Ill Repute Puts All Jewish Charities at Risk – Chabad UK a Potential Fraud, Another Scheming Charity

Orthodox man convicted over £10 million charity scam

Edward Cohen, 67, illegally sold medication – including viagra – through Jewish charities

 

An Orthodox man has been convicted of laundering proceeds from the illegal sale of medication totalling more than £10 million through Jewish charities. 

Edward Cohen, 67, funnelled “huge sums of money” – from sales and charitable donations – through an international network of firms, bank accounts and currency exchanges.

Southwark Crown Court heard that the medication sold included Viagra, slimming pills and prescription medication.

Edward Cohen fled the country ahead of the start of the trial and was convicted in his absence. 

Edward Cohen’s son David, a 38-year-old teacher, was cleared of money laundering charges and supplying false information to the Charity Commission.

But he was convicted of providing false information for the purposes of obtaining benefits. 

David Cohen, of Ashbourne Avenue, in Temple Fortune, North London, was granted bail.

Both men will be sentenced on July 4. 

The trial partly concerns the financial activity of charity Chabad UK – which is entirely separate from Chabad Lubavitch UK, and not part of the official Chabad movement.

Data obtained by police investigators show that in one financial year – 2012/13 – Chabad UK’s income jumped from £1.26 million to just under £8 million, almost £7 million of which came from merchant accounts linked to sales.

The following year, Chabad received £2.85 million from merchant accounts, out of a total income of £3.4 million.

It contrasted with the period from 2008 until 2012, when merchant account proceeds accounted for 2.5 per cent of an income of £6.05 million.

The jury heard that Chabad UK’s premises, on Oldhill Street in Stamford Hill, North London, were raided by police officers on September 1, 2014.

To continue reading, click here.

Platinum’s River of Lies and Nordlicht and Co’s Ability to Part the Red Sea – “the Gambit Worked” – [LAW360]

Platinum Execs Told Flood Of Lies To Investors, Jury Hears

By Stewart Bishop

Law360, New York (June 25, 2019, 9:24 PM EDT) — A federal jury in Brooklyn on Tuesday heard of how the former top executives of Platinum Partners schemed with a dozen other co-conspirators tied to the hedge fund manager to defraud existing and prospective investors by telling lie after lie about a liquidity crisis at Platinum’s flagship fund.

Jurors heard the first part of closing arguments from Assistant U.S. Attorney Alicyn L. Cooley, who argued as cash flow problems left Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund unable to pay all redemptions to investors, Platinum insiders mounted a campaign of deception to retain investor money and to raise new cash for the fund.

Platinum co-founder Mark Nordlicht, former co-chief investment officer David Levy and chief financial officer Joseph SanFilippo — who have been standing trial on fraud and conspiracy charges since late April — each played a critical role in the scheme, Cooley said.

“They chose the path of deception and by doing that they committed fraud,” Cooley told the jury.

Prosecutors say Nordlicht, Levy and SanFilippo were part of a conspiracy that stretched from 2014 to 2016 to defraud investors by lying about PPVA’s liquidity crisis, its practice of making preferential redemption payments to certain key investors and insiders as well as high interest, interfund loans Platinum was arranging to keep PPVA afloat.

Cooley further argued that the executives and their co-conspirators falsely told investors that PPVA was a diversified fund, when in reality its biggest investments were in failing oil and gas companies.

“By 2014, this diversified, liquid hedge fund did not exist,” Cooley said.

Despite painting a rosy picture of PPVA to existing and prospective investors, Cooley said the conspirators knew full well of the problems inside the fund. She cited a June 2014 email between Nordlicht and PPVA president and Platinum partner Uri Landesman — who was also charged but died before trial — in which Nordlicht cited the liquidity crisis at PPVA and said it was becoming impossible to manage the outflows of cash from the fund.

TO CONTINUE READING BY SUBSCRIPTION ONLY CLICK HERE.

Edward Cohen, Money Launderer, Charity Manipulation and the Attempted Purchase of a Knighthood, Classy…

Money launderer, 67, who tried to buy a knighthood is convicted in his absence of £10million Jewish charities scam after going on the run

 

A fugitive who once tried to buy a knighthood has been convicted of laundering more than £10million, made from the illegal sale of sex pills, through a Jewish charities scam.

Edward Cohen, 67, set up a ‘bewildering’ network of companies, some of them promoting Orthodox Judaism and ‘helping the Jewish poor’.

