PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2215

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

and

MARC-PHILIP FERZAN, of Ankura Consulting Group, LLC,

 Receiver – Appellee,

v.

ANDRIS PUKKE, a/k/a Marc Romeo, a/k/a Andy Storm, individually and as an 

officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary 

Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco 

Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); PETER BAKER, 

individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing 

business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, 

Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); 

JOHN USHER, individually and as an officer or owner of Sittee River Wildlife 

Reserve (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, and The Reserve) 

and Eco-Futures Belize Limited (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary 

Belize, and The Reserve); BUY BELIZE, LLC, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary 

Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, d/b/a Kanantik, d/b/a Laguna Palms, d/b/a Bamboo 

Springs, a California limited liability company; BUY INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, d/b/a Kanantik, 

d/b/a Laguna Palms, d/b/a Bamboo Springs, a California Corporation; ECO 

FUTURES DEVELOPMENT, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a 

The Reserve, a company organized under the laws of Belize; ECO-FUTURES 

BELIZE LIMITED, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, 

a California Corporation; SITTEE RIVER WILDLIFE RESERVE, d/b/a Sanctuary 

Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, an entity organized under the laws 

of Belize; GLOBAL PROPERTY ALLIANCE INC., a California corporation, also 

doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, the Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna 

Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures 

Belize, Sittee River Wildlife Reserve, Buy Belize, Buy International; 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 1 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 1 of 45
2

FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT, INC., a California 

Corporation; POWER HAUS MARKETING, a California Corporation; PRODIGY 

MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; EXOTIC 

INVESTOR, LLC, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Belize, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Southern 

Belize, a limited liability company organized under the laws of St. Kitts and Nevis; 

NEWPORT LAND GROUP, LLC, a/k/a The Reserve, a Wyoming limited liability 

company; SOUTHERN BELIZE REALTY, LLC, a limited liability company 

organized under the laws of Belize; BELIZE REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES, LLC, 

d/b/a Coldwell Banker Belize, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Southern Belize, a limited 

liability company organized under the laws of St. Kitts and Nevis; SANCTUARY 

BELIZE PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, d/b/a The Reserve Property 

Owners’ Association, a Texas non-profit corporation; THE ESTATE OF JOHN 

PUKKE, d/b/a The Estate of Janis Pukke, a/k/a The Estate of Andris Pukke,

 Defendants – Appellants,

and

CROSS-FREDERICK ASSOCIATES, LLC; FOLEY & LARDNER LLP,

 Respondents,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Creditor,

JERRY BROWN; STEPHANIE BROWN; DELANEY CARLSON; THERESA 

EDELEN; BILL EWING; CHERYL EWING; CRAIG HIBBERT; TRISHA 

HIBBERT; LISA MULVANIA; RICHARD MULVANIA; CINDY REEVES; 

DAVID REEVES; PENNY SCRUTCHIN; THOM SCRUTCHIN; CLIFF SMITH; 

TERRI SMITH; PHILLIP WATFORD; ANGELA WATFORD; THE 

HAMPSHIRE GENERATIONAL FUND LLC; DAVID PORTMAN; HARVEY 

SCHULTZ; STEVEN M. SCHULTZ; JONATHAN B. SCHULTZ; JOHN A. 

SARACENO,

 Intervenors,

CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE,

 Trustee.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 2 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 2 of 45
3

No. 21-1454

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

and

MARC-PHILIP FERZAN, of Ankura Consulting Group, LLC,

 Receiver – Appellee,

v.

PETER BAKER, individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property 

Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, 

Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, 

Eco Futures Belize),

 Defendant – Appellant,

and

ANDRIS PUKKE, a/k/a Marc Romeo, a/k/a Andy Storm, individually and as an 

officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary 

Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco 

Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); LUKE CHADWICK, 

individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing 

business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, 

Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize; 

ECOLOGICAL FOX, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company; GLOBAL 

PROPERTY ALLIANCE, INC., a California corporation, also doing business as 

Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo 

Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize, Sittee River 

Wildlife Reserve, Buy Belize, Buy International; SITTEE RIVER WILDLIFE 

RESERVE, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, an 

entity organized under the laws of Belize; BUY BELIZE, LLC, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, 

d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, d/b/a Kanantik, d/b/a Laguna Palms, d/b/a 

Bamboo Springs, a California limited liability company; BUY INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, d/b/a 

Kanantik, d/b/a Laguna Palms, d/b/a Bamboo Springs, a California corporation; 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 3 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 3 of 45
4

FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT INC., a California 

corporation; ECO FUTURES DEVELOPMENT, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a 

Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, a company organized under the laws of Belize; 

POWER HAUS MARKETING, a California corporation; BRANDI GREENFIELD, 

individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing 

business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, 

Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); BG 

MARKETING, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; PRODIGY 

MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; JOHN 

USHER, individually and as an officer or owner of Sittee River Wildlife Reserve 

(also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, and The Reserve) and EcoFutures Belize Limited (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, and 

The Reserve); ROD KAZAZI, individually and as an officer or owner of Global 

Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The 

Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures 

Development, Eco Futures Belize); FOUNDATION PARTNERS, f/k/a Red Crane 

Advisors, Inc., a California corporation; FRANK COSTANZO, a/k/a Frank Green, 

a/k/a Frank Peerless Green, a/k/a Frank Connelly, a/k/a Frank Connelly-Costanzo, 

individually and as officer or owner of Ecological Fox, LLC, Buy International, Inc. 

(also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, 

Laguna Palms, and Bamboo Springs), and Foundation Development Management, 

Inc.); BELIZE REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES, LLC, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Belize, 

d/b/a Coldwell Banker Southern Belize, a limited liability company organized under 

the laws of St. Kitts and Nevis; EXOTIC INVESTOR, LLC, d/b/a Coldwell Banker 

Belize, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Southern Belize, a limited liability company 

organized under the laws of St. Kitts and Nevis; SANCTUARY BELIZE 

PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, d/b/a The Reserve Property Owners’

Association, a Texas non-profit corporation; ANGELA CHITTENDEN; BEACH 

BUNNY HOLDINGS, LLC, a California limited liability company; THE ESTATE 

OF JOHN PUKKE, a/k/a The Estate of Janis Pukke, a/k/a The Estate of John Andris 

Pukke; JOHN VIPULIS; DEBORAH CONNELLY; NEWPORT LAND GROUP, 

LLC, a/k/a Laguna Palms, a/k/a Sanctuary Belize, a/k/a Bamboo Springs, a/k/a The 

Reserve, a Wyoming limited liability company; MICHAEL SANTOS, a/k/a 

Sanctuary Bay, a/k/a Sanctuary Belize, a/k/a The Reserve, a/k/a Kanantik, a/k/a 

Laguna Palms, a/k/a Bamboo Springs, a/k/a Eco Futures, a/k/a Eco Futures 

Development, a/k/a Eco Future Belize, a/k/a Sittee River Wildlife Reserve, a/k/a Buy 

Belize, a/k/a Buy International, a/k/a Buy Belize, LLC, (also doing business as 

Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, and 

Bamboo Springs), a/k/a Buy International, Inc., (also doing business as Sanctuary 

Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Lagunal Palms, and Bamboo 

Springs), Individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc; 

AMERIDEBT, INCORPORATED; DEBTWORKS, INCORPORATED; PAMELA 

PUKKE, a/k/a Pamela Shuster; ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD, a 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 4 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 4 of 45
5

company organized under the laws of Belize; ECO-FUTURES BELIZE LIMITED, 

d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, a California 

Corporation; SOUTHERN BELIZE REALTY, LLC, a limited liability company 

organized under the laws of Belize,

 Defendants,

CROSS-FREDERICK ASSOCIATES, LLC; FOLEY & LARDNER LLP,

 Respondents,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Creditor,

JERRY BROWN; STEPHANIE BROWN; DELANEY CARLSON; THERESA 

EDELEN; BILL EWING; CHERYL EWING; CRAIG HIBBERT; TRISHA 

HIBBERT; LISA MULVANIA; RICHARD MULVANIA; CINDY REEVES; 

DAVID REEVES; PENNY SCRUTCHIN; THOM SCRUTCHIN; CLIFF SMITH; 

TERRI SMITH; PHILLIP WATFORD; ANGELA WATFORD; THE 

HAMPSHIRE GENERATIONAL FUND LLC; DAVID PORTMAN; HARVEY 

SCHULTZ; STEVEN M. SCHULTZ; JONATHAN B. SCHULTZ; JOHN A. 

SARACENO,

 Intervenors,

CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE,

 Trustee.

No. 21-1520

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

and

MARC-PHILIP FERZAN, of Ankura Consulting Group, LLC,

 Receiver – Appellee,

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 5 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 5 of 45
6

v.

