United States v. Roy A. Swift — Plea Agreement, Middle District of Florida (Document 31)

Summary

A plea agreement filed August 20, 2026 as Document 31 in United States v. Roy A. Swift, Case 6:26-cr-00069-PGB-NWH, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, between the United States, by United States Attorney Gregory W. Kehoe, and the defendant. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count One of the Indictment, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, which carries a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment, and Counts Two through Seven are to be dismissed at sentencing. The agreement states the defendant does not admit certain factual assertions in the Indictment or its total loss amount, and provides for restitution as determined by the court. It includes an appeal waiver and an attached factual basis describing PPP loans, including a $20,833 loan whose forgiveness application stated it was spent on payroll and which was forgiven August 9, 2021.

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. Page 13 of 31 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 1 of 31 PagelD 113

AF Approval _.§. NMA Chief Approval __HW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Vv. CASE NO. 6:26-cr-69-PGB-NWH
ROY A. SWIFT

PLEA AGREEMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c), the United States of America, by Gregory
W. Kehoe, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, and the
defendant, Roy A. Swift, and the attorney for the defendant, Charles E. Taylor, Jr.,
mutually agree as follows:

A. Particularized Terms

1. Counts Pleading To

The defendant shall enter a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment.
Count One charges the defendant with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1349.’

2. Maximum Penalties

Count One carries a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment; a
fine of up to $250,000, or twice the gross gain caused by the offense, or twice the

gross loss caused by the offense, whichever is greater; a term of supervised release of

| While the defendant will plead guilty to Count One, he does not admit to the
factual assertions contained in the Indictment in paragraphs 21(a)-21(), 21(t)-21(u),

and the total loss amount in 22(mm). The United States will not attempt to prove
those additional factual allegations.

Defendant’s Initials RS
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 Filed 08/20/26 Page 2 of 31 PagelD 114

up to 5 years; and a special assessment of $100. With respect to certain offenses, the
Court shall order the defendant to make restitution to any victim of the offenses, and
with respect to other offenses, the Court may citer the defendant to make restitution
to any victim of the offenses, or to the community, as set forth below.

3. Elements of the Offenses

The defendant acknowledges and understands the nature and elements
of the offense with which defendant has been charged and to which defendant is
pleading guilty. The elements of Count One are:

First: Two or more persons, including the defendant, in some way or
manner, agreed to try to accomplish a common and unlawful

plan to commit wire fraud, as charged in the indictment; and

Second: The defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the plan and
willfully joined in it

4. No Further Charges
If the Court accepts this plea agreement, the United States Attorney's
Office for the Middle District of Florida agrees not to charge defendant with
committing any other federal criminal offenses known to the United States
Attorney's Office at the time of the execution of this agreement, related to the
conduct giving rise to this plea agreement.
5. Counts Dismissed
At the time of sentencing, the remaining counts against the defendant,

Counts Two through Seven will be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(c)(1)(A).
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 3 of 31 PagelD 115

6. Mandatory Restitution to Victims of Offense of Conviction

Pursuant to 3663A(a) and (b), defendant agrees to make restitution to
known victims of the offense for the full amount of the victims’ losses as determined
by the Court. Further, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5), the defendant agrees not
to oppose bifurcation of the sentencing hearing if the victirns’ losses are not

ascertainable prior to sentencing.

7. Acceptance of Responsibility - Three Levels

At the time of sentencing, and in the event that no adverse information
is received suggesting such a recommendation to be unwarranted, the United States
will recommend to the Court that the defendant receive a two-level downward
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1(a). The
defendant understands that this recommendation or request is not binding on the
Court, and if not accepted by the Court, the defendant will not be allowed to
withdraw from the plea.

Further, at the time of sentencing, if the defendant's offense level prior
to operation of subsection (a) is level 16 or greater, and if the defendant complies
with the provisions of USSG § 3E1.1(b) and all terms of this Plea Agreement,
including but not limited to, the timely submission of the financial affidavit
referenced in Paragraph B.5., the United States agrees to file a motion pursuant to
USSG § 3E1.1(b) for a downward adjustment of one additional level. The defendant
understands that the determination as to whether the defendant has qualified for a

downward adjustment of a third level for acceptance of responsibility rests solely

Defendant’s Initials _(4> 3
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 4 of 31 PagelD 116 ~

with the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, and the defendant
agrees that the defendant cannot and will not challenge that determination, whether
by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise.
B. Standard Terms and Conditions
1. Restitution, Special Assessment and Fine

