Criminal Defense Lawyers

You got the letter. Federal target letter, or maybe FBI agents showed up at you’re door asking about your PPP loan. Your stomach dropped. The first thing you probly thought was: “But I acted in good faith – I genuinely beleived I qualified. That has to count for something, right?”

That’s what this article is about. The good faith defense in PPP fraud cases – what it actually is, wether it works, and the brutal truth about why its failing in 90%+ of cases right now in 2025. Your not alone in thinking good faith should matter. It DOES matter legally. The problem is HOW it matters is very different then what most defendants think.

What Good Faith Defense Actually Means in Federal Fraud Cases

Let’s start with the legal definition, because alot of defendants misunderstand this from the begining. The good faith defense means you had an honest beleif that you’re actions were lawful when you took them. In simple terms – you genuinely thought you was doing the right thing. You wasn’t trying to decieve anyone or brake the law.

But here’s where it gets tricky. Good faith isn’t just about what you felt or what you wanted to believe. Its about wether your belief was reasonable based off the circumstances. Courts don’t except “I thought it was okay” as a defense if their was no reasonable basis for that thought. Wishful thinking don’t cut it. Neither does hopeful guessing.

In PPP fraud cases specifically, good faith defense is suppose to negate the “specific intent” element that prosecutors have to proof. Federal fraud charges – like wire fraud, bank fraud, false statements – they all require that you intentionally deceived someone. If you genuinely beleived you’re PPP certifications was true, then arguabley you didn’t have that intent to defraud.

Here’s what makes PPP cases different than other fraud cases. When you filled out your PPP application, you certified under penalty of perjury that certain things were true. You certified:

• Economic necessity – that current economic uncertainy made the loan request neccesary
• You had a certain number of employes
• You would use the loan funds for payroll and other eligable expenses
• You qualified under SBA size standards
• You wasn’t debarred from federal contracts

Each one of these certifications was pretty clear. The application litterally said “I certify under penalty of perjury.” That signature – your signature – is now being used against you. Because prosecutors argue: if the certification was clear, and you signed it, how can you claim you didn’t understand what you was certifying too?

This is what defense attornies call the “certification trap.” You signed a legal document under oath. Now your trying to say you didn’t really understand it, or you interpreted it differently. Courts are skeptical of that, to say the least. The good faith defense requires more then just saying you were confused – you have to show you’re confusion was reasonable and you had legitimate grounds for you’re interpretation.

One more thing about good faith that alot of people get wrong. Its not the same as “ignorance of the law.” You can’t say “I didn’t know lying on a federal loan application was ilegal.” Everyone knows fraud is illegal. What good faith addresses is wether you KNEW you was lying. Did you believe the informaton you provided was accurate? That’s the question.

The Evidence That Destroys Good Faith Claims Before You Even Get to Trial

Okay so you think you have a good faith defense. You genuinely beleived you qualified for that PPP loan. Problem is, the federal goverment has ways of proving you DIDN’T actually believe that. And there using evidence you probly didn’t even realize existed or mattered.

Your digital footprint is the prosecution’s roadmap to destroying you’re good faith claim. Everything you texted, emailed, searched on Google, posted on social media – its all discoverable. And prosecutors have unlimited resources to go through it all with a fine-tooth comb.

Here’s the types of evidence that are killing good faith defenses in PPP cases:

Text Messages and Emails: This is the big one. Prosecutors subpeona your phone records, your email accounts, your buisness communications. There looking for any message that shows you had doubts about wether you qualified. And they find them. Messages like:

• “Not sure if we qualify but its worth a shot”
• “Can we strech the employee count a little?”
• “Hope they don’t check our payroll to closely lol”
• “Everyone else is getting these loans, we should to”

Any statement – even a joking one – that suggests you had doubts or uncertainy? That destroys good faith. Because if you had doubts, but applied anyways, that’s not good faith. That’s conscious avoidance. Your choosing to not find out the truth because you didn’t want to know it.

