No. 20-2215 

——————————————————— 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Federal Trade Commission, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

Andris Pukke, 

Defendant-Appellant 

———————————————————— 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Maryland 

No. 18-cv-3309 

Hon. Peter J. Messitte

———————————————————— 

FTC’s Informal Response Brief 

———————————————————— 

James Reilly Dolan 

Acting General Counsel

Joel Marcus 

Deputy General Counsel 

Theodore (Jack) Metzler 

Attorney 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

(202) 326-3502 

tmetzler@ftc.gov 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 1 of 20
CONTENTS 

Introduction and Background ......................................................................... 1

1. The AmeriDebt Scam ............................................................................ 2

2. Pukke’s Failure To Cooperate ............................................................... 3

3. Sanctuary Belize And The Consolidated AmeriDebt Contempt 

Charges ................................................................................................. 5

4. The Order On Appeal ............................................................................ 7

Argument ........................................................................................................ 9

A. Pukke’s plea agreement shows that he did not cooperate with 

the Commission. ................................................................................. 10

B. Pukke’s Due Process and contractual rights were not violated. ......... 12

C. Pukke’s remaining arguments are frivolous. ...................................... 14

Conclusion .................................................................................................... 16

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 2 of 20
- 1 - 

Introduction and Background 

This appeal arises from nearly 20 years of litigation in which the Federal 

Trade Commission has sought to stop appellant Andris Pukke’s multiple 

consumer scams and to counter his machinations to avoid returning the proceeds of those scams to consumers. At the time of the appeal, the district 

court had before it two consolidated cases: (1) a contempt action arising 

from Pukke’s violations of a 2006 permanent injunction in connection with a 

debt-counseling scam, including conditions that suspended most of its $172 

million judgment against him (AmeriDebt); and (2) a separate enforcement 

matter against Pukke and others involving a real-estate investment scam 

(Sanctuary Belize). The two matters are related because the real-estate scam 

involved land that was an asset Pukke should have disclosed and relinquished to satisfy the earlier judgment, but which he hid instead. In the order 

on appeal, the district court found that because Pukke failed to comply with 

conditions the court imposed when it suspended the $172 million AmeriDebt

judgment, the full amount of that judgment is due. D.Ct. Docket No. 1080. 

Pukke argues (1) that the district court did not give him the opportunity 

to be heard on whether he fulfilled his obligations under the AmeriDebt 

judgment; (2) that the court waited too long to make its determination; and 

(3) that his failure to comply with the 2006 permanent injunction was not 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 3 of 20
- 2 - 

pleaded or litigated before the court’s decision. Pukke Br. 1. Those claims 

lack any legal or factual merit. 

1. The AmeriDebt Scam 

 In 2003, the FTC brought an enforcement action against Pukke and others to halt a credit-counseling scam that took more than $172 million from 

consumers. See FTC v. AmeriDebt, Inc., 373 F. Supp. 2d 558, 560-561 

(D. Md. 2004). In 2006, on the eve of trial, Pukke agreed to an injunction 

barring him from deceptive telemarketing and a judgment against him for 

$172 million. Id. at 3; AmeriDebt, No. 8:03-cv-3317 (D. Md.) Docket No. 

473. The court’s order provided that all but $35 million of the judgment 

would be suspended if Pukke complied with specific conditions regarding 

his assets and the Commission’s efforts to restore the stolen money to victims. Id. at 9-12. In particular, Pukke agreed to assign all of his assets to the 

Commission, waive any claim to them, and “cooperate fully with the Commission” to effect the transfer. Id. at 11-12. The order provided that if Pukke 

did not satisfy the stated conditions, “[t]he Judgment shall not be suspended, 

and [Pukke] shall owe the FTC $172,000,000.” Id. at 12. 

The court directed the Commission to provide redress to victims of the 

AmeriDebt scam in coordination with counsel for the plaintiffs in a class acUSCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 4 of 20
- 3 - 

tion (Polacsek1) based on the same illegal practices, which was settled at the 

same time as the Commission’s enforcement case. Id. at 17. As discussed in 

part 4 below, the Commission’s coordination with the class action case is 

relevant to how the order on appeal eventually came to be decided 14 years 

later. 

