When Does the Statute of Limitations Start for PPP Fraud?
So your probably trying to figure out exactly when the 10-year statute of limitations clock starts ticking for PPP fraud, and the answer is—it depends on what fraudulent act your charged with. The statute generally starts running from the date the offense was COMMITTED, but PPP fraud can involve multiple acts at different times: submitting the initial loan application, receiving the funds, spending the money, submitting the forgiveness application, making false statements during an audit. Each of those acts might trigger a separate statute of limitations period, and prosecutors will choose the date that gives them the most time to bring charges.
We represent clients in PPP fraud cases throughout California and the federal system, and statute of limitations issues come up regularly. Defendants think “I got the loan in April 2020, so the statute runs from April 2020 to April 2030.” But if you submitted a fraudulent forgiveness application in December 2020, prosecutors might argue the statute runs from December 2020 (to December 2030). If you made false statements to investigators in March 2025, they might argue the statute runs from March 2025 (to March 2035). Understanding when the clock starts is critical for assessing your risk and mounting defenses.
The general rule under federal law is that the statute of limitations begins when the offense is COMPLETE, meaning all elements of the crime have occurred. For most fraud offenses, that’s when the false statement is made or when the defendant obtains the money through fraud. But there are exceptions—continuing offenses, conspiracies, and situations where the statute is tolled (paused). And prosecutors are creative about arguing that multiple fraudulent acts extend the limitations period beyond what defendants expect. If your facing a PPP fraud investigation or charges, the question of when the statute started running can literally be the difference between prosecution and freedom.
When Does the Statute Start for Fraud in the Loan Application?
For fraud involving false statements on the INITIAL PPP loan application, the statute of limitations typically begins on the date you SUBMITTED the application. Under statutes like wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344), and false statements to a financial institution (18 U.S.C. § 1014), the offense is complete when the defendant transmits or causes to be transmitted the false statement with intent to defraud. That happens when you click “submit” on the online application or when the lender receives your paper application.
So if you submitted a PPP loan application with inflated payroll numbers on May 15, 2020, the 10-year statute of limitations runs from May 15, 2020, giving prosecutors until May 15, 2030, to indict you. It doesn’t matter that the loan wasn’t FUNDED until June 1, 2020, or that you didn’t SPEND the money until later—the fraud was complete when you submitted the false application. The subsequent events (approval, funding, spending) are consequences of the fraud, not separate elements that extend the statute.
This is important because defendants sometimes argue “the fraud wasn’t complete until I actually RECEIVED the money, so the statute should run from the funding date.” Courts have generally rejected this argument. The crime of wire fraud or bank fraud is making a false statement in interstate commerce or to a financial institution with intent to defraud—that’s complete when the statement is made, not when the scheme succeeds. Similarly, the crime of false statements under § 1014 is making a false statement to a financial institution in connection with a loan—that’s complete when the statement is made, regardless of whether the loan is approved.
There’s a potential complication if you submitted MULTIPLE applications. If you filed PPP applications for three different businesses on different dates—Business A on April 10, 2020, Business B on May 20, 2020, and Business C on July 15, 2020—there are three separate offenses with three separate limitations periods. Prosecutors could charge all three as separate counts, and the statute for each count runs from the date that application was submitted. So even if the statute has expired for Business A (April 2030), you could still be charged for Business B and Business C (May 2030 and July 2030).
Does the Statute Start When the Loan Is Funded or When I Receive the Money?
Generally, no—the statute starts when the fraudulent statement is MADE, not when the money is received. But there are arguments prosecutors make to push the start date later, particularly if the funding date is significantly after the application date. If you applied in April 2020 but the loan wasn’t funded until August 2020 because the lender requested additional documentation and you provided false documents in July 2020, prosecutors might argue the offense continued through July 2020 and the statute runs from then.
The theory is that fraud involving multiple false statements or a continuing course of conduct isn’t complete until the LAST false statement is made. So if your initial April application had some false information, then the lender asked for payroll records and you submitted fake payroll records in July, and the lender asked for tax documents and you submitted forged tax returns in August, prosecutors can argue the fraud continued through August and the statute runs from the last false document (August 2020 to August 2030).