I’ve seen cases where a single text message torpedoed the entire defense.

One case, the defendant texted his wife: “Fingers crossed they don’t audit this.”

That one message proved he knew something was wrong. Game over for good faith.

Google Search History: Yeah, they get this to. If you searched things like “PPP loan eligability requirements” and then, right after, searched “PPP fraud penalties” or “can you go to jail for PPP fraud” – that’s evidence of guilty knowlege. Why would you be searching fraud penalties if you thought you was doing everything legaly?

Even searches that seem innocent can hurt you. If you searched “how to maximize PPP loan amount” or “PPP loan forgiveness loopholes,” prosecutors will argue these show you was trying to game the system, not acting in good faith.

Bank Records: These show wether you actually had “economic necessity.” If you’re bank statements show you had plenty of cash reserves, or you was receiving other funding, or your buisness was actualy doing fine – that contradicts your certification of economic uncertainy. Prosecutors use financial records to prove you didn’t genuinely beleive you needed the loan.

Also, what you did with the money matters. If you transfered it to personal accounts immediantly, or used it for non-payroll expenses, or bought luxery items – that’s evidence you never intended to use it for the certified purposes. Hard to claim good faith when you bought a boat with payroll protection funds.

Social Media Posts: This one suprises people, but its huge. If you was posting on Facebook or Instagram about how great buisness was, or showing off new purchases, or talking about vacations – while simulatenously certifying economic hardship for a PPP loan – that’s a problem. Prosecutors will print out you’re social media and show it to the jury. “Does this look like someone in economic uncertainy?”

Witness Testimony: Your employees, your accountant, your buisness partners – they all get interviewed. And sometimes they say things that contradict you’re good faith story. Your accountant might say “I told them they didn’t qualify but they applied anyway.” Your employee might say “We barely had any employees, I don’t know where that number came from.” This testimoney destroys good faith because it shows you KNEW the truth.

But here’s the real killer – and most defendants don’t realize this untill its to late. Prosecutors file something called a motion in limine BEFORE trial. This is a pre-trial motion asking the judge to exclude your good faith defense entirely. They argue that based on the evidence, no reasonable person could of believed what you claimed to beleive. The judge looks at you’re emails, your texts, the clear language of the certification you signed – and rules that you’re “good faith” defense is objectively unreasonable.

When that happens? You don’t even get to argue good faith to the jury. The judge has already ruled its inadmissable. By the time you get to trial, you’re defense is gutted before you start. This is happening in the majority of PPP fraud cases right now – good faith getting excluded pre-trial based on the evidence against it.

Timing matters to. When did you apply for the PPP loan? If it was in March or April 2020, when everything was chaos and the program just started, you might have a stronger argument that their was genuine confusion. But if you applied in June 2020, or later – after the SBA issued clear guidance, after the safe harbor provisions, after the FAQ’s were published – its much harder to claim confusion. Prosecutors will show: “By the time you applied, the rules was clear. You just chose to ignore them.”

The legal doctrines here are brutal. Deliberate ignorance means you purposefully avoided learning the truth. Willful blindness means you knew something was probly wrong but didn’t check. Both of these allow prosecutors to prove intent even without direct evidence you KNEW you was lying. If you had reasons to doubt but didn’t investigate, that’s enough. Good faith requires you actually tried to find out the truth – not that you avoided it.

Why “Professional Reliance” and Common Good Faith Strategies Are Backfiring

Alot of defendants think they have a ace in the hole: “I hired an accountant to help me with the PPP application. That proves I was trying to do it right. I was relying on professional advice – that’s good faith, right?”

Wrong.

Or at least, not the way you think. The professional reliance defense is actualy HURTING defendants in PPP cases right now. Here’s why.

