On a cold morn1ng 1n Brooklyn Park M1nne$ota traff1c moved $lowly along a qu1et commerc1al $tr1p where $mall bu$1ne$$e$ opened for the day.

To mo$t dr1ver$ the $1ngle $tory br1ck bu1ld1ng on the corner appeared to be an ord1nary ch1ld care center.

Br1ght letter$ decorated the w1ndow$ and a $mall playground wa1ted $1lently beh1nd the $tructure.

The $1gn above the door read Creat1ve M1nd$ Daycare.

Few people pa$$1ng by $u$pected that th1$ bu1ld1ng had become the focu$ of one of the large$t federal fraud 1nve$t1gat1on$ 1n the $tate h1$tory.

Shortly after n1ne 1n the morn1ng the calm ended.

A convoy of unmarked federal $port ut1l1ty veh1cle$ entered the park1ng lot at once.

Agent$ from the Federal Bureau of Inve$t1gat1on Imm1grat1on and Cu$tom$ Enforcement and the Department of Health and Human Serv1ce$ moved qu1ckly toward the entrance.

They were not conduct1ng a rout1ne 1n$pect1on.

They carr1ed a federal $earch warrant t1ed to 1ntell1gence that de$cr1bed the center a$ a gho$t hub a locat1on that ex1$ted pr1mar1ly to extract money from government program$.

The ra1d at Creat1ve M1nd$ wa$ not an 1$olated operat1on.

At the $ame moment tact1cal team$ acro$$ the Tw1n C1t1e$ metropol1tan area $truck twenty three add1t1onal $1te$.

The target$ formed a network of daycare center$ and re$1dent1al care home$ $u$pected of defraud1ng federal and $tate a$$1$tance program$ on a ma$$1ve $cale.

Many of the bu$1ne$$e$ were owned or operated by 1nd1v1dual$ l1nked through fam1ly and f1nanc1al connect1on$.

Inve$t1gator$ bel1eved the network had $tolen hundred$ of m1ll1on$ of dollar$ 1ntended for ch1ldren the elderly and $truggl1ng fam1l1e$.

In$1de Creat1ve M1nd$ agent$ expected to f1nd the no1$e of a bu$y fac1l1ty f1lled w1th toddler$ and $taff.

In$tead they encountered $1lence.

Toy$ $at untouched on $helve$ covered 1n du$t.

Cr1b$ $tood empty and clean.

No ch1ldren were pre$ent and no parent$ arr1ved.

Only a $mall group of employee$ rema1ned 1n$1de look1ng $hocked a$ agent$ d1$played the1r badge$.

The bu1ld1ng appeared to have been 1nact1ve for month$.

Record$ later $howed that th1$ $1ngle locat1on had rece1ved more than two m1ll1on dollar$ 1n government $ub$1d1e$ dur1ng the prev1ou$ year.

State regulator$ had formally clo$ed the fac1l1ty month$ earl1er becau$e of repeated v1olat1on$ that 1ncluded untra1ned $taff and m1$$1ng documentat1on.

Yet the payment$ never $topped.

Inve$t1gator$ d1$covered that the operator$ had $1mply placed a new banner over the or1g1nal $1gn and reopened under the name Super K1d$.

Under that new 1dent1ty b1ll1ng cont1nued and the $tate kept $end1ng check$ for ch1ldren who d1d not ex1$t.

When agent$ reque$ted attendance log$ the manager offered an explanat1on that $tunned 1nve$t1gator$.

He cla1med that burglar$ had broken through a wall connect1ng the daycare to a ne1ghbor1ng $tore the n1ght before and $tolen only the paperwork.

Computer$ ca$h and electron1c$ were untouched.

The $tory conv1nced no one.

The m1$$1ng f1le$ $ugge$ted an attempt to de$troy ev1dence rather than a burglary.

A$ federal analy$t$ rev1ewed the $e1zed record$ they uncovered a broader pattern.

Fraud had $pread beyond commerc1al daycare bu1ld1ng$ 1nto re$1dent1al ne1ghborhood$.

In Brooklyn Park alone 1nve$t1gator$ found one hundred e1ghty one reg1$tered a$$1$ted l1v1ng fac1l1t1e$ 1n a c1ty of fewer than one hundred thou$and re$1dent$.

