GAUD

09/16/2024

Have you recently fallen victim to a financial scam? Don’t navigate the recovery process alone. Our expert legal team is here to help you reclaim your losses and regain control. Reach out today for a consultation!

09/11/2024

From scam victims to financial recovery – Partner with us for expert legal support and get back on track. Trust our experts to fight for your justice

09/09/2024

The FBI recently released an annual report that revealed American citizens experienced a loss of $10.3 billion due to various internet scams in 2022. The report, which is published annually, shows that these losses are the highest in the past five years. The bureau's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) received over 2,000 complaints per day. The most commonly reported scams were phishing expeditions, which cost victims over $52 million, followed by data breaches and non-payment scams. Ransomware attacks are also a significant concern, with victims being threatened to pay a ransom or have their data published. The healthcare industry was the most targeted industry for ransomware attacks, followed by critical manufacturing and government. Call center scams, which are primarily based in India, caused over $1 billion in losses, with the elderly being the most common victims. The FBI has a 73% success rate in recovering lost funds for victims.
If you or anyone you know has been the victim of an Internet scam, we recommend that you contact us at the contact details below

09/08/2024

Beware of cryptocurrency scams that promise high returns or fake ICOs. Stay cautious, investigate thoroughly, and report suspicious activity to protect yourself and others. If you find yourself to be one of the victims, please contact us promptly so that you can recover your losses while there is still time.

09/06/2024

What Exactly is Internet Fraud?
Internet Fraud consists of various cybercrime activities to defraud or exploit victims for financial gain. It includes identity theft, phishing, and other hacking techniques. These scams result in millions of dollars lost each year and continue to increase as internet usage expands.
Common Types of Internet Fraud:
Phishing and spoofing: The use of email and online messaging services to dupe victims into sharing personal data, login credentials, and financial details.
Data breach: Stealing confidential, protected, or sensitive data from a secure location and moving it into an untrusted environment. This includes data being stolen from users and organizations.
Denial of service (DoS): Interrupting access of traffic to an online service, system, or network to cause malicious intent.
Malware: The use of malicious software to damage or disable users’ devices or steal personal and sensitive data.
Ransomware: A type of malware that prevents users from accessing critical data then demanding payment in the promise of restoring access. Ransomware is typically delivered via phishing attacks.
Business email compromise (BEC): A sophisticated form of attack targeting businesses that frequently make wire payments. It compromises legitimate email accounts through social engineering techniques to submit unauthorized payments.
Phishing scams, where attackers impersonate reputable individuals or organizations via email, are especially prevalent. Greeting card scams exploit popular events to distribute malware, credit card scams trick victims with too-good-to-be-true offers, and online dating scams manipulate individuals into sharing personal and financial information. Lottery fee fraud and the Nigerian Prince scam are other notable examples.
To protect against internet scams, users should remain vigilant and avoid sharing personal or financial information with individuals who are not legitimate or trustworthy. They should never click on unsecured links or attachments in emails or messages. If targeted internet users should report suspicious activities to the authority. Furthermore, monitoring bank accounts, setting up notifications, and using consumer protection services can help prevent credit card fraud

09/05/2024

Identity theft can happen to anyone. We offer expert legal guidance to help you navigate complex situations and protect your rights. If you have been a victim of identity theft or need advice on protecting your personal information, contact us today for a consultation. Your safety is our top priority.
Contact us now to help you recover

