IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re SANCTUARY BELIZE LITIGATION

(proposed)

No: ____________

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Plaintiff,

v.

ECOLOGICAL FOX, LLC et al.

Defendants.

[UNDER SEAL]

DO NOT DOCKET/

MOTION TO DELAY ECF PENDING

No: 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, ASSET FREEZE, 

WRITS NE EXEAT, APPOINTMENT OF A TEMPORARY RECEIVER, IMMEDIATE 

ACCESS, OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A 

PRELMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE

Jonathan Cohen (jcohen2@ftc.gov)

Benjamin Theisman (btheisman@ftc.gov)

Amanda B. Kostner (akostner@ftc.gov)

Khouryanna DiPrima (kdiprima@ftc.gov) 

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., CC-9528

Washington, DC 20580

202-326-2551 (Cohen); -2223 (Theisman); -2880 

(Kostner); -2029 (DiPrima); -3197 (facsimile)

Counsel to Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND AMERIDEBT BACKGROUND ...............................................3 

I. Pukke’s History With Law Enforcement .............................................................................3 

A. The Potomac Financial/Bancstar Capital Scam .......................................................3 

B. The AmeriDebt Proceedings ....................................................................................3 

1. The AmeriDebt Scam ...................................................................................3 

2. The AmeriDebt Litigation and Final Order ..................................................4 

3. The AmeriDebt Receivership .......................................................................5 

II. Pukke’s Contemptuous Struggle to Maintain Control Over the Parcel During 

AmeriDebt ............................................................................................................................5 

A. Pukke’s Acquisition and Initial Development of the Parcel ....................................5 

B. Pukke’s Resistence to Recovery of the Parcel for His Victims ...............................6 

C. AmeriDebt Contempt Litigation Concerning the Parcel and Other Assets ......................................................................................................8 

D. Pukke’s Continued Defiance in the AmeriDebt Contempt Litigaton .......................9 

E. Pukke, Baker and Usher Conspire to Maintain Pukke’s Control Over 

the Parcel ..................................................................................................................9 

FACTS OF THE SBE DECEPTION .............................................................................................12 

I. The Resort Community Sales and Payment Process .........................................................12 

A. The Sales Process ...................................................................................................13 

B. SBE’s False and Material Six Core Claims ...........................................................17 

1. Contrary to SBE’s Claim, No Debt Means High Risk ..............................17 

 

2. Contrary to SBE’s Claim, SBE Spends Consumers’ Money to 

Repay Pukke’s Loan from Vipulis, to Pay Members of Pukke’s 

Family, and to Buy Personal Items for Baker and His Wife .....................21 

3. Contrary to SBE’s Claim, the Development Was Not Finished Within 

Two to Five Years, and Will Not Be .........................................................23 

a. SBE Did Not Finish the Development Within Two 

or Five Years ..................................................................................24 
ii 

b. SBE Is Approximately $500 Million Short of the Amount 

Necessary to Finish the Development as Promised .......................24 

4. Contrary to SBE’s Claim, the Amenities Were Not Finished 

Within Five Years, and They Will Not Be ................................................26 

a. Hospital and Emergency Medical Facility .....................................28 

b. Hotel ...............................................................................................29 

c. Entertainment (Golf Course and Casino) .......................................29 

d. International Airport and On-Site Airstrip .....................................30 

e. Shopping, Dining and Commercial Center ....................................31 

f. 250-Slip World-Class Marina ........................................................32 

5. Contrary to SBE’s Claim, the Lots Do Not Appreciate 

200%-300% in Two to Three Years ..........................................................34 

6. Contrary to SBE’s Claim, There Is No Robust Resale Market ..................36 

7. Misrepresetations Regarding Pukke ..........................................................38 

C. Lot Owners’ Continuing Payments ........................................................................46 

D. Consumers Attempt Mitigation Through Foreclosures, Buybacks, 

and Lawsuits ..........................................................................................................47 

1. Owners Attempt to Reduce Their Losses ..................................................47 

a. Purported “Foreclosure” ................................................................48 

b. Buyback Agreements .....................................................................49 

c. Lawsuits .........................................................................................50 

2. Lot Churning. .............................................................................................51 

 

II. Abuse of the Judicial Process by Pukke and Associates ....................................................52 

A. Pukke Is Convicted of Obstruction of Justice in the FTC Proceeding ..................52 

B. Pukke’s Lies Regarding His Business and Travel During His 

Supervised Release ................................................................................................52 

C. Multiple Defendants Lied During the Supervised Release Hearing ......................54 

III. Multiple Parties Control SBE, Assist It, Make Misrepresentations Directly, 

and Benefit From SBE’s Misrepresentations .....................................................................57 

A. Individuals Who Control SBE Entities ..................................................................57 
iii 

1. Andris Pukke ..............................................................................................57 

2. Brandi Greenfield. ......................................................................................59 

3. Luke Chadwick ..........................................................................................59 

4. Peter Baker .................................................................................................60 

5. John Usher .................................................................................................61 

6. Frank Costanzo ..........................................................................................61 

7. Rod Kazazi .................................................................................................63 

B. Entities That Constitute SBE .................................................................................63 

1. Corporate Formalities and Distinctions Are Not Maintained. ...................63 

2. SBE Entity Subgroups. ..............................................................................64 

a. Domestic Entities With Operations ...............................................65 

b. Domestic Pass-Through Entities ....................................................66 

c. Nevisian Entities Associated With Chadwick ...............................67 

i. Southern Belize Realty ......................................................67 

ii. Belize Real Estate Affiliates ..............................................69 

iii. Exotic Investor ...................................................................69 

d. Belizean Entities Associated With Usher ......................................70 

i. Eco-Futures Belize Limited ...............................................70 

ii. Sittee River Wildlife Reserve ............................................71 

C. AIB Assists and Faciliates SBE’s Deception, and Benefits From It .....................71 

1. Assistance AIB Provides to SBE ...............................................................72 

2. Assistance SBE Provides to AIB ...............................................................73 

D. Relief Defendants That Benefit From SBE’s Misrepresentations .........................75 

1. Angela Chittenden ....................................................................................75 

2. Beach Bunny ..............................................................................................75 

3. The Estate of John Pukke (a/k/a Janis Pukke a/k/a John 

Andris Pukke) ............................................................................................76 
iv 

4. John Vipulis ...............................................................................................77 

5. Deborah Connelly ......................................................................................77 

LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................................................77 

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................78 

I. The FTC Has a “Fair and Tenable” Likelihood of Success on Its Section 5 

Claims, and the Public Interest Favors Relief ....................................................................78 

A. SBE Entity Defendants Constitute a Common Enterprise .....................................78 

1. Domestic SBE Entities With Operations ...................................................79 

2. Domestic Pass-Through Entities ................................................................80 

3. Nevisian Entities Associated With Chadwick ...........................................81 

4. Belizean Entities Associated With Usher ..................................................82 

B. SBE Corporate Defendants Are Liable as a Common Enterprise Under 

Section 5.................................................................................................................84 

C. SBE Corporate Defendants Are Liable for Monetary Relief Under 

Section 5.................................................................................................................87 

D. SBE Individual Defendants Are Liable for Monetary Relief Under 

Section 5.................................................................................................................88 

II. The FTC Has a “Fair and Tenable” Likelihood of Success on Its TSR Claims, 

and the Public Interest Favors Relief .................................................................................91 

A. SBE Violates TSR Sections 310.3(a)(2)(iii) and (vi) ............................................91 

1. The TSR Covers Lots in a Planned Community ........................................91 

a. “Goods and Services” in the TSR Includes Real Property ............91 

b. The TSR Covers SBE’s Transactions Because They 

Include “Goods and Services” Related to Real Property ...............93 

2. The Other Elements of SBE’s TSR Liability Are Easily Satisfied ...........94 

B. AIB Is Liable for Assisting and Facilitating SBE’s Scheme .................................95 

1. AIB Provides SBE Substantial Assistance ................................................95 

2. AIB Knows SBE Deceives Consumers .....................................................96 

III. The FTC Has a “Fair and Tenable” Likelihood of Success Against the Relief 

Defendants, and the Public Interest Favors Relief .............................................................96 
v 

IV. SBE’s Egregious Misconduct and the Substantial, Ongoing Consumer Injury 

Strongly Favor the Proposed TRO .....................................................................................98 

A. Writs Ne Exeat Are Necessary Because SBE Has a Well-Established 

Track Record of Disregard for the Judicial Process ..............................................99 

B. An Asset Freeze Is Necessary to Maximize the Ability to Redress Victims .......100 

C. Proceeding Ex Parte Is Necessary Because Providing Notice Would 

Defeat the Court’s Ability to Provide Complete Relief .......................................102 

D. The Appointment of a Temporary Receiver Is Necessary ...................................103 

E. The Proposed TRO’s Other Provisions Are Necessary and Appropriate ............104 

1. Immediate Access ....................................................................................104 

2. Smartphones and Cloud Storage ..............................................................105 

3. Safety .....................................................................................................105 

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................106 
vi 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Federal Cases 

AMREP Corp. v. FTC, 768 F.2d 1171 (10th Cir. 1985) ............................................................... 92 

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1977) .......................................................................................... 92 

Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945) ..................................................................... 92 

CFTC v. v. IBS, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 2d 830 (W.D.N.C. 2000) ....................................................... 96 

CFTC v. Kimberlynn Creek Ranch, Inc., 276 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2002) ....................................... 96 

CFTC v. Noble Wealth Data Information Services, Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d 676 (D. Md. 2000) ...... 78 

Community Blood Bank of Kansas City Area, Inc. v. FTC, 405 F.2d 1011 (8th Cir. 1969) ......... 71 

Delaware Watch Co. v. FTC, 332 F.2d 745 (2nd Cir. 1964) ........................................................ 78 

Diretto v. Country Inn & Suites, No. 1:16CV1037, 2016 WL 4400498 

(E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2016) ........................................................................................................ 103 

First Technology Safety Systems, Inc. v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641 (6th Cir.1998) .......................... 103 

FSLIC v. Sahni, 868 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 100 

FTC v. Affiliate Strategies, Inc., 849 F. Supp. 2d 1085m(D. Kan. 2011) ..................................... 92 

FTC v. AmeriDebt, Inc., 373 F. Supp.2d 558 (D. Md. 2005) ................................................ passim

FTC v. Alcoholism Cure Corp., No. 3:10-cv-266, 2011 WL 13137951 

(M.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2011)......................................................................................................... 84 

FTC v. Amy Travel Service, Inc., 875 F.2d 564 (7th Cir. 1989) ........................................... 88, 102 

FTC v. BlueHippo Funding, LLC, 762 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2014) .................................................. 87 

FTC v. Chapman, 714 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 95 

FTC v. Commerce Planet, Inc., 815 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2016) ..................................................... 87 

FTC v. Consumer Health Benefits Association, No. 10 Civ. 3551, 2012 WL 1890242 

 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2012) .......................................................................................................... 95 

FTC v. Figgie Int’l, Inc., 994 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1993) ................................................................ 87 

FTC v. Five–Star Auto Club, Inc., 97 F.Supp.2d 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ....................................... 84 

FTC v. Freecom Communications, Inc., 401 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2005) .................................... 87 

FTC v. Gem Merchendise Corp., 87 F.3d 466 (11th Cir. 1996) ................................................. 102 
vii 

FTC v. Gill, 183 F. Supp.2d 1171 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ..................................................................... 71 

FTC v. Grant Connect, LLC, 763 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2014) ....................................................... 78 

FTC v. H. N. Singer, Inc., 668 F.2d 1108 (9th Cir. 1982) .................................................. 101, 103 

FTC v. IAB Marketing Associates, LP, No. 12-61830-Civ, 2013 WL 5278216 

(S.D. Fla. 2013) ....................................................................................................................... 100 

FTC v. Innovative Mktg., Inc., 654 F. Supp. 2d 378 (D. Md. 2009) ...................................... passim

FTC v. Int’l Computer Concepts, Inc., No. 5:94CV1678, 1995 WL 767810 

(N.D. Ohio Oct. 24, 1995) ................................................................................................. 84, 101 

FTC v. Krotzer, No. 12-14039-AA, 2013 WL 7860383 (11th Cir. May 3, 2013) ....................... 84 

FTC v. Kutzner, No. 8:16CV00999, 2016 WL 4491629 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2016) ................. 105 

FTC v. Loma Int’l Bus. Grp. Inc., No. CIV.A. MJG-11-1483, 2013 WL 2455986 

(D. Md. June 5, 2013) ......................................................................................................... 84, 87 

FTC v. Medical Billers Network, Inc., 543 F. Supp. 2d 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ............................. 92 

FTC v. Micom Corp., No. CIV. 96-0472, 1997 WL 226232 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 1997) .............. 85 

FTC v. Partners in Health Care Ass’n, Inc., 189 F. Supp.3d 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2016) ................... 95 

FTC v. PCCare247 Inc., No. 12-civ-7189, 2013 WL 841037 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2013). .......... 105 

FTC v. Ross, 743 F.3d 886 (4th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ passim 

FTC v. Ross, 897 F. Supp.2d 369 (D. Md. 2012) .................................................................. passim 

FTC v. Sale Slash, LLC, No. CV15-03107, 2015 WL 12762060 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015) ..... 105 

FTC v. Solomon Trading Co., No. 91-cv-1184, 1994 WL 421478 

(D. Ariz. June 28, 1994) ............................................................................................................ 86 

FTC v. U.S. Oil & Gas Corp., 748 F.2d 1431 (11th Cir. 1984).................................................. 103 

FTC v. Wolf, No. 94-5119, 1996 WL 812940 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 1996) ...................................... 79 

Garrison v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 3d 1282 (M.D. Fla. 2017) ......................... 91 

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974) ........................ 102 

In re Telebrands Corp., 140 F.T.C. 278 (2005) ............................................................................ 85 

In re Thompson Medical Co., Inc., 104 F.T.C. 648 (1984) .......................................................... 84 

In re Vuitton et Fils S.A., 606 F.2d 1 (2nd Cir. 1979)................................................................. 102 

Johnson Products Co. v. FTC, 549 F.2d 35 (7th Cir. 1977) ......................................................... 92 
viii 

Kemp v. Peterson, 940 F.2d 110 (4th Cir. 1991) ........................................................................ 101 

Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 84 

Leone Industries v. Associated Packaging Inc., 795 F. Supp. 117 (D.N.J. 1992) ...................... 103 

Licci v. Lebanese Candian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2013) ......................................... 72

Little Tor Auto Center v. Exxon Co., USA, 822 F. Supp. 141 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ......................... 102 

Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978) ........................................................................................ 92 

Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395 (1946).................................................................. 103 

Reno Air Racing Association, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) .......................... 103 

Rowe v. Brooks, 329 F.2d 35 (4th Cir. 1964) ............................................................................... 74 

SEC v. First Financial Group, 645 F.2d 429 (5th Cir. 1981) ..................................................... 104 

SEC v. Keller Corp., 323 F.2d 397 (7th Cir. 1963) .................................................................... 104 

SEC v. Manor Nursing Centers, Inc., 458 F.2d 1082 (2nd Cir. 1971) ....................................... 101 

Southwest Sunsites, Inc. v. FTC, 785 F.2d 1431 (9th Cir. 1986) ............................................ 86, 91 

TEMPO Networks LLC v. Government of NIA, No. 2:14-6334, 2015 WL 4757911 

(D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2015) ............................................................................................................ 105 

Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 (1965)............................................................................................. 92 

United States v. Mathewson, No. 92-1054, 1993 WL 113434 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 1993)............. 99 

United States v. Shaheen, 445 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1971) ................................................................... 99 

United States v. Stitsky, 536 F. App’x 98 (2d Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 87 

State Cases 

Al Rushaid v. Pictet & Cie, 68 N.E.3d 1 (N.Y. 2016) .................................................................. 72 

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Costanzo, 432 Md. 233 (2013)........................ 62 

Brown v. Liberty Clubs, Inc., 543 N.E.2d 783 (1989) .................................................................. 93 

Fogelson v. Wallace, 405 P.3d 1012, 1031 (N.M. 2017) ............................................................. 93 

McKinney v. State, 693 N.E.2d 65, 71 (Ind. 1998) ....................................................................... 94 

Polonetsky v. Better Homes Depot, Inc., 760 N.E.2d 1274 (N.Y. 2001) ...................................... 93 
ix 

The Florida Bar v. Costanzo, 1 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 2008) ................................................................ 62 

The Florida Bar v. Costanzo, 13 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 2009) ............................................................ 62 

The Florida Bar v. Costanzo, 60 So. 3d 750 (Fla. 2011) .............................................................. 62 

State ex rel. Brady v. Wellington Homes, Inc., No. Civ. A. 99C-09-168, 

2003 WL 22048231 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 20, 2003) ............................................................... 94 

Docketed Cases 

Fales v. Eco-Futures Development, Inc., No. 30-2017-958588 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 

Orange Cty. Nov. 30, 2017) ...................................................................................................... 50 

FTC v. American Industrial Enterprises, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-0281 (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2016) ........... 98 

FTC v. AmeriDebt, Inc., No. 3:05-mc-80253 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2006) ......................................... 7 

FTC v. AmeriDebt, Inc., No. 9:2005-cv-1133 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2005) ........................................ 7 

FTC v. Holiday Vacations Marketing Corp., No. 8:11-cv-01319 (D. Md. May 16, 2011) .......... 98 

FTC v. Residential Relief Foundation, No. 10-cv-3214 (D.Md. Nov. 14, 2010) ......................... 98 

FTC v. Trudeau, No. 03-3904 (N.D. Ill. June 25, 2013) ............................................................ 100 

FTC v. Wealth Educators, Inc., No. CV 15-02375 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015) ..................... 101, 105 

Mann v. Eco-Futures Development, Ltd., No. 30-2017-926591 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 

Orange Cty. June 16, 2017) ....................................................................................................... 50 

Matthis v. Chadwick, No. 30-2017-39682 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Orange Cty. Aug. 10, 2017) ............... 70 

Miller v. Eco-Futures Development, Inc., No. 30-2018-9781287 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 

Orange Cty. Feb. 5, 2018) ......................................................................................................... 50 

Nelson v. Eco-Futures Development, Inc., No. 30-2017-937964 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 

Orange Cty. Aug. 16, 2017) ...................................................................................................... 50 

Plomaritis v. Global Property Alliance, Inc., No. 30-2015-816793 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 

Orange Cty. Oct. 26, 2015) ....................................................................................................... 50 

Pomroy v. Eco-Futures Development, Inc., No. 30-2018-973773 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 

Orange Cty. Feb. 15, 2018) ....................................................................................................... 50 

Realogy Group LLC v. Belize Real Estate Affiliates LLC and Luke Chadwick, 

No. MRS-L-1376-18 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div.) ...................................................................... 69 

SEC v. Borland, No. 18-cv-4352 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2018) ........................................................ 31 

The Florida Bar v. Costanzo, No. SC09-1573 (Fla. Dec. 23, 2009) ............................................ 62 
x 

United States v. Borland, No. 1:18-cr-487 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018) .......................................... 31 

United States v. Pukke, No. 10-cr-734 (D. Md. Nov. 13, 2015) ................................................... 52 

United States v. Pukke, No. 2:96-cr-137 (W.D. Pa. June 21, 1996) ............................................... 1 

United States v. Pukke, No. 2:96-cv-1172 (W.D. Pa. June 24, 1996) ............................................ 1 

Whited v. Global Property Alliance, Inc., No. 30-2017-937964 (filed Aug. 16, 2017) ............... 50 

Statutes, Regulations, Rules & Other Authorities

15 U.S.C. § 6101 ........................................................................................................................... 91 

15 U.S.C. § 6102 .......................................................................................................................... 95 

15 U.S.C. § 53 ........................................................................................................................ passim 

15 U.S.C. § 57 ............................................................................................................................... 95 

Cal. Fam. Code § 760 (1994) ........................................................................................................ 75 

16 C.F.R. § 310 ...................................................................................................................... passim

S. Rep. No. 130, 103rd CONG., 2D SESS. 15-16, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1776 ................................ 102 

S. Rep. No. 103-80, 103rd CONG., 1ST SESS.(June 29, 2003) ....................................................... 91 

68 Fed. Reg. 4580 (Jan. 29, 2003) ................................................................................................ 92 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 ........................................................................................................................ 105 
INTRODUCTION 

 Convicted felon and serial contemnor Andris Pukke has operated a massive real estate 

scam over the past decade. Through a maze of interconnected companies and a cadre of 

henchmen already known to this Court (collectively, the Sanctuary Belize Enterprise (“SBE”)), 

Pukke has duped retirees and small businesspeople into spending more than $100 million on 

empty lots in a Manhattan-sized plot in remote southern Belize (“Sanctuary Belize”) that the 

Court previously ordered Pukke to turn over to the Receiver to repay his victims in FTC v. 

AmeriDebt (D. Md.). Unbeknownst to the Court, the AmeriDebt Receiver, and the FTC, Pukke 

and co-conspirator Peter Baker surreptitiously maintained control of the Parcel. In the current 

scam, the lots’ supposed value derives from their presence in a resort community that Pukke and 

SBE claim they will develop, but Pukke is no more likely to build a small city in Belize than he 

was to honestly manage consumers’ financial obligations in AmeriDebt. 

 SBE makes six core misrepresentations about the Sanctuary Belize lots, each of which 

violates Section 5 of the FTC Act and Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”): (1) the developer’s 

“no debt” business model makes Sanctuary Belize a less risky investment than one in which the 

developer has to make payments to creditors; (2) in part because of the “no debt” model, every 

dollar the developer collects from lot sales goes back into the development; (3) this funding 

stream means the developer will finish the development quickly—within two to five years; (4) 

the finished development will boast remarkable amenities ranging from a hotel to an Americancaliber hospital; (5) the impressive amenities mean the lots will appreciate from 200% to 300% 

within two to three years; and (6) consumers will realize the rapid appreciation without difficulty 

because a robust resale market makes it easy to resell the lots. 

 As detailed below, the evidence that these six core claims are false is vast. First, the 

Commission obtained evidence from SBE’s internal systems (including email, documents, and 

accounting records). Second, sworn statements from two SBE telemarketers, an SBE in-house 

accountant, representatives from businesses that interacted with Pukke and SBE, and multiple 

consumer victims prove falsity. Third, the Commission obtained SBE’s banking records and 
2 

other documents from third parties. Fourth, the FTC obtained expert opinions on certain SBE 

misrepresentations from Harvard Professor Richard B. Peiser (arguably the country’s foremost 

authority on large-scale real estate developments), and Erik C. Lioy—a leading forensic 

accountant and the head of Grant Thornton LLP’s forensic accounting practice. 

 Notably, some prospective purchasers learn about Pukke and AmeriDebt through 

information online, and ask SBE principals about Pukke. Exactly as Pukke (and his associates) 

lied about his control of Sanctuary Belize under oath before this Court in Pukke’s 2015 

supervised release hearing, SBE principals misrepresent his involvement to consumers who 

would not purchase lots if they knew the truth. 

Finally, Pukke and his co-conspirators are unlikely to comply with orders absent the 

Court’s full coercive power. In AmeriDebt, it took coercive incarceration to obtain partial 

compliance with Court orders from Pukke and Baker (also a Defendant here). Pukke currently is 

in contempt of three court orders, and Baker and Usher are violating two each (all subjects of 

related contempt motions). Defendant Frank Costanzo is a disbarred attorney who wrongly took 

his clients’ money and ignored a Florida Supreme Court order to appear at his disciplinary 

hearing. Defendants Brandi Greenfield and Rod Kazazi knowingly misled this Court during 

Pukke’s 2015 supervised release hearing. Defendant Luke Chadwick ignored a New Jersey 

court’s order to respond to allegations that he misappropriated the “Coldwell Banker” mark 

(which SBE used to deceive consumers). 

 In short, Pukke’s galling subversion of federal consumer protection law, the Court’s 

orders, and the AmeriDebt receivership has caused—and continues to cause—massive consumer 

injury that requires immediate and comprehensive ex parte relief. 
3 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND AMERIDEBT BACKGROUND

I. Pukke’s History With Law Enforcement 

A. The Potomac Financial/Bancstar Capital Scam 

Beginning in 1994, Pukke operated a loan scam under the names “Potomac Financial” 

and “Bancstar Capital.” PXC ¶ 32:44 at 1-5.1

 Specifically, he ran national advertising that 

promised loans or help obtaining loans. Despite collecting advance fees, Pukke never made any 

loans or helped consumers obtain loans. Id. at 3. After a government enforcement action, Pukke 

accepted a consent judgment banning him from collecting advance fees in connection with loan 

applications. See DE5, United States v. Pukke, No. 2:96-cv-1172 (filed W.D. Pa. June 24, 1996). 

The United States charged Pukke with mail fraud based on the same activity. See DE1, United 

States v. Pukke, No. 2:96-cr-137 (filed W.D. Pa. June 21, 1996). Pukke pleaded guilty, and 

received home detention and probation. PXC ¶ 32:44 at 57, 65; id. at DE11. 

B. The AmeriDebt Proceedings 

1. The AmeriDebt Scam 

Three days after his Potomac/Bancstar sentencing hearing, Pukke formed a Maryland 

corporation, Consumer Counseling Services (“CCS”). PXQQ ¶ 53:56. He renamed CCS twice, 

eventually to AmeriDebt, Inc. PXQQ ¶ 54:57-58. Pukke’s telemarketers persuaded consumers 

to obtain expensive debt management plans (“DMPs”) through “non-profit” AmeriDebt. PXQQ 

¶¶ 55:59, 56:60, 57:61. However, AmeriDebt took consumers’ entire first payment as a 

“contribution” without authorization (i.e., the entire first payment went to Pukke, and none to 

creditors) and also took portions of subsequent payments as “contribution.” PXQQ ¶¶ 58:62, 

59:63. 

                                                            

1

 For ease of reference, “PX1 ¶ X:1-5” refers to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 at Paragraph X, 

which refers to Attachments 1 through 5 of Exhibit 1. 
4 

2. The AmeriDebt Litigation and Final Order 

In 2003, the FTC sued Pukke, AmeriDebt and a related company Pukke controlled 

(DebtWorks) under Section 5 of the FTC Act. See DE1, FTC v. AmeriDebt, No. 8:03-cv-3317 

(filed D. Md. Nov. 19, 2003). Significantly, Pukke took the Fifth Amendment rather than testify 

about the merits of the FTC’s case, and about evidence he was dissipating and hiding assets 

needed to compensate his victims through transfers to family and business associates. PXQQ ¶ 

60:64. Among other things, Pukke transferred assets to Chittenden (then his girlfriend and a 

Relief Defendant here), PXQQ ¶ 61:65, Pamela Pukke (his ex-wife), PXQQ ¶ 62:66, and various 

trusts John Vipulis (Contempt and Relief Defendant here) and Pukke’s brother, Eriks Pukke, 

managed for the benefit of Pukke and his children.2

 Pukke also transferred more than half a 

million to an offshore company he partly owned (Triton Mariculture (“Triton”)), PXQQ ¶¶ 

63:67, 64:68, an entity managed by Belizean shrimp farmer (and Defendant here) John Usher,

PXQQ ¶ 66:70. 

 The Court issued a preliminary injunction to halt the scam. FTC v. AmeriDebt, Inc., 373 

F. Supp. 2d 558, 567 (D. Md. 2005) (“Pukke’s refusal to answer questions about his possible 

dissipation of assets, coupled with the exhaustive evidence marshaled by the FTC in support of 

its Motion for Summary Judgment, establish that the FTC has a fair and tenable chance of 

ultimate success on the merits.”) (quotation omitted); see also DE122 (Apr. 20, 2005) at 2. The 

day before trial, Pukke accepted a Stipulated Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction (“Final 

Order”).3

The Final Order banned Pukke from credit counseling work. DE473 at 8. As relevant 

here, with respect to the telemarketing of any good or service, the Court enjoined Pukke (and 

                                                             2

 These transfers are discussed in detail in the FTC’s Memorandum in Support of Motion 

for Preliminary Injunction Including Asset Freeze (DE 103-1)(Mar. 29, 2006 at 6-8).

3 See DE411 (Jan. 6, 2006); DE408 (Dec. 30, 2005). The Court later entered the Final 

Order. DE 473 (May 17, 2006). 
5 

anyone in active concert or participation with him) from making misrepresentations of any kind 

or from otherwise violating the TSR. Id. at 8-9. The Court also entered a $172 million judgment 

against Pukke, id. at 9, which represented “the approximate amount of consumer injury Pukke 

caused” through the AmeriDebt scam. The Court suspended the judgment above $35 million—

but only if Pukke “cooperate[s] fully with the Commission,” with respect to efforts to recover 

assets and “carry out the purposes of this Order,” id. at 11.4 Those purposes included a redress 

program pursuant to which the Commission would use assets Pukke controlled to compensate 

AmeriDebt victims. See id. at 17-23. 

3. The AmeriDebt Receivership

The Court appointed a Receiver to marshal Pukke’s assets to enable the Commission to 

compensate his victims, DE122 (Apr. 20, 2005) at 9-11, and Final Order, DE473 at 18. 

Specifically, the Court defined the assets to include interests in real property. See id. at 4. The 

Court also ordered Pukke to “cooperate fully with the Receiver,” including its asset recovery 

efforts, see id. at 24, and to cooperate with the FTC to “carry out the purposes of this order.” 

Pukke did not cooperate with anyone. Instead, “in conjunction with various friends and 

relatives, he continued to conceal and control assets subject to this receivership.” DE479-1 (June 

29, 2006) at 14. As demonstrated below, the most important of these assets was a 19-squaremile parcel in remote southern Belize. 

II. Pukke’s Contemptuous Struggle To Maintain Control Over the Parcel During 

AmeriDebt

A. Pukke’s Acquisition and Initial Development of the Parcel 

In 2003, Pukke, Baker, Baker’s mother and stepfather, and other Pukke associates formed 

two Belizean entities: Dolphin Development LLC (“Dolphin”) and Sittee River Wildlife 

                                                             4

 As discussed below, Pukke came nowhere close to cooperating, see infra at 7-12, and he 

currently owes more than $270 million including interest, see PXOO ¶7. 
6 

Reserve (“SRWR,” a Defendant here). PXQQ ¶¶ 67-68, 70. Through Puck Key Investments L8, LLC (“Puck Key 8”), an entity Pukke wholly owned, he held a 60% interest in Dolphin 

(Baker, his mother, and his stepfather held 40%). PXQQ ¶ 67:71. While an SRWR director, 

Pukke loaned SRWR $1.5 million to buy 11,755 acres in southern Belize, and he loaned Dolphin 

$1.5 million to buy 350 adjacent acres (collectively, “the Parcel”). PXQQ ¶¶ 65:69, 69:73. 

In 2005, Dolphin started telemarketing Parcel lots as part of a large scale residential and 

commercial development (“Sanctuary Bay Estates”). Dolphin promised potential buyers the 

community would have a hotel, marina, health club, and an equestrian center. PXQQ ¶ 71:75. 

