United States v. Internet Transaction Services, Inc.

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

Opinion

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 WESTERN DIVISION

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil Case No. 21-6582-JFW (KSx) 15 Plaintiff, PRELIMINARY 16 INJUNCTION WITH ASSET v. FREEZE, RECEIVER, AND 17 OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF INTERNET TRANSACTION 18 SERVICES, INC., et al., 19 Defendants. 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 On August 13, 2021, Plaintiff United States of America (the “United 2 States”) filed its Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and 3 Permanent Injunctions, and Other Equitable Relief (the “Complaint”) pursuant to 4 18 U.S.C. § 1345, alleging that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1344, and 5 1349. The United States also filed an Ex Parte Application for (1) a Temporary 6 Restraining Order With Asset Freeze, Appointment of a Temporary Receiver, 7 Other Equitable Relief, and an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction 8 Should Not Issue, and (2) an Order Waiving Notice Requirement (Docket No. 18). 9 On August 20, 2021, the Court issued its Order Granting Ex Parte 10 Application for (1) Temporary Restraining Order with Asset Freeze, Appointment 11 of a Temporary Receiver, and Other Equitable Relief and Order to Show Cause 12 Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (2) Order Waiving Notice 13 Requirement (Docket No. 19). The Court set a hearing on the Order to Show 14 Cause for September 3, 2021 at 8:00 a.m. 15 As set forth more fully in the Declaration of Michael J. Wadden Regarding 16 Notice and Service (Docket No. 28), the United States provided notice of the 17 Temporary Restraining Order and hearing on the Order to Show Cause to all 18 defendants, i.e., Defendants Internet Transaction Services, Inc.; Intertrans.com, 19 Inc.; Edward Courdy; Michael Young; Guy Benoit; Jenny Sullivan; John Murphy; 20 Steven Morgan; Harold Sobel; Randy Grabeel; Eric Bauer; Debra Vogel; Evelyn 21 Seidman; Jennifer Ash; Be a Kloud LLC; Blue Water LLC; CBX International Inc. 22 (Delaware); CBX International Inc. (Florida); Delta Cloud LLC; Dollar Web Sales 23 LLC; ECloud Secure LLC; Eastgate View LLC; I-Support Group LLC; My Kloud 24 Box LLC; Newagecloudservices LLC; NRG Support LLC; Silver Safe Box LLC; 25 Silver Safe Box Inc.; Storage VPN LLC; and VPN Me Now LLC (collectively, 26 “Defendants”). According to Mr. Wadden and the Proofs of Service filed on 27 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 1 Transaction Services, Inc.; Intertrans.com, Inc.; Edward Courdy; Michael Young; 2 Jenny Sullivan; Harold Sobel; Randy Grabeel; Evelyn Seidman; Be a Kloud LLC; 3 Blue Water LLC; CBX International Inc. (Delaware); CBX International, Inc. 4 (Florida); Delta Cloud LLC; Eastgate View LLC; I-Support Group LLC; My 5 Kloud Box LLC; Newagecloudservices LLC; NRG Support LLC; Silver Safe Box 6 LLC; and Storage VPN LLC. 7 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF DECISION 8 The Court, having considered the Complaint, the TRO Application, the 9 Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed in support thereof (the 10 “Memorandum” or “Mem.”) and the Exhibits thereto, and being otherwise advised, 11 finds that: 12 A. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and 13 there is good cause to believe that it will have jurisdiction over all parties hereto 14 and that venue in this district is proper. 15 B. There is good cause to believe that all Defendants have engaged in 16 and are likely to engage in acts or practices that violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1344, 17 and 1349, and that the United States is, therefore, likely to prevail on the merits of 18 this action. The evidence submitted with the government’s Memorandum, 19 including the Declaration of Postal Inspector Ashlea Bowens and the exhibits 20 thereto (the “Bowens Declaration”), demonstrates that all Defendants have taken 21 part in a multi-year fraud scheme through which Defendants have stolen millions 22 of dollars from American consumers and their federally insured financial 23 institutions by making unauthorized debits against consumers’ bank accounts. See, 24 e.g., Bowens Decl. ¶¶ 8, 87. The evidence reflects that: (1) Defendants Benoit and 25 Courdy have led and organized the fraud scheme, see, e.g., Bowens Decl. ¶¶ 9–10, 26 15, 37, Exs. 1–2, 4, 32; (2) Defendants Morgan, Murphy, Sullivan, and Young 27 have intentionally caused fraudulent debits to be made against consumers’ accounts and have engaged in deceptions to hide the fraudulent debits from banks, 1 consumers, and payment processors, see, e.g., Bowens Decl. ¶¶ 34, 41, 72, 77–79, 2 85, Exs. 3, 7, 30–31, 34, 36–37; (3) Defendants Sobel, Grabeel, Bauer, Vogel, 3 Seidman, and Ash have registered sham entities for use in the scheme, opened 4 bank accounts in the names of those sham entities, provided Benoit control of 5 those accounts for use in the scheme, and otherwise assisted Benoit in the fraud 6 scheme, see Bowens Decl. ¶¶ 12, 53–69, Exs. 16–24, 27–29; (4) the Corporate 7 Entities have all been used in furtherance of the scheme and (with the possible 8 exception of Intertrans) appear to lack any legitimate function, see, e.g., Bowens 9 Decl. ¶¶ 11, 38, 76, Ex. 25. 10 C. There is good cause to believe that immediate and irreparable harm 11 will result from Defendants’ ongoing violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1344, and 12 1349 unless they are restrained and enjoined by order of this Court. See Mem. at 13 18–23 (summarizing evidence establishing likelihood of irreparable harm). 14 D. Good cause exists for freezing the assets of the Corporate Entities and 15 Defendant Bauer. See 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2)(B)(i) (authorizing the Court to freeze 16 a defendant’s assets where there is evidence that the defendant “is alienating or 17 disposing of property, or intends to alienate or dispose of property, obtained as a 18 result of a banking law violation”); Bowens Decl. ¶¶ 64–65, 89–92, Exs. 25–26, 45 19 (demonstrating that assets held by these Defendants are the proceeds of bank fraud, 20 which Defendants are likely to attempt to alienate). 21 E. Good cause exists for appointing and maintaining a temporary 22 receiver over Intertrans. See 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2)(b)(ii) (authorizing the Court to 23 appoint a receiver); Canada Life Assur. Co. v. LaPeter, 563 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 24 2009) (discussing the relevant factors in determining whether to appoint a 25 receiver); Mem. at 21–23 (summarizing evidence supporting receivership). 26 F.

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)