How To Avoid Federal Criminal and Civil Penalties in Connection With Applications for PPP Loans
Notwithstanding the benefits of the PPP, small businesses and self-employed taxpayers should be aware that applying for a PPP loan may involve federal criminal and civil risk. Federal prosecutors are getting primed for these cases.
April 27, 2020 at 10:15 AM
6 minute read
The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is a forgivable loan program created by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The purpose of the PPP, which has a $349 billion limit, is to help eligible borrowers affected by the coronavirus pandemic keep their employees on the payroll. Under the PPP, small businesses and self-employed taxpayers may fill out an application to obtain forgivable loans to cover payroll and other eligible expenses such as rent and utilities. Applicants must provide information such as all owners of 20% or more of the equity of their company, payroll costs, and number of employees to obtain a loan. Notwithstanding the benefits of the PPP, small businesses and self-employed taxpayers should be aware that applying for a PPP loan may involve federal criminal and civil risk. Federal prosecutors are getting primed for these cases: On March 19, 2020, the Department of Justice ordered every U.S. Attorney's Office to appoint a Coronavirus Fraud Coordinator.
False statements or other fraudulent conduct in connection with a PPP loan may subject a violator to significant federal criminal liability in a number of ways. The PPP itself specifies that applicants must certify the application and indicates applicants may be penalized for "knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA," and knowingly using the funds for unauthorized purposes. PPP, Borrower Application Form at 2. The application states that knowingly making a false statement is punishable by a maximum of (1) five years' imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine under 18 U.S.C. §1001 (making false statements) and 18 U.S.C. §3571 (sentence of fine); (2) two years' imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine under 15 U.S.C. §645 (false statements to SBA); and (3) 30 years' imprisonment and/or a $1,000,000 fine, if submitted to a federally insured institution, i.e., virtually any bank, under 18 U.S.C. §1014 (false statements to banks with respect to loans). False statements in a PPP application may also subject violators to up to 20 years' imprisonment and a $250,000 fine for wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343) and mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341), and up to 30 years' imprisonment and a $250,000 fine for bank fraud (18 U.S.C. §1344), among other things. It is thus crucial for small businesses and self-employed taxpayers alike to be aware of and understand the numerous potential legal pitfalls during the application process.
One such pitfall relates to representations concerning company ownership; applicants should be particularly cautious when making these representations. For example, the PPP loan application requires that the applicant disclose the identity of each 20% or more equity owner of the company. And, the SBA maintains an enumerated list of entities that are presumptively excluded from applying for a loan under 13 C.F.R. §120.110, including if the business is located in a foreign country. In addition to properly identifying the company owners, applicants must answer questions regarding the owners' past and current involvement with the criminal justice system. If certain criminal history is present, the applicant is not eligible for a PPP loan.
Applicants must therefore conduct relatively deep due diligence on their owners to avoid running afoul of the eligibility criteria—and to be able, at the very least, to fall back on a defense of good faith if the application nevertheless contains errors.
Another pitfall relates to the size qualifications for applicants. The SBA has clarified as recently as its April 15, 2020 FAQ that a "small business concern" is not solely restricted to those enterprises with 500 or fewer employees but that PPP applicants must qualify as eligible under §3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §632. See PPP Loans, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) (last visited April 21, 2020). Specifically, applicants should be cautious when calculating their number of employees and certifying that they are (1) an independent contractor, eligible self-employed individual, or sole proprietor, or (2) employ no more than the greater of 500 or more employees or, if applicable, the size standard in number of employees established by the SBA for the applicant's industry. Applicants should pay careful attention to this requirement to avoid fraud liability. For example, employees of all affiliates must be included when determining the size of a business. (The affiliation rules are waived for: (1) businesses within North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 72 (e.g., hotels and restaurants with 500 or fewer employees); (2) franchises with codes assigned by the SBA; and (3) businesses that receive financial assistance from small business investment companies (SBICs).) Also, the total employee calculation is the average number of people employed for each pay period over the last year; an employee must be included regardless of the number of hours worked or temporary status.
To be sure, the riskiest section of the PPP application is that applicants must certify that the "current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations." Borrower Application Form at 2. However, the SBA does not define the nature or extent of the required impact to operations that would make the loan request "necessary to support the ongoing operations." Id. (emphasis added). And, while the SBA's most-recent FAQ, mentioned earlier, provides some guidance, applicants should conduct a thorough analysis of their present financial condition before submitting an application. Because of the significant responsibility undertaken in certifying a company's financial need, it is a best practice for businesses to submit the financials and application to the board of directors for review and approval. Doing so ensures that the signatory has the full support of the company and helps to substantiate the appropriate good-faith request.
In addition to ensuring that their applications do not expose them to federal criminal and civil penalties, public companies should disclose to shareholders whether the companies applied for a PPP loan and/or received a PPP loan. The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Jay Clayton, recently stated that he encourages companies to "disclose where they stand" in order to limit speculation about companies' need for capital and their earnings power. Dave Michaels, SEC's Clayton Says Companies Should Disclose Need for Bailout Funds, The Wall Street Journal (April 7, 2020). In line with that recommendation, companies have been filing Form 8-Ks disclosing that they have entered into PPP loan agreements. Relatedly, investment advisers to private equity funds should consider disclosing to their fund investors if portfolio companies have received PPP loans.
Rachel Maimin, H. Greg Baker and Jamie Gottlieb Furia are partners at Lowenstein Sandler. Kathleen McGee, counsel, and Camila Garces, an associate, assisted in the preparation of this article. All are members of the firm's white-collar criminal defense practice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'You Became a Corrupt Politician': Judge Gives Prison Time to Former Sen. Robert Menendez for Corruption Conviction
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Public Notices/Calendars
- 2Wednesday Newspaper
- 3Decision of the Day: Qui Tam Relators Do Not Plausibly Claim Firm Avoided Tax Obligations Through Visa Applications, Circuit Finds
- 4Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-116
- 5Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250