Prosecutors in New York and Texas Charge Individuals for Defrauding COVID-19 Relief Programs
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.22.20
Federal authorities continue to prioritize and aggressively pursue individuals across the country who seek to exploit coronavirus relief programs meant to aid small businesses and their employees. Over the past week, Muge Ma of New York and Samuel Yates of Texas were arrested, each for submitting multiple fraudulent applications for COVID-19 relief through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Both men obtained loan proceeds before their schemes were uncovered.
Ma allegedly made fraudulent applications for $20 million in loans from the Small Business Administration (SBA) and at least five private banks, claiming that he employed hundreds of people at his two businesses with monthly payrolls in the millions. In actuality, he was the sole employee at each company. Along with his applications, Ma submitted false payroll records, financial statements, bank records and tax records. He was granted $500,000 for one company and $150,000 for the other from the SBA before his scheme was uncovered. Ma was also awarded $800,000 by a private bank in a loan backed by the PPP, which was ultimately frozen. On May 21, 2020, he was charged in the Southern District of New York with bank fraud, wire fraud, and making false statements to a financial institution.
Yates, for his part, allegedly submitted two fraudulent applications for SBA-backed PPP loans. In the first, he sought $5 million by falsely claiming that he employed 400 individuals with a $2 million monthly payroll. In the second, he claimed to have 100 employees. In fact, Yates’ purported business had no employees. Each application was supported by falsified lists of employees created by a random name generator that is publicly available on the internet and forged tax records. Yates received a $500,000 plus loan in connection with his second application. On May 19, 2020, he was charged in the Eastern District of Texas with bank fraud, wire fraud, making false statements to a financial institution, and making false statements to the SBA.
Both arrests were the result of coordinated efforts among agencies including the Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the Small Business Administration Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Immigration and Custom’s Homeland Security Investigations, and local authorities.
While the government has seemingly gone after the low-hanging fruit—glaringly fraudulent loan applications—in the early stages of its PPP oversight, businesses and corporate leaders should take note that stimulus fraud is being prosecuted aggressively across the country. Additional prosecutions will inevitably follow. Moreover, the coordinated, interagency efforts across jurisdictions demonstrate that prosecutors and regulators have the will and the resources to root out fraud on all scales.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development



