FROM: U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC and Florida Close the Book on Fraudulent Business Directory Schemes
Defendants In One Case Will Pay $1.7 Million for Return to Small Businesses and Non-Profits
The defendants in two online business directory schemes, one based in Montreal, the other in Oklahoma City, have been banned from the business directory business under settlements with the Federal Trade Commission.
Both operations were charged with defrauding small businesses and nonprofits by charging them for online business directory listings they had not ordered or received – their deceptive tactics included unsolicited telemarketing calls and bogus invoices with the walking fingers image often associated with local yellow page directories.
In June 2014, the FTC and the State of Florida filed a complaint against Francois Egberongbe, Robert N. Durham, Sr., and 7051620 Canada Inc., based in Montreal, and a federal court subsequently halted the operation and froze its assets pending litigation.
Under a settlement announced today, the defendants are banned from telemarketing, and they will pay $1.7 million to reimburse consumers who lost money to the scam.
In July 2014, the FTC charged Your Yellow Book Inc (YYB), Brandie Michelle Law, Dustin Robert Law, and their father, Robert Ray Law, based in Oklahoma City, with defrauding small businesses, doctors’ offices, retirement homes, and religious schools. The defendants asked consumers to “verify” or “update” information in YYB’s Internet business directory and to pay up to $487. Many consumers paid, believing their organization had agreed to be listed in the directory.
The settlement order imposes a $715,476 judgment against the defendants, causing surrender of certain bank accounts, and proceeds from the sale of a vehicle, boat, and camper owned by Dustin Law. The judgment against Brandie Law is suspended, but the full judgment will become due immediately if she is found to have misrepresented her financial condition.
Under both settlement orders, the defendants are also prohibited from making the kinds of misrepresentations alleged in the FTC’s complaint, and from profiting from customers’ personal information, failing to properly dispose of customer information, and collecting money from customers.
The Commission vote approving the proposed stipulated order for permanent injunction against in Egberongbe, Durham and 7051620 Canada Inc. was 5-0. The proposed order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on December 12, 2014. The Commission vote approving the proposed stipulated order for permanent injunction against Your Yellow Book Inc. and the Laws was 5-0. The order was entered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City Division on December 2, 2014.
NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
Showing posts with label TELEMARKETERS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TELEMARKETERS. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Saturday, November 22, 2014
DEFENDANTS IN FTC ACTION REGARDING ADVANCE FEE RECOVERY SCHEME TO STOP OPERATION
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Halts Advance Fee Recovery Scheme Targeting Victims of Timeshare Resale and Investment Scams
The defendants in a federal court action brought by the FTC have agreed to stop operating an advance fee recovery scheme for the duration of the on-going litigation. The FTC seeks to permanently stop the operation, which in the past year took close to $1.3 million from consumers, many of them elderly people who had lost money to timeshare resale and precious metal investment frauds.
According to the FTC’s complaint, telemarketers for Consumer Collection Advocates, Corp. and Michael Robert Ettus called consumers and falsely guaranteed that, for an up-front fee, typically 20 percent of the amount they lost, the defendants would recover substantial amounts of money for them – 60 percent or more – within 30 to 180 days. For consumers who had lost from several thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars and could not afford a 20 percent up-front fee, the defendants would often accept a reduced fee of less than 10 percent of their loss. The defendants also charged a back-end fee of 20 percent for any amount recovered.
According to the complaint, consumers were sent a contract and power of attorney to sign and return with an up-front payment ranging from hundreds to as much as $10,000. Consumers who did not agree to buy the service received repeated calls from defendants pressuring them to sign up. Once consumers paid for the recovery service, they stopped hearing from the defendants. Those who called to ask about their recovery were told their case was being worked on, but few, if any, consumers received any money, according to the complaint.
The defendants are charged with violating the FTC Act and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, which prohibits seeking or accepting payment from a person for recovery of money paid for previous telemarketing transactions until seven business days after that person receives the money.
