Riner Complaint
Riner Complaint
Riner Complaint
KP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Page)
ii
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 4 of 47
Plaintiff/Relator Wade Riner (“Relator” or “Riner”) brings this action pursuant to the False
Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–32, and seeks to recover all damages, penalties, and other
remedies established by the FCA on behalf of the United States of America and on his own behalf.
1. After the crisis of the COVID-19 Coronavirus pandemic began, Congress passed
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act—more commonly referred to as the
“CARES Act”—in part to provide emergency relief to small businesses facing payroll difficulties
and other concerns meeting their bottom-line in the midst of the pandemic. Unfortunately, this aid
also attracted opportunistic actors who received aid that Congress never intended. Congress
created the PPP in March 2020, as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security
(CARES) Act, to provide emergency financial support to the millions of Americans suffering the
economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act authorized billions of
dollars in forgivable loans to small businesses struggling to pay employees and other business
expenses. Throughout 2020 and 2021, PPP loan applicants were required to certify that they were
2. Part of the aid in the CARES Act was the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”),
which provides forgivable, emergency loans to small businesses that certify to the United States
Small Business Administration that they are qualified to receive the interest-free loan, that their
loan request is necessary for continued operation, and that they will use funds only to pay payroll
1
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 5 of 47
3. The PPP loans were originally intended to help traditional small businesses make
it through the economic downturn that came as a consequence of the pandemic, but others wanted
in.
entities eligible for PPP loans. Among those groups were country clubs and community
associations, which include housing cooperatives, condominium associations, and property owner
associations.
5. In December 2020, Congress passed and the president signed into law amendments
to the CARES Act (the Economic Aid Act) that allowed housing cooperatives to apply for PPP
were not included in the amendments, and neither were other not-for-profit organizations like
country clubs. The list of eligible recipients only expanded one more time near the end of the final
PPP application period—when President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into
law on March 11, 2021, which included most 501(c) organizations as “additional covered nonprofit
entities” but explicitly excluded 501(c)(4) organizations (the only 501(c) status for which a
6. Despite the industry’s recognition that Congress had not allowed their participation
applied for PPP loans anyway, falsely certifying to the United States that they were eligible for
funding and that they needed the loans after also certifying in the Application that “I have read the
statements included in this form, including the Statements Required by Law and Executive Orders,
and I understand them.” They did so even though they had millions of dollars in revenue every
2
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 6 of 47
year that was not reliant on the unpredictable swings of the economy but instead on a simple tool:
assessments to their wealthy membership. Many country clubs nationwide acted similarly. Rather
than obtain PPP loans as the intended American businesses in need, Defendants approached the
program as opportunists. And by fraudulently applying for these PPP loans, the rich got richer
while depriving needy Americans of the boost that Congress sought to give them.
homeowners associations fraudulently applying for PPP loans received millions of dollars in
forgivable funding, directly depriving the United States of millions of dollars and preventing
worthy and needy small businesses from receiving congressionally approved loans. Not-for-profit
community associations were not the only culprits. Not-for-profit so-called “country clubs” were
not eligible and also wrongly applied for and received PPP.
8. As Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton has explained, “PPP loans
were intended to provide critical relief to small businesses so that they could pay employees and
maintain operations,” and the Department of Justice is “committed to pursuing those who
knowingly violated the requirements of the PPP or other Covid-19 assistance programs and
obtained relief funds to which they were not entitled”—particularly, with the assistance of qui tam
relators.
II. PARTIES
with which Riner is the officer and principle in turn owns multiple homes in Florida. Through
ownership of these homes, Riner is a member of the Hunters Run Property Owners Association,
Inc., and he was a member of the Boca West Master Association, Inc. until the fourth quarter of
3
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 7 of 47
learned that his homeowners associations had applied for millions of dollars of federal relief
through PPP loans, even though they were not a business interest that qualified for such loans
under the CARES Act. Riner subsequently learned that his own homeowners associations and
numerous others defrauded the United States government by falsely certifying they were eligible
for PPP loans that they were not, in fact, eligible for. Riner is intimately familiar with the finances
and country clubs in general, including details of how such community associations and country
clubs are governed and how they raise funds through their membership and other sources of
liquidity.
10. Defendants are all various not-for-profit entities. Although there may be some
11. Hunters Run Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Hunters Run”) is a not-for-profit
12. Boca West Master Association, Inc. (“Boca West”) is a not-for-profit homeowners
13. Aberdeen Golf & Country Club, Inc. (“Aberdeen Golf”) is a not-for-profit country
14. Anchorage Resort and Yacht Club Condominium Association, Inc. (“Anchorage
Resort”) is a not-for-profit condominium association located at 107800 Overseas Hwy, Key Largo,
FL.
4
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 8 of 47
15. The Aragon Condominium Association of Boca Raton, Inc. (“The Aragon”) is a
not-for-profit condominium association located at 2494 South Ocean Blvd, Boca Raton, FL.
16. BAL Harbor 101 Condominium Association, Inc. (“BAL Harbour”) is a not-for-
profit condominium association located at 10155 Collins Ave., Bal Harbour, FL.
17. Bay Head at Johnathan’s Landing Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Bay Head”) is
a not-for-profit homeowner’s association located at 16854 Bay St., Palm Beach, FL.
