United States v. Internet Transaction Services, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 2, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-06582·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil Case No. 21-6582-JFW (KSx) Plaintiff, PRELIMINARY v. FREEZE, RECEIVER, AND INTERNET TRANSACTION SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.

On August 13, 2021, Plaintiff United States of America (the “United States”) filed its Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions, and Other Equitable Relief (the “Complaint”) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345, alleging that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1344, and 1349. The United States also filed an Ex Parte Application for (1) a Temporary Restraining Order With Asset Freeze, Appointment of a Temporary Receiver, Other Equitable Relief, and an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue, and (2) an Order Waiving Notice Requirement (Docket No. 18). On August 20, 2021, the Court issued its Order Granting Ex Parte Application for (1) Temporary Restraining Order with Asset Freeze, Appointment of a Temporary Receiver, and Other Equitable Relief and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (2) Order Waiving Notice Requirement (Docket No. 19). The Court set a hearing on the Order to Show Cause for September 3, 2021 at 8:00 a.m. As set forth more fully in the Declaration of Michael J. Wadden Regarding Notice and Service (Docket No. 28), the United States provided notice of the Temporary Restraining Order and hearing on the Order to Show Cause to all defendants, i.e., Defendants Internet Transaction Services, Inc.; Intertrans.com, Inc.; Edward Courdy; Michael Young; Guy Benoit; Jenny Sullivan; John Murphy; Steven Morgan; Harold Sobel; Randy Grabeel; Eric Bauer; Debra Vogel; Evelyn Seidman; Jennifer Ash; Be a Kloud LLC; Blue Water LLC; CBX International Inc. (Delaware); CBX International Inc. (Florida); Delta Cloud LLC; Dollar Web Sales LLC; ECloud Secure LLC; Eastgate View LLC; I-Support Group LLC; My Kloud Box LLC; Newagecloudservices LLC; NRG Support LLC; Silver Safe Box LLC; Silver Safe Box Inc.; Storage VPN LLC; and VPN Me Now LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). According to Mr. Wadden and the Proofs of Service filed on September 1, 2021 (Docket Nos. 22-27), the United States has also completed service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 on Defendants Internet Transaction Services, Inc.; Intertrans.com, Inc.; Edward Courdy; Michael Young; Jenny Sullivan; Harold Sobel; Randy Grabeel; Evelyn Seidman; Be a Kloud LLC; Blue Water LLC; CBX International Inc. (Delaware); CBX International, Inc. (Florida); Delta Cloud LLC; Eastgate View LLC; I-Support Group LLC; My Kloud Box LLC; Newagecloudservices LLC; NRG Support LLC; Silver Safe Box LLC; and Storage VPN LLC. The Court, having considered the Complaint, the TRO Application, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed in support thereof (the “Memorandum” or “Mem.”) and the Exhibits thereto, and being otherwise advised, finds that: A. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and there is good cause to believe that it will have jurisdiction over all parties hereto and that venue in this district is proper. B. There is good cause to believe that all Defendants have engaged in and are likely to engage in acts or practices that violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1344, and 1349, and that the United States is, therefore, likely to prevail on the merits of this action. The evidence submitted with the government’s Memorandum, including the Declaration of Postal Inspector Ashlea Bowens and the exhibits thereto (the “Bowens Declaration”), demonstrates that all Defendants have taken part in a multi-year fraud scheme through which Defendants have stolen millions of dollars from American consumers and their federally insured financial institutions by making unauthorized debits against consumers’ bank accounts. See, e.g., Bowens Decl. ¶¶ 8, 87. The evidence reflects that: (1) Defendants Benoit and Courdy have led and organized the fraud scheme, see, e.g., Bowens Decl. ¶¶ 9–10, 15, 37, Exs. 1–2, 4, 32; (2) Defendants Morgan, Murphy, Sullivan, and Young have intentionally caused fraudulent debits to be made against consumers’ accounts and have engaged in deceptions to hide the fraudulent debits from banks, consumers, and payment processors, see, e.g., Bowens Decl. ¶¶ 34, 41, 72, 77–79, 85, Exs. 3, 7, 30–31, 34, 36–37; (3) Defendants Sobel, Grabeel, Bauer, Vogel, Seidman, and Ash have registered sham entities for use in the scheme, opened bank accounts in the names of those sham entities, provided Benoit control of those accounts for use in the scheme, and otherwise assisted Benoit in the fraud scheme, see Bowens Decl. ¶¶ 12, 53–69, Exs. 16–24, 27–29; (4) the Corporate Entities have all been used in furtherance of the scheme and (with the possible exception of Intertrans) appear to lack any legitimate function, see, e.g., Bowens Decl. ¶¶ 11, 38, 76, Ex. 25. C. There is good cause to believe that immediate and irreparable harm will result from Defendants’ ongoing violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1344, and 1349 unless they are restrained and enjoined by order of this Court. See Mem. at 18–23 (summarizing evidence establishing likelihood of irreparable harm). D. Good cause exists for freezing the assets of the Corporate Entities and Defendant Bauer. See 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2)(B)(i) (authorizing the Court to freeze a defendant’s assets where there is evidence that the defendant “is alienating or disposing of property, or intends to alienate or dispose of property, obtained as a result of a banking law violation”); Bowens Decl. ¶¶ 64–65, 89–92, Exs. 25–26, 45 (demonstrating that assets held by these Defendants are the proceeds of bank fraud, which Defendants are likely to attempt to alienate). E. Good cause exists for appointing and maintaining a temporary receiver over Intertrans. See 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2)(b)(ii) (authorizing the Court to appoint a receiver); Canada Life Assur. Co. v. LaPeter, 563 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing the relevant factors in determining whether to appoint a receiver); Mem. at 21–23 (summarizing evidence supporting receivership). F. Weighing the equities and considering the United States’ likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. G. This Court has authority to issue this Order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. H. No security is required of any agency of the United States for issuance of a preliminary injunct

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Internet Transaction Services, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2021).

United States v. Internet Transaction Services, Inc. (United States v. Internet Transaction Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Canada Life Assurance Co. v. LaPeter
563 F.3d 837 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)