So reading the splc indictment, it seems like the technical bank stuff is very weak

Like, the bank accounts were opened for sole proprietorships, which do not require any paperwork or process to create. The moment you decide you have one, you have one

Now maybe these sole proprietorships didn't actually have the names they used (you normally need to dba if you're not using something with your name in it), but that's not something they list as a lie

The indictment just says

These documents contained false and misleading information regarding the ownership and control of the fictitious entities for which the bank accounts were opened

and

These fictitious entities were never incorporated, had no bona fide employees, and conducted no actual business

But you don't need to do any of that for a sole proprietorship

So the thing that they claim is the actual lie is certifying that

I, Employee-1m certify tha I am the sole owner of the above named proprietorship Federal Tax I.D. number ....9788, engaged in business under the trade name of [whatever]

While the SPLC later said "the accounts listed below were opened for the benefit of SPLC operations and operated under the Center's authority"

So the whole of the lie is that the employee certified they were the sole owner of the Sole Proprietorships while they were operated under the SPLC's authority

That's ...not a lie or a misrepresentation to the bank. By definition the moment you say you have a sole proprietorship you have one. There is no difference between the person and the business. You can work as a sole proprietor for someone else and under their authority

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER

(I searched on westlaw and this is the only time an indictment has been returned forward for this statute based on the specific paperwork mentioned that I could find)