Oregon Court Denies Dismissal of Charges in Alleged EIDL Fraud Scheme Involving Crypto Purchases
On Wednesday, July 1, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied motions filed by defendants Georgeta and Beniamin Lucescu to dismiss charges stemming from an alleged scheme to defraud the Small Business Administration (SBA). The defendants sought to dismiss counts of the Superseding Indictment, arguing that they were being charged with multiple crimes for the same actions, a legal principle known as merger.
The charges against the Lucescus are based on allegations of defrauding the SBA through fraudulent Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) applications. Additionally, the indictment claims the defendants used the illicitly obtained funds to pay off federal tax debt and purchase cryptocurrency. The defendants face charges including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, three counts of wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Beniamin Lucescu is also individually charged with three counts of money laundering.
Georgeta Lucescu's motion to dismiss count five due to merger was joined by Beniamin Lucescu, who also moved to dismiss counts six through eight on the same grounds. The defense contended that the alleged use of EIDL funds for tax payments and cryptocurrency purchases was central to both the wire fraud scheme and the money laundering charges, thus constituting a single offense charged multiple times.
The prosecutors argued that the wire fraud and money laundering charges are based on distinct conduct and separate transactions. According to the prosecution, the wire fraud allegations focus on how the funds were obtained, while the money laundering charges pertain to how those funds were subsequently used.
In its ruling, the Court sided with the Government, determining that a merger problem does not exist in this case. The Court referenced precedent, including the Ninth Circuit case United States v. Van Alstyne, which examines whether a transaction is a "central component of the 'scheme to defraud.'" The Court distinguished the current case from Van Alstyne, where money laundering charges were found to have merged with mail fraud charges because the fraudulent transactions themselves were the subject of the money laundering.
In this instance, the Court found that the transactions forming the basis of the money laundering charges—the transfer of EIDL proceeds to pay federal taxes and buy cryptocurrency—are not a central component of the alleged wire fraud scheme. While these transactions may provide evidence of fraudulent intent, they are not intrinsically part of the wire fraud charges themselves.
The Court noted that the wire fraud counts in this case involve the transmission of EIDL applications, not the monetary transactions that followed. Consequently, the Court concluded that the defendants were not charged with two crimes for the same act and denied their motions to dismiss.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