JOHN USHER, individually and as an officer or owner of Sittee River Wildlife 

Reserve (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, and The Reserve) 

and Eco-Futures Belize Limited (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary 

Belize, and The Reserve),

 Defendant – Appellant,

and

ANDRIS PUKKE, a/k/a Marc Romeo, a/k/a Andy Storm, individually and as an 

officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary 

Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco 

Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); PETER BAKER, 

individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing 

business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, 

Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); 

LUKE CHADWICK, individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property 

Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, 

Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, 

Eco Futures Belize; ECOLOGICAL FOX, LLC, a Maryland limited liability 

company; GLOBAL PROPERTY ALLIANCE, INC., a California corporation, also 

doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna 

Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures 

Belize, Sittee River Wildlife Reserve, Buy Belize, Buy International; SITTEE 

RIVER WILDLIFE RESERVE, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a 

The Reserve, an entity organized under the laws of Belize; BUY BELIZE, LLC, 

d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, d/b/a Kanantik, 

d/b/a Laguna Palms, d/b/a Bamboo Springs, a California limited liability company; 

BUY INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a 

The Reserve, d/b/a Kanantik, d/b/a Laguna Palms, d/b/a Bamboo Springs, a 

California corporation; FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT INC., 

a California corporation; ECO FUTURES DEVELOPMENT, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, 

d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, a company organized under the laws of 

Belize; POWER HAUS MARKETING, a California corporation; BRANDI 

GREENFIELD, individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, 

Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, 

Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, 

Eco Futures Belize); BG MARKETING, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability 

company; PRODIGY MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability 

company; ROD KAZAZI, individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 6 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 6 of 45
7

Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, 

Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, 

Eco Futures Belize); FOUNDATION PARTNERS, f/k/a Red Crane Advisors, Inc., 

a California corporation; FRANK COSTANZO, a/k/a Frank Green, a/k/a Frank 

Peerless Green, a/k/a Frank Connelly, a/k/a Frank Connelly-Costanzo, individually 

and as officer or owner of Ecological Fox, LLC, Buy International, Inc. (also doing 

business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, 

and Bamboo Springs), and Foundation Development Management, Inc.); BELIZE 

REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES, LLC, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Belize, d/b/a Coldwell 

Banker Southern Belize, a limited liability company organized under the laws of St. 

Kitts and Nevis; EXOTIC INVESTOR, LLC, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Belize, d/b/a 

Coldwell Banker Southern Belize, a limited liability company organized under the 

laws of St. Kitts and Nevis; SANCTUARY BELIZE PROPERTY OWNERS’ 

ASSOCIATION, d/b/a The Reserve Property Owners’ Association, a Texas nonprofit corporation; ANGELA CHITTENDEN; BEACH BUNNY HOLDINGS, 

LLC, a California limited liability company; THE ESTATE OF JOHN PUKKE, 

a/k/a The Estate of Janis Pukke, a/k/a The Estate of John Andris Pukke; JOHN 

VIPULIS; DEBORAH CONNELLY; NEWPORT LAND GROUP, LLC, a/k/a 

Laguna Palms, a/k/a Sanctuary Belize, a/k/a Bamboo Springs, a/k/a The Reserve, a 

Wyoming limited liability company; MICHAEL SANTOS, a/k/a Sanctuary Bay, 

a/k/a Sanctuary Belize, a/k/a The Reserve, a/k/a Kanantik, a/k/a Laguna Palms, a/k/a 

Bamboo Springs, a/k/a Eco Futures, a/k/a Eco Futures Development, a/k/a Eco 

Future Belize, a/k/a Sittee River Wildlife Reserve, a/k/a Buy Belize, a/k/a Buy 

International, a/k/a Buy Belize, LLC, (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, 

Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, and Bamboo Springs), 

a/k/a Buy International, Inc., (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary 

Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Lagunal Palms, and Bamboo Springs), Individually 

and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc; AMERIDEBT, 

INCORPORATED; DEBTWORKS, INCORPORATED; PAMELA PUKKE, a/k/a 

Pamela Shuster; ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD, a company 

organized under the laws of Belize; ECO-FUTURES BELIZE LIMITED, d/b/a 

Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, a California Corporation; 

SOUTHERN BELIZE REALTY, LLC, a limited liability company organized under 

the laws of Belize,

 Defendants,

CROSS-FREDERICK ASSOCIATES, LLC; FOLEY & LARDNER LLP,

 Respondents,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 7 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 7 of 45
8

 Creditor,

JERRY BROWN; STEPHANIE BROWN; DELANEY CARLSON; THERESA 

EDELEN; BILL EWING; CHERYL EWING; CRAIG HIBBERT; TRISHA 

HIBBERT; LISA MULVANIA; RICHARD MULVANIA; CINDY REEVES; 

DAVID REEVES; PENNY SCRUTCHIN; THOM SCRUTCHIN; CLIFF SMITH; 

TERRI SMITH; PHILLIP WATFORD; ANGELA WATFORD; THE 

HAMPSHIRE GENERATIONAL FUND LLC; DAVID PORTMAN; HARVEY 

SCHULTZ; STEVEN M. SCHULTZ; JONATHAN B. SCHULTZ; JOHN A. 

SARACENO,

 Intervenors,

CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE,

 Trustee.

No. 21-1521

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

and

MARC-PHILIP FERZAN, of Ankura Consulting Group, LLC,

 Receiver – Appellee,

v.

ANDRIS PUKKE, a/k/a Marc Romeo, a/k/a Andy Storm, individually and as an 

officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary 

Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco 

Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize),

 Defendant – Appellant,

and

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 8 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 8 of 45
9

PETER BAKER, individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property 

Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, 

Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, 

Eco Futures Belize); LUKE CHADWICK, individually and as an officer or owner 

of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary 

Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco 

Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize; ECOLOGICAL FOX, LLC, a Maryland 

limited liability company; GLOBAL PROPERTY ALLIANCE, INC., a California 

corporation, also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, 

Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, 

Eco Futures Belize, Sittee River Wildlife Reserve, Buy Belize, Buy International; 

SITTEE RIVER WILDLIFE RESERVE, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary 

Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, an entity organized under the laws of Belize; BUY 

BELIZE, LLC, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, 

d/b/a Kanantik, d/b/a Laguna Palms, d/b/a Bamboo Springs, a California limited 

liability company; BUY INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a 

Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, d/b/a Kanantik, d/b/a Laguna Palms, d/b/a 

Bamboo Springs, a California corporation; FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT 

MANAGEMENT INC., a California corporation; ECO FUTURES 

DEVELOPMENT, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, 

a company organized under the laws of Belize; POWER HAUS MARKETING, a 

California corporation; BRANDI GREENFIELD, individually and as an officer or 

owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, 

Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco 

Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); BG MARKETING, LLC, 

an Oklahoma limited liability company; PRODIGY MANAGEMENT GROUP, 

LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; JOHN USHER, individually and as an 

officer or owner of Sittee River Wildlife Reserve (also doing business as Sanctuary 

Bay, Sanctuary Belize, and The Reserve) and Eco-Futures Belize Limited (also doing 

business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, and The Reserve); ROD KAZAZI, 

individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing 

business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, 

Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); 

FOUNDATION PARTNERS, f/k/a Red Crane Advisors, Inc., a California 

corporation; FRANK COSTANZO, a/k/a Frank Green, a/k/a Frank Peerless Green, 

a/k/a Frank Connelly, a/k/a Frank Connelly-Costanzo, individually and as officer or 

owner of Ecological Fox, LLC, Buy International, Inc. (also doing business as 

Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, and 

Bamboo Springs), and Foundation Development Management, Inc.); BELIZE REAL 

ESTATE AFFILIATES, LLC, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Belize, d/b/a Coldwell Banker 

Southern Belize, a limited liability company organized under the laws of St. Kitts 

and Nevis; EXOTIC INVESTOR, LLC, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Belize, d/b/a 

Coldwell Banker Southern Belize, a limited liability company organized under the 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 9 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 9 of 45
10

laws of St. Kitts and Nevis; SANCTUARY BELIZE PROPERTY OWNERS

ASSOCIATION, d/b/a The Reserve Property Owners’ Association, a Texas nonprofit corporation; ANGELA CHITTENDEN; BEACH BUNNY HOLDINGS, 

LLC, a California limited liability company; THE ESTATE OF JOHN PUKKE, 

a/k/a The Estate of Janis Pukke, a/k/a The Estate of John Andris Pukke; JOHN 

VIPULIS; DEBORAH CONNELLY; NEWPORT LAND GROUP, LLC, a/k/a 

Laguna Palms, a/k/a Sanctuary Belize, a/k/a Bamboo Springs, a/k/a The Reserve, a 

Wyoming limited liability company; MICHAEL SANTOS, a/k/a Sanctuary Bay, 

a/k/a Sanctuary Belize, a/k/a The Reserve, a/k/a Kanantik, a/k/a Laguna Palms, a/k/a 

Bamboo Springs, a/k/a Eco Futures, a/k/a Eco Futures Development, a/k/a Eco 

Future Belize, a/k/a Sittee River Wildlife Reserve, a/k/a Buy Belize, a/k/a Buy 

International, a/k/a Buy Belize, LLC, (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, 

Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, and Bamboo Springs), 

a/k/a Buy International, Inc., (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary 

Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Lagunal Palms, and Bamboo Springs), Individually 

and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc; AMERIDEBT, 

INCORPORATED; DEBTWORKS, INCORPORATED; PAMELA PUKKE, a/k/a 

Pamela Shuster; ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD, a company 

organized under the laws of Belize; ECO-FUTURES BELIZE LIMITED, d/b/a 

Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, a California Corporation; 

SOUTHERN BELIZE REALTY, LLC, a limited liability company organized under 

the laws of Belize,

 Defendants,

CROSS-FREDERICK ASSOCIATES, LLC; FOLEY & LARDNER LLP,

 Respondents,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Creditor,

JERRY BROWN; STEPHANIE BROWN; DELANEY CARLSON; THERESA 

EDELEN; BILL EWING; CHERYL EWING; CRAIG HIBBERT; TRISHA 

HIBBERT; LISA MULVANIA; RICHARD MULVANIA; CINDY REEVES; 

DAVID REEVES; PENNY SCRUTCHIN; THOM SCRUTCHIN; CLIFF SMITH; 

TERRI SMITH; PHILLIP WATFORD; ANGELA WATFORD; THE 

HAMPSHIRE GENERATIONAL FUND LLC; DAVID PORTMAN; HARVEY 

SCHULTZ; STEVEN M. SCHULTZ; JONATHAN B. SCHULTZ; JOHN A. 