He diverted vast sums of cash, alongside legitimate charitable donations, via foreign exchange firms before sending it overseas, Southwark Crown Court heard.

Cohen, who fled the country before his trial began, also used some of the proceeds to try and purchase a gong from the Queen, supposedly in recognition of his work with the sham charities.

Cohen’s teacher son David, 38, was also involved in the charities but was cleared of money laundering charges and supplying false information to the Charity Commission.

But he was convicted of failing to notify a change in circumstances when obtaining benefits and bailed ahead of sentence on July 4.

David told jurors his signature had been forged on charity documents and insisted he had no idea what his crooked father was up to.

He said: ‘If I had known that my father was involved in any sort of dirty money I would have run a mile. I would not have not asked for his help, no way Jose.

‘I am sure I am not the only child who does not know how their father makes money.’

Cohen denied but was convicted in his absence of a series of offences including supplying false information to the Charity Commission and money laundering offences after a two month trial.

A warrant has been issued for his arrest and he will be sentenced in his absence on July 4.

 

Edward Cohen, 67, set up a ‘bewildering’ network of companies that he used to launder money through. He diverted vast sums of cash, alongside legitimate charitable donations, via foreign exchange firms before sending it overseas, Southwark Crown Court heard

 

Earlier James Dawes, QC, prosecuting, said Cohen set up a ‘bewildering variety of companies and they either put themselves or their family members as directors’.

‘The companies were simply vehicles. Either the Revenue was told these companies were dormant or they made no returns.’

To continue reading click here.

The Magic of Platinum Partners and the Wand of the Magicians Involved – and the Great Tragedy to Jews Everywhere

Great liars are also great magicians.

Adolf Hitler

[Opinion 6.24.19]

Platinum Partners’ Feats of Magic and the Potential for a Great Escape –

The Existential Threat to All of Judaism

The anti-Semitism of Eastern Europe in the mid-1900’s was perpetuated by fear. The prominent Jewish families of Eastern Europe were financiers, bankers, jewelers, clothiers and well-known figures in art and antiquities collection. In whatever form of religious observance our family members took, they were feared because of their successes not because of their improprieties. Hitler’s hold on his own supporters was dominated in large part by a culture of fear shared by Bavaria and surrounding German areas, of the possibility of losing their German Arian identity to Jews, who did not inspire trust, not because they were untrustworthy but because they were gloriously successful at everything they did. Our family members were accomplished.  There were very few who exchanged education for Talmud even in the most religious families of the time. Rather for many families, mastery of life encompassed an aptitude at religious and non-religious subjects and a strong mentality of self-sufficiency. And, the Jewish identity of perseverance and tenaciousness inspired unfounded mistrust, xenophobia and anti-Semitism. As such, Hitler gained power and Jews were slaughtered.

Fast-forward fifty, sixty, seventy years and the world is seeing an increase in anti-Semitism. Unlike in the past, however, it is not a blind mistrust, it is one based upon what feels almost like a culture of fraud and deceit ingrained in so much of the Jewish Zeitgeist that it is tainting all Jews. It can almost be said that the mistrust is justified, based in Ponzi Schemes, privatized, inadequate education to the detriment of non-Jews and secular Jews and an uncanny ability to circumvent laws. Everything from vaccines and education to financial accountability and governmental regulations, are not outside the scope of subject the pubic Jewish collective is trying to manipulate.

Those of us willing to call out wrongs are relegated to courtrooms and lawsuits with no end in site. As such, anti-Semitism is far more difficult to counter than it was in the times immediately preceding Hitler’s power and during the war. And if our Jewish brothers are not held to account, Jews everywhere will be castaway as pariahs.

The Platinum Partners Ponzi Scheme, the Madoff Ponzi Scheme, the Philip Esformes conviction are so deeply rooted in the Jewish run ethos, they are leaving far more than financial ruin in their wake. They are increasing the breadth of a community of people who hate Jews because we are viewed in the unfavorable light these Jewish fraudsters shine on our community. That these frauds are perpetrated with such grace and ease by members of the Jewish community is a travesty.  That the moral compass of the community supporting them is so skewed it is unwilling to even acknowledge that the acts of Platinum’s Partners’ partners were calculated, orchestrated and choreographed like any great magic show.

