Riner Complaint

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 1 of 47
KP
Oct 14, 2022

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami
[UNDER SEAL], § ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

§ FOR VIOLATIONS OF
Plaintiff, §
FEDERAL FALSE
§
§ CLAIMS ACT
§
§ FILED UNDER SEAL
v. § PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C.
§ § 3730 (b)(2)
§
§
§ DO NOT PUT ON PACER
§
§ DO NOT PLACE IN PRESS
[UNDER SEAL], § BOX
§
Defendants. §
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § CIVIL NO. _____________

ex. rel. WADE RINER §
§
§
Plaintiff, § RELATOR WADE
§ RINER’S ORIGINAL
§ COMPLAINT
§
v. §
§
§
§ FILED UNDER SEAL
§ PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C.
HUNTERS RUN PROPERTY § § 3730 (b)(2)
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., §
ET AL. §
§
§
Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
RELATOR WADE RINER’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Page)
I. Introduction: Covid-19, PPP, and the Opportunists ............................................................................. 1

II. Parties ................................................................................................................................................... 3
III. Responeat Superior and Vicarious Liability ...................................................................................... 8
IV. Jurisdiction and Venue ...................................................................................................................... 8
V. Original Source and Disclosures ............................................................................................................ 9
VI. The Paycheck Protection Program .................................................................................................... 9
VII. Defendants’ Fraud........................................................................................................................... 16
VIII. Actionable Conduct by Defendants ................................................................................................ 34
A. False Claims Act............................................................................................................................... 34
B. Defendants’ Violations of the False Claims Act .............................................................................. 36
i. Presentation of False or Fraudulent Claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)) ............................. 36
ii. Making or Using—or causing to be made or used—False Records or Statements Material
to False or Fraudulent Claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B)) .......................................................... 36
C. Defendants’ Violations of the False Claims Act are Material.......................................................... 37
IX. Causes of Action .............................................................................................................................. 39
A. Count I – Presentation of False or Fraudulent Claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)) ......................... 39
B. Count II – Presentation of False or Fraudulent Claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)) ........................ 41
X. Prayer for Relief .................................................................................................................................. 42
XI. Demand for Jury Trial ...................................................................................................................... 43
ii
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.
Relator respectfully shows the following:
I. INTRODUCTION: COVID-19, PPP, AND THE OPPORTUNISTS
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
eligible to receive a PPP loan.
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
expenses, rent, mortgage, interest, or utilities during a covered period.
1
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.
4. Numerous trade groups and similar associations lobbied Congress to be added as
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
loans. Condominium associations, homeowners associations, and other community associations
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
homeowners association or condominium association might be eligible).
6. Despite the industry’s recognition that Congress had not allowed their participation
in the Paycheck Protection Program, numerous community associations, particularly
condominium associations, homeowners associations, and other not-for-profit organizations,
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
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.
7. In total, the Defendant not-for-profit condominium associations and not-for-profit
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
9. Plaintiff/Relator Wade Riner is a regular homeowner and investor. A corporation
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
2021. Through his membership in these homeowners associations—both defendants here—he
3
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 organization of these particular homeowners associations as well as homeowners associations
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
subtle differences in the Defendants’ governing documents, Defendants can generally be
categorized in one of three ways: as a not-for-profit homeowners association, a not-for-profit
condominium association, or a not-for-profit country club.
11. Hunters Run Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Hunters Run”) is a not-for-profit
homeowners association located at 3500 Clubhouse Lane, Boynton Beach, FL.
12. Boca West Master Association, Inc. (“Boca West”) is a not-for-profit homeowners
association located at 20540 Country Club Blvd., Boca Raton, FL.
13. Aberdeen Golf & Country Club, Inc. (“Aberdeen Golf”) is a not-for-profit country
club located at 8251 Aberdeen Dr., Boynton Beach, FL.
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
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.
19. Bocaire Country Club, Inc. (“Bocaire”) is a not-for-profit homeowners association
located at 4989 Bocaire Blvd., Boca Raton, FL.
20. The Crossings HOA, Inc. (“Crossings HOA”) is a not-for-profit homeowners
association located at 11578 SW 132 Ave., Miami, 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