In May 2005, SRWR also bought a five-acre island PXQQ ¶ 86:91 (now known as “Sanctuary 

Caye,” PXO ¶ 3:24 at 11). Dolphin sold its first lot in August, 2005. PXQQ ¶ 72:76. By 2006, 

Pukke marketed “Sanctuary Bay Estates” by claiming it would have infrastructure (roads, water, 

electric), a marina, yacht club, golf course, hotel, spa, and airstrip—by 2008 (i.e., within about 

two years). PXY ¶67:22; see also PXQQ ¶ 71:75 (telemarketing script promising a “five star” 

hotel, a health club, and a “full service” marina). 

 Pukke directed efforts to develop “Sanctuary Bay Estates.” For example: he instructed 

Baker to pay a marketer who worked on the Sanctuary Bay logo and other marketing material, 

helped decided how to divide lots, aided the development of the Sanctuary Bay website,5

coordinated lead generation, helped design the development, and directed Baker to pay for trucks 

and roads. PXQQ ¶¶ 73, 74:79, 75:80, 76:81, 77:82. Pukke also continued to participate in 

Dolphin and SRWR board meetings. PXQQ ¶ 78:83. 

B. Pukke’s Resistance To Recovery of the Parcel for His Victims 

In late 2005, the preliminary asset freeze in AmeriDebt made it probable that the FTC 

would use Dolphin’s development rights to repay Pukke’s victims. Therefore, Pukke took steps 

                                                             5

 The Sanctuary Bay website bears notable similarities to the Sanctuary Belize website 

SBE used until last year, including the logo. PXQQ ¶ 73. 
7 

to keep control. First, he lied in a May 2005 AmeriDebt filing, denying he had any ownership 

stake in Dolphin (when, in reality, he owned 60%). PXQQ ¶ 79:84. In July 2005, Pukke 

admitted an ownership interest during a deposition, but lied that he held 30%, not 60%.6 PXQQ 

¶ 70:74. He further misrepresented that Dolphin had “no assets” and “has never done business.” 

PXQQ ¶ 80:85. In July 2006, Pukke misrepresented to the Court that Dolphin “collapsed” and 

“went out of business.” DE493 (July 28, 2006) at 3. 

Second, Pukke transferred Dolphin’s development rights and a portion of the Parcel to 

two new Nevis entities, Starfish Development Ltd. (“Starfish”),7 and Sanctuary Bay Ltd. 

(“Sanctuary Bay”). PXQQ ¶¶ 81:86, 82:87, 83:88, 84:89, 85:90. Specifically, Baker worked 

with Usher and Belizean law firm Barrow & Williams8 (“B&W”) to form Starfish to take over 

for Dolphin, with Baker owning 99% of each Nevis entity. PXQQ ¶ 81:86. In short, to help 

keep the Parcel from the FTC and the Receiver, Pukke transferred his interests to Baker.9

Third, and perhaps most importantly, by 2007, Pukke had removed himself as an SRWR 

board member and Baker refused to respond to the Receiver’s requests concerning SRWR. 

                                                             6

 Pukke filed a dubious bankruptcy shortly after the receivership began, see In re Andris 

Pukke, No. 8:05-bk-14811 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2005), and he originally submitted schedules as 

part of the bankruptcy process. After the bankruptcy was transferred to Maryland, this Court 

withdrew the reference and stayed the bankruptcy, the Court administratively closed it without a 

discharge. DE816 (June 13, 2012). 

7

 Baker formed and owned Starfish. PXQQ ¶¶ 81:86, 316:340. Baker also registered 

“Starfish Development Limited” as an Orange County, California Fictitious Business Name 

(“FBN”). PXQQ ¶ 89:94. 

8

 Belizean attorney Rodwell Williams apparently performed the work. PXQQ ¶¶ 81:86, 

83:88. His partner, Dean Barrow, became Prime Minister of Belize in early 2008 and remains 

Prime Minister. PXQQ ¶¶ 90:95, 91:96, 92:97. 

9

 Baker battled the Receiver’s efforts to locate evidence relevant to his role helping Pukke 

secure the Parcel. He unsuccessfully sought to block his deposition, see FTC v. AmeriDebt, No. 

8:2005-cv-1133 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2005), and unsuccessfully moved to quash a subpoena 

seeking emails he sent from PeterBelize@gmail.com, see FTC v. AmeriDebt, No. 3:05-mc80253 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2006). 
8 

PXQQ ¶ 87:92. Usher became SRWR’s chairman, PXQQ ¶ 88:93, which purported to insulate 

SRWR’s land holdings (which belonged to Pukke) from the FTC and the Receiver. 

C. AmeriDebt Contempt Litigation Concerning the Parcel and Other Assets 

After the Receiver and FTC sought relief,10 the Court found Pukke and Baker in 

contempt for their refusal to turn over receivership assets, including the Parcel. DE571 (Mar. 30, 

2007). Specifically, the Court found that Pukke “frustrated this Court’s Order” by “bury[ing] 

assets” and trying to “move them beyond the reach of the Court.” PXQQ ¶ 93:98, Tr. (Mar. 14, 

2007) at 8:4-29:20. The Court also found “lies” related to assets “that were made not once, but 

multiple times by Mr. Baker under oath, under penalties of perjury[.]”11 PXQQ ¶ 93:98, Tr. 

(Mar. 14, 2007) at 25:13-20 (calling Baker’s claims “incredible” and “outlandish”). Concerning 

their efforts to hide Pukke’s wealth, the Court noted that “[t]here’s a casualness about Mr. 

Baker’s statements and, indeed, about Mr. Pukke’s as if the truth doesn’t really matter.” Id. at 

25:22-24. Both acted with “real mendacity.” Id. at 26:5-6 (Pukke’s and Baker’s credibility “is 

zero.”). Ultimately, the attempts to transfer Pukke’s interest in the Parcel to other entities were a 

“sham transaction” that the Court considered “null and void.” PXQQ ¶ 93:98, Tr. (Mar. 14, 

2007) at 20:14-24. 

 Following these findings, the Court ordered Pukke and Baker to turn over various assets 

including the Parcel. DE571 (Mar. 30, 2007) (“Turnover Order”). Additionally, to facilitate the 

Receiver’s ability to control the Parcel for consumers’ ultimate benefit, the Court issued a second 

order (the “Revesting Order”), see DE572 (Mar. 30, 2007), unwinding the alleged sales of 

                                                             10 The FTC joined the Receiver’s motion, noting that Pukke “lied repeatedly to the 

Receiver, the FTC, and this Court.” DE321 (Nov. 6, 2006) at 3. 

11 The Court specifically noted that Baker claimed to own part of the Parcel, and to have 

worked at Dolphin for more than eight years. See PXQQ ¶ 93:98, Tr. (Mar. 14, 2007) at 25:13-

19. 
9 

Pukke’s interests in Dolphin (i.e., his interests in the Parcel) and ordering them re-vested in 

Dolphin (which the Receiver controlled). See id. 

D. Pukke’s Continued Defiance in the AmeriDebt Contempt Litigation 

Pukke and Baker defied the Turnover Order. On April 30, 2007, the FTC and Receiver 

moved the Court to incarcerate Pukke and Baker to coerce their compliance. See DE596; 

DE597. The Receiver explained that Baker refused to direct various third parties (including his 

Belizean counsel B&W) to turn over documents related to the Parcel and Pukke’s interest. See 

DE596 (Apr. 30, 2007) at 4. At approximately the same time, the Pukke/Baker-connected 

members of SRWR’s board met and terminated any rights Dolphin, Sanctuary Bay, Starfish, or 

Baker had in the Parcel. PXQQ ¶ 88:93. Usher also executed a letter directing lot owners to 

send payments to SRWR. PXQQ ¶ 88:93. 

The Receiver explained that SRWR was being controlled “through the machination of 

Peter Baker manipulated by Andris Pukke.” PXQQ ¶ 94:99, Tr. (May 2, 2007) at 20:2-5. The 

Court agreed, reiterated that Pukke and Baker had lied “dozens” of times, id. at 101:19, including 

“when [they] took the stand under oath,” id. at 101:14-15, and granted the motions to incarcerate 

Pukke and Baker, DE604 (May 4, 2007). Two days later, the Court denied Pukke and Baker’s 

motions to stay pending appeal, DE607 (May 4, 2007), emphasizing that their stories about 

Pukke’s assets were “absurd” and “ludicrous.” PXQQ ¶ 95:100, Tr. (May 4, 2007) at 26:3-8; 

26:12-13. See Id. at 27:7-8; 27:9-10 (“The mendacity of these two men throughout the history 

of this receivership is something to behold.”). 

E. Pukke, Baker and Usher Conspire To Maintain Pukke’s Control Over the 

Parcel 

The FTC and Receiver later consented to Baker’s conditional release pursuant to an order 

requiring that he cooperate in turning over Pukke’s assets, including the Parcel. DE614 (May 15, 

2007). Subsequently, the FTC and Receiver consented to Pukke’s release pursuant to similar 

conditions and two payments totaling $4.5 million made on Pukke’s behalf by John Vipulis. 
10 

DE622 (May 30, 2007) at 3-4. 12 To secure Pukke’s release, Vipulis paid $1.25 million for 

Latvian property and $3.25 million as a loan to Pukke, DE622 at 3-4. Notably, the Order 

required Vipulis “to subordinate repayment of [his] loan” until Pukke fully satisfied the FTC’s 

judgment, and prohibited Pukke from “repay[ing] all or any portion of the Vipulis Loan” before 

satisfying the FTC judgment as “agreed to by the FTC” or found by the Court. Id. at 4. 

The Receiver and the FTC believed they had separated Pukke and Baker from the Parcel, 

but a year later, the Receiver faced a new problem: SRWR claimed the development for itself, 

and the Receiver could not easily enforce its rights in Belize: “it became clear to the Receiver 

that the Receiver would face significant resistance to the Receiver controlling the Sanctuary Bay 

Estates project from SRWR even after Baker’s involvement in the project ceased.” DE682 

(Mar. 27, 2008) at 4 (emphasis added). Contrary to the Turnover and Revesting Orders, DE571-

72, SRWR claimed that most of the Parcel always belonged to SRWR, not Pukke, see DE682 at 

3-4. With Usher as SRWR’s Chairman, SRWR engaged B&W (Dolphin’s prior firm) to contest 

the Receiver’s claims. Id. at 4 n.1 (one of the firm’s “masthead partners was recently elected 

Prime Minister of Belize”). Even without Baker (or Pukke), the Receiver thus faced a costly and 

challenging battle to control the Parcel. Consequently, the Receiver agreed to sell the Parcel to 

SRWR for $2 million. DE682. Atlantic International Bank (“AIB,” Defendant here) held the $2 

million in escrow pending the Court’s approval. See DE682-4 at 2. No party objected to the 

proposed sale, and the Court approved it without comment. DE684 (Apr. 14, 2008); DE686 

(Apr. 16, 2008). 

                                                             12 Relief Defendant Vipulis is the godson of Janis Pukke (Andris Pukke’s father), PXQQ 

¶ 96:101, Tr. (Mar. 14, 2007) at 6:2, and Andris Pukke’s “most intimate friend,” since childhood, 

id. at 5:26-6:1. PXQQ ¶ 96:101. The Court noted how Pukke and Vipulis obscured Pukke’s 

interest in a sports gambling venture (Sportingbet) because Pukke’s transactions with Vipulis 

were “done with a wink and a nod, a wink and a handshake and nothing is written down, 

everything is done informally.” Id. at 9 (expressing “no doubt” that a “quid pro quo” with 

Vipulis “existed in favor of Andris Pukke”). 
11 

Unbeknownst to the Receiver, the FTC, or the Court, the Parcel immediately reverted to 

Pukke and Baker’s control—if it ever left. As SBE explained in a 2016 document it distributed 

to owners to show that Pukke’s role purportedly ended years earlier, Pukke’s shares (held by the 

Receiver) “were conveyed to Peter Baker” after the sale because Baker raised the $2 million 

SRWR used to buy Pukke’s rights: 

The development limped along while Rodwell [Williams of Barrow & Williams] 

tried to negotiate a settlement with the Receivers; however, he was unable to do 

so. Luckily, Peter Baker surfaced another investor who agreed to invest $2 

million into the project. With those funds, Rodwell was able to successfully 

negotiate a settlement with the Receivers on April 23, 2008. With the settlement 

payment made, Andris’ [Pukke’s] equity shares were conveyed to Peter Baker

and the original core development investors (this should be noted to show he 

[Pukke] has no involvement)[.]13 

PXO ¶ 3:24 at 12 (emphasis added). In a recorded conversation with an FTC professional posing 

as an attorney representing prospective purchasers, Defendant Frank Costanzo similarly 

explained that Baker bought the Parcel.14 Specifically: 

At some point obviously, Mr. Pukke got into problems I think with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission, et cetera, on other issues and the receiver seized this 

property. 

So Mr. Baker then, seeing that, you know, his family’s dream [of the 

development] is about to collapse, went out, found some other real estate 

investors that raised the capital . . . and made the deal with the receiver to 

basically buy the—buy the development out of receivership. So at that point then 

it was Peter Baker was the executive and there were, I think, a handful of original 

investors that really were like—loaned the money to Peter. 

PXQQ ¶ 48:41 at 15:23-16:10 (emphasis added). Thus, even if the Parcel formally moved from 

Pukke’s control to Baker, Pukke and Baker never relinquished their collective control. 

                                                             13 The document does not identify “the original core development investors,” but they are 

Baker’s stepfather and mother, Colin and Joan Medhurst, who owned the minority interest in 

Dolphin. See supra at 5-6. The Medhursts left the development, and SBE paid them 

approximately $600,000 in 2012 and 2103, PXNN ¶ 8(a), presumably for their equity. 

14 Costanzo sometimes uses his wife’s surname, Connolly. PXQQ ¶ 97. 
12 

After Baker obtained Pukke’s legal interest, SBE created a new entity, Defendant EcoFutures Belize Ltd. (“Eco-Futures (BZ”) that took over the precise role that Dolphin (and 

Sanctuary Bay) had: “[T]o accommodate the new investors/shareholders, Eco-Futures was 

formed and contracted with SRWR to become the new development company with the same 

terms that were in the previous [Dolphin and Sanctuary Bay] development agreements.” 

PXO ¶ 3:24 at 12 (emphasis added). Within weeks of the sale, marketing work resumed,15 and 

within months (if not sooner), the planning of property tours involving Baker and Usher 

resumed. PXQQ ¶ 98. Thus, Baker regained legal control over the Parcel immediately, the sales 

process continued almost exactly as it had before, and Pukke resumed de facto ownership of the 

project (to the extent he ever lost it).16 

FACTS OF THE SBE DECEPTION 

I. The Resort Community Sales and Payment Process 

SBE targets small business owners and couples nearing retirement. As discussed above, 

SBE began marketing Parcel lots in 2005. SBE has made over 1,000 sales to date, PXPP ¶ 76, 

including lots sold more than once, PXQQ ¶ 181:185, 181:350-352. However, more than 90% of 

sales have not led to home construction yet, PXQQ ¶¶ 175-176, and only a small percentage of 

lot owners have completed homes, id.

Over at least the past decade, the scam’s core elements have remained consistent. The 

SBE scheme relies on six core false claims related to the value of lots in Sanctuary Belize: 

(1) the developer uses a “no debt” business model, which makes Sanctuary Belize a less risky 

investment than one in which the developer has to make payments to creditors; (2) in part 

                                                             15 Within weeks of the April 2008 sale, SBE created a new development timeline for 

consumers that was physically and substantively indistinguishable from pre-sale versions. 

PXQQ ¶ 99 (comparing SBE’s timeline “as of May 2008” with earlier pre-sale versions). 

16 SBE later changed the development’s name from Sanctuary Bay to Sanctuary Belize to 

The Reserve (for clarity, this filing continues to refer to the project as “Sanctuary Belize”). See 

PXQQ ¶ 101 (discussing the name changes). 
13 

because of the “no debt” model, every dollar the developer collects from lot sales goes back into 

the development; (3) this funding stream means the developer will finish the development 

quickly—within two to five years; (4) the finished development will boast remarkable amenities 

ranging from a hotel to an American-caliber hospital; (5) the impressive amenities mean the lots 

will appreciate from 200% to 300% within two to three years; and (6) consumers will realize the 

rapid appreciation without difficulty because there is already a robust resale market, making it 

easy to resell the lots. 

A. The Sales Process 

Using commercials on Fox News and Bloomberg, infomercials, and other national 

advertising,17 SBE encourages consumers to visit one of its several websites.18 PXQQ ¶ 102; 

PXFF ¶¶ 18-19; PXBB ¶ 13. Consumers also locate SBE-connected websites through their own 

internet searches. PXQQ ¶ 323. The websites urge consumers to submit their contact 

information to learn more. PXQQ ¶ 103. Consumers who respond receive a call from 

California-based telemarketers. PXQQ ¶ 324. The telemarketers identify themselves as 

“property consultants” or “investment consultants.” PXQQ ¶ 104:113-114. In these initial calls, 

the telemarketers establish rapport with consumers, learn about their interests, and screen out 

anyone unable to make a substantial down payment. PXBB ¶ 16 (“Salespeople would tell 

customers whatever they wanted to hear to get them to visit Sanctuary Belize.”); PXZ ¶ 7 

(“People at the [SBE] office frequently talked about how Sanctuary Belize was a scam.”). 

                                                             17 There is some indication that SBE targets consumers interested in conservative media. 

See, e.g., PXU ¶ 2 (referring to marketing on The Glenn Beck Program). 

18 SBE also disseminates various YouTube or other internet-based promotional videos. 

Many of the videos SBE has circulated in 2018 feature Costanzo and Pukke’s fellow prisoner at 

Atwater Correctional Facility, Michael Santos. PXQQ ¶ 105. SBE hired Santos in 2014; as 

Santos himself states, “Andi offered to cover my housing expense for the first year and pay a 

$100,000 salary.” PXPP ¶ 91:26, PXQQ ¶ 105. Santos works at 3333 Michelson for both Buy 

Belize and GPA. PXQQ ¶ 106:118. Since his release, and in addition to his work selling SBE 

lots, Santos has promoted himself as a criminal justice reform advocate. PXQQ ¶ 107:119-121. 

He frequently speaks at universities. Id. These associations help lend legitimacy to SBE. 
14 

After an initial call or series of calls in which SBE conveys the six Core Claims, SBE’s 

telemarketers encourage consumers to participate in at least one longer webinar. PXQQ ¶ 108; 

PXW ¶¶ 8, 17; PXI ¶ 8; PXBB ¶ 14. During the webinar, a higher-level sales agent speaks over 

the telephone while showing development photos and graphics on the consumer’s computer.19 

The telemarketer repeats the six claims, makes additional claims, and answers questions. PXQQ 

¶ 108. The webinar’s hosts vary. PXQQ ¶ 109. Some feature Defendant Chadwick making the 

Core Claims identified above. PXI ¶ 9:3. Additionally, the webinars emphasize that SBE’s 

integrity sets SBE apart from other developers; as Chadwick claims in one webinar: “We are not 

a fine print organization. We don’t say a bunch of things and then, after we disappoint you, 

say, ‘Hey, read the fine print.’ We don’t do that. You know, we say this is going to be what 

you expect it to be and if it’s not, hey we’ll give you your money back.” PXI ¶ 9:3 (webinar 

recording) at 1:34:25-1:34:41 (emphasis added).20 

In addition to establishing SBE’s credibility and reiterating the Core Claims, the webinars 

persuade consumers to tour the development in Belize. SBE offers an all-inclusive package 

(usually $999 per couple) that covers lodging at a resort near Sanctuary Belize, transportation 

within Belize, and meals. The webinars also persuade consumers to sign a “non-binding lot 

reservation agreement.” PXQQ ¶ 111; PXBB ¶ 14. Pursuant to these agreements, consumers 

agree to pay $2,000 to $10,000 to obtain a right of first refusal on a particular lot. PXQQ ¶ 111; 

PXD ¶ 8:3 (attaching lot reservation agreement); PXBB ¶ 18:17 (same); PXI ¶ 21; PXU ¶ 8. 

Once they view the development, SBE applies the payment to their purchase of the reserved lot, 

or another lot; or returns it if the consumer decides not to buy. PXQQ ¶ 112; PXBB ¶ 18:17. 

                                                             19 PXQQ ¶ 108; PXI ¶ 9:3 (attaching webinar). 

20 Notably, the contracts victims ultimately sign do not, in fact, contain “fine print” 

disclaiming the myriad promises SBE makes to induce consumers to purchase. Among other 

noteworthy features, the contracts lack merger or integration clauses, or other language 

purporting to disavow representations made to consumers. See, e.g., PXBB ¶ 18:20 (attaching 

typical contract); PXQQ ¶ 110:122 (attaching twenty sample contracts). 
15 

After the webinar, consumers receive communications providing tour logistics and additional 

marketing material including, in some cases, emailed videos that reiterate SBE’s core claims. 

PXQQ ¶ 113; PXW ¶¶ 14-17; PXI ¶ 16:11-13. At this point, every consumer has paid 

approximately $1,000 (nonrefundable), and most have sent SBE a lot deposit worth thousands 

more. 

After collecting the fee for the property tour and a lot deposit,21 SBE coordinates travel 

logistics with prospective purchasers and continues to send marketing material to generate 

excitement about the tour. PXQQ ¶ 114. Tours proceed as follows: consumers arrive in Belize 

City. PXQQ ¶ 115. From there, they fly to an airstrip in remote southern Belize, where SBE 

employees greet them. PXQQ ¶ 115. Consumers generally stay in resorts about twenty miles 

from Sanctuary Belize, and tour groups typically include five to ten couples. PXQQ ¶ 116. On 

Friday and Saturday, they tour Sanctuary Belize, visit lots, and attend sales presentations in 

which SBE reiterates the six Core Claims. PXQQ ¶ 117. Consumers often meet Defendant 

Usher, PXQQ ¶ 118, and Defendants Chadwick and Costanzo have presented to consumers 

directly during tours, PXQQ ¶ 119. Sales presentations have also involved Coldwell Banker 

Southern Belize (“Coldwell Banker SB”) and Defendant AIB. PXQQ ¶¶ 120-121. In addition 

to the Core Claims, SBE stresses the value of purchasing two lots, and that consumers can use 

the rapid appreciation of the first to construct their dream home on the second. PXQQ ¶ 122. 

As SBE Defendant Kazazi admitted, the tours include SBE “plants” who express 

enthusiasm for the development. PXGG ¶ 18. Tour participants report that SBE salespeople 

attempt to quiet them if they say anything negative, PXD ¶ 35, and consumers who appear 

                                                             21 Consumers purchase their own flights from the United States to Belize. PXQQ ¶ 123. 
16 

unlikely to purchase are separated and watched, PXW ¶ 38.22 SBE serves substantial amounts of 

alcohol throughout the tour. PXQQ ¶ 124. 

Over the weekend, SBE salespeople show consumers the development. PXQQ ¶ 125. 

Notably, consumers are not always able to view the specific lot on which they have placed a 

deposit, sometimes because rain has left unpaved roads impassable, or because the lots are 

overgrown with jungle and not clearly marked. PXQQ ¶ 126. SBE also takes consumers on a 

forty minute boat ride to a small private island that is part of Sanctuary Belize. PXQQ ¶ 127. 

The SBE boat is the only way to leave the island. PXQQ ¶ 127. Various SBE representatives 

attend, sometimes with representatives of Defendant AIB. PXQQ ¶ 128. SBE invites couples 

one-by-one to wade offshore and climb a ladder into a small palapa suspended over the water. 

PXQQ ¶ 129. Images of the palapa and the island appear frequently in SBE marketing materials, 

PXQQ ¶ 130, and in advertising by Relief Defendant Beach Bunny featuring celebrity Kate 

Upton, PXQQ ¶ 131. 

Once inside the palapa, consumers and SBE representatives negotiate over the lots. 

PXQQ ¶ 132. The negotiations vary, but SBE uses incentives to encourage buyers to pay as 

much as possible in cash—as Defendant Chadwick told one couple, “I love cash.” PXE ¶ 28; 

PXF ¶ 28; PXQQ ¶ 133. SBE typically offers very favorable interest rates to prospective 

purchasers, PXQQ ¶ 134, and traditional outside lenders are not involved. SBE persuades some 

reluctant consumers to purchase a lot, PXG ¶¶ 22-25, and persuades some consumers planning to 

purchase one lot to purchase two, PXD ¶ 28. Most consumers who attend a tour purchase at least 

one lot. PXQQ ¶ 135. After the one-on-one meetings, SBE returns the consumers to the hotel 

where there is a celebration for the “new owners.” PXQQ ¶ 137. 

                                                             22 Some consumers suspect someone searched their hotel rooms during their visit, PXW 

¶¶ 43-45, or that SBE listened to private conversations about the development to address 

concerns that the consumers had during the next day’s sales presentations, PXK ¶ 12. 
17 

SBE makes six Core Claims throughout the sales process. As shown below, each is false. 

B. SBE’s False and Material Six Core Claims 

1. Contrary to SBE’s Claim, No Debt Means High Risk. 

SBE claims to use a “no debt” business model, which makes Sanctuary Belize a less risky 

investment than one in which the developer has to make payments to creditors. See PXPP ¶¶ 10-

18 (identifying over thirty instances in which SBE made this claim to consumers through 

consumer declarations, telemarketer declarations, SBE scripts, webinars, emails, and other 

marketing communications). SBE conveys the “no debt” claim throughout its marketing in 

numerous ways; for instance, in one webinar slide with the heading “Mitigating Risk,” SBE 

characterizes Sanctuary Belize as a “low-risk” project because it has “zero debt.” PXPP ¶ 14:43 

at 11. SBE telemarketers also made the “no debt” claim repeatedly. PXPP ¶¶ 12-14, 16. In one 

instance, SBE telemarketer Zarnie Anderson23 claimed that “horror stories” consumers hear 

about unfinished developments don’t apply to Sanctuary Belize “because with our whole entire 

property, it’s debt free. There’s no possible way for it to go bankrupt.” PXQQ ¶ 24:13 at 25:23-

26:1 (emphasis added); see also PXQQ ¶ 16:2 at 22:5-25 (“Our project has been debt-free since 

day one. . . . [Debt] creates a lot of risk for the buyer. You. If [the] developer is unable to pay 

[its] loans back on a monthly basis . . . the developer will go bankrupt . . . and stop 

development[.]”). 

Declarations from SBE telemarketers confirm that SBE makes the “no debt” claim. 

PXBB ¶ 16 (“Because Sanctuary Belize didn’t owe anyone any money, it was a low-risk 

investment.”); PXZ ¶ 15 (“[W]e claimed that Sanctuary Belize was a ‘debt-free’ development 

because the developer had no creditors. We explained that the ‘debt-free’ development model 

meant much lower risk because owners did not have to worry about Sanctuary Belize defaulting 

                                                             23 Anderson used “Zarnie Morgan” during the calls the FTC recorded. PXC ¶ 77:161. 
18 

on loans.”).24 In fact, one telemarketer took notes during an SBE coaching session, and in those 

notes, she wrote: “<WE HAVE ZERO DEBT>.” PXDD ¶ 5:3 at 84 (emphasis in 

telemarketer’s notes). 

 Significantly, SBE uses the “no debt” claim to convey that there is limited risk to 

consumers that SBE will not finish the development (and their situs in a finished development, in 

turn, is what makes these lots valuable). Defendant Kazazi explained “that Sanctuary Belize 

marketed the claimed advantages of the no-debt business model to potential lot buyers.”25 

PXGG ¶ 18. As one telemarketer put it, “[w]e said that even if sales slowed, Sanctuary Belize 

would not need debt or outside funding.” PXZ ¶ 15. Indeed, in one exchange between an FTC 

professional posing as a buyer (Howe) and an SBE telemarketer (Morgan), SBE explained that 

the “no debt” model: 

MORGAN: Usually the developers are paying off the bank. And . . . 

buying into a development where money is owed to the 

bank because there’s where the, you know, problems like 

where they go bankrupt. They’re not making enough sales 

and they can’t proceed with paying off that or even getting 

the amenities finished. . . . All the money that comes in on 

those sales are going straight into the completion of 

everything they need at the marina and everything else that 

they’ve been doing. 

HOWE: So— 

MORGAN: So there’s absolutely no way for you to lose your money.

                                                             24 Sometimes SBE claims the developer owns the land debt free, but more commonly, the 

claim is that the development itself is debt-free. When an FTC professional posing as a 

prospective buyer asked SBE to clarify this, she made clear that “debt free” means “completely 

debt free.” PXQQ ¶ 45:38 at 29:11-29:14 (“Q: “I know [the developer] bought the land debtfree, but does he still owe to other people or he’s completely debt-free? A: No, he’s completely 

debt-free.”). 

25 Kazazi made this statement to Eric Simonton, an executive at Island Global Yachting 

(“IGY”). Simonton responded to Kazazi by “point[ing] out,” on “several occasions,” that 

“having access to capital markets would allow Sanctuary Belize to complete the . . . development 

quicker.” PXGG ¶ 18; see infra at 42-43 (explaining SBE’s interaction with IGY). 
19 

HOWE: So like no matter what, there’s no debt or anything that 

would stop like the marina from going forward or like— 

MORGAN: Correct. 

HOWE: —the grocery stores and the things like that [amenities] that 

we’ve talked about before. Like those will go forward no 

matter what. 

MORGAN: Correct. 

PXQQ ¶ 45:38 at 28:9-29:8 (emphasis added). Consumer declarations further establish SBE’s 

claim that its “no debt” business model made their investments safer.26 See PXPP ¶ 10. 

In fact, the opposite is true—the absence of conventional financing creates substantially 

greater risk. Richard Peiser, a Professor at Harvard University and leading authority on largescale real estate development, explains why a “no debt” real estate development model poses 

greater risk to consumers. PXA ¶¶ 12, 41. Peiser points to two factors. First, it is normally 

“hard or impossible” to have sufficient front-end and sustained cash flow to fund infrastructure, 

construction, and operation of large-scale amenities (such as those contemplated in the Sanctuary 

Belize development) until the amenities have attained a positive cash flow, without outside 

financing. PXA ¶ 20; see also PXA at 1 (“The ‘no debt’ model risks that funds will not be 

available for project development to unfold along a time path that will sustain project marketing 

and ultimately project survival.”). Peiser specifies multiple problems that make using lot sale 

revenue rather than outside financing an untenable model to complete a large-scale development 

successfully.27 PXA at 1. Attempting a large-scale real estate development without a reasonable 

level of debt is “high-risk.” PXA at 1. 

                                                             26 As an aside, SBE does have debt. It borrowed $1.5 million from Newport Beach yacht 

dealer Gordon Barienbrock, PXNN ¶ 8(u); PXPP ¶¶ 68-69, and $2.5 million from Orange 

County real estate investors Cleo and Violet Mathis (through their entity, CVM Corporation), 

PXPP ¶¶ 70-71; see also PXNN ¶ 8(b). 