SARACENO,

 Intervenors,

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 10 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 10 of 45
11

CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE,

 Trustee.

No. 21-1591

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

and

MARC-PHILIP FERZAN, of Ankura Consulting Group, LLC,

 Receiver – Appellee,

v.

GLOBAL PROPERTY ALLIANCE, INC., a California corporation, also doing 

business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, 

Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize, Sittee 

River Wildlife Reserve, Buy Belize, Buy International; SITTEE RIVER WILDLIFE 

RESERVE, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, an 

entity organized under the laws of Belize; BUY BELIZE, LLC, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, 

d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, d/b/a Kanantik, d/b/a Laguna Palms, d/b/a 

Bamboo Springs, a California limited liability company; BUY INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, d/b/a 

Kanantik, d/b/a Laguna Palms, d/b/a Bamboo Springs, a California corporation; 

FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT INC., a California 

corporation; ECO FUTURES DEVELOPMENT, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a 

Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, a company organized under the laws of Belize; 

ECO-FUTURES BELIZE LIMITED, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, 

d/b/a The Reserve, a California Corporation; POWER HAUS MARKETING, a 

California corporation,

 Defendants – Appellants,

and

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 11 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 11 of 45
12

ANDRIS PUKKE, a/k/a Marc Romeo, a/k/a Andy Storm, individually and as an 

officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary 

Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco 

Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); PETER BAKER, 

individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing 

business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, 

Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); 

LUKE CHADWICK, individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property 

Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, 

Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, 

Eco Futures Belize; ECOLOGICAL FOX, LLC, a Maryland limited liability 

company; BRANDI GREENFIELD, individually and as an officer or owner of 

Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary 

Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco 

Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); BG MARKETING, LLC, an Oklahoma 

limited liability company; PRODIGY MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, a Wyoming 

limited liability company; JOHN USHER, individually and as an officer or owner of 

Sittee River Wildlife Reserve (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary 

Belize, and The Reserve) and Eco-Futures Belize Limited (also doing business as 

Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, and The Reserve); ROD KAZAZI, individually 

and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as 

Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo 

Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); 

FOUNDATION PARTNERS, f/k/a Red Crane Advisors, Inc., a California 

corporation; FRANK COSTANZO, a/k/a Frank Green, a/k/a Frank Peerless Green, 

a/k/a Frank Connelly, a/k/a Frank Connelly-Costanzo, individually and as officer or 

owner of Ecological Fox, LLC, Buy International, Inc. (also doing business as 

Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, and 

Bamboo Springs), and Foundation Development Management, Inc.); BELIZE REAL 

ESTATE AFFILIATES, LLC, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Belize, d/b/a Coldwell Banker 

Southern Belize, a limited liability company organized under the laws of St. Kitts 

and Nevis; EXOTIC INVESTOR, LLC, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Belize, d/b/a 

Coldwell Banker Southern Belize, a limited liability company organized under the 

laws of St. Kitts and Nevis; SANCTUARY BELIZE PROPERTY OWNERS’ 

ASSOCIATION, d/b/a The Reserve Property Owners’ Association, a Texas nonprofit corporation; ANGELA CHITTENDEN; BEACH BUNNY HOLDINGS, 

LLC, a California limited liability company; THE ESTATE OF JOHN PUKKE, 

a/k/a The Estate of Janis Pukke, a/k/a The Estate of John Andris Pukke; JOHN 

VIPULIS; DEBORAH CONNELLY; NEWPORT LAND GROUP, LLC, a/k/a 

Laguna Palms, a/k/a Sanctuary Belize, a/k/a Bamboo Springs, a/k/a The Reserve, a 

Wyoming limited liability company; MICHAEL SANTOS, a/k/a Sanctuary Bay, 

a/k/a Sanctuary Belize, a/k/a The Reserve, a/k/a Kanantik, a/k/a Laguna Palms, a/k/a 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 12 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 12 of 45
13

Bamboo Springs, a/k/a Eco Futures, a/k/a Eco Futures Development, a/k/a Eco 

Future Belize, a/k/a Sittee River Wildlife Reserve, a/k/a Buy Belize, a/k/a Buy 

International, a/k/a Buy Belize, LLC, (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, 

Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, and Bamboo Springs), 

a/k/a Buy International, Inc., (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary 

Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Lagunal Palms, and Bamboo Springs), Individually 

and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc; AMERIDEBT, 

INCORPORATED; DEBTWORKS, INCORPORATED; PAMELA PUKKE, a/k/a 

Pamela Shuster; ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD, a company 

organized under the laws of Belize; SOUTHERN BELIZE REALTY, LLC, a limited 

liability company organized under the laws of Belize,

 Defendants,

CROSS-FREDERICK ASSOCIATES, LLC; FOLEY & LARDNER LLP,

 Respondents,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Creditor,

JERRY BROWN; STEPHANIE BROWN; DELANEY CARLSON; THERESA 

EDELEN; BILL EWING; CHERYL EWING; CRAIG HIBBERT; TRISHA 

HIBBERT; LISA MULVANIA; RICHARD MULVANIA; CINDY REEVES; 

DAVID REEVES; PENNY SCRUTCHIN; THOM SCRUTCHIN; CLIFF SMITH; 

TERRI SMITH; PHILLIP WATFORD; ANGELA WATFORD; THE 

HAMPSHIRE GENERATIONAL FUND LLC; DAVID PORTMAN; HARVEY 

SCHULTZ; STEVEN M. SCHULTZ; JONATHAN B. SCHULTZ; JOHN A. 

SARACENO,

 Intervenors,

CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE,

 Trustee.

No. 21-1592

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 13 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 13 of 45
14

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

and

MARC-PHILIP FERZAN, of Ankura Consulting Group, LLC,

 Receiver – Appellee,

v.

THE ESTATE OF JOHN PUKKE, a/k/a The Estate of Janis Pukke, a/k/a The Estate 

of John Andris Pukke,

 Defendant – Appellant,

and

ANDRIS PUKKE, a/k/a Marc Romeo, a/k/a Andy Storm, individually and as an 

officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary 

Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco 

Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); PETER BAKER, 

individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing 

business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, 

Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); 

LUKE CHADWICK, individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property 

Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, 

Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, 

Eco Futures Belize; ECOLOGICAL FOX, LLC, a Maryland limited liability 

company; GLOBAL PROPERTY ALLIANCE, INC., a California corporation, also 

doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna 

Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures 

Belize, Sittee River Wildlife Reserve, Buy Belize, Buy International; SITTEE 

RIVER WILDLIFE RESERVE, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a 

The Reserve, an entity organized under the laws of Belize; BUY BELIZE, LLC, 

d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, d/b/a Kanantik, 

d/b/a Laguna Palms, d/b/a Bamboo Springs, a California limited liability company; 

BUY INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a 

The Reserve, d/b/a Kanantik, d/b/a Laguna Palms, d/b/a Bamboo Springs, a 

California corporation; FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT INC., 

a California corporation; ECO FUTURES DEVELOPMENT, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, 

d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, d/b/a The Reserve, a company organized under the laws of 

Belize; POWER HAUS MARKETING, a California corporation; BRANDI 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 14 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 14 of 45
15

GREENFIELD, individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property Alliance, 

Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, 

Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco Futures, Eco Futures Development, 

Eco Futures Belize); BG MARKETING, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability 

company; PRODIGY MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability 

company; JOHN USHER, individually and as an officer or owner of Sittee River 

Wildlife Reserve (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, and The 

Reserve) and Eco-Futures Belize Limited (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, 

Sanctuary Belize, and The Reserve); ROD KAZAZI, individually and as an officer 

or owner of Global Property Alliance, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, 

Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, Bamboo Springs, Eco 

Futures, Eco Futures Development, Eco Futures Belize); FOUNDATION 

PARTNERS, f/k/a Red Crane Advisors, Inc., a California corporation; FRANK 

COSTANZO, a/k/a Frank Green, a/k/a Frank Peerless Green, a/k/a Frank Connelly, 

a/k/a Frank Connelly-Costanzo, individually and as officer or owner of Ecological 

Fox, LLC, Buy International, Inc. (also doing business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary 

Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, and Bamboo Springs), and 

Foundation Development Management, Inc.); BELIZE REAL ESTATE 

AFFILIATES, LLC, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Belize, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Southern 