And if Platinum Partners’ partners do not get convicted, the result could be catastrophic for Jews everywhere. If we are incapable of bringing swift and harsh justice against those Jews who commit wrongs, we will all suffer the consequences. That fraud is with increasing frequency seeping into the “Jewish identity” and is damaging that identity for everyone. The Platinum Partners case is a blight on our community and it should be viewed as such, whispered like the big C-Word (cancer) when our parents talked at the Shabbos table about a friend diagnosed days before. Jewish orchestrated fraud is a cancer, a blight, a disease of the worst form and if not stopped, it will spread. This is not anti-Semitic but an honest view of the dangers that rampant fraud within our community creates.

The Magic of the Platinum Partners’ Ponzi Scheme was the ease with which it was orchestrated, the complexity of the scheme and the corresponding complications involved in painting a clear picture for a jury such that the jurors can convict. The case was and continues to be simply too chaotic, too scattered, too unintelligible and we opine that this is by design, a master creation by a brilliant defense team.

If the Judge does not rule a mistrial, we believe there is a significant likelihood that this jury will come back without the clarity necessary to convict. Like the crimes themselves, a mistrial or a failure to convict will be deeply unjust for those defrauded, for future victims, for public trust and most importantly, for Jews everywhere and the world’s perception of us. We will once again be viewed as having a magical ability to escape unscathed.

It is very likely that when the Defendants sat with their team of lawyers, negotiated their joint defense agreements, and strategized, it was clear that the first thing they needed to manipulate was the jury. They did not trust their fates to fellow Jews, a jury of their peers, but to the diametric opposite, a mostly African America pool of jurors likely inexperienced in the private equity investment world.

Mark Nordlicht, David Levy and Joseph SanFilippo are smart, savvy and well-educated. They are the epitome of privilege and money. Nordlicht comes from a polished, Jewish, observant Yeshiva-related upbringing. Levy is much the same. These are not men who have ever had to live from paycheck to paycheck. These are not men who have experienced racism or the African American experience, a far cry in fact. And the jury, with all respect due to each of the jurors, most likely knows little about what it is to be born with a silver spoon in one’s mouth. The Defendants are, have been and will always be men of privilege. The jury, as a matter of profiling by appearance alone, does not share this providence.

The breadth of the evidence that was admitted, or excluded, was a remarkable play of legal defense gamesmanship, cleverly manipulated to share as little damaging information as possible. This is not unusual. But anyone who thinks that this was not calculated as the financiers of Platinum’s top brass were defrauding their investors is either naive or stupid. We believe, based upon previous experiences of some of that brass and their closest confidants, that Platinum Partners knew what to expect if their fiefdom fell. And as they were performing their magical feats of financial optical illusions, they set the stage for a worst-case-scenario.

Very early on the Judge presiding over the case ruled that Murray Huberfeld’s conviction for bribery, the avalanche that set in motion the public unraveling of Platinum Partners, was not permissible evidence in the case against Nordlicht, Levy and SanFilippo. The fact that Huberfeld was acting in consort with the partners at Platinum to bribe Norman Seabrook and entice COBA money was deemed to be outside the scope of the presentation that the government could make to the jury. As such, the corresponding testimony of Jonah Rechnitz in the previous trials was also not admissible evidence. The legal maneuvering was brilliant, awe inspiring.

Huberfeld acted as an Agent of Platinum Partners when he convinced Seabrook to invest. He was one of Platinum Partners’ alter egos. His actions and the resulting convictions could have set the stage for a clear picture for the jury regarding the maneuvering to bring in investors.

But it was deemed inadmissible.

The judge has already dismissed the count of “Fraudulent Investment Scheme” from the indictment.  Why? Because the government proved no match for the defense team. They failed ingloriously to use the same arguments the judge made for dismissal, as proof of guilt, namely that Platinum Partners’ partners calculated what needed to be put in place to cover their collective asses, the “CYA” term of endearment. The hiring of a valuation team was not a sign of care and compliance, quite the opposite. It was a distraction to mislead the government into believing that the valuations were conducted honestly.

 

B. Fraudulent Investment Scheme
As to the fraudulent investment scheme, defendants’ motion for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 is granted as to the allegation that they overvalued level 3 assets but otherwise denied.
The indictment alleges that defendants overvalued Platinum’s level 3 assets, but none of the Government’s witnesses challenged the accuracy of Platinum’s valuations of these assets. The Government has not even introduced witnesses who purport to be qualified to challenge these valuations, let alone attempted to introduce expert witnesses who could have guided the jury through assessing the values of level 3 assets – which are, by definition, difficult to value.