27 As Professor Peiser explains, “the failure to use an appropriate amount of debt exposes 

consumers to risks from: (a) unpredictable lot sales; (b) unpredictable cashflow; (c) loss or delay 

because early-stage elements typically require large up-front expenditures; (d) unpredictable 
20 

Second, the “no debt” model poses a greater risk for consumers because the lenders in 

traditionally financed real estate developments provide underwriting, due diligence, and 

monitoring functions that reduce consumers’ risk. PXA ¶ 28. Peiser explains that lenders reduce 

risk through their pre-loan underwriting process by ensuring the borrower has significant net 

worth, is reliable, and has real estate development experience. PXA ¶ 31. Significantly, a 

lender’s due diligence “includes extensive assessment of the feasibility of the project.” PXA ¶ 

31. Furthermore, Peiser explains that a lender’s due diligence continues after the initial approval 

because money is ordinarily released as needed after monthly on-site inspections—providing a 

risk-reducing monitoring function to consumers who cannot easily review the project’s overall 

finances and progress. PXA ¶¶ 31-40. Legitimate developers rarely, if ever, employ a “no debt” 

real estate development model because it has such a high risk of failure.28 PXA ¶ 42. 

Unsurprisingly given its emphasis in SBE’s marketing, consumers often identify the “no 

debt” model as a reason they bought a Sanctuary Belize lot. See PXPP ¶ 11. One consumer 

stated, “[t]he fact that the no debt model made Sanctuary Belize less risky was important to our 

ultimate decision to purchase a lot there.” PXI ¶ 5. Another consumer indicated, “[t]he ‘no debt’ 

model was impressive and important to me.” PXS ¶ 5. A third consumer specified, “[k]nowing 

that the development was not risky and was on a firm financial footing was very important to 

us.” PXU ¶ 6. 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

pace of home construction; and (e) a ‘downward spiral’ in which slow or stalled development 

further depresses cashflow.” PXA at 1. 

28 Professor Peiser notes that, given the benefits of financing, “it is extremely unusual for 

a developer to decline an appropriate amount of financing it could otherwise obtain. The 

absence of financing suggests it was unavailable rather than undesired.” PXA ¶ 29. 
21 

2. Contrary to SBE’s Claim, SBE Spends Consumers’ Money to Repay 

Pukke’s Loan from Vipulis, to Pay Members of Pukke’s Family, and 

To Buy Personal Items for Baker and His Wife. 

SBE also makes the closely-related claim that because of the “no debt” model, every 

dollar the developer collects from lot sales goes back into the development. See PXPP ¶¶ 20-24 

(compiling evidence from seventeen sources showing that SBE made this claim including 

consumer declarations, telemarketer declarations, SBE scripts, webinars, emails, and other SBE 

marketing communications). The sales pitch an SBE telemarketer (Morgan) gave to an FTC 

professional posing as a buyer (Kaufman) was clear: 

KAUFMAN: So every dollar that you—that you get from sales then you 

put back into the project? 

MORGAN: Exactly. That’s exactly right. So—and that’s the perfect 

thing about it being debt-free. It’s very rare you’ll come 

across a debt-free development. Very, very rare. 

PXQQ ¶ 24:13 at 27:22-28:3. As one telemarketer explained, “[w]e told consumers that because 

Sanctuary Belize had no debt, all of the money raised from lot sales would go back into the 

development. This also made it a less-risky investment.” PXBB ¶ 16; see also PXZ ¶ 15 (“We 

claimed that all the money lot owners paid would go directly into the Sanctuary Belize 

development.”). Consumer declarations confirm that SBE regularly makes the “every dollar” 

claim. See PXPP ¶ 20. 

However, the claim is false. First, despite the Court’s order prohibiting Pukke from 

repaying Vipulis (Pukke’s father’s godson) for the loan he made to end Pukke’s coercive 

incarceration, SBE has transferred more than $4 million to Vipulis. PXNN ¶8(r). 

Second, SBE has transferred more than $1 million to Chittenden, Beach Bunny, and the 

Estate of John Pukke.29 PXNN ¶ 8(c)-(f). The Estate itself then transfers’ consumers’ money to 

                                                             29 There are various transfers back to SBE totaling approximately $630,000. PXNN ¶ 

8(c)-(d). Notably, SBE has also transferred nearly $5 million to ABM Equity and ABM 

Development and Design LLC, PXNN ¶ 8(bb), which are also companies Mock controls, PXPP 

¶ 73, ostensibly for marketing or construction services Mock provided. These entities returned 

approximately $1.4 million. PXNN ¶ 8(bb). 
22

Aimee Pukke Vacarelli, the ex-wife of Pukke’s brother (Eriks Pukke), and Lesley Cook, a later 

girlfriend of Eriks Pukke (some of which is apparently for Pukke’s niece (E. Pukke)).30 PXNN ¶ 

8(v)-(w); PXPP ¶ 99. Separately, SBE has funneled money to Pukke’s family through transfers 

to his ex-wife (Pamela Pukke), a company Pamela Pukke’s husband Anthony Mock controls 

(Wholesale Fashion Distributors LLC), and small payments directly to Pukke’s children. PXNN 

¶ 8(m), 8(z); PXPP ¶ 72. 

Third, SBE funded renovations to Pukke’s personal residence, including payments to a 

local contractor with a memo line referencing Pukke’s address. PXNN ¶ 8(dd); PXPP ¶ 74. In 

fact, Defendant Kazazi admitted to an SBE in-house accountant that tens of thousands “went to 

remodel Pukke’s house.” PXEE ¶ 8. (Pukke’s residence is now on the market for $18.5 million, 

see infra at 74 n.117 (discussing its ownership by Relief Defendant Chittenden and an asset 

protection trust).

 Fourth, SBE funds various expenses that have nothing to do with completing the 

Sanctuary Belize development: $6,000 for Stanley Cup tickets, $1,400 for Eagles (rock concert) 

tickets, and $1,200 for “Triple Ho Show” (music festival) tickets. PXNN ¶ 9. Baker (or his 

wife, Paula Kudrjavceva) used SBE funds to order expensive beauty products including 

NuFACE Trinity Facial Trainer Kit with Wrinkle Reducer ($429); Drunk Elephant face serum 

($170); and Revitalash Advanced Eyelash Conditioner ($170).31 PXNN ¶ 10. Baker used an 

SBE account to have an strap” sent to his house, id., PXPP ¶ 100 and to pay an 

Orange County professional who specializes in —clearly not development 

 30 Money SBE sends through the Estate is also used for car payments, expenses 

associated with a trip to Hawaii, and various other living expenses (movie tickets, restaurants, 

and so forth). PXNN ¶ 8(e).

31 There are hundreds of thousands in highly dubious expenses; we mention these 

because they are plainly not development-related. 

- -
23 

expenses, PXNN ¶ 8(h); PXPP ¶ 101:36. SBE also paid thousands for cosmetic dentistry. 

PXNN ¶ 8(i); PXPP ¶ 102. 

Moreover, Pukke, Baker, Greenfield, and Kazazi all have Sanctuary Belize debit cards 

they use for groceries, gas, restaurants, personal travel, and cash withdrawals. PXEE ¶ 8. SBE 

also paid Pukke’s friend Todd Cook’s rent. PXEE ¶ 8. Overall, a prior SBE accountant 

explains, “although millions of dollars flowed through Sanctuary Belize accounts—Kazazi used 

the accounting software like a check printer—relatively little went to construction expenses in 

Belize.” PXEE ¶ 8 (emphasis added). 

 Finally, SBE’s claim that it would spend lot sale revenue to further the development was 

important to consumers. See, e.g., PXD ¶ 6 (explaining that SBE telemarketer “claimed that, 

without debt, every dollar Sanctuary Belize raised through lot sales would go back into the 

development. These promises were important to our decision to purchase.”); PXG ¶ 15 (“The 

fact that this was a safe investment and that all of the money from sales would go to construction 

(rather than to pay off debt) was important to my decision to purchase.”); PXI ¶ 6 (“The fact that 

Sanctuary Belize would put all the money it raised by selling lots directly back into the 

development was important to our ultimate decision to purchase a lot there.”). 

3. Contrary to SBE’s Claim, the Development Was Not Finished Within 

Two to Five Years, and Will Not Be. 

SBE claims the funding stream from lots means the developer will finish the 

development quickly—within two to five years. See PXPP ¶¶ 26-29 (identifying fifteen 

instances in which SBE made this claim through consumer declarations, telemarketer 

declarations, SBE scripts, webinars, emails, and other SBE marketing communications). In 

undercover recorded calls with FTC professionals, SBE claimed that “in the next year or two, it’s 

going to be all done and this will be the next like Cabo San Lucas.” PXQQ ¶ 29:18 at 43:9-11. 

As one telemarketer explains, “[w]e told Sanctuary Belize customers that the entire property 

would be complete including the world-class marina and yacht club within two to five years.” 
24 

PXBB ¶ 16. Another SBE telemarketer routinely claimed that it would take two years to finish 

the “Marina Village” (the community’s commercial center) and five years to finish the entire 

development. PXZ ¶ 9. Consumer declarations further underscore that SBE claims it will finish 

the development within five years (and the community’s commercial center in two years). See 

PXPP ¶ 26. The timeline claim is important to consumers and influences their decision to 

purchase. See PXPP ¶ 27. But the claim is false. 

a. SBE Did Not Finish the Development Within Two or Five 

Years. 

As discussed above, SBE typically distinguishes between completing the development’s 

commercial center (within two years) and the entire project (within five years). However, the 

first sale took place more than thirteen years ago, see supra at 6. By mid-2013 (more than five 

years ago), SBE had made hundreds of sales, and by mid-2016 (more than two years ago), SBE 

had made hundreds more. PXPP ¶ 75. However, the development is nowhere near finished, 

with few homes, PXMM ¶¶ 8-11, and most promised amenities unstarted or incomplete, see 

infra at 24-36. 

b. SBE Is Approximately $500 Million Short of the Amount 

Necessary To Finish the Development as Promised. 

SBE did not finish Sanctuary Belize over the past thirteen years, and it will not finish it 

over the next five. Much of what SBE promises prospective purchasers is wildly unrealistic 

from the perspective of a sophisticated developer; for instance, building and operating an 

American-caliber hospital with American doctors and nurses in remote southern Belize (with a 

tiny population and almost no one who can afford American-quality care)32 would be financially 

reckless. See PXA ¶¶ 68-69, 71, 282-325 (near impossibility that such a facility could exist).33 

                                                             32 To provide some perspective, Greenbelt, Maryland has about 24,000 residents, and 

nearby Bowie has about 58,000. PXQQ ¶ 136:130. If every residence pictured or mentioned in 

Sanctuary Belize marketing materials is finished and occupied by five people, the population of 

Sanctuary Belize would be less than 300 people. PXPP ¶ 78. Sanctuary Belize sits in the Stann 

Creek District in Belize, which has only about 34,000 people. PXPP ¶ 77:23. The entire 
25 

Although SBE claims it “absolutely” has the resources to finish the development, PXQQ 

¶ 24:13 at 26:18-27:3, it plainly does not. Professor Peiser explains that to complete the massive 

planned community as promised (including the promised hospital, hotel, and commercial core) 

would cost $613 million. PXA ¶ 327. The FTC obtained both SBE bank records and certain 

internal SBE accounting information (including Quickbooks files), and provided them to Erik 

Lioy, the head of forensic accounting at Grant Thornton LLP. PXB at 1. Using this data, Grant 

Thornton calculates the amount SBE could afford to pay to complete the development over the 

next five years. Id. Out of abundance of caution, Grant Thornton made several large 

assumptions in SBE’s favor including two unrealistic ones: (1) it assumed that SBE can 

replicate the average lot sale revenue of its two best sales years (2013 and 2014) over the coming 

five years; and (2) it assumed that $24.9 million SBE has transferred to accounts in Belize over 

the past seven years is undissipated and remains available to spend to finish the development. 

PXB at 1, 5. Even with these generous assumptions, the most SBE can afford to spend over the 

next five years to finish the development is approximately $116 million—nearly $500 million 

short of the $613 million necessary to finish the development SBE promised.34 PXB ¶ at 13; 

PXA ¶ 327. 

 Unsurprisingly, the development’s timeline is important to consumers, many of whom 

have already retired, or are nearing retirement. See, e.g., PXY ¶ 16 (stating that the claim that 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

population of Belize is about 360,000 people, PXQQ ¶ 90:95, most of whom reside hours away 

(Prince George’s County has more than 900,000 residents). PXQQ ¶ 92:97. Belize is also a 

relatively poor country, with an average annual income per capita around $8,000. PXQQ ¶ 

90:95. 

33 Because much of what SBE proposes is essentially a fantasy, Peiser estimated a “below 

promised” version of Sanctuary Belize in that location that would still make SBE’s various 

material marketing claims false, but that might be practically achievable by a legitimate 

developer. The cost to complete such a “below promised” development is still $248 million. 

PXA ¶ 327:1. 

34 It is also less than half the $248 million necessary to finish a scaled-down, “below 

promised’ version, see supra at 25 n.33. 
26 

“everything . . . would be finished in approximately two years” was “extremely critical” to our 

decision to purchase “because I was 71 years old and my wife and I planned to retire within the 

next few years and build in the development in late 2015”); PXS ¶ 40:21 at 10 (explaining that 

an SBE sales representative, Richard Otto, claimed in 2011 that the “Marina Village” would be 

complete within a year, and this was important, so she made a handwritten note in her Sanctuary 

Belize “welcome packet”); PXI ¶ 9 (“Chadwick . . . understood how important the development 

timeline was to me and my wife.”); PXE ¶ 18 (“Chadwick stated [in 2013] that Sanctuary Belize 

would be completed within two years. . . . We would not have bought if we thought the 

development would take much longer.”); PXD ¶ 17 (explaining that Sanctuary Belize stated 

multiple times (in 2013) “that everything—the entire development—would be finished within 

two years. . . . We would not have purchased without these assurances.”)    

4. Contrary to SBE’s Claim, the Amenities Were Not Finished Within 

Five Years, and They Will Not Be. 

SBE claims that the completed development will boast remarkable amenities comparable 

to a small American city. PXPP ¶¶ 30-54. These amenities are crucial because they make living 

in remote southern Belize palatable to sophisticated American consumers looking for retirement 

or second homes. Moreover, the amenities are central to SBE’s claim that lots’ value will 

skyrocket. PXK ¶ 21; PXZ ¶ 12; PXQQ ¶ 23:10 at 59:12-60:7. For example, one telemarketer 

stated: 

We explained [to prospective purchasers] that the property would include worldclass dining with restaurants, bars, bistros, cafes, bakeries, a fresh fish market, a 

farmer’s market, a citrus farm, and bars. It would also include an American-size 

grocery store. . . . a post office, medical clinic, art galleries, an on-side rental 

office to rent their unoccupied properties, an international school for children, an 

outdoor activity center, a spa and fitness center . . . a church . . . a boat dealership, 

a water taxi service . . . a fuel station at the world-class marina. . . . [and] and 

international airport and hospital that would be completed within two years near 

Sanctuary Belize. 

PXBB ¶ 17; see also PXZ ¶ 10 (In addition to a high-end marina, SBE telemarketers “told 

prospective buyers that the Marina Village would have high-end shopping and dining, a hotel, a 
27 

spa, [and] and American-sized grocery store[.]”). The details of specific promised amenities 

vary slightly, but the important elements have remained constant (e.g., the size and location of 

promised hospital and emergency medical center vary, but the claim that lot owners will have 

easy access to American-caliber healthcare does not). 

These claims are false. After thirteen years, most of the promised amenities do not exist. 

PXPP ¶ 79 (collecting information from consumers who visited regarding the status of advertised 

amenities). The hospital, hotel, airports, entertainment, and “Marina Village” (the commercial 

core) are unfinished and, in most cases, unstarted. SBE has completed only a few bungalows, a 

bodega, a two-pump gas station, an open-air bar, a pool, an outdoor restaurant near the 

poolhouse, and a marina less than a third of the size that it promised. PXPP ¶ 82. Nor is there 

any chance the promised amenities will somehow appear on their own. Professor Peiser explains 

that the development’s small population, rural location, competition within the development (for 

instance, two competing coffee shops) and competition from other resort communities makes 

most of the promised amenities economically unviable. PXA ¶ 44-64. As Professor Peiser 

opines, “[t]here is essentially a zero probability that this development ever would provide a 

large enough and/or wealthy enough base of customers to support several of the most essential 

amenities” that SBE promotes. PXA ¶ 68 (emphasis added). 

Although the impressive slate of marketed amenities will not exist within five years (if 

ever), the promised amenities are important to prospective buyers, partly because owners want 

access to the amenities themselves, and partly because proximity to the promised amenities 

would increase the lots’ value. See, e.g., PXI ¶ 9 (explaining that the fact that Sanctuary Belize 

would finish the promised amenities “by 2014 or sooner” was important to his decision to 

purchase); PXE ¶ 14 (“[H]aving specific, short-term timelines for the amenities at Sanctuary 

Belize was important to our decision to purchase there.”); PXN ¶ 1 (“[W]e purchased based on 

claims . . . that the promised amenities would be completed in short order”); id. ¶ 48 (noting that 
28 

“our property would have no value” without the promised amenities). In general, the promised 

amenities fall into several general categories.35

a. Hospital and Emergency Medical Facility 

SBE promises consumers a hospital staffed with American doctors and nurses36 and 

located within or adjacent to Sanctuary Belize. PXPP ¶¶ 31-34. SBE describes the hospital as 

30,000 square feet (and often more), id. ¶ 84, and “state-of-the-art,” PXQQ ¶ 20:6 at 58:13-59:5, 

with vast capabilities including everything from “oncology” to “organ transplantation” to 

“cardiac surgery.” PXI ¶49:50 at 3. Reflecting the development’s size, SBE also claims the 

downtown “Marina Village” area will have a smaller emergency medical facility. PXPP ¶ 84. 

Despite SBE’s claims,37 there is no American-caliber hospital in or near Sanctuary Belize, see 

PXPP ¶ 81, and there is no emergency medical facility in Sanctuary Belize’s commercial core, 

                                                             35 In addition to the amenities listed below, SBE claims Sanctuary Belize will have 

infrastructure roughly equivalent to what consumers expect in the United States. PXPP ¶ 83. 

This includes paved or improved roads, fresh drinking water (from the tap), wastewater 

management (including septic or equivalent systems that function in high-water table areas), 

electric, garbage disposal, a stable canal system (giving additional lots have waterfront access), 

and security. PXPP ¶ 83. Some consumers are interested in building eco-friendly residences 

with features like solar power and rainwater catchment systems. PXQQ ¶ 23:10 at 26:23-25. 

Notably, substantial features like commercial facilities, a hotel, and a hospital will require greater 

infrastructure support; for instance, a modern hospital needs sophisticated wastewater treatment 

of some sort; it cannot rely on something equivalent to a residential septic system. PXA ¶ 121. 

36 As one consumer explained, SBE promised that both the hospital and the Marina 

Village clinic “would have American physicians and nurses who would provide western-caliber 

medical care to Sanctuary Belize residents. [SBE] also emphasized that the hospital [would be] a 

teaching hospital where American doctors and nurses would teach their Belizean counterparts.” 

PXD ¶ 24. 

37 Importantly, none of the amenity claims SBE makes are qualified or aspirational; SBE 

does not claim, for instance, that it desires to include a hospital near the development, or that a 

hospital will be built if SBE can locate funding, or that a hospital will be built if the government 

or some other third party decides to build one. See supra at 28; PXPP ¶ 85; see also PXD ¶ 22 

(“Sanctuary Belize reiterated that an international airport would be completed soon, with direct 

flights to the United States and Europe. There was no doubt it would be finished.”). SBE 

provides no caveats suggesting that any of the amazing amenities might not be built, or will be 

built if SBE finds money it doesn’t currently have, or if the government or some third party 

builds and operates the amenity. PXPP ¶ 85. 
29 

see PXPP ¶ 81. As Peiser explains, building American-quality medical facilities in remote 

southern Belize is not economically feasible. PXA ¶¶ 71, 282-325. Few Belizeans can afford 

American-quality medical care, and Medicare and private insurers generally do not reimburse 

procedures for Americans residing overseas. PXA ¶¶ 284, 290. Additionally, staffing the 

hospital with American physicians and nurses would be extraordinarily expensive. PXA ¶¶ 133-

136, 303-306.38

b. Hotel 

SBE claims Sanctuary Belize will have a “full-service, high-class” hotel. PXD ¶ 23; 

PXPP ¶¶ 35-38. SBE often describes it as having ninety rooms, but sometimes thirty or forty 

rooms. PXPP ¶ 87. SBE also promises smaller “lodges,” or “eco-experience hotels” that SBE 

describes as boutique rentals in the jungle, riverine, or other areas of the Parcel. PXPP ¶ 87. 

Despite SBE’s claims, there is no hotel at Sanctuary Belize, PXPP ¶ 81.39 In fact, Defendant 

Kazazi admitted to a marina company (IGY) executive that he “wasn’t sure how Sanctuary 

Belize could build or fund the proposed hotel [.]” PXGG ¶ 18. 

c. Entertainment (Golf Course and Casino) 

SBE promises Sanctuary Belize will have a championship-caliber golf course, and a 

“casual elegant” casino. PXU ¶ 7; PXPP ¶¶ 39-42. SBE told FTC professionals posing as 

consumers that the golf course was “under construction . . . about 15 minutes away,” and will be 

“Belize’s first 18-hole championship golf course.” PXQQ ¶ 23:10 at 34:17-21. Despite SBE’s 

claims, there is no “casually elegant” casino or championship-caliber golf course at Sanctuary 

                                                             38 High-quality medical care is very important to many owners who have retired, or are 

nearing retirement. See, e.g., PXE ¶ 14. 

39 The hotel is important to consumers (in theory, it could bring tourists to Sanctuary 

Belize and spur development). See, e.g., PXE ¶ 14; see also PXD ¶ 23 (“Sanctuary Belize 

promised to build a full-service, high-class hotel that would entice yacht owners to stay for 

longer periods—which, in turn, would help raise property values.”). 
30 

Belize, PXPP ¶ 81. Notably, early SBE marketing materials claimed Sanctuary Belize (then 

“Sanctuary Bay”) would have a golf course by 2008. After years of promising a golf course to 

prospective buyers, Defendant Kazazi in a private email to an IGY executive said SBE had 

“gone back and forth” over SBE’s decision “to place a golf course in the development,” and 

Kazazi asked for IGY’s advice. PXGG ¶ 7:4. 

d. International Airport and On-Site Airstrip 

 A supposed “international airport” that will open soon near Sanctuary Belize figures 

prominently in SBE marketing materials. PXPP ¶ 86; id. ¶¶ 43-45. It (purportedly) will offer 

direct flights to major U.S. cities and will boost economic activity in southern Belize generally. 

PXPP ¶ 86. Sanctuary Belize also will have an airstrip where owners can land private planes. 

PXPP ¶¶ 43-45. Despite SBE’s claims, there is no international airport near Sanctuary Belize, 

PXPP ¶ 81, and there is also no airstrip for private aviation within the development, PXPP ¶ 81. 

Although the allegedly imminent opening of a nearby international airport with direct flights to 

the United States is central to SBE’s marketing, see, e.g., PXG ¶ 12, PXP ¶ 27, PXD ¶ 22, one 

SBE telemarketer understood that “the proposed nearby Placencia International Airport we 

touted to potential buyers as almost complete would never get finished[.]” PXZ ¶ 7. In 2014, 

two IGY executives (Eric Simonton and Bert Fowles) saw the “unfinished” airport and noted that 

“it appeared construction had stopped.” PXGG ¶ 14; PXHH ¶ 8. As one consumer who visited 

the partly-built airport around the same time observed, “it looked like the construction had 

stopped years earlier” (although the SBE representative reassured them that “it would be built 

within the next few years”). PXK ¶ 12. 

More recently, in May 2018, the SEC sued some of the parties involved with the 

proposed international airport, alleging that they misrepresented that forty-four investors’ money 

would provide bridge financing “to fund the construction and development of an international 

airport in Placencia, Belize.” See Complaint, SEC v. Borland, No. 18-cv-4352 (filed S.D.N.Y. 
31 

May 16, 2018), DE1 at 2. Much of the money was stolen, see id., the court issued an injunction, 

and one of the parties marketing the bridge financing was indicted. United States v. Borland, 

No. 1:18-cr-487 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018), DE11. 

e. Shopping, Dining & Commercial Center 

SBE promotes the Sanctuary Belize “Marina Village” as the development’s “nucleus” or 

commercial center. PXPP ¶ 88; id. ¶¶ 50-53. An artist’s rendering of the Marina Village 

appears in glossy brochures SBE gives to prospective purchasers. PXU ¶ 7:3 at 55. As the 

downtown heart of the community, SBE claims the Marina Village will have high-end boutiques, 

restaurants, cafes, and American-style grocery store. PXK ¶¶ 23-24; PXPP ¶¶ 46-49. It will also 

have other features important to consumers looking to live in small resort community, including 

a church, a school, and a post office. PXBB ¶ 17; PXU ¶ 7:3 at 55. Despite SBE’s claims, there 

is no “Marina Village” or downtown commercial core with 12,000 square feet of commercial 

space housing cafes, bistros, upscale restaurants, boutiques, and other high-end shopping, a gym, 

and spa.40 PXPP ¶ 81. One consumer visited Sanctuary Belize last year, and SBE “served us 

lunch at the bar/restaurant area by the poolhouse,” but “there was no kitchen equipment there,” 

so “lunch was brought in rather than prepared at the bar/restaurant.” PXW ¶ 33. Although more 

recent information suggests the outdoor poolhouse restaurant and open-air bar are now open at 

least part time, SBE has not completed the promised upscale 12,000 square feet of commercial 

space. PXPP ¶ 89. 

                                                             40 The downtown Marina Village is important not only because the amenities (if built) 

would improve property values, but because it currently takes about an hour for someone 

residing in Sanctuary Belize to reach the nearest significant commercial area. See, e.g., PXE

¶ 19 (“According to Chadwick, Sanctuary Belize also would complete the shopping and 

commercial areas within a year, which was important because it can take an hour to drive from 

Sanctuary Belize to the nearest significant commercial activity. The fact that Sanctuary Belize 

would be an entire city was part of what made the development attractive to us.”). 
32 

f. 250-Slip World-Class Marina 

SBE marketing prominently features a 250-slip world-class marina. PXPP ¶ 88. As an 

SBE telemarketer told SBE professionals posing as consumers, “[e]verything is centered around 

our 250-ship marina.”41 PXQQ ¶ 23:10 at 13:5-6. Notably, the slip count is significant because 

more slips mean the marina can handle more traffic, and greater corresponding commercial 

activity will enhance lot owners’ property values.42 Furthermore, SBE often describes the 

marina as “world class.” PXPP ¶ 88. Marinas offer different amenities, and those with the best 

amenities are more attractive to boaters. As one consumer recalled, SBE told her “that Sanctuary 

Belize was going to have the finest marina on this side of the Atlantic.” PXS ¶ 14. Thus, SBE is 

promising not only a marina, but a 250-slip, high-end marina. 

Despite SBE’s claims,43 the marina at Sanctuary Belize has fewer than a third of the 

promised slips, and it offers none of the services that make a marina “world class.” When IGY 

executives visited the marina last year, “the marina’s basic elements . . . remained unchanged 

between 2014 and 2017,” although SBE had added some structures near the marina by 2017. 

PXGG ¶ 39; see also PCHH ¶ 24; PXM ¶ 4. It had 81 slips, “however, many of these slips were 

still not functional in 2017.” PXGG ¶ 40. Importantly, one IGY Vice-President noted that “[t]o 

get the marina to 250 slips you would need to triple the size of the existing marina,” which could 

cost millions. PXGG ¶ 40. 

                                                             41 The number of slips promised varies occasionally; for instance, sometimes SBE claims 

the marina will have 225 or 200 slips. PXPP ¶ 88. 

42 Additionally, larger slips can accommodate bigger boats with more passengers, 

enhancing this effect. In one telemarketing script, for instance, SBE emphasizes both the slip 

count and the slip’s asserted size: “We will have 250 slips that can hold yachts up to 150’ in 

length.” PXBB ¶ 17:14 at 6. 

43 Consumers, who are often boaters themselves, are interested in the marina’s quality. 

See, e.g., PXG ¶ 6 Additionally, as discussed below, the marina’s quality and size impact the 

boat traffic Sanctuary Belize will receive, which affects the value of lot owners’ investments. 
33 

Furthermore, as Fowles explained, when he visited last year, “[i]t was not a ‘world class’ 

marina. Rather, it was an expeditionary, outpost destination.” PGHH ¶ 39. Among other things, 

the marina did not have: “a boat yard or other repair or maintenance facility; a boat dealership, a 

fitness/workout facility; physical security (other than a guard at the main entrance to the 

development), or luxurious or high-end marina-related buildings.” PXHH ¶ 25; see also PXGG 

¶ 40. A “world class” marina is one that qualifies for the prestigious Five Gold Anchor 

certification that The Yacht Harbor Association issues to the world’s top marinas. PXGG ¶ 26; 

PXHH ¶ 41. Simonton and Fowles were clear: “The Sanctuary Belize marina would not qualify 

for Five Gold Anchor certification.” PXGG ¶ 26. 

The marina’s quality is significant because if boaters stop and stay, that would encourage 

development and the lots’ value. However, both Simonton and Fowles stated that “[g]enerally, it 

takes years for a marina to grow from an expeditionary, outpost destination to one that draws 

boaters in significant numbers.” PXGG ¶ 41; see also PXHH ¶ 26 As Simonton reported to 

IGY’s CEO in 2013, the developers “don’t have much idea what they’re doing,” and he 

predicted that the Sanctuary Belize marina “won’t be a huge financial success.” PXGG ¶ 40:5. 

After visiting the marina in 2017, Simonton predicted that “[t]he Sanctuary Belize marina likely 

would host more than 25 boats at one time and fewer than 100 unique vessels for the next few 

years.” PXGG ¶ 40. Additionally, “[b]ased on the slip mix [the size of different slips], the 

majority of the boats hosted would be sailboats,” rather than megayachts or superyachts. Id. 

Thus, “even the adventurous boaters that may come to Sanctuary Belize over the next five years 

would not provide much revenue to support upland activities.” Id. In short, Sanctuary Belize 

has 81 slips at a expeditionary, outpost dock, not a 250-slip, world-class marina. 

As noted above, SBE’s claims to finish the entire development (including various 

specific amenities) within two to five years are already false as to many consumers who bought 

more than two or five years ago. Additionally, because SBE is half a billion short of the money 
34 

necessary to finish all of the amenities it promised, necessarily, it will not complete many 

promised amenities over the next five years as well. 

5. Contrary to SBE’s Claim, the Lots Do Not Appreciate 200%-300% in 

2-3 Years. 

SBE further claims that the impressive amenities detailed above mean the lots will 

appreciate from 200% to 300% within two to three years. See PXPP ¶¶ 56-60 (identifying 

fourteen instances in which SBE made this claim. For instance, an SBE telemarketer told FTC 

professionals posing as purchasers that, due to the airport, marina, and other amenities, they 

could expect “around a 300 to 500 percent increase, in three years.” PXQQ ¶ 23:10 at 59:12-18. 