18. Boca Pointe Country Club, Inc. (“Boca Point Country Club”) is a not-for-profit
homeowners association located at 7144 Boca Pointe Drive, Boca Raton, FL.
21. Deering Bay Yacht and Country Club, Inc. (“Deering Bay”) is a not-for-profit
country club located at 13610 Deering Bay Dr., Coral Gables, FL.
22. Doral Park Country Club Association, Inc. (“Doral Park”) is a not-for-profit
country club located at 3370 Grande Corniche, Palm Beach Gardens, FLS.
5
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 9 of 47
27. Grand Harbor Golf & Beach Club, Inc. (“Grand Harbor Golf”) is a not-for-profit
29. Lake Clarke Gardens Condominium, Inc. (“Lake Clarke Gardens”) is a not-for-
profit condominium association located at 2981 Florida Mango Road, Lake Worth, FL.
profit condominium association located at 120 Sunset Avenue, Palm Beach, FL.
31. The Loxahatchee Club Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Loxahatchee Club HOA”)
33. Mayacoo Lakes II Club, Inc. (“Mayacoo Lakes”) is a not-for-profit country club
34. Meadowood Golf & Tennis Club, Inc. (“Meadowood Golf”) is a not-for-profit
36. Mirasol Club & Association, Inc. (“Mirasol Club”) is a not-for-profit homeowners
6
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 10 of 47
37. Mizner Country Club, Inc. (“Mizner Club”) is a not-for-profit country club located
39. Old Palm Golf Club, Inc. (“Old Palm”) is a not-for-profit country club located at
40. Palm Beach Towers Condominium Association, Inc. (“Palm Beach Towers”) is a
41. Pine Island Ridge Country Club, Inc. (“Pine Island Ridge”) is a not-for-profit
country club located at 9400 Pine Ridge Dr., Fort Lauderdale, FL.
for-profit condominium association located at 17555 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, FL.
profit homeowners association located at 21125 Yacht Club Drive, Aventura, FL.
44. Quail Ridge Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Quail Ridge”) is a not-for-profit
homeowners association is located at 1650 S. Dixie Highway #100, Boca Raton, FL.
46. Tequesta Country Club (“Tequesta Club”) is a not-for-profit country club located
not-for-profit homeowners association located at 2424 Lyons Road, Coconut Creek, FL.
7
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 11 of 47
48. Turnberry Ocean Colony Master Association, Inc. (“Turnberry Ocean Colony”) is
a not-for-profit homeowners association located at 16049 Collins Ave., Sunny Isles Beach, FL.
50. Williams Island Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Williams Island”) is a not-
52. Wycliffe Golf and Country Club HOA (“Wycliffe Golf”) is a not-for-profit
homeowners association located at 4650 Wycliffe Country Club Blvd., Wellington, FL.
53. The Yacht & Country Club, Inc. (“Yacht & Country Club”) is a not-for-profit
54. Any and all acts alleged herein to have been committed by Defendants were
committed by officers, directors, employees, representatives, or agents who at all times acted on
behalf of the named Defendants and within the course and scope of their employment or agency.
55. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Southern District of Florida, pursuant to
the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–33), because Relator’s claims seek remedies on behalf
of the United States for multiple violations of 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–30. Furthermore, Defendants
56. Additionally, Defendants’ false claims relate directly to their status as not-for-profit
8
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 12 of 47
501(c)(3) nonprofit corporations entitled to PPP loans under Congress’s statue—and thus their
fraud is against the United States as a whole. All Defendants are at home in the United States.
Accordingly, under the FCA and requisites of due process, personal jurisdiction against all
Defendants is proper in this United States federal district court. See J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd.
57. There are no bars to recovery under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e). To the extent that any
allegations or transactions herein have been publicly disclosed, Relator has knowledge that is
independent of and materially adds to any publicly disclosed allegations or transactions and had
provided that information to the United States prior to filing the complaint by serving a voluntary
58. As required by 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(b) and (e), Relator submitted and Original
Disclosure Statement to the Attorney General of the United States and the United States Attorney
for the Southern District of Florida, as well as all material evidence and information, prior to filing
59. On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the
“CARES Act”), Pub. L. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281, created the PPP, initially making $349 billion in
forgivable loans available to small businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S.
Small Business Administration (“SBA”) administers the PPP, promulgates the rules and
regulations governing the PPP, and guarantees all PPP loans made by lenders.
60. The PPP allowed small businesses (less than 500 employees) to obtain forgivable
loans of up to $10 million, at 1% interest, to cover payroll costs, rent, mortgage interest, utilities,
9
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 13 of 47
and other overhead expenses for a “covered period.” CARES Act § 1102(a)(2)(36)(D)–(c), 134
Stat. at 288–90.
61. PPP loans were processed and approved by qualified lenders that the SBA
approves. Lenders issued PPP loans without the SBA’s prior review or express and individualized
approval, but they agreed to be responsible for determining borrower eligibility under the SBA’s
criteria. They were “deemed to have been delegated authority by the [SBA] Administrator to make
and approve covered loans.” CARES Act § 1102(a)(2)(36)(F)(ii), 134 Stat. at 290.