homeowners association located at 5001 NW 104 Ave., Miami, FL.
23. Fortune House Condominium Association, Inc. (“Fortune House”) is a not-for-
profit condominium association located at 185 SE 14th Terrace, Miami, FL.
24. Frenchmans Creek, Inc. (“Frenchmans Creek”) is a not-for-profit homeowners
association located at 13495 Tournament Drive, Palm Beach Gardens, FL.
25. Frenchmans Reserve Country Club (“Frenchmans Reserve”) is a not-for-profit
country club located at 3370 Grande Corniche, Palm Beach Gardens, FLS.
5
26. The Grand Condominium Association, Inc. (“Grand Condominium”) is a not-for-
profit condominium association located at 1717 N. Bayshore Drive, Miami, FL.
27. Grand Harbor Golf & Beach Club, Inc. (“Grand Harbor Golf”) is a not-for-profit
country club located at 4785 Club Drive, Vero Beach, FL.
28. Hammocks Community Association, Inc. (“Hammocks Community”) is a not-for-
profit homeowners association located at 9020 Hammocks Blvd., Miami, FL.
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.
30. Leverett House Condominium Association, Inc. (“Leverett House”) is a not-for-
profit condominium association located at 120 Sunset Avenue, Palm Beach, FL.
31. The Loxahatchee Club Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Loxahatchee Club HOA”)
is a not-for-profit homeowners association located at 1350 Echo Dr., Jupiter, FL.
32. The Loxahatchee Club, Inc. (“Loxahatchee Club”) is a not-for-profit homeowners
association located at 1350 Echo Dr., Jupiter, FL.
33. Mayacoo Lakes II Club, Inc. (“Mayacoo Lakes”) is a not-for-profit country club
located at 9697 Mayacoo Club Dr., West Palm Beach, FL.
34. Meadowood Golf & Tennis Club, Inc. (“Meadowood Golf”) is a not-for-profit
country club located at 9425 Meadowood Dr., Fort Pierce, FL.
35. Mimm Condominium Association (“Mimm”) is a not-for-profit condominium
association located at 777 NW 72 Ave., Miami, FL.
36. Mirasol Club & Association, Inc. (“Mirasol Club”) is a not-for-profit homeowners
association located at 11600 Mirasol Blvd., Palm Beach Gardens, FL.
6
37. Mizner Country Club, Inc. (“Mizner Club”) is a not-for-profit country club located
at 16104 Mizner Club Dr., Delray Beach, FL.
38. Ocean Club Community Association, Inc. (“Ocean Club”) is a not-for-profit
homeowners association located at 753 Crandon Blvd., Key Biscayne, FL.
39. Old Palm Golf Club, Inc. (“Old Palm”) is a not-for-profit country club located at
11889 Old Palm Dr., Palm Beach Gardens, FL.
40. Palm Beach Towers Condominium Association, Inc. (“Palm Beach Towers”) is a
not-for-profit condominium association located at 44 Cocoanut Row, Palm Beach, FL.
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.
42. The Pinnacle Condominium Association, Inc. (“Pinnacle Condominium”) is a not-
for-profit condominium association located at 17555 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, FL.
43. The Point of Aventura Maintenance Association (“Point of Aventura”) is a not-for-
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 located at 3715 Golf Rd., Boynton Beach, FL.
45. Royal Palm Improvement Association, Inc. (“Royal Palm”) 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
at 201 Country Club Dr., Tequesta, FL.
47. The Township Community Master Association, Inc. (“Township Association”) is a
not-for-profit homeowners association located at 2424 Lyons Road, Coconut Creek, FL.
7
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.
49. Turnberry Towers Condominium Association, Inc. (“Turnberry Towers”) is a not-
for-profit condominium association located at 19355 Turnberry Way, Miami, FL.
50. Williams Island Property Owners Association, Inc. (“Williams Island”) is a not-
for-profit homeowners association located at 5300 Island Boulevard, Aventura, FL.
51. Willoughby Golf Club, Inc. (“Willoughby Golf”) is a not-for-profit homeowners
association located at 3001 SE Doubleton Drive, Stuart, FL.
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
country club located at 38836 SE Fairway East, Stuart, FL.
III. RESPONEAT SUPERIOR AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY
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.
IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
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
can be found in this district.
56. Additionally, Defendants’ false claims relate directly to their status as not-for-profit
homeowner association, condominium associations, or country clubs—not “business interests” or
8
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.
v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 884 (2011).
V. ORIGINAL SOURCE AND DISCLOSURES
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
Pre-Filing Disclosure Statement.
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
and serving this Original Complaint.
VI. THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM
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
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
SBA 100% guaranteed these loans.
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
business operating for profit.
65. Pursuant to the CARES Act, PPP loans were originally available only to a “business
concern, nonprofit organization, veterans organization,[] Tribal business,” or sole proprietorship
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
tax exempt. Id. § 1102(a)(2)(36)(A)(viii).
10
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)
required applicants to certify as follows:
68. The PPP applications also required applicants to certify that the loan request is
necessary to support their ongoing operations. As SBA Form 2483 required:
11
69. Recognizing that some applicants might be confused by this economic-uncertainty
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
not significantly detrimental to the business.”
70. PPP applications additionally required applicants’ authorized representatives to
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
SBA Form 2483:
12
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
homeowner associations, condominium associations, or other not-for-profit organizations. See
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
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
for which a homeowners association or condominium association might be eligible. Thus,
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:
Entity Type Eligibility Status & History