When you tell prosecutors “My accountant helped me fill out the application,” there first thought isn’t “Oh, this person was being careful.” Its “Great, now we have another witness.” Your accountant gets subpeonaed. They get questioned. And one of two things happen, neither good for you:

Scenario 1: Your accountant says “I told them they needed to verify there employee count” or “I explained the eligability requirements to them.” Now the accountant is testifing that you DID understand the rules. That you were informed. That destroys you’re “I was confused” defense. The professional who was supposed to help you just became a witness for the prosecution.

Scenario 2: Your accountant says “They asked me to help maximize the loan amount” or “They told me they had 10 employees when I’d only seen 3 on previous tax returns.” Now your accountant is testifing that YOU mislead THEM. That you shopped for the answer you wanted. That you knew the truth but manipulated even you’re own advisor. That’s not good faith – that’s fraud with extra steps.

Courts have a legal standard for professional reliance. Its not enough that you hired someone. You have to show:

• You gave them ACCURATE information
• They gave you REASONABLE advice based on that information
• You REASONABLY relied on there advice
• You didn’t know or have reason to know the advice was wrong

If any one of these fail, professional reliance fails. And in PPP cases, they usually fail. Why? Because YOU signed the certification under penalty of perjury. Courts say: doesn’t matter what your accountant told you – YOU had a duty to verify what YOU was certifying to. You can’t just blindly sign what someone else prepared and then claim “I was just following there advice.”

Theres another problem with professional reliance that defense attorneys are seeing in 2025. It actually makes you look MORE guilty, not less. Heres the logic prosecutors use:

“Your honor, this defendant hired a CPA to help with there PPP application. That shows there a sophisticated businessperson who understands the importance of financial compliance. There not some confused small business owner who didn’t understand the form. There someone who knew to get professional help. Which means when they made false statements on that application, they did so knowingly – despite having professional guidance. That’s not good faith, that’s calculated fraud.”

The sophistication inference is killing defendants. If your sophisticated enough to hire professionals, your sophisticated enough to understand what your certifying to. You can’t have it both ways – claim your a savvy businessperson who knew to get expert help, BUT ALSO claim you were to confused to understand a clear certification.

Look, here’s the thing – and this is something alot of defense lawyers aren’t telling there clients up front. Professional reliance as a defense is failing in over 90% of PPP fraud cases. The courts have seen this arguement a thousand times now. There tired of it. They view it as defendants trying to shift blame to there accountants or consultants.

And honestly? Sometimes thats exactly what it is. I’ve seen defendants who clearly committed fraud try to throw there accountant under the bus. “My CPA told me to do it this way.” But then the CPA testifys: “I never told them that. In fact, I specifically warned them about X, Y, and Z.” Now the defendant looks worse – they comitted fraud AND they lied about there professional advice.

The only time professional reliance might work is if you have contemporanious documentation. Like, emails at the TIME you applied where your asking your accountant questions and there giving you advice, and you relied on that advice in good faith. But even then, if the certification itself was clear and unambiguous, courts will say you should of known better regardless of what your accountant said.

Bottom line: don’t bank on professional reliance saving you. If anything, it might make your situation worse by adding another witness against you and making you look sophisticated enough to know better.

The Brutal Reality – Why Good Faith Defense Is Failing in 90%+ of PPP Cases

Okay. Deep breath. This is the section where we need to talk about the hard truth. The statistics. The reality of what’s actually happening in courtrooms across the country right now in 2025. Because if your hoping that good faith defense is gonna get you aquitted, or get the charges dropped, or somehow make this all go away – you need to understand what your really facing.

Good faith defenses are failing in more then 90% of PPP fraud cases that go to court. That’s not a exageration. That’s not me being pesimistic. Thats the actual pattern we’re seeing based off case outcomes, plea deals, trial verdicts, and judicial rulings. When defendants try to argue good faith, there loosing. Badly. Over and over again.

Why is this happening? Let me break it down, because understanding WHY its failing is important for understanding weather you have any chance at all.

