PPP and EIDL Fraud Indictments Are Still Coming. The Statute of Limitations Is Why.

PPP AND EIDL FRAUD INDICTMENTS ARE STILL COMING. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS WHY.

CATEGORY: FEDERAL WHITE COLLAR / COVID FRAUD | MAY 19, 2026

If you took a PPP loan in 2020 or 2021 and you have been telling yourself the window for federal scrutiny has closed, that math is wrong. On May 6, 2026, federal prosecutors in Alabama unsealed a 13-count wire fraud and aggravated identity theft indictment against Stanley Mark Hill, charging him with applying for seven fraudulent PPP, EIDL, and Restaurant Revitalization Fund loans between May 2020 and May 2021. Six were funded. The case is one in a steady run of pandemic relief prosecutions DOJ has filed every month for the last two years. The reason these cases keep landing, almost six years after the loans were issued, is the statute of limitations. Congress quietly extended it to ten years. Most loan recipients have no idea.

For Florida business owners, healthcare practitioners, restaurant operators, and anyone else who took advantage of pandemic relief programs, that means the exposure window for criminal charges runs to 2030 at the earliest, and well into the 2030s for loans funded in 2021. DOJ's Fraud Division is staffed for it. The political will is there. And the documentation trail from those loan applications has not gone anywhere.

The new question is not whether the paperwork is old. It is whether the charging window is still wide open.

What Actually Changed

In August 2022, Congress passed two companion statutes that dramatically extended federal exposure for pandemic relief fraud. The PPP and Bank Fraud Enforcement Harmonization Act of 2022 and the COVID-19 EIDL Fraud Statute of Limitations Act of 2022 each extended the criminal and civil statute of limitations for fraud involving these programs from five years to ten years. President Biden signed both into law in August 2022. The change was retroactive in effect, meaning any loan that was still within the original five-year window when the new statute passed got the benefit of the extension.

Practically, that means a PPP loan funded in May 2020 was not time-barred in May 2025. It is not time-barred now in 2026. It will not be time-barred until May 2030. A loan funded in late 2021 carries exposure into 2031 or 2032. For False Claims Act civil enforcement, the same ten-year window applies, and the treble damages and per-claim penalties can reach numbers that dwarf the original loan amount.

The Hill indictment unsealed May 6 is a textbook illustration. Loans dated 2020 to 2021. Charges filed nearly six years later. Wire fraud counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. Each wire fraud count carries up to 20 years. Aggravated identity theft adds a mandatory consecutive two-year sentence per count. The indictment alleges falsified revenue figures, fabricated cost-of-goods-sold documentation, and supporting paperwork that did not match any real business operations.

What DOJ Is Actually Building

Pandemic relief fraud is not winding down. It is the opposite. DOJ stood up a dedicated COVID Fraud Strike Force in 2021 and folded it into a permanent Fraud Section structure that pulls in the FBI, the SBA Office of Inspector General, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, and the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. The Strike Force has charged thousands of defendants and recovered billions. The volume of cases coming out of the Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts of Florida has been steady, with a clear focus on three patterns.

The first pattern is the obvious overstatement case. Loan applications inflated revenue or employee counts to qualify for larger amounts than the business should have received. Bank records show no payroll consistent with the application figures. Tax returns filed before the loan tell a different story than the loan paperwork.

The second pattern is the shell entity case. Multiple loans applied for in the names of entities that had no real operations, sometimes filed by the same person across several state-registered LLCs created in the months before the application. The Hill indictment fits this profile. So do most of the recent multi-loan cases out of South Florida.

The third pattern, and the one most likely to surprise legitimate business owners, is the use-of-proceeds case. PPP and EIDL had specific permissible uses. PPP funds were supposed to go to payroll, rent, utilities, and limited other categories. EIDL had its own restrictions. Documented spending on personal real estate, luxury vehicles, jewelry, or capital purchases unrelated to operations is a charging predicate even when the loan itself was technically eligible. Bank statements from 2020 and 2021 are still sitting in subpoena-able accounts at every major institution.

These cases are document cases first. Agents compare applications, tax filings, banking records, and use-of-proceeds trails line by line.

The Charges and Exposure

Federal pandemic relief prosecutions typically charge under several overlapping statutes. Wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 is the workhorse, with each count carrying up to 20 years and each loan application or disbursement potentially counting as a separate count. Bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 frequently appears when funds passed through a federally insured institution. Conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 captures multi-defendant schemes. Aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A applies whenever the application used another person's identifying information, and adds a mandatory consecutive two years per count that cannot be reduced or run concurrently. Money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 or § 1957 layers on when proceeds were transferred or commingled to disguise the source.