Always eligible
501(c)(3) nonprofits
(CARES Act)
Eligible on or after Dec. 27, 2020
Cooperative Associations
(Economic Aid Act)
Eligible on or after Mar. 11, 2021
501(c)(7) nonprofits
(American Rescue Plan)
501(c)(4) nonprofits Never eligible

Not-for-profit homeowners associations Never eligible
Not-for-profit condominium associations Never eligible
Not-for-profit country clubs Never eligible
14
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:
78. Additionally, second-draw PPP applications continued to require another
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
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
and abuse of taxpayer funds.”
VII. DEFENDANTS’ FRAUD
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
amendments to allow housing cooperatives to apply. Additionally, “non-profit businesses” were
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
circumstance under which a homeowners’ association, condominium association, or not-for-profit
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
maintenance improvements to their recreational facilities. Hunters Run also continuously
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
the pandemic represented a hardship on these defendants.
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
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
quickly as possible in order to get relief to American businesses as Congress intended.
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
hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars per Defendant.
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
though they are just homeowners associations, condominium associations, or not-for-profit
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
other financial institutions in order to execute these fraudulent loans.
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
FCA as summarized in the following table:
# of Date
Loan(s) Loan Amount of Loan
Defendant Loans Loan(s)
Amount Forgiven? Forgiven
Rec’d Approved
19
Hunters Run Property Owners

Association, Inc 1 $2,870,271 04/29/20 Yes $2,906,680
(www.huntersrun.net)
Boca West Master Association, Inc
(www.bocawestmaster.com)
1 $745,500 04/15/20 Unknown Unknown
Aberdeen Golf & Country Club
Inc 1 $1,308,433 4/13/2020 Yes $1,307,362
(https://aberdeencountryclub.com)
Anchorage Resort and Yacht Club $104,120 04/28/20 Yes $105,129
2
Condominium Association Inc $104,120 03/26/21 Yes $104,696
The Aragon Condominium
Association Of Boca Raton, Inc
1 $116,966 04/30/20 Yes $118,584
BAL Harbour 101 Condominium
Association, Inc
1 $270,800 04/15/20 Yes $272,284
Bay Head at Jonathan’s Landing
Homeowners Association Inc
1 $287,500 3/13/2021 Unknown Unknown
Boca Pointe Country Club, Inc 1 $927,800 4/14/2020 Unknown Unknown
Bocaire Country Club, Inc
(www.bocairecc.com)
1 $751,717 4/9/2020 Yes $758,942
The Crossings HOA Inc 1 $178,200 04/09/20 Yes $179,523
Deering Bay Yacht and Country
Club 1 $792,200 4/10/2020 Yes $799,836
(https://www.dbycc.com)
Doral Park Country Club
$327,175 04/14/20 Yes $330,956
Association 2
$305,360 04/03/21 Yes $307,498
(www.doralparkcc.com)
Fortune House Condominium
Association, Inc.
1 $259,400 04/08/20 Yes $261,781
Frenchmans Creek Inc
(www.frenchmanscreek.com)
1 $2,796,200 4/27/2020 Yes $2,826,843
Frenchmans Reserve Country Club
(www.frenchmansreservecc.com)
1 $1,375,333 5/1/2020 Yes $1,392,214
The Grand Condominium
Association, Inc
1 $283,683 04/12/20 Yes $286,827
Grand Harbor Golf & Beach Club,
Inc 1 $982,748 4/26/2021 Yes $985,805
(https://grandharbor.com)
Hammocks Community $259,000 04/28/20 Yes $260,973
2
Association Inc $191,500 03/12/21 Unknown Unknown
Lake Clarke Gardens
Condominium, Inc
1 $124,120 05/01/20 Yes $124,848
Leverett House Condominium
Association, Inc
1 $141,700 04/30/20 Yes $142,940
The Loxahatchee Club 1 $228,047 04/28/20 Unknown Unknown
20
Homeowners Association, Inc

