Portland PPP and EIDL Loan Fraud Lawyers

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group, a second-generation firm managed by Todd Spodek – with over 50 years combined experience defending federal fraud prosecutions nationwide. If you’re facing PPP or EIDL fraud charges in Portland, you’re dealing with federal prosecutors from the District of Oregon who handle pandemic fraud cases at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in downtown Portland. These prosecutors have charged business owners throughout the metro area – including Beaverton, Gresham, Hillsboro, and Vancouver across the river – 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 entities prosecutors claim were shells created to multiply loan amounts. What makes Portland cases uniquely challenging is that federal judges here are known for progressive sentencing in some contexts but remain tough on fraud, particularly when they believe defendants exploited pandemic relief programs designed to help struggling businesses and workers during economic crisis.

Federal PPP Fraud Prosecution in Portland

Portland’s federal courthouse at 1000 SW Third Avenue is where most PPP and EIDL fraud cases are tried. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has brought cases ranging from restaurant owners who allegedly inflated employee counts to secure larger loans, to construction contractors who prosecutors claim fabricated payroll records, to retail operators accused of using proceeds for personal expenses rather than business operations. One case that drew local attention involved a Portland business owner charged with obtaining $400,000 across three entities – prosecutors argued the companies were shells with no legitimate operations, while defense claimed they were separately managed businesses with distinct employees and operations. After conviction, the court imposed a 5-year sentence.

EIDL fraud prosecutions in Portland often involve smaller loan amounts but carry serious consequences nonetheless. Prosecutors have charged defendants with obtaining $150,000 advances through applications containing false information about business revenue, employee counts, or operational history. These cases frequently involve business owners who legitimately operated businesses before the pandemic but allegedly exaggerated figures to qualify for larger advances – conduct prosecutors frame as criminal fraud even when defendants argue they made good-faith estimates under ambiguous guidance.

Bank Fraud and Wire Fraud Charges

Bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 is the most serious charge in PPP cases, carrying a maximum of 30 years in federal prison. This statute applies whenever you allegedly made false statements to obtain loan funds, and prosecutors use it aggressively in Portland. The statute doesn’t require proof you intended to permanently deprive the bank of money – only that you knowingly made material misrepresentations to obtain funds, even if you planned to use proceeds for legitimate business purposes.

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

Identity Theft Enhancements

In cases involving use of other people’s information to apply for EIDL loans, prosecutors add aggravated identity theft charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. This carries a mandatory consecutive 2-year sentence that must run after any sentence imposed on underlying fraud charges. Even defendants with no criminal history face significant prison time when identity theft charges are added – the 2-year mandatory minimum can’t be reduced through acceptance of responsibility or other guideline reductions.

Defenses That Work in Portland Federal Court

The strongest defenses challenge prosecutors’ proof of intent. Federal law requires proof that you knowingly made false statements – not that you made good-faith errors, relied on bad advice, or reasonably interpreted ambiguous guidance. We build intent defenses by gathering evidence showing 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 unclear during rapid program implementation.

We present testimony from professionals you consulted, showing they reviewed your materials and advised your applications were accurate. We present character witnesses who testify about your reputation for honesty and legitimate business operations. We show you disclosed information voluntarily rather than concealing it, demonstrating lack of fraudulent intent.

Challenging Materiality

Even when statements were false, prosecutors must prove they were material – meaning they influenced the lending decision. If you overstated payroll by $20,000 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 to the decision. We hire forensic accountants who testify about whether alleged misstatements actually affected your loan amount or eligibility.

Negotiating with Portland Prosecutors

The Assistant U.S. Attorneys handling fraud cases in Portland have discretion to negotiate reasonable resolutions when presented with strong mitigating evidence. We’ve successfully negotiated reduced charges by presenting evidence showing: defendants made good-faith errors, relied on professional advice, legitimately believed they were eligible, spent substantial portions of proceeds on legitimate expenses like payroll and rent.

Pleading to false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 instead of bank fraud reduces maximum exposure from 30 years to 5 years, dramatically affecting sentencing guideline calculations. We also fight over loss amounts because they drive guideline ranges. Government claims $250,000 loss, we present evidence showing $100,000 was spent on legitimate business expenses – reducing actual loss to $150,000 and lowering offense levels by 2-4 points, which can mean years less incarceration.

Portland Federal Sentencing

Federal judges in Portland’s Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse are known for carefully considering individual circumstances and imposing below-guideline sentences when presented with compelling mitigation. However, they take fraud cases seriously, particularly pandemic fraud that they view as exploitation of programs designed to help vulnerable businesses during crisis. Successful sentencing requires more than asking for leniency – it requires presenting powerful evidence of character, circumstances, and rehabilitation.

We present letters from community members, employers, family, and religious leaders who vouch for your character. We hire experts who testify about economic conditions in your industry during 2020, showing that business owners faced unprecedented uncertainty and made desperate decisions under extreme pressure. We present evidence of charitable work, community involvement, family circumstances requiring your presence, and rehabilitation efforts demonstrating you’re not a danger to the community.

Alternative Sentencing Arguments

We argue for alternatives to incarceration when possible: probation with conditions like community service, home confinement with electronic monitoring, or short periods of incarceration followed by long supervised release. We emphasize that restitution and supervised release accomplish sentencing goals – punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation – without destroying families and businesses. Federal judges in Portland have discretion to impose below-guideline sentences based on factors like: your lack of criminal history, extraordinary family circumstances, the unique context of the pandemic, and the need to avoid unwarranted disparities with similarly situated defendants.

Pre-Indictment Intervention

If you learn about an investigation early – because investigators contacted your bank, interviewed employees, or agents approached you for voluntary interviews – that’s the critical moment to hire counsel. We’ve successfully negotiated declinations by presenting prosecutors with evidence showing: you made good-faith 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.

When we intervene early with compelling evidence contradicting criminal intent, we sometimes persuade prosecutors that federal charges aren’t warranted. Even when we can’t prevent charges entirely, early intervention often results in more favorable outcomes – reduced charges, fewer counts, lower loss amounts alleged in indictments.

What Spodek Law Group Brings to Portland Defendants

We defend PPP and EIDL fraud cases in Portland federal court and nationwide. We intervene during investigations before charges, presenting evidence to prosecutors that leads to declinations. After indictment, we file motions challenging charges, arguing alleged conduct doesn’t meet fraud elements. We move to suppress evidence obtained through improper searches or overly broad subpoenas.

We conduct independent investigations, interviewing witnesses prosecutors ignored and hiring forensic accountants who testify about why alleged misstatements weren’t material or why your conduct was consistent with legitimate practices. 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 sentencing, we present mitigation packages showing lack of criminal history, strong community ties, acceptance of responsibility, rehabilitation efforts, and pandemic circumstances that created economic desperation rather than criminal greed. We’ve secured probationary sentences for defendants facing guideline ranges calling for years in prison.

At Spodek Law Group, Todd Spodek has defended cases that made headlines – including the client whose story became a Netflix series. When you’re facing years in federal prison for PPP or EIDL fraud charges in Portland, aggressive defense determines the outcome. We’re available 24/7. Reach out now – early intervention makes all the difference in federal fraud prosecutions.