Another SBE telemarketer told FTC undercover professionals “they’re [projecting] 250 to 300 

percent [appreciation] in the next few years.” PXQQ ¶ 20:6 at 54:21-55:1. In June 2018, SBE 

posted marketing material online claiming 400% returns. PXC ¶¶ 67-68:152 at 1. One prior 

SBE telemarketer explains that SBE claims to potential customers “the investment they make in 

their lot [will] increase 200%-500%.” PXBB ¶ 16. Defendant Chadwick told one set of 

consumers “that our property’s value would ‘double or triple’ within a few years.” PXE ¶ 22; 

PXF ¶ 22. SBE told another consumer that he “could expect [the] lot to appreciate by 200% in 

the next few years,” PXN ¶ 22, and another that he “could expect lots to double or triple in value 

within only a few years,” PXI ¶ 23. 

SBE’s claim that consumers can realize significant, short-term investment value is central 

to its pitch. Restated simply, SBE claims that its “no debt” business model is low-risk because, 

without debt, every dollar from lot sales goes back into the development, which ensures the rapid 

completion of remarkable amenities. Those amenities, in turn, drive the lots’ appreciation—

200% (or more) within three years (or less). In reality, numerous consumers have sought 

buybacks (usually at a loss), spent additional money pursuing litigation domestically, and joined 

litigation in Belize, PXQQ ¶ 178:180 (most buybacks do not even provide full refunds), which 

would not occur if their lots had appreciated. 
35 

To underscore the point, the FTC located four lots purchased in 2012 for which the FTC 

obtained original sale price information, and that are now listed for resale on public websites 

apparently unaffiliated with Sanctuary Belize. After six years, three of the four owners are 

asking for less than what they paid (and, presumably they are willing to accept less than their 

asking price). PXMM ¶¶ 13-16, 27-32. The fourth lot is listed online for a 28% premium—

again, after six years. See id. This is consistent with the experience of one set of consumers who 

purchased lot S029 for $119,900 nearly a decade ago (and then paid various taxes and HOA 

fees). After an extensive search, they agreed to an offer from a buyer willing to pay $124,000 on 

unfavorable terms they accepted “because it was the only way we could sell our lot [i]n 

Sanctuary Belize.”44 PXQ ¶ 61. 

In fact, SBE knows its claim that purported amenities will drive rapid appreciation are 

false. In one telling text message to an SBE telemarketer, SBE employee Charmaine Voss (the 

manager of Coldwell Banker SB) admitted that “the claim that the property value will increase 

by 400% after the airport is built” is “a bunch of horse shit.” PXAA ¶ 4:4 at 27. Simply put, if 

the lots’ value appreciated as advertised, dissatisfied consumers would resell their lots for a 

profit rather than fighting expensive legal battles, trying to force SBE to buy back the lots, or 

listing them for amounts equal to or lower than what they paid years ago. 

Finally, particularly because SBE markets the lots as an investment, the appreciation 

claim is important to consumers. See PXPP ¶ 57; PXE ¶ 22 (“Chadwick also stated that our 

property’s value would ‘double or triple’ within a few years, and that it would be easy to resell 

our lot if we wanted to. These points were extremely important to our decision to purchase 

property there.”); PXP ¶ 22 (stating that the claim that “we could expect [our] lot to appreciate 

by 200% in the next few years” was important to the decision to purchase); PXI ¶ 20 (stating that 

                                                             44 The terms are $24,000 down, then approximately $323 a month borrowed from the 

consumers at 2% interest, followed by $60,000 payment in ten years. PXQ ¶ 61. 
36 

Sanctuary Belize claimed “[w]e could expect lots to double or triple in value within only a few 

years,” which was “important to our decision to buy a lot”). 

6. Contrary to SBE’s Claim, There Is No Robust Resale Market. 

SBE also claims consumers will realize the promised rapid appreciation without 

difficulty because there is already a robust resale market, making it easy to resell the lots.45 

When FTC representatives posing as prospective buyers asked: “let’s say something comes up 

and we need an emergency flow of cash . . . what’s the . . . market like for reselling” lots, the 

SBE telemarketer assured them that lots were “selling like hot cakes,” and “you’re not going to 

have a problem whatsoever” reselling the lot. PXQQ ¶ 24:13 at 17:17-18:2; see also PXQQ ¶ 

20:6 at 14:14-16 (explaining that a current owner is “all set” because his lot is “going to be worth 

so much money, what he could do is turn around and just sell it”). A prior SBE telemarketer 

likewise confirmed that SBE “claimed that Sanctuary Belize lots were in high demand, including 

a current robust resale market for Sanctuary Belize property[.]” PXZ ¶ 14. Owners also report 

hearing this claim; for instance, one stated SBE promised that “[i]f we needed or wanted to 

resell, it would be easy to do so, as there was already a healthy resale market.” PXI ¶ 23. The 

resale market claim is important to consumers and influences their decision to purchase, see

PXPP ¶ 63—they cannot realize purported appreciation if they cannot resell their lots. 

However, the fact that consumers pursue unfavorable buyback agreements or expensive 

litigation over traditional resale demonstrates the absence of any meaningful resale market, let 

alone one consistent with SBE’s claim of easy resale. See supra at 49-51. Furthermore, SBE 

actively interferes with resale efforts (likely because such efforts lower prices for lots in SBE’s 

inventory). For instance, SBE pushes consumers looking to resell to Coldwell Banker SB, which 

                                                             45 See PXPP ¶¶ 62-67 (summarizing evidence that SBE made this claim including 

consumer declarations, telemarketer declarations, and many instances in which the claim appears 

in SBE scripts, webinars, emails, or other marketing communications). 
37 

does not sincerely attempt to resell lots. PXI ¶ 68; PXQQ ¶ 139:133. SBE tears “for sale” signs 

from lots and prevents or severely limits prospective purchasers from entering the property to 

view lots owners want to resell independently. PXT ¶ 27; PXQ ¶ 58; PXY ¶ 71:29. Some 

Belizean realtors (other than Coldwell Banker SB) refuse to sell Sanctuary Belize lots. PXW ¶¶ 

19, 42; PXQ ¶ 68. Consumers report being entirely unable to resell lots, PXI ¶¶ 63-71, or able to 

do so only after two years of effort (and without any meaningful profit), see PXQ ¶ 57-61. 

Additionally, competition against the developer, which has a large inventory of unsold lots, 

further impairs whatever resale market might otherwise exist. 

Finally, because consumers’ investments are worthless without a healthy resale market, 

SBE’s claims are important to consumers. See, e.g., PXD ¶ 5 (“There was also a robust resale 

market for lots; Moore claimed that if we needed to sell one, it would be ‘a piece of cake to get 

rid of it.’ The appreciation and ability to resell easily was very important to my decision to 

purchase in Sanctuary Belize.”); PXP ¶ 22 (“We were told that there would be a significant 

resale market in which we would be able to realize the appreciation on the property,” which was 

“important to us because we saw this purchase as an investment”); PXE ¶ 22 (stating that the 

claim that “it would be easy to resell our lot if we wanted to” was important to his decision); PXI 

¶ 23 (explaining that “a healthy resale market” was “important to our decision to buy a lot”). 

Notably, the six Core Claims all relate to the essence of SBE’s pitch: that consumers will 

quickly realize value from their investment. First, the “no debt” model reduces the risk 

associated with large-scale developments and helps ensure the developer will finish. Second, 

because the developer does not service debt, it can use every dollar from lot sales to complete the 

development. Third, the ability to put its cashflow solely toward the development means the 

developer will finish the various amenities quickly and, fourth, the impressive array of finished 

amenities will drive up the lots’ value. Fifth, with the amenities driving up the lots’ value, 
38 

consumers can expect rapid and significant appreciation which, sixth, they can realize whenever 

they like because there is a healthy resale market. 

7. Misrepresentations Regarding Pukke 

In addition to the six Core Claims, consumers sometimes ask about Pukke during the 

sales process, and when they do, SBE lies about his involvement.46 Specifically, because the 

telemarketing process often extends for weeks of lengthy calls and webinars, consumers 

sometimes perform internet research and locate information about Pukke’s history with 

AmeriDebt and the development. PXI ¶ 20. One consumer explained that this information “was 

an enormous red flag for me,” and had he “known Pukke had or would have anything to do with 

Sanctuary Belize, my wife and I never would have purchased a lot.” Id. When the consumer 

raised his concerns, SBE telemarketer Robert Schafnitz “was completely clear that Pukke was no 

longer involved with Sanctuary Belize in any way whatsoever.” Id. at ¶ 21. This representation 

“was critically important” to the consumer, who then made a $10,000 deposit on a lot he later 

purchased. See id. 

Consumers who have researched the development’s history online sometimes ask about 

Pukke’s role during property tours. As this consumer explained: 

On the third day of [my] tour, April 22, 2012, in the afternoon, my wife and I met 

personally with Luke Chadwick at the Tutifrutti ice cream shop in Placencia, 

Belize.47 There was another couple present as well: Jeff Watson and Traci 

Thompson. I remember the meeting vividly. I had questions about the Sanctuary 

Belize “no debt” business model, and Chadwick addressed them. . . . 

Over ice cream, I also raised Pukke’s involvement with Chadwick. When I asked 

point blank whether Pukke was involved in any way, Chadwick looked me in the 

eyes and replied: “Absolutely not! He is long gone. Anything you see on the 

                                                             46 SBE has denied or falsely minimized Pukke’s involvement in a Facebook post directed 

to consumers, PXQQ ¶ 140, and in Belizean litigation against a group of consumers, id., see also 

infra at 50-51 (discussing this litigation). 

47 Placencia, Belize is a village about thirty miles south of Sanctuary Belize. PXQQ 

¶ 141. Tour participants sometimes stay in hotels near Placencia, or visit Placencia. See supra at 

15. 
39 

internet or hear from people that says otherwise is old news and not true.” 

Chadwick’s insistence that Pukke’s involvement was over helped to reassure me. 

PXI ¶ 28; see also PXJ ¶ 5. Thus, Defendant Chadwick denied Pukke’s ongoing role.48

When an FTC professional posing as an attorney asked Defendant Costanzo about 

Pukke’s involvement, Costanzo claimed that, after the receivership sale, Pukke’s only 

involvement “is that he runs a marketing company” associated with the development. PXQQ ¶ 

48:41 at 8:22-9:7. Citing the results of litigation in Belize, see infra at 50-51, Costanzo claimed 

“Pukke has no relationship or ownership or control of this development or this property.” 

Id. at 8:8-12 (emphasis added). Costanzo even denied having seen Pukke since December 2016. 

PXQQ ¶ 48:41 at 24:11-22. However, a photo apparently taken without Pukke or Costanzo’s 

knowledge shows Defendants Pukke and Costanzo together in May 2017, and for a purpose 

unrelated to marketing—a tour in Belize with IGY executives related to the marina, PXQQ ¶ 142 

(discussing the photograph). 

 Despite SBE’s statements to the contrary, substantial information, including detailed 

sworn statements from former SBE employees and third-parties who dealt with SBE, show that 

Pukke has been and is still in control or, at the very least directing substantial activities of SBE. 

For instance, accountant Tricia Kaelin worked at SBE from May 2013 through August 2015. 

PXEE ¶¶ 3, 16. After interviewing with Defendant Kazazi, id. ¶ 2, SBE hired Kaelin to keep 

accounting records for multiple SBE entities, id. ¶ 2. Among other things, Kaelin states: Kazazi 

characterized Pukke as “the person who ran everything.”49 Id. at ¶ 5. Pukke set commission 

schedules and told her SBE’s commission policies were unwritten because they “didn’t write 

                                                             48 In addition to SBE’s denial of Pukke’s involvement, when Pukke participates in tours, 

he apparently does not use his own name. One consumer met someone on a tour she identified 

as “Marc Romeo,” who gave a sales pitch that Relief Defendant Chittenden and Defendant Usher 

also attended. See PXQQ ¶ 143. 

49 Emails from Kaelin during her SBE employment confirm Kaelin’s view. PXQQ ¶ 145 

(characterizing Pukke as “one of the owners”) (emphasis added); PXQQ ¶ 146 (stating that 

Pukke is “the owner”) (emphasis added). 
40 

anything down around here.” Id. at ¶ 5. Pukke also decided what payment methods lot owners 

could use, and that SBE would only accept automatic debits for certain payments. Id. ¶¶ 5- 6.50

Jimmy Moore started selling Sanctuary Belize lots in 2013 after Voss, “a realtor working 

for Sanctuary Belize” told him about the job. PXZ ¶ 2. Moore reported to Castos, who reported 

to Pukke. Id. Moore states that he saw Pukke in SBE’s offices repeatedly, “Pukke directed 

several employees who managed Sanctuary Belize, including Brandi Greenfield, Rod Kazazi, 

Castos, and Peter Baker. . . . Pukke ran Buy Belize, Eco-Futures, and Global Property Alliance, 

and he used each to sell the same Sanctuary Belize property.” Id. ¶¶ 3, 6. For questions from a 

potential purchaser “about future development at Sanctuary Belize, different Sanctuary Belize 

managers told [Moore] to ask Pukke.” PXAA ¶ 7:7. To work from home, Castos told Moore 

“that he had to get approval from Pukke.” PXZ ¶ 4. Pukke also “hires and fires anyone he 

wants[.]” Id. ¶ 3. Pukke also approved discounts. Id. ¶ 5. Significantly, Moore worked with 

Pukke’s mother, id. ¶ 7, who performed nominal telemarketing functions, PXAA ¶ 8.51 She 

identified herself to Moore as the “owner’s mom,” and complained about how Pukke treats her 

“like shit.” PXZ ¶ 7 (emphasis added).52 

                                                             50 Significantly, Pukke takes money from SBE in multiple ways. Greenfield and 

subordinate Jim Castos received additional compensation that they relayed to Pukke. PXEE ¶ 7. 

Pukke also used a debit card “linked to Sanctuary Belize accounts for groceries, gas, restaurants, 

personal travel, and cash withdrawals. “ Id. ¶ 8. SBE money funded tickets to sporting events, 

“a Tesla for Pukke,” and “his monthly CrossFit membership.” Id. Pukke also used “tens of 

thousands of dollars from Sanctuary Belize to remodel the house he shared with Chittenden [in 

Newport Beach].” Id. ¶ 8. After Kaelin inquired “about the remodeling expenses . . . Defendant 

Kazazi admitted that the money went to remodel Pukke’s house.” Id.

51 Pukke’s mother uses several names including Alicia Long, Stella Storm, and Stella 

Pukke. PXQQ ¶ 147 (discussing Pukke’s mother’s aliases). 

52 Pukke also made decisions regarding tours. In one instance, a paraplegic buyer (Nasser 

Abuhamda) making $7,000 per month in payments on three lots he bought for $1.3 million 

wanted to visit Sanctuary Belize. PXZ ¶ 16. In an email from a Sanctuary Belize employee 

(Mark Rademaker) to Pukke, Chadwick and Kazazi, Rademaker said it would not “be a good 

idea” to send Abuhamda on a tour because Sanctuary Belize lacked facilities for the disabled. Id. 

Pukke overruled Rademaker: given the amount Abuhamda was paying, “we definitely need to 

figure out a way to handle him. If need be, put him on [an employee’s] back all weekend!’ 

After Pukke spoke up, Rademaker reversed his view.” PXZ ¶ 16:2. 
41 

During Moore’s tenure, SBE hosted a three-day meeting at its main office at the time 

(1401 Dove Street in Newport Beach).53 “Pukke ran the meeting, and most important people 

who worked at the Sanctuary Belize property in Belize attended: Johnny Usher, Chadwick, 

Baker, and Frank Connolly [Defendant Frank Costanzo].” PXZ ¶ 8. The meeting concerned a 

dispute over where consumers would send their payments—to California or Belize. See id. 

Consumers originally sent payments to California, but “[f]or a brief period, Sanctuary Belize told 

owners to send payments directly to Belize.” During the meeting, however, Pukke “took back 

the checkbook” from Usher and required that all payments go through California. Id. Usher 

threatened to block development, “but Pukke did not care. Sanctuary Belize continued to 

direct payments as Pukke wanted.” Id. (emphasis added). 

Paige Reneau has known Pukke since the early 2000s, and Pukke offered her a sales job 

at Sanctuary Belize in 2012. PXBB ¶ 2. Reneau testifies that Pukke, “who goes by ‘Andi,’ 

controls Sanctuary Belize.” Id. ¶ 3. “[I]f Pukke wanted a person fired, they’d be gone; if they 

wanted someone hired, they would have a job.” Id. Pukke also “controlled all of the money 

coming in and out of Sanctuary Belize.” Id. ¶ 5. Greenfield “went to Pukke for approval on 

everything from sales and marketing questions, to questions about tours, to contract negotiation 

questions.” Id. ¶ 9. Similar to Kaelin’s declaration, Reneau also states that that SBE employees 

(including Greenfield and Catsos) gave portions of their salaries to Pukke.54 Id. 

Curtis Pickering is a California developer who reached out to Pukke to establish a 

relationship to help market property in Mexico for Pickering’s firm. PXFF ¶¶ 3-4. Pickering 

met Greenfield at SBE’s 3333 Michelson Drive location, and she recommended that Pickering 

                                                             53 During Pukke’s supervised release hearing, see infra at 54-57, lot owner Jon Berndsen 

testified about arriving at SBE’s Orange County offices in March 2014 and seeing many of these 

people present. PXQQ ¶ 148, Tr. 165:1-166:2 (Nov. 13, 2015). 

54 Pukke has a relationship with Mike Simonian, PXBB ¶ 22, a figure in the southern 

California marijuana business. Reneau watched “people who worked for Simonian bring cash 

to the ‘Buy Belize’ office that was used to pay employees selling lots.” PXBB ¶ 22. 
42 

return to meet Pukke. Id. ¶ 6. Pickering subsequently had lunch with Pukke and Greenfield near 

3333 Michelson; “[t]he purpose of the lunch was to introduce me to Pukke.” Id. ¶ 7. “Pukke 

characterized himself as the ‘CEO’ and ‘owner’ of Sanctuary Belize,” and emphasized “that he 

not only owned the marketing operation, but that he raised the money to purchase Sanctuary 

Belize (the 14,000 acres in Belize he was selling). Pukke was clear that he was the owner of 

Sanctuary Belize.” Id. ¶ 9 (emphasis added). 

 After lunch, Pukke took Pickering back to his office at 3333 Michelson. Id. ¶ 10. 

Overall, Pickering met with Pukke at 3333 Michelson “approximately ten times.” Id. ¶ 5. In 

addition to Pukke’s office with “a nice view,” the suite “also contained what Pukke characterized 

as a ‘call center,’” where employees were “‘dialing for dollars’ related to Sanctuary Belize.” Id. 

¶ 15-17. While Pickering met with Pukke, employees would enter with questions for Pukke. Id. 

¶ 22. As Pickering put it, “there is no question that he was in charge of the entire operation in 

the [3333 Michelson] suite.”55

Island Global Yachting Ltd. (“IGY”) is a large, well-regarded marina manager. Two 

IGY executives (Eric Simonton and Bert Fowles) interacted with Pukke as he sought to establish 

a relationship between IGY and SBE. That process began in 2012, Pukke used the alias “Andy 

Storm” when dealing with an IGY affiliate, see PXGG ¶ 1:1, see also PXQQ ¶ 149 (discussing 

Pukke’s use of “Andy Storm”). Following communications with Pukke,56 the IGY affiliate 

understood “Andy Storm” to be “[t]he CEO of the Sanctuary Bay project in Belize.”57 PXGG ¶ 

1:1 at 3. 

                                                             55 Notably, the relationship between Pickering and Pukke ended after they discussed the 

sewer system Pukke proposed for Sanctuary Belize. Pickering had concerns Pukke’s system 

could “make people sick,” and after Pickering asked to see evidence of its safety, Pukke refused 

to deal with him further. PXFF ¶¶ 26-29. 

56 Following the initial exchange, Pukke directed Defendant Kazazi to coordinate with 

IGY and its affiliate. PXGG ¶ 4:1 at 2. 

57 IGY and its parent, Island Capital Group LLC, cooperated with the FTC’s 

investigation. Notably, although Pukke used the name Andy Storm with IGY, PXGG ¶ 1:1, both 
43 

Last year—five years after Pukke contacted IGY initially—Simonton and Fowles visited 

Sanctuary Belize to tour the partly-completed marina. Pukke participated, and as Simonton 

explained, although he did not give his last name or title, “it was clear he was important” and 

people associated with Sanctuary Belize deferred to him: 

During the visit, Andi did not give his last name or title, but it was clear he was 

important and intimately involved with the development. His statements 

suggested that he had an equity interest. It was clear he was in charge because 

everyone was deferential to him. People associated with Sanctuary Belize looked 

to Andi to endorse their questions and comments. The group appeared to interpret 

Andi’s suggestions as directions. 

PXGG ¶ 32; see also PXHH ¶ 19 (“[I]t was clear [Andi] was important. I understood Andi to 

have some financial interest in the development.”).58 

While touring the property, Pukke explained to Simonton that he got involved with 

Sanctuary Belize when, “after he came into some money,” he invested with Defendant Usher in a 

shrimp farm. PXGG ¶ 33. Pukke claimed that he ran the sales and marketing aspects, “but his 

interest was growing relative to Usher’s as Usher and his family relinquished control.” Id. It 

was apparent “that [Pukke] was a primary decision-maker.” Id. (emphasis added). 

Significantly, internal emails establish Pukke remained in control even during his 

criminal incarceration, when he appointed Chadwick to manage SBE. In fact, two days after 

Pukke’s incarceration began, Chadwick directed SBE employees to set up their email accounts to 

receive inmate emails because Pukke “is keen to start communicating with you all.” PXQQ ¶ 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

Simonton and Fowles identified Pukke in a photograph taken of a meal they had with him in 

Belize. See PXQQ ¶ 142; PXGG ¶ 35:29; PXHH ¶ 22:15. Both Simonton and Fowles also state 

that “Andy” was pronounced “Ahn-di,” which is how Pukke’s associates pronounce “Andi” 

(short for Andris). PXGG ¶ 24; PXHH ¶ 18; PXQQ ¶ 149 (discussing Pukke’s aliases). 

58 IGY subsequently agreed to accept $150,000 a year to manage the marina, but IGY 

cancelled its agreement for several reasons including “Sanctuary Belize’s inappropriate use of 

IGY’s intellectual property as part of its marketing efforts.” PXGG ¶ 43:34. SBE used IGY’s 

brand—including the images of IGY executives—in SBE marketing material without IGY’s 

consent. PXGG ¶¶ 34-36; see also PXHH ¶¶ 20-22. 
44 

157:156-157. Chadwick later told Greenfield that Pukke directed what would happen while he 

served his prison sentence: 

I am very clear on what Andi told me and what his expectations are of me—if he 

[Pukke] has told you something different then I’d like to hear about it. I asked 

him to confirm my understanding of what was to happen here in his absence and 

he did—now again if he has told you something different then you need to share 

that with me. 

PXQQ ¶ 326:349. Two days later, Chadwick reiterated his point: “I have asked Andi to write to 

you confirming his wishes. He [Pukke] asked me to lead[.]” Id. 

Internal SBE emails also show Pukke’s authority over SBE’s entire operation before, 

during, and after his incarceration. For instance, Pukke has authority over communications with 

lot owners about corporate structure,59 legal affairs,60 lot ownership structure,61 settlement 

payments,62 dissolution of SBE-related entities,63 payments for equipment shipped to Belize,64

                                                             59 In 2010, owners understandably complained about SBE’s request that they make 

monthly payments payable to “Eco-Futures, Inc.” rather than SRWR (which many lot sale 

contracts listed as the seller), and in-house SBE accountant Kathleen Whitlow solicited 

Greenfield’s input: “Brandi, I thought you might like to see the letter I am sending out to 

everyone that writes checks. Andi really wanted this done tonight so they would not hold back 

payments to us.” PXQQ ¶ 150:142 (emphasis added). 

60 Pukke directed Greenfield to wire $20,000 to Belizean attorney Fred Lumor. PXQQ ¶ 

151:143-144. 

61 While incarcerated, Pukke directed Greenfield or a subordinate to research “fractional 

ownership,” which would, in theory, enable more than one party to own a lot. PXQQ ¶ 152:145-

146. 

62 Pukke directed Greenfield to send a $10,000 check to a dissatisfied third party who 

both purchased lots and apparently committed to help sell more. PXQQ ¶ 153:147. SBE sent 

the check, with a re: line that read: “Principal Only repayment of RP Taylor’s Lots.” PXNN at 

¶ 8(x). 

63 In a 2014 email, Kaelin explains to Diane Allen, an SBE-paid HOA representative, see

PXQQ ¶ 154, that “in discussion with Andi [Pukke] and Luke [Chadwick], it was determined 

that the SBHOA [Sanctuary Belize HOA] would be terminated,” PXQQ ¶ 154. 

64 When a shipper that delivers to a southern Belize port (Big Creek) asked for SBE’s 

payment, an SBE subordinate told Greenfield to “look into” the issue, writing “I think Andi was 

suppose[d] to . . . wire [payment] to them.” PXQQ ¶ 155:152-154. 
45 

reviewing lot sale contracts,65 authorizing commissions for telemarketers,66 dealing with 

consumers who want to sell their lots,67 dealing with SBE entities’ taxes,68 and addressing HOA 

fee disputes.69 Other areas of Pukke’s involvement include: making design decisions, PXQQ ¶ 

163:165, choosing office space, PXQQ ¶ 164:166, rent payments, PXQQ ¶ 165:167, deciding 

raises for SBE employees, PXQQ ¶ 166:168, and architectural review, PXQQ ¶ 164:166. Still 

other internal documents show Pukke’s controlling role as well. For instance, SBE’s internal 

phone directory lists everyone alphabetically except two people appear separately on top—

Pukke and Baker (with Pukke first). PXQQ ¶ 167:169.

                                                             65 With respect to a lot sale contract, Greenfield told a subordinate to “get a copy for Andi 

to review.” PXQQ ¶ 156:155. 

66 In an email from one of Greenfield’s personal accounts, with a subject line reading 

“check approval,” Greenfield asks Pukke’s permission to pay Anthony Mock (the stepfather of 

Pukke’s children who owns a construction company SBE recommends to buyers) and Robert 

Schafnitz (the “Director of Investor Relations” at Sanctuary Belize). PXQQ ¶ 157:156-157. 

Pukke responds: “That’s fine for Anthony. Tell Cyara [a subordinate] I have to discuss it with 

Robert before she pays him.” Id. Notably, Pukke frequently receives SBE emails directed to 

“Andi” at ekkup@msn.com. “Ekkup” is P-U-K-K-E backwards. 

67 Pukke directed a subordinate “to verbally follow up with all emails or requests” about 

owners who want to sell, including requests sent to Greenfield or Chadwick. PXQQ ¶ 158:159. 

68 In 2011, Pukke and Greenfield arranged to meet with an outside accountant to discuss 

Eco-Futures’ taxes, PXQQ ¶ 159:160 (Baker owns Eco-Futures (BZ), PXQQ ¶ 328:354, and 

Kazazi is the CEO of Eco-Futures (US), PXQQ ¶ 226:245). The accountant, Andy Dixon, was 

then affiliated with an Orange County-based accounting firm, DBBMcKennon LLC. A 

suspicious prospective purchaser contacted the firm because Sanctuary Belize’s website “lists 

DBBMcKennon as a partner,” and the consumer asked the firm to “confirm you are on the 

development team.” PXQQ ¶ 160. Dixon wrote to Pukke and Greenfield hours later, 

complaining to “Andi” that “[o]ur firm name is listed on your development team” and asking 

Pukke to remove it. PXQQ ¶ 160. Greenfield responded that SBE would “tak[e] it down,” but 

she asked DBBMcKennon to “please contact the [prospective purchaser] and confirm that you 

are our accountant for Eco-Futures. He is a client getting ready to close a sale and we don’t want 

this to hinder the sale at all.” PXQQ ¶ 160. Pukke later directed Chadwick to take down the 

reference. PXQQ ¶ 160. 

69 When a consumer refused to pay his HOA dues “until there is a legitimate HOA that is 

transparent and keeps the members abreast of all HOA activity,” and because SBE required 

owners to pay Belizean General Sales Tax (“GST”) on their dues contrary to its contracts with 

owners, SBE forwarded the complaint to Pukke. PXQQ ¶ 161:163. 
46 

C. Lot Owners’ Continuing Payments 

 From the beginning of the sales process, SBE represents to consumers that if they 

purchase a lot, they will own that lot. PXBB ¶ 16 (“We said that once a customer purchased a 

lot, they would own it. We also called everyone who purchased ‘owners.’”); PXZ ¶ 13 (SBE 

told prospects “they would own their lot”). After consumers sign a “Memorandum of Sale” with 

SBE (negotiated in the palapa during the tour, PXQQ ¶ 132),70 SBE throws a celebration for new 

owners, PXD ¶ 29. Indeed, while making payments to SBE in subsequent years, purchasers 

receive updates, bulletins, and other marketing that refers to them as “owners.” PXQQ ¶ 168. 

Unsurprisingly, lot purchasers consider themselves “owners.” PXE ¶ 32; PXF ¶ 32; PXD ¶ 32; 

PXY ¶ 29. 

Many (if not most) consumers finance at least some portion of their lot through SBE, 

PXQQ ¶ 110:122-123, and their monthly payment includes both a principal and an interest 

component, PXQQ ¶ 134. All lot purchasers pay monthly homeowner’s association dues of 

$100 per lot to SBE Defendant Sanctuary Belize Property Owners Association (“SBPOA”).71 

PXQQ ¶ 169. Additionally, beginning in approximately 2011 and continuing through at least 

2016, SBE charged consumers a 12.5% Belizean General Sales Tax (“GST”) on the principal 

portion of consumers’ monthly payments, PXQQ ¶ 171 (sample invoices and contract 

provisions), and consumers’ homeowner’s association dues (for instance, SBE sends owners 

itemized homeowner’s association invoices for $100 in dues and $12.50 in GST), PXQQ ¶ 169 

(sample invoices). SBE explains to owners that GST is “charged on [the sale of] goods and 

                                                             70 Sometimes consumers sign in the palapa. PXU ¶¶ 25-27. As one consumer explained, 

“[t]o leave the tour at this point, I would have needed to wade back to the beach, wait for 

Sanctuary Belize to return me to the mainland by boat, and wait for Sanctuary Belize to provide 

me with transportation back to the hotel.” PXG ¶ 21. 