The Loxahatchee Club, Inc
(www.loxahatcheeclub.org)
1 $645,236 04/28/20 Yes $651,527
$386,615 4/19/2020 Yes $389,729
Mayacoo Lakes II Club Inc 2
$386,615 1/22/2021 Yes $388,839
Meadowood Golf & Tennis Club
Inc
1 $210,280 4/14/2020 Yes $211,769
Mimm Condomium Association,
Inc.
1 $315,000 04/06/20 Unknown Unknown
Mirasol Club & Association Inc
(www.mirasolcc.com)
1 $2,871,200 04/09/20 Yes $2,904,219
Mizner Country Club Inc
(www.miznercc.com)
1 $1,628,509 4/15/2020 Yes $1,639,083
Ocean Club Community
(www.oceanclubkeybiscayne.org)
Old Palm Golf Club, Inc
(www.oldpalmgolfclub.com)
1 $1,035,500 4/10/2020 Yes $1,043,784
Palm Beach Towers Condominium
Association, Inc 1 $519,200 04/15/20 Yes $523,211
(www.pbtowers.net)
Pine Island Ridge Country Club
Inc
1 $532,995 4/11/2020 Yes $535,740
The Pinnacle Condominium
Association, Inc
1 $248,000 04/30/20 Yes $249,860
The Point of Aventura
Maintenance Association 1 $516,724 04/28/20 Unknown Unknown
(www.pointofaventuracondos.com)
Quail Ridge Property Owners
Association Inc 1 $1,444,970 05/01/20 Yes $1,453,679
(www.quailridgecc.com)
Royal Palm Improvement
Association, Inc (www.rpia.info)
1 $283,370 05/01/20 Yes $286,124
Tequesta Country Club 1 $516,993 4/13/2020 Yes $523,398
The Township Community Master
Association, Inc
1 $269,277 5/2/2020 Yes $272,951
Turnberry Ocean Colony Master
Association, Inc 1 $764,800 4/13/2020 Yes $770,515
(www.turnberryyo.com)
Turnberry Towers Condominium
Association, Inc.
1 $275,156 04/27/20 Yes $277,678
Williams Island Property Owners
(www.williamsislandclub.com)
21
Willoughby Golf Club, Inc 1 $888,013 4/11/2020 Yes $896,795

Wycliffe Golf and Country Club
HOA (www.wycliffecc.com)
1 $2,138,600 05/01/20 Yes $2,168,184
The Yacht & Country Club Inc $482,756 4/11/2020 Yes $485,465
2
(https://www.yccstuart.org) $484,788 2/10/2021 Yes $488,020
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
ongoing operations of the Applicant.”
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
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
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
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
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
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
ongoing operations of the Applicant.”
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
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
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
24
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
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
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
second loan in the amount of $307,498 (including interest).
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
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
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
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
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
$1,392,214 (including interest).
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
of $286,683 (including interest).
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
26
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
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
of $191,500, approved on March 12, 2021. In Hammocks Community’s applications, Hammocks
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
Hammocks Community has applied for forgiveness for its first loan, and the United States forgave
the first loan in the amount of $260,973 (including interest).
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
loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Lake Clarke Gardens
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
27
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Leverett House already applied for forgiveness
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]
loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.”
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
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Loxahatchee Club already applied
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
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
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
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Meadowood Golf already applied
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
operations of the Applicant.”
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
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Mirasol Club already applied for forgiveness for
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
29
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Mizner Club already applied for forgiveness for
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
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Ocean Club already applied for forgiveness for
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
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
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Palm Beach Towers already applied
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
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
121. Pinnacle Condominium applied for and received a PPP loan of $248,000, approved
on April 30, 2020. In Pinnacle Condominium’s application, Pinnacle Condominium knowingly
and falsely certified that it was “eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time th[e]
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
in the amount of $249,860 (including interest).
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
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.”
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
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Quail Ridge already applied for forgiveness for
31
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
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
support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Tequesta Club already applied for forgiveness
126. Township Association applied for and received a PPP loan of $269,277, approved
on May 2, 2020. In Township Association’s application, Township Association knowingly and
loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Township Association
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
32
Turnberry Ocean Colony already applied for forgiveness for its loan, and the United States forgave
the loan in the amount of $770,515 (including interest).
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
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Turnberry Towers already applied
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
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
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Willoughby Golf already applied
33
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
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
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
$488,020 (including interest).
VIII. ACTIONABLE CONDUCT BY DEFENDANTS
A. FALSE CLAIMS ACT

