Asset Search Blog : Asset Search & Hidden Assets : Lawyer & Attorney Fred Abrams : Tax Fraud, Asset Investigations

The "Asset Search News Roundup: January 26, 2009 " mentioned that Heartland Payment Systems was subjected to what might have been the biggest credit / debit card information theft in the U.S.  Mr. Albert Gonzalez was ultimately indicted for that privacy law violation / computer intrusion and other ones.  In fact, Mr. Gonzalez pleaded guilty to criminal charges respectively brought in New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts. 

 

As "Using Foreign Computer Evidence Against An Accused Hacker" indicated, Mr. Gonzalez had initially been accused of using multiple jurisdictions / cross-border elements to facilitate computer hacking, identity theft and money laundering.  A December 29th Department of Justice press release also apparently indicated that Mr. Gonzalez had used cross-border elements to commit his crimes. 

 

According to the December 29th press release, Mr. Gonzalez was an "international hacker" convicted because of "coordination across....geographical lines".  Page 7 paragraph (1) (c) of a November 20, 2009 plea agreement additionally suggests that Mr. Gonzalez used cross-border elements in his crimes.  It stated that he had leased or controlled computer servers in Latvia and Ukraine:

 

  (To Read The Plea Agreement, Click On It)

 

 

Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Attorney Arienne Irving's December 4, 2009 Judgment of Acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, raises the general issue of lawyers or clients who might use illegal eavesdropping equipment to "research" an adversary.  I previously wrote about violating privacy laws via eavesdropping at "Attorney Christensen's Wiretap Conviction".  That article explained how former attorney Terry Christensen had, (while representing billionaire husband Kirk Kerkorian), conspired to eavesdrop on a wife's telephone conversations.

 

In Ms. Irving's case, she and Attorney Robert Simels were indicted for suspected witness tampering and for allegedly possessing and shipping illegal eavesdropping equipment in derogation of 18 U.S.C. §§2512 (1) (a) & (b).  According to a DEA press release, a client of Mr. Simels and Ms. Irving had earlier used this eavesdropping equipment in Guyana to research or "target" apparent adversaries, some of whom were later murdered. 

 

As set forth in my "Asset Search News Roundup" for September 10, 2009, a jury returned a guilty verdict against Mr. Simels and he was sentenced to 168 months of prison.  Despite the same trial jury reaching the guilty verdict below regarding Ms. Irving, the Court acquitted her as previously mentioned.

     

(To Read The Jury's Verdict Sheet, Click On It)

 

 Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today's article is based on an ongoing investigation, the facts of which are changed below for privacy reasons:

 

Ralph claimed in his New Jersey divorce that he had a low net worth, although he was a medical doctor who once had a thriving private practice.  Ralph's claim made his divorcing wife Nancy believe that Ralph had hidden marital assets.  Nancy therefore gathered up copies of documents she obtained during the pretrial discovery phase of the divorce and before.  

 

These documents included Ralph's: passport, statements for airline frequent flyer miles, phone bills and financial records.  Nancy gave them to Mike, who was a licensed private investigator she had retained to perform an asset search regarding Ralph.  After conducting research for more than a month, Mike told Nancy that Ralph had hidden monies in foreign bank accounts and in Miami. 

 

Mike asserted that Ralph had secretly maintained about $2.5 million dollars in foreign banks located in high-risk geographical locations known for money laundering.  Ralph had also supposedly hidden another $85,000 dollars in a Miami bank account.  Mike then explained that he could perform the necessary "bank account searches" which would identify all of Ralph's secret accounts.

 

As of the writing of this article, Nancy paid Mike over $28,000 dollars for the bank account searches and Mike had provided Nancy with a report summarizing his search results.  The report identified the foreign bank accounts Ralph is believed to have hidden the $2.5 million dollars in.  It also disclosed all the confidential details of Ralph's supposed $85,000 dollar Miami bank account.  

