Information for Victims in Large Cases
United States v. Tyler Marx
The indictment alleges that the defendant used social media and other forums to conduct a “pump and dump” scheme involving two cryptocurrencies, namely 1CRedit and Belacoin. Marx manipulated the price of, and trading in, 1CRedit and Belacoin cryptocurrencies using materially false statements, deceitful statements of half-truths, and the concealment of material facts in order to defraud investors and obtain illicit proceeds. As a result of this investigation, Marx is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and four counts of wire fraud.
United States v. Tanner Roughton
Defendant Tanner Roughton is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of wire fraud, and one count of filing a false tax returns. The charges stem from Roughton’s participation in scheme to defraud buyers and sellers of two cryptocurrencies by manipulating the price of the cryptocurrencies through various means, including the release of false statements designed to bolster the sale price and generate trading volume, and matched trades with a co-schemer and others to further generate trading volume. The charges allege that Roughton sold the cryptocurrencies for a profit and knowingly failed to report his profits on his tax returns.
U.S. v. Moshe Porat (21-CR-00170), and U.S. v. Isaac Gottlieb, et al. (21-CR-00160)
The defendant and his co-conspirators provided false information to college ranking publications about statistical data relating to Temple University's Fox School of Business. U.S. News relied on these false and misleading representations and ranked Fox's OMBA program number one in the country four years in a row. U.S. News also ranked Fox's PMBA program as high as number seven in 2017. The defendant marketed the fraudulently inflated rankings to potential Fox applicants, students, and donors in order to obtain money from them.
U.S. v. Kona Jones Barbera (17-CR-00657), U.S. v. Tyler Tedrow (18-CR-00455), and U.S. v. Christian Tedrow (18-CR-00456)
Securities fraud case involved a “pump and dump” scheme, as well as filing fraudulent/false documents with the SEC and failure to disclose information to the SEC and the public. For more complete information, please see the case description.
United States v. Dino Paolucci
The defendant, Dino Paolucci, was charged with wire fraud and securities fraud in connection with his involvement in promoting a stock manipulation scheme, commonly referred to as a “pump and dump.”
United States v. Blake Rubin, et al.
Blake Rubin, 30, of Huntington Valley, PA, Chase Rubin 28, of Rydal, PA, and Justin Diaczuk, 31, of Philadelphia, PA, were recently charged with running a multi-million dollar telemarketing scam. According to the information, the defendants duped more than 70,000 people into buying what they falsely marketed as a general-purpose credit card that customers could use to buy merchandise over the internet and improve their credit.
United States v. Intercept or d/b/a InterceptEFT
Intercept Corporation, d/b/a “InterceptEFT” (“Intercept”), a privately held corporation headquartered in Fargo, North Dakota, operating an illegal money transmittal business. Intercept was a “third party payment processor” which processed electronic funds transfers for its clients through the Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) system, an electronic payments network that processed financial transactions without using paper checks. Among Intercept’s clients were numerous business entities that issued, serviced, funded, and collected debt from short-term, high-interest loans, commonly referred to as “payday loans,” because such loans are supposed to be repaid when the borrower received his or her next paycheck or regular income payment. Payday loans are effectively illegal in more than a dozen states, including Pennsylvania, and are highly regulated in many other states.
United States v. Charles Hallinan, et al.
Charles Hallinan ran multiple companies that provided short-term loans to tens of thousands of people, including Pennsylvania residents, in exchange for fees that were in gross violation of the usury laws in many states, including Pennsylvania. Hallinan's companies collected on these loans by debiting funds from the bank accounts of his borrowers on their expected paydays, a practice referred to as "payday loans."
United States v. Frank J. Morelli, III, et al.
An indictment charging a market manipulation scheme was unsealed today against six defendants in connection with the trading of stock in Super Nova Resources, Inc. (“SNRR”), announced United States Attorney Zane David Memeger. Charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, and securities fraud are: Carl Marciniak, 50, of California, Jeffrey Weinfurter, 46, of Yorba Linda, CA, James Wheeler, 54, of Corona, CA, Daniel Starczewski, 67, of Cornelius, NC, Danny Colon, 46, of Edgewater, NJ, and Louis Buonocore, 59, of Woburn, MA. According to the indictment, the defendants ran the scheme with the intent to cause approximately $150 million in losses to participants in the over-the-counter U.S. securities market.
United States v. Neil Godfrey
This case involves a third-party data processor (Godfrey), who helped fraudulent merchants make small, unauthorized withdrawals from the bank accounts of hundreds of thousands of victims. Godfrey did this through his business, Check Site, which worked directly with banks that would not have worked with the fraudulent merchants directly. Godfrey also helped the fraudulent merchants to conceal their activity from the banks through various means.
United States v. Chad Klingman
Chad Kligman, 31, in the Philadelphia area was recently charged with running a multi-million dollar telemarketing scam. According to the information, the defendants duped more than 70,000 people into buying what they falsely marketed as a general-purpose credit card that customers could use to buy merchandise over the internet and improve their credit.
United States v. Adrian Rubin, et al
Adrian Rubin, in the Philadelphia area was recently charged with running a multi-million dollar telemarketing scam. According to the information, the defendants duped more than 70,000 people into buying what they falsely marketed as a general-purpose credit card that customers could use to buy merchandise over the internet and improve their credit.