This is why defendants need to be careful about arguing “the offense was complete when I submitted the application” if there were subsequent communications with the lender. If you made additional false statements after the initial application, those statements can extend the limitations period. And if the lender’s approval was conditioned on receiving documentation that you provided fraudulently, prosecutors will argue the fraud wasn’t complete until that documentation was submitted and the loan was approved based on it.
Another scenario where the funding date might matter is if the fraud allegation is that you DIVERTED the funds after receiving them. If the charge is that you obtained a legitimate PPP loan but then used the money for prohibited purposes and concealed that fact, the offense might not be complete until the diversion occurred. But this is less common—most PPP fraud charges focus on false statements made to OBTAIN the loan, not on how the money was spent after receiving it. Misuse of funds is more often charged as a separate offense (like money laundering) with its own statute of limitations.
What About the Forgiveness Application—Does That Start a New Statute?
Yes, if you submitted a fraudulent PPP FORGIVENESS application, that starts a separate statute of limitations period running from the date you submitted the forgiveness application. Forgiveness fraud is a distinct offense from the initial loan fraud—you can be charged with both, and they have separate limitations periods. So even if the statute for your initial loan application fraud has expired, you can still be charged for forgiveness fraud if that occurred later.
Here’s how it works. Let’s say you submitted a PPP loan application in May 2020 that was completely truthful and legitimate—you accurately reported your payroll, you were eligible, the application was proper. The loan was funded in June 2020. Then you spent the money on personal expenses instead of payroll and business costs. In November 2020, you submitted a forgiveness application claiming you spent the funds on payroll, and you provided fake payroll records to support that claim. That forgiveness application is a separate act of fraud, and the 10-year statute runs from November 2020 (to November 2030), not from May 2020.
So defendants who think “I got the loan in 2020, so the statute runs to 2030” need to consider whether there were ADDITIONAL fraudulent acts after the initial loan. If you submitted a forgiveness application in 2021, the statute for that fraud runs to 2031. If you made false statements to the SBA during an audit in 2022, the statute for those false statements runs to 2032. Each fraudulent act can be a separate offense with its own limitations period.
The forgiveness application issue is particularly important because many PPP loans weren’t forgiven until months or even a year or more after the initial loan. The forgiveness process involved submitting documentation showing how the funds were spent, certifying that the spending qualified for forgiveness, and providing payroll records, tax forms, and other evidence. If any of those documents were false or if the certifications were lies, that’s forgiveness fraud with a statute running from when the forgiveness application was submitted.
Prosecutors often charge BOTH initial loan fraud AND forgiveness fraud as separate counts. Count 1: Bank fraud for false statements on the May 2020 loan application (statute runs to May 2030). Count 2: Bank fraud for false statements on the November 2020 forgiveness application (statute runs to November 2030). Count 3: Wire fraud for transmitting the fraudulent forgiveness application electronically (same statute as Count 2). This layering of charges gives prosecutors multiple bites at the apple and extends the overall time period they have to bring the case.
Can Prosecutors Use the “Continuing Offense” Doctrine to Extend the Statute?
Prosecutors sometimes argue that PPP fraud was a “continuing offense” that didn’t conclude until the last fraudulent act, which can extend the statute of limitations beyond when the initial application was submitted. The continuing offense doctrine applies when a crime by its nature continues over a period of time or involves multiple acts that are part of a single ongoing scheme. If the doctrine applies, the statute doesn’t start until the offense ENDS, not when it began.
In PPP fraud cases, prosecutors might argue: “The defendant engaged in a continuing course of fraudulent conduct from April 2020 (initial application) through December 2020 (forgiveness application) through March 2021 (false statements during audit). The offense continued throughout that period, so the statute runs from March 2021 (to March 2031), not from April 2020.” This argument pushes the limitations period out by nearly a year compared to if the statute ran from the initial application.
Courts have been mixed on whether the continuing offense doctrine applies to fraud. Some courts hold that fraud is “complete” when the false statement is made, so subsequent acts (even if part of the same scheme) don’t extend the statute—they’re just evidence of the original fraud or separate offenses with their own limitations periods. Other courts allow prosecutors to use the continuing offense doctrine if the fraudulent scheme involved ongoing affirmative acts to conceal the fraud or perpetuate it.
