FTC Refunds More Than $120,000 Lost by Consumers in Advance-Fee Loan Scam

The Federal Trade Commission yesterday began distributing to 4,932 consumers more than $120,000 it obtained in a case against Southland Consultants. In August 1994, the FTC charged Christopher Puma, doing business as Southland Consultants, and Jeanette Puma, with falsely representing to consumers that they would receive loans upon payment of an advance fee — typically between $149 and $189 — and with misrepresenting the company’s refund policy.

The FTC obtained approximately $81,000 in the settlement with the defendants. Additional funds were obtained as a result of a criminal charges involving the same business practices brought against the defendants by the District Attorney’s Office in Riverside County, California. (Defendant Christopher Puma is currently serving 120 days in the Riverside County jail and was given three years probation. Jeanette Puma was also given three years probation.) The District Attorney’s Office provided valuable assistance to the FTC.

The FTC’s case was handled jointly by the Division of Service Industry Practices and the Los Angeles Regional Office. Copies of documents associated with this case are available from the FTC’s Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710. FTC news releases and other materials also are available on the Internet at the FTC’s World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov

 Mail this post

Posted under Other Scams

This post was written by admin on December 18, 2008

Fraud Artists Target the Elderly

Three-quarters of all people who report problems with fraud are elderly,” says Lois Morton, consumer economist with Cornell Cooperative Extension. “Fraud is a growing problem for the elderly and one which they need to be aware of, so they can protect themselves.”

There are many reasons why con artists target the elderly. Older consumers, especially those living alone, may be lonely and willing to listen to, and trust, persuasive sales pitches. They may be facing difficult circumstances such as home repair problems and serious health issues that make them vulnerable to promises of assistance.

But there is one major reason why older consumers should be wary of possible fraud: one bad
decision can jeopardize their financial well-being and, perhaps, their health as well.

Eighty percent of people aged 65 and older have at least one major health problem and spend much of their budget on health care. Seventy-one percent of the elderly own their own homes, many of which are of pre-1940 vintage and need serious repair and maintenance. Those two factors alone can make the elderly vulnerable to fraud tactics such as these:

- A “city inspector” arrives at the home, stating he needs to check the plumbing, furnace, or wiring, and when problems are found states that he will call a “friend” to make the repairs. The work is overcharged and done poorly, if at all.

- The older consumer receives in the mail newspaper clippings about a new miracle health product with a “personal” note saying, “Try this! It works!” But when money is sent, the product never arrives, is overpriced, or is useless, if not just plain harmful.

- A product demonstrator arrives at the home and asks the resident to sign a paper just saying that the demonstrator visited. In fact, the trusting consumer, who hasn’t read the form, signs a contract ordering the product.

There are dozens of such scams, with new ones being invented every day, and they cost the elderly millions of dollars in addition to emotional distress and, sometimes, health consequences arising from unsafe products. “Con artists are good at what is called the ‘personality sell,’” Morton says. “They appear friendly, sympathetic, honest, and willing to listen to and spend time with their targets. Sometimes they even use fear tactics, such as convincing older homeowners that their roof will collapse if the contract to fix it is not signed immediately.”

The sympathetic attention, false hopes for health cures, and scare tactics used by con artists can be difficult to see through and resist. Morton says there are steps consumers can take to protect themselves from con artists.

First, and most important, always follow good, basic consumer techniques. Read everything before you sign. Don’t be pressured into making hasty decisions and purchases. Remember that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t true.

If someone or an organization is pushing a new health care product, check with your doctor before sending money. Unproved products can be dangerous as well as a waste of money.

“Be wary of salespeople who initiate transactions,” Morton says. “If you call or write them, that’s one
story. But if they initiate contacts, you have the right to be suspicious.”

Even if you believe the person and the product are legitimate, take your time to read all the forms before making a decision. Ask the person to come back another day. A delay, during which time you are checking credentials and references, may dissuade con artists from targeting you. Take the time and precaution of checking references as well as identification. Identification is easy to forge; a recommendation from the Better Business Bureau is not.

Be especially wary of any salesperson who requests secrecy. If a “deal” is so good you can’t tell
your family or friends, it’s probably not a legitimate financial venture.

Never, ever, give money up front. Pay for services when they are complete, not before they are begun.

If you sign a contract with a door-to-door salesperson in your home, you have three days to change your mind. This is called a “cooling off period” which gives you time to think through a high-pressure transaction. When possible, deal with local, established business people who can provide local references and must keep a good reputation within the community.

Finally, and unfortunately, Morton says, “The elderly must always keep in mind that they are prime targets for fraud and con artists who keep and pass around ’sucker lists.’ You don’t want to get on their lists, so you must be wary and even a little suspicious at times.”

by Jeanne Mackin

 Mail this post

Posted under Other Scams

This post was written by admin on December 18, 2008

Illegal New Credit File

Case:

State of Minnesota, by
its Attorney General,
Hubert H. Humphrey III,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Excel International Services, Inc.,
d/b/a Excel Credit Services;
Bonnie J. Burke; Lisa D. Smidt,
a/k/a Lisa Smith; and
John Does 1-3,

Defendants.