62. For processing the PPP loans, the SBA reimbursed participating lenders with a
processing fee equal to the amount of 5% of loans up to $350,000; 3% of loans between $350,000
and $2,000,000; and 1% on loans of at least $2,000,000. See CARES Act § 1102(a)(2)(36)(P), 134
Stat. at 293. Additionally, although the lenders funded the PPP loans with their own funds, the
63. PPP loans are also subject to complete forgiveness. CARES Act § 1106, 134 Stat.
at 297–302. And within 90 days of which forgiveness is given, the SBA remits to the lender the
full amount of forgiveness, plus any accrued interest. Id. § 1106(c)(3), 134 Stat. at 298.
64. The PPP was a program under the Small Business Act, Section 7(a). Generally
speaking, a key eligibility requirement for Section 7(a) SBA loans is that the applicant be a
65. Pursuant to the CARES Act, PPP loans were originally available only to a “business
that employed no more than 500 employees. See CARES Act § 1102(a)(2)(36)(D), 134 Stat. at
288. Nonprofit-organization eligibility, however, was limited to 501(c)(3) organizations that are
10
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 14 of 47
66. Eligibility for PPP is also spelled out in Interim Final Rule #1 published in the
Federal Register on April 15, 2020 (answering the question, “How do I determine if I am
ineligible?”). As it stated: “Businesses that are not eligible for PPP loans are identified in 13 CFR
120.110 and described further in SBA’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 10 Subpart B,
Chapter 2, except that nonprofit organizations authorized under the Act are eligible.” 85 Fed. Reg.
20812. Meanwhile, 13 CFR 120.110 states that “non-profit businesses” are ineligible.
67. Applicants for PPP loans were required to certify to a participating SBA-approved
lender and to the SBA that they are eligible to receive the loan under the rules in effect at the time
of their application. For example, the April 2020 SBA Form 2483 (the PPP application at the time)
68. The PPP applications also required applicants to certify that the loan request is
11
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 15 of 47
certification, the SBA provided a “safe harbor” when it issued Interim Final Rule #4 (85 Fed. Reg.
23450 published April 28, 2020) stipulating that “any borrower that applied for a PPP loan and
repays the loan in full by May 7, 2020, will be deemed by SBA to have made the required
certification in good faith.” Interim Final Rule #4 additionally noted that the SBA would give
additional guidance before May 14, 2020 concerning this certification, especially in helping PPP
borrowers evaluate whether they “may have misunderstood or misapplied the statutory standard.”
As of May 13, 2020, SBA clarified in its Frequently Asked Questions section of Interim Final Rule
# 9, (85 Fed. Reg. 29845 published May 19, 2020) stating that “borrowers must make this
certification in good faith, taking into account their current business activity and their ability to
access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is
specifically certify that all information provided on the application is true and accurate in all
material respects as well as to certify their understanding that a false statement made in order to
obtain a guaranteed loan from the SBA is punishable under the law. Again, from the April 2020
12
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 16 of 47
71. Finally, when PPP loan recipients apply for forgiveness of their loan, they must
further certify, through their authorized representative, that they have “complied with all
requirements in the Paycheck Protection Program Rules,” including the statute passed in the
CARES Act and the subsequent amendments. From SBA Form 3508S:
72. The PPP was originally funded by Congress with $349 Billion, but the funds were
depleted on April 16, 2020—only weeks after the CARES Act passed. On April 24, 2020, the
President signed the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, Pub. L.
116-139, 134 Stat. 620, whereby Congress allocated an additional $320 Billion in funding.
73. Congress further expanded the PPP at the end of the year in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. 116-260. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, added
$284.5 Billion to the PPP. Additionally, the Act allowed certain entities to obtain “second draw”
PPP loans. By May 5, 2021, these additional funds had also been depleted.
74. One further amendment in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 made
“housing cooperatives” eligible for PPP loans when it was enacted December 2020—but not
Pub. L. 116-260, § 311(a). This is despite the fact that HOA condominium-association groups,
along with country-club groups, lobbied Congress for their explicit inclusion.
75. Congress expanded the list of eligible recipients one last time near the end of the
13
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 17 of 47
final PPP application period—when the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law
on March 11, 2021 and included most 501(c) organizations as “additional covered nonprofit
entities.” Yet Congress still explicitly excluded 501(c)(4) organizations—the only 501(c) status
homeowner associations and condominium associations were still clearly ineligible. And while
certain nonprofit country clubs were then eligible for PPP loans, they were only eligible for the
final weeks of the application period and only if they met the specific 501(c)(7) tax-exempt status.
See 86 Fed. Reg. 15083 (explaining that the American Rescue Plan Act changes only “apply to
PPP loans approved, and loan forgiveness applications submitted, on or after March 11, 2021”).
76. The eligibility rules relevant to the Defendants for various nonprofit and not-for-
profit organizations for PPP loans throughout the history of various congressional actions is
summarized as follows:
14
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 18 of 47
77. Additionally, for entities that applied for a second-draw PPP loan, they again were
required to certify their eligibility under the effective rules. From SBA Form 2483-SD:
certification that all information provided on the application is true and accurate in all material
respects as well as to certify their understanding that a false statement made in order to obtain a
guaranteed loan from the SBA is punishable under the law. From SBA Form 2483-SD:
79. Finally, qui tam lawsuits are an appropriate remedy for violations of the PPP rules
and regulations. In remarks given on February 17, 2021, for example, Acting Assistant Attorney
General Brian M. Boynton explained: “It is clear to me and my colleagues in the Civil Division-
15
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 19 of 47
and I’m sure to all of you-that the False Claims Act will play a significant role in the coming years
as the government grapples with the consequences of this pandemic.” As he further pointed out,
“[t]he vast majority of the funds distributed under these programs have gone to eligible recipients.