2. Pukke’s Failure To Cooperate 

Almost immediately, Pukke failed to comply with his obligation to cooperate with the Commission. In 2007, the district court found that Pukke had 

concealed assets—including a large parcel of land in Belize that ultimately 

became the basis for the Sanctuary Belize scam—and ordered him to turn 

those assets over to the AmeriDebt receiver. AmeriDebt Docket No. 571 at 

2-5. Pukke did not comply with that order, and the district court held him in 

contempt again, ordering that he be incarcerated “until [he] purges his contempt by complying with the [first] Contempt Order.” AmeriDebt Docket 

No. 604 at 2. Even then, Pukke did not comply. He was released from confinement based on his agreement to several conditions which—yet again—

he failed to meet. See D.Ct. Docket No. 1020 at 19-20. As discussed below, 

that act of obstruction was one of the contempt charges arising from Ameri-

 

1 Polacsek v. Debticated Consumer Counseling, Inc., Case No. 8:04-cv00631-PJM (D. Md.). 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 5 of 20
- 4 - 

Debt which was consolidated with the Sanctuary Belize action. AmeriDebt 

Docket No. 625-1 at 3. 

In 2010, Pukke directly admitted in a plea agreement for obstruction of 

justice that he concealed and lied about assets he had agreed to relinquish to 

the Commission in the AmeriDebt case. United States v. Pukke, No. 8:10-cr734 (D. Md.) Docket No. 7-1 (“Pukke Plea”) at 2. The assets included investments in internet gambling operations, foreign accounts, and the Belize 

real estate. Id. at 2-5. Pukke was sentenced to 18 months in prison on the 

charge. 

During the years of judicial proceedings showing that Pukke had 

breached his obligations under the AmeriDebt settlement agreement and order, the district court never ruled directly on whether Pukke had cooperated 

with the Commission and, consequently, whether its suspension of the $172 

million judgment against him was still in effect. Last year, the court ruled 

twice, first in August and again in November, that Pukke did not fulfil his 

cooperation obligations and that the full $172 million judgment was therefore due. D.Ct. Docket Nos. 1020 and 1080. The second of those orders is 

the order on appeal. 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 6 of 20
- 5 - 

3. Sanctuary Belize And The Consolidated AmeriDebt 

Contempt Charges 

As a result of his maneuvers, Pukke retained control of the Belize property, which he used to embark on a new scam. D.Ct. Docket No. 1020 at 19-

21. Pukke and his codefendants lured consumers to buy properties in a resort 

community—“Sanctuary Belize”—by promising that they would be making 

a low-risk investment that would quickly appreciate in value. They promised 

that the resort would feature a host of luxury amenities such as including an 

airstrip, a championship-caliber golf course, a casino and hotel, a medical 

center, and high-end boutiques and restaurants. In fact, the promised development never came, most buyers who tried to build on their lots could not do 

so, and the resale market Pukke promised never emerged. See generally id.

at 33-79. 

In 2018, the Commission sued to halt the Sanctuary Belize scam. See

D.Ct. Docket No. 1. At the same time, the Commission filed three contempt 

motions in the AmeriDebt case, alleging (1) that Pukke violated the permanent injunction in AmeriDebt by engaging in deceptive telemarketing practices for Sanctuary Belize (D.Ct. Docket. No. 266); (2) that he violated the 

order to turn over the land in Belize (D.Ct. Docket No. 267); and (3) that he 

violated the order releasing him from coercive confinement in AmeriDebt

(D.Ct. Docket No. 268). 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 7 of 20
- 6 - 

In light of the overlap between the AmeriDebt contempt motions and the 

allegations in the Sanctuary Belize complaint, the district court consolidated 

the contempt proceedings with the new complaint. D.Ct. Docket No. 261. 

The case proceeded to trial in early 2020 on both the Sanctuary Belize complaint and the AmeriDebt contempt allegations. Following the trial, the district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in which it determined to grant a permanent injunction, order restitution to victims of the 

Sanctuary Belize scam, and hold Pukke in contempt on two of the three 

charges leveled by the Commission. D.Ct. Docket No. 1020 at 6. 

To decide the third contempt charge (involving the conditions of Pukke’s 

release from coercive confinement), the Court had to determine whether 

Pukke had fully satisfied the judgment against him in AmeriDebt, and thus 

whether the amount due was the full $172 million or instead the suspended 

judgment amount of $35 million. See D.Ct. Docket No. 1020 at 172-173, 

175. Pukke argued that the lower number should apply and that he had fully 

satisfied the judgment, whereas the Commission primarily contended that 

Pukke did not cooperate, owed the full $172 million, and had not paid it.2 Id.

at 175-176. The court held that the facts determined in its prior contempt or-

 

2

 In the alternative, the Commission argued that if the court found Pukke 

owed only the amount of the suspended judgment, he had not made payments totaling $35 million. See D.Ct. Docket No. 861 at 6-8, D.Ct. Docket 

No. 965 at 3-4. 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 8 of 20
- 7 - 

ders and by Pukke’s obstruction of justice conviction “conclusively establish 

the fact of Pukke’s non-cooperation with the FTC and trigger the $172 million judgment.” Id. at 176; see also id. at 18-21 (detailing the prior contempt 

holdings). As discussed below, the court entered its final order on the contempt proceedings after this appeal was filed. See D.Ct. Docket No. 1113. 

