BULLETIN: Renner Case Takes West Coast Turn; Prosecutors Seek Forfeiture Of San Diego Property Allegedly Bought With Funds From INetGlobal Advertisers

BULLETIN: UPDATED 1:47 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Federal prosecutors and the U.S. Secret Service have filed paperwork that says INetGlobal’s parent company — Inter-Mark Corp. — acquired a property in San Diego last year and intended to remodel it with proceeds from a Ponzi scheme.

Records suggest the purchase price of the property was $595,000 and that Inter-Mark intended to spend a substantial sum on renovations paid for with money from INetGlobal members’ advertising purchases.

Prosecutors have filed a forfeiture complaint against the property, saying it is the proceeds of a criminal wire-fraud and money-laundering scheme. The forfeiture case was filed March 15 and is proceeding on a litigation track separate from a criminal probe that was launched into the business practices of INetGlobal operator Steve Renner in February.

The case number for the forfeiture action was disclosed in court filings by the defense in the criminal investigation earlier this week. Records suggest that Renner, Inter-Mark and INetGlobal have been aware of the forfeiture case since at least April 19. It was not immediately clear if  Renner or the companies took any steps to inform members that the government had opened a second litigation front amid allegations of criminal conduct.

In April, some INetGlobal members — apparently unaware of the government’s claim that money from advertisers was used to pay for and renovate a California building far removed from INetGlobal’s base of operations in Minnesota — suggested the prosecution’s case was disintegrating.

The property, whose address is 3864 Mission Boulevard, San Diego, Calif., was acquired in August 2009 after funds from customers’ credit-card purchases were used in a series of illegal transactions, according to the Secret Service.

“These deposits are believed to be from individuals who are ‘purchasing’ advertising,” the agency alleged.

“More specifically, the purchase of the defendant real property was funded by the following transactions,” the agency alleged. “During the month of July 2009 over $2.5 million dollars in credit card transactions were deposited to Wells Fargo Inter-Mark Account #665543xxxx. These funds were later used to purchase the defendant real property (italics added):

“a. On August 10, 2009, $350,000 was transferred to Inter-Mark Account #137922xxxx from Account #66543xxxx.

“b. On August 11, 2009, an additional $300,000 was transferred to Inter-Mark Account #137922xxxx from Account #66543xxxx.

“c. On August 31, 2009, $650,000 was transferred to Inter-Mark Account #224620xxxx from Account #137922xxxx.

“d. On the same date, $20,000 was wire transferred from Account #224620xxxx to Eaton Escrow in San Diego, California.

“e. On September 14, 2009, $450,000 was transferred to Inter-Mark Account #224620xxxx from Account #137922xxxx.

“f. On September 14, 2009, $575,517 was wire transferred from Account #224620xxxx to Eaton Escrow. These funds were used to purchase a commercial building located at 3864 Mission Blvd., San Diego, California.

“g. On September 23, 2009 Eaton Escrow issued a check payable to Inter-Mark Corporation in the amount of $348.77 with a notation that the check proceeds was a “refund.”

The Secret Service alleged that “[r]emodeling work is currently in progress to renovate the
defendant real property.

“Substantial sums of money have been invested towards the remodeling project,” the agency alleged.

On May 4, Renner, Inter-Mark and a related entity known as V-Media Marketing denied the allegations in the forfeiture complaint.

About the Author

11 Responses to “BULLETIN: Renner Case Takes West Coast Turn; Prosecutors Seek Forfeiture Of San Diego Property Allegedly Bought With Funds From INetGlobal Advertisers”

  1. first, my vacation to Florida, to visit Andy at his vacation house had to cancelled, now it looks like I’m not going to San Diego either!!!!LOL

      (Quote)

  2. just sick of it: first, my vacation to Florida, to visit Andy at his vacation house had to cancelled, now it looks like I’m not going to San Diego either!!!!LOL

    Hi just sick of it,

    Were you aware of the building in San Diego or did this news come as a surprise to you? I’m also wondering if you believe this news about the building will be a surprise to other members.

    As an INetGlobal member, do you recall any email communications from the company or upline members about the building? Recall seeing any news releases or other announcements about it?

    I’m trying to get a read on whether members at large knew about the building.

    If you have the time, please post your thoughts.

    Thanks,

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  3. just sick of it: first, my vacation to Florida,to visitAndyat hisvacation househad to cancelled,nowit lookslikeI’mnot goingtoSan Diegoeither!!!!LOL  

    ROFL, that one made my evening ;-) SY

      (Quote)

  4. @Patrick
    On a more serious note, and NOT as a member of Inetglobal, I have never heard anything from my Inetglobal contacts about this property. My guess it, Inetglobal members have neither, I wouldn’t be surprised if they deny its existence violently, just my two cents, SY

      (Quote)

  5. My guess is that iNetGlobal members knew as much about the San Diego property as the ASD members did about the Florida beach house and water toys bought “to entertain ASD members”. They found out about it AFTER the Secret Service raided ASD and Bowdoin had to dream up an explanation for its existence.