The defendant understands and agrees that the Court, in addition to or
in lieu of any other penalty, shall order the defendant to make restitution to any
victim of the offenses, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, for all offenses described in 18
U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1); and the Court may order the defendant to make restitution to
any victim of the offenses, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663, including restitution as to
all counts charged, whether or not the defendant enters a plea of guilty to such
counts, and whether or not such counts are dismissed pursuant to this agreement.
The defendant further understands that compliance with any restitution payment
plan imposed by the Court in no way precludes the United States from
simultaneously pursuing other statutory remedies for collecting restitution (28 U.S.C.
§ 3003(b)(2)), including, but not limited to, garnishment and execution, pursuant to
the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, in order to ensure that the defendant’s
restitution obligation is satisfied.

On each count to which a plea of guilty is entered, the Court shall
impose a special assessment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013. To ensure that this
obligation is satisfied, the Defendant agrees to deliver a cashier’s check, certified

check, or money order to the Clerk of the Court in the amount of $100, payable to

Defendant's Initials 1S 4
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page5 of 31 PagelD 117

"Clerk, U.S. District Court" within ten days of the change of plea hearing. The
defendant understands that this agreement imposes no limitation as to fine.
2. Supervised Release
The defendant understands that the offenses to which the defendant is
pleading provide for imposition of a term of supervised release upon release from
imprisonment, and that, if the defendant should violate the conditions of release, the

defendant would be subject to a further term of imprisonment.

3. Immigration Consequences of Pleading Guilty

The defendant has been advised and understands that, upon conviction,
a defendant who is not a United States citizen may be removed from the United
States, denied citizenship, and denied admission to the United States in the future.

4. Sentencing Information

The United States reserves its right and obligation to report to the Court
and the United States Probation Office all information concerning the background,
character, and conduct of the defendant, to provide relevant factual information,
including the totality of the defendant's criminal activities, if any, not limited to the
counts to which defendant pleads, to respond to comments made by the defendant or
defendant's counsel, and to correct any misstatements or inaccuracies. The United
States further reserves its right to make any recommendations it deems appropriate

regarding the disposition of this case, subject to any limitations set forth herein, if

any.

Defendant’s Initials &S 5
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 6 of 31 PagelD 118

~ i Financial Disclosures
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(3) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d)(2)(A)(ii),

the defendant agrees to complete and submit to the United States Attorney's Office
within 30 days of execution of this agreement an affidavit reflecting the defendant's
financial condition. The defendant promises that his financial statement and
disclosures will be complete, accurate and truthful and will include all assets in
which he has any interest or over which the defendant exercises control, directly or
indirectly, including those held by a spouse, dependent, nominee or other third party.
The defendant further agrees to execute any documents requested by the United
States needed to obtain from any third parties any records of assets owned by the
defendant, directly or through a nominee, and, by the execution of this Plea
Agreement, consents to the release of the defendant's tax returns for the previous five
years. The defendant similarly agrees and authorizes the United States Attorney's
Office to provide to, and obtain from, the United States Probation Office, the
financial affidavit, any of the defendant's federal, state, and local tax returns, bank
records and any other financial information concerning the defendant, for the
purpose of making any recommendations to the Court and for collecting any
assessments, fines, restitution, or forfeiture ordered by the Court. The defendant
expressly authorizes the United States Attorney's Office to obtain current credit
reports in order to evaluate the defendant's ability to satisfy any financial obligation

imposed by the Court.

Defendant's Initials“ «S 6
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 7 of 31 PagelD 119

6. Sentencing Recommendations

It is understood by the parties that the Court is neither a party to nor
bound by this agreement. The Court may accept or reject the agreement, or defer a
decision until it has had an opportunity to consider the presentence report prepared
by the United States Probation Office. The defendant understands and acknowledges
that, although the parties are permitted to make recommendations and present
arguments to the Court, the sentence will be determined solely by the Court, with the
assistance of the United States Probation Office. Defendant further understands and
acknowledges that any discussions between defendant or defendant's attorney and
the attorney or other agents for the government regarding any recommendations by
the government are not binding on the Court and that, should any recommendations
be rejected, defendant will not be permitted to withdraw defendant's plea pursuant to
this plea agreement. The government expressly reserves the right to support and
defend any decision that the Court may make with regard to the defendant's
sentence, whether or not such decision is consistent with the government's

recommendations contained herein.