 

When Nancy next complained to Mike, (that the report did not explain the source of Mike's information), Mike wrote her a letter.  Mike's letter said that his report was completely reliable and that a trusted colleague had supplied Ralph's foreign banking information.  It also stated that Mike had obtained Ralph's Miami bank account information from an "insider" who worked for the Miami bank.  According to Mike's letter, the insider had used the bank's computer system to sneak a peek at Ralph's $85,000 dollar bank account.

 

Assuming that the statements in Mike's letter to Nancy are true, then both the insider and Mike may have violated federal privacy and other laws.  The two for example, may have conspired to access Ralph's Miami bank account information in derogation of  18 U.S.C. §1030  (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers).  Another recent case involving an insider at a bank is U.S.A. v. Feliciano, 2:09−cr−00197−NS.  The March 2009 indictment filed in Feliciano, alleged that a bank teller had stolen confidential customer information as part of a bank fraud / identity theft scheme.

 

(Edited 10/14/2009)

Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This "Asset Search News Roundup" is about two New York criminal defense attorneys who among other things, were accused of violating privacy law by possessing illegal eavesdropping equipment.  On August 20, 2009, attorneys Robert Simels and Arienne Irving were found guilty of importing and possessing illegal eavesdropping equipment in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§2512 (1) (a) & (b). 

 

Ms. Irving was eventually acquitted of all criminal charges on December 4, 2009 and a U.S. Attorney's press release mentions that Mr. Simels was sentenced to 168 months of prison.  Mr. Simels' jury verdict sheet additionally reveals that he was convicted of several witness tampering charges along with the bribery charge outlined by his July 10, 2009 superseding indictment.  He had apparently committed these crimes in connection with his representation of Mr. Shaheed Khan in a federal criminal case. 

 

An August 20, 2009 Drug Enforcement Administration press release called Mr. Khan a drug kingpin and claimed that Mr. Simels and Ms. Irving had imported the illegal eavesdropping equipment from Guyana, where Mr. Khan had used it.  My next article will again mention U.S. privacy law.  This upcoming article is called "Violating Federal Law In An Asset Search".  It describes how a private detective may have conspired to illegally access customer account information maintained at a U.S. bank.

 

(Edited December 12, 2009)

Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Albert Gonzalez was arrested in the Southern District of Florida on May 8, 2008 pursuant to this warrant:

Click On The Arrest Warrant To Enlarge It

 

The arrest arose out of Mr. Gonzalez's alleged computer hacking / identity theft scheme which was later outlined in a May 14, 2008 New York superseding indictment.  This superseding indictment in U.S.A. v. Yastremskiy, et. al., 08-cr-00160, claimed that Mr. Gonzalez and his co-defendants had stolen credit card information through computer intrusions at Dave & Busters, Inc. restaurants.  Mr. Gonzalez and / or his co-defendants were accused of violating federal laws including but not limited to: conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §371); fraud related to computers (18 U.S.C. §1030); wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343 ); access device fraud (18 U.S.C. §1029); aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. §1028A); etc.  

 

Almost three months after the superseding indictment was filed against him in New York, Mr. Gonzalez was next indicted in Massachusetts.  According to the August 5, 2008 Massachusetts indictment in U.S.A. v. Albert Gonzalez, 08-cr-10233, Mr. Gonzalez had hacked computers which stored credit card information for BJ's Wholesale Club, DSW, OfficeMax, Boston Market and others.

 

Like the New York superseding indictment, the Massachusetts indictment accused Mr. Gonzalez of: conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §371); fraud related to computers (18 U.S.C. §1030); wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343 ); access device fraud (18 U.S.C.§1029); and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. §1028A).  The Massachusetts indictment also essentially asserted that Mr. Gonzalez had hidden the proceeds of his hacking / identity theft scheme by money laundering through multiple jurisdictions.

 

It basically alleged that criminal proceeds had been transferred in a money laundering circuit with laundering links consisting of Latvian bank accounts and U.S. or Russian "web currency converters".  As their July 24, 2009 letter reveals, prosecutors also believed that Mr. Gonzalez had maintained stolen U.S. credit card information and computer hacking programs on a computer server in Latvia. 