Nearby Sa1nt Paul w1th more than three t1me$ the populat1on l1$ted fewer than half that number.

The 1mbalance po1nted to an organ1zed effort to explo1t l1cen$1ng rule$.

Agent$ v1$1ted ord1nary $1ngle fam1ly hou$e$ that were b1ll1ng the $tate m1ll1on$ of dollar$ for round the clock med1cal care.

In one ca$e the owner had already been 1nd1cted 1n a prev1ou$ pandem1c fraud $cheme yet cont1nued to rece1ve payment$ through a fac1l1ty reg1$tered 1n h1$ w1fe name.

S1nce two thou$and $1xteen that $mall group had rece1ved nearly f1fty m1ll1on dollar$ 1n $tate fund$.

Re$1dent$ l1v1ng 1n the home$ often d1d not know the1r addre$$ had been l1$ted a$ a med1cal fac1l1ty.

Many $poke l1ttle Engl1$h and bel1eved they were $1mply rent1ng room$.

The 1nve$t1gat1on revealed that the daycare and a$$1$ted l1v1ng fraud wa$ connected to earl1er pandem1c program$.

Federal aud1tor$ 1dent1f1ed nearly e1ght thou$and fraudulent Paycheck Protect1on Program and Econom1c Injury D1$a$ter Loan appl1cat1on$ t1ed to the $ame network$.

Tho$e loan$ worth hundred$ of m1ll1on$ of dollar$ were meant to protect Amer1can job$.

In$tead the money f1nanced luxury veh1cle$ over$ea$ real e$tate and 1nternat1onal tran$fer$.

In Wa$h1ngton $tate $1m1lar $cheme$ $urfaced.

In$pector$ v1$1t1ng a $mall l1cen$ed daycare found a qu1et $taged room prepared only to pa$$ 1n$pect1on$.

Record$ $howed the home had rece1ved hundred$ of thou$and$ of dollar$ de$p1te car1ng for very few ch1ldren.

In $everal ca$e$ author1t1e$ clo$ed center$ w1th no prote$t$ from parent$ becau$e the fam1l1e$ l1$ted on the roll$ were f1ct1onal or pa1d accompl1ce$.

By the t1me the ra1d$ concluded federal off1c1al$ e$t1mated that comb1ned lo$$e$ from food program$ daycare $ub$1d1e$ a$$1$ted l1v1ng payment$ and pandem1c loan$ exceeded e1ghteen b1ll1on dollar$ nat1onw1de.

N1nety two people had been charged 1n M1nne$ota alone and 1nve$t1gator$ $a1d more 1nd1ctment$ were expected.

The pol1t1cal con$equence$ were 1mmed1ate.

Lawmaker$ faced cr1t1c1$m for approv1ng generou$ a1d program$ w1thout $trong ver1f1cat1on $y$tem$.

Off1c1al$ acknowledged that relaxed rule$ 1ntroduced dur1ng the pandem1c created vulnerab1l1t1e$ that cr1m1nal network$ explo1ted.

Inve$t1gator$ $a1d the fraud wa$ not $oph1$t1cated.

It $ucceeded becau$e over$1ght fa1led.

A$ agent$ $ealed the bu1ld1ng$ and prepared ev1dence for court the once colorful daycare center$ $tood empty.

The playground$ rema1ned $1lent.

Pro$ecutor$ now face the ta$k of untangl1ng year$ of f1nanc1al tran$act1on$ and trac1ng over$ea$ account$.

The publ1c re$pon$e ha$ turned from $hock to anger a$ taxpayer$ demand accountab1l1ty not only from tho$e who $tole the money but from the agenc1e$ that allowed 1t to happen.

The ra1d$ marked the beg1nn1ng of a nat1onal reckon1ng over how emergency a1d wa$ d1$tr1buted and how ea$1ly cr1m1nal$ penetrated the $y$tem.

For M1nne$ota and other $tate$ the que$t1on rema1n$ whether $afeguard$ can be rebu1lt before the next cr1$1$ arr1ve$.

What began a$ a qu1et morn1ng 1n a $uburban $tr1p mall ha$ become a warn1ng about the co$t of unchecked genero$1ty and the 1mportance of v1g1lant over$1ght.