7. Defendant's Waiver of Right to Appeal the Sentence

The defendant agrees that this Court has jurisdiction and authority to
impose any sentence up to the statutory maximum and expressly waives the right to
appeal defendant's sentence on any ground, including the ground that the Court
erred in determining the applicable guidelines range pursuant to the United States

Sentencing Guidelines, except (a) the ground that the sentence exceeds the

Defendant’s Initials ie S 7
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 8 of 31 PagelD 120

defendant's applicable guidelines range as determined by the Court pursuant to the

United States Sentencing Guidelines; (b) the ground that the sentence exceeds the
statutory maximum penalty; or (c) the ground that the sentence violates the Eighth
Amendment to the Constitution; provided, however, that if the government exercises
its right to appeal the sentence imposed, as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b), then
the defendant is released from his waiver and may appeal the sentence as authorized
by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

8. Middle District of Florida Agreement

It is further understood that this agreement is limited to the Office of the
United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida and cannot bind other
federal, state, or local prosecuting authorities, although this office will bring
defendant's cooperation, if any, to the attention of other prosecuting officers or
others, if requested.
9, iling of Agreement

This agreement shall be presented to the Court, in open court or in

camera, in whole or in part, upon a showing of good cause, and filed in this cause, at

the time of defendant's entry of a plea of guilty pursuant hereto.
10. Voluntariness
The defendant acknowledges that defendant is entering into this
agreement and is pleading guilty freely and voluntarily without reliance upon any
discussions between the attorney for the government and the defendant and

defendant's attorney and without promise of benefit of any kind (other than the

Defendant's Initials \e Ss 8
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 9 of 31 PagelD 121

concessions contained herein), and without threats, force, intimidation, or coercion
of any kind. The defendant further acknowledges defendant's understanding of the
nature of the offense or offenses to which defendant is pleading guilty and the
elements thereof, including the penalties provided by law, and defendant's complete
satisfaction with the representation and advice received from defendant's
undersigned counsel (if any). The defendant also understands that defendant has the
right to plead not guilty or to persist in that plea if it has already been made, and that
defendant has the right to be tried by a jury with the assistance of counsel, the right
to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against defendant, the right against
compulsory self-incrimination, and the right to compulsory process for the
attendance of witnesses to testify in defendant's defense; but, by pleading guilty,
defendant waives or gives up those rights and there will be no trial. The defendant
further understands that if defendant pleads guilty, the Court may ask defendant
questions about the offense or offenses to which defendant pleaded, and if defendant
answers those questions under oath, on the record, and in the presence of counsel (if
any), defendant's answers may later be used against defendant in a prosecution for
perjury or false statement. The defendant also understands that defendant will be
adjudicated guilty of the offenses to which defendant has pleaded and, if any of such
offenses are felonies, may thereby be deprived of certain rights, such as the right to

vote, to hold public office, to serve on a jury, or to have possession of firearms.

Defendant’s Initials K Ss 9
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 10 of 31 PagelD 122

11. Factual Basis
Defendant is pleading guilty because defendant is in fact guilty. The
defendant certifies that defendant does hereby admit that the facts set forth in the
attached "Factual Basis,” which is incorporated herein by reference, are true, and
were this case to go to trial, the United States would be able to prove those specific

facts and others beyond a reasonable doubt.

12. Entire Agreement

This plea agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
government and the defendant with respect to the aforementioned guilty plea and no
other promises, agreements, or representations exist or have been made to the

defendant or defendant's attorney with regard to such guilty plea.

Defendant's Initials \ S 10
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 Filed 08/20/26 Page 11 of 31 PagelD 123

13. Certification
The defendant and defendant's counsel certify that this plea agreement
has been read in its entirety by (or has been read to) the defendant and that defendant
fully understands its terms.

DATED this _|! day of August 2026.

GREGORY W. KEHOE

United States Attorney
ROY AJSWIFT RACHEL S. LYQNS7
Defendant Assistant United States Attorney
CHARLES E. TAYLOR, HANNAH WATSON
Attorney for Defendant Assistant United States Attomey

Deputy Chief, Orlando Division

Defendant's Initials K/ BSS il
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 12 of 31 PagelD 124

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Vv. CASE NO. 6:26-cr-69-PGB-NWH

ROY A. SWIFT
PERSONALIZATION OF ELEMENTS

Count One
First: Do you admit that two or more people, including yourself, in
some way or manner, agreed to try to accomplish a common and

unlawful plan to commit wire fraud, as charged in the

indictment?