 

Prosecutors had apparently acquired this Latvian computer server and other supposed foreign computer evidence, by making Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty requests.  Perhaps even worse for Mr. Gonzalez, is that he was indicted in New Jersey on Monday for the alleged theft of about 130 million credit / debit cards via a computer intrusion at Heartland Payment Systems.  As I mentioned in the January 26, 2009 "Asset Search News Roundup", the Heartland Payment Systems credit card theft could be the largest of its kind. 

 

According to a press release, Mr. Gonzalez might have also used multiple jurisdictions in his supposed theft at Heartland Payment Systems.  This could be true because Mr. Gonzalez is accused of storing stolen U.S. credit card information from Heartland Payment Systems on computer servers in: California, Illinois, Latvia, the Netherlands and the Ukraine.  Foreign computer evidence may therefore become an important part of Mr. Gonzalez's prosecution in New Jersey, just as it could in his Massachusetts prosecution. 

 

Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The "Asset Search News" for this week discusses my interview by AssetForfeitureWatch.com; Transparency International's press release about Kenyan police corruption; and the file assistant who pleaded guilty to computer intrusions in violation of U.S. privacy law.

 

+AssetForfeitureWatch.com provides the law enforcement community with training / support in the area of asset forfeiture.  Last Tuesday, AssetForfeitureWatch.com interviewed me for the upcoming article "Following the money trail with a professional asset hunter" which will be available at its website.

 

++My "September 26, 2008 Asset Search News Roundup" mentioned Transparency International's 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index.  That index ranked Kenya as having a low reputation for honesty, alongside Russia, Bangladesh and Syria.  On one of its webpages, Transparency International has also accused the Kenya Police of being the most corrupt institution in all of East Africa.

 

+++"Pretexting During An Asset Search" explained that U.S. privacy and other laws sometimes prohibit private detectives, information brokers, etc. from using false pretenses as part of an asset search.  U.S. Privacy laws can of course also apply to other kinds of  situations, like that Mr. William A. Celey was in.  According to a press release, Mr. Celey pleaded guilty to computer intrusions that violate  privacy laws.  Based on his one-count criminal information, Mr. Celey, (while a U.S. State Department file assistant), had illegally accessed data:

 "pertaining to the imaged confidential passport application files of various celebrities and their families, actors, models, musicians, athletes, record producers, family members, a politician, and other  individuals identified in the press".  (Criminal Information, at page 1). 

 

 (Edited July 13, 2009)

Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Identity theft can play a role in white-collar crimes ranging from money laundering to tax fraud.  Perhaps most interesting are the schemes which share identity theft and money laundering as common elements, like the one mentioned at "A Tax Fraud & Identity Theft From Miami".  Identity theft and money laundering are similarly alleged to have occurred in the case of U.S.A. v. Renee Gill Pratt, et. al. Criminal No. 2:08-cr-00140. 

 

The May 22, 2009 superseding indictment in Pratt, alleges that former Louisiana state representative and New Orleans city councilwoman Renee Gill Pratt participated in a RICO criminal enterprise which misappropriated government funds and concealed assets.  Said superceding indictment contains a total of thirty-four counts alleging money laundering, aggravated identity theft and other crimes, as mentioned by an FBI press release.

 

Identity theft is of course, not just limited to cases involving money laundering.  In U.S.A. vs. Torrella et. al. 3:07-cr-05775 for example, data brokers Emilio and Brandy Torrella pleaded guilty on May 20, 2008 to violating 18 U.S.C. §1028A (aggravated identity theft), among other things.  As my post "Pretexting During An Asset Search" explained, the Torrellas were accused with private detectives, of illegally obtaining confidential information from the I.R.S., Social Security Administration, pharmacies, medical offices and various state labor departments. 