09/02/2024

Marchak v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Case Number : 11-CV-5839 MKB
Date filed : 2/6/15
State : New York
Background : The plaintiff, in this case, is Alexander Marchak and the defendants are JPMorgan Chase & CO., JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., M&T Bank Corporation, HSBC North America Inc. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and TD Bank, N.A. This case comes from the Ponzi scheme that was carried out by Philip Barry and was allegedly enabled by the defendants. Barry operated the Leverage Group, Leverage Option Management Inc., and Northern American Financial Services which promised their clients that if they invested or maintained their investments with them, they were guaranteed an annual rate of return of 12.55%. This scheme was operated from January 1978 through February 2009. Barry would place the client's money into accounts opened with the defendants and would conduct large dollar transactions by check and made routinely large cash withdrawals. He had written at least 1,623 checks between the years 2004 and 2009. The scam involved telling the clients that their funds would go to trade-in options or other securities but instead would use the funds for their personal expenses and to meet withdrawal demands from investors.
Plaintiff Argument : The defendants are alleged of breaching various obligations under federal banking regulations which include anti-money laundering (“AML”) rules found in *203 Section 352 of the United States Patriot Act rules imposed by the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”). They are also alleged of failing to fully comply with regulatory duties to institute programs to “know your customer” (“KYC”) to monitor the accounts and activities of Barry to ensure that appropriate actions were taken when evidence of illegal activities in the accounts were apparent. Because of their failure to uphold their duties, they enabled and facilitate significant financial fraud.
- Knowing participation in a breach of trust
- Aiding and abetting fraud
- Aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
- Aiding and abetting conversion
- Unjust enrichment
- Fraud on the regulator
- Negligence
Defendant Argument : Plaintiffs’ claims are precluded by SLUSA or are removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1441 and 1331 since the plaintiffs’ claims present federal questions arising under the laws of the United States. The defendants argue that the claims fall under class action since there are at least 50 plaintiffs with common issues of law and the complaint does not distinguish between them. The claims of the plaintiffs seek only to enforce duties or obligations allegedly created by and arising directly under these federal laws. The complaints contain numerous allegations about securities investments and that the plaintiffs were deceived into investing in Leverage with promises to invest their money in exchange-traded stock options of exchange-registred companies. The securities involved were not deposits to a bank account but rather a falsely promised option. Purchasing, sale, or holding of actual “covered securities” is not required for an action to come within SLUSA’s (Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act) preview. Barry suggested to investors that their money would be invested in “opinions and securities”, so his failing to purchase any securities does not take this case outside of SLUSA’s purview as defined in Troice. Herald II, 753 F.3rd at 113.
The plaintiffs’ claims are unable to stand alone without referencing Barry’s fraud and the supposed knowledge of that fraud that the defendants had which satisfies the material misrepresentation or omission requirement.
Judge Verdict: Since the requirements of SLUSA have been met for each cause of action, the complaint was removed from the court and the court denies the plaintiffs’ motion to remand and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act : A federal law in the United States that deals with private class action lawsuits conversing securities fraud. SLUSA modified sections of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prevent specific class actions claiming fraud under state law related to the buying or selling of securities. As a result, these lawsuits are not permissible in state or federal courts.

09/01/2024

09/01/2024

United States v. Ayelotan
Case Number: 17-60397
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
Plaintiff: United States of America
Defendants: Oladimeji Ayelotan, Femi Mewase, and Rasaq Raheem
Case Filed: 03/04/2019
Type of Scam: money mule, romance scam
Amount: more than $25 million (intended loss)/ $52 million (according to the PSR’s calculations). At least 37,817 credit cards involved in the conspiracy.
Case Summary:
Oladimeji Ayelotan, Femi Mewase, and Rasaq Raheem were charged with a sprawling international romance scam that stole both hearts and money from many American victims. They posed themselves as bachelors and bachelorette, sitting at overseas computers, making fake promises of love and romance that ultimately guided unsuspecting victims into sending money to Nigeria and South Africa. They first stole personal information such as names, social security numbers, credit card and bank account numbers and impersonated a group of victims to get money from bank accounts. In order to transfer this money, they then scammed another group of victims. On dating websites, with scripts and step-by-step guides, after forming fake romantic relationships, they sweet talked victims into laundering their money (money mule).
Reason Filed:
A wary target reported her suspicions to the police leading to investigation by the Homeland Security Investigations (the Department of Homeland Security’s investigation arm).
Debates and Laws Cited:
a) Ayelotan and Raheem—the shackling of their legs during trial
b) Raheem and Mewase—the admission of various emails and Mewase’s nonoriginal passport
c) Ayelotan and Mewase—the dismissal of a juror
d) Leadership Enhancement and Eighth Amendment argument
a. Ayelotan and Raheem argued that the shackling of their legs during trial violated their due process rights. The district court’s response to this is that under the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, courts may shackle defendants when there’s a danger of harm or escape. The court had evidence of this. For example, at Ayelotan’s extradition hearing, he and other defendants caused such a ruckus that SWAT had to be called in. In addition, the defendants restraints weren’t visible. Therefore, the district court did not violate the defendant’s due process rights.
b. At trial, the government found large amounts of emails that the defendants sent out to their romantic targets revealing the defendants’ fraudulent activities and instructions for money mules. On appeal, Raheem and Mewase challenge the admission of these emails and records under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Confrontation Clause. Mewase also contends that admission of a duplicate copy of his passport identification page violated the Best Evidence Rule. Both challenges failed. The court held that Yohoo! and Google with records-custodian certificates, are admissible self-authenticating business records (Rule 803(6)(A)–(C) and Rule 801(d)).
c. Ayelotan and Mewase contended the court’s decision in removing Juror 20 violated their due process rights. The district court’s response to this is that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows judges to remove jurors that are unable to perform their duties. The juror slept through witness testimony; misrepresented this fact to the district court when asked; didn’t understand, or else didn’t follow, the jury instructions; and didn’t deliberate. This was testified by other jurors.
d. Ayelotan and Raheem objected to their leadership enhancements, and instead they should’ve been given a minor-role reduction. The district court specifically relied on several § 3B1.1 factors in determining leadership roles. At sentencing, the court heard testimony from case agent Williams. Agent Williams testified that Ayelotan and Raheem “was involved in almost every scam involved in the offense”; that the two “participated in planning or organizing it”; and that they directly controlled other conspirators. Ayelotan and Raheem also raised the Eighth Amendment argument. They asserted that life sentences for nonviolent crimes under the amendment is cruel and unusual punishment. However, there is no error. Ayelotan and Raheem’s within-Guidelines sentences do not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Court Results:
Ayelotan - The court imposed a 22-level increase for the intended loss. And it imposed a 4-level enhancement for his leadership role. This came to a total Guidelines offense level of 43. Given Ayelotan’s criminal history, his Guidelines sentence was life imprisonment. The court reduced that to the within-Guidelines statutory maximum of 95 years.
Raheem-The court applied an offense level of 43 for the intended loss and his leadership role. His initial sentencing range was life imprisonment. But the court decreased it. His within-Guidelines statutory maximum was 115 years
Mewase- The court applied an 22-level increase for the intended loss. The resulting Guidelines range was 262 to 327 months.
The court reduced that to 262 to 300, the statutory maximum. The court then sentenced him to 25 years of imprisonment.