    I sure hope that there was a spa room in the San Diego building for use of hte INetglobal members.

      (Quote)

  6. Quick note:

    Here is a Renner sales pitch from August 2009 for an event in San Diego:

    http://www.free-seminar.us/

    The domain is registered to Steve Renner of V-Webs.com. The pitch is both on video and in print form at the URL above. In the video, Renner is wearing a shirt with an INetSurf emblem. The domain was registered on Aug. 20, 2009, precisely a week before the San Diego event, whose scheduled date was Aug. 27, 2009, beginning at 7 p.m.

    Aug. 27, 2009, was a Thursday. The venue for the event was advertised as:

    Hyatt Regency Mission Bay
    1441 Quivira Road
    San Diego, CA 92109

    The hotel address and the San Diego building the Secret Service says was purchased by Inter-Mark with criminal proceeds are in the same Zip code. They are about 2.4 miles apart, about a six-minute drive near a beachfront and bay, according to the map.

    The first bullet point on the written sales pitch at the URL above is:

    “How to make money by Just “Surfing the Web”. Sounds Crazy… But it’s true.”

    There are two testimonials in the video and on the pitch page at the URL above.

    One is from Annie Zhang, dubbed a “$52,000 Per Month Income Earner”; the other is from Jim Eng, dubbed a “$32,000 Per Month Income Earner.”

    A woman nameed Kathy Zhang is referenced in the Secret Service affidavit in the forfeiture complaint (paragraph 47), which referenced an INetGlobal function in Flushing, N.Y., in January 2010.

    At the moment, it’s unclear if Kathy Zhang and Annie Zhang are related.

    What is clear is that the timing of the San Diego event coincided with the purchase of the San Diego property. In the Secret Service affidavit, the agency said the property was purchased on or about Aug. 31, 2009.

    If Annie Zhang and Jim Eng’s purported earnings are viewed in the whole, together they were pulling in $84,000 a month — or, viewed over the course of a year assuming the earnings remained constant, a little more than $1 million a year between them.

    At least two undercover Secret Service agents attended the Flushing function, according to the affidavit. Here is a snippet from the affidavit:

    “Renner asked, through an interpreter, how many people in attendance had their own business, and only two raised their hands. [An undercover agent] followed up on this point by approaching Kathy Zhang, who had been identified by Renner as a New Jersey resident making $6,000 per day, or $180,000 per month, with iNetGlobal. [The undercover agent] asked Ms. Zhang if she had a website of her own, and Ms. Zhang replied no, that was not
    required.”

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  7. I did attend the meeting in San Diego. Steve talked about the “surf shop” he had purchased there. He did not hide any information from us about the property. He said he was remodeling the lover level into a coffee bar and Inetglobal “surf shop” with computers for people to use. The second story was to be an apartment to be either rented out or used by Inetglobal members and employees. I don’t believe he was hiding information about the property because he did talk about it more than once.

      (Quote)

  8. Andy, hm.. the building has a “lover level”? Oh my !! OK, I know you meant “lower”, but it’s still a bit humorous, none the less. I still chuckle when someone says “nekkid”, but that’s just me.

    Anyway, for my fellow ASD’ers, let us not forget that Judge Collyer dropped the seizure of the Myrtle Beach condo Andy had purchased with ASD money, I suppose because the government didn’t do the paperwork correctly. (And the pro-ASD people said they government was evil.. go figure) So, I guess Andy will welcome us when we go to Myrtle Beach and pay him a visit. I wonder how that would go.Maybe we should make a reservation??

      (Quote)

  9. @ Patrick,

    Can you let me know the exact date by which the Secret Service filed paperwork “that says INetGlobal’s parent company — Inter-Mark Corp. — acquired a property in San Diego last year and intended to remodel it with proceeds from a Ponzi scheme.” Thanks!

      (Quote)

  10. beebee: Can you let me know the exact date by which the Secret Service filed paperwork “that says INetGlobal’s parent company — Inter-Mark Corp. — acquired a property in San Diego last year and intended to remodel it with proceeds from a Ponzi scheme.”

    Government filed forfeiture case on March 15, 2010. Secret Service filed affidavit on same date.

    From Paragraph 58 of the Secret Service affidavit:

    “On or about August 31, 2009, Inter-Mark Corporation purchased real property located at 3864 Mission Boulevard, San Diego, California.”

    In the same paragraph, the agency said the purchase “was funded with the proceeds of fraud.”

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  11. admin: was funded with the proceeds of fraud.

    For your question, Kathy Zhang and Annie Zhang are two different person.

    However, I could be wrong on my understanding from reading your post, but I somehow perceived a notion so if I write forwardly, that are you indicating in any way that the California property could have been purchased ALSO with some high earner’s money chipped in? or am I mistaken?

      (Quote)

Leave a Reply