 

The Torrellas had violated people's privacy rights and committed aggravated identity theft by making pretext calls, (i.e. eliciting information by using false identities / false pretenses in telephone calls).  They are now scheduled for sentencing before the Court on July 10, 2009. 

    

Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

During an asset search, subpoenas or other court-related discovery can be used to access an adversary's e-mail.  This access to electronically stored information like e-mail, may be authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a) (1) (A) (ii) & (b) (2) (B) and additional discovery rules, as is more fully set forth in my post "Computer Forensics & An Asset Search".  Besides using discovery rules to elicit evidence about an adversary's e-mail account, e-mail is sometimes accessed in other ways. 

 

The divorcing wife in Gurevich v. Gurevich, Slip. Op. 29191(Sup. Ct. Kings County, May 5, 2009), had for example, somehow accessed her estranged husband's e-mail stored in his e-mail account.  According to the wife, her husband's e-mails implicated him in a scheme to hide his income via his former business associates and an accountant.  The wife also claimed that she had only gained access to the e-mail by using an authorized password provided by her husband. 

 

The husband meanwhile, alleged that the divorcing wife had acquired his e-mails through eavesdropping in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §250.05.  The Court however, ultimately found that the e-mails in Gurevich, had not been obtained via eavesdropping.  This was true because the wife did not intercept the stored e-mails while they had been in transit, as is contemplated by  N.Y. Penal Law §250.05. The Court therefore, ruled that N.Y. Civ. Prac. L & R. §4506, (which bars the use of evidence obtained from illegal eavesdropping), did not apply.

 

Separate from whether "stored" e-mails are subject to N.Y. Penal Law §250.05 and N.Y. Civ. Prac. L & R. § 4506, is the general issue of computer hacking.  If an adversary's e-mail account is hacked as part of an asset search or otherwise, there could be a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers), under some fact-patterns.  Examples of indictments alleging 18 U.S.C. §1030 violations can be found at my post "Computer Intrusions That Violate Privacy Laws".

(Edited January 1, 2010)

(Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

My post "Pretexting During An Asset Search" explained that using false pretenses may violate privacy laws during an asset search.  "Attorney Christensen's Wiretap Conviction" additionally mentioned the case of a California attorney who violated privacy laws by conspiring to wiretap a divorcing spouse's phone. 

 

Privacy laws however, don't just criminalize certain types of pretexting or wiretapping.  They also prohibit the computer intrusions mentioned at 18 U.S.C. §1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers).  Indicted under 18 U.S.C. §1030 in U.S.A. v. David C. Kernell, was the alleged hacker of Governor Palin's e-mail account.  The hacker(s) of 33 celebrity Twitter accounts described in "Following The Twitter Hack Trail To DigitalGangster" might similarly be indicted for a suspected violation of 18 U.S.C. §1030.  

 

Minneapolis Police Officer Michael David Roberts was also indicted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1030 for allegedly accessing a police computer system to sell nonpublic information related to a Minnesota license plate.  Meanwhile, former State Department Intelligence Analyst Lawrence C. Yontz entered a plea agreement this past September after he was accused of violating 18 U.S.C. §1030.  Page 4 of Mr. Yontz's "Factual Basis For Plea" explained that he had accessed a State Department computer out of "idle curiosity" and:

"...viewed the passport applications of nearly 200 celebrities, athletes, actors, politicians and their immediate families, musicians, game show contestants,members of the media corps, prominent business professionals, colleagues, associates, neighbors,and individuals identified in the press." (Id. at page 4).

 

 

Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The hacking of vice presidential candidate Governor Palin's e-mail account at Yahoo, is examined by this "Asset Search News Roundup".  Based on the Washington Post's "Hacker impersonated Palin, stole e-mail password ", the hacker violated federal privacy law 18 U.S.C. § 1030, (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers).

 

The hacker is also suspected of pretexting, (i.e. using false pretenses), while contacting Yahoo to gain access to Governor Palin's e-mail account.  Pretexters sometimes illegally access other kinds of personal information, as described at: "Pretexting During An Asset Search" and "The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act & An Asset Search".