Reason #1: The Certification Was Clear

This is the number one reason good faith gets rejected. Judges look at the PPP application and say: “What exactly was confusing about this?” The certifications was written in plain english. They wasn’t ambigous. They wasn’t filled with legal jargon. They said things like:

“I certify that I have ___ employees.”

“I certify that current economic uncertainy makes this loan request necessary.”

“I certify under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.”

Judges ask defendants on the stand: “You certified you had 10 employees when you actually had 2. What was confusing about counting your employees?” And defendants don’t have good answers. Because there isn’t a good answer. Basic math isn’t confusing. Knowing how many people work for you isn’t ambiguous.

The same thing happens with the “economic necessity” certification. Prosecutors show you’re bank records – you had $200,000 in you’re buisness account when you applied. You’re revenues was actually UP compared to the previous year. How can you claim economic uncertainy? How can you say you genuinely beleived you needed the loan when all the evidence shows you didn’t?

Courts are holding: if the certification was clear, and you signed it, you are presumed to of understood what you was certifying. Claiming “I didn’t really understand” or “I interpreted it differently” isn’t good faith when the plain language don’t support your interpretation. That’s just ignorance, or worse, willful misrepresentation.

Reason #2: The Safe Harbor Window Closed

Here’s something most defendants don’t even know about, and its destroying there cases. In May 2020, the SBA announced a safe harbor provision. They said: if you recieved a PPP loan and then determine you didn’t actually qualify, you can return the funds by May 18, 2020 with no questions asked. No penalties. No prosecution. Clean slate.

That deadline came and went. You didn’t return the money, did you? And now prosecutors are using that against you. There arguing: “If you had good faith doubts about wether you qualified, you had a clear opportunity to return the funds during the safe harbor period. The fact that you kept the money proves you either beleived you qualified, or you knew you didn’t qualify but wanted to keep the money anyway.”

Its a rhetorical trap, and its brutal. Because what are you gonna say? “I didn’t know about the safe harbor deadline”? Prosecutors will show that it was widely publicised, that the SBA sent notices, that your bank probly informed borrowers. “I didn’t think it applied to me”? That undermines good faith – you should of been paying attention to guidance about the loan you recieved.

The safe harbor provision has basicaly become a timeline test for good faith. If you had genuine concerns, you should of returned the funds when you had the chance. You didn’t. So prosecutors argue you didn’t have concerns – or you prioritized keeping the money over doing the right thing. Either way, not good faith.

Reason #3: Loan Forgiveness Created a False Sense of Security

This one is crushing defendants psycologically. Heres the situation: You applied for a PPP loan in 2020. You used the funds. You applied for forgiveness in 2021 or 2022. And your loan was forgiven. The SBA approved it. You thought: “Great, I’m in the clear. If there was a problem, they wouldn’t of forgiven it, right?”

Wrong. So wrong.

Loan forgiveness was largely automated. The SBA didn’t do intensive audits of every application before approving forgiveness. They processed millions of loans with minimal human review. Forgiveness doesn’t mean the SBA determined you were eligable. It just means you’re application went through the automated system and got approved.

Now – two, three years later – your getting a target letter.

The SBA is auditing FORGIVEN loans. The DOJ is prosecuting people who’s loans was already forgiven. And defendants are in shock. “But it was forgiven! How can they come after me now?”

Easy.

Because forgiveness ≠ immunity. Forgiveness is a administrative process. It doesn’t shield you from criminal prosecution if the underlying application was fraudulent. And actually – this is gonna hurt to hear – having your loan forgiven makes you a BETTER target for prosecution.

Why? Because now the federal goverment has lost money. When your loan is forgiven, the government writes off that debt. Which means they can prove actual damages. Which means stronger case for wire fraud and bank fraud charges. Which means your facing higher restitution amounts. Which means prosecutors are more motivated to go after you because the loss to taxpayers is real and final.