Case 1:16-cr-00640-BMC Document 752 Filed 06/17/19 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 10473
5
Nor has the government shown that Platinum’s process for obtaining these valuations is so deeply flawed that the jury can fairly infer that the valuations were false, and fraudulently so. To the contrary, the testimony has shown that Platinum hired third parties to confirm its valuations; hired an experienced director of valuations; and maintained a valuation committee. There is insufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude that defendants have falsified any valuations, let alone evidence that would support defendants’ conviction for fraudulently overvaluing assets.

Contrary to the Judge’s comments, Level 3 assets are not difficult to value if you mark them against the market in which they are traded. The government simply needed to find a market against which to mark the assets.

Justice will not be served because the perpetrators of the crimes have far greater knowledge of their craft than the government prosecutors. The brilliance of the defense attorneys in making it all look so complicated is not by chance. Platinum’s partners took their precautionary measures when they placed a value on the assets well above their market. They had a team of quasi-conspirators in place.

The government needed to bring in a valuation expert to counter what Platinum was suggesting, that the valuation team was evidence they they acted admirably and honestly. Our analysis is that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to their investors by over-valuing assets, that they had taken all the necessary precautions to make it look kosher and that this was choreographed with remarkable dexterity. In reality, the magicians at Platinum had performed what is known as “CYA” and had done so with the skill commensurate with their experience, what any good hedge fund manager would have done.

Platinum Partners’ partners knew what they were doing. The very argument that the judge makes regarding Platinum’s valuation team should be the argument that substantiates the fraud: that Platinum hired the people who would paint a rosy picture to cover up financial impropriety. They brought in Picasso and commissioned him a painting, and paint he did.

Platinum knew its assets were worth far less than they were being valued and created a charade. The told “a tale, full of sound and fury” (Shakespeare) but for them, it is signifying exactly what they wanted it to… everything. 

But we digress. As the Judge rightly pointed out, a reasonable juror would likely not have concluded that the Defendants falsified valuations.

We believe, however, that it is not because the charge is wrong but because the government did not understand that the very act of hiring a valuation committees and valuations’ experts was just part of the magic, the optical illusion.

Platinum Partners’ victims are many, a vast range of people, mostly from their own community. Their victims are also COBA members who deserve the best the government has to offer and is not getting their justice.

The Defendants’ seats in the courtroom are full, almost every day while the Plaintiff’s seats are comprised mostly of victims, their lawyers, journalists and those most curious. It is a sad state of affairs for the greater Jewish collective.

For a parent, a child can do no wrong so it is understandable that the Defendants’ families would be making a show of support. But, an acquittal poses an existential threat to the greater Jewish identity.  Not only do we surmise that these men are likely already planning their next major magic show, but we fear the darkness that would come of an acquittal.

Justice should be served. The victims are entitled to justice and the greater Jewish collective deserves the optics of an equitable distribution of accountability, only accomplished by a conviction. But the government will need to start pulling better punches, or a rabbit from a hat.

LM

Brooklyn Properties in Bankruptcy, Fraud and a Madoff-Style Property Ponzi Scheme – Clever Fraudsters

Clockwise from left: 119 Rogers Avenue, 325 Franklin Avenue, 53-55 Stanhope Street and 73 Empire Boulevard (Credit: Google Maps)

Amid fraud case, a bevy of Brooklyn properties end up in bankruptcy court

Nearly 20 limited liability companies for individual multifamily buildings that are linked to a federal fraud complaint are now bankrupt.

The filings late last month in a U.S. bankruptcy court in White Plains also relate to over a dozen foreclosure cases initiated by an affiliate of Maverick Real Estate Partners, which in court filings is seeking information on the identity of the owner behind the low-rise, residential properties, all of which are scattered throughout Brooklyn.

In April 2017, Israeli investors Jacob and Binyomin Schonberg, Binyomin Halpern and Raphael Barouch Elkaim alleged in a complaint filed in federal court in Brooklyn that Yechezkel Strulovich and Yechiel Oberlander defrauded them out of more than $20 millionin a scheme carried out “in the style of Bernie Madoff.”

