san antonio ppp and eidl loan fraud lawyers

Thanks for visiting Federal Lawyers, a second-generation criminal defense firm managed by our lead attorney – with over 50 years of combined experience defending federal fraud cases nationwide. If you’re facing PPP or EIDL fraud charges in San Antonio, you’re dealing with federal prosecutors from the Western District of Texas who handle pandemic fraud prosecutions at the John H. Wood Jr. U.S. Courthouse in downtown San Antonio. These prosecutors have charged business owners throughout the metro area – including surrounding Bexar County communities, New Braunfels, and the Hill Country – with bank fraud, wire fraud, and false statements for allegedly inflating payroll figures, misrepresenting employee counts, using proceeds for unauthorized purposes, or submitting applications through multiple entities prosecutors claim were created solely to multiply loan amounts. What makes San Antonio cases particularly challenging is that Western District prosecutors are known for aggressive enforcement and seeking harsh sentences, treating small business owners like sophisticated criminals even when errors were made under economic pressure during unprecedented crisis.

Federal PPP Fraud Prosecution in San Antonio

The Western District of Texas, with a significant presence in San Antonio, has been active in prosecuting PPP and EIDL fraud throughout South Texas. Prosecutors have brought cases involving restaurant owners, construction contractors, healthcare providers, automotive businesses, and retail operations. One case that drew attention involved a San Antonio business owner charged with obtaining $800,000 across multiple entities – prosecutors argued the companies were shells with no legitimate operations, while defense claimed they were separately managed businesses with distinct employees entitled to individual loans. After conviction, the court imposed a 7-year sentence followed by supervised release and full restitution.

EIDL fraud prosecutions in San Antonio often involve cases where defendants allegedly used fabricated business information or identity theft to obtain advances. These cases frequently result in aggravated identity theft charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, carrying mandatory consecutive 2-year sentences that must run after any sentence imposed on underlying fraud charges. Even defendants who played relatively minor roles in submitting applications face significant prison time when identity theft enhancements are added.

Bank Fraud and Wire Fraud Charges

Bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 carries up to 30 years in federal prison and applies whenever you allegedly made false statements to obtain PPP or EIDL funds. San Antonio prosecutors use this statute aggressively, arguing that any material misstatement on loan applications constitutes bank fraud regardless of whether you intended to use proceeds legitimately or planned to repay loans. The statute doesn’t require proof you intended to permanently deprive financial institutions of money – only that you knowingly made material misrepresentations to obtain funds.

Wire fraud charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 get stacked on top when you used electronic communications during the application process: submitting online applications, emailing documents to lenders, receiving wire transfers. Each electronic communication can be charged as a separate count. We’ve seen Western District prosecutors charge 10-15 wire fraud counts for single loan applications, each carrying 20 years maximum, creating theoretical exposure of 200-300 years to pressure defendants into guilty pleas.

False Statements and Conspiracy

False statements charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 criminalize lying to federal agencies and carry 5 years maximum. Prosecutors use this when you allegedly provided false information to SBA even if banks approved loans without detecting problems. In cases involving multiple defendants, prosecutors add conspiracy charges under 18 U.S.C. § 371, making all conspirators responsible for the entire amount of fraud committed by any member, which dramatically increases exposure and creates pressure to cooperate against co-defendants.

DEFENSE TEAM SPOTLIGHT

Todd Spodek

Lead Attorney & Founder

Featured on Netflix's "Inventing Anna," Todd Spodek brings decades of high-stakes criminal defense experience. His aggressive approach has secured dismissals and acquittals in cases others deemed unwinnable.

NY Bar Admitted Multi-State Licensed Federal Courts

Meet the Full Team

Legal Scenario: What Would You Do?

Scenario

You received a PPP loan of $150,000 for your San Antonio restaurant through a local bank, but your accountant inflated payroll numbers on the application without your knowledge. Now a federal agent from the Western District of Texas has contacted you about discrepancies between your PPP application and your actual tax filings.

Can I be charged with PPP fraud even though my accountant prepared the false application, and what kind of penalties am I facing?

Attorney's Answer

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 and § 1343, federal prosecutors in the Western District of Texas can charge you with bank fraud and wire fraud even if your accountant prepared the application, because you certified its accuracy when you signed it. PPP fraud convictions carry up to 20 years per wire fraud count and up to 30 years per bank fraud count, plus mandatory restitution of the full loan amount. However, your lack of knowledge about the inflated numbers is a strong defense — the government must prove you knowingly made false statements, and we can work to demonstrate you relied in good faith on your accountant's expertise. We would also explore cooperation with prosecutors early, as the DOJ's COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force has shown willingness to negotiate reduced charges for defendants who demonstrate they were misled by third-party preparers.

This is general information only. Contact us for advice specific to your situation.

Defenses That Work in San Antonio Federal Court

The strongest defenses challenge prosecutors’ proof of intent. Federal fraud statutes require proof that you knowingly made false statements – not that you made good-faith errors or relied on incorrect advice. We build intent defenses by presenting evidence that you consulted accountants or business advisors before applying, that you relied on their calculations, that you made reasonable interpretations of SBA guidance that was genuinely ambiguous during rapid program implementation in early 2020.