Unfortunately, some individuals and businesses applied for-and received- payments to which they
were not entitled.” Accordingly, “qui tams will continue to be an essential source of new leads,
and the Department [of Justice] will continue to rely on whistleblowers to help root out the misuse
80. Defendants knowingly told the SBA and participating lenders that they were
qualified entities to receive PPP loans, even though they are all not-for-profit homeowners
associations, condominium associations, or country clubs that do not qualify as qualified entities
under Congress’s act. They also all knowingly misrepresented their need for these loans. Their
fraud deprived the United States of the ability to loan appropriated funds to qualified businesses,
as the funding for PPP loans ran out shortly after Defendants applied for their loans.
81. Defendants’ false certification that they were qualified occurred despite them
knowing or recklessly disregarding the fact that they were ineligible nonprofit organizations and
that not-for-profit organizations like them were not eligible for-profit businesses under SBA
Section 7(a) or “business interests” pursuant to the CARES Act or even SBA’s guidance and
regulations. In fact, the SBA published—and, upon congressional amendments, updated, FAQs
for the PPP loans including an answer for “Who is Eligible”—and neither not-for-profit
community associations like housing associations and condominium associations nor not-for-
profit country clubs were ever listed in the answer to that question. The only community groups
that was ever listed were housing cooperatives, and that was after specific congressional
16
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 20 of 47
explicitly excluded in official guidance, further telling Defendants—who are all non-profit or not-
for-profit organizations—that they were ineligible. Further, because the associations’ lobbyists
were fighting for inclusion in the PPP, the Defendants inherently knew that they could not qualify
without new amendments by Congress that never materialized. Defendants realized they could slip
by rushed bankers and regulators by purporting to be a “business interest” without actually being
one.
82. Defendants’ other false certifications—that economic uncertainty made the PPP
loans necessary to support their ongoing operations—were in bad faith, given the strong finances
of Defendants and how they could raise money. The SBA required applicants to make this
certification in good faith and admonished applicants to consider “their ability to access other
sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not
significantly detrimental to the business.” The SBA even gave an example of a business that could
not make this certification: “it is unlikely that a public company with substantial market value and
access to capital markets will be able to make the required certification in good faith.” There is no
country club could certify in good faith that they do not have access to other sources of liquidity
to support their ongoing operations. While Defendants were not public companies, they still had
substantial value of their own and access not only to capital markets but also a more readily
available source of funds—the wealthy members and assets. For example, Hunters Run currently
has annual revenue of over $33 million per year. Hunters Run’s budget supported championship
golf courses, tennis courts, pools, a 145,000-square-foot clubhouse, and more, all valued at tens of
millions of dollars themselves. Hunters Run spent over $40 million in a 5-year period on non-
17
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 21 of 47
maintains millions of dollars in reserve funds, and Hunters Run charges new residents a non-
refundable initiation fee of $85,000. As another example, Bays Head is so exclusive that it reported
apparently 28 separate employees, even though it is a property owners’ association with only six
properties.
83. Unlike businesses (who rely on sales by voluntary consumers, or other voluntary
business) or even 501(c)(3) nonprofits (who rely on voluntary donations), housing associations,
condominium associations, and not-for-profit country clubs do not rely on such voluntary funding
subject to economic whims—instead, they rely on mandatory assessments and/or dues and fees
from their membership. Defendants’ members are particularly wealthy, often with net worth of
tens of millions of dollars, and it would not have been a hardship to raise their assessments and/or
dues and fees in order to continue operations even assuming the highly doubtful proposition that
84. Furthermore, these associations and country clubs are created as not-for-profits
under Florida law and given special authority and powers including the power to “make contracts
and guaranties, incur liabilities, borrow money at such rates of interest as the corporation may
determine, issue its notes, bonds, and other obligations, and secure its obligations by mortgage and
pledge of all or any of its property, franchises or income.” Fla. Stat. § 617.0302. Homeowners
associations and condominium associations have the additional powers to assess a sum of money
which if not paid by the owner of a parcel, can result in a lien against the parcel. See Fla. Stat.
720.301, 720.308, 718.116. These powers are further reason that Defendants’ false certifications
that they needed the PPP loans were thus in knowing or reckless ignorance of their true financial
situation.
18
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 22 of 47
85. The Defendants’ false certifications to the SBA and the lenders were material,
because the SBA and lenders were relying on the honesty of applicants to process PPP loans as
86. Moreover, most of the Defendants, building on this fraud, have already applied for
loan forgiveness from the United States and had their loans forgiven in full, thus directly depriving
the United States of the full amount of the loans and the interest accrued on the loans. The
forgiveness actually given (and forgiveness potential for entities that have not applied) is equal to
87. Some of the Defendants went even further and applied for a second loan, yet again
fraudulently and falsely claiming that they were eligible entities under the CARES Act, even
country clubs.
