Procom Services: The Staffing Company the DOJ Says Fabricated Payroll Records to Steal $8.5 Million in PPP Loans

Procom Services LLC and its owner faced Department of Justice charges alleging the staffing company submitted fabricated payroll records and false employee counts to obtain $8.5 million in Paycheck Protection Program loans — pandemic relief funds designed to help small businesses retain workers during the economic disruptions of 2020 and 2021 — and then used those funds for personal expenditures rather than the employee payroll costs the program was designed to cover.DOCUMENTED

The DOJ's charges in the Procom case were part of a sustained federal enforcement campaign against PPP fraud that has resulted in hundreds of prosecutions and billions of dollars in recovered funds. The Procom case stood out for the scale of the alleged misrepresentation relative to the company's actual workforce, and for the systematic nature of the document fabrication described in the complaint.

How PPP Fraud of This Type Operated

The Paycheck Protection Program provided forgivable loans to small businesses calculated as a multiple of the business's average monthly payroll — specifically 2.5 times the reported monthly payroll for most businesses. This formula meant that a business that could show higher monthly payroll would receive a proportionally larger loan, creating a direct financial incentive to inflate payroll figures in loan applications. Loan forgiveness was conditioned on using the funds for payroll and certain other eligible expenses, meaning that businesses that received loans based on inflated payroll figures and then did not spend the money on actual employees were both committing fraud in obtaining the loan and violating the forgiveness conditions.REVIEWED

The DOJ's complaint against Procom alleged that the company submitted payroll records showing a workforce substantially larger than its actual employee base — with fabricated records including IRS forms and payroll reports purporting to show payroll costs the company had not actually incurred. The lenders who processed the PPP applications relied on these records as representations of fact, and the SBA's guarantees of the loans — backing that allowed lenders to process applications at volume during the program's chaotic early weeks — meant the federal government ultimately bore the loss when the loans were not used as required.DOCUMENTED

The Staffing Company Context

Staffing companies present a particular vulnerability in the PPP fraud landscape because their payroll costs can be volatile — rising and falling substantially as client demand for temporary workers changes — and because the workers they place at client sites are their primary employees, making payroll the dominant cost in their business model. A legitimate staffing company with genuine payroll history had straightforward access to substantial PPP loans under the program's formula, which may explain why the alleged fraud in the Procom case involved overstating a real payroll base rather than fabricating one entirely from scratch.REVIEWED

The DOJ's investigation of staffing companies in the PPP context typically focused on comparing the payroll records submitted with loan applications against IRS records the agency independently had from the companies' actual tax filings — which showed what payroll costs had actually been reported for tax purposes. When the PPP application represented a payroll substantially higher than the IRS records showed, that gap became the primary evidence of the fraudulent misrepresentation. Document examination of the fabricated payroll records themselves often revealed inconsistencies that supported the fraud charge directly.

A pandemic loan program built on trust requires that the payroll records borrowers submit are real. When they are not, the fraud takes money intended for workers and redirects it to the person who signed the false application.

Use of Funds After Receipt

The DOJ's complaint detailed the use of loan proceeds after disbursement as a central element of the fraud. Rather than using the $8.5 million for employee wages, benefits, and other eligible payroll costs — the condition required for loan forgiveness — Procom's owner allegedly used substantial portions of the funds for personal expenditures including real estate acquisitions, personal vehicle purchases, and transfers to personal accounts. These expenditure patterns were traceable through banking records and formed part of the evidentiary basis for the charges alongside the original loan application misrepresentations.DOCUMENTED

The forgiveness application process — in which borrowers certified that funds had been used for eligible expenses — created a second point of fraud exposure in cases where proceeds were diverted. A borrower who received funds based on false payroll records and then certified that the funds had been used for payroll submitted a second false statement to the government, compounding the original fraud in both the factual and legal sense. Cases that include both the application fraud and a false forgiveness application carry correspondingly higher exposure than those involving only the initial loan application.

The DOJ PPP Enforcement Pattern

The Department of Justice's enforcement campaign against PPP fraud has been one of the more sustained federal law enforcement initiatives in recent years, with cases ranging from individuals who fraudulently obtained loans of a few thousand dollars to sophisticated schemes involving millions. The Procom case fell toward the larger end of this spectrum, with the $8.5 million amount placing it well above the median for PPP fraud cases but below the largest schemes the DOJ has prosecuted. The geographic spread of PPP fraud prosecutions — across virtually every federal district — reflects the national scope of the original program and the DOJ's commitment to pursuing fraud regardless of the jurisdiction in which it originated.REVIEWED

For defendants charged in PPP fraud cases, the wire fraud and bank fraud statutes carry substantial maximum sentences — 20 years and 30 years respectively — though actual sentences in cases involving first-time offenders with cooperation or guilty pleas are typically far below those maximums. The combination of forfeiture of the fraudulently obtained funds, restitution to the SBA, and potential prison time creates a significant total consequence for defendants in even relatively modest PPP fraud cases, and the DOJ's consistent pursuit of these cases has established that the program's emergency authorization was not an invitation to steal from public health relief funds.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.