to recruit individuals who owned or

controlled Non-Operating Companies (the “Recruits”). Some of the Non-Operating

Companies were New Jersey companies and some of the Recruits were residents of

New Jersey.

c. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant TOMMY

HAWKINS and his co-conspirators directed the Recruits to open business bank

accounts at the Conshohocken, Pennsylvania branch of Lender-1 even if the

Recruits lived far from Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. Defendant TOMMY

HAWKINS opened business bank accounts for some Recruits when the Recruits

were not present for account opening, in violation of Lender-1’s policies.

4
d. It was further part of the conspiracy that defendant TOMMY

HAWKINS provided a link to Lender-1’s web portal that it used to accept PPP

applications to Recruits directly or to co-conspirators working with the Recruits.

e. It was further part of the conspiracy that the Recruits and co-

conspirators working with the Recruits submitted PPP loan applications to Lender-

1 that contained materially false representations. Those false statements included

that the Non-Operating Companies had significantly higher employees and payroll

expenses than they actually had.

f. It was a further part of the conspiracy that co-conspirators

created fraudulent IRS tax forms—including Forms 941 (Employer’s Quarterly

Federal Tax Return)—and bank statements, in the names of the Non-Operating

Companies that falsely represented that the Non-Operating Companies had

employees and payroll expenses in the period preceding the COVID-19 pandemic.

These fraudulent documents were submitted to Lender-1 as part of the PPP loan

applications.

g. It was further part of the conspiracy that Defendant TOMMY

HAWKINS told some Recruits who had not filed IRS Forms 941 that a co-

conspirator could create IRS Forms 941 that could then be submitted as part of the

PPP loan applications.

h. It was further part of the conspiracy that Defendant Tommy

Hawkins knew that many of the PPP loan applications submitted for the Non-

Operating Companies included false documentation.

5
i. It was a further part of the conspiracy that after approving the

PPP loans that were obtained under fraudulent pretenses, Lender-1 deposited the

loan proceeds into the business bank accounts at Lender-1 that Defendant TOMMY

HAWKINS opened for the Non-Operating Companies.

j. It was a further part of the conspiracy that Lender-1 approved

at least 38 PPP loans and distributed approximately $5,000,000 based on

fraudulent PPP loan applications facilitated by Defendant TOMMY HAWKINS and

his co-conspirators.

k. It was a further part of the conspiracy that the Recruits

distributed a portion of the PPP loan proceeds with co-conspirators who assisted in

applying for and obtaining the PPP loan. Defendant TOMMY HAWKINS received

thousands of dollars in cash for his role in facilitating the PPP loan scheme

described in this Information.

l. It was further part of the conspiracy that Defendant Tommy

Hawkins received incentive compensation from Lender-1 for opening new business

bank accounts for the Non-Operating Companies that received PPP loans based on

fraudulent applications.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.

6
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

1. As a result of committing the offense charged in Count One of this

Information, defendant TOMMY HAWKINS 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.

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.

t ~ ~- ~
_______________________
PHILIP R. SELLINGER
United States Attorney

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

TOMMY HAWKINS

═════════════════════════════════
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
═════════════════════════════════

File and source

File: dl_158da7309637d1c9.pdf
Size: 140,754 bytes
SHA-256: 4cc25aac6d7b044ec51005f8d8c7e215c0efb7fbad8f8f1ea905450b901f0b54
Our copy: dl_158da7309637d1c9.pdf
Original: www.justice.gov