Belize, a limited liability company organized under the laws of St. Kitts and Nevis; 

EXOTIC INVESTOR, LLC, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Belize, d/b/a Coldwell Banker 

Southern Belize, a limited liability company organized under the laws of St. Kitts 

and Nevis; SANCTUARY BELIZE PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, d/b/a

The Reserve Property Owners’ Association, a Texas non-profit corporation; 

ANGELA CHITTENDEN; BEACH BUNNY HOLDINGS, LLC, a California 

limited liability company; JOHN VIPULIS; DEBORAH CONNELLY; NEWPORT 

LAND GROUP, LLC, a/k/a Laguna Palms, a/k/a Sanctuary Belize, a/k/a Bamboo 

Springs, a/k/a The Reserve, a Wyoming limited liability company; MICHAEL 

SANTOS, a/k/a Sanctuary Bay, a/k/a Sanctuary Belize, a/k/a The Reserve, a/k/a 

Kanantik, a/k/a Laguna Palms, a/k/a Bamboo Springs, a/k/a Eco Futures, a/k/a Eco 

Futures Development, a/k/a Eco Future Belize, a/k/a Sittee River Wildlife Reserve, 

a/k/a Buy Belize, a/k/a Buy International, a/k/a Buy Belize, LLC, (also doing 

business as Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Laguna Palms, 

and Bamboo Springs), a/k/a Buy International, Inc., (also doing business as 

Sanctuary Bay, Sanctuary Belize, The Reserve, Kanantik, Lagunal Palms, and 

Bamboo Springs), Individually and as an officer or owner of Global Property 

Alliance, Inc; AMERIDEBT, INCORPORATED; DEBTWORKS, 

INCORPORATED; PAMELA PUKKE, a/k/a Pamela Shuster; ATLANTIC 

INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD, a company organized under the laws of Belize; 

ECO-FUTURES BELIZE LIMITED, d/b/a Sanctuary Bay, d/b/a Sanctuary Belize, 

d/b/a The Reserve, a California Corporation; SOUTHERN BELIZE REALTY, LLC, 

a limited liability company organized under the laws of Belize,

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 15 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 15 of 45
16

 Defendants,

CROSS-FREDERICK ASSOCIATES, LLC; FOLEY & LARDNER LLP,

 Respondents,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Creditor,

JERRY BROWN; STEPHANIE BROWN; DELANEY CARLSON; THERESA 

EDELEN; BILL EWING; CHERYL EWING; CRAIG HIBBERT; TRISHA 

HIBBERT; LISA MULVANIA; RICHARD MULVANIA; CINDY REEVES; 

DAVID REEVES; PENNY SCRUTCHIN; THOM SCRUTCHIN; CLIFF SMITH; 

TERRI SMITH; PHILLIP WATFORD; ANGELA WATFORD; THE 

HAMPSHIRE GENERATIONAL FUND LLC; DAVID PORTMAN; HARVEY 

SCHULTZ; STEVEN M. SCHULTZ; JONATHAN B. SCHULTZ; JOHN A. 

SARACENO,

 Intervenors,

CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE,

 Trustee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-03309-PJM)

Argued: September 13, 2022 Decided: November 1, 2022

Before WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson 

wrote the majority opinion, in which Senior Judge Motz and Senior Judge Keenan joined. 

ARGUED: Neil Harris Koslowe, POTOMAC LAW GROUP PLLC, Washington, D.C., 

for Appellants. Theodore (Jack) Metzler, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Washington, D.C.; Gary Owen Caris, BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP, Los Angeles, 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 16 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 16 of 45
17

California, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: John B. Williams, WILLIAMS LOPATTO PLLC, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellants. James Reilly Dolan, Acting General Counsel, Joel 

Marcus, Deputy General Counsel, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Washington, 

D.C., for Appellee Federal Trade Commission. Janet Dean Gertz, BARNES & 

THORNBURG, LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellee Marc-Philip Ferzan of Ankura 

Consulting Group, LLC, Receiver.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 17 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 17 of 45
18

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: 

Andris Pukke and other appellants sought to develop thousands of acres of land in 

Belize, which they marketed as a luxury resort called “Sanctuary Belize.” In their salespitch to U.S. consumers, many promises were made but not kept. In 2018, the FTC shut 

this down, calling Sanctuary Belize a “scam,” and alleging violations of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule for making misrepresentations to 

consumers. The FTC also brought contempt charges against Pukke stemming from past 

judgments against him. After an extensive bench trial, the district court found ample 

evidence of violative and contumacious conduct, ultimately ruling in the FTC’s favor. 

Pukke and others now appeal, raising a host of issues. None of their arguments have legal 

merit, nor can they overcome the evidence against them. We thus affirm in large part, the 

one exception being vacating the equitable monetary judgments in accordance with the 

Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade 

Commission, 141 S. Ct. 1341, 1344 (2021) (holding that the FTC has no authority to seek 

monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act). 

I.

A.

In 2003, Andris Pukke and Peter Baker began developing land in the Central 

American country of Belize. In re Sanctuary Belize Litig., 482 F. Supp. 3d 373, 389 (D. 

Md. 2020). With the help of John Usher, a Belize native, they began selling lots in 2005 

with the intent to convert this tropical area into a luxury resort for American vacationers, 

calling the project, among other names, Sanctuary Belize. Id. at 390. The individuals and 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 18 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 18 of 45
19

corporate entities that developed and sold these real estate lots were collectively referred 

to as Sanctuary Belize Enterprise (SBE). Id. at 385 n.1. 

Pukke was effectively the CEO of the project and led the sales and marketing aspects 

of SBE. In 2009, Pukke began to “pursue[] an aggressive advertising campaign throughout 

the United States, using various media, including enthusiastic promotions on” television 

and websites. Id. at 390. Potential consumers were directed to a website where they could 

submit contact information. They would then be called by telemarketers, who had been 

coached to “create a sense of urgency and a fear of loss on the part of prospective 

purchasers, techniques somewhat reminiscent of those used by Jordan Belfort, aka the 

‘Wolf of Wall Street.’” Id. at 390–91.

Many consumers elected to tour Sanctuary Belize in person, but they had to 

purchase their own airfare and an all-inclusive five-day tour for $799 per person or $999 

per couple. Some consumers purchased a right of first refusal on particular lots for between 

$2,000 and $10,000. Others agreed to purchase lots sight unseen. Id. at 391–92. 

Salespersons encouraged consumers to purchase a second lot on the representation that

they could “easily sell the first lot and use the proceeds of that sale to build a house on the 

second lot.” Id. at 392. All told, over 1,000 lots have been sold, some more than once. Id. 

at 390. 

Around 2011, as Sanctuary Belize continued to promote its lots, Pukke was involved 

in a criminal proceeding in which he pled guilty to obstruction of justice based on 

concealment and false statements to the FTC. The court sentenced Pukke to 18 months in 

prison. Id. at 395. Despite the injunctions and supervised release conditions imposed on

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 19 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 19 of 45
20

him, Pukke continued to promote SBE from the time of his release through 2018, acting as 

the “mastermind” and “Chief Executive Office[r] in control of the entire Sanctuary Belize 

operation.” Id. at 396, 467. Nonetheless, SBE represented to consumers that Pukke had no 

meaningful involvement in the development, disguising Pukke’s identity behind aliases 

such as “Marc Romeo” and “Andy Storm.” Id. at 396.

SBE’s development came to an end in 2018 when the Federal Trade Commission 

intervened. The FTC filed a complaint under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (FTC Act), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), and the Telemarketing and Consumer 

Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108, against Andris Pukke, Peter 

Baker, John Usher, and other entities involved in SBE. The FTC alleged that SBE made 

false and misleading representations in the sale of lots in violation of Section 5(a) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 C.F.R. § 310.3.

The FTC also filed three motions for civil contempt: one against Pukke, Baker, and 

Usher for their deceptive telemarketing practices in violation of an earlier final order, J.A. 

389, another against Pukke, Baker, and Usher for failing to turn over the SBE land, J.A. 

395, and one against Pukke for violating a past stipulated order for conditional release, J.A. 

421. The district court consolidated the above matters into the current case.

B.

The district court, with Judge Peter J. Messitte presiding, held a multiweek

evidentiary hearing on the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction, which it granted. 

The court then held a nearly three-week bench trial on the FTC’s claims under the FTC 

Act and TSR, and on the FTC’s three contempt motions. The court then issued a detailed 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 20 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 20 of 45
21

opinion of over one-hundred pages in which it set forth its comprehensive findings. The 

court found that SBE had violated the FTC Act and TSR, and it held Pukke and others in 

contempt. 

1.

Regarding SBE’s misrepresentation, the court found that Pukke and his team had 

committed five of the six alleged FTC Act and TSR violations. First, Sanctuary Belize lied 

to consumers by telling them the development carried “no debt,” and that meant when they 

bought land in Sanctuary Belize, “not a penny goes to paying a loan—it goes right into the 

progress of the development.” Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 404–06. Many 

consumers understood “no debt” to mean Sanctuary Belize was a safe investment. In 

reality, the development carried debt and was riskier than promised. The court found that 

the “fundamental glaring fact was and is that Pukke” and his “minions consistently put out 

this no debt/low risk representation as a marketing strategy . . . even as the development in 

fact took on . . . not insignificant amounts of debt.” Id. at 407.

