North Dakota PPP and EIDL Loan Fraud Lawyers

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group, a second-generation criminal defense firm managed by Todd Spodek – with over 50 years combined experience defending federal fraud cases nationwide. If you’re facing PPP or EIDL fraud charges in North Dakota, you’re dealing with federal prosecutors from the District of North Dakota who handle pandemic fraud cases with the same intensity they apply to major drug trafficking and organized crime prosecutions. While North Dakota has seen fewer PPP fraud prosecutions than urban districts, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Fargo has charged business owners throughout Fargo, Bismarck, Grand Forks, and Minot with bank fraud, wire fraud, and false statements for allegedly inflating payroll figures, misrepresenting employee counts, using loan proceeds for unauthorized purposes, or submitting applications through entities prosecutors claim were created solely to multiply loan amounts. What makes North Dakota cases uniquely challenging is that federal prosecutors and judges in smaller districts often take pandemic fraud more personally – viewing it as betrayal of community trust during crisis rather than sophisticated financial crime, which can result in harsh sentences despite defendants having no prior criminal history.

PPP and EIDL Enforcement in North Dakota

The District of North Dakota covers the entire state, with federal court proceedings held primarily in Fargo and Bismarck. Federal prosecutors here have brought PPP fraud cases involving agriculture businesses, oil and gas service companies, restaurants, and small retail operations. One case that drew attention involved a Fargo business owner who received $280,000 in PPP loans across two entities – prosecutors argued the second company was a shell with no legitimate operations, while defense claimed it was a separate business with distinct employees and operations. The jury convicted, and the court imposed a 3-year sentence followed by supervised release and full restitution.

EIDL fraud prosecutions in North Dakota have focused on smaller-dollar cases but with similarly serious consequences. Prosecutors have charged defendants with obtaining $150,000 EIDL advances through false statements about business operations, employee counts, or revenue figures. These cases often involve business owners who legitimately operated businesses before the pandemic but allegedly exaggerated figures to qualify for larger loan amounts – conduct prosecutors frame as criminal fraud even when defendants argue they made good-faith estimates under ambiguous guidance.

Federal Charges in North Dakota Cases

Bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 carries a maximum of 30 years and applies when you allegedly made false statements to obtain PPP or EIDL funds. 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. The statute doesn’t require proof of intent to permanently deprive the bank of funds – only proof that you knowingly made false statements to obtain money.

Wire fraud charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 get added when you used electronic communications: submitting online applications, emailing documents to lenders, receiving wire transfers of loan proceeds. Each electronic communication can be charged as a separate count, which is how prosecutors create theoretical exposure of decades or centuries to pressure guilty pleas. We’ve seen North Dakota prosecutors charge 8-10 wire fraud counts for a single loan application, each carrying 20 years maximum.

False Statements and Aggravated Identity Theft

False statements charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 criminalize lying to federal agencies and carry 5 years maximum. Prosecutors use this statute when you allegedly provided false information to SBA even if the bank approved your loan without detecting problems. In some cases involving identity theft – where defendants allegedly used other people’s information to apply for EIDL loans – prosecutors add aggravated identity theft charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, which carries a mandatory consecutive 2-year sentence that must run after any sentence imposed on underlying fraud charges.

Defenses That Work in North Dakota Federal Court

The strongest defense challenges intent. Prosecutors must prove 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 ambiguous during rapid program implementation. We present testimony from the professionals you consulted, showing they reviewed your materials and advised you that your application was accurate.

We also challenge materiality – whether alleged misstatements actually influenced lending decisions. If you overstated payroll by $15,000 but would have qualified for the same loan with accurate figures, that undermines the fraud charge. If the bank approved your loan despite red flags that should have triggered denial, that suggests your statements weren’t material. We hire forensic accountants who analyze whether alleged misstatements affected your loan amount or eligibility.

Negotiating with North Dakota Prosecutors

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in North Dakota handles a relatively small caseload compared to urban districts, which means prosecutors have time to thoroughly investigate and prepare cases – but also means they’re sometimes more willing to negotiate reasonable resolutions when presented with strong mitigating evidence. We’ve successfully negotiated reduced charges in cases where we presented evidence showing: defendants made good-faith errors, relied on professional advice, legitimately believed they were eligible, spent substantial portions of proceeds on legitimate business expenses.

Pleading to false statements under § 1001 instead of bank fraud reduces maximum exposure from 30 years to 5 years, dramatically affecting guideline calculations and sentencing outcomes. We also negotiate over loss amounts, which determine guideline ranges. Government claims $250,000 loss, we present evidence showing $100,000 was spent on rent, payroll, and utilities – reducing actual loss to $150,000 and lowering guideline ranges by 2-4 levels, which translates to months or years less incarceration.

Sentencing in North Dakota Federal Court

Federal judges in North Dakota are known for carefully considering individual circumstances and often imposing below-guideline sentences when presented with compelling mitigation. However, they also take pandemic fraud seriously, viewing it as particularly egregious conduct during national crisis. Successful mitigation requires presenting evidence of: lack of criminal history, strong family and community ties, charitable work and community involvement, acceptance of responsibility, rehabilitation efforts, and the extraordinary economic pressures of the pandemic that created desperation rather than greed.

We present letters from community members, employers, family members, and religious leaders who vouch for your character and explain how the pandemic affected your business and decision-making. We hire experts who testify about the economic conditions in your industry during 2020, showing that business owners faced unprecedented uncertainty and made decisions under extreme pressure. We argue for probation or home confinement rather than incarceration, emphasizing that restitution and supervised release accomplish sentencing goals without destroying families and businesses.

Pre-Trial Intervention Strategies

If you become aware of an investigation before charges are filed – because investigators contacted your bank, interviewed employees, or approached you for voluntary interviews – that’s when to hire counsel. We’ve successfully convinced prosecutors to decline charges by presenting evidence early showing: you made legitimate errors, you relied on professional advice, ambiguous SBA guidance made it reasonable to interpret eligibility differently, you’ve repaid questionable amounts, your business was and remains legitimate.

Federal prosecutors have enormous discretion whether to charge cases. When we intervene early with compelling evidence contradicting criminal intent, we sometimes persuade prosecutors that federal prosecution isn’t warranted. Even when we can’t prevent charges entirely, early intervention often results in more favorable charging decisions – false statements rather than bank fraud, fewer counts, lower loss amounts alleged in indictments.

What Spodek Law Group Brings to Your Defense

We defend PPP and EIDL fraud cases in federal court throughout North Dakota and nationwide. We intervene during investigations before charges are filed, presenting prosecutors with evidence that leads to declinations. After indictment, we file motions challenging the legal sufficiency of charges, arguing that alleged conduct doesn’t meet elements of fraud under federal law. We move to suppress evidence obtained through improper searches or overly broad subpoenas.

We conduct independent investigations, interviewing witnesses prosecutors ignored and uncovering exculpatory evidence. We hire forensic accountants and industry experts who testify about why your conduct was consistent with legitimate business practices and why alleged misstatements weren’t material. At trial, we cross-examine cooperating witnesses about their criminal histories and motivations to fabricate. We present defenses focused on intent, materiality, and good-faith reliance on ambiguous guidance.

At Spodek Law Group, Todd Spodek has defended high-stakes cases that others called unwinnable – including the client whose story became a Netflix series. When you’re facing years in federal prison for PPP or EIDL fraud charges in North Dakota, the defense strategy you choose determines the outcome. We’re available 24/7 at our offices throughout NYC and Long Island. Reach out now – early intervention makes enormous difference in federal fraud cases.