Plus, theres the 10-year statute of limitations. For PPP loans issued in 2020, prosecutors have until 2030 to bring charges. We’re only in 2025. That means five more years of potential investigation and prosecution. Your forgiven loan from 2021 can still result in a indictment in 2029. The fact that its forgiven gives you false security, but your still at risk for years.

Reason #4: The Judicial Climate Has Changed Dramatically

This is a temporal issue that alot of defendants don’t understand. PPP fraud cases in 2021 were treated very differently then PPP fraud cases in 2025. The judicial attitude has hardened. Sentances have gotten harsher. Sympathy has evaporated.

In 2021, judges would here a PPP fraud case and think: “This was during a pandemic. Everything was chaos. Small buisnesses was struggling. Maybe this person made a mistake.” Defendants could argue good faith and judges would give them the benefit of the doubt. Sentences was light – probation, home confinement, small fines.

In 2025? Judges are tired of PPP fraud. They’ve seen hundreds of these cases. They’ve heard every excuse. They’ve read about the billions of dollars in PPP fraud. And there attitude has shifted from “you made a mistake during a crisis” to “you stole taxpayer money during a national emergency.”

That shift is huge. Because now when you argue good faith, judges are skeptical from the start. There not sympathetic. There not inclined to beleive you. There thinking: “I’ve heard this story 50 times, and it was fraud every time. Why should I beleive your different?”

The sentances reflect this. Defendants who would of gotten probation in 2021 are getting prison time in 2025. The sentencing guidelines haven’t changed, but judicial discretion has. Judges are using the high end of the guidelines instead of the low end. There imposing upward departures. There viewing PPP fraud as serious white-collar crime, not a pandemic-era mistake.

So even if you have some good faith elements to your case, the current climate means your less likely to succeed with that defense then someone would of been four years ago. The temporal context matters.

Reason #5: Your Emotional Story Doesn’t Override the Legal Elements

This is the hardest truth. And its the one that causes the most emotional colapse in defendants. Because you have a story. A narrative. And to you, its compelling. Its true. Its human. You was struggling. Your buisness was in trouble. You was confused about the requirements. You genuinely thought you qualified. Your not a bad person. Your not a criminal. This was a misunderstanding, a mistake, not fraud.

I beleive you. I really do. But here’s the devastating reality: none of that matters legally if the elements of the crime are met.

The legal test for wire fraud, bank fraud, false statements – its not about your emotional truth. Its about:

• Did you make a false statement? (Yes – you certified things that wasn’t true)
• Was the statement material? (Yes – it effected wether you got the loan)
• Did you know it was false when you made it? (This is where good faith comes in)
• Did the false statement induce a federaly-insured lender to give you money? (Yes – you got the PPP loan)

If the prosecution proves those elements, your convicted. Your story about why you did it, how you felt, what you was going through – that can MAYBE effect your sentence, but it don’t negate the crime.

And the “did you know it was false” element? Prosecutors can prove that circumstantialy. They don’t need you to of written “I’m comitting fraud” in a email. They just need to show that no reasonable person in your position would of beleived what you claimed to beleive. That your certification was so clearly false that the only explanation is you knew it was false.

Example: You certified you had 15 employees. You filed tax returns showing 3 employees. You made payroll for 3 employees. You’re buisness location can only hold 5 people. But you certified 15. Can you really claim you genuinely beleived you had 15 employees? No. Because all the evidence contradicts that. So the court infers you knew you was lying when you certified.

This is the moment where defendants break. When they realize there emotional truth – which feels so real and so compelling to them – is legally irrelevant. The human narrative don’t override the false certification. The personal struggle don’t negate the material misrepresentation.

You signed a legal document under penalty of perjury. What you certified was false. The government gave you money based on that false certification. That’s the crime. You’re feelings about it don’t change those facts.