Under a court order announced today, the defendants are prohibited from misrepresenting that consumers who buy their services will recover, or are highly likely to recover, a substantial portion of money they have lost to telemarketers, typically within 30 to 180 days. They are also barred from violating the TSR, and from selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal information.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On November 4, 2014, the court entered a temporary restraining order [link to TRO] halting the defendants’ deceptive scheme and freezing their assets. The defendants agreed to a preliminary injunction, which the court entered on November 17, 2014. The preliminary injunction continues the conduct prohibitions and asset freeze.
As part of a joint investigation between the FTC and the State of Florida, the Florida Attorney General’s Office filed an action against the defendants in state court on November 5, 2014, alleging the same deceptive practices.
The FTC appreciates the assistance of the Better Business Bureau Serving Southeast Florida and the Caribbean in bringing this case.
NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest.
FTC Halts Advance Fee Recovery Scheme Targeting Victims of Timeshare Resale and Investment Scams
The defendants in a federal court action brought by the FTC have agreed to stop operating an advance fee recovery scheme for the duration of the on-going litigation. The FTC seeks to permanently stop the operation, which in the past year took close to $1.3 million from consumers, many of them elderly people who had lost money to timeshare resale and precious metal investment frauds.
According to the FTC’s complaint, telemarketers for Consumer Collection Advocates, Corp. and Michael Robert Ettus called consumers and falsely guaranteed that, for an up-front fee, typically 20 percent of the amount they lost, the defendants would recover substantial amounts of money for them – 60 percent or more – within 30 to 180 days. For consumers who had lost from several thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars and could not afford a 20 percent up-front fee, the defendants would often accept a reduced fee of less than 10 percent of their loss. The defendants also charged a back-end fee of 20 percent for any amount recovered.
According to the complaint, consumers were sent a contract and power of attorney to sign and return with an up-front payment ranging from hundreds to as much as $10,000. Consumers who did not agree to buy the service received repeated calls from defendants pressuring them to sign up. Once consumers paid for the recovery service, they stopped hearing from the defendants. Those who called to ask about their recovery were told their case was being worked on, but few, if any, consumers received any money, according to the complaint.
The defendants are charged with violating the FTC Act and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, which prohibits seeking or accepting payment from a person for recovery of money paid for previous telemarketing transactions until seven business days after that person receives the money.
Under a court order announced today, the defendants are prohibited from misrepresenting that consumers who buy their services will recover, or are highly likely to recover, a substantial portion of money they have lost to telemarketers, typically within 30 to 180 days. They are also barred from violating the TSR, and from selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal information.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On November 4, 2014, the court entered a temporary restraining order [link to TRO] halting the defendants’ deceptive scheme and freezing their assets. The defendants agreed to a preliminary injunction, which the court entered on November 17, 2014. The preliminary injunction continues the conduct prohibitions and asset freeze.
As part of a joint investigation between the FTC and the State of Florida, the Florida Attorney General’s Office filed an action against the defendants in state court on November 5, 2014, alleging the same deceptive practices.
The FTC appreciates the assistance of the Better Business Bureau Serving Southeast Florida and the Caribbean in bringing this case.
NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
COURT HALTS TELEMARKETERS WHO CLAIM TO BE WITH MEDICARE
FROM: U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Halts Fake Medicare Scheme that Took Money from Seniors’ Bank Accounts
According to a complaint filed by the FTC, the defendants called consumers – including many whose numbers were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry – and said they were providing a new Medicare card or information about Medicare benefits.
The defendants allegedly misrepresented that they were working on behalf of Medicare, and said they needed to verify consumers’ identities using personal information that included their bank account numbers. The defendants allegedly assured consumers that the information would not be used to debit their bank accounts, and that there was no charge for the new Medicare card or information about Medicare benefits.
However, within a few weeks, consumers learned their bank accounts had been debited either $399 or $448 via remotely created checks (RCCs), the complaint alleges. Despite these charges, consumers did not receive any kind of product or service from the defendants. In some instances, the defendants debited the accounts of consumers they had not even contacted.