4. The Order On Appeal 

The order that Pukke appeals from traces back to the 2006 settlements of 

the AmeriDebt enforcement case and the Polacsek class action. At the district court’s direction, the Commission, the court-appointed receiver, and 

class counsel coordinated to provide redress to members of the Polacsek 

class from the assets that the receiver collected from Pukke and other defendants. See AmeriDebt Docket No. 473 at 17. Although an initial distribution to class members was completed in 2008, efforts to recover assets from 

Pukke continued, and class counsel eventually sought the court’s approval to 

make a second distribution from about $4 million that was recovered later.3

 

The proposed distribution raised a question that overlapped with the contempt charge described above: whether funds proposed to be paid to the Polacsek class members (and payments to class counsel) should count toward 

Pukke’s obligation to satisfy the AmeriDebt judgment. That question, in 

 

3 Polacsek, Case No. 8:04-cv-00631 (D. Md.), Docket No. 490. 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 9 of 20
- 8 - 

turn, raised whether the amount due on the judgment was $35 million or 

$172 million. The Commission therefore filed (at the court’s request) an accounting of payments made toward the AmeriDebt judgment (D.Ct. Docket 

No. 861), and briefed issues related to the disposition of any funds that 

should remain after the new distribution (see D.Ct. Docket No. 965, 1068, 

1076). 

The district court then entered the order at issue in this appeal. D.Ct. 

Docket No. 1080. The court reiterated its findings from the ruling on the 

third contempt charge, holding that “Pukke did not cooperate with the FTC” 

as required by the AmeriDebt judgment; that “the $172 million judgment is 

not suspended,” and that “Pukke has not satisfied the $172 million judgment.” Id. at 2-3 (citing its memorandum opinion, D.Ct. Docket No. 1020). 

Because the judgment was not satisfied, the court found it appropriate to approve a second distribution to the Polacsek class members. Id. at 3. The 

court ordered Pukke to satisfy the remaining part of the $172 million judgment against him and directed the class administrator to distribute the $4 

million to class members. Id. at 3-4. 

After Pukke filed his appeal from that order, the court entered two more 

pertinent orders: (1) the final order in the Sanctuary Belize action (Docket 

No. 1111); and (2) an order holding Pukke (and others) in contempt on two 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 10 of 20
- 9 - 

of the three charges arising from AmeriDebt (Docket No. 1113). In the latter 

order, the court found that Pukke was “provided ample notice of the contempt allegations,” received “an opportunity to be heard as to the allegations, 

and in fact did respond . . . at trial and in post-trial filings.” D.Ct. Docket No. 

1113 at 2. The court reiterated that “Pukke did not cooperate with the FTC in 

connection with the Monetary Relief and turnover provisions of the Court’s 

prior order in AmeriDebt,” and again ordered him “to pay the FTC $172 million . . . as reduced by the amounts credited to him and increased by any applicable interest.” Id. at 2-3. 

Argument 

Pukke claims that the district court erred in three respects when it held 

that he did not cooperate with the Commission as required by the judgment 

in AmeriDebt and reinstated the full $172 million judgment against him. Before addressing those arguments, however, the Commission notes that it is 

unclear whether the order on appeal is the appropriate vehicle for the Court 

to address them. The district court found that Pukke failed to cooperate in an 

opinion issued before the order on appeal (D.Ct. Docket No. 1020 at 178), 

and it ordered him to pay the outstanding balance of the full $172 million 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 11 of 20
- 10 - 

judgment in a final order issued after the order on appeal. (D.Ct. Docket No. 

1113).4

 

In any case, Pukke’s arguments are plainly wrong. He first claims that the 

conduct he admitted in his obstruction-of-justice plea occurred before he 

agreed to the AmeriDebt order, so it is “impossible” to find that he failed to 

cooperate with the Commission based on that conduct. Pukke Br. 5-6. Second, Pukke argues that the district court violated contractual and due process 

rights that he claims entitle him to suspension of all but $35 million of the 

$172 million AmeriDebt judgment. Id. at 8-11. Finally, he argues that the 

district court’s finding was barred by laches, the statute of limitations for 

fines in 28 U.S.C. § 2462, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a). Id. at 

13-15. None of those arguments has merit. 