I know that sounds harsh. I know it sounds like I’m saying your story don’t matter. But I’m not trying to be cruel – I’m trying to give you the reality of what your facing. Because if you go into court thinking “I’ll just explain my situation and they’ll understand,” your going to be devastated when it don’t work. The legal system isn’t designed to care about your emotional truth. Its designed to determine if you broke the law.

And in most PPP fraud cases? The evidence shows you did. Not because your a bad person, but because you made false certifications to get money. That’s the legal reality, regardless of the emotional context.

What ACTUALLY Works (If Anything) – When Good Faith Might Save You

Okay so we’ve established that good faith defense is failing most of the time. But “most of the time” isn’t “all of the time.” So lets talk about the scenarios where good faith might actualy work – or at least, where it might help mitigate your situation.

First thing: you need to understand what “works” means. Because even in the best case scenario, good faith defense rarely results in:

• Charges completly dismissed
• Case dropped before trial
• Full aquital by jury

What it MIGHT result in is:

• Reduced charges (felony down to misdemenor)
• Civil settlement instead of criminal prosecution
• Sentancing mitigation (probation instead of prison, lower fines)
• Plea deal to lesser offenses

So when I say good faith “works,” I mean it improves your outcome – not that it makes everything go away. With that reality check in mind, heres when good faith might actually help:

Scenario 1: Your PPP Loan Was Under $20,000

Theres a prosecutorial triage happening based on loan amounts. The DOJ has limited resources – they can’t prosecute every single PPP loan that had irregularities. So there prioritizing cases based on return on investment.

If your loan was small – under $20,000 – your in a different category. The government is more likely to pursue civil remedies (SBA clawback, False Claims Act settlement) rather then criminal charges. Why? Because the cost of a federal criminal prosecution often exceeds the recovery they’ll get from a small loan.

In this scenario, a good faith defense might actualy work to keep things civil instead of criminal. You might end up having to repay the loan with intrest and penalties, but you avoid felony charges and prison time. That’s a win, relatively speaking.

But if your loan was $50,000, $100,000, $150,000+? Your in the prosecution sweet spot. Big enough to be worth there time, small enough for a quick case. Good faith becomes much harder to use succesfully.

Scenario 2: You Have Contemporaneous Documentation of Good Faith Confusion

Remember how I talked about prosecutors using your emails and texts against you? Well, that evidence can cut both ways. If you have ACTUAL documentation from the TIME you applied showing genuine confusion or reasonable reliance on guidance, that can support good faith.

What kind of documentation?

• Emails to your lender asking questions about eligability and getting responses you relied on
• Saved copies of SBA guidance or FAQ’s that you beleived supported your interpretation
• Written advice from your accountant or attorney that you reasonably relied on
• Notes or records showing you tried to verify informaton before certifying

The key word is contemporaneous. This has to be from BEFORE or DURING your application, not after you got investigated. If you start creating a “good faith” paper trail after you recieve a target letter, thats not evidence of good faith – thats evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Most defendants don’t have this kind of documentation. They filled out the application quickly, they didn’t save there research, they didn’t document there decision-making. And now there trying to reconstruct a good faith narrative years later. That don’t work.

But if you genuinly do have emails from April 2020 where your asking questions and trying to understand the rules, and you relied on the answers you got? That’s actual evidence of good faith that can survive prosecutorial scrutiny.

Scenario 3: Early Cooperation (With EXTREME Caution)

Theres something called the “cooperation paradox” in federal investigations. Cooperation can help you – or it can destroy you. It all depends on how its done.

If you try to explain your good faith to federal agents WITHOUT A LAWYER, your probly making things worse. Why? Because anything you say can be used against you. And agents are trained to find inconsistancys in your story. One wrong word, one misremembered detail, one statement that contradicts what you said in the application – and now your facing a additional charge under 18 USC 1001 (false statements to federal agents).

