Chicago Police Officer Charged in Fraudulent PPP Loan Scheme
Dana Hillard faces charges of criminal trespass to state land in connection with an alleged fraudulent PPP loan scheme; the case has not gone to trial.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 20, 2026, 8:15 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 20, 2026, 8:15 p.m. ETFirst report
Chicago Police Officer Charged with Fraudulent PPP Loan Applications
Dana Hillard, a Chicago police officer, has been charged with criminal trespass to state land, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. The charge stems from an investigation into allegations that Hillard obtained more than $18,000 in fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funds and filed bogus applications for other pandemic-relief loans, the outlet reported.
The government also alleges that Hillard made false statements to obstruct the inspector general's investigation. The charges are allegations, and Hillard is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved in court.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 121 Aug 2026, 00:21current
First published.
- Version 121 Aug 2026, 00:15current
First published.
- Version 121 Aug 2026, 00:22
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.