
Former Rapids Theatre owner pleads guilty to wire and bank fraud
BUFFALO — The former owner of the Rapids Theatre has pleaded guilty to defrauding the federal government out of more than $1.8 million in Covid relief program funds.
In a plea deal with federal prosecutors, Lewiston businessman John Hutchins pleaded guilty Thursday afternoon to charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud during a hearing in U.S. District Court in Buffalo. Hutchins, 71, faces a maximum possible sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine.
Hutchins and his co-defendant and business associate Roberto Soliman had been scheduled to stand trial in the fraud and conspiracy case in early January, but those proceedings were postponed after prosecutors filed a superseding indictment in the case in September.
Shortly after the trial was delayed in early January, the presiding judge in the case, District Court Judge John Sinatra, recused himself from the proceedings. He was replaced by District Court Judge Meredith Vacca who further delayed and rescheduled a number of pre-trial hearings in the case.
On March 12, a filing with the federal court clerk indicated that a hearing on a plea agreement for Hutchins would be held Thursday. Charges against Soliman remain pending.
The superseding indictment, filed in September, accused Hutchins and Soliman, 40, of the Falls, of stealing an additional $1 million from a pandemic relief grant program. The pair were accused of additional counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud and committing wire fraud and bank fraud.
Hutchins remained charged with making a false statement to the FBI and Soliman remained charged with engaging in monetary transactions with criminally derived property (money laundering).
Both Hutchins and Soliman pleaded not guilty to the charges. They have been free on conditions since their indictment.
The superseding indictment added charges that accused Hutchins and Soliman of filing fraudulent applications for the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant (SVOG) program. The grants available under that program were designed to provide emergency financial assistance as part of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits and Venuses Act (Economic Aid Act).
According to the indictment, 'the purpose of the SVOG program was to support the ongoing operations of eligible live-event venues (like the Rapids Theatre) and operators affected by the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.' Eligible applicants could qualify for grants equal to 45% of their gross earned revenue.
Grants were capped at no more than $10 million. SVOG funds could be used for specific expenses, including payroll, rent and utilities.
In the original indictment, Hutchins and Soliman, the former chief financial officer of Hutchins' companies, were accused of defrauding two Covid-related loan programs out of more than $750,000. They were indicted on those charges in March 2022.
Prosecutors charge that Hutchins and Soliman applied for the SVOG grant in April 2021, at a time when they knew they were being investigated by the FBI for ripping off the loan programs. The prosecutors charged Hutchins and Soliman used an unindicted co-conspirator, identified in court papers only as the Rapids Theatre vice president, to hide their involvement in the grant application.
Federal officials with the U.S. Small Business Administration ultimately authorized a pair of grants, totaling roughly $1 million, to be awarded to the Rapids. When the SBA sought an accounting of the grant funds, Hutchins sent them a letter saying he never authorized the grant application.
Federal prosecutors accused Hutchins and Soliman, in their original indictment, of filing fraudulent loan applications under both the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Those loans were designed to provide emergency financial assistance as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
Hutchins and Soliman applied for loans for the Rapids Theatre, Bear Creek Entertainment LLC, a resort and conference center, Hutch Enterprises LLC, the Hutchins Agency LLC and CWE Entertainment, Corp. CWE is owned and controlled by Soliman, while the other businesses are owned by Hutchins.
Between March and August 2020, prosecutors said Hutchins and Soliman received four Economic Injury Disaster Loans totaling $749,500.00. The indictment against them charges that Hutchins and Soliman submitted false revenue and expense figures for the businesses to support their loan applications.
Federal investigators with the FBI and IRS said Hutchins and Soliman used the loan proceeds, not for their businesses but for their own personal expenses. Hutchins is accused of making payments on residential properties in North Tonawanda and Lewiston, on a 2020 BMW and a 2020 Cadillac, as well as paying homeowner association fees on a Florida condominium.
Hutchins and Soliman also applied for and received a Paycheck Protection Program loan totaling $74,838.
In November 2020, Hutchins was accused of making false statements to FBI special agents and to an investigator in the U.S. Attorney's Office. In those statements, Hutchins reportedly denied applying for, or authorizing anyone to apply for, any Economic Injury Disaster Loans or Paycheck Protection Program loans.