133. This is an action to recover damages and civil penalties on behalf of the United
States and the Relator arising from false or fraudulent statements, claims, and acts by Defendants
made in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–32.
34
134. The FCA provides that any person who:
(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false claim or

fraudulent claim for approval; [or]
(B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or
statement material to a false or fraudulent claim;
…
is liable to the Government for a civil penalty not less than $11,665 and not more than
$22,331 for each such claim, plus three times the amount of damages sustained by the
Government because of the false or fraudulent claim. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1).
135. The FCA defines “claim” as:
(A) [] any request or demand, whether under a contract or otherwise, for

money or property and whether or not the United States has title to the
money or property, that—
(i) is presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the United States;
or
(ii) is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the money
or property is to be spent or used on the Government’s behalf or to
advance a Government program or interest, and if the United States
Government—
(31) provides or has provided any portion of the money or
property requested or demanded; or
(II) will reimburse such contractor, grantee, or other
recipient for any portion of the money or property which is
requested or demanded. …
31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2).
136. The FCA allows any persons having knowledge of a false or fraudulent claim
against the Government to bring an action in federal district court for themselves and for the
Government and to share in any recovery as authorized by 31 U.S.C. § 3730.
35
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
Defendants’ violations of the False Claims Act.
B. DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT
i. PRESENTATION OF FALSE OR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (31 U.S.C. § 3729(A)(1)(A))

138. In 2020 and 2021, Defendants knowingly presented false and fraudulent claims for
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
the requirements of the PPP Rules.
139. Due to Defendants’ actions, Defendants collectively borrowed millions of dollars
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
penalty for each false claim.
ii. MAKING OR USING—OR CAUSING TO BE MADE OR USED—FALSE RECORDS OR

STATEMENTS MATERIAL TO FALSE OR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (31 U.S.C. § 3729(A)(1)(B))
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
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
United States for additional interest and loan-forgiveness reimbursement.
142. Due to Defendants’ actions, Defendants collectively borrowed millions of dollars
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.
C. DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT ARE MATERIAL.

143. A false or fraudulent claim under subsection (a)(1)(A) or a false record or statement
under subsection (a)(1)(B) subjects a defendant to liability if it is material. The False Claims Act
defines “material” as “having a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the
payment or receipt of money or property.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(4).
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
promulgated by the SBA that included numerous certifications—including a certification of
eligibility.
37
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
States Government instinctively relied on applicants’ promises of eligibility, particularly when no
data submitted on the application obviously indicated ineligibility.
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
applicants that they were qualified for SBA loans.
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
the automated tool and data analyses used by lenders and the United States Government in order
to defraud those institutions. Defendants’ certifications of qualification and compliance,
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.
IX. CAUSES OF ACTION
A. COUNT I – PRESENTATION OF FALSE OR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A))

149. Relator alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained
in all paragraphs of this Complaint.
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
forgiveness of their PPP Loans.
151. Specifically, Defendants submitted or caused the submission of false or fraudulent
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
their ongoing obligations.
39
152. The false PPP applications were “claims” under the FCA because they were
“request[s] or demand[s] … for money or property … that” were “presented to an officer,
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
PPP loan applications. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A).
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
otherwise was not allowed.
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
presentment of a false claim.
40
B. COUNT II – PRESENTATION OF FALSE OR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A))

157. Relator alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained
in paragraphs 1–137, 140–42, and 143–48 of this Complaint.
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.
159. Defendants’ statements of eligibility in their PPP applications were false.
Defendants knew that these statements were false because Defendants knew that they were not
business entities eligible to receive PPP loans.
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
their ongoing operations.
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
163. Defendants’ false statements were material because the Government’s lending
agents—and by extension the United States Government itself—heavily relied on these
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
have been paid.
166. Because of their false or fraudulent statements, Defendants earned millions of
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
and civil monetary penalties.
X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
167. WHEREFORE, Riner respectfully requests the Court enter judgment against
Defendants for violations of the FCA and award the following:
a. damages in the amount of three times the actual damages suffered by the United
States as a result of Defendants’ conduct;
b. Civil penalties against Defendants up to the maximum allowed by law for each
violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729;
c. The maximum award Relator may recover pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d);
42
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
just and proper.
XI. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
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
[email protected]
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
Attorneys for Relator Wade Riner
43
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

Riner Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Read this document in other languages

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Riner Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-23342-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2022 Page 1 of 47

Oct 14, 2022

[UNDER SEAL], § ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § CIVIL NO. _____________

RELATOR WADE RINER’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

I. Introduction: Covid-19, PPP, and the Opportunists ............................................................................. 1

Relator respectfully shows the following:

I. INTRODUCTION: COVID-19, PPP, AND THE OPPORTUNISTS

eligible to receive a PPP loan.

expenses, rent, mortgage, interest, or utilities during a covered period.

