Justice & Public Finance
Federal Indictment Alleges $18 Million Pandemic-Relief Loan Scheme
A Los Angeles woman faces wire-fraud and money-laundering charges over applications to two emergency business-loan programs.
Four federal counts
A federal grand jury in the Central District of California indicted Marisela Nuno, 53, on three counts of wire fraud and one count of money laundering. The Justice Department announced the case on November 4 and said the indictment was returned a day earlier. An indictment is an accusation, and Nuno is presumed innocent unless guilt is established in court.
The applications at issue
Prosecutors allege that applications submitted for businesses and entities Nuno purportedly owned sought more than $15.7 million through the Paycheck Protection Program and more than $2.6 million through the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program. The applications allegedly misstated employee counts, payroll, revenue and eligibility and included false supporting tax documents.
Alleged use of proceeds
The indictment further alleges that loan funds were used for purposes outside program rules, including private property, business startup costs and payments to family members. Those allegations will have to be proved under the rules of evidence. A charging release provides the government's account but does not contain a defense response or a judicial finding.
Potential penalties are not a sentence
Each wire-fraud count carries a statutory maximum of 20 years, and the money-laundering count carries a maximum of 10 years, according to the department. Maximum penalties do not predict an actual sentence. Any sentence would follow a conviction or plea and would depend on statutes, advisory guidelines, findings and the judge's consideration of the record.
The public-program context
PPP and EIDL moved emergency funds rapidly during the pandemic, creating a large record of applications, lender reviews and later audits. The FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation and the Small Business Administration inspector general investigated this case. Future docket filings will provide the best evidence of how the allegations are contested and resolved.
Primary evidence
Reporting note: This independently composed article is based on the linked primary records. Publication and event dates are stated separately. Agency claims are identified as such; an allegation, charge or scheduled event is not presented as a finding, conviction or completed event. Readers should consult the official record for amendments and later action.