A federal court has entered a temporary restraining order halting a deceptive work-from-home scheme that conned millions of dollars from consumers by falsely telling them they could easily earn thousands of dollars a month by purchasing bogus business coaching services and establishing their own Internet businesses.
According to the Federal Trade Commission, consumers who bought into the scheme lost thousands sometimes tens of thousands of dollars each, most of it through racking up huge credit card charges at the defendants urging.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah froze the assets of the defendants, who did business under a variety of names, including Essent Media, LLC, Net Training, LLC, YES International, Coaching Department, and Apply Knowledge[link to complaint], and appointed a temporary receiver to take control of the operations, pending the outcome of a preliminary injunction hearing set for March 20. The FTC seeks to put a permanent stop to the operations and return money to consumers.
The full list of corporate defendants includes: Apply Knowledge LLC, also doing business as Apply Knowledge Institute and Coaching Department; Dahm International LLC; Dominion of Virgo Investments Inc.; eCommerce Support LLC; Essent Media Inc.; eVertex Solutions LLC; EVI LLC, also d/b/a Members Learning Center; Nemrow Consulting LLC; Novus North LLC, also d/b/a Mymentoring, Yes International LLC, and Your Ecommerce Support International LLC; Purple Buffalo LLC, also d/b/a Netmarketing; Supplier Source LLC; 365DailyFit LLC, also d/b/a Net Training; Vensure International LLC; and VI Education LLC.
The individual defendants are: David Gregory Bevan, Jessica Bjarnson, Phillip Edward Gannuscia, Chad Huntsman, Scott Nemrow, Jeffrey Nicol, Thomas J. Riskas III, Babata Sonnenberg, and Ken Sonnenberg.
This case halts a massive scam that bilked consumers out of millions for useless work-at-home kits and business coaching services, said Jessica Rich, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. The defendants duped consumers into thinking they could earn thousands working from home. Protecting consumers from such pernicious schemes remains a top priority.
According to the FTCs complaint, the defendants websites told numerous false rags to riches stories, using photos obtained from stock photo agencies of supposed users of the defendants services, and made false and unsubstantiated claims about how much money consumers could earn. The defendants scheme had three inter-connected phases. In the first phase, the defendants used deceptive emails and websites to induce consumers to purchase relatively inexpensive work-at-home kits. They sold these kits, which typically cost from $37 to $99, with claims such as:
If You Can Spare 60 Minutes A Day, We Can Offer You a Certified, Proven And Guaranteed Home Job To Make $379/Day From Home!
Important: Read my full report now as only 15 people are accepted into this program per city at any given time . . . because of the personal support given to each new member to ensure everyones quick financial success. Dont hesitate . . . this page is taken down (literally) when the limit is reached, so read on . . .
But instead of showing consumers how to earn this income, the websites tried to sell them more products or services. In the second phase of their scheme, the defendants promised consumers that they would earn thousands of dollars a month using defendants coaching program to assist them in establishing their own online businesses.
The defendants also encouraged consumers to put the entire cost of the program, generally from $3,000 to $12,000, on their credit card, claiming they would be able to pay it off within a few months. In the third phase of their scheme, the defendants pretended to provide consumers with the promised coaching services, while pitching yet additional costly add-on services such as business formation, website design, website development, accounting and tax filing services, and drop-shipping services, none of which proved helpful.
According to the FTC, most people who bought the defendants services did not get a functional online business, earned little or no money, and ended up heavily in debt.
The FTC has alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting likely earnings and the nature of their services and also violated the FTCs Telemarketing Sales Rule by misrepresenting material aspects of their investment opportunities.