88. The damages suffered by the United States extended beyond the simple amount of
the loans. The damages also include the Government’s other incidental expenses supporting the
particular PPP loans. For example, Defendants induced the United States to pay fees to banks and
89. Each Defendant knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a
loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” They also falsely certified
that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing
operations of the Applicant.” Defendants each applied for and received loans in violation of the
# of Date
Loan(s) Loan Amount of Loan
Defendant Loans Loan(s)
Amount Forgiven? Forgiven
Rec’d Approved
19
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 23 of 47
21
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 25 of 47
90. Hunters Run applied for and received a PPP loan of $2,870,271, approved on April
29, 2020. In Hunters Run’s application, Hunters Run knowingly and falsely certified that it was
“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It
also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Hunters Run already applied for forgiveness for
its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $2,906,680 (including interest).
91. Boca West applied for and received a PPP loan of $745,500, approved on April 15,
2020. In Boca West’s application, Boca West knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible
to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely
certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the
92. Aberdeen Golf applied for and received a PPP loan of $1,308,433, approved on
April 13, 2020. In Aberdeen Golf’s application, Aberdeen Golf knowingly and falsely certified
that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is
submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Aberdeen Golf already applied for
forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $1,307,362
(including interest).
22
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 26 of 47
93. Anchorage Resort applied for and received a PPP loan of $104,120, approved on
April 28, 2020. Anchorage Resort applied for and was approved for a second PPP loan of
$104,120, approved on March 26, 2021. In Anchorage Resort’s applications, Anchorage Resort
knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at
the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic
uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.”
Anchorage Resort has applied for forgiveness for its first loan, and the United States forgave the
first loan in the amount of $105,129 (including interest). Anchorage Resort applied for forgiveness
for its second loan, and the United States forgave this second loan in the amount of $104,696
(including interest).
94. The Aragon applied for and received a PPP loan of $116,966, approved on April
30, 2020. In The Aragon’s application, The Aragon knowingly and falsely certified that it was
“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It
also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” The Aragon already applied for forgiveness for
its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $118,584 (including interest).
95. BAL Harbour applied for and received a PPP loan of $270,800, approved on April
15, 2020. In BAL Harbour’s application, BAL Harbour knowingly and falsely certified that it was
“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It
also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” BAL Harbour already applied for forgiveness
for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $272,284 (including interest).
23
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 27 of 47
96. Bay Head applied for and received a PPP loan of $287,500, approved on March 3,
2021. In Bay Head’s application, Bay Head knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to
receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely
certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the
97. Boca Pointe Country Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $927,800,
approved on April 14, 2020. In Boca Pointe Country Club’s application, Boca Pointe Country Club
knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at
the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic
uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.”
98. Bocaire applied for and received a PPP loan of $751,717, approved on April 9,
2020. In Bocaire’s application, Bocaire knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to
receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely
certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the
ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Bocaire already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the
United States forgave the loan in the amount of $758,942 (including interest).
99. Crossings HOA applied for and received a PPP loan of $178,200, approved on April
9, 2020. In Crossings HOA’s application, Crossings HOA knowingly and falsely certified that it
was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.”
It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Crossings HOA already applied for forgiveness
for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $179,523 (including interest).
24
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 28 of 47
100. Deering Bay applied for and received a PPP loan of $792,200, approved on April
10, 2020. In Deering Bay’s application, Deering Bay knowingly and falsely certified that it was
“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It
also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Deering Bay already applied for forgiveness for
its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $799,836 (including interest).
101. Doral Park applied for and received a PPP loan of $327,175, approved on April 14,
2020. Doral Park applied for and was approved for a second PPP loan of $305,360, approved on
April 3, 2021. In Doral Park’s applications, Doral Park knowingly and falsely certified that it was
“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It
also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Doral Park has applied for forgiveness for its
first loan, and the United States forgave the first loan in the amount of $330,956 (including
interest). Doral Park applied for forgiveness for its second loan, and the United States forgave this
102. Fortune House applied for and received a PPP loan of $259,400, approved on April
8, 2020. In Fortune House’s application, Fortune House knowingly and false certified that it was
“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It
also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Fortune House already applied for forgiveness
of its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $261,781 (including interest).
103. Frenchmans Creek applied for and received a PPP loan of $2,796,200, approved on
April 27, 2020. In Frenchmans Creek’s application, Frenchmans Creek knowingly and falsely
25
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 29 of 47
certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application
is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Frenchmans Creek already applied
for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $2,826,843
(including interest).
104. Frenchmans Reserve applied for and received a PPP loan of $1,375,333, approved
on May 1, 2020. In Frenchmans Reserve’s application, Frenchmans Reserve knowingly and falsely
certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application
is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Frenchmans Reserve already
applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of
105. Grand Condominium applied for and received a PPP loan of $283,683, approved
on April 12, 2020. In Grand Condominium’s application, Grand Condominium knowingly and
falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e]
application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this
loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Grand Condominium
already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount
106. Grand Harbor Golf applied for and received a PPP loan of $982,748, approved on
April 26, 2021. In Grand Harbor Golf’s application, Grand Harbor Golf knowingly and falsely
certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application
is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request
26
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 30 of 47
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Grand Harbor Golf already applied
for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $985,805
(including interest).
107. Hammocks Community applied for and received a PPP loan of $259,000, approved
on April 28, 2020. Hammocks Community applied for and was approved for a second PPP loan
Community knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules
in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic
uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.”