Defendant’s Initials eS 12
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 14 of 31 PagelD 126

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Vv. CASE NO. 6:26-cr-69-PGB-NWH
ROY A. SWIFT
FACTUAL BASIS

Beginning on a date unknown, but at least by July 4, 2020, and continuing to
on or about September 25, 2021, the defendant, Roy A. Swift, and his wife, Andrea
Frisby (“Frisby”), conspired to devise a scheme to defraud the United States Small
Business Administration (“SBA”) and obtain money from the United States by
means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses. In so doing, the defendant
submitted two fraudulent applications for Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”)
loans and received a total of $37,500. In support of these loan applications, the
defendant submitted fake Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Schedule C tax forms?.
In so doing, the defendant submitted multiple false claims against the United States,
to the SBA, which is an agency of the United States, knowing that the claims were

false and fraudulent.
Additionally, Frisby fraudulently obtained $52,966 in Economic Injury

Disaster Loans (“EIDL”) and PPP loans by making false statements during the

* Schedule C (Form 1040) is a form filed alongside a tax return to report business
income and losses. The form is used by sole proprietors or independent contractors
to calculate taxable net business profit.

Defendant’s Initials (73 14
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 15 of 31 PagelD 127

application process. The defendant received some of these funds and signed

documents supporting these applications.
Background

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

The SBA is an executive-branch agency of the United States government that
provides support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The mission of the SBA is 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.

The CARES Act is a federal law passed in March 2020 that provided $2.2
trillion dollars in emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans who
were suffering the economic effects caused by COVID-19. The provisions of the
CARES Act, in conjunction with an officially declared disaster by the United States
Government, allowed the SBA to offer PPP loans and EIDL to individuals who met
certain parameters under the CARES Act.

The Paycheck Protection Program

Among its various provisions, the CARES Act authorized the SBA to
guarantee loans under the PPP, and the full principal amount and interest of the
loans could qualify for forgiveness if the business spent the loan proceeds on

approved expense items within a designated period of time and used a certain

Defendant’s Initials 2 S 15
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 16 of 31 PagelD 128

percentage of the PPP loan proceeds for payroll expenses. 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.

Under the PPP, the maximum loan amount was the lesser of $10 million or an
amount 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. This payroll-based formula expressly
excluded the compensation of an individual employee in excess of an annual salary
of $100,000, prorated as necessary, and, with limited exceptions, businesses with
more than 500 employees did not qualify to obtain PPP loans.

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 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

Defendant’s Initials _\@S 16
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 17 of 31 PagelD 129

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.

Further, when submitting the SBA Form 2483, the authorized representative
certified his/her understanding that, should the PPP funds be knowingly used for
unauthorized purposes, the United States could hold him/her 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 IRS, or other records
sufficient to demonstrate the qualifying payroll amount.

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.

The SBA oversaw the PPP, but PPP loan applications would then be
processed by participating lenders. If a 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

Defendant’s Initials” ‘2 S 17
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 18 of 31 PagelD 130

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.

The financial institutions used by the SBA for payment of the PPP loans were
numerous and included: Benworth Capital, Harvest Small Business Finance, and

Lendistry Small Business Lending, among others,

Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program

Another source of relief from the March 2020 CARES Act was the SBA
EIDL, which provided up to $2 million of financial assistance (actual loan amounts
are based on amount of economic injury) to small businesses or private, non-profit
organizations that suffered substantial economic injury as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic. The EIDL program provided emergency working capital to help meet
necessary financial obligations the business or private, non-profit organization could
have met had the disaster not occurred. It provided relief from economic injury
caused directly by the disaster and permitted borrowers to maintain a reasonable
working capital position during the period affected by the disaster. EIDL was not
intended to replace lost revenues or lost profits.

Through the SBA online portal, EIDL applicants could submit personal and
business information in support of each EIDL application. Borrowers did not have to
submit any supporting or substantiating documentation with their application. The
application process involved filling out data fields relating to the size of the affected
business entity, the ownership of the business, the number of employees working for

the business, and gross business revenues realized in the 12 months prior to COVID-

Defendant’s Initials \2S 18
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 19 of 31 PagelD 131

19’s impact on the national economy. The business must have existed in an
operational condition on or before February 1, 2020.