71 As discussed supra at 12 n.16, SBE changed the development’s name from “Sanctuary 

Belize” to “the Reserve” in 2017. At approximately the same time, SBPOA registered the trade 

name “Reserve Property Owners Association (“RPOA”), PXQQ ¶ 172:175, and began doing 

business under that name, PXQQ ¶ 173. 
47 

services.” PXQQ ¶ 170:179; see also PXQQ ¶ 170:171 (representing in marketing materials that 

GST is “charged on [the sale of] goods and services”); PXQQ ¶ 170:172 (same); PXQQ ¶ 

170:172 (stating, in a “Sanctuary Bulletin” marketing email, that GST “is a consumer tax 

(12.5%), applied to most goods and services”). In one detailed document SBE prepared called 

The GST Guide: GST and the SB [Sanctuary Belize] Homeowner, SBE emphasized that the tax 

applies to “products and services” and, “[f]or the SB [Sanctuary Belize] homeowner, [GST] 

means that from the purchase of their lot to the final construction of their home, the 12.5% tax 

will need to be added to their costs and paid by the homeowner.” PXQQ ¶ 170:174. Because 

GST is substantial (12.5%), and SBE has more than $100 million in gross lot sale revenue, 

PXB:18, SBE has collected millions from consumers in GST.72 Overall, because monthly 

payments including principal, interest, homeowner’s association dues, and GST constitute a 

significant portion of what consumers pay, SBE has collected (and continues to collect) tens of 

millions in post-sale payments. 

D. Consumers Attempt Mitigation Through Foreclosures, Buybacks, and 

Lawsuits 

1. Owners Attempt To Reduce Their Losses 

Although SBE has sold more than 1,000 lots, PXPP ¶ 76, less than 5% of these sales have 

led to completed home construction.73 Instead, many consumers become concerned about the 

                                                             72 SBE also collects GST on lot owners’ down payments. PXQQ ¶ 170(f). 

73 SBE marketing material frequently includes photos of construction to demonstrate 

progress. A review of this material discloses images of 26 unique homes apparently under 

construction. PXMM ¶ 8. The number of finished and occupied homes is more difficult to 

assess, but there are completed homes including Defendant Usher’s residence, multiple homes 

SBE employees or associates occupy, model homes SBE shows consumers, and homes built but 

left unoccupied by dissatisfied owners. There are also a small number of genuine consumers 

who have completed homes and occupy them. PXQQ ¶ 175. In total, approximately 3-5% of the 

1,000 or more lot sales appear to have led to completed homebuilding. PXQQ ¶ 176. 

Additionally, SBE marketing depicts some of the same homes at different construction stages, 

which creates an impression of more activity. Furthermore, the status of the pictured homes is 

uncertain. As one consumer who visited last year explained, “[s]ome of the homes had concrete 

footers or foundations. But some of the concrete was crumbling. Other sides and corners of 
48 

development’s slow pace, broken promises, and other suspicious activity and attempt to reduce 

their losses in one of several ways: (1) they stop making payments and face purported 

“foreclosure”; (2) they ask SBE to buy back their lot; or (3) they sue. 

a. Purported “Foreclosure” 

Some owners simply stop making payments, and SBE threatens them with “foreclosure.” 

PXQQ ¶ 174. What follows, however, does not resemble anything Americans understand as 

foreclosure. SBE “foreclosure” consists of several emails demanding payment, and sometimes a 

demand letter from a Belizean lawyer forwarded to the lot owner from SBE’s California offices. 

After that, there are no proceedings of any sort, and unless the consumer resumes monthly 

payments, SBE simply takes the lot back. PXQQ ¶ 174. A prior SBE in-house accountant 

described SBE’s purported “foreclosures” this way: “There was no foreclosure process; instead, 

customers would receive a letter saying if they did not pay the unpaid balance of their loan 

payments their property was ‘foreclosed.’” PXEE ¶ 12. Another insider explained what 

“foreclosure” entailed:

“Foreclosure” meant the owner received email or letters from Sanctuary Belize 

demanding payment. There was no hearing or foreclosure process during which 

the owner could object to the foreclosure. Sanctuary Belize would then keep 

both the lot and all the payments the owner had made already. 

PXZ ¶ 18. Significantly, SBE does not refund the amount paid or refund the difference between 

the value of the lot SBE retakes and the amount SBE claims the consumer owes. This means 

consumers often pay tens of thousands (or more) to SBE and receive nothing in return. To 

provide one example, a Maine couple purchased a Sanctuary Belize lot “SR81” in 2013 for 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

concrete were weathered. In some cases, rebar was exposed and in disrepair. The concrete 

appeared as though it was poured years ago and forgotten.” PXW ¶ 27. Other homes the 

consumer viewed “did not look lived in. Rather, they looked staged. For instance, there was 

dust on the bedrooms and in the bathrooms. There were also no pictures or personal items. . . . 

We saw no signs that anyone other than Sanctuary Belize employees lived at Sanctuary 

Belize.” Id. ¶ 25 (emphasis added). 
49 

$315,000. PXE ¶ 29; PXF ¶ 29. Including their down payment, principal, interest, homeowner’s 

association fees, and GST, they paid $233,000 before stopping payments in 2016 due to 

suspicions about the development. SBE asserted they were in “default” and took back their lot 

without legal proceedings, or any refund or compensation for equity. PXE ¶¶ 50-51; PXF ¶¶ 50-

51.74 

b. Buyback Agreements 

Many dissatisfied owners continue paying to avoid “foreclosure,” and SBE sometimes 

agrees to retake their lots through negotiated “Buyback Agreements.” PXQQ ¶ 178:180 (sample 

Buyback Agreements). As a prior SBE in-house accountant explained, “[t]ypically, the lot 

buyback agreements involved [SBE] repaying a portion of the lot’s purchase price in 

installments over time.” PXEE ¶ 11. The Buyback Agreement price and terms are never better 

than the original Lot Sale Agreement (despite the lots’ theoretical appreciation), and terms are 

often worse; for instance, Buyback Agreements sometimes do not cover the lot’s full price, 

PXQQ ¶ 178:180, GST (sales tax), id., or homeowner’s association dues, id. The Buyback 

Agreements typically contain years of installment payments, and, as the in-house accountant 

explained “most of the time, Sanctuary Belize did not make all of the payments they had agreed 

to,” PXEE ¶ 11, at least without the consumers taking further steps to enforce their rights. For 

                                                             74 Lot churning is particularly problematic because SBE’s purported “foreclosure” 

procedure does not extinguish the owner’s interest in the lot. SBE sent the Maine couple who 

had stopped payments a form letter (addressed “dear sir or madam”) and declaring that if the 

couple did not resume payments, they would “lose all rights to the property [SR81].” PXE ¶ 

50:34. As these purchasers explained, “we do not believe Sanctuary Belize has the right to take 

our lot back and resell it, at least without refunding our payments.” PXE ¶ 34. SBE 

subsequently presented SR81 as available for purchase to FTC professionals undercover, PXQQ 

¶ 177 along with other lots with prior owners, id. In fact, the FTC paid to reserve a lot (SR97) 

that at least one person had previously purchased, PXQQ ¶ 177. SBE did not disclose these lots’ 

history or indicate that some lots might not be theirs to sell, PXQQ ¶ 177. At best, when SBE 

presented these lots to the FTC as available, SBE had a clouded title or some other form of 

incomplete or disputed interest in the lot, which means that when SBE resells a lot like SR81, 

two sets of consumers have a claim to own the same property. 
50 

instance, one consumer “bought their lot in cash.” PXZ ¶ 19:3. A year later, after the consumers 

threatened litigation, SBE “agreed to buy back their lot in thirty-six month[ly] installments. 

[SBE] stopped making the installment payments, and [the consumers] again had to threaten to 

sue.” Id. Notably, according to an in-house accountant, buyback “agreements were so common 

that most [SBE] payees were lot owners receiving payments in buyback agreements.” PXEE ¶ 

11. 

c. Lawsuits 

Finally, some owners sue.75 Owners have filed at least seven actions in California courts, 

and these actions generally allege that various SBE entities defrauded plaintiffs into purchasing 

lots. However, SBE’s Lot Sale Agreements contain forum selection clauses requiring litigation 

in Belize. To date, some California courts have dismissed the consumer actions without 

prejudice at the pleading stage based on forum selection,76 some cases apparently settled with 

such motions likely forthcoming or pending,77 and identical motions are pending in two 

remaining actions;78 thus far, no California case has advanced beyond the pleading stage. 

In Belize, dissatisfied consumers formed a 200-member Independent Owners of 

Sanctuary Belize (“IOSB”). American attorney Thomas Herskowitz served as its President. 

PXQ ¶¶ 45-46. Despite previously working as a paid SBE marketer and living in a model home 

                                                             75 As one sales representative explained, “Pukke never worried about consumer 

complaints. Even if someone threatened to sue Sanctuary Belize, Pukke didn’t care.” PXBB ¶ 

19. 

76 See Nelson v. Eco-Futures Development, Inc., No. 30-2017-937964 (filed Cal. Sup. Ct. 

Orange Cty. Aug. 16, 2017); Fales v. Eco-Futures Development, Inc., No. 30-2017-958588 (filed 

Cal. Sup. Ct. Orange Cty. Nov. 30, 2017). 

77 See Miller v. Eco-Futures Development, Inc., No. 30-2018-9781287 (filed Cal. Sup. Ct. 

Orange Cty. Feb. 5, 2018); Mann v. Eco-Futures Development, Ltd., No. 30-2017-926591 (filed 

Cal. Sup. Ct. Orange Cty. June 16, 2017); Plomaritis v. Global Property Alliance, Inc., No. 30-

2015-816793 (filed Cal. Sup. Ct. Orange Cty. Oct. 26, 2015). 

78 See Whited v. Global Property Alliance, Inc., No. 30-2017-937964 (filed Cal. Sup. Ct. 

Orange Cty. Aug. 16, 2017); Pomroy v. Eco-Futures Development, Inc., No. 30-2018-973773 

(filed Cal. Sup. Ct. Orange Cty. Feb. 15, 2018). 
51 

that SBE financed, PXNN ¶ 8(k); PXY ¶ 40, Herskowitz assumed IOSB’s leadership after he 

purportedly became disillusioned with Sanctuary Belize. PXY ¶¶ 40-41. Under his leadership, 

IOSB members sued SBE in Belize. PXY ¶ 46. In response, SBE later sued various IOSB 

members for defamation (in a separate Belizean action).79 PXY ¶ 47. Although IOSB filed its 

action first, Belizean courts tried the defamation suit first. PXY ¶ 49; PXK ¶ 62. 

During the defamation trial,80 Herskowitz gave testimony that observers found 

unexpectedly favorable to SBE. PXK ¶ 63; PXY ¶ 51. Based in part on this testimony, a 

Belizean judge found American lot owners had defamed SBE by claiming, among other things, 

that Pukke remained involved with Sanctuary Belize, PXQQ ¶ 179:181 at 31-34, 42-43. 

Subsequently, Herskowitz settled both actions himself, PXK ¶ 65, PXY ¶ 53, collected more 

than $400,000 from SBE in payments spanning roughly a year, PXNN ¶ 8(k), returned the 

Sanctuary Belize model home to SBE, and publicly urged consumers to keep making payments 

to SBE, PXY ¶54:17 at 2. In short, dissatisfaction with Sanctuary Belize has fueled multiple 

lawsuits, but actions filed domestically are sent to Belize, and Belizean actions related to SBE 

were resolved under questionable circumstances. 

2. Lot Churning 

Because buybacks and purported “foreclosures” are common, SBE sometimes resells the 

same lot multiple times. PXQQ ¶ 181:185, 350-352 (identifying examples of lots that appear on 

internal SBE lists with different owners at different times). In fact, SBE insiders confirm that 

lots are sold multiple times. PXEE ¶ 11 (“I kept seeing the same lots resold to different people. 

                                                             79 Rodwell Williams of Belizean firm B&W represented SBE in these actions. PXQQ ¶ 

179:181-182. IOSB engaged prominent Belizean attorney Michael Young. PXQQ ¶ 180:183-

184. Young was fatally shot in his home during the pretrial proceedings, although local 

authorities claimed it was a suicide. PXQQ ¶ 180:183-184; see also infra at 104-05 (discussing 

safety issues). 

80 Additionally, the consumers’ lead counsel was shot fatally in his home during the 

proceedings. 
52 

About twenty percent of the lots were double or triple sold.”); PXBB ¶ 21 (“Sometimes 

Sanctuary Belize even sold the same lot more than once.”).81 Thus, in some cases, SBE simply 

“churns” a lot, recovering it through a buyback agreement or purported foreclosure, and then 

selling it again. 

II. Abuse of the Judicial Process by Pukke and Associates 

 

A. Pukke Is Convicted of Obstruction of Justice in the FTC Proceeding 

In 2011, well after SBE resumed the Sanctuary Belize scam but before the Court closed 

the Receivership in 2014, Pukke pled guilty to obstruction of justice related to his effort to hide 

the Parcel. United States v. Pukke, No. 10-cr-734 (Jan. 20, 2011), DE7. In his plea, Pukke 

admitted that between July 2005 and 2007, he “corruptly influenced, obstructed, and 

impeded . . . the due administration of justice, namely, the FTC case . . . by concealing or making 

false statements concerning multiple assets.” Pukke, DE7-1 at 2. These assets included the 

Parcel. See id. at 4. Pukke admitted that he formed Dolphin and SRWR, and that he funded 

these entities’ acquisition of the land at issue (some of which became Sanctuary Bay Estates). 

See id. This Court sentenced Pukke to eighteen months, and three years of supervised release. 

Id., DE15 (May 20, 2011). However, at the end of his sentence, with the assistance and false 

testimony of various Defendants named in this action, Pukke began his secretive efforts to 

control the SBE operation and ramp up its deceptive sales. 

                                                             81 SBE has also accepted two deposits on the same lot. In one email, using red text for 

emphasis, Greenfield warns Baker, Usher and others that they took deposits on Lot 74 from 

different consumers: “Please note Babcock and Shebuski both have deposits on Lot 74. Bill 

[Bannon] is planning on switching Babcock to Lot 107. . . . I would not show Babcock the 

pricelist with Shebuski on 74 and her on 107.” (emphasized text red in original). PXQQ ¶ 

182:186. 
53 

B. Pukke’s Lies Regarding His Business and Travel During His Supervised 

Release 

Pukke began his supervised release on September 21, 2012, but shortly before, he moved 

for permission to travel to Belize. See id., DE18 (Sept. 7, 2012). Pukke sought such permission 

twice (in October and December) “as part of his work with a company called Buy Belize” to 

meet with “principals” of the Belizean real estate projects Buy Belize marketed. See id. at 2. 

This Court denied both motions. See id., DE21 (Oct. 15, 2012). 

Several more times, Pukke made it appear to the Court that he would be “fired” by those 

principals if he were not permitted to travel to Belize. In early December, Pukke moved a third 

time for permission to travel. See id., DE22 (Dec. 4, 2012). Pukke claimed potential Buy Belize 

clients “specifically requested an in-person meeting with Mr. Pukke.” Id. at 2. Pukke further 

claimed his “inability to attend these meetings will seriously jeopardize his employment with 

Buy Belize.” Id. at 2-3. Pukke’s motion attached a “letter to the Court” from purported 

“company President William Bannon.” Id. at 2. (“Mr. Pukke is doing a terrific job for us,” but if 

he “is unable to travel to Belize . . . we’d ultimately replace Mr. Pukke[.]”). But Bannon reports 

to Pukke, not the other way around. See supra at 45 (2012 SBE phone directory); PXQQ ¶ 

153:147 (Pukke ordered Greenfield to send a $10,000 check, and if she didn’t have the address, 

Pukke told her to “have Bannon get it.”); PXG ¶ 5:1 (in a subordinate sales role, Bannon 

responded to directly to consumer inquiries). 

On April 1, 2013, the Court approved a request that Pukke travel to Belize. DE27. On 

May 28, 2013, Pukke moved to travel to Belize again, and to eliminate the work-related travel 

restrictions on his supervised release. DE29. As he had previously, Pukke again asserted that 

Bannon was President of Buy Belize who supposedly threatened to fire Pukke if he could not 

travel. Id. 

The Court denied this motion, explaining that “[t]he offense Pukke was convicted of was 

a serious one, going directly to his candor and honesty. His subsequent legerdemain with respect 
54 

to internationally placed assets cannot go unnoticed.” DE32 (Oct. 15, 2013) at 1. The Court also 

noted concerns that Pukke’s job responsibilities “are inconsistent with his extremely modest 

salary.” Id. On November 21, 2013, Pukke moved to reconsider. DE33. As his counsel 

explained, “with respect to his modest salary, Mr. Pukke surmises that his criminal record had an 

effect on the starting salary he was offered,” and given the travel restrictions, Pukke “is wary to 

request any additional compensation.” Id. at 5. Pukke attached a purported “Notice of 

Termination” from “President” Bill Bannon, who purportedly gave Pukke two weeks’ notice 

because he could not travel to Belize. DE33-3. The Court denied Pukke’s motion to reconsider 

anyway, DE34 (Nov. 26, 2013)—and, as the Court likely understood, Bannon did not (and could 

not) fire Pukke. 

C. Multiple Defendants Lied During the Supervised Release Hearing 

Following another unsuccessful request to travel overseas, DE36 (June 4, 2015), the U.S. 

Probation Office moved to find Pukke had violated the terms of his Supervised Release, DE38 

(July 31, 2015). The Probation Office alleged that Pukke held numerous positions related to the 

Sanctuary Belize development (including some using an alias, “Marc Romeo”), but failed to 

disclose them on a probation form. In his opposition, Pukke denied being “ultimately 

responsible for the planning, design, or financing of Sanctuary Belize,” DE45 (Nov. 7, 2015) at 

5-9. Indeed, Pukke devoted an entire section of his filing to arguing the he is not a “developer” 

of Sanctuary Belize, id. at 18-20. Pukke also falsely denied any “ownership interest in the 

development,” id. at 9, and falsely asserted that his “work on behalf of the Sanctuary Belize 

development was fully disclosed to the Probation Office,” id. at 20. 

To support his defense, Pukke submitted a declaration, and declarations from three other 

Defendants here: Chadwick, Kazazi, and Greenfield. Pukke again swore that Bannon was his 

“direct supervisor” and denied any ownership interest in or authority over Sanctuary Belize: 

I do not have, and during the term of my supervised release did not have, 

authority over the design, planning, construction, entitlement, financial, and 
55 

environmental or other development aspects of Sanctuary Belize. I also did not 

have, and during my term of supervised release did not have, any direct or indirect 

ownership in the Sanctuary Belize development. 

DE45-2 (Nov. 7, 2015) at 2. Among other things, Chadwick misleadingly claimed to have 

“ceased operating” as part of “the Sanctuary Belize development team” in 2014. See DE46 

(Nov. 12, 2015); PXQQ ¶ 183:187 (2015 email from Chadwick using his SanctuaryBelize.com 

email address, with a “Sanctuary Belize” signature block, in communications regarding the SBE 

Coldwell Banker franchise); see also supra at 67-69 (discussing SBE’s operation of a Coldwell 

Banker franchise in 2015 and later through entities Chadwick legally owns). Chadwick also 

bolstered Pukke’s denial that he pays Marc Romeo to use his name and challenged witnesses 

who reported Pukke’s extensive involvement with SBE. DE46 at 2. Greenfield falsely asserted 

that Pukke “worked solely in the capacity of a marketer for the Sanctuary Belize development” 

and “never worked or otherwise acted as the developer of Sanctuary Belize at any time during 

[her involvement beginning in 2007],” and “all of my interactions regarding developer matters, 

including matters related to construction, financing, and property owner relations have been with 

John Usher and Frank Connolly.” DE45-3 (Nov. 7, 2015) at 2. Kazazi’s declaration made the 

same misrepresentations. DE45-5 (Nov. 7, 2015) at 2 (denying “Mr. Pukke exercising authority” 

over matters a developer would control; “for example, all financial, construction, entitlement, 

planning, permitting, and environmental aspects of the Sanctuary Belize development are within 

the exclusive control of John Usher, not Andris Pukke.”).82 Id. 

                                                             82 Kazazi also misled the Court when he claimed Defendant Eco-Futures Development 

“had no assets and had ceased all operations by the time I was hired in the first quarter of 2012.” 

Pukke, DE45-5 (Nov. 7, 2015) at 1. In reality, approximately $150 million moved through GPA 

accounts from September 2011 through May 2017, PXNN ¶ 8(l), and GPA does business as 

“Eco-Futures Development” through a registered FBN, PXC ¶ 36:53. Millions moved through 

those accounts after the first quarter of 2012 and before November 4, 2015 (when Kazazi signed 

his sworn declaration). PXNN ¶ (8)(l); Pukke, DE45-5 at 1. 
56 

 Crucially, following an evidentiary hearing, the Court expressed reservations about the 

Sanctuary Belize development’s web of entities and Pukke’s relationship to them.83 Hearing 

evidence concerning entities connected to Sanctuary Belize, including five Defendants here.84 

The Court stressed concerns about “whether Mr. Pukke told the whole truth,” or committed 

“perjury” at the hearing regarding his connections to these SBE entities. PXQQ ¶ 148:141,

United States v. Pukke (“Pukke”), No. 10-cr-734 (D. Md. Nov. 13, 2015), Tr. at 301:16-19. The 

Court noted the confusing nature of the relationships between SBE entities, and explained that 

the muddled relationships are “very misleading to the public.” Id. at 294:18-20. Accordingly, to 

resolve the issue, the Court ordered Pukke to produce “something in writing that sets out all 

these relationships [between SBE entities],” and states “what Mr. Pukke does . . . not what he 

calls himself[.]” He should also confirm “that he has no financial interest or ownership interest 

in these [SBE] entities.” Id. at 294:24-295:3; see also id. at 297:10-15 (requiring “something in 

writing”). 

 Through counsel, Pukke submitted a letter, DE48 (Nov. 25, 2015), but the Court found it 

inadequate: “The letter . . . does not indicate the extent to which Mr. Pukke directly or indirectly 

(e.g. through corporations or nominees) actually owns or controls any of these [SBE] entities,” 

DE49 (Dec. 2, 2015) at 1. Accordingly, the Court ordered Pukke to file a supplemental letter 

containing “explicit information” regarding his “direct or indirect ownership and/or control,” of 

the entities at issue “either as himself or through a corporation or nominee, including but not 

limited to his fiancée, Angela Chittenden.”85 Id. 

                                                             83 Prior SBE employee David Hadlum testified he understood Pukke “was the owner” of 

Sanctuary Belize, and “the guy in charge,” PXQQ ¶ 148:141, Pukke, Tr. 130:1-10 (Nov. 13, 

2015). Hadlum had this understanding because Chadwick told him Pukke was the “owner of 

Sanctuary Belize.” Id. at 130:11-13 (emphasis added). 

84 Some evidence also addressed long-defunct entities the FTC has not sued. 

85 Chittenden is a Relief Defendant; hundreds of thousands flow between SBE and Beach 

Bunny Holdings, LLC (“Beach Bunny”), a swimwear company that Chittenden operates. Supra 

at 75-76, PXNN ¶ 8(d). Additional money flows from SBE to Wholesale Fashion Distributors 
57 

 Again through counsel,86 Pukke made the “explicit” representations that the Court 

requested regarding seven entities (including five Defendants here, see supra at 63 n.97). The 

letter explains that, “[a]s stated in his testimony and in his affidavit attached to the Motion to 

Dismiss,” Pukke “had no direct or indirect ownership interest in, or formal or informal 

control over any of these entities, either during or immediately prior to his term of 

supervised release, in his own name or through any corporation or nominee.” DE50 at 1 

(emphasis added). When dismissing the petition and terminating Pukke’s supervised release, the 

Court quoted the entire underlined sentence. The Court declined to “credit[] everything that Mr. 

Pukke or his witnesses testified to,” DE51 (Dec. 9, 2015), but relied significantly on the absence 

of sufficient evidence that Pukke operated Sanctuary Belize through nominees. 

 Subsequent to the termination of Pukke’s supervised release, the FTC discovered that 

Pukke was actually leading SBE and the sales of lots on the Parcel and had been doing so all 

along. 

III. Multiple Parties Control SBE, Assist It, Make Misrepresentations Directly, and 

Benefit From SBE’s Misrepresentations 

A. Individuals Who Control SBE Entities 

1. Andris Pukke 

Defendant Andris Pukke (a/k/a Marc Romeo87 a/k/a Andy Storm88) resides in Newport 

Beach, California. Pukke hides his role89 and does not legally own any SBE entity.90 The 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

LLC, owned by Anthony Mock, the stepfather of Pukke’s children with Pamela Pukke. Supra at 

22; PXNN ¶ 8(m). 

86 Three SBE entities (Eco-Futures (BZ), GPA, and FDM) paid legal fees to Pukke’s 

counsel with memo lines reading “6/17/15-12/9/15,” PXNN ¶ 8(aa), which encompasses the 

period of the supervised release proceedings. 

87 As the Court will recall, in Pukke’s 2015 supervised release hearing, Pukke denied 

using the “Marc Romeo” alias except during “one or two” property tours in 2010. PXQQ ¶ 148; 

United States v. Pukke, No. 10-cr-734 (D. Md. Nov. 13, 2015), DE51, Tr. 273:18-274:5. 

Notwithstanding Pukke’s denials, the Court “found credible” testimony that Pukke used the alias 

at least once during supervised release. Id., DE51 (Dec. 9, 2015) at 2. In fact, the Court 

emphasized that it “does not necessarily accept counsel’s representation that Mr. Pukke never 
58 

manner in which he exercises control over SBE is detailed above. Notably, Pukke directs the 

other principals; for instance, Greenfield looks to Pukke for approval, supra at 45 n.66, 

Chadwick referenced Pukke’s instructions during his incarceration, supra at 43-44, Pukke 

countermanded Usher’s attempt to change SBE payment processes, supra at 41, and Pukke 

directed Kazazi to coordinate with IGY, PXGG ¶ 4:1. Pukke uses personal email accounts91 and 

his cellphone to conduct SBE business. PXQQ ¶ 185; PXAA ¶ 7:7. 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

used the name Marc Romeo during his supervised release.” Id. In fact, a former SBE employee, 

Paige Reneau, witnessed Pukke execute a contract by signing the name “Marc Romeo.” PXDD 

¶ 6:4. This is consistent with supervised release hearing testimony from consumer Jon Berndsen. 

PXQQ ¶ 148:141, Pukke, Tr. 158:16-159:10 (Nov. 13, 2015); PXQQ ¶ 148 (Bernsden contract 

Pukke signed as “Romeo”). Notably, Pukke started using “Marc Romeo” before his supervised 

release began, and on multiple occasions. In fact, one consumer heard a sales pitch at Usher’s 

house in Belize from someone who identified himself as “Marc Romeo” and said he was “one of 

the principals of the development,” but who looked like Pukke. PXS ¶ 22. Greenfield also 

forwarded to Pukke email third parties sent to “Marc.” PXQQ ¶ 184:188-190. Finally, a third 

party who settled with SBE in 2011 demanded a copy of Romeo’s passport and driver’s license 

at “[his] attorneys’ urging . . . to put to rest concerns that Marc is not who I’ve been told he is.” 

PXQQ ¶ 144:136. 

88 See PXQQ ¶ 149 (summarizing evidence that Pukke uses Andy Storm). 

89 Pukke also misrepresents his role to consumers directly. After a consumer inquired 

about Pukke’s role, he prepared an email to a telemarketer, which she forwarded to the 

consumer. PXQQ ¶ 192:199. In the email, Pukke offers to “try to find some time this week to 

swing by the GPA offices” to give the telemarketer “all the facts,” including that he “pulled 

[himself] away from [Sanctuary Belize] long ago.” Id. The telemarketer is in on the deception; 

she received correspondence about the development and copied to Pukke or concerning Pukke 

both before and after she forwarded Pukke’s false denial. PXQQ ¶ 193:200-201. 

90 He briefly was a bank signatory on one SBE account, PXQQ ¶ 194:202 but SBE 

removed him a few months later, PXQQ ¶ 194. 

91 Pukke apparently used the “SRWRBelize” email address along with other principals. 

PXC ¶ 34:46-47 (summarizing evidence). For instance, an internal SBE document lists 

SRWRBelize with ekkup@msn.com, which Pukke uses, supra at 45 n.66, and 

Andy.Storm@yahoo.com, and Andy Storm is one of Pukke’s aliases, PXQQ ¶ 149. 

Additionally, on some emails, the initials “AP” are associated with the SRWRBelize email. 

PXC ¶ 34:46. (citing examples). To provide another example, in 2010, someone using the 

@SRWRBelize email account forwarded development plans to four people including Pukke’s 

mother’s personal email (Pukke’s mother herself uses the alias “Alicia Long,” see PXQQ ¶ 147). 

PXQQ ¶ 195:203.
59 

2. Brandi Greenfield 

Greenfield serves as Pukke’s “right hand,” working as “Director of Sales” for the 

Sanctuary Belize development since 2007. PXQQ ¶ 186:179 at 1. Pukke hired her at Sanctuary 

Belize “because she was friends with Chittenden—Pukke’s partner.” PXBB ¶ 9. Greenfield is a 

GPA officer and bank signatory. PXQQ ¶¶ 187-188:193-194. She signs contracts on behalf of 

Eco-Futures (US) (using a Belizean address), PXQQ ¶ 189:122, makes misrepresentations to 

consumers directly, PXQQ ¶ 190, and responds to consumers’ concerns in online forums, PXQQ 

¶ 190:195.92 At the location SBE used from 2011 to 2015 (1401 Dove Street), PXQQ ¶ 191, 

Greenfield’s “office was right across the hall from Pukke’s and she helped him with everything.” 

PXBB ¶ 9. Greenfield’s office is a few feet from Pukke’s at 3333 Michelson, PXFF ¶ 14:1, and 

the emails above demonstrate that she works closely with Pukke on development matters, see 

supra at 45. However, during the supervised release proceeding, Greenfield submitted a sworn 

declaration representing denying that she interacted with Pukke on “matters relating to 

construction, financing, and property owner relations.” PXQQ ¶ 186:179, Pukke, DE45-3 (Nov. 

7, 2015) at 2. 

3. Luke Chadwick 

Pukke brought in Chadwick to run SBE during his incarceration, supra at 43-44, and to 

help hide Pukke’s involvement, PXZ ¶ 7. Chadwick is SBE’s public face in many marketing 

materials, including infomercials. PXQQ ¶ 198:288. On numerous occasions, Chadwick has 

represented himself to be a “principal” or “owner” of the development. PXQQ ¶ 198:209-210; 

PXI ¶ 9:3, PXR ¶ 26:16, PXG ¶ 12. Likewise, Defendant Kazazi described Chadwick as a 

“director[] of the entity that owns the development,” PXGG ¶ 9:6, and SBE employee Michael 

                                                             92 Greenfield has sent and received SBE-related communications using her cellphone, one 

personal email account, and multiple SBE accounts including @SanctuaryBelize account and 

@GPADevelopers.com account. PXQQ ¶¶ 196-197:204-206. 
60 

Santos93 described Chadwick as “the principal owner of Sanctuary Belize,” [286] PXQQ ¶ 199. 

