Superseding Information — United States v. Roosevelt Fernandez, District of Massachusetts (Document 37)

Summary

A Superseding Information in United States of America v. Roosevelt Fernandez, Criminal No. 1:21-cr-10046-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Document 37, filed 07/09/21. Counts One and Three charge Wire Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and Count Two charges Aggravated Identity Theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, with a forfeiture allegation. It alleges two schemes: filing fraudulent personal tax returns in the names of real people, and submitting fraudulent EIDL applications. It alleges that on June 4, 2020 an EIDL application in the name of Soluciones Multi Service led the SBA to deposit $124,900, and that on August 9, 2020 an application in the name of Fernandez International led to a deposit of $149,900.

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

Cite this document

“Superseding Information — United States v. Roosevelt Fernandez, District of Massachusetts (Document 37).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/information-united-states-v-fernandez-dkt-37-d-mass-f6de19e542/, SHA-256 ba914e63f356c5e2bde8867a9a6a0ea69aac85714ee8bf548162351fd552f132.

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-10046-RGS Document 37 Filed 07/09/21 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) Criminal No. 1:21-cr-10046-RGS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) Violations:
v. )
) Counts One and Three: Wire Fraud
ROOSEVELT FERNANDEZ, ) (18 U.S.C. § 1343)
)
Defendant ) Count Two: Aggravated Identity Theft
) (18 U.S.C. § 1028A)
)
) Forfeiture Allegation:
) (18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and
) 28 U.S.C. § 2461)

SUPERSEDING INFORMATION

At all times relevant to this Superseding Information:

General Allegations

1. Defendant Roosevelt Fernandez (“FERNANDEZ”) was an individual residing in Salem,

Massachusetts.

2. FERNANDEZ operated a business known as Soluciones Multi Service (“SMS”).

3. In or about 2018, FERNANDEZ obtained an Employment Identification Number

(“EIN”) in the name of SMS. FERNANDEZ used this EIN to establish a business checking

account for SMS at Santander Bank.

4. The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was an agency of the

executive branch of the United States government. The mission of the SBA was to maintain and

strengthen the nation’s economy by enabling the establishment and viability of small businesses

and by assisting in the economic recovery of communities after disasters. As part of this effort,

1
Case 1:21-cr-10046-RGS Document 37 Filed 07/09/21 Page 2 of 10

the SBA enabled and provided for loans, guaranteed by the government, through banks, credit

unions, and other lenders.

5. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was a federal law

enacted in March 2020 to provide emergency financial assistance to Americans suffering the

economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among other things, the CARES Act expanded

the SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program to provide loans of up to $2

million to small businesses that suffered “substantial economic injury” from COVID-19. The

EIDL program required recipients to use EIDL funds only on certain business expenses,

including payments of fixed business debts and payroll.

6. EIDL funds were issued directly from the United States Treasury. Applicants applied

through the SBA via an online portal. The EIDL application process required applicants to

provide information concerning the affected business, including the number of employees, gross

revenues, and costs of goods sold in the 12 months prior to January 31, 2020, as well as

information about the business owner. Applicants electronically certified that the information

provided was accurate.

7. The SBA relied on the information provided by the applicant to determine how much

money the small business was eligible to receive in the form of EIDL funds. Additionally, by

checking a box in the online EIDL application, an applicant could request and receive $1,000 per

employee, up to $10,000, in an EIDL Cash Advance Grant. The applicant was not required to

repay an EIDL Cash Advance Grant, even if (i) the SBA ultimately denied the EIDL application

or (ii) the applicant ultimately declined the loan.

2
Case 1:21-cr-10046-RGS Document 37 Filed 07/09/21 Page 3 of 10

Scheme to Defraud #1 – Tax Refunds

8. From in or about 2018 through in or about December 2020, FERNANDEZ engaged in a

scheme to defraud the United States Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, Department of Revenue (“DOR”) by filing fraudulent personal tax returns in the

names of real people.

9. In furtherance of this scheme, FERNANDEZ obtained identity information regarding

various individuals (the “taxpayers”) and prepared fraudulent personal tax returns in their names

but without their permission.

10. On the fraudulent tax returns, FERNANDEZ falsely indicated that the taxpayers were

entitled to large refunds, attached fraudulent W-2s that provided false employment information

regarding the taxpayers, and listed his home address in Salem, Massachusetts as the taxpayers’

address.

11. FERNANDEZ filed the fraudulent tax returns electronically from Massachusetts. Each of

the federal tax returns, Forms 1040, was then transmitted electronically to an IRS processing center

outside of Massachusetts.

12. As a result of the fraudulent returns, FERNANDEZ received IRS and DOR refund checks

in the names of the taxpayers. FERNANDEZ received the refund checks via mail at his home

address.

