Skip to main content

United States Files Counterclaims and Crossclaims in Small Business Administration Loan Fraud Case

U.S. Alleges Bank Falsely Certified Individuals’ Financial Circumstances Resulting in $1.7 Million SBA Loan That Should Not Have Been Approved

WASHINGTON – The United States filed False Claims Act counterclaims against Saehan Bank and crossclaims against Steve Yong Kim and Young Soon Kim in the Northern District of Oklahoma, the Justice Department announced today. The United States also filed a counterclaim and crossclaim under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act. The government alleges that Saehan Bank and the Kims made false statements in connection with the application process for a Small Business Administration (SBA) loan.

The allegations relate to the SBA’s 504 loan program, which offers small businesses long-term, fixed-rate financing to acquire major fixed assets, such as buildings or machinery, for expansion or modernization. Before the 504 loan closing, the SBA requires certain certifications regarding the borrower’s financial condition and ability to repay the loan. The government alleges that Saehan Bank and the Kims falsely certified that the Kims had experienced no adverse change in their financial circumstances, even though the bank and the Kims knew that the Kims were facing serious financial difficulties. The SBA approved the Kims’ $1.7 million 504 loan, but the government alleges that the Kims never made any payments on the loan.

"The SBA offers valuable assistance to small businesses and contributes to our nation’s economic development, and its programs must not be abused," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. "The Justice Department will take action against those who betray the SBA’s trust and waste taxpayer dollars."

"Filing these claims sends a strong message that the government will not tolerate fraud, waste, or abuse of SBA programs," said SBA Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson.

The case is a collaborative effort among several federal agencies, including the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Oklahoma, and the SBA.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more