The FTC charged the defendants with violating the FTC Act and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule. The defendants are Sun Bright Ventures LLC, Citadel ID Pro LLC, and Benjamin Todd Workman. The FTC named Trident Consulting Partners LLC and Glenn Erickson as relief defendants who profited from the scheme.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The FTC filed the complaint, under seal, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On September 4, 2014, the court entered a temporary restraining order halting the defendants’ deceptive scheme and freezing the defendants’ and relief defendants’ assets. The defendants and relief defendants agreed to preliminary injunctions, which the court entered on September 18, 2014. The preliminary injunctions continue the conduct prohibitions and asset freezes set forth in the temporary restraining order.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
FTC TESTIFIES BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE REGARDING PRECIOUS METALS INVESTMENT SCAMS
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Testifies on Precious Metals Investment Scams Before Senate Special Committee on Aging
In testimony before Congress, the Federal Trade Commission described its efforts to stop precious metals investment scams and inform consumers how to avoid them.
Testifying on behalf of the Commission before the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Dama Brown, Director of the FTC’s Southwest Region, said the agency is committed to protecting consumers from investment schemes that swindle money from people and often prey on older Americans’ concerns about the security of their retirement savings, particularly during periods of economic uncertainty.
Following the economic downturn in 2008, the testimony states, the FTC observed a proliferation of schemes that targeted financially-distressed consumers, including telemarketers offering precious metals as purported high-profit, low-risk investments. FTC cases have alleged that, to lure consumers into purchasing these investments, telemarketers claimed that the precious metals investments were certain to rise in price and the investments were safe because they were backed by physical metal.
According to the Commission, in reality, the telemarketers offered a highly leveraged, high-risk investment. Telemarketers allegedly failed to disclose that consumers were financing most of the investments’ purchase price and they were required to pay hefty fees. The terms of the investments rendered them highly risky and largely unprofitable.
The Commission recently filed three law enforcement actions involving precious metals investment schemes, the testimony states. In addition to stopping the alleged scams, the Commission expects to return approximately $5 million to consumer victims. The testimony describes the schemes, the agency’s law enforcement actions, and its consumer education efforts, including providing information about how to avoid scams, what to know before investing in precious metals, coins, or other investments, and practical investment advice.
The Commission vote approving the testimony and its inclusion in the formal record was 4-0.
For information about investing in precious metals, read Investing in Gold, Investing in Bullion and Bullion Coins, and Investing in Collectible Coins.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.
Saturday, February 1, 2014
COURT IMPOSES $14.75 MILLION JUDGMENT AGAINST TELEMARKETERS
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Court Finds Telemarketers in Contempt; Imposes $14.75 Million Judgment
FTC Continues Aggressive Enforcement to Ensure Compliance
At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court judge in Florida has issued a contempt order against Bryon Wolf and Roy Eliasson, two key individuals who operated a deceptive marketing scheme since 2009. According to the order, the defendants violated a December 2008 permanent injunction and final order that barred them from making a range of misrepresentations to consumers, billing consumers without their authorization, and failing to make required disclosures in future business endeavors. The contempt order imposes a judgment of $14.75 million against the defendants, which is the amount they illegally took from consumers in their second scheme.
“This pair of defendants showed complete contempt, both for consumers and for a court order,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “And this action shows that if you violate an FTC order, you’ll pay for that violation. We put orders in place to protect consumers, and we make sure that companies follow them.”
Today’s announcement is the latest example of how the FTC protects American consumers from defendants who are recidivists. The agency monitors every FTC order for compliance, and quickly deals with those wrongdoers who defy its orders. In the last 12 months alone, the FTC successfully tried five contempt cases. The defendants in these actions face tens of millions of dollars in judgments and are banned from various commercial activities.