Second, despite promising consumers that “every dollar the developer collected 

from the sales of lots would go back into the development,” SBE used only 14% of sales 

revenue for development. “Quite shockingly,” the court found “incontrovertible evidence 

that Pukke diverted enormous sums of sales revenue away from the development, i.e., some 

$18 million or about 12.8% of the total sales revenue, for his own benefit and that of his 

friends and family.” Id. at 408–09. 

Third, consumers were assured “that the completed development would boast 

extraordinary amenities comparable to those of a small American city.” To the contrary,

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 21 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 21 of 45
22

“most of these luxury amenities either do not exist, do not exist as promised or have never 

been seriously contemplated to exist at all outside of marketing materials and verbal 

promises.” Id. at 411–13.

Fourth, consumers were promised that the development would be completed within 

two to five years, despite the fact that SBE never had “sufficient funds to finish the 

development, luxury amenities included, in the time promised.” Id. at 419. In fact, 

“Sanctuary Belize could never be completed as promised even assuming revenue for the 

next five years would be at a historic high.” Id. At trial, the FTC showed that a substantial 

number of consumers, many of whom were retired individuals, relied on this promise when 

deciding whether to purchase. Id. at 420–21.

Fifth, while salespersons claimed there was a strong resale market for Sanctuary 

Belize lots, SBE employees were “actively working to undermine and impede resales” by 

preventing owners from reselling their lots before the developer sold all the lots. Id. at 423–

24. The court found that Sanctuary Belize developers “knew that lot owners were having 

extreme difficulty reselling their lots” and yet, “without any basis for saying so, they made 

the representation that there was or would be a ‘robust’ resale market.” Id. at 424.

Last, the court found that it was an “overarching falsehood that Pukke had no 

meaningful involvement in Sanctuary Belize.” Id. at 401. This “crowning 

misrepresentation,” id. at 388, misled consumers because “Pukke had been found guilty of 

two felonies” that involved “deception of trusting consumers,” id. at 425. SBE knew this 

would scare away purchasers if Pukke’s involvement were discovered. 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 22 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 22 of 45
23

The court found these misrepresentations violated the FTC Act and the 

Telemarketing Sales Rule. The court entered permanent injunctions against each defendant 

under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. For Pukke, the court found a “cognizable danger of 

recurring violation” due to past “machinations.” Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 467. 

Thus, in its amended final order, the court permanently enjoined Pukke from engaging in 

any real estate ventures, from any involvement in telemarketing, and from making material 

misrepresentations in connection with the sale of any goods or services. J.A. 1075–77. The 

court permanently enjoined Baker and Usher from telemarketing and making material 

misrepresentations as well. Id.

Also under Section 13(b), the court entered an equitable monetary judgment of 

$120.2 million against defendants. J.A. 1077 (equitable monetary judgments, as used by 

the district court, included remedies such as restitution and disgorgement of ill-gotten 

gains, see AMG Cap. Mgmt., 141 S. Ct. at 1344). The court found that SBE’s material 

misrepresentations led them to rake in $145 million in consumer payments for lots. After 

subtracting expenditures for buybacks and Belizean taxes, the court calculated the total 

harm to consumers at $120.2 million. Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 474–75. To 

effectuate its equitable relief, the court appointed a receiver. J.A. 1082–85.

2.

Regarding the contempt motions, the court found Pukke, Baker, and Usher in 

contempt of permanent injunctions entered in an earlier case. In 2003, Pukke helped found 

a company called AmeriDebt, which turned out to be a credit counseling scam. Sanctuary 

Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 393; see F.T.C. v. Ameridebt, Inc., 373 F. Supp. 2d 558, 561 (D. 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 23 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 23 of 45
24

Md. 2005) (detailing that AmeriDebt “operated as a common enterprise to deceive 

consumers into paying for high-cost debt management plans”). Rather than risk trial for his 

malfeasance, Pukke agreed to a stipulated final judgment. This judgment required him to 

pay $172 million in restitution to the FTC. J.A. 1131. All but $35 million was suspended

on the condition that Pukke “cooperate fully” with the FTC. J.A. 1131–36. The judgment 

also permanently enjoined Pukke from making false representations in connection with the 

telemarketing of any good or service. J.A. 1130–31. 

Pukke and Baker, who was also involved with AmeriDebt, were ordered to turn over 

all assets to a receiver. J.A. 1140–45. Rather than cooperate, however, they conspired to 

hide their assets. As a result, in 2007, Pukke and Baker were held in contempt and 

incarcerated in order to coerce compliance with the court’s AmeriDebt orders. Sanctuary 

Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 394. After roughly six weeks in custody, Pukke and Baker were 

released on the condition that they turn over their assets. Id.; J.A. 1160–65. Around this 

time, John Vipulis offered to pay the receiver $4.5 million which would go toward the $35 

million Pukke owed the FTC. As such, the payment was considered a loan to Pukke and 

the court stipulated that Pukke must fully repay the FTC before he repaid Vipulis. J.A. 

1162–63. As all this transpired, Pukke and Baker were able to maintain their land holdings 

in Belize, ostensibly by terminating their rights in the land via a company run by John 

Usher. Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 394. 

Because Pukke and Baker were under AmeriDebt’s permanent injunction 

prohibiting them from making false representations in telemarketing, when the FTC 

brought its case against Sanctuary Belize, it also brought three contempt motions against 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 24 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 24 of 45
25

Pukke and his associates. First, the FTC motioned that the court hold Pukke and others in 

contempt of the AmeriDebt judgment when they committed telemarketing violations. 

Second, the FTC asserted that Pukke and others should be held in contempt for not turning 

over their holdings in the Sanctuary Belize land. And third, the FTC asked the court to hold 

Pukke in contempt for repaying the Vipulis loan before fully satisfying his debt to the FTC.

The court agreed with the FTC on the first and third motions. Sanctuary Belize, 482 

F. Supp. 3d at 484–85; J.A. 1050–53. The court found that Pukke violated the AmeriDebt

permanent injunction that prohibited Pukke and his accomplices from “making, or causing 

or assisting others to make, expressly or by implication, any false or misleading 

representation.” J.A. 1130. By engaging in fraudulent telemarketing, Pukke violated the 

AmeriDebt order. And because this order extended to Pukke’s “affiliates,” Baker and Usher 

were held in contempt as well. Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 476.

The court ordered that Pukke, Baker, and Usher pay the FTC $120.2 million, “which 

represent[ed] the total consumer loss their contumacious conduct caused,” and it 

“represent[ed] consumer loss caused by their violation of the Telemarketing Order [from 

AmeriDebt], which prohibited any false or misleading representation in connection with 

‘telemarketing.’” J.A. 1052. In its memorandum opinion from January 12, 2021, the district 

court explained that “the harm” from the “contumacious conduct is indeed the same as the 

harm caused by the FTC Act violations, in the present case $120.2 million.” J.A. 1017–18.

The court also held Pukke in contempt for repaying the Vipulis loan before he paid 

the FTC. The court found that Pukke did not fully cooperate and now owed the full $172 

million of the AmeriDebt judgment to the FTC rather than the suspended amount of $35 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 25 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 25 of 45
26

million. J.A. 1051–52; Sanctuary Belize Litig., 482 F. Supp. 3d at 481–84. The court 

ordered that “Pukke must account for the difference between the $4.26 million that Pukke” 

diverted from Sanctuary Belize to repay Vipulis and the “$4.112 million Vipulis paid the 

FTC, approximately $148,000—the exact number to be determined after an accounting.”

Id. at 484.

3. 

Last, the district court entered default judgments against John Usher and several 

corporations. J.A. 1022–49. Despite being properly served, these parties never made an 

appearance in the proceedings. See Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 459–66. The 

default judgments contained permanent injunctions prohibiting their involvement in real 

estate ventures, telemarketing, and misrepresentations in future sales. J.A. 1028–29. The 

court also entered an equitable monetary judgment against the defaulted parties to the tune 

of $120.2 million. J.A. 1030.

Pukke, Baker, Usher, and some of the defaulted corporations timely appealed. J.A. 

1105–12. They now level multiple challenges against the following: (1) the $120.2 million 

monetary judgment and permanent injunctions entered for their FTC Act and TSR

violations; (2) the telemarketing contempt judgment of $120.2 million; (3) Pukke’s second 

contempt judgment arising from the Vipulis payment; and (4) the default judgments

entered against Usher and corporations. 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 26 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 26 of 45
27

II.

Pukke and other appellants advance a mixed bag of factual and legal challenges to

the contempt orders, equitable monetary judgments, permanent injunctions, and default 

judgments. We consider each in turn.

A.

