News

ExoticFX WARNING

March 4, 2011 By Paul (Founder, WorkAtHomeTruth) 32 Comments

I have just received a warning about ExoticFX from Lynndel Edgington, Founder of Eagle Research & Associates.

I wanted to give you a heads up so you could warn your people that a new Ponzi FOREX program is trying to gain traction on the usual suspect Ponzi forums Talk Gold and Money Maker Group. The name of the program is ExoticFX. I explain in my book: Robbing You With A Keyboard Instead Of A Gun – Cyber Crime How They Do It., the Red Flag Warnings people need to be aware of to avoid becoming a victim of FOREX Ponzis such as ExoticFX and others.

In the past, these type of Ponzi schemes claimed the principal was “guaranteed.” ExoticFX uses a new twist by saying that your return on investment is “guaranteed.” Contrary to what ExoticFX claims, you cannot “guarantee” the return on investment trading in FOREX.

ExoticFX says they are registered in Hong Kong. It is the only thing they say on their website that is true. But, they are not licensed and registered to trade FOREX anywhere as required by law.

Paul, this is just the tip of the iceberg regarding this bogus company. There is far more information, or I should say lack of information on their part, that screams that ExoticFX is a Ponzi. Will it pay? Of course it will in the beginning. All Ponzi’s do, but there are only two outcomes of this Ponzi. They will close and run with the money, or the feds will move in and shut them down. This is nothing more than robbing Peter to Pay Paul, which is nice if you are Paul. Too many will be Peter.

Note: The author of this warning Lynndel Edgington is the Founder of Eagle Research & Associates and works with multiple Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.

Filed Under: Blog, Scam Alerts and News Tagged With: ExoticFX, ExoticFX.com, ExoticFXcom, fraud, review, scam, warning, www.ExoticFX.com, wwwExoticFX, wwwExoticFXcom

IWorks.com and the FTC

December 26, 2010 By Paul (Founder, WorkAtHomeTruth) Leave a Comment

The Federal Trade Commission is taking legal action against a far-reaching Internet enterprise that allegedly has made millions of dollars by luring consumers into “trial” memberships for bogus government-grant and money-making schemes, and then repeatedly charging them monthly fees for these and other memberships that they never signed up for. The FTC seeks to stop the illegal practices and make the defendants pay redress to consumers and give up their ill-gotten gains.

“No consumer should be sucker-punched into making payments for products they don’t know about and don’t want,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants offer consumers bogus money-making and government-grant opportunities. They claim that the offers are “free” or “risk-free,” and that they will charge customers only a small shipping and handling fee.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the operation, doing business under the name I Works and controlled by Jeremy Johnson and nine other individuals, uses websites that tout the availability of government grants to pay personal expenses or pitch various money-making programs. The websites offer “free” information at no risk and ask consumers to provide their credit or debit card numbers to pay for a small shipping and handling fee such as $1.99. When consumers provide their billing information, though, I Works proceeds to charge them hefty one-time fees of up to $129.95 and monthly recurring fees of up to $59.95 for the grant or money-making programs. I Works charges them additional monthly fees for one or more unrelated programs that consumers did not agree to.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that this scheme has caused hundreds of thousands of consumers to seek chargebacks – reversals of charges to their credit cards or debits to their banks accounts. The high number of chargebacks has landed the defendants in VISA’s and MasterCard’s chargeback monitoring programs, resulted in millions of dollars in fines for excessive chargebacks, and prevented the defendants from getting access to the credit card and debit card billing systems using their own names. To keep the scam going, the defendants tricked banks into giving them continued access to these billing systems by creating 51shell companies with figurehead officers, and by providing the banks with phony “clean” versions of their websites.

The FTC has charged the defendants with violating the FTC Act by misrepresenting that government grants are available for paying personal expenses, that consumers are likely to obtain grants by using the defendants’ program, that users of their money-making products will earn substantial income, and that their offers are free or risk-free. The complaint also alleges that defendants failed to disclose that consumers who pay a nominal shipping and handling fee will be enrolled in expensive plans that charge consumers fees until they cancel, and that the defendants charged consumers’ credit cards and debited their bank accounts without their consent.

In addition, the FTC alleges that defendants posted deceptive positive reviews and used deceptive testimonials that misrepresented the benefits of their grant services. Finally, the FTC has charged the defendants with violating the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by debiting consumers’ bank accounts without their signed written consent and without providing consumers with a copy of the written authorization.

As alleged in the complaint, the defendants gained access to the Visa and MasterCard systems through many entities. The banks included Wells Fargo, N.A., HSBC Bank USA, First Regional Bank, Harris National Association, and Columbus Bank and Trust Company. The payment processors the defendants used included First Data, ECHO, Global Payment Systems, Litle & Co., Moneris, Payment Tech, Trident, and Vital, as well as independent sales organizations, including CardFlex, RDK Inc., Merchant eSolutions, Pivotal Payments, PowerPay, and Swipe Merchant Solutions.

The FTC complaint names 10 individuals, 10 corporations, and 51 shell companies as defendants. As alleged in the complaint, the lynchpin of the enterprise is Jeremy Johnson, the sole owner and officer of I Works Inc., which has done business under numerous names. The FTC’s complaint names Johnson and nine other individual defendants: Duane Fielding; Andy Johnson; Loyd Johnston; Scott Leavitt; Scott Muir; Bryce Payne; Kevin Pilon; Ryan Riddle; and Terrason Spinks. In addition, the 10 corporate defendants are: I Works Inc.; Anthon Holdings Corp.; Cloud Nine Marketing Inc.; CPA Upsell Inc.; Elite Debit Inc.; Employee Plus Inc.; Internet Economy Inc.; Market Funding Solutions Inc.; Network Agenda LLC; and Success Marketing Inc.

