Kabbage (KServicing) — PPP Loan Processing
Kabbage Agrees to Pay Up to $120 Million Over PPP Lending Practices
Source: U.S. Department of Justice
TL;DR: Kabbage Agrees to Pay Up to $120 Million Over PPP Lending Practices This case resulted in a $120 Million resolution and demonstrates the impact of whistleblower protections in recovering funds from fraud.
Summary
Kabbage (through KServicing Wind Down Corp.) agreed to pay up to $120 million to resolve DOJ allegations tied to Paycheck Protection Program lending practices. DOJ described two settlement components: one resolving allegations that Kabbage systematically inflated tens of thousands of PPP loans through payroll-calculation errors (including issues like double-counting certain taxes and failing to apply compensation caps), and another resolving allegations that Kabbage failed to implement appropriate fraud controls and comply with PPP and BSA/AML obligations—allegedly removing underwriting steps to process more applications and maximize fees. DOJ also noted qui tam actions were part of the resolution.
Our Take
PPP lender cases frequently come from inside the operations stack: risk teams, QA, fraud review, and compliance functions that saw controls being stripped to increase throughput. The most useful evidence is rarely abstract—it's version histories of underwriting rules, internal dashboards showing exception rates, complaints and escalation logs, and communications linking speed/volume targets to fee revenue. If you saw "move fast" culture override verification requirements, document what changed, when, and who approved it.
Read the full article from the original source:
View Original ArticleOpens in a new tab. Content from U.S. Department of Justice.
Notice
The summaries above are based on publicly available information released by the U.S. Department of Justice and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice, investigative findings, or allegations by Disclosure Strategy. Our commentary reflects general, experience-based observations about how False Claims Act matters commonly arise and is not a statement about any party's liability.