Charlotte PPP Loan Fraud Lawyers

If a PPP inquiry questions your payroll figures, your lawyer can test those figures by comparing the tax documents supplied to your lender with the corresponding filed returns. When information indicates that you may not have qualified for your PPP loan or that the loan or forgiveness amount you claimed may be unsupported, SBA directs your lender to request more information in writing, and SBA may also ask you for that information directly. Not answering that request may lead SBA to decide against you on the question under review. Your lender forwards any response you submit through it to SBA, which considers all the information you provide in the review.

What the payroll records need to establish

SBA reviews your PPP eligibility using the governing statutes, rules and guidance available when you applied, together with the terms of your application. The original April 2020 PPP rule required borrowers whose applications were governed by that provision to provide records showing the qualifying payroll amount. The borrower certification under that rule affirmed that the tax documents supplied to the lender to confirm the eligible loan amount were identical to those submitted to the IRS.

Putting the lender’s tax-document copies alongside the corresponding filed returns for matching periods and document versions can reveal where their figures differ. The underlying payroll records can support the qualifying payroll amount under that rule, giving your lawyer a basis for testing the figure submitted against what those records show. If fraud is alleged, whether that payroll figure could affect approval of the loan amount you sought bears on the legal question of materiality. Who caused the discrepancy and what that person knew may remain unanswered by the document comparison.

If the government alleges property-based wire fraud, it must prove that the defendant acted with fraudulent intent in a scheme to obtain money or property through material deception. What the person responsible for the disputed submission understood about the payroll figure’s accuracy bears on whether they intended to obtain loan money through deception. Section 1343 also requires a wire communication in interstate or foreign commerce that the defendant transmitted or caused to be transmitted to carry out the alleged scheme.

The Justice Department reported that Charlotte resident Jeannetta Blackmon pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering on July 25, 2023, and was sentenced on March 3, 2025. According to the department’s sentencing account, Blackmon submitted fabricated bank statements and checks to obtain relief funds in a scheme involving both PPP and EIDL.

Forgiveness, repayment and the disputed conduct

If SBA finds during its loan review that you were ineligible for the PPP loan, it directs the lender to deny forgiveness. If SBA determines that you are ineligible for the loan amount or forgiveness amount you claimed, it directs the lender to deny forgiveness in whole or in part, as appropriate. Following either determination, SBA may also seek the outstanding loan balance or other available remedies under this review provision.

The Supreme Court held in Kousisis that obtaining money through material deception can constitute wire fraud without an intent to cause net economic loss. Later repayment concerns money returned, while fraudulent inducement concerns how the money was obtained, so repayment alone cannot settle the issue: the government must still prove intentional material deception in obtaining the money and establish the remaining wire-fraud requirements.

When Charlotte affects the court question

Under Section 3231, federal district courts have authority to hear prosecutions for federal offenses. Charlotte is in Mecklenburg County, which is part of the Western District of North Carolina, and federal law names Charlotte as a place for holding court in that district.

Where a criminal charge may be prosecuted-the question of venue-ordinarily depends on where the essential conduct making up the charged offense occurred. If the offense spans districts, it may be prosecuted in any district where it began, continued or ended, unless Congress expressly provides otherwise. For the wire communication used to carry out the alleged scheme, the Fourth Circuit’s Jefferson decision recognizes venue in a district where the transmission originated or was received. Venue must be supported for each separate count, so if several wire-fraud counts are charged, your lawyer can match each count to the location of its charged transmission and test the connection to the district prosecuting that count.