EIDL applications required a certification that “any false statement or
misrepresentation to SBA may result in criminal, civil or administrative sanctions
including, but not limited to fines and imprisonment, or both, under 15 U.S.C. § 645,
18 U.S.C. § 1001, 18 U.S.C. § 1014, 18 U.S.C. § 1040, 18 U.S.C. § 3571, and any
other applicable laws.”

The EIDL application information submitted by the applicant was then used
by SBA systems to calculate the amount of money the business was eligible to
receive in the form of a loan. However, in conjunction with the submission of an
EIDL application, by having simply clicked on and checked a box within the online
application, an applicant could request and then receive an EIDL Advance for up to
$10,000, which was based upon the number of employees claimed. The EIDL
Advance did not have to be repaid.

The SBA Office of Disaster Assistance (“ODA”), headquartered in
Washington, D.C., was responsible for the EIDL program. The ODA has authority
over all loans created and disbursed under the EIDL program. EJDL principal
proceeds and available Cash Advance Grants (up to $10,000) were solely funded by
the SBA and disbursed from government-controlled accounts maintained with the
U.S. Treasury at Federal Reserve Banks throughout the United States.

Pursuant to the provisions governing the EIDL program, loan proceeds were

required to be used on certain permissible business expenses. The EIDL funds could

Defendant's Initials© \<S 19
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 20 of 31 PagelD 132

be used by the afflicted business to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and
other bills that could have been paid absent the impact of COVID-19,

As references above, applicants were not required to provide documents to the
SBA. The SBA relied 100% on the truthfulness of an applicant’s submission.

Chronology of the Fraudulent CARES Act Loans
Frisby’s EIDL 4523378200

On July 15, 2020, Frisby applied for an ELDL on behalf of the business entity,
“Frisby Productions.” The entire application process was conducted online or via
email and telephone. Although Frisby registered Frisby Productions with the
Tennessee Secretary of State in 2010, Frisby Productions was dissolved in 201 1.
Frisby then registered Frisby Productions with the Florida Secretary of State in
October 2021, after the receipt of her EIDL and PPP loans. Frisby’s daughter, A.K.,
was listed as the manager for Frisby Productions. Frisby included in this application
an IRS Schedule C as supporting documentation of Frisby Productions’ operations.

The IRS did not receive a Schedule C from F risby in 2019 or 2020, which is
used by small business owners, sole proprietors, and selfemployed individuals to
report income and expenses from small business operations. Thus, the Schedule C
provided by Frisby in support of her application was fraudulent.

Additionally, Florida Department of Revenue wage records revealed Frisby
did not report income outside of VA employment from 2018 to 2021. Given that the
business was not registered from 2011 to October of 2021, the IRS did not receive a

Schedule C from Frisby in 2019 or 2020, and there are no wage records to support

Defendant’s Initials \< S 20
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 Filed 08/20/26 Page 21 of 31 PagelD 133

income from Frisby Productions, there is no indication that Frisby Productions was
active or generating profits before February 15, 2020, which was an SBA eligibility
requirement to receive EIDL and PPP loans.

In her EIDL application, Frisby provided the following materially false
information: (1) the business made $40,000 in gross revenue in 2019; (2) the business
had seven employees; (3) the monthly revenue was $3,333.33 and monthly sales
were $3,333.33. Those statements were false and intended to induce the SBA to
approve her loan application and disburse funds to her account.

On August 6, 2020, Frisby signed a loan authorization and agreement, which
stated that any “false statement or misrepresentation to SBA may result in criminal,
civil, or administrative sanctions . . .” As a result of her application, on August 11,
2020, the SBA disbursed $11,300 into Frisby’s Navy Federal Credit Union
(“NFCU”) checking account ending in 8474.

After disbursement, the SBA reached out to Frisby to request a missing

document, called a certificate, which stated that the business partners for Frisby
Productions held a meeting, during which the terms of the EIDL were discussed, the
members agreed to the terms, accepted the loan amount, and authorized an
individual (Frisby) to sign for the loan.

In response, Frisby submitted a certificate to the SBA which stated that Frisby
Productions accepted an EIDL Ioan for the amount of $50,000 “. . . to use the funds
for operational expenses of this LLC during the Covid-19 economic hardship.” The

letter was signed by the purported managing members, listed as Frisby and the

Defendant’s Initials “125 21
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 Filed 08/20/26 Page 22 of 31 PagelD 134

defendant, and it was dated March 20, 2021 (although the loan was accepted and

disbursed in August 2020).

”

Handwriting analysis confirms the signature purporting to be the defendant’s
signature is consistent with his handwriting.