Sentencing exposure runs through §2B1.1, the same loss-driven guideline that governs healthcare fraud and most economic crime. Loss is the dominant variable. Most pandemic relief cases also draw the §2B1.1(b)(2) victim-count enhancement when multiple loans or multiple lenders are involved, and the abuse-of-position-of-trust enhancement under §3B1.3 in cases involving SBA-affiliated lenders or accountants. The 2026 Sentencing Guidelines amendments taking effect November 1 will reshape the loss table calculation, but the §1028A consecutive sentence is statutory and cannot be reduced by any guideline change.

The Mistakes That Cost PPP and EIDL Recipients

Three mistakes show up repeatedly in cases that get charged.

First, treating an SBA OIG civil audit letter as a routine accounting matter. Civil audits are often the front end of a parallel criminal investigation. Documents and statements provided to the OIG in the audit phase get used to anchor the criminal theory. The moment a civil audit letter arrives, the next call should be to a federal criminal defense attorney with white collar experience, not the bookkeeper.

Second, trying to clean up old loan paperwork after the audit notice arrives. Reissuing invoices, backdating documents, or creating contemporaneous-looking records to match the loan application is obstruction. It transforms a potentially defendable underlying loan case into a slam-dunk obstruction case under 18 U.S.C. § 1519. The penalty for the cover-up always exceeds the penalty for the underlying conduct.

Third, assuming forgiveness equals immunity. PPP loan forgiveness was an SBA administrative determination based on the borrower's certifications. It is not a determination that the underlying application was accurate. Forgiveness does not preclude later criminal prosecution if the application or use-of-proceeds certification turns out to have been false. The Hill indictment includes counts on loans that were funded and presumably went through some forgiveness or repayment process. That did not stop the indictment.

Strategic Defense Posture

The right defense posture depends on where in the timeline a client sits.

Pre-investigation, the priorities are a privileged document review of the loan files, identification of any genuine compliance issues, and a clear-eyed assessment of whether voluntary disclosure makes sense. The 2026 amendments add a new §3E1.2 post-offense rehabilitation adjustment that explicitly rewards pre-investigation cessation, restitution efforts, and self-reporting. For a borrower who recognizes legitimate exposure, this is the first window in years where self-disclosure has a formal sentencing benefit.

Mid-investigation, after a subpoena, OIG inquiry, or grand jury target letter, the priorities shift to litigation hold, privilege protection, and direct engagement with the line AUSA. Many pandemic fraud cases involve loss amounts that DOJ rounds up reflexively. Disputing the loss amount on the front end can move the guideline range materially before any indictment is even returned.

Post-indictment, the focus is on loss calculation, the §1028A mandatory sentence, and whether any of the new §2B1.1 mitigators apply. A bookkeeper or office manager who completed the application at an owner's direction is a very different defendant under the November 1 amendments than under the current guidelines. That argument needs to be developed early, not at sentencing.

Why the Window Is Closing Slower Than People Think

The conventional wisdom in 2022 and 2023 was that PPP and EIDL prosecutions would peak and recede. They have not. DOJ continues to file new cases on loans that are now five and six years old, and the ten-year statute of limitations means there is no natural stopping point until 2030 at the earliest for the first wave of loans. The Hill indictment is one of dozens filed in the last six months alone.

For Florida loan recipients, the practical takeaway is that exposure is not behind you. Bank records are still discoverable. Loan files are still archived. SBA OIG audits are still being initiated on loans funded years ago. If the loan paperwork would not survive scrutiny, that is a problem that has not aged out and will not age out for years.

The ten-year extension changed the timeline. It did not change how unforgiving a federal fraud file becomes once the records line up.

Facing a PPP, EIDL, or COVID Relief Investigation in Florida?

AMC Defense Law represents business owners, executives, and individuals facing federal investigations and prosecutions tied to pandemic relief programs. Our practice covers wire fraud, bank fraud, identity theft, money laundering, and False Claims Act exposure across all three Florida federal districts and nationwide. We work as a federal criminal defense attorney and white collar defense attorney for clients who need early intervention before indictment, strategic plea positioning when charges are filed, and aggressive sentencing advocacy under the new 2026 guideline framework. Every consultation is confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege.

If you have received an SBA OIG audit letter, a federal grand jury subpoena, or a target letter related to a PPP, EIDL, or RRF loan, the right time to engage counsel is now, not after the indictment.

For the full overview of the statutes, sentencing, and defense theories in pandemic loan prosecutions, see our federal PPP and EIDL fraud defense practice page.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information above describes federal pandemic relief enforcement and statute of limitations issues current as of May 2026. Outcomes in any individual case depend on facts, jurisdiction, and developments after publication. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with AMC Defense Law or any of its attorneys. For advice specific to your situation, contact a licensed federal criminal defense attorney directly.

If you or your loved ones have been arrested or are under federal investigation, call Aaron M. Cohen, 24 hours a day to get help.