 

Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Attorney Terry Christensen was convicted along with private investigator Anthony Pellicano on August 29, 2008, as reported by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal Law Blog.  According  to the criminal minutes from his trial, Mr. Christensen had been found guilty of his two-count indictment for violating 18 U.S.C. 371 (Conspiracy) and 18 U.S.C. 2511 (1) {a}  & {d} (Interception of Wire Communications). 

 

While representing billionaire investor Mr. Kirk Kerkorian in a child support case, Mr. Christensen had used an illegal wiretap to undermine Mr. Kerkorian's adversary-- Ms. Lisa Bonder Kerkorian.  As fully described at pages 15-17 of the government's Trial Memorandum, Mr. Christensen had telephoned Mr. Pellicano on March 18, 2002 and authorized the illegal wiretapping of Ms. Kerkorian's phone.  The wiretap ended on or about May 16, 2002 and had enabled Mr. Christensen to even eavesdrop on Ms. Kerkorian's privileged conversations with her attorneys.

 

Mr. Christensen's wiretap conviction could change how some attorneys interact with private investigators who perform background checks; asset searches; or other tasks.  As suggested by The Los Angeles Times article "Wiretap trial sheds light on lawyers' work with private eyes", Mr. Christensen's conviction might make attorneys more cautious in their dealings with private investigators.  In discussing Mr. Christensen's conviction, an FBI spokesperson also said in a press release: "This case uncovered corruption by the wealthy and influential and today's guilty verdicts render assurance that the justice system cannot be bought by those with money and power." 

 

Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mr. Frank Lowy of Australia; Puerto Rico Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila; and articles regarding privacy issues; are all mentioned in this "Asset Search News Roundup":

• Although the U.S. Senate Subcommittee report "Tax Haven Banks And U.S. Tax Compliance" accused Mr. Frank Lowy of concealing $68 million in a suspected tax fraud, The Australian Business advised that Mr. Lowy's Westfield Group had a $928 million operating profit for the half-year.  

• A U.S. Department of Justice press release reported that Puerto Rico's Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila was indicted on August 19, 2008 for money laundering and wire fraud.  As the Associated Press explained in "Puerto Rico governor indicted on 5 new charges", the Governor's August 19th indictment was his second one.  The Governor's first indictment is fully described at my post, "Puerto Rico's Governor and Public Corruption".

• The sale of data by the Iowa County Recorders Association to Datatree, has been temporarily suspended according to DesMoinesRegister.Com.  The sale raises privacy concerns because it includes the transfer of personal information like social security numbers.  Also raising privacy issues, is a recent Knoxnews.com article about a Tennessee Highway Patrol trooper who allegedly conducted unauthorized background checks.

 

 Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Privacy and other federal laws generally prohibit pretexting, (the use of false pretenses), when contacting a U.S. bank, phone company or government agency for confidential information.  One example of pretexting would be using a false identity while phoning a bank to elicit a bank customer's personal account information.  If an information broker, private investigator, etc. pretexts during an asset search, some of the following federal statutes might possibly apply:

• 15 U.S.C. § 45 (Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission):  By relying on both 15 U.S.C. §45 and 15 U.SC. § 53 (False advertisements; injunctions and restraining orders), the Federal Trade Commission can sue pretexters for fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices.

• 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et. seq. (the Gramm-Leach-Blilely Act): makes it illegal to access private information by making pretext phone calls to a financial institution or its customers.  As my post "The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act & An Asset Search" further explains, 15 U.S.C. § 6821 also prohibits the use of false documents to obtain private customer information.

• H.R. 4709, 109th Congress (2006) (Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006):  This statute generally prohibits telephone record pretexting and the sale of illegally acquired telephone records.

• 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information):  Both this statute & 18 U.S.C. §1028A. (Aggravated identity theft), prohibit a broad range of frauds in connection with identification documents.

