1 Hon. Barbara J. Rothstein
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE
8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
9 Plaintiff, No. 2:19-cv-325-BJR
10 v. DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND ORDER 11 CHRISTINE REEVES, also known as CHRISTINE FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION NEWMAN 12 and 13 VCARE USA LLC, 14 Defendants. 15
16 Plaintiff, the United States of America, has filed a Motion for Entry of Default 17 Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 65, and 18 U.S.C. § 1345 against Defendants Christine Reeves, also known as Christine 19 Newman, and VCare USA LLC (hereinafter “Defendants”), based on Defendants’ violations of 20 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1956. 21 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 22 The Court, having considered the Complaint; the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment 23 and Order for Permanent Injunction, the declaration, and memorandum of points and 1 authorities filed in support thereof; the United States’ Status Update; the Clerk of Court’s Order 2 of Default; and the declarations, exhibits, and memorandum of points and authorities filed in 3 support of the United States’ Motion for Entry of Preliminary Injunction, and being otherwise 4 advised, finds that: 5 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 and 28 U.S.C.
6 §§ 1331 and 1345. 7 2. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is a proper 8 venue for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Defendants are residents of this 9 district and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this Complaint 10 occurred in this district. 11 3. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants 12 under 18 U.S.C. § 1345. 13 4. Defendants were properly served with notice of the lawsuit on March 20, 2019. 14 5. Defendants have failed to answer or otherwise defend this action.
15 6. The Clerk of the Court properly entered a default against Defendants on July 29, 2019. 16 7. Because Defendants have defaulted, all allegations in the Complaint (other than 17 allegations relating to the amount of damages, if any) are taken as true. 18 8. As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants have participated in and have knowingly and 19 willingly acted in furtherance of an ongoing wire fraud scheme. The scheme preys upon 20 consumers across the United States—disproportionately elderly individuals—by having 21 overseas telemarketers misrepresent themselves as technicians for legitimate and well-known 22 computer companies, such as Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, and claim that victims’ personal 23 computers are infected by a computer virus or other security threat and require immediate and 1 expensive measures to respond to the threat and protect their systems going forward. The 2 schemers persuade victims to pay considerable sums of money for purported technical services 3 to address the false threats. Victims are told to send their payments to domestic entities that 4 include Defendants in the present case. Defendants in this case have opened multiple bank 5 accounts in Washington State to deposit these fraudulent proceeds, much of which they then
6 transmit to their overseas affiliates through international transactions. 7 9. As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants have engaged in such financial transactions, 8 and have transported, transmitted, or transferred funds from a place in the United States to or 9 through a place outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying on of wire 10 fraud contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Defendants have thus engaged in money laundering 11 contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and in international money laundering contrary to 18 12 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A). 13 10. As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants have engaged in such financial transactions, 14 and have transported, transmitted, or transferred funds from a place in the United States to or
15 through a place outside the United States, knowing that the funds involved represent the 16 proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that such financial transactions and 17 such transportation, transmission or transfer are designed in whole or in part to conceal or 18 disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of 19 wire fraud contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and have thus engaged in money laundering contrary 20 to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and in international money laundering contrary to 18 U.S.C. 21 § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i). 22 11. The Court finds that absent a permanent injunction, Defendants are likely to resume the 23 activities underlying the Complaint. Defendants’ history of fraudulent and money laundering 1 activity establishes an unacceptable risk that, absent a permanent injunction, they will continue 2 committing wire fraud and banking law violations. 3 12. In a case involving statutory enforcement under a statute that authorizes injunctive 4 relief, the government need not establish the traditional showing of irreparable injury to obtain 5 an injunction. FTC v. Consumer Defense, LLC, 926 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir. 2019) (issued
6 June 17, 2019). 7 13. Accordingly, a permanent injunction constraining Defendants’ future activities and 8 ensuring they cannot continue using the tools of their fraud and money laundering scheme is 9 warranted. 10 14. This Court has the authority to issue this Default Judgment and Order for Permanent 11 Injunction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(b) and 65. 12 ORDER 13 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
15 and Permanent Injunction is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, 16 their agents, officers, and employees, and all other persons or entities in active concert or 17 participation with them, are permanently restrained from: 18 1. committing wire fraud, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1343; 19 2. committing money laundering, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1956
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 Hon. Barbara J. Rothstein
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE
8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
9 Plaintiff, No. 2:19-cv-325-BJR
10 v. DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND ORDER 11 CHRISTINE REEVES, also known as CHRISTINE FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION NEWMAN 12 and 13 VCARE USA LLC, 14 Defendants. 15
16 Plaintiff, the United States of America, has filed a Motion for Entry of Default 17 Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 65, and 18 U.S.C. § 1345 against Defendants Christine Reeves, also known as Christine 19 Newman, and VCare USA LLC (hereinafter “Defendants”), based on Defendants’ violations of 20 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1956. 21 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 22 The Court, having considered the Complaint; the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment 23 and Order for Permanent Injunction, the declaration, and memorandum of points and 1 authorities filed in support thereof; the United States’ Status Update; the Clerk of Court’s Order 2 of Default; and the declarations, exhibits, and memorandum of points and authorities filed in 3 support of the United States’ Motion for Entry of Preliminary Injunction, and being otherwise 4 advised, finds that: 5 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 and 28 U.S.C.