08/31/2024

Identity theft can happen to anyone. At Cravath, we offer expert legal guidance to help you navigate the complexities and protect your rights. If you’re a victim of identity theft or need advice on safeguarding your personal information, contact us today for a consultation. Your security is our priority.
wa.me/12138287578

08/31/2024

Phone Scams and Voice Phishing (Vishing)
What Is Vishing?
Vishing—or voice phishing—is the use of fraudulent phone calls to trick people into giving money or revealing personal information. It's a new name for an old problem—telephone scams. Vishing frequently involves a criminal pretending to represent a trusted institution, company, or government agency. You may be asked to buy an extended warranty, offered a "free" vacation, told your computer is infected and you need anti-virus software, or asked to donate to charity.
COVID-19 and Vishing
Scammers and fraudsters are trying to take advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to trick people with messaging that pretends to be from government or health agencies, hospitals, or insurers. Some calls may use a fake caller ID to appear more legitimate.
Learn to Catch a Vish
Scammers or "vishers" often offer exaggerated or fake prizes, products, or services. They then ask for your credit card number or other personal information to get you to pay for associated fees or more. Watch out for:
Offers from companies you do not do business with and/or have not heard of.
An announcement that you have won a prize in a contest you did not enter.
Promises of unrealistic returns for your money.
Pressure to make immediate decisions to give the caller what they want, which may include:
Money
Financial account information
Personal information
Organizational information, including names and contact information of coworkers at the university
Threats of consequences—such as fines or penalties—if you don't provide money or information.
Unprofessional, hostile, or even obscene language.
Unsolicited calls offering to help you with debt, unpaid taxes, or previous cases of fraud.
Protect Yourself from Voice Phishing
If a caller claims to be from an institution you do business with, such as your bank, and they ask for personal information (account numbers, Social Security numbers, and so on), hang up, find that institution's phone number, and call them. If the call you received was fraud, report it!
Do not pay fees for prizes or rewards offered by phone.
The IRS will never ask you for debit or credit card numbers by phone or demand immediate payments using specific methods, such as prepaid gift cards, debit cards, or wire transfers. The IRS will generally contact you first via U.S. Mail.
Do not send money or give out personal information (such as credit card numbers and expiration dates, bank account numbers, dates of birth, or Social Security numbers) in response to unsolicited phone calls from unfamiliar companies or unknown persons.
Don't trust caller ID. Phone numbers and caller identities can be faked. There have been reports of forged phone numbers from U-M, government offices, and other businesses and institutions.
wa.me/12138287578