Chadwick negotiates contract terms on SBE’s behalf, PXE ¶¶ 28-29, signs contracts on behalf of 

at least one Defendant, Belizean entity Eco-Futures Belize Ltd. (“Eco-Futures (BZ)”),” PXQQ ¶ 

200:212. Chadwick served as an SRWR Director in 2010. PXQQ ¶ 294:317. Chadwick also 

legally owns Defendants doing business as Coldwell Banker Southern Belize (Nevis entity 

Belize Real Estate Affiliates LLC (“BREA (NV)”) and Belizean entity Southern Belize Realty 

LLC. (“SBR (BZ)”). PXQQ ¶ 283:267. SBE compensates Chadwick through Prodigy 

Management Group, LLC, PXNN ¶ 8(n),94 which Chadwick owns or manages, PXQQ ¶ 

284:305-306. Chadwick sends and receives SBE-related communications from his cellphone, 

along with at least one personal email and several SBE accounts including 

@SanctuaryBelize.com and @ColdwellBankerBelize.com. PXQQ ¶¶ 246-247. 

4. Peter Baker 

Baker is Pukke’s childhood friend, PXQQ ¶ 96:101, AmeriDebt, Tr. (Mar. 14, 2007) at 

5:14-15, whom the Court held in contempt for his effort to hide Pukke’s assets, including the 

Parcel, see supra at 9-10. Prior to and during the AmeriDebt receivership, Baker owned interests 

in the entities that controlled the Parcel. Baker owns named Defendants GPA and Eco-Futures 

(BZ). PXQQ ¶ 327. The Orange County FBN “Eco-Futures” is registered to Baker individually, 

PXC ¶ 36:51, and GPA (which Baker owns) registered three additional SBE-related FBNs: 

“Eco-Futures Belize,” “Eco-Futures Development,” and “Sittee River Wildlife Reserve HOA.” 

Id. ¶ 36:52-55. Baker is a bank signatory for GPA and named Defendant SRWR, and he holds 

board positions for both named Defendants Foundation Development Management, Inc. 

(“FDM”) and Buy International, Inc. (“Buy International”). PXQQ ¶ 233. In a recorded 

                                                             93 See supra at 13 n.18 (discussing Santos’ role). 

94 SBE transferred more than $1.1 million to Prodigy. PXNN ¶ 8(n). 
61 

undercover call, SBE Defendant Costanzo confirmed that “Peter Baker owns [the] development 

and he is the developer.” PXQQ ¶ 48:41 at 12:8-12. 

5. John Usher 

Belizean national John Usher became SRWR’s Director before it contested the 

Receiver’s right to the Parcel, see supra at 9-12, and he continued as an SRWR board member 

until at least 2010. PXQQ ¶ 294:317. Usher testified during the 2007 contempt trial and 

generally minimized what he knew about Pukke’s involvement with SBE entities and their 

predecessors. See, e.g., PXQQ ¶ 322:346 at 72:22-25. Usher is a Director of the Sanctuary 

Belize Property Owner’s Association (“SBPOA”), PXQQ ¶ 201:213, which is an entity 

organized under Texas law, PXQQ ¶¶ 201, 295, and that collects money from consumers at a 

Texas address, PXQQ ¶ 202:214-215. He is a bank signatory on Eco-Futures (BZ)’s U.S. bank 

account. PXQQ ¶ 204. Numerous marketing communications directed to U.S. residents identify 

Usher as the “chairman,” “developer,” or “principal” of the development, PXQQ ¶¶ 205, 

254:219-222, 278, and SBE Defendant Kazazi described Usher as a “director of the entity that 

owns the development,” PXGG ¶ 9:6. In addition to Usher’s Maryland contempt trial testimony, 

Usher visits the United States to conduct SBE business, including a meeting in California with 

Pukke and others, PXZ ¶ 8; see also PXBB ¶ 20, and he met with IGY executives about the 

development’s marina in Florida, PXGG ¶ 24:20-21.95 

6. Frank Costanzo 

Frank Costanzo (a/k/a Frank Connelly, Frank Costanzo-Connelly, and Frank Peerless 

Green) is a disbarred Maryland attorney and officer of three SBE entities: FDM, Buy 

International, and Eco-Futures (US). PXC ¶ 19:7, id. ¶ 21:9; PXQQ ¶¶ 279-280; PXQQ ¶¶ 

226:245. SBE describes him as “deeply involved” with Sanctuary Belize, PXO ¶ 4:25 at 2, and 

                                                             95 Usher uses his personal email for SBE-related communications. PXQQ ¶ 207:224-

225. 
62 

he presents himself as an environmental expert in sales presentations, PXQQ ¶¶ 38, 119:27. 

Costanzo also handles consumer complaints. PXGG ¶ 29:27 (“We also discussed with 

Sanctuary Belize how to handle continuing buyer inquiries. Kazazi told IGY that we should 

direct consumers to Frank Connelly at Sanctuary Belize[.]”). Costanzo is married to Maryland 

attorney and Relief Defendant Deborah Connelly.96 PXQQ ¶ 97:102. 

Notably, Costanzo originally practiced law from a Baltimore office as a member of both 

the Maryland and Florida bars. PXC ¶¶ 19:7; 20:8. In 2008, the Florida bar alleged that 

Costanzo misappropriated funds from five clients. PXC ¶ 19:7. The Florida Supreme Court 

ordered Costanzo suspended on an emergency basis, The Fla. Bar v. Costanzo, 1 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 

2008), and it later ordered him suspended for ten years, The Fla. Bar v. Costanzo, 13 So. 3d 1056 

(Fla. 2009). Costanzo continued to practice law anyway, see PXC:7 (Florida bar counsel 

allegations), and the Florida Supreme Court ordered him to show cause why he should not be 

held in contempt and disbarred, PXC:7, The Fla. Bar v. Costanzo, No. SC09-1573 (Fla. Dec. 23, 

2009). The court’s referee found “clear and convincing” evidence established that Costanzo was 

in contempt. PXC:7 at 2. The Florida Supreme Court accepted the referee’s conclusions, held 

Costanzo in contempt, and permanently disbarred him. The Fla. Bar v. Costanzo, 63 So. 3d 750 

(Fla. 2011). 

After the Florida’s Supreme Court’s 2009 suspension, the Maryland bar began 

investigating complaints against Costanzo. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. 

Costanzo, 432 Md. 233, 237 (2013). Costanzo did not respond, and, indeed, “Costanzo failed to 

appear for oral argument” before the Maryland Court of Appeals. Id. at 238. The Court of 

                                                             96 Costanzo uses his personal cellphone for SBE-related communications, PXQQ ¶¶ 208-

209:226, and he uses both a personal account (ecologicalfox@gmail.com) and various other SBE 

entity accounts to conduct SBE business, PXQQ ¶ 209:105, 226-227; PXAA ¶ 5:5; PXGG ¶ 

29:27. 
63 

Appeals disbarred Costanzo, finding that “there is no question that Costanzo engaged in 

egregious misconduct under MLRPC 8.4(c) by misusing his clients’ funds.” Id. at 256. 

7. Rod Kazazi 

SBE Defendant Rod Kazazi is Defendant FP’s owner, the CEO of Eco-Futures (US), 

PXQQ ¶ 226:245, and Defendant GPA’s CFO, PXQQ ¶ 187 (and at times, he identified himself 

as GPA’s COO, PXQQ ¶ 210:228-230). Kazazi is a bank signatory for SBE entity accounts 

including GPA, SRWR, Eco-Futures (BZ), Eco-Futures (US), and FDM. PXQQ ¶ 211. Kazazi 

also represented to SBE’s current payroll provider that he is the “owner” of Buy Belize and 

GPA. PXQQ ¶ 212:231. He conveyed to third parties that he had a “senior executive role.” 

PXGG ¶ 4 (“I understood Kazazi had a senior executive role at Sanctuary Belize.”). Among 

other things, Kazazi has incorporated SBE entities, PXQQ ¶¶ 225, 281:244, 302, directed 

financial transfers, PXQQ ¶ 213:232, and negotiated lot buyback agreements, PXQQ ¶ 214:233. 

Kazazi also handled consumer complaints, PXZ ¶ 9, PXGG ¶¶ 10-11, 26-28, and coordinated 

SBE’s response to negative press, PXGG ¶¶ 10-11, 26-28. 

B. Entities That Constitute SBE 

1. Corporate Formalities and Distinctions Are Not Maintained 

SBE does not maintain corporate formalities or practical distinctions between the sixteen 

entities that constitute the Sanctuary Belize Enterprise (“SBE”).97 Among other things: 

 Location. All sixteen SBE entities are operated or managed to at least a 

significant extent from 3333 Michelson. PXQQ ¶ 215. Seven SBE 

entities are legally registered at 3333 Michelson. PXQQ ¶ 216. 

                                                             97 The SBE entity defendants are Power Haus Marketing, Ecological Fox, LLC, 

Foundation Development Management Inc., Global Property Alliance, Inc., Buy International, 

Inc., Eco-Futures Development Inc., Eco-Futures Belize Limited, Buy Belize, LLC, Sittee River 

Wildlife Reserve, Belize Real Estate Affiliates LLC, Southern Belize Realty LLC, Exotic 

Investor LLC, Foundation Partners, BG Marketing, Prodigy Management Group, and the 

Sanctuary Belize Property Owners Association. 
64 

 Common Management. Fourteen SBE entities share at least one owner, 

officer or director with at least one other SBE entity. PXQQ ¶ 217. The 

only exceptions are Power Haus (for which Pukke’s partner, Relief 

Defendant Chittenden, is the CEO, Secretary, CFO, and Director), PXQQ 

¶ 221:235-237, and Ecological Fox, which is organized by Costanzo’s 

wife (Relief Defendant Connolly), PXQQ ¶¶ 97, 218, 278:234. GPA 

shares at least one owner, officer or director with seven other SBE entity 

Defendants, PXQQ ¶ 219, which helps illustrate their common control. 

SRWR has or had at least one overlapping owner, officer, or director with 

nine other SBE entity defendants. PXQQ ¶ 220. 

 Commingling. At least nine SBE entities exchange funds with each 

other. PXQQ ¶ 330. Four SBE entities collect money from consumers on 

behalf of another SBE entity. PXQQ ¶ 339. For instance, SBE employees 

using GPA email addresses send invoices from SRWR for HOA dues 

owed to SBPOA and direct consumers to remit payments to Eco-Futures 

at 3333 Michelson. PXI ¶ 39:39-40; PXQQ ¶¶ 276, 297:299. 

 Joint Communications and Marketing. Nine SBE entities communicate 

jointly with another SBE entity (for instance, an email from 

@GPADevelopers forwarding an SRWR invoice), PXQQ ¶¶ 228, 

337:247, or market jointly with another SBE entity (for instance, 

advertising by one entity directing consumers to contact another), PXQQ ¶ 

338. Eight entities use “@SanctuaryBelize” email addresses, and at least 

four send emails with signature blocks referring to Sanctuary Belize. 

PXQQ ¶ 332:357-360. 

 Common Employees. All SBE entities with employees share those 

employees at least one other SBE entity. PXQQ ¶ 336. 

Unsurprisingly, prior SBE employees do not understand the formal distinctions between various 

SBE entities. PXBB ¶ 3 (“While I was working there, I saw no distinction between Sanctuary 

Belize, Buy Belize, Global Property Alliance, Sittee River Wildlife Reserve and Eco-Futures 

Development.”); PXZ ¶ 5 (“I wasn’t sure what company I worked for.”). 

2. SBE Entity Subgroups 

The SBE entity Defendants can be roughly separated into four highly interrelated 

subgroups: (1) domestic entities with substantial operations; (2) domestic pass-through entities 

that exist solely to obscure payments; (3); offshore entities associated with Chadwick; and (4) 

offshore entities associated with Usher. Each entity within each subgroup works to further the 

SBE land-sale scam that Pukke and his associates operate. 
65 

a. Domestic Entities With Operations 

SBE runs much of its lot sale scam through multiple largely indistinguishable entities all 

based at 3333 Michelson: 

  Eco-Futures Development, Inc. (“Eco-Futures (US)”). Numerous marketing 

communications to U.S. consumers come from the domain @eco-futures.com, 

PXQQ ¶ 222:238-240, and emails with signature blocks referring to “EcoFutures” use the 3333 Michelson address, PXQQ ¶¶ 223, 297:241 and consumers 

make payments to Belizean entities Eco-Futures (BZ) and SRWR by sending 

those payments to Eco-Futures (US), PXQQ ¶ 224:242-243. SBE Defendant 

Kazazi incorporated Eco-Futures (US), PXQQ ¶ 225, and is the CEO alongside 

Costanzo, who is the Secretary, PXQQ ¶ 226:245. 

 Global Property Alliance, Inc. (“GPA”). Baker is GPA’s CEO. SBE 

Defendants Greenfield and Kazazi are officers. Emails to consumers related to 

Sanctuary Belize come from an @GPADevelopers domain, PXQQ ¶ 227:246, and 

emails from this domain often involve both domestic and foreign SBE entities 

including Sittee River Wildlife Reserve (“SRWR”) and Eco-Futures (BZ), PXQQ 

¶ 228:247-248. GPA uses various registered FBNs including “Eco-Futures 

Development,” “Eco-Futures Belize,” and “Sittee River Wildlife Reserve HOA.” 

PXQQ ¶ 297. Buy Belize is another SBE entity Defendant, and GPA posted an 

online job listing seeking telemarketers to pursue leads through “our website at 

BuyBelize.com.” PXQQ ¶ 229:249-250. 

 Buy Belize, LLC (“Buy Belize”). Baker is managing member and CEO. PXQQ 

¶ 230. SBE Defendant Greenfield is Buy Belize’s registered agent. PXQQ ¶¶ 

216(d), 219(e), 220(a), 231. Buy Belize performs marketing functions for SBE. 

PXQQ ¶ 290. 

 Buy International, Inc. (“Buy International”). Baker holds two Buy 

International board positions, and SBE Defendant Costanzo holds the third. 

PXQQ ¶ 233:255. Buy International performs marketing functions for SBE. 

PXQQ ¶ 232:253-254. SBE Defendant Kazazi submitted Buy International’s 

incorporation paperwork. PXQQ ¶ 234:256. 

 Power Haus Marketing, Inc. (“Power Haus”). Pukke’s partner (Relief 

Defendant Chittenden) is the CEO, Secretary, CFO, and Director. PXQQ ¶¶ 216, 

221:235-237. It is registered at 3333 Michelson and apparently performs 

marketing functions. PXQQ ¶ 329:355. SBE has transferred approximately $1.4 

million to Power Haus. PXNN ¶ 8(t).  Foundation Development Management Inc. (“FDM”). Baker is the CEO, 

CFO, and sole director. Costanzo is the Secretary. SBE money flows to and from 

FDM, PXNN ¶ 8(o), and Pukke used an FDM account to pay a telemarketer, 

PXBB ¶ 24. Angie Garcia, an accountant on Buy International’s payroll, PXQQ ¶ 

233:258, 296, submitted FDM’s Statement of Information, PXQQ ¶ 236:258, and 

SBE Defendant Kazazi submitted FDM’s incorporation paperwork, PXQQ ¶ 

235:257. 
66 

 

 Foundation Partners (f/k/a Red Crane Advisors, Inc.) (“FP”). SBE Defendant 

Kazazi owns FP, which has a picture of Costanzo on its website, PXC ¶42:67 at 2. 

Its website also lists various development projects including Sanctuary Belize and 

another (Kanantik) to which SBE has transferred nearly two million. PXC ¶42:67 

at 5; PXNN ¶ 8(y).98 

 Sanctuary Belize Property Owners Association (“SBPOA”) (d/b/a “The 

Reserve Property Owners Association”).

99 Usher is its Director, PXQQ ¶¶ 201, 

295:213, and when SBE changed the development’s name from “Sanctuary 

Belize” to “the Reserve,” SBPOA registered the trade name “The Reserve 

Property Owners Association” (“RPOA”). PXQQ ¶ 172:175. SBE uses SBPOA 

to collect monthly homeowners’ association dues. PXQQ ¶ 202:214-215. 

Although SBPOA is nominally a nonprofit, SBE operates it as part of the overall 

for-profit SBE organization; in fact, SBE has deposited homeowners’ association 

dues into a GPA account. PXNN ¶ 15. SBPOA invoices initially directed 

consumers to make checks payable to SRWR, and instruct consumers to mail 

checks to “SRWR c/o Eco-Futures” at 3333 Michelson. PXQQ ¶ 228:247-248. 

More recently, SBE correspondence from 3333 Michelson directed consumers to 

make homeowner’s association payments to a Texas location, PXQQ ¶ 203:216-

218, where it is deposited into an account from which Eco-Futures (US) has 

received more than $100,000 in transfers, PXNN ¶ 15. 

b. Domestic Pass-Through Entities 

SBE also includes several “pass-through” entities that apparently have no operations 

other than receiving certain individual SBE Defendants’ compensation from SBE. Because these 

entities’ only known employees are Costanzo, Greenfield, and Chadwick, the entities effectively 

function through 3333 Michelson: 

 Ecological Fox, LLC (“EF”). EF is a Maryland entity organized by SBE 

Defendant Costanzo’s wife, Maryland attorney and Relief Defendant 

Deborah Connelly. PXQQ ¶¶ 97:102, 218:234, 87:54. Costanzo uses an 

email with an EcologicalFox@gmail.com email address, PXQQ ¶ 

237:259, and he appears as EF’s “President” on a website marketing real 

estate, PXQQ ¶ 238:104.100 SBE has transferred tens of thousands to EF 

through its payroll, PXNN ¶ 11. 

                                                             98 Notably, although Kazazi is currently FP’s President, attorney Ashish Dudheker, a 

lawyer at the Orange County firm that represents Pukke in litigation with Sanctuary Belize 

owners, served as FP’s President until 2017. PXQQ ¶ 239:260. 

99 SBPOA is registered in Texas but does business from 3333 Michelson; among other 

things, money consumers send to Texas is returned to Eco-Futures (US) at 3333 Michelson. 

PXQQ ¶ 203; PXNN ¶ 15. 

100 The website also associates EF and Frank Costanzo with “Peerless Green Initiatives,” 

PXQQ ¶ 238:104, and Costanzo has used the alias “Frank Peerless Green,” PXQQ ¶ 97. The 
67 

 BG Marketing LLC (“BGM”). SBE Defendant Greenfield formed BG 

Marketing LLC (“BGM”) in 2012.101 Greenfield used an online 

incorporation service to which she provided an SBE email 

(brandi@sanctuarybelize.com), an SBE phone number, and SBE’s office 

address at the time (Dove Street). PXQQ ¶ 240:261. The following 

month, Greenfield used her SBE email to direct Bank of America to 

provide her with online access to BGM’s account. PXQQ ¶ 241:261. 

SBE has transferred $350,000 to BGM. PXNN ¶ 8(p). One internal SBE 

accounting email states that “Brandi Greenfield = BG Marketing.” PXQQ 

¶ 282:405. 

 Prodigy Management Group, LLC (“Prodigy”). SBE transferred more 

than $1 million to Prodigy. PXNN ¶ 8(n). Internal SBE documents treat 

Prodigy as the means through which SBE compensates Chadwick. PXQQ 

¶ 282. One such document states simply that “Luke Chadwick = Prodigy 

Management.” PXQQ ¶ 282:305. Chadwick also executed a joint venture 

agreement with a third party stating that Prodigy is “an entity controlled 

by Luke Chadwick.” PXQQ ¶ 331:356.

c. Nevisian Entities Associated With Chadwick 

i. Southern Belize Realty 

Southern Belize Realty (“SBR (NV)”) is a Nevis entity “owned 100% by Luke 

Chadwick,” PXQQ ¶ 244:267, which does business as a Coldwell Banker affiliate.102 As 

discussed further below, SBE directs the many Sanctuary Belize owners who want to resell their 

lots to Coldwell Banker SB, which then scuttles the transactions (secondary sales compete with 

SBE’s “new” lots). See supra at 36-37. Specifically, beginning in 2014, SBR (NV) operated a 

Coldwell Banker franchise. Coldwell Banker determined that “[w]ith a group of investors 

[Chadwick] has been developing Sanctuary Belize,” and Chadwick operated SBR (NV) in part 

“to assign the secondary market derived from SB [Sanctuary Belize] (land and/or homes) to the 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

website further claims EF has a “focus on U.S.-India development programs and joint ventures,” 

and Costanzo has elsewhere claimed expertise in joint U.S.-India development projects. PXQQ 

¶ 238:27. 

101 BGM is an Oklahoma entity with a reported place of business at Greenfield’s 

residence. PXQQ ¶ 240:262. 

102 Consumers have noted the association between Sanctuary Belize and the Coldwell 

Banker brand, PXQQ ¶ 242:264, 265 (consumer complaints to Coldwell Banker about Sanctuary 

Belize). 
68 

Coldwell Banker office.” PXQQ ¶ 244:267. SBR (NV) does business as “Coldwell Banker 

Southern Belize,” PXQQ ¶ 285:307, and its trade name registration uses an address in Belize 

City that Defendant Atlantic International Bank (“AIB”) also uses, PXQQ ¶ 285:309. Notably, 

in SBR’s franchise agreement with Coldwell Banker, SBR accepts that New Jersey law would 

govern the agreement and that New Jersey courts would have jurisdiction over any related 

disputes.103 PXQQ ¶ 244; PXC ¶ 29:41 at 48. 

Significantly, funds for Coldwell Banker SB come from another SBE entity through 

Defendant AIB, including money for its building and corporate registration in Belize, PXNN 

¶8(q), and they share employees (including Chadwick and Voss).104 In fact, Voss claimed that 

Coldwell Banker SB and other SBE entities were “ONE TEAM,” PXQQ ¶ 287:311. To promote 

Sanctuary Belize, Voss also appeared on a staged HGTV “reality” real estate shopping program 

called Caribbean Life. Specifically, in one episode, Voss shows consumers Sanctuary Belize 

lots in her capacity as a Coldwell Banker realtor and claims the Sanctuary Belize development 

will only be under construction for “a few years.” PXQQ ¶ 243:266 at 16:10-16:14. The 

consumers choose the Sanctuary Belize lot on the show, although HGTV does not disclose that 

the realtor (Voss) was a paid SBE employee.105 PXQQ ¶ 243. Voss did a video casting 

interview with the show’s producers from SBE’s offices at 3333 Michelson, PXC ¶ 78-82, which 

further underscores the integration between Coldwell Banker SB and the other entities operating 

from 3333 Michelson. 

                                                             103 Chadwick uses his personal cellphone and multiple email addresses (including his 

personal email address) for business related to Coldwell Banker Southern Belize. PXQQ ¶ 

247:267, 269. 

104 Chadwick and Voss use both “@ColdwellBankerBelize” and 

“@SanctuaryBelize.com” email addresses. PXQQ ¶ 248:271, 267 at 37. 

105 Voss did not steer the consumers toward the Sanctuary Belize lot because she didn’t 

have to; the consumers who appeared on the program bought their lot before they agreed to 

appear on the program. PXQQ ¶ 249. 
69 

ii. Belize Real Estate Affiliates 

Defendant Chadwick owns Belize Real Estate Affiliates LLC (NV) (“BREA (NV)”). 

BREA (NV) is a Nevis entity that uses multiple Orange County, California addresses. PXQQ ¶¶ 

244, 283:267 at 56-58. In 2015, Chadwick and Coldwell Banker restructured their relationship, 

and BREA (NV) became the consumer-facing franchise. PXQQ ¶ 244:267 at 76-136. BREA 

(NV)’s Nevis incorporation paperwork provides that its manager is “Luke Thomas Chadwick of 

3333 Michelson Drive.” PXQQ ¶ 244:267 at 58. Notably, BREA (NV) used both 3333 

Michelson and another Orange County address in communications with Coldwell Banker.106

Significantly, Coldwell Banker recently terminated BREA (NV)’s franchise agreement. 

PXQQ ¶ 245:268. After BREA (NV) refused to remove the “Coldwell Banker” mark from 

various websites and its office in Placencia, Belize (near Sanctuary Belize), Coldwell Banker 

sent Chadwick a cease-and-desist letter. Id. Chadwick ignored that letter, and Coldwell Banker 

sued BREA (NV) in New Jersey seeking an injunction. Chadwick ignored a court order that he 

appear in the proceeding.107 

iii. Exotic Investor 

Exotic Investor LLC (“EI (NV)”) is a Nevis entity that Chadwick owns: internal SBE 

documents give Chadwick’s personal cellphone as one of its numbers, PXQQ ¶¶ 250-251:272, a 

                                                             106 BREA (NV) also uses an Orange County address for its domestic bank account. 

PXQQ ¶ 335:363. BREA (NV)’s franchise agreement with Coldwell Banker is governed by 

U.S. law, and it consents to U.S. jurisdiction for any disputes related to the agreement. PXQQ ¶ 

244. 

107 See Order, Realogy Group LLC v. Belize Real Estate Affiliates LLC, No. 1376-18 (N.J. 

Sup. Ct. Morris Cty. July 31, 2018) at 2. Realogy (which owns Coldwell Banker) served 

Chadwick in the United States as BREA (NV)’s president and owner. PXQQ ¶ 206:223. 

Chadwick did not appear. The court subsequently entered the injunction and issued a default 

against Chadwick. Order, Realogy Group, LLC v. Belize Real Estate Affiliates LLC, No. 1376-

18 (N.J. Super. Ct. Morris Cty. Sept. 7, 2018) (noting defendants did not respond). Coldwell 

Banker and its parent, Realogy Holdings Corporation, cooperated with the FTC’s investigation. 
70 

California residence where Chadwick resided as its address, PXQQ ¶ 251:273, and 

Luke@SanctuaryBelize.com as its email address, PXQQ ¶ 250:272. With respect to an expense, 

Chadwick directed GPA accounting staff to “bill Exotic Investor LLC at this address [3333 

Michelson] and give it to me.” PXQQ ¶ 291:314. EI (NV) prepared infomercials promoting 

Sanctuary Belize to an American audience; in fact, an SBE telemarketing sales script mentions 

that “Luke Chadwick just finished shooting the first 3 episodes of his new TV program called the 

Exotic Investor which highlights Sanctuary Belize.” PXQQ ¶ 293:316. Robert Schafnitz, the 

“Director of Investor Relations” at “Sanctuary Belize, An Eco-Futures Development,” emailed 

Chadwick, others at the SanctuaryBelize.com domain, and “AP” at SRWRBelize@yahoo.com 

about the impact the “Exotic Investor” infomercial would have. PXQQ ¶ 252:274. Cyara Pott, a 

Sanctuary Belize employee on the Buy Belize payroll with an “Eco-Futures Development” 

signature block, PXQQ ¶ 253:275-277, created a Vimeo profile (a video-sharing platform) for 

Exotic Investor, PXQQ ¶ 253:277.108 

d. Belizean Entities Associated With Usher 

i. Eco-Futures Belize Limited 

Eco-Futures Belize Limited (“Eco-Futures (BZ)”) is a Belizean company Baker owns. 

PXQQ ¶ 328:354. Usher appears as the “principal” of “Eco-Futures” in numerous marketing 

communications related to Sanctuary Belize and emailed to consumers in the United States. 

PXQQ ¶ 254. Eco-Futures (BZ) collects payments from consumers in the United States by 

                                                             108 Notably, two Orange County real estate investors loaned money both to SBE and to 

parties (including Chadwick) purportedly developing an adjacent property (“Kanantik”) by 

funding a joint venture. PXQQ ¶ 331:356. These lenders sued Defendants Chadwick and EI and 

other entity connected to Chadwick (Mango Springs) last year, alleging Chadwick mismanaged 

the parties purporting to develop Kanantik (including various improper transactions involving 

Chadwick, Pukke, and Usher). See Mathis v. Chadwick, No. 30-2017-93682 (filed Ca. Sup. Ct. 

Orange Cty. Aug. 10, 2017). Chadwick successfully moved to dismiss the claims against EI and 

Mango Springs, and successfully moved to the California court to compel arbitration of the 

claims against him personally. Order, Mathis v. Chadwick, No. 30-2017-39682 (filed Ca. Sup. 

Ct. Orange Cty. June 26, 2018). 
71 

directing them to pay Eco-Futures (US) in the United States at 3333 Michelson or a nearby 

address. PXQQ ¶ 255:279; PXE ¶ 46:30. Some lot sales contracts require payments to EcoFutures (BZ) at 3333 Michelson. PXQQ ¶ 256:280. Eco-Futures (BZ) also maintains a domestic 

bank account with the address SBE used before Michelson. PXQQ ¶ 257:281. Eco-Futures 

(BZ) issued one owner a check from this account; the Fedex arrived from “Sanctuary Bay,” and 

it was sent by a GPA accountant. PXS ¶ 37:39. 

ii. Sittee River Wildlife Reserve 

Sittee River Wildlife Reserve (“SRWR”) is a Belizean nonprofit Pukke organized and 

controls. See supra at 39-45, 52. It has legal title to the Parcel. See id. at 10-12. SRWR board 

members have included Pukke, Baker, Baker’s mother, Usher, Usher’s sons, Chadwick, 

Costanzo, and other Pukke associates. PXQQ ¶ 294:317. SRWR has used a California address 

since at least 2008. PXQQ ¶ 259:283. SRWR has a de facto office at 3333 Michelson, where 

current and prior officers work, and where its communications are sent and received.109 PXQQ ¶ 

260. 

C. AIB Assists and Facilitates SBE’s Deception, and Benefits From It 

AIB is based in Belize City in a physical address that SBR used to register the “Coldwell 

Banker” name with local authorities.110 PXQQ ¶ 285:307-309. AIB has a symbiotic relationship 

with SBE in which AIB helps SBE market lots and provides SBE with financial services related 

                                                             109 Although SRWR is legally a non-profit, SBE operates it for profit. “Courts have 

consistently recognized that the [FTC] Act applies to ‘corporations’ organized for profit 

regardless of the form of their charter or statutory source.” AmeriDebt, 343 F. Supp. 2d at 460; 

see also FTC v. Gill, 183 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1184 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Community Blood 

Bank of Kansas City Area, Inc. v. FTC, 405 F.2d 1011, 1022 (8th Cir. 1969)). SRWR 

commingles its funds and blends its operations with multiple for-profit entities as part of a forprofit common enterprise. See supra at 71. 

110 No American financial authority regulates AIB, PXQQ ¶ 263, and it has no domestic 

branches, PXQQ ¶ 263:287. 
72 

to that marketing. In return, SBE uses its domestic sales operation to promote AIB to U.S.-based 

lot purchasers. 

1. Assistance AIB Provides to SBE 

AIB provides two types of assistance to SBE: financial services and marketing. First, 

AIB uses American correspondent banks111 to facilitate numerous transfers that assist SBE and 

facilitate its scheme. AIB previously used Bank of America as its “main” American 

correspondent bank,112 PXQQ ¶ 262:285, but switched to Puerto Rican-headquartered Bancredito 

as its correspondent bank after Bank of America terminated its relationship with AIB, PXQQ ¶ 

262:286. Wire records confirm transfers from SBE to AIB, PXNN ¶ 12. For instance, SBE 

directed Bank of America (where SBE maintains domestic accounts, PXNN ¶ 5) to transfer 

money to AIB with Baker as the beneficiary, PXNN ¶ 12. To provide another example, SBE 

used Bank of America move tens of thousands from Defendant GPA’s domestic account to an 

AIB account with wire references that refer to “Coldwell,” PXNN ¶ 8(q). Accordingly, AIB 

helps SBE move money related to its scheme. 