NATURE OF CASE

This is a civil  consumer  protection  case in which Attorney
General  Hubert H.  Humphrey  III,  on  behalf  of  the  State of
Minnesota, seeks declaratory  and injunctive relief, restitution,
civil penalties, costs and  reasonable attorney fees.  Defendants
engage in a scheme to  defraud  consumers by offering consumers a
method to obtain a  new  credit  file  and,  by doing so, conceal
adverse information from potential creditors.  Defendants falsely
represent that their  services  are  lawful  and fail to disclose
material facts concerning  their  offer,  including the fact that
consumers who obtain a new  credit file using defendants’ methods
may violate state  and  federal  law.    Finally, defendants have
failed to register, to post a  bond, and to otherwise comply with
Minnesota law  regulating  credit  services  organizations, Minn.
State.

5.   Defendant Lisa D. Smidt, also known as Lisa Smith, is an
adult individual whose  address  is  presently  unknown and, upon
information and belief, is a principal officer or owner of Excel.
On information and belief, defendant Smidt personally engaged in,
controlled,  directed,  caused,   or   authorized  the  acts  and
practices of Excel, including  the  acts and practices alleged in
this Complaint.    Defendant  Smidt  transacts  or has transacted
business in Minnesota.

6.   Defendants John Doe  1-3  are  additional persons, whose
names will be  submitted  when  their  identities become known to
plaintiff.

VENUE

8.   Venue is proper in Ramsey County pursuant to Minn. Stat.
(1994) because plaintiff’s cause of action arose in part
in Ramsey County.

BUSINESS PRACTICES

9.   Defendants purport  to  offer  consumers  who  have poor
credit histories, including those  who  have filed bankruptcy, an
opportunity to obtain credit through the creation of a new credit
file.  Defendants advertise  this program through America Online,
an on-line computer communications service.

10.  Defendants’  America   Online   advertisement  instructs
consumers to contact defendants  through  America Online for more
information.

11.  After receiving  an  inquiry  from prospective customers
via  American  Online,  defendants  respond  with  correspondence
through the U.S. mail.   Consumers  receive  a cover letter and a
colored  brochure  describing  defendants’  “file segregation/NEW
CREDIT FILE program.”    Copies  of  defendants’ cover letter and
brochure are attached as  Exhibits  1  and 2 respectively and are
incorporated here by reference.

12.  In defendants’ letter to  consumers, they represent that
their program allows consumers  to  “establish a BRAND NEW CREDIT
FILE in 30 days or less”  and  thereby to “once again qualify for
credit cards,  auto  loans,  personal  loans  and home mortgages”
(Exhibit 1).  Defendants  further represent that they “personally
establish your  NEW  CREDIT  FILE  and  guide  you  in adding new
positive credit to that file.”

13.  In defendants’  brochure,  they  represent  to consumers
that a “new credit  file  will  not  show  any negative credit or
bankruptcy that  you  may  have  on  your  present  credit file.”
(Exhibit  2.)     Defendants’   brochure   describes  three
segregation plans:  the Basic Plan ($195 individual, $295 joint);
the Credit Plus plan ($295 individual, $395 joint); and the EXCEL
Presidential plan ($395 individual, $495 joint).  All three plans
assert that Excel will  take  all  necessary steps to establish a
new credit file for consumers.   Defendants also advise consumers
that they may  call  Excel  Credit  Services “for a complementary
no-obligation consultation.”

14.  After calling the telephone number listed in defendants’
solicitation materials,  consumers  are  told  by defendants that
they can obtain  a  new  credit  file  after receiving a taxpayer
identification number (TIN)  from  the  federal government to use
instead of their social  security  numbers for banking and credit
purposes.  Defendants describe  a  “Fresh Start Guide” for $79.95
which contains the information  necessary for consumers to obtain
a TIN and establish a new credit file themselves.

15.  To obtain information in  addition  to that contained in
Exhibits  1-2  about  defendants’  services,  consumers  must pay
defendants at least $79.95.

16.  Defendants   have    represented    that   their   “file
segregation/NEW CREDIT FILE program” is legal.  Specifically:

a.   Defendants state in Exhibit 1:   “This is your 100%

legal ’second chance’ at maintaining GOOD CREDIT.”

b.   In Exhibit 2,  defendants  represent:    “It is now

possible and state law.  It is a federal crime to make false statements
on certain loan and  credit  applications,  to misstate one’s social
security number, or to  make  a  false  statement to an agency or
department of the United States.    It is a crime under Minnesota
law to fraudulently obtain credit.

18.  While affirmatively representing that their services are
legal, defendants  fail  to  disclose  to  consumers the material
facts that consumers who follow defendants’ file segregation plan
may violate several state and federal laws.

19.  Defendants have engaged in the conduct described in this
Complaint  with  the  intent   that  consumers  would  rely  upon
defendants’ written and  oral  representations in connection with
the sale of defendants’ services to the public.

20.  Defendants have engaged in business in Minnesota without
registering with the Minnesota Department of Commerce as a credit
services organization.  Defendants  have  also failed to submit a
surety bond to the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

 Mail this post

Posted under Other Scams

This post was written by admin on December 18, 2008