On July 15, 2021, Frisby applied to SBA for a Targeted EIDL Advance and
Supplemental EIDL Advance. On these applications, she requested to change the
number of employees on her application from seven to ten. Both the Targeted EIDL
Advance and Supplemental EIDL Advance were denied by SBA, with the reason
listed as “suspected fraud” and “not in a low-income community.”

On August 25, 2021, Frisby attempted to modify her loan application to be
considered for a $73,000 EIDL. In support of this application, Frisby submitted a

Resolution and Certification of Frisby Productions, LLC, which listed herself as the

Defendant's Initials es 22
Case 6:26-cr-00069-PGB-NWH Document 31 Filed 08/20/26 Page 23 of 31 PagelD 135

owner and the defendant as a board member. SBA declined this application on
January 6, 2022,

The balance of checking account 8474, to which the EIDL was disbursed, was
approximately $1,544 on August 10, 2020. On August 11, 2020, $11,300 was
deposited by SBA into checking account 8474 and was comingled with Frisby’s
preexisting funds.

By August 25, 2020, the EIDL funds were withdrawn from checking account
8474, of which approximately $5,830 was transferred to the defendant’s NFCU
checking account 3576, approximately $1,000 was transferred to A.K.’s NFCU
checking account 3544, and approximately $400 was transferred to a NFCU account
held by a family member of Frisby, R.K. The remaining amount was spent at fast
food restaurants, grocery stores, and gas stations, or to make credit card payments,
utility payments, and insurance payments, among other things. By August 26, 2020,
the balance of checking account 8474 was approximately $52.

Defendant’s PPP Loan 8607

On March 17, 2021, the defendant submitted a fraudulent PPP application for
which he received a disbursement of $18,750 on April 22, 2021. The entire
application process was conducted online or via email and telephone. Similar to
Frisby’s application, the defendant claimed ownership of a business named after
himself, with his personal information as contact information for the business. The
defendant certified that he was the owner of the business, that had one employee,

and that he would use the loan for payroll costs. He listed his social security number

Defendant’s Initials iS 23
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 Filed 08/20/26 Page 24 of 31 PagelD 136

as the business’s tax identification number and his home address as the business
address. He listed his personal email address on the application. The defendant also
submitted a falsified Schedule C in support of his application, which had never been
submitted to the IRS. Additionally, Florida Department of Revenue wage records
revealed the defendant did not report income for himself or this business from 2018
to 2021.

Given that the business was not registered, the IRS did not receive a Schedule
C in 2019 or 2020, and there are no wage records to support income from Roy Swift
LLC, there is no indication that Roy Swift LLC was active or generating profits
before February 15, 2020, which was an SBA eligibility requirement to receive EIDL
and PPP Loans.

In his PPP application, the defendant provided the following materially false
information: (1) the business made $90,000 in gross revenue in 2020; (2) the business
had one employee; and (3) the monthly revenue was $7,500. Those statements were
false and intended to induce the SBA to approve his loan application and disburse
funds to his account.

The funds were disbursed into an account that was jointly-held with Frisby.
The beginning balance of checking account 3576 was approximately $101 on March
9, 2021. On March 31, 2021, the lender deposited $18,750 into checking account
3576, which was comingled with the defendant’s preexisting funds.

From March 9, 2021, to April 8, 2021, approximately $22,406 was deposited

into checking account 3576, of which approximately $3,656 came from sources other

Defendant’s Initials "2S 24
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 25 of 31 PagelD 137

than the PPP loan. During the same time period, approximately $22,289 was
withdrawn from checking account 3576, of which approximately $8,800 was
transferred to Frisby’s NFCU checking account 8474, approximately $4,000 was
transferred to savings account 3505, approximately $500 was transferred to a NFCU
account held by R.K., approximately $1,562 was spent at the Hard Rock Casino in
Tampa, Florida, approximately $1,408 was spent on what appears to be sky diving,
and the remaining funds were spent on mortgage payments, loan payments, at
grocery stores, and at fast food restaurants, among other things. By April 8, 2021, the
balance of checking account 3576 was approximately $219.