Eleven properties that are now in Chapter 11 proceedings — located predominantly in the neighborhoods surrounding Williamsburg and Crown Heights — were also named as defendants in the fraud case against Strulovich and Oberlander. That case, which a judge dismissed in part and sent to arbitration in 2017, included more than 40 defendants, mostly LLCs that have not filed for bankruptcy.

The LLCs that are bankrupt and own the underlying Brooklyn properties all list David Goldwasser of GC Realty Advisors as their authorized signatory, according to court filings. GC Realty is described as a commercial real estate advisory firm, per its LinkedIn page, which notes that it is based in Boca Raton, Florida, and has offices in New York. The state’s Division of Corporations shows that GC Realty has an address in East Midwood, Brooklyn.

Goldwasser is also listed as a principal at FIA Capital Partners, which is also based out of Florida and New York, according to his apparent LinkedIn profile.

A message left with FIA was not returned by the time of this story. The firm specializes in acquiring distressed properties and portfolios, according to its website.

Questions over control

The series of bankruptcies filed in White Plains starting on May 20 show that all of the properties, which number at least 18, are also affiliated with 73 Empire Development LLC. The latter owns the ground lease on a roughly 30,000-square-foot development site — it’s currently a vacant one-story retail building — at 73 Empire Boulevard in Crown Heights.

Empire Development, which is one of the defendants in the fraud case against Strulovich and Oberlander, also filed for bankruptcy in February. The debtor’s plan, according to court records in White Plains, is to build a 58,000-square-foot, two-story retail property at 73 Empire Boulevard.

But the connection between Goldwasser’s GC Realty, Empire Development and the 18 other bankrupt properties is not yet clear. Maverick, the debt fund led by David Aviram that buys distressed mortgages, wants some clarity on the matter.

A recent filing from the debtors claims that one of Maverick’s affiliates, Brooklyn Lender LLC, took on 13 notes and mortgages — totaling $36 million — on 26 properties that originated with Signature Bank. As a result of the Chapter 11 filings, Maverick wants a judge to allow a full examination into who controls the various debtors, pointing to Goldwasser’s name in court documents.

“To Brooklyn Lender’s knowledge, Goldwasser was not previously involved with the Debtors, and understanding his new role and responsibilities with respect to these Bankruptcy Cases and the Debtors’ management is of paramount importance,” Maverick said in a recent filing.

Maverick noted that when the Signature Bank loans were made, Strulovich maintained that he was the 100 percent sole member of the debtor entities. In the fraud case, however, he admitted this was not the case. In October 2017, Maverick’s Brooklyn Lender filed 14 foreclosure cases against the now bankrupt properties, alleging that the loans were in default, in part due to misrepresentations by their owners.

The petition made by Maverick in bankruptcy court now asserts that a further examination is needed to determine who actually owns the Brooklyn properties, citing a guilty plea by Goldwasser to defrauding two banks in the early 2000s. Goldwasser was sentenced to 27 months in federal prison — Federal Bureau of Prisons records show he was released in September 2005 — and ordered to pay $2.8 million in restitution. A judge also ordered that Goldwasser “is not to be employed in any position requiring fiduciary responsibilities.”

All of the debtors in the bankruptcy cases, except Empire Development, have opposed the motion by Brooklyn Lender, claiming that its parent Maverick has an “unspoken agenda” and that they are working on a plan that includes paying back Maverick. Lists of unsecured creditors in the various bankruptcy cases show that Brooklyn Lender is owed between $2.7 million and nearly $5 million, while the New York-based law firm Abrams Fensterman is owed a little more than $150,000.

Mark Frankel, an attorney with New York’s Backenroth Frankel & Krinsky representing the debtors in bankruptcy proceedings, declined to comment, as did Maverick’s Aviram, which is being represented in bankruptcy court by Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. Strulovich and Oberlander could not be reached and their lawyers did not return requests for comment.

Unresolved fraud claims

In the fraud case against Strulovich and Oberlander, the defendants said that the money they received from the plaintiffs would be invested in Brooklyn properties that they would buy, develop and rent out, with returns on those investments coming in six to seven months. The plaintiffs also would receive 45 percent of the profits from the multifamily purchases.

But plaintiffs claimed that Strulovich, Oberlander and other defendants inflated the value of that real estate and used their money to acquire and develop properties for their own personal benefit, pay off personal debts and support their “lavish lifestyles,” according to the civil complaint filed two years ago. The Brooklyn sites purchased with their funds were “left to languish, undeveloped and dilapidated,” alleged the plaintiffs.

