Skip to main content

FTC Files Contempt Charges Against Attorney for Ponzi Scheme Operators

Attorney Failed to Turn Over Proceeds from Defendants’ Business Opportunity Involving Sale of Internet Kiosks to Consumers

The Federal Trade Commission has filed civil contempt charges against an attorney who represented the marketers of an “Internet kiosk” business opportunity that turned out to be nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

In its contempt action, the Commission charged that the attorney representing defendants in the case flouted a March 2009 federal court order that required him to turn over $238,300 to the FTC. The court had previously had determined that money given to the attorney as a retainer for his work on the case derived from the defendants’ proceeds from their illegal scheme. The court found that the FTC was entitled to that money, so that it could be used to reimburse victims of the scam.

In the March 2009 order, the court also imposed an $18.9 million judgment against the operators of the scam – Network Services Depot, Charles Castro, and several other defendants. The judgment upheld FTC charges that the defendants violated the FTC Act and the agency’s Franchise Rule by duping hundreds of consumers into buying Internet kiosk business opportunities with false promises of lucrative earnings. The judgment paved the way for the FTC to distribute more than $2 million to victims.

The civil contempt action against Jeffrey S. Benice and his law firm, Jeffrey S. Benice, a Professional Law Corporation, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Copies of the March 2009 order and other court documents are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...