The businessman later claimed that he may have made or authorized a PPP loan application for the Rapids Theatre. Federal investigators claim that Hutchins used Soliman, who was, at that time, the chief financial officer for the Rapids Theatre, to launder the loan money to pay personal expenses.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The FBI raided the wrong house. The Supreme Court says the family is allowed to sue
A family whose home was mistakenly raided in the middle of the night by the FBI eight years ago will be permitted to continue their damages lawsuit after the Supreme Court on Thursday sent their case back to a federal appeals court for additional review. The outcome represents a technical win for the family, which had been barred by lower courts from suing the government over the incident. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. Curtrina Martin, her partner and her then-7-year-old son were startled awake in 2017 when a six-agent SWAT team – believing that they were targeting the home of a gang member – smashed her front door with a battering ram, detonated a flash-bang grenade and rushed into their suburban Atlanta home. At some point after Martin was dragged from the closet where she was hiding and held at gunpoint, agents realized they had the wrong house. The federal government is generally immune from lawsuits, but Congress carved out an exception for some situations involving negligent or wrongful acts of government employees. That law was amended in 1974, following a series of other high-profile raids at the wrong house, to expand the ability of Americans to sue federal law enforcement agents. But the Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the government, holding that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause barred tort claims against the federal government in circumstances where an official's actions had 'some nexus with furthering a federal policy' and could 'reasonably be characterized' as within the range of federal law. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law group that represented the Martin family, argued that outcome would completely undermine the intent of Congress. Lawmakers strengthened the Federal Tort Claims Act following a pair of high-profile wrong-house raids in Collinsville, Illinois, in the early 1970s. During arguments before the Supreme Court in April, the FBI's handling of the Martin raid drew particular scorn from Justice Gorsuch, a conservative and sometimes-skeptic of federal government power. 'You might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door,' an incredulous Gorsuch pressed the lawyer representing the Justice Department. 'How about making sure you're on the right street? I mean, just the right street? Checking the street sign? Is that, you know, asking too much?' The Justice Department argued in part that it should not be liable because federal law bars tort suits when a federal employee is exercising discretion in carrying out their work. In this case, the government argued, the agents had to exercise discretion in how they confirmed they were at the correct house. This story is breaking and has been updated with additional details.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
SCOTUS rules on lawsuit from Atlanta family whose home was wrongly raided by the FBI
The Supreme Court of the United States revived a lawsuit filed by an Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI. Channel 2 investigative reporter Ashli Lincoln has been following Trina Martin's fight against the federal government for years. [DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] In October 2017, FBI agents came into Trina Martin's Atlanta home, pointing guns at her and her then-boyfriend while her then-7-year-old son watched in another room. Within a few minutes, agents realized they had the wrong home and left Martin's house. The agent who led the raid said his personal GPS led him to the wrong place while they looked for a suspected gang member a few houses away. It wasn't until an agent double-checked the mailbox numbers that the FBI realized it was the wrong home. The family filed a lawsuit in 2019 that was dismissed by a federal judge. The family's lawyers appealed to the US Supreme Court, which heard the case in April. On Thursday, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Eleventh Circuit of Appeals should take another look at the lawsuit. This is a developing story. Stay with Channel 2 Action News for the latest. SCOTUS Ruling by WSB-TV on Scribd RELATED STORIES SCOTUS hearing case of Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI Georgia family hopes Supreme Court hears their case after FBI mistakenly raided their house The FBI mistakenly raided their Atlanta home. Now the Supreme Court will hear their lawsuit [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Top Spanish ruling party official resigns over corruption case
A top official in Spain's ruling Socialist Party resigned on Thursday after being implicated in a widening corruption probe that has already ensnared the prime minister's former close aide. The case adds to mounting legal and political pressure on Pedro Sanchez, one of Europe's longest serving Socialist leaders whose inner circle faces several ongoing investigations. Santos Cerdan, the party's organisation secretary and its third-ranking figure, is suspected of being an accomplice in the alleged improper awarding of a public contract during the Covid-19 pandemic, according to a newly published judicial report. "To defend the Socialist Party, to which this country owes so much, and to defend this government, I have decided to resign from all my positions," he said in a statement, adding he "never committed any illegal act". A judge said a police report "reveals the existence of consistent evidence" suggesting Cerdan acted in collusion with former transport minister Jose Luis Abalos and his former adviser, Koldo Garcia Izaguirre, in exchange for financial gain. Cerdan has been invited to testify voluntarily before the Supreme Court on June 25. Due to his parliamentary immunity, he cannot be formally charged unless the court proceeds with further steps. "I am absolutely not afraid. I am completely certain that I will not be accused of corruption," he said earlier on Thursday as he arrived in parliament before stepping down. Lawmakers from the main opposition Popular Party (PP) greeted Cerdan in parliament with chants of "resignation". "If anyone had doubts that there was a mafia-like network behind the ruling party and the government, I suppose those doubts have now been dispelled," PP leader Alberto Nunez Feijoo told reporters. "This is unacceptable in a European Union country. A European prime minister wouldn't last 10 minutes after the revelations we've seen in recent weeks," he added. - 'Smear campaign' - Tens of thousands of people took part in a protest against Sanchez's government on Sunday in Madrid which was called by the PP. Abalos, who served as transport minister from 2018 to 2021 and was once a key figure in Sanchez's administration, is accused of receiving illegal commissions through business contracts. He faces charges of corruption, influence peddling and embezzlement. Abalos was dismissed from Sanchez's cabinet in 2021 and expelled from the Socialist Party earlier this year, but remains a member of parliament as an independent. His parliamentary immunity was lifted in January. During a court hearing in December, he denied receiving any kickbacks and maintained there were no irregularities. Sanchez's wife, Begona Gomez, and his brother, David Sanchez, are also the target of separate investigations for graft. And Spain's top prosecutor, Alvaro Garcia Ortiz who was appointed by Sanchez's government, is facing a possible trial over suspicions he leaked secret case files concerning the partner of Isabel Diaz Ayuso, the powerful conservative leader of the Madrid region. The Spanish prime minister has dismissed the probes against members of his inner circle as part of a "smear campaign" carried out by the right wing to undermine his government. Sanchez came to power in June 2018 after ousting his PP predecessor, Mariano Rajoy, in a no-confidence vote over corruption scandals affecting involving the conservative party. Most recent polls show the PP holding a slim lead over the Socialists. mig-mdm/ds/giv