Terry Dor — Indictment, Cr. No. 24-CR-75

Summary

An indictment in United States v. Terry Dor, Cr. No. 24-CR-75, filed February 20, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and assigned to Judge Orelia E. Merchant and Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon. It cites Title 18, United States Code, §§ 641, 1343 and 1957(a), among other provisions. The indictment describes Dor as a Queens, New York resident who controlled Terry Dor Professional Consultants, LLC, and alleges that on the basis of his false application and requests the SBA deposited approximately $1,151,000 in EIDL proceeds into the company's account. It alleges that he wired portions to other accounts and spent some on premium jewelry and clothes, and lists monetary transactions including a $300,000 transfer on September 3, 2021.

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

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

WK:DIB
F. #2022R00291

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FILED

IN CLERK’S OFFICE

US DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.
* FEBRUARY 20, 2024 *
BROOKLYN OFFICE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INDICTMENT
- against - Cr. No. _24-CR-75
(T. 18, U.S.C., §§ 641, 981(a)(1)(C),
TERRY DOR, 982(a)(1), 982(b)(1), 1343, 1957(a),
Defendant. 1957(b), 2 and 3551 et seq.; T. 21, U.S.C.,
§ 853(p); T. 28, U.S.C., § 2461(c))
ES Gi MN MR Rien eel mame om xX Judge Orelia E. Merchant
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES: Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon
INTRODUCTION

At all times relevant to this Indictment, unless otherwise indicated:

I; The Defendant and Relevant Entities

Tr The defendant TERRY DOR was a resident of Queens, New York.

2. Terry Dor Professional Consultants, LLC (“TDPC”) was established on or

about September 26, 2016, with a registered address in Brooklyn, New York. The defendant

TERRY DOR was the sole shareholder and President of TDPC.

3. Financial Institution-1, an entity the identity of which is known to the

Grand Jury, was a bank headquartered in the United States and it maintained branches within the

Eastern District of New York.

4. Financial Institution-2, an entity the identity of which is known to the

Grand Jury, was a bank headquartered in the United States and it maintained branches within the

Eastern District of New York.

a. Financial Institution-3, an entity the identity of which is known to the

Grand Jury, was a financial brokerage firm that provided consumer securities trading services.
Financial Institution-3 was headquartered in the United States and it conducted business within
the Eastern District of New York.

6. Financial Institution-4, an entity the identity of which is known to the
Grand Jury, was a credit union headquartered in the United States and it maintained branches
within the Eastern District of New York.

7. Insurance Provider-1, an entity the identity of which is known to the
Grand Jury, was an insurance company. Insurance Provider-1 was headquartered in the United
States and it conducted business within the Eastern District of New York.

Il. The COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States

8. In about January 2020, the Secretary of the United States Department of
Health and Human Services declared a national public health emergency under Title 42, United
States Code, Section 247d as a result of the spread of a novel coronavirus COVID-19 within the
United States. On or about March 13, 2020, the President of the United States issued
Proclamation 9994 declaring a national emergency beginning on March 1, 2020 as a result of the
rapid spread of COVID-19.

HL. The EIDL Program

9. The Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program was a United
States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) program that provided emergency relief funding
to distressed businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act authorized the SBA to provide EIDLs of up to
$2,000,000 to eligible small businesses experiencing substantial financial disruption due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.

10. To qualify for an EIDL, businesses were required to have suffered

“substantial economic injury” due to COVID-19, as determined by the SBA. Qualifying
businesses were required to submit an application to the SBA and provide information about its
operations, such as the number of employees, gross revenues and cost of goods sold in the
12-month period preceding January 31, 2020. Sole proprietors were eligible for EIDLs so long
as they had verifiable business income during the 12-month period preceding January 31, 2020.

11. The EIDL application required the name of the person completing the
application, as well as the name of anyone assisting the person completing the application,
whether for a fee or not. EIDL applicants were also required to certify under penalty of perjury
that the information provided in the application was true and correct

12. EIDL applications were submitted directly to the SBA and processed
through a software platform that used a server in lowa. Any funds issued under the EIDL
program were issued directly by the SBA and were processed in Colorado. The amount of the
loan, if the application was approved, was determined based, in part, on the information provided
in the application about employment, revenue and cost of goods, as described above. Under the
CARES Act, EIDL funds could be used for payroll expenses, sick leave, production costs and
business obligations, such as debts, rent and mortgage. EIDL funds could not be used for
personal expenses.