“The entire process was nothing more than an elaborate fraud to personally enrich the individual defendants,” said their lawsuit.

Court filings in that litigation claim that Oberlander allegedly approached the plaintiffs in early 2012 about investing in a project with him and Strulovich at 908 Bergen Street in Crown Heights. Oberlander sent prospectuses for 19 properties between 2012 and 2014 that were meant to entice the plaintiffs into make more investments, they asserted in the dispute.

To continue reading click here.

 

Credit Card Swiping Schemes – The Trade for Points, Is this Points Laundering?

Collecting Points for Charges Without Providing any Services or Items for those Charges

NATURE OF ACTION (Directly From the Complaint)

1. This action arises from certain of the defendants (hereinafter the “Merchant
Defendants”) fraudulent charging of the American Express, Visa, MasterCard and Discover branded credit and charge cards previously issued to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter the “Cards”) by American Express, Chase and certain other defendants (the “Card Issuer Defendants”), which  fraudulent payment card transactions (the “Card Transactions”) were electronically processed by other defendants (the “Card Processor Defendants”). The Merchant Defendants provided no goods, services or anything of value to the Plaintiffs with respect to the Card Transactions. Instead, the  Merchant Defendants fraudulently induced the Plaintiffs to allow the Merchant Defendants to utilize the Plaintiffs’ Cards to ostensibly purchase goods that the Merchant Defendants were planning to re-sell, with the promise that the Merchant Defendants were then going to use the proceeds from the sale of the goods to pay the full amount of the balances due to the Card Issuer Defendants for those Card Transactions prior to the payment due date.

2. The Plaintiffs understood the Card Transactions to be a proper use of their Cards
for the purchase of cash or cash equivalents from the Merchant Defendants, consistent with the  manner that the Merchant Defendants had been utilizing other cardholders’ cards for many years  (which prior transactions had significantly benefited the Card Issuer Defendants and the Card  Processor Defendants, who received substantial revenue in the form of processing fees for the prior
transactions). Indeed, virtually all of the Plaintiffs had previously engaged in virtually identical payment card transactions with the Merchant Defendants, for which previous card transactions the  Merchant Defendants had in fact paid cash or cash equivalents to the Plaintiffs themselves or on  behalf of the Plaintiffs to the Card Issuer Defendants.

3. Despite due demand therefor, the Merchant Defendants have failed and refused to provide the Plaintiffs with cash or cash equivalents for the Card Transactions. The Merchant  Defendants have also failed and refused to provide the Plaintiffs with the goods ostensibly bought for resale by the Merchant Defendants via the Card Transactions. Many of the Plaintiffs were assured by the Merchant Defendants that the use of their Cards for the Card Transactions by the Merchant Defendants were secured by those goods, which would be the property of the Plaintiffs
until resale and could be claimed (and resold for more than the amount of the Transactions) by the  Plaintiffs in the event that the Merchant Defendants failed to timely provide to Plaintiffs the cash or cash equivalents for the Card Transactions.

4. Accordingly, having not received anything of value from the Merchant Defendants  in connection with the Card Transactions, the Plaintiffs attempted to utilize the protections afforded them by and through the payment card networks and to dispute the charges for the Card  Transactions with the Card Issuer Defendants, protections extended to the Plaintiffs through their
agreements with the Card Issuer Defendants. The Plaintiffs expected that this chargeback process  would result in the Merchant Defendants – and/or those who aided or abetted the Merchant defendants’ fraud and/or guaranteed the Merchant Defendants’ compliance with the Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover rules, being held responsible for the Card  Transactions. The Merchant Defendants have instead resisted the Plaintiffs’ attempts to dispute the charges, at times misrepresenting to the payment card networks the nature of the relationship
between the Plaintiffs and the Merchant Defendants and at other times misrepresenting the nature of the Card Transactions. Even when accurate information regarding the Plaintiffs and the Card Transactions have been conveyed to the Card Issuer Defendants, the chargebacks have usually been reversed, and the charges to the Plaintiffs for the Card Transactions have been reinstated on
the Plaintiffs’ account statements for the Cards.

To continue reading the court documents click here.

Platinum Bells that Cannot be “UnRung” – Bankruptcy and Clawbacks