The beginning balance of savings account 3505 was approximately $6 on
Match 9, 2021. On April 2, 2021, approximately $4,000 of PPP funds were
transferred from checking account 3576 into savings account 3505. From March 9,
2021, to May 8, 2021, approximately $5,801 was deposited into savings account
3505, of which approximately $1,801 came from sources other than PPP loans.
During the same time period, approximately $5,120 was withdrawn from savings
account 3505, of which approximately $2,500 was transferred back to checking
account 3576, approximately $2,017 was withdrawn in cash in Las Vegas, Nevada,
and approximately $600 was transferred to Frisby’s checking account 8474. By May
8, 2021, the balance of savings account 3505 was approximately $687.

The defendant then submitted a loan forgiveness application to the lender for
loan 8607, which stated $18,750 of the $18,750 PPP loan was spent on payroll costs.

PPP loan 8607 was forgiven on August 13, 2021.

Defendant’s Initials” (2S 25
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 26 of 31 PagelD 138

Frisby’s PPP Loan 8800
On April 15, 2021, Frisby applied for PPP loan 8800 on behalf of the fictitious

business entity “Andrea Frisby”. She listed her Social Security Number (“SSN”) as
the business’ Tax Identification Number (“TIN”), and she listed the address of her
residence and her personal email address as the business’s contact information.

According to the Florida Secretary of State and Tennessee Secretary of State,
no business entity entitled “Andrea Frisby” was ever registered with either state.
Again, the IRS did not receive a Schedule C from Frisby in 2019 or 2020, and
Florida Department of Revenue wage records revealed Frisby did not report income
outside of VA employment from 2018 to 2021. Due to the lack of a registered
business, lack of a filed Schedule C with IRS, and lack of additional wages reported
to the state of Florida, there is no indication that a business named, “Andrea Frisby,”
or owned by Frisby was active and producing a profit before February 15, 2020.

On July 13, 2021, the lender deposited $20,833 into savings account 9442,
which was comingled with Frisby’s preexisting funds. From July 13, 2021, to
September 25, 2021, approximately $20,750 was withdrawn from savings account
9442, of which approximately $12,366 was transferred into Frisby’s NFCU checking
account 8474, approximately $6,384 was used to pay off Frisby’s NFCU More
Rewards American Express Card ending in 8219, $650 was transferred to NFCU
accounts held by the defendant, $1,051 was transferred to a NFCU account held by

R.K., and $300 was transferred to a NFCU account held by Ry.K. (another family
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 27 of 31 PagelD 139

member of Frisby). By September 25, 2021, the balance of savings account 9442 was
approximately $159.

Frisby submitted a loan forgiveness application to Benworth Capital for loan
8800, which falsely stated $20,830 of the $20,833 PPP loan was spent on payroll
costs. PPP loan 8800 was forgiven on August 24, 2021.

Defendant’s PPP Loan 8805 (Count Five)

The defendant applied for PPP loan 8805 on April 9, 2021. The entire
application process was conducted online or via email and telephone. On this
application, the identifying information for the defendant and a business in his name
are the same as the defendant's first application for loan number 8607 (Count Four).
The defendant stated in the application that the PPP loan would be used for payroll
costs, In this application, the defendant submitted two different Schedule C, each
with a different style and color of font. Both versions had the same business
information and reported gross income of $90,000 in cash. One version listed
$15,000 in additional expenses, which brought the net profit down to $60,500. The
defendant also provided bank statements for NFCU savings account 3505 for
January 2020, and February 2020.

In his PPP application, the defendant provided the following materially false
information: (1) the business made $90,000 in gross revenue in 2020 ; (2) the business
had one employee; and (3) the monthly revenue was $7,500. Those statements were
false and intended to induce the SBA to approve his loan application and disburse

funds to his account.

Defendant's Initials” (2S 27
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 28 of 31 PagelD 140

PPP loan 8805 was deposited into the defendant’s NFCU checking account
3576. The beginning balance of checking account 3576 was approximately $219 on
April 9, 2021. On April 22, 2021, the lender deposited $18,750 into checking account
3576, which was comingled with the defendant’s preexisting funds. From April 9,
2021, to June 8, 2021, approximately $35,091 was deposited into checking account
3576, of which approximately $2,000 of PPP funds were transferred from the
defendant’s savings account 3505, and approximately $14,341 came from sources
other than PPP loans. During this time period, approximately $33,533 was
withdrawn from checking account 3576, of which approximately $1,510 was
transferred to Frisby’s checking account 8474, approximately $7,640 was withdrawn
from ATMs in Orlando, Florida, Des Plaines, Illinois, and Robinsonville,
Mississippi, approximately $5,000 was withdrawn in cash, and approximately $6,235
Was spent at casinos, including the Hard Rock Casino in Tampa, Florida, Four
Queens, Las Vegas, Nevada, and The Lodge Casino, Black Hawk, Colorado. The

remaining funds were spent on mortgage payments, loan payments, at grocery stores,

and at fast-food restaurants, among other things. By June 8, 2021, the balance of
checking account 3576 was approximately $736.
The defendant submitted a loan forgiveness application for loan 8805, which

stated $18,750 of the $18,750 PPP loan was spent on payroll costs. PPP loan 8805

was forgiven August 13, 2021.