4. Numerous trade groups and similar associations lobbied Congress to be added as

loans. Condominium associations, homeowners associations, and other community associations

homeowners association or condominium association might be eligible).

in the Paycheck Protection Program, numerous community associations, particularly

condominium associations, homeowners associations, and other not-for-profit organizations,

7. In total, the Defendant not-for-profit condominium associations and not-for-profit

9. Plaintiff/Relator Wade Riner is a regular homeowner and investor. A corporation

2021. Through his membership in these homeowners associations—both defendants here—he

and organization of these particular homeowners associations as well as homeowners associations

subtle differences in the Defendants’ governing documents, Defendants can generally be

categorized in one of three ways: as a not-for-profit homeowners association, a not-for-profit

condominium association, or a not-for-profit country club.

homeowners association located at 3500 Clubhouse Lane, Boynton Beach, FL.

association located at 20540 Country Club Blvd., Boca Raton, FL.

club located at 8251 Aberdeen Dr., Boynton Beach, FL.

19. Bocaire Country Club, Inc. (“Bocaire”) is a not-for-profit homeowners association

located at 4989 Bocaire Blvd., Boca Raton, FL.

20. The Crossings HOA, Inc. (“Crossings HOA”) is a not-for-profit homeowners

association located at 11578 SW 132 Ave., Miami, FL.

homeowners association located at 5001 NW 104 Ave., Miami, FL.

23. Fortune House Condominium Association, Inc. (“Fortune House”) is a not-for-

profit condominium association located at 185 SE 14th Terrace, Miami, FL.

24. Frenchmans Creek, Inc. (“Frenchmans Creek”) is a not-for-profit homeowners

association located at 13495 Tournament Drive, Palm Beach Gardens, FL.

25. Frenchmans Reserve Country Club (“Frenchmans Reserve”) is a not-for-profit

26. The Grand Condominium Association, Inc. (“Grand Condominium”) is a not-for-

profit condominium association located at 1717 N. Bayshore Drive, Miami, FL.

country club located at 4785 Club Drive, Vero Beach, FL.

28. Hammocks Community Association, Inc. (“Hammocks Community”) is a not-for-

profit homeowners association located at 9020 Hammocks Blvd., Miami, FL.

30. Leverett House Condominium Association, Inc. (“Leverett House”) is a not-for-

is a not-for-profit homeowners association located at 1350 Echo Dr., Jupiter, FL.

32. The Loxahatchee Club, Inc. (“Loxahatchee Club”) is a not-for-profit homeowners

association located at 1350 Echo Dr., Jupiter, FL.

located at 9697 Mayacoo Club Dr., West Palm Beach, FL.

country club located at 9425 Meadowood Dr., Fort Pierce, FL.

35. Mimm Condominium Association (“Mimm”) is a not-for-profit condominium

association located at 777 NW 72 Ave., Miami, FL.

association located at 11600 Mirasol Blvd., Palm Beach Gardens, FL.

at 16104 Mizner Club Dr., Delray Beach, FL.

38. Ocean Club Community Association, Inc. (“Ocean Club”) is a not-for-profit

homeowners association located at 753 Crandon Blvd., Key Biscayne, FL.

11889 Old Palm Dr., Palm Beach Gardens, FL.

not-for-profit condominium association located at 44 Cocoanut Row, Palm Beach, FL.

42. The Pinnacle Condominium Association, Inc. (“Pinnacle Condominium”) is a not-

43. The Point of Aventura Maintenance Association (“Point of Aventura”) is a not-for-

homeowners association located at 3715 Golf Rd., Boynton Beach, FL.

45. Royal Palm Improvement Association, Inc. (“Royal Palm”) is a not-for-profit

at 201 Country Club Dr., Tequesta, FL.

47. The Township Community Master Association, Inc. (“Township Association”) is a

49. Turnberry Towers Condominium Association, Inc. (“Turnberry Towers”) is a not-