Second, AIB interacts with prospective purchasers directly to help sell lots. Specifically, 

AIB offers prospective purchasers lower interest rates and relaxed underwriting on loans needed 

to build on their Sanctuary Belize lots,113 PXQQ ¶ 134, which makes the lots more attractive. Its 

                                                             111 “A correspondent bank account is a domestic account held by a foreign bank, similar 

to a personal checking account used for deposits, payments and transfers of funds. 

Correspondent accounts facilitate the flow of money worldwide[.]” Licci v. Lebanese Canadian 

Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161, 165 n.3 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks 

omitted). Significantly, a defendant’s “repeated use of the correspondent account . . . as an 

instrument to achieve the wrong complained of . . .in [a] suit satisfies the minimum contacts 

component of the due process inquiry.” Id. at 173; Al Rushaid v. Pictet & Cie, 68 N.E.3d 1, 11-

13 (N.Y. 2016) (finding minimum contacts based on “maintenance and repeated use” of a 

domestic bank account). 

112 For part of the relevant period, AIB also used Texas-based Whitney National Bank. 

PXQQ ¶ 261:284. 

113 In at least one case, AIB foreclosed on a Sanctuary Belize home and attempted to 

market the property on its website. PXQQ ¶ 341:364. 
73 

representatives also present to consumers during property tours, PXP ¶ 25; PXF ¶ 16; PXR ¶ 20, 

and they even join consumers on the island where contract negotiations occur, PXU ¶ 29; PXD ¶ 

27, see also supra at 72. For instance, while present on Sanctuary Caye, AIB told prospective 

purchasers “that Sanctuary Belize has a special relationship” with AIB. PXU ¶ 29 (AIB stated 

on Sanctuary Caye “that Sanctuary Belize has a special relationship with Atlantic International 

Bank.”). The involvement of a financial institution lends legitimacy to the project and makes 

consumers more comfortable investing in Belize.114 

2. Assistance SBE Provides to AIB 

AIB helps SBE because SBE uses its U.S-based sales operation to help sell AIB’s 

services to American residents. For instance, a recording establishes AIB’s CEO Ricardo Pelayo 

and other AIB representatives met with SBE telemarketers in California and coached them on 

how to pitch AIB’s services to SBE’s customers. PXBB:22-23 (recording and transcript); PXQQ 

¶ 264 (information about Pelayo). AIB made clear when coaching California telemarketers that 

it sought to establish banking relationships with American consumers who buy Sanctuary Belize 

lots but would continue residing in the United States for years.115 PXBB ¶ 20:22, 23 at 5:22-6:4. 

At the bank’s request, SBE’s telemarketers help AIB achieve that goal.116 

                                                             114 Both consumers and SBE insiders sometimes confuse Defendant AIB with Atlantic 

Bank Ltd., a similarly-named Belizean bank that SBE also uses. AIB specializes in offshore 

banking (with non-Belizean accountholders and non-Belizean currency). PXQQ ¶ 121. Atlantic 

Bank Ltd. is a Belizean domestic bank that deals primarily in Belizean dollar transactions. Id. The similarity of their names causes understandable confusion, and some references to “Atlantic 

Bank” are actually to AIB. For instance, Delaware consumers who opened an account after a 

joint SBE-AIB sales call referred to the bank as “Atlantic Bank,” PXQ ¶ 21, but have their 

account with AIB, PXQ:14. And an SBE telemarketer refers to a presentation in California as a 

presentation from “Atlantic Bank” although a recording clarifies that AIB’s CEO (and another 

official) presented to SBE telemarketers. See infra at 73 (discussing AIB’s coaching of SBE 

telemarketers); PXBB ¶ 20; (“We also had someone from Atlantic Bank come [to 1401 Dove 

Street] and present about the bank’s services.”). 

115 The CEO explained that the bank joins SBE’s property tours because they involve a 

“very captive market” of American consumers, “so we’re there every weekend and we’re trying 

to capture these people.” PXBB ¶ 20:23 at 5:19-21. The CEO further explained to SBE’s 

telemarketers that establishing banking relationships with Americans on tour is difficult because 
74 

 In another important example, Defendant Chadwick (SBE’s primary spokesperson) 

endorses the bank in a three-minute video in which he states that he is “sharing [his] 

experiences” with AIB at the bank’s request. PXQQ ¶ 264:288. During the endorsement video, 

Chadwick wears a “Sanctuary Belize” golf shirt, and the “Sanctuary Belize” logo appears in the 

corner. Id. Chadwick’s remarks clearly intend to encourage Sanctuary Belize purchasers (who 

are overwhelmingly American and U.S.-based) to bank with AIB and, as he explicitly states 

during the video, he is endorsing the bank at its request. 

Additionally, AIB’s logo appears as one of SBE’s “partners” on SBE marketing materials 

mailed to American consumers. PXQQ ¶ 266. SBE also refers prospective purchasers to the 

bank when they ask about banking in Belize, PXQQ ¶ 267:290-293, and sets up conference calls 

with bank representatives, PXCC ¶ 3. In fact, SBE arranged for an Alabama consumer to meet 

with AIB’s CEO in Belize. Id. ¶ 267:292. Establishing these connections both helps the bank 

sell its services while enhancing the development’s legitimacy. 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

“some people who invest in properties at Sanctuary haven’t decided as yet to live in [Belize],” so 

they maintain their relationships with American banks while they continue to reside in the U.S. 

Id. at 5:23-6:1. This purported problem—how to establish relationships with potential 

consumers would continue residing in the U.S.—was “the reason for [AIB’s] presentation [in 

Orange County].” Id. at 6:3-4. In fact, Chadwick interrupted AIB’s CEO to emphasize the same 

point: SBE’s telemarketers have a “great opportunity . . . to set the expectation that,” after 

buying an SBE lot, consumers will “need a banking relationship” in Belize. Id. at 6:19-7:7. 

116 Because AIB has no domestic presence, supra at 71 n.110, much of the bank’s 

potential business with U.S. residents (American consumers sending money from the United 

States to fund accounts, or sending money from the United States to repay loans) would happen 

through its website. PXBB:22-23 at 49:13-50:4 (AIB discussing its web banking capabilities in 

California presentation to SBE telemarketers). The bank’s website offers consumers a full suite 

of interactive online banking tools including transfers, a bill payment feature, and the like. 

PXQQ ¶ 267:291. See generally Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 

1126 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (a websites allowing consumers within the forum to interact with a foreign 

defendant can establish personal jurisdiction). 
75 

D. Relief Defendants That Benefit From SBE’s Misrepresentations 

1. Angela Chittenden 

Pukke characterizes Relief Defendant Angela Chittenden as his wife, PXFF ¶ 23, and she 

characterizes him as her husband, PXBB ¶ 7. They have lived together since 2003, PXQQ ¶ 

268:116, and they have two children together, id. Chittenden resides with Pukke “in a Newport 

Beach home on a hillside overlooking the ocean.” PXFF ¶ 23. Pukke claims to have spent $10 

million on the home, tearing it down and rebuilding it completely. PXFF ¶ 24. The home is 

currently on the market for $18.5 million.117 PXQQ ¶ 269:294. Chittenden is the CEO of one 

Defendant (Power Haus), supra at 65, and Greenfield (Pukke’s right-hand) is her close friend, 

PXBB ¶ 9. SBE transferred at least $150,000 to her personally, PXNN ¶ 8(c), although she is 

not on SBE’s payroll, PXQQ ¶ 271:295-296, and does not sell lots or perform consulting work 

for SBE, PXEE ¶ 13. 

2. Beach Bunny 

Relief Defendant Angela Chittenden is the CEO of Relief Defendant Beach Bunny 

Holdings, LLC (“Beach Bunny”), and Beach Bunny Swimwear, Inc. PXQQ ¶ 272:297. 

Chittenden is a swimwear model who regularly appeared on The Price is Right. PXQQ ¶ 

143:353. Pukke gave Chittenden the money to start Beach Bunny, PXBB ¶ 7, and Beach Bunny 

                                                             117 Despite their apparent marriage, property and mortgage records for the home where 

both Pukke and Chittenden reside list her as “an unmarried woman.” PXPP ¶ 93:28. California 

is a community property state. Cal. Fam. Code § 760 (1994). Most likely, Pukke obscures his 

relationship with Chittenden to help shield the house and other assets from law enforcement and 

conventional creditors. Significantly, AAC Family HYCET Trust legally owns Pukke’s 

residence (through trustee James Chittenden, Angela’s father), PXPP ¶ 94:29, and Pukke is listed 

as a trustee on a trust bank account in 2017, PXPP ¶ 96:30. “AAC” likely stands for Angela Ann 

Chittenden. PXPP ¶ 95. A “HYCET” trust is an asset protection vehicle attorney Jeffrey Verdon 

markets. PXPP ¶ 97:31. His office is two floors above SBE’s old office at 1201 Dove Street, 

Suite 210. PXPP ¶ 98:33. “HYCET” stands for Have Your Cake and Eat it Too,” PXPP ¶ 

97:32—i.e., a HYCET trust is an asset protection vehicle that purportedly allows its beneficiaries 

to enjoy the benefits of controlling an asset, like the residence, without the exposure to creditors. 
76 

uses the 3333 Michelson address in corporation filings, PXQQ ¶ 272:297.118 Tens of thousands 

of dollars flow back and forth between SBE and Beach Bunny with Beach Bunny receiving 

$595,000 and returning $480,000. PXNN ¶ 8(d); see also PXEE ¶ 14 (statement from prior SBE 

accountant; “Sanctuary Belize laundered money through several other businesses . . . including 

Beach Bunny”). Beach Bunny and SBE are closely connected in other significant ways; for 

instance, model Kate Upton shot a video jointly promoting Sanctuary Belize and Beach Bunny 

swimwear, PXQQ ¶ 131:127-128 (Upton introduces herself as “here at Sanctuary Island in 

Belize”119 and encourages viewers to “take a look around” at various beachfront images, 

including the palapa where SBE’s victims sign lot agreements). 

3. The Estate of John Pukke (a/k/a Janis Pukke a/k/a John Andris Pukke) 

The Estate of John Pukke is the estate of Andris’ late father who died in 2010. PXQQ ¶ 

274. Andris Pukke is one if its personal representatives. Id. In that capacity, in 2014 (years 

after his father’s death), Pukke opened a bank account for the Estate. Id. SBE transferred more 

than $700,000 to the account from three SBE entities (Eco-Futures (US), FDM and GPA), and 

with transfers continuing through 2018. PXNN ¶ 8(e)-(f). Pukke then distributes SBE money 

from the Estate of John Pukke account to his brother Eriks Pukke’s ex-wife (apparently for his 

niece E. Pukke), and a girlfriend of Eriks Pukke. Supra at 21-22.120 SBE money funneled 

through the Estate also funds various personal expenses. PXNN ¶ (8)(e). 

                                                             118 Its affiliate, Beach Bunny Swimwear Inc., is also based at 3333 Michelson. PXQQ ¶ 

273:298. 

119 Sanctuary Island is part of Sanctuary Belize. See supra at 6 (discussing Sanctuary 

Caye). 

120 Some of the recipients are estate beneficiaries; however, the Estate has no legitimate 

claim to the SBE funds it received. 
77 

4. John Vipulis 

Relief Defendant and Contempt Defendant John Vipulis is Janis Pukke’s godson. As 

discussed supra at 21, and in a contemporaneously-filed contempt action, SBE repaid Vipulis 

more than $4 million from three SBE accounts (Eco-Futures (US), FDM, and GPA), PXNN ¶ 

8(r), in violation of an order prohibiting such repayment before the Commission’s judgment 

against Pukke is paid. 

5. Deborah Connelly 

Relief Defendant Deborah Connelly is a Maryland attorney married to Defendant 

Costanzo. PXQQ ¶ 97:102. As noted supra at 66, Connelly organized Defendant EF, which 

receives portions of Costanzo’s compensation. Costanzo apparently receives little money from 

SBE directly; however, in addition to money SBE pays to Ecological Fox, SBE transferred more 

than $475,000 to Connelly. PXNN ¶ 8(s). Despite an extensive search of SBE internal 

documents, there is no evidence that Costanzo’s wife ever performed any services for SBE. 

PXQQ ¶ 97; see also PXCC ¶ 7. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

To enter a preliminary injunction under § 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), the 

Court “must (i) consider the FTC’s likelihood of success on the merits and (ii) weigh the 

equities.”121 FTC v. AmeriDebt, 373 F. Supp.2d 558, 563 (D. Md. 2005) (citing FTC v. Food 

Town Stores, Inc., 539 F.2d 1339, 1349 (4th Cir. 1976)); see also FTC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 

549 F.2d 289, 292 (4th Cir. 1977). Significantly, “[t]his test is different from that used for 

private litigants, who must also prove irreparable injury, because in an FTC action harm to the 

public interest is presumed.” AmeriDebt, 373 F. Supp. 2d at 563. 

                                                             121 A TRO is evaluated “under the same rubric” as a request for a PI. See, e.g., Schwartz 

v. Wellin, No. 2:13-cv-3595, 2014 WL 51212, *2 (D.S.C. Jan. 7, 2014) (citing Virginia v. Kelly, 29 F.3d 145, 147 (4th Cir. 1994)). 
78 

Regarding the first factor, “[t]he burden for prevailing on a motion for a preliminary 

injunction under Section 13(b) is far more lenient” than the summary judgment standard. 

AmeriDebt, 373 F.Supp.2d at 563 (citation omitted). The FTC prevails “‘if it shows 

preliminarily, by affidavits or other proof, that it has a fair and tenable chance of ultimate success 

on the merits.’” Id. (quoting FTC v. Beatrice Foods Co., 587 F.2d 1225, 1229 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). 

Regarding the second factor, “the public interest should receive greater weight in [13(b)] 

proceedings,” and “[t]he Fourth Circuit has gone so far as to say that private injuries [to the 

defendants from the injunction] ‘are not proper considerations for granting or withholding 

injunctive relief under Section 13(b).’” Id. at 564 (quoting Food Town, 539 F.2d at 1346). 

ARGUMENT 

I. The FTC Has a “Fair and Tenable” Likelihood of Success on its Section 5 Claims, 

and the Public Interest Favors Relief 

A. SBE Entity Defendants Constitute a Common Enterprise 

The SBE entity Defendants form a common enterprise that is collectively liable for its 

misrepresentations. Specifically, “[w]here corporate entities operate together as a common 

enterprise, each may be held liable for the deceptive acts and practices of the others.” FTC v. 

Grant Connect, LLC, 763 F.3d 1094, 1105 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Rowe v. Brooks, 329 F.2d 

35, 39-40 (4th Cir. 1964) (noting that joint ventures operate like a partnership, wherein partners 

have joint and several liability for losses incurred in furtherance of common enterprise). To 

determine whether a common enterprise exists, “the pattern and frame-work of the whole 

enterprise must be taken into consideration.” Delaware Watch Co. v. FTC, 332 F.2d 745, 746 

(2nd Cir. 1964) (internal quotation omitted). Specifically, courts “look to a variety of factors, 

including: common control, the sharing of office space and officers, whether business is 

transacted through a maze of interrelated companies, the commingling of corporate funds and 

failure to maintain separation of companies, unified advertising, and evidence which reveals that 

no real distinction existed between the Corporate Defendants.” CFTC v. Noble Wealth Data 
79 

Info. Servs. Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d 676, 691 (D. Md. 2000) (quoting FTC v. Wolf, No. 94-5119, 

1996 WL 812940, *7 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 1996)) (citations omitted). 

Here, each SBE entity Defendant forms part of the common enterprise: they share 

locations (3333 Michelson or its two predecessor locations on Dove Street), they have common 

control, they commingle funds, they engage in joint communications and marketing, and they 

share employees. See supra at 63-64. 

1. Domestic SBE Entities With Operations 

The SBE entity Defendants include seven entities with operations beyond simply 

obscuring payments to individual Defendants: GPA, Buy Belize, Buy International, Eco-Futures 

(US), Power Haus, FP, and SBPOA. Each shares office space (with six registered at 3333 

Michelson and the seventh, SBPOA, bills consumers from 3333 Michelson). PXQQ ¶¶ 215, 

217. All seven commingle funds with other SBE entities, or send or receive money from other 

SBE entities. PXNN ¶¶ 13, 15. Six of the seven share a proposed SBE individual Defendant as 

an owner, officer or manager with another entity in this category (the exception is Power Haus, 

whose sole officer is Relief Defendant Chittenden (Pukke’s partner)). PXQQ ¶¶ 217, 221. All 

seven share employees with at least one (and often many) other SBE entities. Finally, four 

communicated with consumers using an identical domain and with email signatures that refer to 

Sanctuary Belize. PXQQ ¶ 340. The other two, FP and Power Haus, are also connected to 

Sanctuary Belize. FP’s website shows an image of Defendant Costanzo and promotes the same 

dubious development awards that other Defendants claim to have won for Sanctuary Belize.122 

PXQQ ¶ 275. FP’s projects include Sanctuary Belize as well as another development (Kanantik) 

that has received significant funds from SBE. Supra at 65-66. Power Haus received 

                                                             122 SBE claims to have won various “International Property Awards” purportedly given to 

developers. Although the awards impress consumers, developers can purchase them online and 

buy the right to attend a London awards ceremony. SBE apparently bought the ones it advertises 

to consumers. PXZ ¶ 7. 
80 

approximately $1.4 million ostensibly for marketing work related to Sanctuary Belize.123 PXNN 

¶ 8(t). Finally, SBE’s communications with consumers often use these entities interchangeably. 

For instance, SBE employees using GPA email addresses send invoices from SRWR for HOA 

dues owed to SBPOA and direct consumers to remit payments to Eco-Futures at 3333 

Michelson. PXI ¶ 39:39-40; PXQQ ¶ 297. 

2. Domestic Pass-Through Entities 

SBE uses shell companies (FDM, BGM, Prodigy, and EF) to hide payments to its 

principals. All four have no known employees apart from their owners, officers, or managers. 

PXQQ ¶ 277. Three (FDM, BGM, and Prodigy) are owned or controlled by an owner, officer, or 

manager of at least one other SBE entity Defendant (the fourth, EF, is owned by Costanzo’s wife 

(Relief Defendant Deborah Connolly), PXQQ ¶¶ 219, 278, and Costanzo is an owner or officer 

of three other SBE entity Defendants), PXQQ ¶ 280. All four operate through SBE’s 

headquarters at 3333 Michelson. See supra at 59-62 (discussing the involvement of FDM’s 

officers (Baker and Costanzo), BGM’s officer (Greenfield), Prodigy’s officer (Chadwick), and 

EF’s officer (Costanzo)) in marketing Sanctuary Belize lots). 

The 3333 Michelson location is central to the scam; for instance, it is FDM’s registered 

address. PXQQ ¶ 281:302. Although Baker is FDM’s CEO, Pukke used FDM’s account to pay 

a Sanctuary Belize telemarketer, PBB ¶ 24:24; PXCC ¶ 2, and a GPA employee based at 3333 

Michelson submitted FDM’s incorporation paperwork, PXQQ ¶¶ 236:258, 281. BG Marketing 

(“BGM”) presumably stands for its owner’s initials (Brandi Greenfield), and she has an office at 

3333 Michelson next to Pukke. PXFF:1. Internal SBE accounting documents refer to Prodigy 

and its owner, Chadwick, interchangeably (i.e., money SBE means to convey to Chadwick goes 

to Prodigy). PXQQ ¶¶ 277-78, 282, 284. Chadwick is self-described “principal” of the 

                                                             123 It is likely these funds represent part of Pukke’s compensation rather than actual 

services related to Sanctuary Belize. 
81 

Sanctuary Belize development, PXQQ ¶ 198, and 3333 Michelson serves as development’s 

nerve-center, PXQQ ¶¶ 215-16. Similarly, payments meant for Costanzo go to EF, a Maryland 

entity his wife owns. Costanzo markets Sanctuary Belize lots directly, PXQQ ¶ 119, and SBE 

describes him as “deeply involved” with Sanctuary Belize, PXO ¶ 4:25 at 2, and filmed 

marketing videos with Michael Santos, who uses 3333 Michelson as his business address (and 

the videos appear to be filmed on-site at 3333 Michelson), PXC ¶¶ 52, 55-56:118-125. SBE 

diverts funds to all four entities, PXNN ¶¶ 8(n)-(p), 11. Because FDM, BGM, Prodigy, and EF 

are shells that receive compensation for Baker, Greenfield, Chadwick, and Costanzo, they are 

indistinguishable from the common enterprise that Baker, Chadwick, Greenfield and Costanzo 

help manage. 

3. Nevisian Entities Associated with Chadwick 

Three SBE entities—BREA (NV), SBR (NV), and EI (NV)—have a common owner 

(Chadwick, PXQQ ¶¶ 283, 285), are connected to 3333 Michelson, share at least one employee 

with another SBE entity, have overlapping operations with another SBE entity, and help market 

Sanctuary Belize. Specifically, BREA (NV) and SBR (NV) both do business as “Coldwell 

Banker Southern Belize.” PXQQ ¶ 285. Chadwick formed the Coldwell Banker franchise to 

control “the secondary market derived from SB [Sanctuary Belize].”124 PXQQ ¶ 244:267 at 39. 

Both Chadwick and Coldwell Banker Southern Belize’s manager, Charmaine Voss, used 

@SanctuaryBelize email addresses for work related to the Coldwell Banker franchise (SBR 

(BZ)). PXQQ ¶ 286:310, 332:357. In fact, while using an @SanctuaryBelize email address, 

Voss referred to Coldwell Banker Belize and Sanctuary Belize as “ONE TEAM.” PXQQ ¶ 

287:311. SBE sent funds related to the Coldwell Banker franchise to Belize, PXNN ¶ 8(q). 

Notably, Voss appeared as a Coldwell Banker representative on an HGTV program promoting 

                                                             124 On Belizean corporate documentation, SBE uses the same address as Defendant AIB. 

PXQQ ¶ 285. 
82 

Sanctuary Belize, PXC ¶ 22:10, and she auditioned from 3333 Michelson, PXC ¶¶ 78-82.125 In 

short, a self-described Sanctuary Belize “principal” and the development’s spokesperson 

(Chadwick) owns BREA (NV) and SBR (NV), PXQQ ¶¶ 283-88, both of which operate as 

Coldwell Banker SB, which is itself indistinguishable from the rest of SBE. In this context, SBR 

(NV) and BREA (NV) are legally indistinguishable from SBE as well. 

Regarding EI (NV), SBE used EI (NV) to film a deceptive infomercial promoting 

Sanctuary Belize, PXQQ ¶ 289, and a GPA employee (who herself uses an Eco-Futures 

Development email signature) used a SanctuaryBelize.com email address to create a Vimeo 

account associated with Exotic Investor infomercials, PXQQ ¶ 253:277. Chadwick directed 

GPA accounting staff to “bill Exotic Investor LLC at this address [3333 Michelson] and give it 

to me.” PXQQ ¶ 291:314. SBE discussed EI (NV)’s operations in emails copied to Chadwick at 

Luke@SanctuaryBelize.com, PXQQ ¶¶ 292:274, 292:315, and SBE mentioned EI (NV)’s 

infomercial in a telemarketing sales script, PXQQ ¶ 293:316. Another SBE employee, the 

“Director of Investor Relations” at “Sanctuary Belize, an Eco-Futures Development,” emailed 

Chadwick and others including “AP” at “SRWRBelize.com” about the EI (NV) infomercial, 

PXQQ ¶ 252:274 (SRWR is another Defendant, see supra at 71). Simply put, EI (NV) is another 

of the “maze of interrelated companies” through which SBE transacts Sanctuary Belize business. 

See Noble Wealth, 90 F. Supp. 2d at 691. 

4. Belizean Entities Associated with Usher 

Two Belizean entities associated with Defendant Usher form part of the SBE common 

enterprise: SRWR and Eco-Futures (BZ). As discussed above, Pukke helped create SRWR and 

initially served as a director with Baker. See supra at 5-6. In approximately 2006, Pukke and 

Baker installed Usher as SRWR’s nominal head. See supra at 7-8. Chadwick became a director 

                                                             125 Like other SBE entities, Coldwell Banker SB has won an “International Property 

Award.” PXQQ ¶ 287:311. 
83 

by 2010, PXQQ ¶ 294:317; more recently, Baker formally rejoined (replacing Usher). PXO ¶ 

3:24. Accordingly, SRWR shares, and has shared, management with other SBE entities. 

Furthermore, SRWR is run through 3333 Michelson; for instance, SBE frequently directs 

consumers to make checks payable to “SRWR c/o Eco-Futures” at 3333 Michelson. PXQQ ¶ 

228. Eco-Futures (US) forwards foreclosure-related correspondence from a Belizean attorney 

who claims to represent SRWR and Eco-Futures (BZ). PXI ¶ 74:92. Moreover, GPA cashes the 

checks consumers send payable to SRWR. PXNN ¶ 15. Finally, SRWR and numerous other 

entities (Eco-Futures (BZ), Eco-Futures (US), GPA, and SBPOA, among others) work together 

seamlessly to market Sanctuary Belize. See supra at 63-64. 

Eco-Futures (BZ) is equally indistinguishable from other SBE entities. Baker owns EcoFutures (BZ) and serves as the owner or officer of several other SBE entities. See supra at 60-

61. Usher served as the manager or chairman of Eco-Futures (BZ) for several years, PXQQ ¶¶ 

204-205, 254, 328:354, and he remains SBPOA’s director, PXPP ¶ 201:213, 295. Eco-Futures 

(BZ) uses the 3333 Michelson address on contracts and invoices. PXQQ ¶¶ 224, 228, 256-57. 

In fact, in correspondence to consumers, SBE often fails to distinguish between Eco-Futures 

(BZ) and Eco-Futures (US), PXQQ ¶ 297; indeed, Baker-owned GPA has registered FBNs for 

both entities, PXQQ ¶ 297. Emails to consumers about Sanctuary Belize have a signature block 

referring to Sanctuary Belize as an “Eco-Futures Development” without specifying whether the 

message is from the domestic or offshore “Eco-Futures” entity. PXQQ ¶ 298:321. Finally, 

funds are commingled between Eco-Futures (BZ) and other SBE entities including SRWR, GPA, 

and Eco-Futures (US) through numerous intercompany transfers. PXNN ¶ 13. 

 Accordingly, each of the SBE entity defendants form part of a common enterprise 

including domestic operating entities, domestic pass-through entities, Nevisian entities 

associated with Chadwick, and Belizean entities associated with Usher. 
84 

B. SBE Corporate Defendants Are Liable as a Common Enterprise Under 

Section 5. 

To establish that a corporation (or a common enterprise) is liable for deception under 

Section 5, the FTC must prove: (1) there was a representation; (2) “that was likely to mislead 

consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances”; and (3) the representation was material. 

FTC v. Loma Int’l Bus. Grp. Inc., No. 11-cv-1483, 2013 WL 2455986, at *3-*4 (D. Md. June 5, 

2013); see also FTC v. Innovative Mktg., Inc., 654 F. Supp. 2d 378, 385 (D. Md. 2009).126 

“[C]onsumer reliance on express misrepresentations” is “presumptively reasonable.” FTC v. 

Five–Star Auto Club, Inc., 97 F.Supp.2d 502, 528 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting FTC v. Int’l 

Computer Concepts, Inc., No. 5:94CV1678, 1995 WL 767810, *3 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 24, 1995)); 

see also FTC v. Crescent Pub. Group, Inc., 129 F. Supp.2d 311, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); FTC v. 

Alcoholism Cure Corp., No. 3:10-cv-266, 2011 WL 13137951, *27 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2011) 

(“Reliance may be presumed when it is in response to an express claim[.]”), aff'd sub nom. FTC 

v. Krotzer, No. 12-14039-AA, 2013 WL 7860383 (11th Cir. May 3, 2013). 

Additionally, express representations are presumed material. Loma, 2013 WL 2455986, 

at *6 (citations omitted); see also In re Thompson Medical Co., Inc., 104 F.T.C. 648, 816 (1984) 

(“Express claims, or deliberately-made implied claims, used to induce the purchase of a 

particular product or service are presumed to be material.”), aff’d, 791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1986). 

Misrepresentations regarding a “central characteristic” are also presumptively material. See, e.g., 

Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311, 322 (7th Cir. 1992) (claims are material when they address 

                                                            

126 There is vast evidence that Defendants intentionally misled consumers; among other 

things, SBE lied repeatedly regarding Pukke’s role, see supra at 38-39, SBE claimed for more 

than a decade that it would finish the development in five years, see supra at 23-24, SBE 

asserted that “every dollar” from lot sales would go into the development while funneling money 

to Vipulis, Pukke’s relatives, and personal expenses, see supra at 21-23, and one SBE employee 

(Voss) even referred SBE’s claim about the supposed international airport as “horse shit,” see 

supra at 35. However, intent to deceive is not an element of deception. See, e.g., FTC v. FiveStar Auto Club, Inc., 97 F. Supp. 2d 502, 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“It is not necessary to prove 

Defendants’ misrepresentations were made with an intent to defraud or deceive, or were made in 

bad faith to establish a Section 5 violation.”) (collecting cases). 
85 

areas “with which reasonable consumers would be concerned”); In re Telebrands Corp., 140 

F.T.C. 278, 292 (2005) (quotation omitted) (claims are material when they relate to a product’s 

“central characteristics”), aff’d, 457 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2006). 

Each Core Claim is “likely to mislead” because it is false: (1) the “no debt” model 

increases risk to consumers substantially; (2) SBE does not spend “every dollar” of lot sale 

revenue to further the development (or even close); (3) SBE has not finished the development to 

date (despite promising, for a decade, to finish within 2-5 years), and it will not finish within the 

next five years; (4) because SBE has not finished, and will not finish, it necessarily has not and 

will not finish some of the promised amenities; (5) property values have not increased by the 

200% (or more) in three years (or less) as SBE claims; and (6) to the extent it is possible for 

consumers to resell their lots at all, the healthy resale market that SBE claims (and that 

consumers need to realize any purported appreciation) does not exist. See supra at 17-38. 

Because each Core Claim is express, consumers’ reliance on these claims is presumptively 

reasonable. See, e.g., Five-Star, 97 F.Supp.2d at 528; Int’l Computer, 1995 WL 767810, at *3.127

All Core Claims are presumptively material because SBE makes them expressly,128 see

supra at 17-38, see also Thompson Med., 104 F.T.C. at 816 (express claims presumptively 

material). Additionally, they all relate to the lots’ central characteristics, including whether they 

are a good investment. See, e.g., FTC v. Micom Corp., No. CIV. 96-0472, 1997 WL 226232, *1 

                                                             127 Even without this presumption, the consumers SBE misled acted reasonably. As this 

Court explained, “[i]n evaluating a tendency or capacity to deceive, it is appropriate to look not 

at the most sophisticated, but the least sophisticated consumer.” Loma, 2013 WL 2455986, at *5 

(D. Md. June 5, 2013) (quoting Five-Star, 97 F. Supp.2d at 532). Consumers are not real estate 

development experts. Even sophisticated, savvy consumers have no ability to assess 

development models, SBE’s internal financial information, the feasibility of SBE’s developmentrelated promises, or real estate appreciation and resale prospects in a remote overseas location. 