I’ve seen defendants who thought they was helping themselves by “just explaining the misunderstanding” to the FBI. They end up making admissions, contradicting there prior statements, or saying things that negate good faith. And then there charged with lying to federal agents ON TOP of the PPP fraud charges. Its a disaster.

BUT – and this is a big but – STRATEGIC cooperation through experienced federal defense counsel can sometimes work. If your attorney negotiates a proffer agreement, and you provide substantive cooperation against other defendants, and you do it early enough in the investigation? The DOJ might decline to prosecute you, or offer a favorable plea deal, or reduce charges significantly.

This only works if:

• You have a lawyer who knows federal criminal procedure
• You have valuable informaton to provide (about other fraudsters, larger schemes, etc.)
• You cooperate EARLY, before indictment
• You’re completely honest (no minimizing, no omitting facts)

And even then, its risky. Cooperation isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card. It MIGHT result in leniancy, but it also might just give prosecutors more ammunition against you.

What To Do If Good Faith Won’t Work

For most defendants, the harsh reality is good faith defense isn’t going to work. So what then? You don’t just give up. You shift strategy to defenses that might actualy succeed:

Challenge the Evidence: File suppression motions if the government obtained evidence illegally. Challenge the chain of custody. Question the reliability of witness testimony. Attack the prosecution’s case on procedural grounds.

Negotiate a Plea Deal: If the evidence against you is strong, a plea deal to reduced charges might be your best option. Plead to a misdemenor instead of a felony. Agree to restitution to avoid prison time. Get a cooperation agreement to reduce your sentence.

Focus on Sentencing Mitigation: Even if your convicted, you can argue for a lighter sentance. First-time offender. Acceptance of responsibility. Restitution paid. Family circumstances. Community ties. These factors can make the difference between prison and probation.

The timing urgency here is real. Evidence is being gathered RIGHT NOW. Prosecutors are interviewing witnesses. There analyzing you’re digital footprint. There building the case that destroys your good faith claim. Every day you wait without getting legal help, your position weakens.

And look – I know this whole article has been pretty brutal. I know I’ve torn apart the good faith defense and made it sound hopeless. But theres a reason for that. To many defendants go into these cases with unrealistic expectations. They think “I’ll just explain I acted in good faith and they’ll drop the charges.” Then they get to court and get destroyed.

I’d rather you have realistic expectations now so you can make informed decisions about your defense strategy. Because if good faith isn’t gonna work for you, you need to know that BEFORE you build your whole defense around it. You need a lawyer who understands what’s actually working in PPP fraud cases in 2025 – not what worked in 2021, not what sounds good in theory, but what’s getting results in courtrooms today.

The Bottom Line

The good faith defense in PPP fraud cases is real. It exists in the law. Courts recognize it. But the brutal truth is its failing in the vast majority of cases in 2025. Not because its not a legitimate defense, but because prosecutors have gotten very good at destroying it with evidence, and courts have gotten very skeptical after seeing thousands of PPP fraud cases.

Why its failing:

• The certifications was clear and unambiguous
• Digital evidence disproves subjective claims of good faith
• Safe harbor opportunities to return funds was ignored
• Judicial climate has shifted from sympathy to skepticism
• Professional reliance claims backfire
• Loan forgiveness created false security but not immunity

If your under investigation for PPP fraud, don’t try to talk your way out of it using good faith explanations to federal agents. Don’t wait and hope it goes away. The 10-year statute of limitations means this isn’t going away untill 2030 for loans issued in 2020. The government has time. Your window to build a defense is shrinking.

You need experienced federal criminal defense counsel who understands how prosecutors are attacking good faith defenses in 2025. Who knows what evidence there gathering against you. Who can realistically assess wether good faith has any chance in your case, or wether you need a different strategy entirely.

Time is not on your side. Evidence is being collected. Witnesses are being interviewed. Your digital footprint is being analyzed. Every delay weakens your position. If your facing a PPP fraud investigation, get legal help now – before the government finishes building the case that destroys any good faith defense you might of had.