IV. The COVID-19 Relief Fraud Scheme

13. The defendant TERRY DOR used TDPC, a shell entity he owned and
controlled, to submit a materially false EIDL application, dated July 3, 2020, and subsequent
materially false modification requests, dated August 9, 2021 and September 30, 2021,
respectively (collectively, the “False Application and Requests”), to the SBA. These falsely
indicated that TDPC qualified for the EIDL program because it had suffered economic damage
from the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the False Application and Requests, and the

documentation submitted with them, including fraudulent tax returns filed with the Internal
Revenue Service (“IRS”) by DOR on behalf of TDPC, falsely specified that TDPC had
legitimate expenses and that DOR intended to use the requested EIDL proceeds to fund TDPC’s
supposed business operations.

14, For example, on approximately August 1, 2021, the defendant TERRY
DOR submitted to the SBA a fraudulent Form 1120-S!' filed with the IRS by DOR on behalf of
TDPC for calendar year 2019, which falsely reported that TDPC had $576,000 in revenue and
$535,960 in expenses during calendar year 2019. In truth and in fact, TDPC had no legitimate
revenue or expenses during calendar year 2019.

15: As another example, on or about May 19, 2021, the SBA directed the
defendant TERRY DOR to submit proof of business liability insurance coverage for TDPC as a
prerequisite to the SBA disbursing additional EIDL funds to DOR. On or about May 24, 2021,
DOR acquired from Insurance Provider-1 business liability insurance coverage for TDPC, the
terms of which required DOR to pay Insurance Provider-1 an initial deposit and an annual
premium in monthly installments. On or about the same day, DOR paid Insurance Provider- |
the initial deposit under the terms of the policy. On or about May 25, 2021, DOR submitted to
the SBA proof of business liability insurance coverage for TDPC. On or about August 2, 2021,
Insurance Provider-| terminated TDPC’s business liability insurance coverage after DOR failed
to pay any of the monthly installments owed to Insurance Provider-1 under the policy. The
SBA’s EIDL agreement, which DOR signed, required TDPC to “maintain such coverage
throughout the entire [loan] term” and provided that TDPC would “not be eligible for any further
disaster assistance or SBA financial assistance if this insurance is not maintained.” Despite this

requirement, DOR failed to disclose to the SBA that TDPC had no business liability insurance

IRS Form 1120-S is used to report the income, losses, dividends and other

distributions of an S corporation.
coverage as of approximately August 2, 2021, after which date the SBA disbursed approximately
one million dollars in EIDL funds to DOR. Had DOR informed the SBA, as required, that
TDPC’s business liability insurance coverage had lapsed, the SBA would not have subsequently
disbursed these funds to DOR.

16. In total, as a result of the defendant TERRY DOR’s False Application and
Requests, the SBA deposited approximately $1,151,000 in EIDL proceeds into a commercial
bank account at Financial Institution-1 (“Account-1616”), which was registered to TDPC and
controlled by DOR. Specifically, on or about July 22, 2020, August 22, 2021 and December 4,
2021, the SBA deposited $150,000, $359,000 and $651,000, respectively, into Account-1616.
DOR was not entitled to any of this money.

V. DOR’s Transfer of the Fraudulently Obtained EIDL Proceeds

17. | The defendant TERRY DOR subsequently wired portions of the
fraudulently obtained EIDL proceeds from Account-1616 to other accounts he controlled. DOR
also used portions of these proceeds to fund personal and non-TDPC expenses—such as the
purchase of premium jewelry and clothes—as well as other purchases and securities trading.

18. For example, on or about September 3, 2021, just days after fraudulently
obtaining the $350,000 in EIDL proceeds referenced above, the defendant TERRY DOR
withdrew $300,000 from Account-1616 in the form of a cashier’s check. On or about the same
day, DOR deposited the same cashier’s check into his personal checking account at Financial
Institution-2 (“Account-3485”). On or about September 14, 2021, DOR wired $295,000 from
Account-3485 to a brokerage account at Financial Institution-3 (“Account-1297”), which was
registered to DOR.

19, As another example, on or about December 13, 2021, just days after

fraudulently obtaining the $651,000 in EIDL proceeds referenced above, the defendant TERRY
DOR transferred $125,000 from Account-1616 to another bank account at Financial Institution-]
that was controlled by DOR (“Account-1764”). On or about the same day, DOR transferred
$125,000 from Account-1764 to a premium jewelry vendor located in New York City.