The 51 shell companies named in the complaint are Big Bucks Pro Inc., Blue Net Progress Inc., Blue Streak Processing Inc., Bolt Marketing Inc., Bottom Dollar Inc., doing business as BadCustomer.com, Bumble Marketing Inc., Business First Inc., Business Loan Success Inc., Cold Bay Media Inc., Costnet Discounts Inc., CS Processing Inc., Cutting Edge Processing Inc., Diamond J. Media Inc., Ebusiness First Inc., Ebusiness Success Inc., Ecom Success Inc., Excess Net Success Inc., Fiscal Fidelity Inc., Fitness Processing Inc., Funding Search Success Inc., Funding Success Inc., GG Processing Inc., GGL Rewards Inc., Highlight Marketing Inc., Hooper Processing Inc., Internet Business Source Inc., Internet Fitness Inc., Jet Processing Inc., JRB Media Inc., Lifestyles For Fitness Inc., Mist Marketing Inc., Money Harvest Inc., Monroe Processing Inc., Net Business Success Inc., Net Commerce Inc., Net Discounts Inc., Net Fit Trends Inc., Optimum Assistance Inc., Power Processing Inc., Premier Performance Inc., Pro Internet Services Inc., Razor Processing Inc., Rebate Deals Inc., Revive Marketing Inc., Simcor Marketing Inc., Summit Processing Inc., The Net Success Inc., Tranfirst Inc., Tran Voyage Inc., Unlimited Processing Inc., and Xcel Processing Inc.

The Commission vote to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

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. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.

Original FTC Release Can Be Found Here:

http://ftc.gov/opa/2010/12/iworks.shtm

Filed Under: FTC Releases Tagged With: (435) 688-0634, (435) 688-8032, Ebusiness First Inc., Ebusiness Success Inc., fraud, FTC, Internet Business Source, InternetBusiness source, iWorks, iWorks.com, JRB Media, Ryan Riddle, RyanRiddle, scam, The Net Success Inc., unauthorized charges

FTC Settles with Defendants that Claimed Bogus Ties to Google and Unlawfully Charged Consumers Hidden Fees

November 3, 2010 By Paul (Founder, WorkAtHomeTruth) 4 Comments

FTC 10/18/2010 News Release:

Google Money Tree Defendants Must Surrender Assets of More than $3.5 Million, Banned from Using ‘Negative Option’ Strategy to Automatically Bill Consumers

An online marketer that falsely claimed ties to Google Inc. has been forced to stop operations as part of a Federal Trade Commission action that charged the defendants with marketing an allegedly bogus work-at-home scheme and charging hidden monthly fees to consumers’ credit card and bank accounts. Under a settlement agreement reached with the FTC, the defendants are banned from selling products through “negative option” transactions – in which the seller interprets consumers’ silence or inaction as permission to charge them. The defendants also are barred from making misleading or unsupported claims while marketing or selling any product or service, and will give up cash and other assets exceeding $3.5 million.

As part of “Operation Short Change” – a crackdown on scammers taking advantage of the economic downturn to bilk vulnerable consumers through a variety of schemes – the FTC announced a complaint in July 2009 against several defendants that allegedly sold a bogus work-at-home product under names including “Google Money Tree,” “Google Pro,” and “Google Treasure Chest.” By using the name and logo of the Internet search company Google and falsely promising that consumers could earn $100,000 in six months, the defendants lured consumers into divulging their financial account information to pay a modest shipping fee for a work-at-home kit. The defendants failed to disclose adequately, however, that buying the product would trigger automatic monthly charges of $72.21 for another product, and that those charges would continue until the consumer took steps to cancel, according to the FTC complaint.

The complaint charged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by failing to adequately disclose that consumers would be subjected to monthly charges; by making false or unsupported claims that consumers were likely to earn substantial income; and by falsely claiming that they were affiliated with Google Inc. The defendants also violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by debiting consumers’ bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining written authorization, according to the complaint.

The settlement includes a $29.5 million judgment against defendants Jonathan Eborn; Michael McLain Miller; Tony Norton; Infusion Media, Inc.; West Coast Internet Media, Inc.; Two Warnings, LLC; Two Part Investments, LLC; and Platinum Teleservices, Inc. A fourth defendant, Stephanie Burnside, is subject to a judgment of $741,900. The defendants will give up cash and other assets that include two cars, interests in a Harley Davidson motorcycle and a boat, and a gun collection – which total approximately $3.5 million, in partial satisfaction of the judgment. The unpaid portions of these judgments are suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay, but the full amounts will become due if the defendants have misrepresented their financial condition.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the stipulated final order against the Google Money Tree defendants was 5-0. The FTC filed the proposed settlement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. It was signed by the judge on October 4, 2010.

NOTE: A stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge.

ExoticFX WARNING

IWorks.com and the FTC

FTC Settles with Defendants that Claimed Bogus Ties to Google and Unlawfully Charged Consumers Hidden Fees

Google Money Tree Defendants Must Surrender Assets of More than $3.5 Million, Banned from Using ‘Negative Option’ Strategy to Automatically Bill Consumers

How To file Complaints

Categories