• 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Frauds and swindles): Covers frauds which use U.S. mail.  It and 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Fraud by wire, radio, or television), are the ubiquitous federal fraud statutes.

• 26 U.S.C. § 7213 (Unauthorized disclosure of information): Prohibits the unauthorized inspection or disclosure of U.S. tax returns or return information.   Subsection (a) (4), entitled "Solicitation", expressly covers the illegal sale and /or illegal receipt of tax return information.

• 42 U.S.C. § 1307 (Penalty for fraud): Among other things, covers misconduct like eliciting social security numbers through pretext calls to the U.S. Social Security Administration.

•  47 U.S.C. § 222 (The Telecommunications Act of 1996):  Section (c) (2) of this Act generally prohibits telephone record disclosure absent  "...affirmative written request by the customer, to any person designated by the customer".

One who pretexts in violation of the foregoing statutes, may face a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit or even criminal indictment.  In Federal Trade Commission v. Action Research Group, Inc. et. al. for example, information brokers ended up stipulating to a final order which permanently enjoined them from telephone record pretexting.  In Federal Trade Commission v. Victor L. Guzzeta d/b/a Smart Data Systems, yet another information broker stipulated to a final judgment, which similarly enjoined him from financial record pretexting.


In the U.S. District Court in Tacoma however, Mr. and Mrs. Torrella are being criminally prosecuted for their pretext calls to the I.R.S., Social Security Administration, pharmacies, medical offices and various state labor departments.  According to their indictment, the Torrellas made the pretext calls while performing asset searches and other services for the private investigators who are their co-defendants. 


The Torrellas and /or their co-defendants are charged with Conspiracy and violating many of the above-cited federal statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); 42 U.S.C. § 1307 (Penalty for Fraud); 26 U.S.C. § 7213 (Unauthorized  Disclosure of Information); and 18 U.S.C. §1028A (Aggravated Identity Theft).  Based on their May 20, 2008 plea agreements, both Mr. and Mrs. Torrella await sentencing.  According to a September 3, 2008 entry in their docket report, said sentencing has been scheduled by U.S. District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton for February 13, 2009.

(Last Edited 11/3/08)

Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) at 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et. seq., protects the privacy of customers who provide information to U.S. financial institutions.  Although there are some important exceptions mentioned at 15 U.S.C. §6821(c) - (g), GLBA restricts access to  "nonpublic personal information" like bank account numbers, account balances, etc.  In some cases, GLBA can therefore act as a bar to an asset search at a financial institution.


At 15 U.S.C. §6821, GLBA specifically protects personal information at U.S. financial institutions by outlawing pretexting.  This means for example, that it is illegal to make false statements to a bank customer or a bank in order to access protected personal information.   Submitting false documents to a bank, (to obtain the protected information), is also illegal pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6821.  Soliciting a person to use false pretenses to access the protected information at a bank, is also prohibited.


Violating GLBA is punishable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6823 by a criminal fine or imprisonment of up to five years.  In aggravated cases, fines may also be doubled and imprisonment can be for up to ten years.  As NXIVM Corp. vs. Rick Ross, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Index # 06-CV-01051 demonstrates, a GLBA violation can however, also be alleged in a civil court case.  Although the NXIVM case was commenced as a trademark / copyright violation claim against Mr. Rick Ross, Mr. Ross filed a Verified Counterclaim alleging that NXVIM had illegally obtained his bank and other private information by hiring Mr. Juval Aviv of the Interfor private investigation firm.


According to allegations at page 8, paragraph 27of the Verified Counterclaim, Mr. Aviv had bribed a Fleet Bank employee to access Mr. Ross's personal bank information.  The Counterclaim alternatively alleged that Mr.Aviv had engaged in pretexting to illegally acquire the Fleet Bank information.  Mr. Aviv however, has denied any wrongdoing In his November 7, 2007 Reply filed with the Court.  As of the time of this writing, the foregoing claims have not yet been fully adjudicated by the Court.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks