BULLETIN: (Updated 10:18 a.m. ET Dec. 24 U.S.A.) Lucrazon Global, a purported revenue-sharing program pushed on Ponzi boards such as MoneyMakerGroup, has been sued in federal court by private plaintiffs who allege fraud.
Named defendants in the Dec. 9 complaint in Massachusetts federal court are Lucrazon LLC and Lucrazon Global LLC, both of Delaware and California. Plaintiffs are Scott Bonarrigo of Massachusetts and Todd Betlejewski of California.
Oscar Garcia and Alex Pitt are identified in the complaint as officers or employees of Lucrazon.
Former TelexFree huckster Faith Sloan at one time pushed Lucrazon. Sloan was accused by the SEC of securities fraud earlier this year in a case that alleged TelexFree was a massive, international fraud.
Some promoters of the WCM777 Ponzi scheme broken up by the SEC earlier this year also were targeting prospects for Lucrazon and seeking to get them to buy in at $8,000. The PP Blog noted in April that Lucrazon was promoting “Luxury Car Giveaways” and touting appearances by politicians/business figures such as Carlos Gutierrez, Mitt Romney and Vicente Fox at a Los Angeles confab.
Garcia and Pitt are accused in the complaint of making repeated false and misleading representations “that the [Lucrazon] daily bonuses ‘could go to $20 a day, $50 a day . . . who knows.’” However, this was never possible and based upon faulty (as well as meticulously and deliberately skewed) mathematical statistics promulgated to entice Plaintiffs and others into buying into Defendants’ scheme.”
Bonarrigo bought in for $46,000, with Betlejewski paying Lucrazon “approximately $110,000,” according to the complaint.
“Further, Defendants and Oscar Garcia and Alex Pitt (again, falsely and in an attempt to mislead Plaintiffs) represented that Defendants would assemble some 10,000 merchant accounts each making $10,000 into a $100 million bundle, akin to mortgage bundles, and then sell them to the banks at many times monthly recurring commissions,” the complaint alleges. “This never happened and Defendants never intended to do so.”
From the complaint (italics added):
Defendants also advised Plaintiffs that online accounts were worth 10 times the monthly commissions, retail accounts were worth 30 times commissions, and medical accounts were worth 60 times monthly earnings, and that Plaintiffs could sell those accounts every month, or keep them for an alleged large payoff when the bundles were sold. This was not true [sic?] never offered to Plaintiffs nor did Defendants make any attempts to secure such sales that would provide Plaintiffs the ability to elect to either sell or retain their merchant accounts . . .
. . . As further enticement, Defendants repeatedly advised Plaintiffs and others that when these “bundles” were sold, each Brand Partner position (to which both Plaintiffs purchased several) was entitled to a share of this pool of money, and that leaders of said accounts, like Plaintiffs, would be offered interest into another bundle. This was not true [sic?] never offered to Plaintiffs nor did Defendants make any attempts to secure such sales that would provide Plaintiffs the ability to elect to either sell or retain their merchant accounts or be offered the opportunity to re-invest their proceeds towards another endeavor . . .
Despite Defendants’ false and misleading representations, and due solely to Plaintiffs’ own work ethic and business acumen, Plaintiffs began to successfully develop business accounts and profit, which, per Defendants’ representations, was to be passed onto Plaintiffs as part of the aforementioned “daily bonuses.” In fact, said “bonuses” were to commence in January of 2014. Not surprisingly, Defendants never paid any amount of “bonuses” to either Plaintiff . . .
Despite this, and for vague and illusory reasons, these bonuses owed and due to Plaintiffs were then postponed to February of 2014, then yet again to March of 2014, then again in April of 2014 . . .
As such, Plaintiffs [believe] that there simply was no intent whatsoever to actually pay out these “bonuses” but instead Defendants’ representations to the contrary were simply part and parcel of an overall fraudulent scheme to secure as much monetary benefit as possible from Plaintiffs at Plaintiffs’ expense and detriment.
What is more, when daily bonuses did finally begin to commence, they were nothing like what was promised to issue, both in terms of amount and frequency of disbursement. Then mysteriously, all bonus payments simply stopped . . .
However, despite this demonstrable cessation of payments, Plaintiffs’ back office reporting evidences that Defendants falsely and deceptively reported these payments or “bonuses” has having been successfully transmitted, when no such payments were in fact issued to Plaintiffs in any fashion. Put bluntly, Defendants is intentionally and knowingly withholding money that rightfully belongs to Plaintiffs.
NOTE: Our thanks to the ASD Updates Blog. View complaint here.