A. Pukke’s plea agreement shows that he did not cooperate 

with the Commission. 

The district court entered the permanent injunction in AmeriDebt on May 

17, 2006. Pukke argues that it was impossible for him to breach his obligation to cooperate with the Commission under the injunction through actions 

he took before the injunction was entered, and claims that the admissions he 

 

4

 The order on appeal denotes itself “final,” but not as to Pukke’s obligation 

to pay the full $172 million from AmeriDebt; it is titled “Final Order Concerning Second Polacsek Distribution and Further Distribution of Excess 

Funds.” D.Ct. Docket No. 1080 at 1 (emphasis added). 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 12 of 20
- 11 - 

made in his obstruction-of-justice plea solely concern conduct that predated 

the AmeriDebt injunction. Pukke Br. 3-7. That argument fails on the plain 

facts because Pukke’s plea-agreement admissions encompass conduct both 

before and after the AmeriDebt order. It also fails because Pukke’s obligation to cooperate under the AmeriDebt order included accurately disclosing 

his assets. He could not fulfill his cooperation agreement while keeping 

them hidden, which is exactly what he admitted to in the criminal plea 

agreement. 

Pukke admitted that he obstructed the AmeriDebt proceeding “by concealing and making false statements” about his assets between “July 2005 

and in or about 2007.” Pukke Plea 2. That period includes the point when 

Pukke agreed to cooperate and the district court’s May 17, 2006 entry of the 

permanent injunction, and it continues for at least seven months afterward. 

Thus, Pukke admitted to concealing assets from the Commission after he 

agreed to cooperate. In addition, Pukke specifically admitted to lying about 

his ownership interest in a company at a deposition held December 20, 2006, 

well after he agreed to cooperate. Id. at 5. 

More broadly, Pukke’s argument misreads his obligation to cooperate. 

Pukke agreed that substantially all of his assets were “derived from consumers” as a result of the AmeriDebt scam and that he had no “legitimate claim” 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 13 of 20
- 12 - 

to them. AmeriDebt Docket No. 130 at 3; see also id. at 6-7 (designating 

Pukke’s assets as “Receivership Property”). As a condition of suspending all 

but $35 million of the $172 million judgment, Pukke agreed to “irrevocably 

assign, waive, release, discharge, and disclaim” his interest in that property 

to the Commission, and to cooperate with the Commission by effecting the 

transfer. Id. at 10-11. He could not fulfill that obligation without fully and 

accurately disclosing the very assets to which he admitted he had no legitimate claim. But as his plea agreement shows, Pukke concealed and lied 

about those assets instead. Pukke Plea 2-5. It is true that the plea agreement 

recites actions Pukke took with regard to various assets before May 2006 

(see id.), but those facts simply trace Pukke’s ownership to establish that he 

hid and retained assets instead of fulfilling his obligation to disclose and disclaim them. 

B. Pukke’s Due Process and contractual rights were not violated. 

Pukke’s second argument is that he has a contractual and due process 

right to keep all but $35 million of the AmeriDebt judgment suspended. 

Pukke Br. 8. He claims that he complied with terms of the order other than 

the obligation to cooperate, but the Commission somehow breached “its end 

of the bargain” when it asked the court to find that he failed to cooperate. Id.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 14 of 20
- 13 - 

at 9. He further claims he was not afforded any hearing or opportunity to be 

heard on the question. Id. at 9-10. 

To begin with, Pukke has no “expectation interest” in suspension of the 

full AmeriDebt judgment without having complied with a basic condition of 

the agreement: that he cooperate with the Commission in securing his assets. 

AmeriDebt Docket No. 473 at 9-12. The judgment plainly states that if Pukke does not satisfy the court’s conditions, “[t]he Judgment shall not be suspended, and [Pukke] shall owe the FTC $172,000,000.” Id. at 12. He failed 

to satisfy the conditions, and now faces the consequence he agreed to. That 

itself disposes of his contract and due process claims. 

Moreover, Pukke is simply wrong that the Commission breached a contractual obligation by even raising the issue of the amount of the judgment. 

As described above, whether Pukke cooperated and the amount that remained due under the AmeriDebt judgment were relevant in the contempt 

proceeding filed along with the Sanctuary Belize complaint. See D.Ct. 