We address the contempt orders first. We review a district court’s civil contempt 

order for abuse of discretion. United v. Ali, 874 F.3d 825, 829 (4th Cir. 2017). Additionally, 

when it comes to contempt orders, “our review is even more deferential because district 

courts are in the best position to interpret their own orders.” JTH Tax, Inc. v. H & R Block 

E. Tax Servs., Inc., 359 F.3d 699, 705 (4th Cir. 2004). 

To establish civil contempt, the FTC needed to prove by clear and convincing 

evidence “(1) the existence of a valid decree of which the alleged contemnor had actual or 

constructive knowledge; (2) that the decree was in the movant’s favor; (3) that the alleged 

contemnor by its conduct violated the terms of the decree, and had knowledge (at least 

constructive knowledge) of such violations; and (4) that the movant suffered harm as a 

result.” De Simone v. VSL Pharms., Inc., 36 F.4th 518, 529 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting 

Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 301 (4th Cir. 2000)).

The district court found that these four elements were met in two of the three 

contempt motions brought by the FTC. The court held Pukke in contempt for not 

cooperating with the FTC and repaying the Vipulis loan before he repaid the FTC.

Additionally, the court held Pukke, Baker, and Usher in contempt for making 

misrepresentations in telemarketing, a direct violation of the AmeriDebt permanent 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 27 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 27 of 45
28

injunction. Both of these findings are supported by an abundance of evidence and show no 

hint of an abuse of discretion. 

1. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that all four elements were

proven regarding the Vipulis contempt motion and Pukke’s noncooperation with the FTC. 

Pukke knew of the decrees against him because he affirmatively agreed to them twice—

once in his stipulated final judgment and again in his conditional release. To avoid trial in 

the AmeriDebt case, Pukke agreed to a judgment against him for $172 million. He was 

made well-aware that the full amount would be suspended, and he would only pay $35 

million if he fully cooperated with the FTC. Pukke again affirmatively agreed to cooperate 

with the FTC in his stipulations for conditional release from confinement. There, he agreed 

that the payment of $4.5 million he received from John Vipulis was considered a loan and 

that, to fully cooperate, Pukke must repay the FTC before repaying Vipulis. Pukke thus 

knew of the conditions the law placed upon him. Additionally, regarding the second prong, 

these conditions were certainly in the FTC’s favor for they ensured that the Commission 

would receive Pukke’s compliance so that it could compensate his victims.

Pukke indisputably violated the terms of the decrees for the record “conclusively 

establish[es] the fact of Pukke’s non-cooperation with the FTC and trigger[s] the $172 

million judgment.” Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 483. The district court explained

that “Pukke’s non-cooperation with the FTC is emphatically underscored by the fact that, 

following entry of the Stipulated Final Judgment, he was charged with, and in this Court, 

pled guilty to . . . obstruction of justice for concealing assets in AmeriDebt as well as in a 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 28 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 28 of 45
29

related bankruptcy case.” Id. Not only did Pukke knowingly repay Vipulis prior to repaying 

the FTC, but he also knowingly pled guilty to obstruction of justice, thereby violating the 

conditions from the AmeriDebt judgment and his conditional release.

The FTC suffered harm as a result of these actions for it was deprived the 

cooperation and funds needed to remedy Pukke’s past wrongs in AmeriDebt. Thus, the 

district court properly found each prong of the civil contempt standard met. Indeed, with 

evidence as conclusive as this, the district court came nowhere close to abusing its 

discretion by holding Pukke in contempt.

Pukke’s attempts to dispute this holding all fall short. Pukke asserts the recent 

Supreme Court case AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, 141 

S. Ct. 1341, 1344 (2021), which held that the FTC has no authority to seek monetary relief

under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, renders the $172 million AmeriDebt judgment 

unlawful. With this argument, Pukke tries to drag us into relitigating the merits of a case 

made final nearly twenty years ago.

This flies in the face of the well-established rule that “appeal from a postjudgment 

order does not revive a lost opportunity to appeal the judgment.” 15B Wright & Miller, 

Federal Practice and Procedure § 3916 (2d ed. 1992). As such, the merits of the

AmeriDebt decision are not before us, but enforcement of the AmeriDebt judgment is. And

there is “no question” that courts “have inherent power to enforce compliance with their 

lawful orders through civil contempt.” Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966);

Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1801 (2019); Rainbow Sch., Inc. v. Rainbow Early 

Educ. Holding LLC, 887 F.3d 610, 617 (4th Cir. 2018). Since the Founding, it has been 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 29 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 29 of 45
30

understood that courts possess contempt powers to guard against violations of their own 

orders. Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165, 169–70 (1958) (explaining that under the 

Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts were understood to be able to exercise the English 

common law tradition of holding parties in contempt for disobeying the court); see also 

Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 17, 1 Stat. 73, 83 (1789) (granting courts broad contempt 

power). 

The district court was thus acting well within its rights to utilize the contempt power

to effectuate its AmeriDebt judgments. Without the ability to enforce its own orders, the 

judicial system becomes all bark and no bite. It is a principle “as ancient as the laws 

themselves” that “laws without a competent authority to secure their administration from 

disobedience and contempt would be vain and nugatory.” W. Blackstone, 4 Commentaries 

on the Laws of England 286 (1769). Holding parties in contempt is a power that “cannot 

be dispensed with in a Court, because [it is] necessary to the exercise of all others.” United 

States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 34 (1812).

A sense of balance is important here. Contempt is an awesome and potentially

oppressive power, a sanction not to be lightly imposed. Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 

517, 539 (1925) (emphasizing that the exercise of the contempt power “is a delicate one, 

and care is needed to avoid arbitrary or oppressive conclusions”). But its importance is

evident in a case like this. If parties can defy injunctions with impunity over the span of 

nearly two decades, they can deploy the very means of their misdeeds to perpetual ends. 

Here, Pukke has repeatedly harmed and deceived people despite direct injunctions 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 30 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 30 of 45
31

forbidding these very acts. Had Pukke obeyed the injunctions, he never would have 

swindled Sanctuary Belize consumers out of millions of dollars. 

Furthermore, even if by some stretch of the imagination Pukke convinced us to 

relitigate a closed case, his arguments still falter. He agreed to “waive all rights to seek 

judicial review or otherwise challenge or contest the validity of [the] Order” when he 

consented to the AmeriDebt final judgment. J.A. 1125. When a defendant willingly enters 

a stipulated judgment, he is given the benefit of certainty—over the uncertainty of trial—

in exchange for not challenging the agreement in the future. Thus, the FTC received the

guarantee that the judgment would be settled and final. To upset that arrangement now, 

nearly twenty years later, would wholly undermine the waiver. Pukke waived his ability to 

challenge this judgment and we will not reopen that challenge for him. 

The district court was correct to hold Pukke in contempt for not cooperating with 

the FTC as he had explicitly pledged to do. For the foregoing reasons, its holding is hereby 

affirmed. 

2.

The district court likewise did not abuse its discretion in holding Pukke, Baker, and 

Usher in contempt for their telemarketing misrepresentations in violation of the AmeriDebt

permanent injunction. Once again, all four elements were met here. Pukke had knowledge 

of the injunctions when he willingly entered a stipulated judgment, the injunctions were in 

the FTC’s favor, Pukke knowingly flouted these prohibitions and masterminded a 

telemarketing scam, and this harmed the FTC’s ability to compensate the victims of current 

and past fraud.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 31 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 31 of 45
32

The district court found ample proof that Pukke misled consumers with multiple

misrepresentations. Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 401–29. The district court 

meticulously recounted those violations of the FTC Act and TSR and found that Pukke, 

Baker, and Usher had engaged in at least six instances of unlawful telemarketing 

misrepresentations, including hiding Pukke’s involvement in SBE from consumers,

knowing his unsavory character would warn them away. It is clear that Pukke and his 

comrades were aware of their contumacious conduct for they went to some lengths to 

conceal it.

Pukke and Baker—as Usher has since defaulted—insist that the court cannot impose 

the $120.2 million judgment against them as part of a telemarketing contempt order 

because the district court failed to make findings as to how it calculated that amount. We 

disagree with this argument. 

Because the contempt motions were consolidated with the Sanctuary Belize case, 

the district court presided over both, giving it a precise idea of the harm to consumers 

caused by the violations of the telemarketing injunction. Upon hearing all the evidence 

presented at the bench trial, and after evaluating how the numerous falsehoods affected 

consumers, the court concluded that Pukke’s telemarketing misrepresentations had led to 

SBE obtaining $145 million in consumer payments. Id. at 474. Then when it came time to 

rule on the contempt motions, the district court explained that the $120.2 million 

represented “the total consumer loss their contumacious conduct caused,” specifically the 

loss caused by their “violation of the Telemarketing Order” from AmeriDebt. J.A. 1052. 

The district court reiterated that “the harm” from the “contumacious conduct is indeed the 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 32 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 32 of 45
33

same as the harm caused by” the FTC Act violations. J.A. 1017–18 (emphasis added).

Contrary to the argument that no findings were made to justify the $120.2 million amount, 

the judge carefully justified his holding. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion 

in holding Pukke, Baker, and Usher in contempt, and for the foregoing reasons we affirm.

B.

Next, we consider the judgments entered for violations of the Telemarketing Sales 

Rule and Federal Trade Commission Act. We review a judgment from a bench trial under 

a mixed standard of review—factual findings are examined for clear error and conclusions 

of law are reviewed de novo. Sing Fuels Pte Ltd. v. M/V Lila Shanghai, 39 F.4th 263, 270–

71 (4th Cir. 2022). Importantly, “we will ‘not disturb the district court’s factual findings if 

they are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.’” Id. at 271 (quoting Heyer 

v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 984 F.3d 347, 355 (4th Cir. 2021)). 