13. Upon receipt of the fraudulent refund checks, FERNANDEZ deposited them into an SMS

bank account that he controlled.

14. As a result of the filing of one fraudulent tax return, FERNANDEZ also received a

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) stimulus check in the name

of a taxpayer and deposited this check into the SMS bank account.

3
Case 1:21-cr-10046-RGS Document 37 Filed 07/09/21 Page 4 of 10

15. FERNANDEZ withdrew and used the proceeds of the IRS and DOR checks written in the

names of the taxpayers for his own personal benefit.

4
Case 1:21-cr-10046-RGS Document 37 Filed 07/09/21 Page 5 of 10

Scheme to Defraud #2 – EIDL Applications

16. From in or about June 2020 through in or around December 2020, FERNANDEZ engaged

in a scheme to defraud the SBA by submitting fraudulent EIDL applications.

17. In furtherance of this scheme, FERNANDEZ submitted more than 10 EIDL applications

that reflected false information about the revenue and operations of the applying entities.

18. On June 4, 2020, FERNANDEZ submitted an online EIDL application in the name of SMS,

and included fraudulent 2019 tax filings in support of this application.

19. As a result of this application, the SBA deposited $124,900 into an SMS bank account that

FERNANDEZ controlled.

20. On August 9, 2020, FERNANDEZ submitted an online EIDL application in the name of

Fernandez International, and included fraudulent 2019 tax filings in support of this application.

21. As a result of this application, the SBA deposited $149,900 into an SMS bank account that

FERNANDEZ controlled.

22. FERNANDEZ withdrew and used certain proceeds from these EIDLs for his own personal

benefit.

5
Case 1:21-cr-10046-RGS Document 37 Filed 07/09/21 Page 6 of 10

COUNT ONE
Wire Fraud
(18 U.S.C. § 1343)

The United States Attorney charges:

23. The United States Attorney re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-15 of

this Superseding Information.

24. On or about February 6, 2020, in the District of Massachusetts, and elsewhere, the

defendant,

ROOSEVELT FERNANDEZ,

having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money

and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises,

did transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate and foreign

commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing the scheme

to defraud, that is, he electronically filed a 2019 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return

from Massachusetts in the name of a person whose initials are X.G.

All in violation of Title 18, United State Code, Section 1343.

6
Case 1:21-cr-10046-RGS Document 37 Filed 07/09/21 Page 7 of 10

COUNT TWO
Aggravated Identity Theft
(18 U.S.C. § 1028A)

The United States Attorney further charges:

25. The United States Attorney re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-15 of

this Superseding Information.

26. On or about February 6, 2020, in the District of Massachusetts, and elsewhere, the

defendant,

ROOSEVELT FERNANDEZ,

did knowingly transfer, possess, and use, without lawful authority, a means of identification of

another person during and in relation to a felony violation enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(c),

that is, wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, as charged in Count One.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1).

7
Case 1:21-cr-10046-RGS Document 37 Filed 07/09/21 Page 8 of 10

COUNT THREE
Wire Fraud
(18 U.S.C. § 1343)

The United States Attorney further charges:

27. The United States Attorney re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-7 and

16-22 of this Superseding Information.

28. On or about June 4, 2020, in the District of Massachusetts, and elsewhere, the defendant,

ROOSEVELT FERNANDEZ,

having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money

and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises,

did transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate and foreign

commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing the scheme

to defraud, that is, he electronically submitted a fraudulent EIDL application for Soluciones Multi

Service.

All in violation of Title 18, United State Code, Section 1343.

8
Case 1:21-cr-10046-RGS Document 37 Filed 07/09/21 Page 9 of 10

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
(18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c))

1. Upon conviction of any offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

1343, set forth in Counts One and Three, the defendant,

ROOSEVELT FERNANDEZ,

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 offenses.

2. If any of the property described in Paragraph 1, above, as being forfeitable pursuant

to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), and Title 28, United States Code, Section

2461(c), 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;

it is the intention of the United States, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c),

incorporating Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property

of the defendant up to the value of the property described in Paragraph 1 above.

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), and Title 28, United

States Code, Section 2461(c).

9
Case 1:21-cr-10046-RGS Document 37 Filed 07/09/21 Page 10 of 10

NATHANIEL R. MENDELL
Acting United States Attorney

By: _____________________________
WILLIAM F. ABELY
Assistant U.S. Attorney

File and source

File: 37-information.pdf
Size: 120,591 bytes
SHA-256: ba914e63f356c5e2bde8867a9a6a0ea69aac85714ee8bf548162351fd552f132
Our copy: 37-information.pdf
Original: archive.org