Hammocks Community has applied for forgiveness for its first loan, and the United States forgave
108. Lake Clarke Gardens applied for and received a PPP loan of $124,120, approved
on May 1, 2020. In Lake Clarke Gardens’s application, Lake Clarke Gardens knowingly and
falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e]
application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this
loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Lake Clarke Gardens
already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount
109. Leverett House applied for and received a PPP loan of $141,700, approved on April
30, 2020. In Leverett House’s application, Leverett House knowingly and falsely certified that it
was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.”
It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
27
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 31 of 47
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Leverett House already applied for forgiveness
for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $142,940 (including interest).
110. Loxahatchee Club HOA applied for and received a PPP loan of $228,047, approved
on April 28, 2020. In Loxahatchee Club HOA’s application, Loxahatchee Club HOA knowingly
and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e]
application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this
111. Loxahatchee Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $645,236, approved on
April 28, 2020. In Loxahatchee Club’s application, Loxahatchee Club knowingly and falsely
certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application
is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Loxahatchee Club already applied
for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $651,527
(including interest).
112. Mayacoo Lakes applied for and received a PPP loan of $386,615, approved on April
19, 2020. Mayacoo Lakes applied for and was approved for a second PPP loan of $386,615,
approved on January 22, 2021. In Mayacoo Lakes’s applications, Mayacoo Lakes knowingly and
falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e]
application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this
loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Mayacoo Lakes has
applied for forgiveness for its first loan, and the United States forgave the first loan in the amount
of $389,729 (including interest). Mayacoo Lakes applied for forgiveness for its second loan, and
the United States forgave this second loan in the amount of $388,839 (including interest).
28
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 32 of 47
113. Meadowood Golf applied for and received a PPP loan of $210,280, approved on
April 14, 2020. In Meadowood Golf’s application, Meadowood Golf knowingly and falsely
certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application
is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Meadowood Golf already applied
for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $211,769
(including interest).
114. Mimm applied for and received a PPP loan of $315,000, approved on April 6, 2020.
In Mimm’s application, Mimm knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a
loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that
“[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing
115. Mirasol Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $2,871,200, approved on April
9, 2020. In Mirasol Club’s application, Mirasol Club knowingly and falsely certified that it was
“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It
also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Mirasol Club already applied for forgiveness for
its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $2,904,219 (including interest).
116. Mizner Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $1,628,509, approved on April
15, 2020. In Mizner Club’s application, Mizner Club knowingly and falsely certified that it was
“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It
also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
29
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 33 of 47
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Mizner Club already applied for forgiveness for
its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $1,639,083 (including interest).
117. Ocean Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $1,067,500, approved on May
6, 2020. In Ocean Club’s application, Ocean Club knowingly and falsely certified that it was
“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It
also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Ocean Club already applied for forgiveness for
its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $1,075,862 (including interest).
118. Old Palm applied for and received a PPP loan of $1,035,500, approved on April 10,
2020. In Old Palm’s application, Old Palm knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to
receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely
certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the
ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Old Palm already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and
the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $1,043,784 (including interest).
119. Palm Beach Towers applied for and received a PPP loan of $519,200, approved on
April 15, 2020. In Palm Beach Towers’s application, Palm Beach Towers knowingly and falsely
certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application
is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Palm Beach Towers already applied
for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $523,211
(including interest).
120. Pine Island Ridge received a PPP loan of $532,995, approved on April 11, 2020. In
Pine Island Ridge’s application, Pine Island Ridge knowingly and falsely certified that it was
30
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 34 of 47
“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It
also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Pine Island Ridge already applied for
forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $535,740
(including interest).
121. Pinnacle Condominium applied for and received a PPP loan of $248,000, approved
and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e]
application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this
loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Pinnacle
Condominium already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan
122. Point of Aventura applied for and received a PPP loan of $516,724, approved on
April 28, 2020. In Point of Aventura’s application, Point of Aventura knowingly and falsely
certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application
is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request
123. Quail Ridge applied for and received a PPP loan of $1,444,970, approved on May
1, 2020. In Quail Ridge’s application, Quail Ridge knowingly and falsely certified that it was
“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It
also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Quail Ridge already applied for forgiveness for
its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $1,453,679 (including interest).
31
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 35 of 47
124. Royal Palm applied for and received a PPP loan of $283,370, approved on May 1,
2020. In Royal Palm’s application, Royal Palm knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible
to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely
certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the
ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Royal Palm already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and
the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $286,124 (including interest).
125. Tequesta Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $516,993, approved on April
13, 2020. In Tequesta Club’s application, Tequesta Club knowingly and falsely certified that it
was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.”
It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Tequesta Club already applied for forgiveness
for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $523,398 (including interest).
126. Township Association applied for and received a PPP loan of $269,277, approved
falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e]
application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this
loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Township Association
already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount
127. Turnberry Ocean Colony applied for and received a PPP loan of $764,800,
approved on April 13, 2020. In Turnberry Ocean Colony’s application, Turnberry Ocean Colony
knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at
the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic
32
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 36 of 47
uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.”