The key distinction is between a CONTINUING OFFENSE (where the crime by its nature continues over time) and CONTINUING CONSEQUENCES of a completed offense. For example, if you submitted a fraudulent PPP application in May 2020 and did nothing else, the fact that you continued to BENEFIT from the fraud (keeping the money, enjoying the use of it) doesn’t make it a continuing offense—those are just consequences. But if you submitted the application in May 2020, then submitted false documents to the lender in June 2020, then submitted a false forgiveness application in November 2020, then lied to SBA auditors in March 2021, prosecutors can argue those acts were all part of a continuing scheme and the statute runs from March 2021.
Defendants facing continuing offense arguments should challenge them aggressively. The burden is on prosecutors to prove the offense continued, and they need to show affirmative fraudulent acts throughout the claimed period, not just passive enjoyment of the fraud proceeds. If your case involves a single false application and no subsequent fraudulent acts, the continuing offense doctrine shouldn’t apply. If there were multiple acts, each might be a separate offense with its own statute, rather than a single continuing offense.
What If I Made False Statements to Investigators Years Later?
If federal investigators interview you about your PPP loan and you make false statements during that interview, those false statements can be charged as a separate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements to federal agents), and the statute of limitations for that offense runs from the DATE OF THE INTERVIEW, not from when the original PPP fraud occurred. This is a trap many defendants fall into—they commit fraud in 2020, investigators contact them in 2024, they lie during the interview thinking it’ll help them avoid charges, and now there’s a NEW offense with a statute running to 2034.
Here’s a common scenario. You got a PPP loan in June 2020 through a fraudulent application. Investigators don’t contact you until March 2024. They interview you and ask “Did you inflate your payroll numbers on the application?” You say “No, all the information was accurate.” That’s a false statement to a federal agent, and it’s a separate federal crime. The statute for the original PPP fraud (June 2020) runs to June 2030. The statute for the false statement to investigators (March 2024) runs to March 2034. By lying, you’ve extended your exposure by four additional years.
This is why defense attorneys always advise: DO NOT talk to federal investigators without a lawyer, and if you do talk, DO NOT lie. Lying to federal agents is a crime even if your lie is about conduct that’s not itself criminal, and even if your lie is intended to protect someone else. The statement has to be material (relevant to the investigation) and false. If both elements are met, you’ve committed a federal offense with up to 5 years in prison, and you’ve given prosecutors a fresh statute of limitations to work with.
Some defendants think “if I just deny everything, there won’t be enough evidence to charge me with the original fraud.” That’s backwards. The government already HAS evidence of the original fraud—that’s why there investigating. Your denial doesn’t make that evidence disappear; it just adds a FALSE STATEMENT charge to the pile. And false statement charges are often easier to prove than the underlying fraud, because all prosecutors need to show is that you said X, X was false, and X was material to the investigation. They don’t need to prove the entire fraud scheme—they just need to prove you lied about it.
Does the Statute Start Over If I’m Charged in a Superseding Indictment?
No, the statute of limitations is measured from when the OFFENSE occurred, not from when charges are filed. A superseding indictment (an updated indictment that adds charges or defendants after the original indictment) doesn’t restart the statute, but it CAN add new charges if those charges are based on conduct that occurred within the 10-year limitations period. Here’s how it works in practice.
Let’s say you committed PPP fraud in May 2020, and prosecutors indict you in January 2025 with one count of bank fraud. The statute hasn’t run (it runs to May 2030), so the indictment is timely. Then in June 2025, prosecutors file a superseding indictment adding a count of money laundering based on how you spent the PPP funds. As long as the money laundering occurred within 10 years before the superseding indictment (so, June 2015 or later), the new charge is timely.
The complication is when prosecutors try to add charges based on conduct that WOULD have been outside the original statute but gets pulled in under the “relation back” doctrine. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 3, charges in a superseding indictment “relate back” to the date of the original indictment if there based on the same conduct. So if the original January 2025 indictment charged bank fraud for your May 2020 PPP application, and the superseding indictment adds a wire fraud charge for the same application, the wire fraud charge relates back to January 2025 and is timely as long as the bank fraud charge was timely.
But prosecutors can’t use superseding indictments to add charges for conduct that occurred AFTER the original indictment. If your indicted in January 2025 for May 2020 PPP fraud, and then in March 2025 you make false statements to your probation officer about the case, prosecutors can’t just add that to the existing indictment—it’s new conduct that occurred after the indictment. They’d have to charge it separately.
