Information — United States v. Keevin Antonio Jones, Middle District of Florida (Document 1)

Summary

An information filed January 13, 2026 as Document 1 in United States v. Keevin Antonio Jones, Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, charging wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 in COUNT ONE. It states the defendant was employed as a Correctional Officer by the Bureau of Prisons, and charges that from about June 2020 through about July 2021 the defendant submitted PPP and EIDL applications for businesses the defendant purportedly owned. It states that the defendant certified an average monthly payroll of $7,844 in a PPP application for a food truck business and submitted a false Form 1040 Schedule C for tax year 2019 to lenders, and that Cross River Bank deposited approximately $19,610 on or about July 8, 2020. The forfeiture allegation seeks an order of forfeiture of $29,610.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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.

Case 6:26-cr-O0008-JA-RMN Document1_ Filed 01/13/26 Pagei1of9 Pagel 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ne
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Sa
ORLANDO DIVISION a

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

18 U.S.C. § 1343

KEEVIN ANTONIO JONES
INFORMATION

The United States Attorney charges:

COUNT ONE
(Wire Fraud)

A. Introduction

At times material to this Information:

1. Defendant KEEVIN ANTONIO JONES resided in Winter Garden,
Florida.

2. Defendant was employed as a Correctional Officer by the Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”).

3. The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was an
executive-branch agency of the United States government that provided support to
entrepreneurs and small businesses. 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, the SBA enabled and provided for loans through banks, credit

unions, and other lenders. These loans had government-backed guarantees.
Case 6:26-cr-O0008-JA-RMN Document1 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 9 PagelD 2

The CARES Act

4, In March 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act, or the “CARES Act,” was enacted to provide immediate assistance to
individuals, families, and organizations affected by the COVID-19 emergency.

5. Among its various provisions, the CARES Act authorized the SBA to
guarantee loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), and the full
principal amount of the loans could qualify for forgiveness. Borrowers were
required to use PPP loan proceeds only for enumerated purposes, including payroll
costs, rent and utilities, and mortgage interest payments. Knowing misuse of PPP
funds would subject borrowers to additional liability, such as charges for fraud.

6. Under the PPP, the loan amount for qualifying small businesses was
calculated using a payroll-based formula specified in the CARES Act. The payroll-
based formula considered the borrower’s total payroll costs from the preceding
twelve months for all domestic employees. Once an average monthly payroll cost
was established, the borrower would multiply that figure by 2.5 to arrive at a total
maximum PPP loan amount.

7. To apply for a PPP loan, a potential borrower electronically submitted
an SBA Form 2483 with supporting payroll documentation to a financial institution
that would administer the loan and serve as custodian of the funds. On the SBA
Form 2483, an authorized representative of the business was required to certify

information regarding business operations. Those certifications included that: (i) the
Case 6:26-cr-O0008-JA-RMN Documenti1- Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 9 PagelD 3

applicant was in operation on February 15, 2020 and had employees for whom it
paid salaries and payroll taxes or paid independent contractors, as reported on a
Form 1099-MISC; (ii) current economic uncertainty made the loan request necessary
to support the applicant’s ongoing operations; and (iii) the PPP funds would be used
to retain workers and to maintain payroll or pay other qualifying expenses.

8. Further, when submitting the SBA Form 2483, the authorized
representative certified his understanding that, should the PPP funds be knowingly
used for unauthorized purposes, the United States could hold him legally liable,
including for charges of fraud. The applicant was also required to certify the truth
and accuracy of any information provided on the SBA Form 2483 and in all
supporting documents, including any documents submitted to verify the applicant’s
payroll expenses. Such supporting documents could include payroll processor
records, bank records, wage records, payroll tax filings with the Internal Revenue
Service, or other records sufficient to demonstrate the qualifying payroll amount.

9. Finally, the applicant was required to certify the following warning
regarding false statements and other criminal penalties:

I understand that knowingly making a false statement to obtain a

guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under the law, including under

18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 3571 by imprisonment of not more than five years

and/or a fine of up to $250,000; under 15 U.S.C. § 645 by imprisonment

of not more than two years and/or a fine of not more than $5,000; and,

if submitted to a federally insured institution, under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 by

imprisonment of not more than thirty years and/or a fine of not more
than $1,000,000.
Case 6:26-cr-O0008-JA-RMN Document1 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 9 PagelD 4

10. PPP loan applications would then be processed by participating lenders.
Ifa PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan
using its own monies, which were 100% guaranteed by the SBA. Data from the
application, including information from 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.