Defendant's Initials’ 12S 28
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 29 of 31 PagelD 141

Frisby’s PPP Loan 9000
Frisby applied for PPP loan 9000 on May 20, 2021. On this application, the

identifying information for Frisby and the business, “Andrea Frisby,” are the same as
the first application for loan number 8800. Frisby stated that the PPP loan would be
used for payroll costs. Frisby’s initials and signature appear in the certification of the
PPP loan application.

In this application, Frisby submitted a copy of a fraudulent Schedule C and
bank statements for NFCU checking account 8474 for January and February 2020.
The Schedule C submitted in this application was the same as the Schedule C
submitted for loan 8102.

PPP loan 9000 was deposited into Frisby’s NFCU checking account 8474. On
June 7, 2021, the balance of checking account 8474 was approximately $204. On
June 8, 2021, $20,833 was deposited into checking account 8474 with the description
“PPP 2nd,” which was comingled with her preexisting funds. From June 7, 2021, to
September 25, 2021, approximately $44,254 was deposited into checking account
8474. Approximately $12,366 was transferred from savings account 9442, which
contained funds from PPP loan 8800, and approximately $11,055 came from sources
other than PPP loans.

From June 7, 2021, to September 25, 2021, approximately $44,564 was
withdrawn from checking account 8474, of which the following transfers were made:
$10,287 to a NFCU account held by R.K.; $4,899 to a NFCU account held by the

defendant; $1,500 to a NFCU account held by A.K.; and $590 to a NFCU account

is 8S 29

Defendant’s Initia
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 _ Filed 08/20/26 Page 30 of 31 PagelD 142

held by Ry.K. Approximately $5,214 was withdrawn from ATMs in Michigan,
[linois, and Wisconsin. The remaining funds ‘were spent on travel expenses,
including purchases of airline tichkens, hotels, Airbnb, car rentals, credit card
payments, fast food restaurants, Amazon Inc., grocery stores, on insurance, credit
cards, utility payments, and telephone bill payments, among other things. These
expenditures were not legitimate business expenses or in any way associated with
payroll. By September 25, 2021, the balance of checking account 8474 was
approximately $40.

Frisby submitted a loan forgiveness application for loan 9000, which stated
$20,833 of the $20,833 PPP loan was spent on payroll costs. PPP loan 9000 was
forgiven August 9, 2021.

J.C. Interview — Defendant’s Supervisor

J.C. was the defendant’s supervisor since 2022, and J.C. has known the
defendant since 2017. J.C. said that defendant and his wife were always looking for a
“con” to easily make money. The defendant bragged to other employees that he and
his wife participated in slip and fall schemes and tax evasion. The defendant also
talked about receiving PPP loans for a business that he and his wife pretended to
own, though J.C. was not sure what kind of business.

Subpoena Duces Tecum

A grand jury subpoena was personally served on the defendant requesting any

documents supporting an operational business during 2019-2020. On June 30, 2025,

the defendant confirmed he did not have any documents responsive to the subpoena.

Defendant’s Initials KS 30
Case 6:26-cr-O0069-PGB-NWH Document 31 Filed 08/20/26 Page 31 of 31 PagelD 143

The defendant also said that he wanted to talk to law enforcement to “get things off
his chest” but a substantive interview never occurred.

The defendant does not admit to the factual assertions contained in
paragraphs 21(a)-21(i), 21(t)-21(u), and the total loss amount in 22(mm).

The above is merely a summary of some of the events, some of the persons
involved, and other information relating to this case. It does not include, nor is it
intended to include, all the events, persons involved, or other information relating to

this case.

Defendant’s Initials cS 31


File and source

File

31-plea-agreement-as-to-roy-a-swift.pdf

Size

8,886,700 bytes

SHA-256

b12cdca636f1a25bc8a106f62beb70d49e84afb7eb885aa4b460767cb44bd8fe

Our copy

31-plea-agreement-as-to-roy-a-swift.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)