Case History
In 2007, the FTC sued Suntasia Marketing, Inc., charging the operation with deceptively marketing negative-option programs to consumers nationwide. The defendants allegedly defrauded consumers and charged their bank accounts without their consent for a variety of programs, including memberships in discount buyer’s and travel clubs.
In 2008, 14 defendants agreed to an order settling the FTC’s charges, and were required to pay more than $16 million to provide refunds to defrauded consumers. Bryon Wolf and Roy Eliasson were ordered to pay over $11 million for their role in the scheme, and were barred from a variety of unlawful acts in the future, including misrepresenting material facts regarding an offer, failing to clearly disclose material terms during a sale, and debiting consumers’ accounts without their consent.
But according to the FTC’s motion for contempt, within months of the 2008 order, Wolf and Eliasson devised a new plan to defraud consumers through Membership Services, LLC, a firm they controlled. In this scheme, they used deceptive phone and internet solicitations to target recent loan applicants and misled them into believing they would provide them with cash advances, loans, or lines of credit. Instead, the defendants debited the consumers’ accounts for membership in a continuity program. Very few consumers used the program, and many cancelled when they found out the defendants had debited their accounts and planned to take additional payments from them in future months.
Based on this conduct, following a two day evidentiary hearing, the court found that the defendants had violated the terms of a court-ordered permanent injunction by engaging in some of the same kinds of deceptive tactics that led to the FTC’s prior case against them.
According to the court, while the defendants sent messages to consumers communicating they had been “approved” for a loan, none of them ever received a loan. Instead, many of their bank accounts were debited $49.95 or more a month after they provided their financial information to the defendants.
Information for Businesses and Consumers
The FTC has developed two new blog posts to help provide businesses and consumers with information about specific types of telemarketing fraud and how to avoid it. They are called (Con)tempting Fate and An Online Payday Loan Or Window to a Scam?
The contempt order was entered by the court on January 13, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
Court Finds Telemarketers in Contempt; Imposes $14.75 Million Judgment
FTC Continues Aggressive Enforcement to Ensure Compliance
At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court judge in Florida has issued a contempt order against Bryon Wolf and Roy Eliasson, two key individuals who operated a deceptive marketing scheme since 2009. According to the order, the defendants violated a December 2008 permanent injunction and final order that barred them from making a range of misrepresentations to consumers, billing consumers without their authorization, and failing to make required disclosures in future business endeavors. The contempt order imposes a judgment of $14.75 million against the defendants, which is the amount they illegally took from consumers in their second scheme.
“This pair of defendants showed complete contempt, both for consumers and for a court order,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “And this action shows that if you violate an FTC order, you’ll pay for that violation. We put orders in place to protect consumers, and we make sure that companies follow them.”
Today’s announcement is the latest example of how the FTC protects American consumers from defendants who are recidivists. The agency monitors every FTC order for compliance, and quickly deals with those wrongdoers who defy its orders. In the last 12 months alone, the FTC successfully tried five contempt cases. The defendants in these actions face tens of millions of dollars in judgments and are banned from various commercial activities.
Case History
In 2007, the FTC sued Suntasia Marketing, Inc., charging the operation with deceptively marketing negative-option programs to consumers nationwide. The defendants allegedly defrauded consumers and charged their bank accounts without their consent for a variety of programs, including memberships in discount buyer’s and travel clubs.
In 2008, 14 defendants agreed to an order settling the FTC’s charges, and were required to pay more than $16 million to provide refunds to defrauded consumers. Bryon Wolf and Roy Eliasson were ordered to pay over $11 million for their role in the scheme, and were barred from a variety of unlawful acts in the future, including misrepresenting material facts regarding an offer, failing to clearly disclose material terms during a sale, and debiting consumers’ accounts without their consent.
