Skip to content
Request a Call
Back to Success Stories
Client Case Study4 min read

COVID Relief Fraud Sentencing: A Federal Case Study

Christopher watched 20 hours of videos after a target letter arrived. He prepared for probation, volunteered, and faced a judge focused on deterrence. He received the low end: 30 months.

Justin Paperny

Founder White Collar Advice · October 21, 2026

Share Article
“I was facing significant prison time for mortgage fraud. Mitigation preparation allowed me to secure a lower sentence and prepare for life after prison”

How do you prepare for federal COVID relief fraud sentencing?

Christopher Hayes pleaded guilty to false statements on a Coronavirus Food Assistance Program application that cost the government $249,000. He built a narrative, drilled for his presentence interview, and volunteered; the judge imposed 30 months, the low end of his range, and recommended RDAP.

Facts

Charge

False statements (Coronavirus Food Assistance Program)

Loss

$249,000

Sentence

30 months, low end of the guideline range

Other

Judge recommended RDAP and supported his request for FCI Montgomery

Christopher Hayes watched about 20 hours of our videos after a federal target letter arrived. He had never been in trouble with the law. He wanted answers about sentencing, probation interviews, and prison.

"I'd never been in trouble before, so I appreciated how WCA really laid it out clearly. WCA gave me specific direction about how I could work toward a better outcome at sentencing."

$249,000

Christopher went to work after high school in Atlanta and never stopped. He ran a convenience store, worked in auto body repair and trucking, and bought real estate. He and his wife were raising two children.

After a serious business setback, he put false information on an application to the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, which paid agricultural producers hurt by the pandemic. The government lost $249,000. He pleaded guilty to making false statements.

He also told us he drank too much when he was under stress. He wanted to know what treatment was available inside.

What came back

Working on his narrative took Christopher back through his childhood, his businesses, and his family.

"Our conversation brought out a lot of things I'd forgotten."

He had never sat for a presentence interview. Before his appointment, we drilled the questions probation would ask about the application and about his drinking.

"The final document was spot-on. Also, it prepared me for the Pre-Sentence Interview."

While he waited, he volunteered with Isaiah 5 Ministries, kept revising the narrative, and studied the prison programs he might enter.

"I slept better each night knowing that I was doing everything I could to help myself."

Low end of the range

Christopher recalled the judge talking about deterrence in pandemic relief cases and considering the high end of the guideline range. The judge imposed 30 months, the low end.

"However, he gave me the lower end of the guidelines and RDAP. The judge said it was because of the narrative."

The judge also supported his request for FCI Montgomery and recommended RDAP. The Bureau of Prisons makes the final call on both.

Christopher plans to use his business experience to find work and to help people in trouble own what they did.

"If somebody gets in trouble, the key is to be accountable and learn from it."

Christopher started with 20 hours of videos. Our interviews with judges and probation officers are on the White Collar Advice YouTube channel; start with the one closest to your charge.

Thank you,

Justin Paperny

Written by

Justin Paperny

Founder White Collar Advice