Docket No. 268. Pukke himself raised the cooperation issue by arguing in 

his defense that “he had fully satisfied his judgment to the FTC” in AmeriDebt. D.Ct. Docket No. 1020 at 175; see also id. at 175-176 (describing 

Pukke’s argument). That claim opened the door to the Commission’s claim 

that Pukke’s failure to cooperate was conclusively established by his obUSCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 15 of 20
- 14 - 

struction plea and the court’s prior contempt rulings. See D.Ct. Docket No. 

861 at 1-4, 7-8; Docket No. 1020 at 176. The court found that Pukke’s guilty 

plea was “based on concealment and false statements concerning his interests” in various entities, “[e]ven as he was supposed to hand over certain assets to the Receiver.” D.Ct. Docket No. 1020 at 22. It agreed that those facts 

“conclusively establish” his lack of cooperation. Id. at 176. 

Pukke was not denied due process simply because the court incorporated 

that finding in its subsequent order on whether to approve a second payment 

to the members of the Polacsek class action. To the contrary, the parties and 

the court acknowledged that whether Pukke cooperated was an issue common to both matters, as reflected in the briefing below. See D.Ct. Docket 

No. 861 (discussing cooperation in both contexts); D.Ct. Docket No. 965 

(brief on the class distribution issue arguing that Pukke did not cooperate). 

Pukke is simply wrong that he was taken by surprise or denied the opportunity to heard on whether he cooperated with his obligations under the 

AmeriDebt judgment. 

C. Pukke’s remaining arguments are frivolous. 

Pukke’s final claims are that district court’s order is barred by laches and 

the statute of limitations for fines in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 because the court’s 

non-cooperation finding was entered 14 years after the AmeriDebt order. He 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 16 of 20
- 15 - 

also claims that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) somehow bars the 

claim. Pukke Br. 13-15. 

Pukke does not assert any authority for the proposition that laches prevents the district court from deciding whether Pukke fulfilled the conditions 

it placed on its suspension of the judgment against him. Even if that doctrine 

did apply, however, laches requires proof of “lack of diligence by the party 

against whom the defense is asserted.” Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 

265, 282 (1961). Pukke cannot show that here. As described above, the 

Commission has relentlessly attempted to recover assets that Pukke hid and 

lied about. Starting soon after the AmeriDebt judgment, the Commission 

successfully asked the district court multiple times to hold Pukke in contempt for his acts of concealment and obstruction, continuing right up to the 

contempt charges filed along with the Sanctuary Belize complaint. Moreover, laches is an equitable remedy, and “he who comes into equity must 

come with clean hands.” Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive 

Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945). Where, as here, the 

suit involves the public interest, “this doctrine assumes even wider and more 

significant proportions.” Id. at 815. After 14 years of obstruction egregious 

enough that it lead to coercive incarceration and a criminal conviction, Pukke’s hands are especially dirty. 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 17 of 20
- 16 - 

Pukke’s invocation of the five-year statute of limitations described in 28 

U.S.C. § 2462 fails because whether suspended in part or not, the AmeriDebt

judgment is not “a suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, 

penalty, or forfeiture,” which are the only proceedings subject to the limitations period. 28 U.S.C. § 2462. 

Pukke’s argument that the order on appeal violates Rule 43 (Br. 14-15) is 

nonsensical. Rule 43(a) states that testimony must be taken in open court unless allowed by other rules. Pukke suggests that his failure to cooperate was 

not part of the Sanctuary Belize case and that he was not given any opportunity to contest it, but does not explain how that would violate Rule 43 even 

if it were true. In any case, the assertion is not true. As described in part A 

above, Pukke himself placed his cooperation in issue and it was part of the 

briefing and trial below. 

Conclusion 

The district court’s order should be affirmed. 

Jan. 25, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

James Reilly Dolan 

Acting General Counsel

JOEL MARCUS

Deputy General Counsel 

s/Theodore (Jack) Metzler 

THEODORE (JACK) METZLER

Attorney 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 18 of 20
- 17 - 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

(202) 326-3502 

tmetzler@ftc.gov 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 19 of 20
- 18 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on January 25, 2021, I filed this brief using the Court’s appellate CM-ECF system, and served the appellant by U.S. mail at the following address: 

Andris Pukke 

3334 East Coast Highway 

Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 

January 25, 2021 s/Theodore (Jack) Metzler 

THEODORE (JACK) METZLER

Attorney 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

 (202) 326-3502

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/25/2021 Pg: 20 of 20