But according to the FTC’s motion for contempt, within months of the 2008 order, Wolf and Eliasson devised a new plan to defraud consumers through Membership Services, LLC, a firm they controlled. In this scheme, they used deceptive phone and internet solicitations to target recent loan applicants and misled them into believing they would provide them with cash advances, loans, or lines of credit. Instead, the defendants debited the consumers’ accounts for membership in a continuity program. Very few consumers used the program, and many cancelled when they found out the defendants had debited their accounts and planned to take additional payments from them in future months.
Based on this conduct, following a two day evidentiary hearing, the court found that the defendants had violated the terms of a court-ordered permanent injunction by engaging in some of the same kinds of deceptive tactics that led to the FTC’s prior case against them.
According to the court, while the defendants sent messages to consumers communicating they had been “approved” for a loan, none of them ever received a loan. Instead, many of their bank accounts were debited $49.95 or more a month after they provided their financial information to the defendants.
Information for Businesses and Consumers
The FTC has developed two new blog posts to help provide businesses and consumers with information about specific types of telemarketing fraud and how to avoid it. They are called (Con)tempting Fate and An Online Payday Loan Or Window to a Scam?
The contempt order was entered by the court on January 13, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
MALWARE SCAMMER SETTLES FTC COMPLAINT
FROM: U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FTC
Tech Support Scheme Participant Settles FTC Charges
One of the defendants in an alleged tech support scheme has agreed to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint against him and give up the money he made from the scheme.
Navin Pasari is a defendant in one of six complaints filed by the FTC in September 2012 as part of the Commission’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers from online scams. According to the complaint against Pasari and his co-defendants, the defendants placed ads with Google, which appeared when consumers searched for their computer company’s tech support telephone number. After getting consumers on the phone, the defendants’ telemarketers allegedly claimed they were affiliated with legitimate companies, including Dell, Microsoft, McAfee and Norton, and told consumers they had detected malware that posed an imminent threat to their computers. The scammers then offered to rid the computer of the non-existent malware for fees ranging from $139 to $360.
The stipulated final order against Pasari imposes a $14,369 monetary judgment, which represents the total amount of money Pasari received in connection with the scam. The final order also requires him to divest his ownership interest in PCCare247 Inc., another defendant in the action, and transfer any proceeds he receives from the divestiture to the FTC.
In addition, the final order prohibits Pasari from opening or assisting with the opening of payment processing accounts for a company or other entity unless he personally supervises the accounts. The final order also prohibits Pasari from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting any information to consumers.
While the stipulated final order announced today resolves the FTC’s claims against Pasari, litigation continues against the remaining defendants in each of these actions.
The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 4-0. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered the judgment on Nov. 12, 2013.
NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed and approved by the District Court judge.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
Tech Support Scheme Participant Settles FTC Charges
One of the defendants in an alleged tech support scheme has agreed to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint against him and give up the money he made from the scheme.
Navin Pasari is a defendant in one of six complaints filed by the FTC in September 2012 as part of the Commission’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers from online scams. According to the complaint against Pasari and his co-defendants, the defendants placed ads with Google, which appeared when consumers searched for their computer company’s tech support telephone number. After getting consumers on the phone, the defendants’ telemarketers allegedly claimed they were affiliated with legitimate companies, including Dell, Microsoft, McAfee and Norton, and told consumers they had detected malware that posed an imminent threat to their computers. The scammers then offered to rid the computer of the non-existent malware for fees ranging from $139 to $360.
The stipulated final order against Pasari imposes a $14,369 monetary judgment, which represents the total amount of money Pasari received in connection with the scam. The final order also requires him to divest his ownership interest in PCCare247 Inc., another defendant in the action, and transfer any proceeds he receives from the divestiture to the FTC.
In addition, the final order prohibits Pasari from opening or assisting with the opening of payment processing accounts for a company or other entity unless he personally supervises the accounts. The final order also prohibits Pasari from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting any information to consumers.
While the stipulated final order announced today resolves the FTC’s claims against Pasari, litigation continues against the remaining defendants in each of these actions.
The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 4-0. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered the judgment on Nov. 12, 2013.
NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed and approved by the District Court judge.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)