Turnberry Ocean Colony already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave
128. Turnberry Towers applied for and received a PPP loan of $275,156, approved on
April 27, 2020. In Turnberry Towers’s application, Turnberry Towers knowingly and falsely
certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application
is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Turnberry Towers already applied
for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $277,678
(including interest).
129. Williams Island applied for and received a PPP loan of $2,629,000, approved on
May 1, 2020. In Williams Island’s application, Williams Island knowingly and falsely certified
that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is
submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Williams Island already applied for
forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $2,658,099
(including interest).
130. Willoughby Golf applied for and received a PPP loan of $888,013, approved on
April 11, 2020. In Willoughby Golf’s application, Willoughby Golf knowingly and falsely
certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application
is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Willoughby Golf already applied
33
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 37 of 47
for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $896,795
(including interest).
131. Wycliffe Golf applied for and received a PPP loan of $2,138,600, approved on May
1, 2020. In Wycliffe Golf’s application, Wycliffe Golf knowingly and falsely certified that it was
“eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It
also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Wycliffe Golf already applied for forgiveness
for its loan, and the United States forgave the loan in the amount of $2,168,184 (including interest).
132. Yacht & Country Club applied for and received a PPP loan of $482,756, approved
on April 11, 2020. Yacht & Country Club applied for and was approved for a second PPP loan of
$484,788, approved on February 10, 2021. In Yacht & Country Club’s applications, Yacht &
Country Club knowingly and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules
in effect at the time th[e] application is submitted.” It also falsely certified that “[c]urrent economic
uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.”
Yacht & Country Club has applied for forgiveness for its first loan, and the United States forgave
the first loan in the amount of $485,465 (including interest). Yacht & Country Club applied for
forgiveness for its second loan, and the United States forgave this second loan in the amount of
States and the Relator arising from false or fraudulent statements, claims, and acts by Defendants
34
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 38 of 47
$22,331 for each such claim, plus three times the amount of damages sustained by the
against the Government to bring an action in federal district court for themselves and for the
35
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 39 of 47
137. Based on these provisions, Relator Riner, on behalf of the United States and on his
own behalf, seeks through this action to recover damages and civil penalties arising from
payment and approval directly to their lenders, deputized agents of the United States government,
which falsely stated that they were eligible entities for PPP loans and that they needed the loans in
order to support their ongoing operations. The falseness of these claims was exacerbated when
Defendants applied for forgiveness of their loans and falsely certified that they complied with all
of forgivable loans that, even if paid back, are also set at a below-market interest rate. These loans
were disbursed at the expense of countless United States businesses who qualified for PPP loans
but could not apply because Congress’s funding ran out. Additionally, the United States has paid
millions of dollars to lenders for the forgiven loans, which is now lost. Accordingly, the United
States has suffered actual damages and is entitled to recover treble damages plus a civil monetary
140. In 2020 and 2021, Defendants made, use, or caused to be made or used, false
records or statements material to false or fraudulent claims paid or approved by the Government.
141. Defendants knew that their applications falsely certified that they were entities
eligible to receive PPP loans and that they falsely certified that the PPP loans were necessary to
36
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 40 of 47
support ongoing operations. Beyond Defendants’ own direct claims, Defendants’ false statements
knowingly caused these false claims, which were material to the lenders’ eventual claims to the
of forgivable loans that their lenders’ then received millions of dollars in payments for
administering and reimbursing. The United States disbursed this money to the lenders at the
expense of countless United States businesses who qualified for PPP loans but could not apply
because Congress’s funding ran out. Additionally, the United States has paid millions of dollars to
lenders for the forgiven loans, which is now lost. Accordingly, the United States has suffered actual
damages and is entitled to recover treble damages plus a civil monetary penalty for each false
claim.
under subsection (a)(1)(B) subjects a defendant to liability if it is material. The False Claims Act
144. The United States set up a multi-part process of reliance on others in order to
expeditiously execute the PPP program and keep the economy on track despite the COVID-19
Pandemic. First, Congress and the SBA authorized certain lenders to issue PPP loans without the
Government’s prior review or express approval. Second, although lenders were delegated the
responsibility for determining borrower eligibility, the lenders were directed to use forms
eligibility.
37
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 41 of 47
145. The lenders—and thus by extension the United States Government—relied heavily
on these certifications. Indeed, when the PPP was originally funded with $349 Billion, those funds
were depleted less than three weeks after the CARES Act first passed. Lenders and the United
146. In particular, to process loans so quickly, lenders utilized an automated tool that
compared loan data against publicly available information and identified anomalies that may
indicate non-compliance purely based on this data. See SBA Procedural Notice, No. 5000-20092
(Feb. 10, 2021).1 This data was largely limited to information about the number of employees and
payroll size of applicant companies, which were key components to qualifications as well. The
automated tool’s focus on this data, however, meant that qualifications such as the fact that only
certain types of entities (“business interests” and certain specified other organizations) were less
noticeable and more tied to applicants’ certification that they qualified for the PPP loan in the first
instance.
147. The SBA sometimes conducted additional data analysis beyond the automated tool
in order to identify noncompliant applicants. But again, their data analysis was limited to the data
available and necessarily was unable to catch entities that applied for PPP loans but were not
“business interests” or other qualified organizations. Again, the SBA relied on the certifications of
148. By making false and fraudulent misrepresentations that they were qualified for PPP
loans and that they complied with all PPP requirements, the Defendants here took advantage of
1
Available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/Procedural%20Notice%205000-20092%20-
%20Revised%20PPP%20Procedures%20to%20Address%20Hold%20Codes-508.pdf.