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act bars “unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in or affecting commerce.” 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). A deceptive act or practice has 

been defined as “[1] a representation, omission, or practice that [2] is likely to mislead 

consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances, and [3], the representation, 

omission, or practice is material.” In re Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, 165 (1984).

Most of our sister circuits have used this test for FTC Act liability. See Tomasella v. Nestle 

USA, Inc., 962 F.3d 60, 78 (1st Cir. 2020); F.T.C. v. Verity Int’l, Ltd., 443 F.3d 48, 63 (2d 

Cir. 2006); F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 630–31 (6th Cir. 2014); F.T.C. 

v. Bay Area Bus. Council, Inc., 423 F.3d 627, 635 (7th Cir. 2005); F.T.C. v. Freecom 

Commc’ns, Inc., 401 F.3d 1192, 1203 (10th Cir. 2005) F.T.C. v. On Point Cap. Partners 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 33 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 33 of 45
34

LLC, 17 F.4th 1066, 1079 (11th Cir. 2021); Novartis Corp. v. F.T.C., 223 F.3d 783, 786 

(D.C. Cir. 2000).

Likewise, the Telemarketing Sales Rule prohibits deceptive acts or practices that 

“misrepresent[], directly or by implication . . . [a]ny material aspect of the performance, 

efficacy, nature, or central characteristics of goods or services that are the subject of a sales 

offer.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(iii). The TSR also makes it a violation to “provide 

substantial assistance or support to any seller or telemarketer when that person knows or 

consciously avoids knowing that the seller or telemarketer is engaged in” a deceptive act 

or practice. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b). Whereas the FTC Act prohibits unfair methods of 

competition “in or affecting commerce,” 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1), the TSR more narrowly 

applies to “purchases of goods or services,” 15 U.S.C. § 6106(4). Both the TSR and the 

FTC Act bear the same standards for individual liability. 15 U.S.C. § 6102(c); 15 U.S.C. 

§ 57a(d)(3).

Applying the law to these facts, it is clear that Pukke and SBE violated the FTC Act 

and TSR. The court found that SBE, under the direction of Pukke, made half a dozen 

material misrepresentations that misled consumers. These misrepresentations included the 

lie that Sanctuary Belize carried no debt, the lie that every dollar spent was reinvested in 

the property (when actually Pukke stole roughly $18 million from the project), the false 

promise that the completed project would have many luxury amenities, the false promise 

that the project would be completed within two to five years, the lie that SBE boasted a 

healthy resale market, and the “crowning deception” that Pukke was not involved in SBE. 

Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 401–29. 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 34 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 34 of 45
35

The findings made by the district court show that Pukke’s Belizean business venture 

was dishonest to the core. The district court correctly surmised that this sort of deception 

lies at the heart of what the FTC is empowered to seek out and stop.

Though he tries unconvincingly to refute these findings, Pukke’s main contention is 

that the court was wrong to grant $120.2 million in equitable monetary relief against him 

under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. Section 13 allows the FTC to sue in federal district 

court when “the Commission has reason to believe (1) that any person, partnership, or 

corporation is violating, or is about to violate, any provision of law enforced by the Federal 

Trade Commission.” 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). Although the FTC may seek injunctive relief under 

Section 13, the Supreme Court held in AMG Capital that it does not authorize the FTC to 

seek, or a court to award, “equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.” 

AMG Cap. Mgmt., 141 S. Ct. at 1344.

Pukke latches onto this last point, claiming that the judgment in the Sanctuary Belize 

case must be thrown out under AMG Capital. The Supreme Court’s holding in AMG does 

indeed render invalid the $120.2 million equitable monetary judgment, at least to the extent 

that judgment rests on Section 13(b). See AMG Cap. Mgmt., 141 S. Ct. at 1344. Vacating 

that judgment does not help Pukke, however, because he already has a $120.2 million 

judgment against him for contempt of the telemarketing injunction, and the FTC has 

conceded that it is not seeking $240.4 million against Pukke. Oral Argument at 26:20; 

Appellee’s Response Brief at 15 (“[B]ecause of the contempt sanction, AMG would not 

change the bottom line,” for “if the Court sustains the contempt sanction, it need not even 

reach the effect of AMG on the overlapping judgments.”). 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 35 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 35 of 45
36

Furthermore, the judgment entered under Section 13(b) included permanent 

injunctions and appointed a receiver. Pukke is wrong to the extent he argues that AMG 

requires us to reverse those injunctions, for AMG did not impair courts’ ability to enter 

injunctive relief under Section 13(b). See AMG Cap. Mgmt., 141 S. Ct. at 1349 (explaining 

that “the Commission may use § 13(b) to obtain injunctive relief” and this “produces a 

coherent enforcement scheme”). In short, AMG does not undercut the injunctive relief 

entered under Section 13(b), and the $120.2 million order can be upheld under the contempt 

judgment, so AMG does not in fact change the bottom line. We therefore affirm in part and 

vacate in part the court’s FTC Act and TSR rulings. 

C. 

We turn next to the default judgments. Here, the district court entered default 

judgments against Usher and several corporate defendants. The defaulted parties filed a 

Rule 60(b)(5) motion to set aside the default judgments, which the district court denied

because of a failure to comply with local rules. We now “review the district court’s ruling 

on a 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion,” but we note that “an appeal from denial of Rule 

60(b) relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review.” Aikens v. Ingram, 652 

F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corrections of Ill., 434 

U.S. 257, 263 n. 7 (1978)). In addition, the “disposition of motions made under Rules 55(c) 

and 60(b) is a matter which lies largely within the discretion of the trial judge and his action 

is not lightly to be disturbed by an appellate court.” Consol. Masonry & Fireproofing, Inc. 

v. Wagman Constr. Corp., 383 F.2d 249, 251 (4th Cir. 1967).

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 36 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 36 of 45
37

Here, Usher was notified multiple times about the ongoing proceedings against him: 

the FTC mailed him the original complaint and summons, called his counsel, sent him a 

copy of the FTC’s court filing, and sent him the order directing default judgment against 

him. J.A. 967. Usher’s counsel confirmed receipt and told the FTC that Usher was aware 

of the proceedings. Yet, “Usher never appeared.” Id.

As for the corporate defendants, they similarly failed to make an appearance. The 

corporations believed that counsel for Pukke and Baker would also represent the

corporations. Pukke and Baker, however, proceeded pro se after they ran out of funds to 

pay for legal counsel. Once Pukke and Baker were no longer represented by counsel, the 

corporations could not claim to be represented by them, for it is well-established that 

corporations must “appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. 

Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 195 (1993). Despite 

knowledge of their lack of representation, the corporations failed to make an appearance 

after they were duly served. 

It is undeniable that default judgments are warranted “against defendants who failed 

to appear or participate in the proceedings.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 175 (2013). 

This is a clear-cut case for default judgment, and the court conscientiously laid out the 

evidence supporting the same. See Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 459–66. 

Generally, denial of “Rule 60(b) relief ‘does not bring up the underlying judgment 

for review.’” Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1710 (2020) (quoting Browder, 434 U.S. 

at 263 n.7). But while the “defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s well-pleaded 

allegations of fact,” a defaulting defendant “is not held . . . to admit conclusions of law.” 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 37 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 37 of 45
38

Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting 

Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)).

Usher and the corporate defendants now assert that the $120.2 million judgment 

against them must be thrown out under AMG Capital. As noted, AMG requires vacating 

the $120.2 million equitable monetary judgment, but the default judgments are upheld 

because the district court did not abuse its discretion and AMG does not affect the injunctive 

relief granted in each default judgment. See J.A. 1028–29. 

III. 

Alongside the primary issues above, Pukke and his fellow appellants raise a host of 

other challenges. All are lacking in merit.

A.

Pukke contends that the Telemarketing Sales Rule does not apply to selling real 

estate in Sanctuary Belize because the TSR only prohibits misrepresentations in the sale of 

“goods or services.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.3. This argument, however, ignores everything that 

SBE was promising its consumers. It is generally true that the sale of real estate, of itself, 

does not constitute a good or service. But here Sanctuary Belize’s sales pitch inextricably 

linked the lots to many promised services and amenities when salespersons marketed the 

real estate as part of a luxury resort. That is, the services and amenities to be provided were 

fundamental to the telemarketing scheme. 

The district court found that SBE had promised a range of basic amenities, such as

“paved roads, fresh drinking water, wastewater management, electrical service, a stable 

canal system, and security.” Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 411–12. Most 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 38 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 38 of 45
39

importantly, SBE advertised many luxury amenities, such as a hospital, medical center,

“world class” marina, casino, golf course, and an airport, which all certainly count as 

promises of goods or services intertwined with the sale of real estate. Id. at 412. Thus, 

consumers were purchasing lots in Sanctuary Belize with the expectation that these parcels 

of real estate would come with various amenities. When the sale of real estate is so closely 

tied to promises of goods and services, the TSR is properly implicated, and the district 

court did not err in its analysis. 

B.

