The Biden administration has made it clear that it will take action against scammers who have stolen billions in COVID relief funds. The administration directed federal agencies to step up their efforts to investigate and prosecute fraud.
Book a Consultation CallThe Biden administration has made it clear that it will take action against scammers who have stolen billions in COVID relief funds. The administration has directed federal agencies to step up their efforts to investigate and prosecute fraud related to pandemic relief programs.
The relief programs were established to provide financial support to individuals and businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, scammers have taken advantage of these programs and have stolen billions of dollars.
The Biden administration has taken several steps to combat this fraud. It has created a COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to coordinate investigations and prosecutions across multiple agencies. The task force is also working to increase public awareness of COVID-19 fraud and how to report it.
In addition, the administration has directed federal agencies to take a more proactive approach to preventing fraud. This includes improving fraud detection systems and sharing data across agencies to identify fraudulent activity.
The Biden administration has also made it clear that it will hold those who engage in COVID-19 fraud accountable. The Department of Justice has already brought several cases against individuals and companies that have defrauded the relief programs.
There have been various estimates of the amount of fraud that has occurred in COVID-19 relief programs. According to a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released in November 2020, the federal government had distributed more than $2.6 trillion in pandemic relief funds as of September 2020, and the GAO estimated that improper payments, including fraud, could range from $2 billion to $4 billion.
However, more recent estimates suggest that the amount of fraud could be higher. According to a report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (SIGPR) released in January 2021, there were "significant levels of fraud" in the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, with estimated losses of $4.6 billion to $5.4 billion. More recent estimates put the number at $60 billion.
In February 2021, the Department of Justice announced that it had charged more than 150 individuals with COVID-19 related fraud, including schemes related to PPP and EIDL. The DOJ also announced that it had recovered more than $580 million in COVID-19 related fraud cases.
So while it's difficult to estimate the exact amount of fraud that has occurred in COVID-19 relief programs, it's clear that it has been a significant problem.
If you have a EIDL loan issue of more that $30,000, contact our law firm to reserve a consultation time.
Millions of Dollars in SBA Debts Resolved via Offer in Compromise and Negotiated Repayment Agreements without our Clients filing for Bankruptcy or Facing Home Foreclosure
Millions of Dollars in Treasury Debts Defended Against via AWG Hearings, Treasury Offset Program Resolution, Cross-servicing Disputes, Private Collection Agency Representation, Compromise Offers and Negotiated Repayment Agreements
Our Attorneys are Authorized by the Agency Practice Act to Represent Federal Debtors Nationwide before the SBA, The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Treasury Department, and the Bureau of Fiscal Service.
Clients executed personal and corporate guarantees for an SBA 7(a) loan from a Preferred Lender Provider (PLP). The borrower corporation defaulted on the loan exposing all collateral pledged by the Clients. The SBA subsequently acquired the loan balance from the PLP, including the right to collect against all guarantors. The SBA sent the Official Pre-Referral Notice to the guarantors giving them sixty (60) days to either pay the outstanding balance in full, negotiate a Repayment (Offer in Compromise (OIC) or Structured Workout (SW)), challenge their alleged guarantor liability or file a Request for Hearing (Appeals Petition) with the SBA Office of Hearings & Appeals.
Because the Clients were not financially eligible for an OIC, they opted for Structured Workout negotiations directly with the SBA before the debt was transferred to the Bureau of Fiscal Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Treasury for enforced collection.
The Firm was hired to negotiate a global Workout Agreement directly with the SBA to resolve the personal and corporate guarantees. After submitting the Structured Workout proposal, the assigned SBA Loan Specialist approved the requested terms in under ten (10) days without any lengthy back and forth negotiations.
The favorable terms of the Workout included an extended maturity at an affordable principal amount, along with a significantly reduced interest rate saving the Clients approximately $181,000 in administrative fees, penalties and interest (contract interest rate and Current Value of Funds Rate (CVFR)) as authorized by 31 U.S.C. § 3717(e) had the SBA loan been transferred to BFS.
Client's small business obtained an SBA COVID EIDL for $301,000 pledging collateral by executing the Note, Unconditional Guarantee and Security Agreement. The business defaulted on the loan and the SBA CESC called the Note and Guarantee, accelerated the principal balance due, accrued interest and retracted the 30-year term schedule.
The loan was transferred to the Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service which resulted in the statutory addition of $90,000+ in administrative fees, costs, penalties and interest with the total debt now at $391.000+. Treasury also initiated a Treasury Offset Program (TOP) levy against the client's federal contractor payments for the full amount each month - intercepting all of its revenue and pushing the business to the brink of bankruptcy.
The Firm was hired to investigate and find an alternate solution to the bankruptcy option. After submitting formal production requests for all government records, it was discovered that the SBA failed to send the required Official 60-Day Pre-Referral Notice to the borrower and guarantor prior to referring the debt to Treasury. This procedural due process violation served as the basis to submit a Cross-Servicing Dispute to recall the debt from Treasury back to the SBA and to negotiate a reinstatement of the original 30-year maturity date, a modified workout, cessation of the TOP levy against the federal contractor payments and removal of the $90,000+ Treasury-based collection fees, interest and penalties.
Client personally guaranteed an SBA 7(a) loan for $100,000 from the lender. The SBA loan went into early default in 2006 less than 12 months from disbursement. The SBA paid the 7(a) guaranty monies to the lender and subsequently acquired the deficiency balance of about $96,000, including the right to collect against the guarantor. However, the SBA sent the Official 60-Day Due Process Notice to the Client's defunct business address instead of his personal residence, which he never received. As a result, the debt was transferred to Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service where substantial collection fees were assessed, including accrued interest per the promissory note. Treasury eventually referred the debt to a Private Collection Agency (PCA) - Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. Pioneer sent a demand letter claiming a debt balance of almost $310,000 - a shocking 223% increase from the original loan amount assigned to the SBA. Client's social security disability benefits were seized through the Treasury Offset Program (TOP). Client hired the Firm to represent him as the debt continued to snowball despite seizure of his social security benefits and federal tax refunds as the involuntary payments were first applied to Treasury's collection fees, then to accrued interest with minimal allocation to the SBA principal balance.
We initially submitted a Cross-Servicing Dispute (CSD) challenging the referral of the debt to Treasury based on the defective notice sent to the defunct business address. Despite overwhelming evidence proving a violation of the Client's Due Process rights, the SBA still rejected the CSD. As a result, an Appeals Petition was filed with the SBA Office of Hearings & Appeals (OHA) Court challenging the SBA decision and its certification the debt was legally enforceable in the amount claimed. After several months of litigation before the SBA OHA Court, our Firm Attorney successfully negotiated an Offer in Compromise (OIC) Term Workout with the SBA Supervising Trial Attorney for $82,000 spread over a term of 74 months at a significantly reduced interest rate saving the Client an estimated $241,000 in Treasury collection fees, accrued interest (contract interest rate and Current Value of Funds Rate (CVFR)), and the PCA contingency fee.
.jpg)