38
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 42 of 47
the automated tool and data analyses used by lenders and the United States Government in order
notwithstanding their knowledge that they did not qualify due to their HOA and condominium-
association and not-for-profit country-club statuses, not only had the natural tendency to influence
the award and forgiveness of PPP loans but in fact did so. Defendants’ fraudulent and false
certifications specifically evaded the compliance measures used by the United States Government
and participating lenders. Had Defendants told the truth, and noted that they lacked qualification
(or even that their qualifications were questionable) due to their HOA or condominium-association
or not-for-profit country-club status, they would not have received PPP loans or forgiveness for
those loans.
150. In 2020 and 2021, Defendants knowingly presented or caused to be presented false
or fraudulent claims for payment or approval to the United States Government for PPP Loans and
claims when they applied for PPP loans and falsely and fraudulently stated that they were eligible
entities for PPP loans and that they needed the loans in order to support their ongoing operations,
even though they knew that they were ineligible and that they did not need the loans to support
39
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 43 of 47
152. The false PPP applications were “claims” under the FCA because they were
employee, or agent of the United States.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis added). Indeed,
they were requests for money submitted directly to financial institutions as agents of the United
States. Alternatively, the PPP applications were claims because the financial institutions were
“contractor[s], grantee[s], or other recipient[s]” of money who would be “reimburse[d] … for any
portion of the money or property which [wa]s requested or demanded.” Id. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii).
153. Defendants also submitted or caused submission of claims when they applied for
forgiveness of their PPP loans and falsely and fraudulently certified that they complied with all
the requirements of the PPP Rules, even though they knew they did not.
154. The applications for forgiveness were likewise additional claims, because they
further “request[ed] or demand[ed]” money or property from the United States, similar to the initial
155. The United States Government, unaware of the material falsity of the claims made
or caused to be made by Defendants, approved, paid, and participated in payments made by the
Government’s fiscal intermediaries for loans that were not allowed and in loan forgiveness that
156. By reason of these payments, approvals, and loan forgivenesses, the Government
has been damaged in an amount yet to be determined. Accordingly, the United States suffered
actual damages and is entitled to recover treble damages plus a civil monetary penalty for each
40
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 44 of 47
158. In 2020 and 2021, Defendants knowingly made, used, or caused to be made or used,
false records or statements material to false or fraudulent claims paid or approved by the
Government.
Defendants knew that these statements were false because Defendants knew that they were not
160. Defendants’ statements in their PPP applications that they that they needed the
loans in order to support their ongoing operations were false. Defendants knew that these
statements were false because they knew that they could continue their ongoing operations without
a PPP loan.
161. Defendants’ statements in their applications for forgiveness that they complied with
all the requirements of the PPP Rules were false. Defendants knew that these statements were false
because they were ineligible for PPP loans and that they did not need the loans in order to support
162. Defendants’ false statements herein were material to their claims false and
fraudulent claims for payment and approval that would be made to the United States Government
in conjunction with their statements. The statements also made the financial institutions’ claims
for payment and reimbursement of loan money false and were material to those false claims, as
well.
41
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 45 of 47
163. Defendants’ false statements were material because the Government’s lending
certifications in processing PPP loans as quickly as possible with the assistance of an automated
tool that itself would trust these certifications. Defendants’ false statements thus not only had the
natural tendency to influence the award and forgiveness of PPP loans but in fact did so.
164. The United States Government, unaware of the material falsity of the claims made
or caused to be made by Defendants due to these material statements, approved, paid, and
participated in payments and forgiveness for loans that were not allowed.
165. But for Defendants’ use of the materially false statements, the PPP loans would not
dollars through PPP loans to which they are not legitimately entitled. The ultimate submission to
the federal Government of claims for payment was a foreseeable consequence of this fraud. As a
result, the United States has suffered substantial damages and is entitled to recover treble damages
167. WHEREFORE, Riner respectfully requests the Court enter judgment against
a. damages in the amount of three times the actual damages suffered by the United
b. Civil penalties against Defendants up to the maximum allowed by law for each
42
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 46 of 47
d. All costs and expenses of the litigation, including attorneys’ fees and costs of
court; and
e. All other relief on behalf of Relator or the United States that the Court deems
168. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Relator demands a trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted,
Randall C. Owens
Pro hac vice pending
TX State Bar No. 15380700
Michael Adams-Hurta
Pro hac vice pending
TX State Bar No. 24097860
WRIGHT CLOSE & BARGER, LLP
One Riverway, Suite 2200
Houston, Texas 77056
Telephone: (713) 572-4321
Facsimile: (713) 572-4320
owens@wrightclosebarger.com
hurta@wrightclosebarger.com
Kevin P. Ackerman
Florida Bar No.: 115385
THE ACKERMAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
80 S.W. 8th St., Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 359-5228
Facsimile: (786) 271-2998
kevin@ackermanfirm.com
43
Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 47 of 47
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 14, 2022, a true and correct copy of this Original
Complaint was forwarded to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of
Florida and the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. via certified mail, return receipt
requested.
/s/ Michael Adams-Hurta
Michael Adams-Hurta
44