Pukke also challenges the district court’s decision to appoint a receiver. The court 

appointed a receiver to effectuate its orders in the Sanctuary Belize case as it would need 

an entity to manage the assets turned over by defendants. The receiver was charged with 

“tak[ing] exclusive control, custody, and possession” of all assets held by defendants in 

connection with Sanctuary Belize, to “[c]onserve, hold, manage, and prevent the loss” of 

these assets, and then liquidate those assets to periodically disburse money to the FTC and 

lot purchasers to compensate them for SBE’s misrepresentations. J.A. 1082–83.

Pukke argues that AMG requires nullification of the district court’s appointment of 

a receiver and everything the receiver has done. AMG does nothing of the sort. The 

appointment of a receiver has long been considered an ancillary power that a court can

deploy to effectuate its injunctive relief. See Home Mortg. Co. v. Ramsey, 49 F.2d 738, 743

(4th Cir. 1931) (explaining that a federal court can consider appointing a receiver where 

the receivership is “ancillary to other relief.”). As discussed, the Supreme Court has not 

limited a court’s power to order injunctive relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. See 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 39 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 39 of 45
40

AMG Cap. Mgmt., 141 S. Ct. at 1349 (the “Commission may use § 13(b) to obtain 

injunctive relief”).

Here, the appointment of the receiver was ancillary to effectuating the permanent 

injunctions imposed under the Sanctuary Belize judgment. The receiver was the district 

court’s means of ensuring that further FTC Act and TSR violations would not occur and 

that Pukke would not continue to profit from these deceptions. And though we have 

stressed that appointing a receiver “calls for the exercise of the greatest care and judgment,” 

Ramsey, 49 F.2d at 742, it falls within the sound discretion of the district court to employ 

such a remedy. See Hutchinson v. Fid. Inv. Ass’n, 106 F.2d 431, 436 (4th Cir. 1939). 

Therefore, we will not lightly upset the district court’s decision. To do so here would 

remove one of the tools in the court’s kit used to effectuate its judgments, compensate 

victims, and stop further transgressions. 

C. 

Next Pukke and Baker argue that they were denied due process because the district 

court refused to release sufficient funds for them to pay for legal counsel. Absent these

funds, they claim, they needed to proceed pro se to their detriment. Yet again, Pukke and 

Baker are betrayed by the record. To allow Pukke and Baker to pay for personal and legal 

expenses, the district court permitted Pukke and Baker to withdraw $3,000 per month from 

the assets that were frozen in the preliminary injunction, then twice unfroze $30,000 in 

assets for them to pay for legal counsel. Appellants admit that “district courts have 

discretion to regulate payment of attorneys’ fees from [frozen] assets,” Appellants’

Opening Brief at 48, and we conclude that the court did not abuse it here. See U.S. ex rel. 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 40 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 40 of 45
41

Rahman v. Oncology Assocs., 198 F.3d 489, 499 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that a district 

court is “authorized by its traditional equitable power to issue” an asset freeze).

Given Pukke’s past, it was perfectly reasonable for the court to be cautious about 

dispensing money to someone who had purloined funds from his previous business. Even 

in the face of this deception and dishonesty, the court was generous enough to twice grant 

defendants’ request for more resources. It is not our job to micromanage this case, and 

there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s handling of the funds needed by Pukke 

and Baker for adequate legal representation.

D. 

Appellants, committed to leaving no stone unturned, also argue that the contempt 

judgments and the permanent injunctions against them are time-barred by the statute of 

limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2462, which requires that a “proceeding for the 

enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture” be “commenced within five years from 

the date when the claim first accrued.” This statute of limitations does not apply for two 

reasons: first, neither a contempt judgment nor a permanent injunction is a “penalty” as 

described in Section 2462, and second, even if it were a penalty, the statute of limitations 

has not run.

Pukke tries to portray the judgments against him as penalties so that they will fall 

under Section 2462’s five-year time bar. A penalty redresses a “wrong to the public” for 

violation of public laws. Kokesh v. S.E.C., 137 S. Ct. 1635, 1642 (2017) (quoting 

Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 668 (1892)). A contempt sanction, on the other hand, 

redresses a violation not of public laws but of a court order. Likewise, a penalty punishes 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 41 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 41 of 45
42

past acts whereas an injunction prohibits future conduct. See Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. 

Graham, 823 F.3d 1357, 1361 (11th Cir. 2016). Therefore, Section 2462 covers neither the 

contempt orders nor the injunctive relief as neither are penalties. 

Even if the statute of limitations did apply, it has not run. The district court found 

that Pukke’s contumacious and violative conduct ran from the early 2000s up through 2018 

when the FTC brought suit. See Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 392 (finding that 

misrepresentations “occurred right up to the time the FTC filed this lawsuit in October 

2018”). Thus, the FTC’s suit was within the five-year period, and the judgments are not 

time-barred. 

E.

We perceive no merit in the remaining assignments of error. We further note that 

throwing a bunch of claims at the wall to see what sticks is no way to approach an appeal. 

Pukke disputes the validity of the district court’s orders imposing an asset freeze 

and writs of ne exeat. An asset freeze immobilizes a party’s funds by government mandate, 

and a writ of ne exeat restrains a person from leaving the jurisdiction of the court. Freeze, 

Ne Exeat, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Here, the district court was well within 

its rights to impose both. As discussed, imposing an asset freeze is an appropriate use of 

the court’s discretion, especially given the risk of Pukke diverting funds to his personal 

accounts. See Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 408. Further, an asset freeze is 

appropriate when parties request equitable relief, as the FTC has here. U.S. ex rel. Rahman 

v. Oncology Assocs., 198 F.3d 489, 501 (4th Cir. 1999). Regarding the writ of ne exeat, the 

district court can exercise its discretion to grant such a writ if “satisfactory proof is 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 42 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 42 of 45
43

made . . . that the defendant designs quickly to depart from the United States.” D. Ginsberg 

& Sons v. Popkin, 285 U.S. 204, 207 (1932). Here, the international scale of Pukke and 

Baker’s business ventures evinced their ability to leave the country, so the court acted 

within its discretion by issuing the writ.

Pukke also argues that the contempt judgments are barred by the equitable doctrine 

of laches, which is the “unreasonable, prejudicial delay in commencing suit.” Petrella v. 

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 667 (2014). Again, the applicability of laches 

rests in “the sound discretion of the trial court.” White v. Daniel, 909 F.2d 99, 102 (4th Cir.

1990). Pukke claims that laches should apply because the contempt sanction was entered 

15 years after the claimed violation. Laches, however, is not “a mere matter of time[] but 

principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced.” Galliher v. 

Cadwell, 145 U.S. 368, 373 (1892). There is no inequity here. Pukke’s violations did not 

start and end 15 years ago; Pukke’s violations have occurred continuously for nearly two 

decades. See Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 392. Moreover, any alleged delay was 

caused at least in part by Pukke’s efforts to conceal his Sanctuary Belize malfeasance 

through misrepresentations and aliases. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion 

in holding that laches does not apply.

Next, appellants contend that the permanent injunctions entered against them are 

overly broad. They believe this is grounds for reversal, but this argument can be summarily 

rejected. The FTC may seek injunctions framed “broadly enough to prevent respondents 

from engaging in similarly illegal practices in future advertisements.” F.T.C. v. ColgatePalmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 395 (1965). Here, the district court found extensive 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 43 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 43 of 45
44

misrepresentations regarding telemarketing and the sale of real estate intertwined with the 

promotion of goods and services. See Sanctuary Belize, 482 F. Supp. 3d at 396–459. Thus, 

the various permanent injunctions—including the prohibition of SBE individuals and 

entities from engaging in further misrepresentations—are appropriately tailored to prevent 

similar scams in the future. Appellants “must remember that those caught violating the

[FTC] Act must expect some fencing in.” F.T.C. v. Nat’l Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419, 431

(1957).

Last, Pukke challenges the district court’s denial of the motion to transfer venue

from the District of Maryland to the Central District of California. A district court may 

transfer venue for “the convenience of parties and witnesses” and “in the interest of 

justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 13(b) of the FTC Act allows “[a]ny suit” to “be

brought where [a defendant] resides or transacts business.” 15 U.S.C. § 53(a). The court 

may then add other defendants “without regard to whether venue is otherwise proper in the 

district in which the suit is brought.” Id. Here, appellants admit that at least one defendant 

transacts business in Maryland, Appellants’ Opening Brief at 75, so venue was proper 

under the FTC Act. Once a suitable venue is found, the decision whether to transfer is left 

to the discretion of the trial court. Trustees of the Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat. Pension 

Fund v. Plumbing Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 436, 443 (4th Cir. 2015). The district court in

Maryland was within its discretion to keep the case because the FTC’s allegations in the 

Sanctuary Belize case rested on the same facts as the telemarketing contempt charges 

stemming from AmeriDebt, which was litigated in Maryland and which no party had asked 

to transfer. Once the district court consolidated these matters, it would make little sense to 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 44 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 44 of 45
45

transfer the Sanctuary Belize case and have the same parties litigating identical allegations 

in two different and distant courts.

We appreciate the district court’s exemplary work on this complex and long-running 

litigation. The judgment is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part for such 

further proceedings as are consistent with this decision.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2215 Doc: 101 Filed: 11/01/2022 Pg: 45 of 45

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1377-1 Filed 11/01/22 Page 45 of 45