The practical takeaway is that once your indicted, the statute of limitations issues for the conduct alleged in the indictment are mostly resolved—if the indictment was timely filed, you can’t challenge it later based on the statute running. But there might still be statute issues for additional charges prosecutors try to add later, particularly if those charges are based on conduct from a long time ago or conduct that’s different from what was in the original indictment.
What If I Wasn’t in the United States When the Fraud Occurred?
The statute of limitations is generally NOT tolled (paused) just because you left the country or were absent from the jurisdiction. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3290, the statute IS suspended if the defendant “flees from justice,” but that requires prosecutors to prove you left the jurisdiction with INTENT to avoid prosecution. Simply being out of the country, even for years, doesn’t constitute flight from justice unless there’s evidence you knew about the investigation and left to evade it.
Here’s the standard. If you committed PPP fraud in May 2020 and moved to Mexico in August 2020 for legitimate reasons (work, family, retirement), the statute continues to run—prosecutors have until May 2030 to indict you, and your time in Mexico doesn’t extend that. But if you committed PPP fraud in May 2020, learned in July 2020 that you were under investigation, and immediately fled to Mexico to avoid arrest, the statute is suspended during the time your gone. If you return in 2027, the statute resumes running from where it left off in July 2020.
Proving flight from justice requires evidence of intent. Prosecutors typically show: (1) defendant learned of the investigation or was contacted by law enforcement, (2) defendant immediately left the jurisdiction, (3) defendant stayed away for an extended period, (4) defendant took steps to hide there whereabouts or avoid detection. If all those elements are present, courts will find the defendant fled and toll the statute during the flight period.
But if you were already living abroad when the fraud occurred, or if you left for reasons unrelated to the investigation, the statute runs normally. The government’s burden is to prove you fled WITH INTENT to avoid prosecution, not just that you happened to be absent from the U.S. during the limitations period. And if you were present in the U.S. for part of the time and abroad for part, the statute runs during both periods—it’s only suspended if there’s flight from justice.
One wrinkle: if your outside the U.S. when prosecutors want to indict you, they might obtain a sealed indictment before the statute expires, then wait for you to return before unsealing it and arresting you. The indictment is timely as long as the grand jury returns it before the statute runs, even if your not arrested until years later. So defendants who think “I’ll just stay in Mexico until the statute runs” are taking a risk—prosecutors might have already indicted you and are waiting for you to come back.
Does the Statute Stop Running Once I’m Indicted?
Yes, once a valid indictment is returned by a grand jury, the statute of limitations is no longer an issue for the offenses charged in that indictment—the case can proceed even if years pass before trial. The statute is a bar to BRINGING CHARGES, not to PROSECUTING charges that were timely brought. So as long as the indictment was returned before the statute expired, the case can continue indefinitely.
This means prosecutors can obtain indictments right before the statute is about to run, then take their time prosecuting the case. If the 10-year statute for your May 2020 PPP fraud expires in May 2030, prosecutors might present the case to a grand jury in April 2030, obtain an indictment with days to spare, then spend the next 2-3 years litigating motions, conducting discovery, and going to trial. As long as the indictment was timely, the subsequent delay doesn’t matter for statute of limitations purposes.
There ARE limits on delay under the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and the Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C. § 3161), but those are separate from the statute of limitations. The Speedy Trial Act requires trial to begin within 70 days of indictment or arraignment (with various exclusions for pretrial motions, competency evaluations, etc.). If that deadline isn’t met, the remedy is dismissal of the charges, but prosecutors can often get extensions or the delays are excludable under the Act.
The Sixth Amendment speedy trial right protects against unreasonable delay between indictment and trial, but “unreasonable” is judged based on the length of delay, the reason for delay, whether the defendant asserted the right, and whether the delay prejudiced the defendant’s ability to mount a defense. Courts balance these factors, and delays of 2-3 years are common in complex fraud cases without violating the Sixth Amendment.
The practical effect is that once your indicted, statute of limitations arguments are largely off the table. Your defense shifts to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, asserting constitutional rights, negotiating plea agreements, and preparing for trial. The statute served its purpose—ensuring prosecutors brought charges within a reasonable time after the offense—and once they’ve done that, the focus moves to litigating the merits of the case.
Can the Government Extend the Statute of Limitations Again?