20. As an additional example, on or about December 21, 2021 and February 1,
2022, shortly after fraudulently obtaining the $651,000 in EIDL proceeds referenced above, the
defendant TERRY DOR transferred $25,000 and $20,000, respectively, from Account-1616 to a
credit union account registered to him at Financial Institution-4 (“Account-3021”).

COUNT ONE
(Wire Fraud)

21. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 20 are realleged and |
incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

22. In or about and between July 2020 and December 2021, both dates being
approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant
TERRY DOR did knowingly and intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the SBA,
and to obtain money and property from the SBA by means of one or more materially false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing such scheme
and artifice, did transmit and cause to be transmitted a writing, sign and signal by means of wire
communication in interstate and foreign commerce, to wit: an online EIDL application submitted
on or about July 3, 2020, and subsequent modification requests submitted on or about August 9,
2021 and September 30, 2021, respectively, transmitted from New York State, via the internet, to
Iowa and Colorado.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 2 and 3551 et seq.)
COUNT TWO
(Theft of Public Funds)

23. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 20 are realleged and
incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

24. In or about and between July 2020 and December 2021, both dates being
approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant
TERRY DOR did knowingly and intentionally embezzle, steal, purloin and convert to his own
use and the use of another money and things of value of the United States and of a department
and agency thereof, to wit: EIDL funds issued by the SBA, the value of which in the aggregate
exceeded the sum of $1,000.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 641, 2 and 3551 et seq.)

COUNTS THREE THROUGH EIGHT
(Money Laundering)

25. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 20 are realleged and
incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

26. | Onor about the following dates, within the Eastern District of New York
and elsewhere, the defendant TERRY DOR did knowingly and intentionally engage in one or
more monetary transactions, in and effecting interstate commerce, in criminally derived property
that was of a value greater than $10,000 and was derived from specified unlawful activity, to wit:
wire fraud and theft of public funds, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and
641, respectively, knowing that the property involved in such monetary transactions represented

the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity:

COUNT APPROXIMATE DATE MONETARY TRANSACTION

THREE September 3, 2021 Transfer of $300,000 of fraudulently
obtained SBA loan proceeds from
Account-1616 to Account-3485.
COUNT

APPROXIMATE DATE | MONETARY TRANSACTION

FOUR

September 14, 2021 Transfer of $295,000 of fraudulently

obtained SBA loan proceeds from
Account-3485 to Account-1297.

FIVE

December 13, 2021 Transfer of $125,000 of fraudulently

obtained SBA loan proceeds from
Account-1616 to Account-1764.

SIX

December 13, 2021 Transfer of $125,000 of fraudulently

obtained SBA loan proceeds from
Account-1764 to a premium jewelry
vendor located in New York City.

SEVEN

December 21, 2021 Transfer of $25,000 of fraudulently

obtained SBA loan proceeds from
Account-1616 to Account-3021.

EIGHT

February 1, 2022 Transfer of $20,000 of fraudulently

obtained SBA loan proceeds from
Account-1616 to Account-3021.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957(a), 1957(b), 2 and 3551 et seq.)

CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

AS TO COUNTS ONE AND TWO

The United States hereby gives notice to the defendant TERRY DOR that,

upon his conviction of either of the offenses charged in Counts One and Two, the government

will seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and

Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), which require any person convicted of such

offenses to forfeit any property of DOR, real or personal, constituting, or derived from, proceeds

obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offenses.

If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or

omission of the defendant TERRY DOR:

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

has been substantially diminished in value; or
(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided
without difficulty; and
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to
seek forfeiture of any other property up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this
forfeiture allegation.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C); Title 21, United States Code,
Section 853(p); Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c))

CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
AS TO COUNTS THREE THROUGH EIGHT

29. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendant TERRY DOR that,
upon his conviction of the offense charged in Counts Three through Eight, the government will
seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1), which
requires any person convicted of such offense to forfeit any property of DOR, real or personal,
involved in such offense, or any property traceable to such property.

30. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or
omission of the defendant TERRY DOR:

(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; and

it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as
10

incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(1), to seek forfeiture of any other
property of up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 982(a)(1) and 982(b)(1); Title 21, United

States Code, Section 853(p))

A TRUE BILL

a G a a

BREON PEACE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Filed in open court this day,

David I. Berman, Assistant U.S. Attorney (718) 254-6167


File and source

File

dl_5b696e60c50749a4.pdf

Size

2,809,760 bytes

SHA-256

9d7d900bf5c287a4acacca0caa1c80184b8c813e9d955db4f86e82f6123d8efe

Our copy

dl_5b696e60c50749a4.pdf

Original

www.justice.gov