6 §§ 1331 and 1345. 7 2. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is a proper 8 venue for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Defendants are residents of this 9 district and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this Complaint 10 occurred in this district. 11 3. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants 12 under 18 U.S.C. § 1345. 13 4. Defendants were properly served with notice of the lawsuit on March 20, 2019. 14 5. Defendants have failed to answer or otherwise defend this action.
15 6. The Clerk of the Court properly entered a default against Defendants on July 29, 2019. 16 7. Because Defendants have defaulted, all allegations in the Complaint (other than 17 allegations relating to the amount of damages, if any) are taken as true. 18 8. As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants have participated in and have knowingly and 19 willingly acted in furtherance of an ongoing wire fraud scheme. The scheme preys upon 20 consumers across the United States—disproportionately elderly individuals—by having 21 overseas telemarketers misrepresent themselves as technicians for legitimate and well-known 22 computer companies, such as Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, and claim that victims’ personal 23 computers are infected by a computer virus or other security threat and require immediate and 1 expensive measures to respond to the threat and protect their systems going forward. The 2 schemers persuade victims to pay considerable sums of money for purported technical services 3 to address the false threats. Victims are told to send their payments to domestic entities that 4 include Defendants in the present case. Defendants in this case have opened multiple bank 5 accounts in Washington State to deposit these fraudulent proceeds, much of which they then
6 transmit to their overseas affiliates through international transactions. 7 9. As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants have engaged in such financial transactions, 8 and have transported, transmitted, or transferred funds from a place in the United States to or 9 through a place outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying on of wire 10 fraud contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Defendants have thus engaged in money laundering 11 contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and in international money laundering contrary to 18 12 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A). 13 10. As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants have engaged in such financial transactions, 14 and have transported, transmitted, or transferred funds from a place in the United States to or
15 through a place outside the United States, knowing that the funds involved represent the 16 proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that such financial transactions and 17 such transportation, transmission or transfer are designed in whole or in part to conceal or 18 disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of 19 wire fraud contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and have thus engaged in money laundering contrary 20 to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and in international money laundering contrary to 18 U.S.C. 21 § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i). 22 11. The Court finds that absent a permanent injunction, Defendants are likely to resume the 23 activities underlying the Complaint. Defendants’ history of fraudulent and money laundering 1 activity establishes an unacceptable risk that, absent a permanent injunction, they will continue 2 committing wire fraud and banking law violations. 3 12. In a case involving statutory enforcement under a statute that authorizes injunctive 4 relief, the government need not establish the traditional showing of irreparable injury to obtain 5 an injunction. FTC v. Consumer Defense, LLC, 926 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir. 2019) (issued
6 June 17, 2019). 7 13. Accordingly, a permanent injunction constraining Defendants’ future activities and 8 ensuring they cannot continue using the tools of their fraud and money laundering scheme is 9 warranted. 10 14. This Court has the authority to issue this Default Judgment and Order for Permanent 11 Injunction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(b) and 65. 12 ORDER 13 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
15 and Permanent Injunction is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, 16 their agents, officers, and employees, and all other persons or entities in active concert or 17 participation with them, are permanently restrained from: 18 1. committing wire fraud, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1343; 19 2. committing money laundering, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1956; 20 3. maintaining and doing business through the use of the domain 21 “vcareusallc.com,” including any website; 22 4. using any email within the domain “@vcareusallc.com” for any purpose; 23 1 5. impersonating any other technology company, or accepting or transmitting any 2 consumer payments on behalf of or for the benefit of any person who impersonates any 3 other technology company; 4 6. engaging in telemarketing activity that claims that a consumer’s computer has 5 been hacked or has a virus or other security-related infection, or accepting or
6 transmitting any consumer payments on behalf of or for the benefit of any person who 7 engages in such telemarketing activity; 8 7. accepting or transmitting any consumer payments related to purported technical- 9 support services; and 10 8. failing to preserve records of any nature related to Defendants’ business, 11 financial, and accounting operations. 12 13 ORDERED at Seattle this 15th day of October, 2019. 14
15 A 16 Barbara Jacobs Rothstein 17 U.S. District Court Judge
20 21 22 23 1 Presented by: 2 s/ Daniel K. Crane-Hirsch DANIEL K. CRANE-HIRSCH 3 Consumer Protection Branch United States Department of Justice 4 P.O. Box 386 Washington, DC 20044 5 Tel.: 202-616-8242 Fax: 202-514-8742 6 Email: daniel.crane-hirsch@usdoj.gov 7 s/ Kayla C. Stahman KAYLA C. STAHMAN, CA #228931 8 Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney’s Office 9 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Seattle, Washington 98101-1271 10 Phone: 206-553-7970 Fax: 206-553-4067 11 Email: kayla.stahman@usdoj.gov
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23