11. Further provisions of the CARES Act, in conjunction with an officially
declared disaster by the United States Government, allowed the SBA to offer
Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) funding to business owners negatively
affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

12. Using the SBA online portal, EIDL applicants submitted personal and
business information in support of each EIDL application. The application process
involved filling out assorted data fields relating to the size of the affected business
entity, the ownership of the business, and other information such as the number of
employees and gross business revenues realized in the 12 months prior to COVID-
19’s impact on the national economy. The application included a paragraph in
which the applicant affirmed that the information submitted was true and correct
under the penalty of perjury and applicable criminal statutes.

13. This information furnished by the applicant was then used by SBA
application evaluation systems to calculate the principal amount of money the small

business was eligible to receive in the form of an EIDL.
Case 6:26-cr-O0008-JA-RMN Document1 Filed 01/13/26 Page5of9PagelD5

PPP Lender Cross River Bank
14. Cross River Bank, a financial institution located in the District of New
Jersey, participated in the SBA’s PPP as a lender and, as such, was authorized to
lend funds to eligible borrowers under the terms of the PPP.
B. The Scheme and Artifice
15. Beginning in or about June 2020, and continuing through in or about
July 2021, in the Middle District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,
KEEVIN ANTONIO JONES,
did knowingly, and with intent to defraud, devise and intend 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, the substance of which
scheme and artifice is described below.
C. Manner and Means of the Scheme and Artifice
16. The manner and means by which the defendant sought to accomplish
the scheme and artifice to defraud included, among others, the following:

a. It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did submit and cause the submission of false and fraudulent
PPP and EIDL loan applications to lenders in the names of various businesses
purportedly owned and controlled by the defendant.

b. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant’s materially false, fraudulent, and misleading representations regarding
these businesses would and did cause the SBA and lenders to approve and disburse

5
Case 6:26-cr-O0008-JA-RMN Document1 Filed 01/13/26 Page 6 of 9 PagelD 6

many of the PPP and EIDL loans sought by the defendant to a bank account

controlled by the defendant.

c. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did falsely and fraudulently certify that the PPP funds acquired
from the requested PPP loans would be used to retain workers, maintain payroll, or
make mortgage interest payments, lease payments, and utility payments.

d. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that, as
part of a PPP loan application for the defendant as a sole proprietor of a food truck
business, the defendant would and did falsely and fraudulently certify that he had
operated a food truck business since at least February 15, 2020, and carried an
average monthly payroll of $7,844.

e. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did submit false and fraudulent supporting documentation to
lenders, including a false Form 1040 Schedule C tax forms for the tax year 2019.

f, It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant’s materially false, fraudulent, and misleading representations regarding
himself and his businesses would and did cause Cross River Bank to approve the
PPP application and to deposit approximately $19,610 in PPP funds into a SunTrust
Bank account checking account under the defendant’s control.

g. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the

defendant would and did use and cause PPP funds and EIDL funds to be used for
Case 6:26-cr-O0008-JA-RMN Documenti1 Filed 01/13/26 Page 7 of 9 PagelD 7

unauthorized purposes and for his own personal enrichment, including multiple cash
withdrawals, Cash App transfers, restaurants, and retail purchases.

h. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did misrepresent, hide, and conceal, and cause to be
misrepresented, hidden, and concealed, the purpose of acts performed in furtherance
of the scheme to defraud.

C. Execution of the Scheme and Artifice
17. Onor about the date set forth below, in the Middle District of Florida,
the defendant,
KEEVIN ANTONIO JONES,
for the purpose of executing the aforesaid scheme and artifice to defraud and for
obtaining money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations and promises, did knowingly, and with intent to defraud, transmit
and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and

foreign commerce, the following writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds:

Wire transfer in the amount of $19,610 from a
Cross River Bank account into a SunTrust Bank
ONE July 8, 2020 account ending in 6211 controlled by KEEVIN
ANTONIO JONES in Florida, processed using
servers located outside of Florida.

All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
Case 6:26-cr-O0008-JA-RMN Documenti1- Filed 01/13/26 Page 8 of 9 PagelD 8

FORFEITURE

1. The allegations contained in Count One are incorporated by reference
for the purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28
U.S.C. § 2461(c).

2. Upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the defendant shall
forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 2461(c), any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from
proceeds traceable to the violation.

3. The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, an order of

forfeiture in the amount of $29,610, which represents the proceeds obtained from the

offense.
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,
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document1_ Filed 01/13/26 Page 9 of 9 PagelD 9

the United States shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property under the

provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

GREGORY W. KEHOE
United States Attorney

Richard Varadan
Assistant United States Attorney

Assistant United States Attorney
Deputy Chief, Orlando Division


File and source

File

1-information-as-to-keevin-antonio-jones.pdf

Size

543,938 bytes

SHA-256

8225b73f4324cea5e10804d479fffec43f24ec68601ad0437681fcd20154fa94

Our copy

1-information-as-to-keevin-antonio-jones.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)