Congress has the power to extend statutes of limitations as long as the original period hasn’t expired yet, and there’s precedent for it—the 2022 extension from 5-6 years to 10 years for PPP fraud happened retroactively for offenses that occurred before the law was passed. So theoretically, Congress could pass another law in 2029 extending the PPP fraud statute from 10 years to 15 years, and it would apply to conduct from 2020 as long as the original 10-year period hasn’t run yet.
But as a practical matter, another extension seems unlikely. The 2022 extension was controversial and faced constitutional challenges (which were unsuccessful). Extending it again would raise even more serious ex post facto concerns, particularly if done very close to when statutes are expiring. The Supreme Court has held that statute of limitations extensions don’t violate the ex post facto clause as long as the original period hasn’t expired, but there ARE limits—at some point, repeated extensions could be seen as unfairly retroactive.
The 10-year period is also already very generous. Most federal offenses have 5-year limitations periods. Ten years gives prosecutors ample time to investigate complex cases, coordinate with multiple agencies, and bring charges. It’s hard to argue that 10 years isn’t enough time, and further extensions would face political opposition from defense attorneys, civil liberties groups, and defendants’ rights advocates.
What’s more likely than another extension is that prosecutors will make sure to indict cases before the deadlines. As we approach 2029-2030 (when the first wave of 2020 PPP fraud statutes start expiring), expect a surge of indictments as prosecutors charge cases there still investigating to avoid losing them. We saw this in 2024-2025 with certain financial fraud cases where statutes were about to run—prosecutors rushed to get indictments before the deadlines, sometimes with bare-bones charging documents that got fleshed out later in superseding indictments.
How Can I Tell When the Statute Started Running in My Case?
To determine when the 10-year statute started for your specific case, you need to identify the DATE of the fraudulent act. Here’s a framework for analyzing common PPP fraud scenarios:
Scenario 1: False statements on initial application only. If your only fraudulent act was submitting a PPP loan application with false information, the statute runs from the date you SUBMITTED the application. Check your email confirmations, lender records, or SBA records to find the exact date. If you applied on May 20, 2020, the statute runs to May 20, 2030.
Scenario 2: False statements on application AND forgiveness application. If you submitted a fraudulent loan application AND a fraudulent forgiveness application, there are TWO statutes running—one from the loan application date, one from the forgiveness application date. If the loan application was May 20, 2020, and the forgiveness application was November 15, 2020, prosecutors can charge you until May 20, 2030, for loan fraud and until November 15, 2030, for forgiveness fraud.
Scenario 3: Multiple applications on different dates. If you filed multiple fraudulent PPP applications, each has its own statute running from the date it was submitted. If you applied for three different businesses in April 2020, June 2020, and September 2020, there are three separate statutes running to April 2030, June 2030, and September 2030.
Scenario 4: False statements made during investigation. If you lied to federal agents or made false statements on documents during an audit or investigation, the statute for those false statements runs from when you MADE the statements, not from the original fraud. If investigators interviewed you in January 2025 and you lied, the statute for false statements runs to January 2035.
Scenario 5: Conspiracy with others over extended period. If you conspired with others to commit PPP fraud and the conspiracy involved multiple acts over time (filing applications, submitting false documents, dividing up the proceeds), prosecutors might argue the statute runs from the LAST act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Conspiracy statutes of limitations run from the date of the last overt act, not the first. So if the conspiracy started in April 2020 but the last fraudulent act was in March 2021, the statute might run to March 2031.
The key is to document WHEN each potentially fraudulent act occurred. If your concerned about statute of limitations issues in your case, gather all records related to your PPP loan—the original application and submission date, documentation you provided to the lender, the forgiveness application and submission date, any correspondence with the SBA, records of interviews with investigators. An experienced federal criminal defense attorney can review those records and advise you on when the various statutes started and when there likely to expire.
If your facing a PPP fraud investigation or charges, understanding when the statute of limitations started is critical for assessing your risk and developing defenses. We represent clients in PPP fraud cases throughout California and the federal system, and we regularly litigate statute of limitations issues, challenge prosecutors’ arguments about continuing offenses and tolling, and advise clients on when there exposure ends. If your concerned about a PPP loan you received and whether the statute has run or is about to run, call us for a consultation. The 10-year limitations period means there’s still substantial risk for conduct from 2020-2022, but knowing exactly when your statute started can help you understand your timeline and options.