Likewise, consumers have no practical way to investigate Pukke’s involvement. 

128 Even without this presumption, declarations establish that each Core Claim was 

important to consumers’ decisions. PXPP ¶¶ 9, 21, 23, 27, 57, 63 (collecting references from 

declarations establishing that each of the six core claims influenced the declarant’s decision to 

purchase). 
86 

(Sotomayor, J.) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 1997) (holding claim that investment was a “relatively low 

risk, excellent investment likely to generate substantial profits” was material); FTC v. Solomon 

Trading Co., No. 91-cv-1184, 1994 WL 421478, *2 (D. Ariz. June 28, 1994) 

(“Misrepresentations regarding profit potential and the risks associated with a given investment 

have repeatedly been held to constitute such a material misrepresentation in violation of Section 

5(a).”) (citations omitted).129 Notably, the Core Claims also concern central characteristics other 

than the lots’ investment value; for instance, whether the development is financially sound (the 

“no debt” and “every dollar” claims), what amenities it will have and when (the timeline and 

amenity claims), and whether consumers can resell their lots easily (the resale market claim). 

Because each of the Core Claims is a material misrepresentation, SBE is liable under Section 5. 

See, e.g., Southwest Sunsites, Inc. v. FTC, 785 F.2d 1431, 1437 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming finding 

of liability based on misrepresentation that parcels were a “low risk investment”). 

Finally, SBE is also liable under Section 5 for its misrepresentations regarding Pukke’s 

role in SBE. As discussed supra at 38-39, when consumers asked about Pukke, SBE either 

denied Pukke’s continued involvement or suggested he had only a limited marketing role. SBE 

also denied Pukke’s involvement in a Facebook post directed to owners, PXQQ ¶ 190, and in 

Belizean litigation against owners, supra at 50-51. In reality, Pukke has, and had, control over 

the enterprise’s entire operation ranging from the terms of lot sales, PXAA ¶ 5, PXBB ¶ 18, to 

SBE’s relationship with marina operators, PXGG ¶ 32, PXHH ¶ 19. The claims about Pukke are 

presumptively material because SBE made them expressly, Thompson Med. 104 F.T.C. at 816, 

and consumers would not have purchased had they understood a felon had substantial control 

                                                             129 Especially for consumers entering retirement, the time when the development will be 

finished (and, thus, the time when owners can begin enjoying a completed development with the 

promised amenities) is a central characteristic of the lots that SBE markets. SBE’s timeline 

claim is presumptively material for this reason as well, see, e.g., Thompson Med. 104 F.T.C. at 

816, and because the development is incomplete, the timeline claim is indisputably false at least 

as to hundreds of consumers who bought more than five years ago. See supra at 24. 
87 

over the development, PXI ¶ 20, PXN ¶ 41. A principal’s criminal conviction for obstructing 

justice (involving the land consumers are buying) is plainly material.130 

C. SBE Corporate Defendants Are Liable For Monetary Relief Under Section 5. 

Once Section 5 liability for misrepresentations is established, SBE is liable for restitution 

if the FTC shows consumer reliance—but “[t]he FTC is not required, however, to show any 

particular purchaser actually relied on or was injured by the unlawful misrepresentations.” FTC 

v. Freecom Commc’ns, Inc., 401 F.3d 1192, 1205 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing FTC v. Figgie Int’l, 

Inc., 994 F.2d 595, 605-06 (9th Cir. 1993)); see also FTC v. BlueHippo Funding, LLC, 762 F.3d 

238, 244 (2d Cir. 2014) (declining to require individual reliance; “Noting the inherent difficulty 

of demonstrating individual harm in FTC cases, the Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh circuits 

have applied a presumption of consumer reliance that attaches to potential consumers at the 

instant of the initial misrepresentation.”) (collecting cases). As this Court explained previously, 

reliance is presumed if “(1) the business entity made material misrepresentations likely to 

deceive consumers, (2) those misrepresentations were widely disseminated, and (3) consumers 

purchased the entity’s products.” FTC v. Loma Int’l Bus. Grp. Inc., No. 11-cv-1483, 2013 WL 

2455986, at *7 (D. Md. June 5, 2013) (quotation omitted); see also BlueHippo, 762 F.3d at 244; 

FTC v. Commerce Planet, Inc., 815 F.3d 593, 604 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying preemption of 

reliance when “[t]he FTC proved that [the defendant] made material misrepresentations . . . and 

that the misrepresentations were widely disseminated”), cert. denied sub nom. Gugliuzza v. FTC, 

137 S. Ct. 624, 196 L. Ed. 2d 515 (2017); FTC v. Ross, 897 F. Supp.2d 369, 387 (D. Md. 2012), 

aff’d, 743 F.3d 886 (4th Cir. 2014). 

The first element (a material misrepresentation likely to deceive) is established above. 

Regarding the second element, SBE widely disseminated the six Core Claims: most appear in 

                                                             130 See, e.g., United States v. Stitsky, 536 F. App’x 98, 106 (2d Cir. 2013) (convictions are 

facts investors “would have considered material” in making investment decisions). 
88 

multiple telemarketing scripts and webinars, telemarketers confirm they made these claims, 

PXAA ¶¶ 12-15, PXBB ¶¶16-17, SBE make all six in recorded undercover calls, and consumer 

declarations further establish that SBE routinely makes all six, see PXPP ¶¶ 9-11, 16-17, 20-21, 

24, 26-27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 39, 41, 43, 45-46, 49-50, 53 (identifying where the Core Claims appear 

in attached declarations and in undercover calls). With respect to SBE’s misrepresentation 

concerning Pukke’s role, four consumer declarations show that SBE makes the claim when 

consumers ask about Pukke, PXI ¶¶ 20-21, PXK ¶ 50, PXQ ¶ 9, PXQQ ¶ 36, and Defendant 

Costanzo made the misrepresentation to an FTC professional posing as an attorney, see supra at 

39. Additionally, SBE reiterated the claim on a Facebook page SBE owners use, PXQQ ¶ 190, 

and made it again (repeatedly) in Belizean litigation against hundreds of consumers, see supra at 

50-51.131 Thus, SBE widely disseminated this claim as well. Regarding the third element, there 

is no doubt that SBE sold many lots. PXQQ ¶ 176. Accordingly, SBE entity Defendants are 

liable for monetary relief. See Loma Int’l, 2013 WL 245986 at *7. 

D. SBE Individual Defendants Are Liable for Monetary Relief Under Section 5. 

If a corporation is liable under Section 5—as the SBE entities are—individual defendants 

are liable for monetary relief if they: “(1) participated directly in the deceptive practices or had 

authority to control those practices, and (2) had or should have had knowledge of the deceptive 

practices.” FTC v. Ross, 743 F.3d 886, 892 (4th Cir. 2014) (Fourth Circuit’s emphasis). The 

facts establish the individual defendant’s authority to control in many ways, including “‘active 

involvement in business affairs and the making of corporate policy, including assuming the 

duties of a corporate officer.’” Innovative Mktg., 654 F. Supp.2d at 385-86 (quoting FTC v. Amy 

Travel Serv., Inc., 875 F.2d 564, 573 (7th Cir. 1989)). Every SBE individual Defendant other 

than Pukke is a corporate officer or legal owner of at least two SBE entities. See supra at 57-63. 

                                                             131 Individual SBE Defendants also falsely denied Pukke’s significant role during the 

supervised release hearing before this Court. See supra at 54-55. 
89 

Although Pukke is not a formal officer or legal owner, he runs the entire enterprise. Pukke 

admits to working as the “Director of Marketing” at Defendant Buy Belize, and subordinates 

take instructions from Pukke or look to him for approval on every aspect of SBE’s operations 

ranging from its taxes, supra at 45 n.68, payments to an attorney, supra at 44 n.60, whether to 

terminate an SBE entity, supra at 44 n.63, and the development’s design, supra at 45. Pukke 

also gives directions to other SBE principals including Greenfield, supra at 44 n.61, and Kazazi, 

PXGG ¶ 4:1. Chadwick referenced Pukke’s instructions when arguing with Greenfield over their 

respective roles during Pukke’s incarceration, supra at 43-44, and Usher yielded to Pukke when 

they met in California, supra at 41. Thus, not only is Pukke “active[ly] involve[d] in business 

affairs and the making of corporate policy,” Innovative Marketing, 654 F. Supp.2d at 385-86, he 

is SBE’s primary controlperson.132 

The law also requires proof that the individual “had actual knowledge of the deceptive 

conduct, was recklessly indifferent to its deceptiveness, or had an awareness of a high probability 

of deceptiveness and intentionally avoided learning the truth.” Ross, 743 F.3d at 892 (“Every 

other federal appellate court to resolve the issue has adopted the test we embrace today.”) (citing 

appellate decisions from five circuits). Each individual Defendant has actual knowledge that 

SBE’s timeline and amenity claims are false. In particular, they all became heavily involved 

with SBE five years ago or more: Pukke and Baker started in 2005, Greenfield in 2007, Usher 

no later than 2008, Chadwick no later than 2010, Kazazi no later than 2012, and Costanzo no 

later than early 2013. See supra at 57-63. Accordingly, each knows SBE did not finish the 

                                                             132 Furthermore, although authority to control is sufficient to establish the first element,

Ross, 743 F.3d at 892, Pukke also “participates directly” in the deception as the admitted 

“Director of Marketing” for Defendant Buy Belize. PXQQ ¶ 300:323. Defendant Greenfield is 

the “Director of Sales,” PXQQ ¶ 301:324, and she has sent emails containing misrepresentations 

to consumers directly, id. Chadwick is the development’s public face in infomercials, and its 

voice in several webinars. PXQQ ¶ 198. Costanzo has a substantial role pitching to consumers 

during the property tours in Belize, PXE ¶15; PXU ¶21, and he lied directly to an FTC 

professional posing as an attorney representing prospective purchasers, see supra at 39. 
90 

entire development much less any substantial part of it (or the promised amenities that constitute 

development) within two or five years. Moreover, they have continued making timeline and 

amenity claims knowing SBE fails to meet them; at best, this is reckless disregard for the truth or 

intentional avoidance of it, either of which supports monetary liability. Ross, 743 F.3d at 892. 

To provide only a few additional examples of actual knowledge, Pukke knows the “every 

dollar” claim is false because millions from lot sales go to repay Vipulis, to Pukke’s relatives, 

and to remodel his house. Supra at 21-24. Chadwick—in 2011—called Sanctuary Belize a 

“shady, second rate development . . . full of empty promises” (although he kept making those 

empty promises). PXQQ ¶ 299:322. Chadwick also lied about Pukke’s involvement despite 

taking instructions directly from Pukke. PXI ¶ 28; supra at 38-39. Baker characterized SBE’s 

marketing as “a bit misleading” in 2006, PXQQ ¶ 302:325, but the marketing remained the same. 

Baker also knows the “every dollar” claim is false because he uses an SBE bank card to ship 

personal items to his residence. PXQQ ¶ 303. Usher led SBE’s litigation against American 

owners in Belize during which SBE falsely denied Pukke’s involvement, supra at 50-51, (despite 

Usher meeting with Pukke at his California headquarters, supra at 41, and helping ensure 

Pukke’s control over the Parcel continued, supra at 9-12). Costanzo lied about Pukke’s 

involvement on a call the FTC recorded, supra at 39 (he was unaware the FTC had contrary 

photographic evidence, id.). Greenfield falsely denied Pukke’s involvement on Facebook, 

PXQQ ¶ 190 (although her SBE office is near Pukke’s, PXFF ¶¶ 13-14:1). Greenfield also 

falsely denied Pukke’s involvement under oath to this Court, supra at 55, as did Kazazi, id.. 

Kazazi negotiates buyback agreements with consumers, supra at 63, so he knows the lots do not 

appreciate and the resale market is weak, if it exists at all. In short, the FTC has vastly more than 
91 

a “fair and tenable” chance of establishing that each individual Defendant is liable to repay the 

consumers he or she victimized.133 AmeriDebt, 373 F. Supp.2d at 563 (citation omitted). 

II. The FTC Has a “Fair and Tenable” Likelihood of Success on Its TSR Claims, and 

the Public Interest Favors Relief. 

 

A. SBE Violates TSR Sections 310.3(a)(2)(iii) and (vi). 

The Commission promulgated the TSR pursuant to authority granted under the 

Telemarketing Consumer Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. 6101 et seq. (“TCPA”). “Because it is a 

consumer protection statute, the TCPA is “[l]iberally construed in favor of consumer 

protection[.]” Garrison v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 3d 1282, 1286 (M.D. Fla. 

2017). As discussed below, the TSR covers the telemarketing of lots in planned community. 

Additionally, the TSR prohibits telemarketers from making misrepresentations about goods or 

services, including misrepresentations about their central characteristics, 16 C.F.R. § 

310.3(a)(2)(iii), or material aspects of investment opportunities, id. at § 310.3(a)(2)(vi). SBE 

violates both provisions. 

1. The TSR Covers Lots in a Planned Community. 

a. “Goods and Services” in the TSR Includes Real Property. 

SBE’s sales are “goods and services” under the TSR. First, the TCPA Senate Report 

provides that it intended “the phrase ‘goods or services’ . . . to be broadly construed so as not to 

exclude activities currently addressed by the FTC.” S.R. NO. 103-80, 103RD CONG., 1ST 

SESS. (June 29, 2003) at 8 (emphasis added). Before Congress enacted the TCPA, the FTC had 

long addressed real estate sales. See, e.g., Southwest Sunsites, Inc. v. FTC, 785 F.2d 1431, 1437-

39 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming an administrative order enjoining a seller of lots in West Texas 

from misrepresenting land purportedly usable for “homesites” and other purposes as a “low risk 

                                                             133 This subsection does not exhaustively identify the evidence that all individual 

Defendants have actual knowledge that each of SBE’s core claims and its claims about Pukke are 

false. 
92 

investment” and that consumers “could expect to double or triple their money”); AMREP Corp. 

v. FTC, 768 F.2d 1171, 1175 (10th Cir. 1985) (affirming the FTC’s “jurisdiction to regulate 

interstate land sales”); cf. Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 581 (1978) (noting that Congress is 

“presumed to have had knowledge” about case law when it enacts a statute).134 

Second, SBE itself characterizes its lot sales as the sale of “goods and services.” As 

noted above, SBE collects a 12.5% Belizean sales tax on lot sale payments. Overall, SBE 

collected millions of dollars of these taxes. When consumers questioned the tax, SBE informed 

them that the tax applied to their lot purchases because those purchases were for “goods and 

services.”135 See supra at 67-69. 

Third, “a reasonable interpretation by the Commission of its own regulations is entitled to 

great deference by this court[.]” Johnson Prod. Co. v. FTC, 549 F.2d 35, 38 (7th Cir. 1977) 

(citing Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S.1, 16-17 (1965)); see also FTC v. Medical Billers Network, 

Inc., 543 F. Supp. 2d 283, 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“An agency’s interpretation of its own 

regulations is entitled to great deference.”). In fact, the FTC’s “interpretation receives 

‘controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent” with the TSR. Udall, 380 U.S. 

at 16-17 (quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co., 325 U.S. 410, 413-14 (1945)). Here, not only is 

the Commission’s view that lots are “goods and services” consistent with the TCPA’s legislative 

history and consumer protection purpose, it is consistent with SBE’s own view. Therefore, the 

FTC’s interpretation receives deference because it “reflect[s] the agency’s fair and considered 

judgment.” Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462 (1977); see also FTC v. Affiliate Strategies, Inc., 

                                                             134 Notably, in 2003, the FTC refused exempt transactions governed by the Real Estate 

Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) from the TSR, 68 Fed. Reg. 4580, 4606 n.306 (Jan. 29, 

2003). The FTC stated that “if a real estate agent routinely places outbound calls to solicit 

potential customers in other states, those calls . . . would be subject to the Rule,” id. at 4655. 

This reinforces that the FTC understood the TSR applies to some real estate telemarketing. 

135 We express no view on whether the lots qualify as “goods and services” within the 

meaning of Belizean tax law. What is important, however, is that SBE took this position, and 

used it to collect millions from consumers. 
93 

849 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1115 n. 66 (D. Kan. 2011) (“The FTC’s interpretation of the TSR is 

entitled to deference.”) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 

b. The TSR Covers SBE’s Transactions Because They Include 

“Goods and Services” Related to Real Property. 

Even if land itself did not qualify as a good or service (and it does due to the TCPA’s 

legislative history, SBE’s own view, and appropriate deference), SBE’s transactions would still 

qualify as a good or service because SBE sells lots along with—and because of—express claims 

that the lots will be part of an extensive planned community. Polonetsky v. Better Homes Depot, 

Inc., 760 N.E.2d 1274 (N.Y. 2001) is instructive. In that case, the defendant marketing property 

attempted to take refuge from consumer protection law by claiming it was not selling goods and 

services. Id. at 1277-78. The court, addressing this argument, explained that “defendants have 

not only sold property, but allegedly orchestrated a system of providing goods and services under 

which prospective buyers were defrauded or misled every step of the way.” Id. at 1278. The 

court emphasized deceptive promises about repairs (SBE makes deceptive promises about 

amenities) and the defendants “steer[ed] buyers to mortgage bankers and attorneys,” id. (SBE 

steers buyers to Defendant AIB, a Coldwell Banker franchise, and in-house lending), PXK ¶ 13, 

30; PXI ¶ 65:82; PXU ¶ 48; PXP ¶ 41:10; PXBB ¶ 3:1. Accordingly, the court refused to 

exempt the transaction from New York’s “goods and services” consumer protection law because 

doing so “would effectively insulate fraudulent conduct from the reach of [consumer protection 

law] whenever the conduct occurs in connection with the sale or attempted sale of a house.” Id. 

Other decisions apply a similar rationale.136 

                                                             136 See, e.g., See, e.g., Fogelson v. Wallace, 405 P.3d 1012, 1031 (N.M. 2017) (holding 

that, although a lot is not a “good or service” under New Mexico’s consumer protection law, 

selling a lot plus a promise to build a home on the lot brings the transaction within the statute); 

Brown v. Liberty Clubs, Inc., 543 N.E.2d 783, 786-87 (1989) (offering steak knives to consumers 

who visited development to consider purchasing lots rendered the lot sales subject to Ohio 

consumer protection law that covers “goods and services” but not real estate because steak 

knives are consumer goods; “[A] contrary finding would manifestly lead to undesirable results. . 

. . [It] would encourage real estate developers to use unfair, misleading and deceptive 
94 

SBE’s pitch is not only about the lot itself, but what SBE promises to build or do nearby 

to give the purchaser access to remarkable services (for instance, an American-caliber hospital, 

use of world-class marina) as well as access to additional features like an equestrian facility, a 

fitness center, and a yacht club. See supra at 26-34. Furthermore, SBE promises infrastructure 

development including improved roads, water service, and electrical lines. PXI:50; PXW:6 

(summarizing infrastructure claims). In other words, SBE markets both land and other “goods 

and services” to which the land purportedly provides access. Thus, even if—despite the 

legislative history, SBE’s view, and appropriate deference—a lot alone is not a “good or 

service,” under Better Homes and related cases, the attendant promised access to goods and 

services brings the transactions at issue under the TSR. 

2. The Other Elements of SBE’s TSR Liability Are Easily Satisfied. 

The other elements of TSR liability under 16 C.F.R. §§ 310.3(a)(2)(iii) and (vi) are easily 

satisfied.137 Both provisions cover “telemarketers” and “sellers,” see 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a), and 

SBE is both. SBE is a “telemarketer” because it initiates or receives interstate telephone calls 

from consumers as part of a program to sell services to those consumers. Id. § 310.2(ff). SBE is 

a “seller” because it offers to provide goods and services through telemarketing. Id. § 310.2(dd).

SBE also misrepresents numerous central characteristics of the development, supra at 17-37, 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

solicitation methods to entice potential purchasers to the developers’ properties and to then cloak 

themselves with complete immunity from the Consumer Act.”); see also McKinney v. State, 693 

N.E.2d 65, 71 (Ind. 1998) (distinguishing between the “sale of an existing structure” from a 

promise to build something for consumer protection purposes; “the promise to build a structure 

forces consumers to rely on a variety of representations that the builder is far more capable of 

evaluating”); State ex rel. Brady v. Wellington Homes, Inc., No. Civ. A. 99C-09-168, 2003 WL 

22048231, *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 20, 2003) (holding that a transaction promising to build a 

house on a lot is potentially a “good or service” because it involves “attendant labor and 

expertise,” including “plans as approved by the county [and] building code compliance”). 

137 The TSR’s inbound calling exception does not apply because the exception does not 

cover “[t]elephone calls initiated by a customer . . . in response to an advertisement relating to 

investment opportunities.” See id. § 310.6(b)(5)(i). An “investment opportunity” includes 

“anything . . . that is offered for sale . . . based wholly or in part on representations, either 

express or implied, about past, present or future . . . appreciation.” Id. at § 310.2(s). 
95 

although 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(iii) prohibits such misrepresentations. Likewise, SBE 

misrepresents material aspects of the development’s purported investment value, supra at 34-36, 

although 16 § 310.3(a)(2)(vi) makes such misrepresentations unlawful.138 

B. AIB Is Liable for Assisting and Facilitating SBE’s Scheme. 

The TSR’s “assisting and facilitating” provision applies when a defendant: (1) provides 

“substantial assistance or support” (2) and “knows or consciously avoids knowing” about the 

violations. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b). As discussed below, AIB is liable for assisting and facilitating 

SBE’s scam under this standard. 

1. AIB Provides SBE Substantial Assistance 

“The threshold for what constitutes substantial assistance is low.” FTC v. Consumer 

Health Benefits Ass’n, No. 10 Civ. 3551, 2012 WL 1890242, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2012). 

Assistance qualifies as “substantial” if it is more than “casual or incidental,” and the assistance 

need not be “related to the commission or furtherance” of the deception. See, e.g., FTC v. 

Chapman, 714 F.3d 1211, 1216 (10th Cir. 2013). Although the benefits AIB derives from its 

joint marketing relationship with SBE are discussed supra at 72-74, the arrangement is symbiotic 

and AIB provides many benefits to SBE. For instance, AIB provides financial services (like 

offshore banking) that help advance the scheme. Supra at 71-72. Equally important, SBE 

marketing materials and AIB’s presentation to SBE telemarketers show that it helps SBE sell the 

scam to consumers by offering lower interest rates and relaxed underwriting for Sanctuary Belize 

home construction loans. Supra at 72. AIB representatives interact with consumers during tours 

and present to them directly during formal sales presentations. Id. This joint messaging lends 

                                                             138 Notably, a TSR violation is also a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. See, e.g., FTC v. Partners in Health Care Ass’n, Inc., 189 F. Supp.3d 1356, 1368 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (citing 

15 U.S.C. §§ 57a(d)(3), 6102(c). Accordingly, because individual Defendants have individual 

monetary liability for SBE’s Section 5 violations, they have individual monetary liability for 

SBE’s TSR violations as well. 
96 

legitimacy to the project and makes consumers more comfortable investing in Belize. Thus, AIB 

provides substantial assistance to the scheme. 

2. AIB Knows SBE Deceives Consumers. 

AIB knows SBE makes misrepresentations to consumers because it participates in sales 

presentations and tours. Id. This means AIB has heard SBE promise completion dates that have 

long since passed for amenities that are not there. Supra at 23-26. Additionally, as a 

sophisticated lender, AIB knows or should know that the “no debt” model does not mean less 

risk for purchasers as SBE promises. Supra at 17-20. Thus, AIB substantially assists SBE, and 

knows or reasonably should know that at least some of its claims are false. 

III. The FTC Has a “Fair and Tenable” Likelihood of Success Against the Relief 

Defendants, and the Public Interest Favors Relief. 

The Relief Defendants are liable for restitution because they “(1) “received ill-gotten 

funds;” and (2) “do [] not have a legitimate claim to those funds.”139 CFTC v. Kimberlynn Creek 

Ranch, Inc., 276 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). SBE transferred substantial 

sums from all five Relief Defendants (Vipulis, the Estate of John Pukke, Chittenden, Beach 

Bunny, and Connolly). See supra at 74-76. As noted above, SBE transferred more than $4 

million to Vipulis to repay the loan he made to help end Pukke’s 2007 civil incarceration. See 

supra at 21, 76. Although Vipulis has a claim to these funds (Pukke owes him the money), he 

has no legitimate claim yet because the Conditional Release Order prohibits Pukke from 

repaying the Vipulis loan (and Vipulis from being repaid) until Pukke satisfies the AmeriDebt 

judgment, supra at 10, and he still owes more than $270 million, PXOO ¶ 7. 

                                                             139 Asset freezes against relief defendants are appropriate where, as here, the freeze is 

necessary to preserve funds needed to redress victims. See, e.g., CFTC v. IBS, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 

2d 830, 855 (W.D.N.C. 2000) (“[T]to the extent that Relief Defendants each hold funds 

belonging to IMC/IBS customers and obtained by Defendants through illegal activity, any 

further dissipation of those funds would cause irreparable injury to the innocent customers and 

the Commission’s attempts to recover those funds.”), aff’d sub nom. on other grounds, CFTC v. 

Kimberlynn Creek Ranch, Inc., 276 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2002). 
97 

Furthermore, through direct payments to Chittenden, transfers to Beach Bunny, and 

transfers to the Estate of John Pukke (which then makes additional payments to Pukke’s 

relatives), Pukke’s relatives have received more than $1 million. Estate of John Pukke is a legal 

entity created as a result of Pukke’s father’s death, PXQQ ¶ 274; obviously, it does not perform 

work for SBE otherwise have any claim to SBE funds. 

Similarly, there is no indication that Chittenden or Beach Bunny performs work for SBE 

that would create a legitimate claim to SBE funds. Chittenden is Pukke’s de facto wife, a 

swimwear model who appeared on The Price Is Right, and the nominal CEO of Relief Defendant 

Beach Bunny. Supra at 74-75. Although the FTC has access to more than 100,000 internal SBE 

documents, there is no evidence that either Chittenden or Beach Bunny performs services for 

SBE such that they have a legitimate claim to the funds they received. PXQQ ¶ 271. In fact, 

Chittenden does not appear on internal SBE telephone directories, PXQQ ¶¶ 167:169, she does 

not have card access to parking at 3333 Michelson (Pukke does), PXQQ ¶ 306:326, and an 

internal SBE accountant confirms that Chittenden does not work for the money she receives, 

PXEE ¶ 13. 

Finally, Connelly is Frank Costanzo’s wife. Supra at 62. She received more than 

$475,000 directly.140 PXNN ¶8(s). Connolly does not appear on SBE’s internal phone 

directories, PXQQ ¶ 167:169, and lacks card access to parking at 3333 Michelson (which 

Costanzo has), PXQQ ¶ 306:326. Furthermore, although the FTC obtained more than 100,000 

internal SBE documents, there is no evidence that Connolly is performing any function for SBE 

that would give her a legitimate claim to the SBE funds she received. PXQQ ¶ 97:102; see also 

PXCC ¶ 7. Accordingly, there is more than a “fair and tenable” likelihood the FTC will prevail 

against Relief Defendants. 

                                                             140 These payments are separate from the amounts SBE transfers to Defendant EF, PXNN 

¶ 11, which Connolly formed, supra at 66 (Costanzo himself apparently receives little money 

directly, PXNN ¶ 8(s)). 
98 

IV. SBE’s Egregious Misconduct and the Substantial, Ongoing Consumer Injury 

Strongly Favor the Proposed TRO. 

As this Court explained, “[t]o insure that any final relief is complete and meaningful, the 

court may also order any necessary temporary or preliminary relief[.]” AmeriDebt, 373 F. 

Supp.2d at 562 (emphasis added). First, as the Court is aware based on its experience with 

Pukke and his associates—the proposed TRO’s consumer protections and other remedial 

provisions are meaningless if Defendants ignore them and no enforcement mechanism exists. 

Accordingly, writs ne exeat against Pukke, Chadwick, Baker and Costanzo are necessary to 

prevent them from leaving the country so that, if necessary, the Court will have the ability to 

coerce their compliance with its orders notwithstanding their contumacious history. Second, to 

preserve assets for SBE’s victims, the proposed TRO freezes all Defendants’ assets (and requires 

their immediate repatriation). Third, the FTC seeks ex parte relief because providing notice 

would defeat the purpose of many critical order provisions designed to preserve the status quo, 

including the writs ne exeat and asset freeze. Fourth, the proposed TRO appoints a Temporary 

Receiver to help preserve evidence relevant to this case and assets needed to redress victims. 

Finally, the proposed ex parte TRO provides other strong means to address this serious 

situation,141 including immediate access to business premises,142 additional measures to preserve 

                                                             141 This is also an urgent situation. Although the consumer injury over the past thirteen 

years is massive—lot sales apparently exceed $144 million, PXB ¶36 (Chart 1)—most of it since 

2012. Using Grant Thornton’s estimates, id., SBE collected more than $10 million during the 

first half of 2018, or more than $50,000 in consumer injury per day. 

142 Courts in this Circuit, and this District, routinely issue similar orders in FTC matters. 

See, e.g., FTC v. American Industrial Enter., LLC, No. 1:16-cv-0281 (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2016) 

(ordering ex parte TRO with asset freeze, appointment of a temporary receiver, immediate 

access to premises, expedited discovery, and asset repatriation); FTC v. Loma Int’l Bus. Group, 

Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01483 (D. Md. June 2, 2011) (ordering ex parte TRO with asset freeze, 

appointment of a temporary monitor, immediate access to premises, expedited discovery, and 

asset repatriation); FTC v. Holiday Vacations Mktg. Corp., No. 8:11-cv-01319 (D. Md. May 16, 

2011) (ordering TRO with asset freeze, expedited discovery, and asset repatriation); FTC v. 

Residential Relief Found., No. 10-CV-3214 (D. Md. Nov. 15, 2010) (ordering ex parte TRO with 

asset freeze, immediate access to premises, appointment of a temporary receiver, expedited 

discovery, and asset repatriation). 
99 

physical evidence, and anti-tampering provisions to prevent improper contact between SBE 

parties (or their non-attorney representatives) and witnesses. 

A. Writs Ne Exeat Are Necessary Because SBE Has a Well-Established Track 

Record of Disregard for the Judicial Process. 

“A Writ of Ne Exeat Republica is a form of injunctive relief that restrains a defendant 

from leaving the jurisdiction in order to compel feasance to the sovereign.” United States v. 

Mathewson, No. 92-1054, 1993 WL 113434, *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 1993). The writ may issue to 

“enable the Government to have effective discovery” both on liability and defendants’ assets. 

See, e.g., United States v. Shaheen, 445 F.2d 6, 9-10 (7th Cir. 1971) (Stevens, J.). Courts use the 

preliminary injunction standard to determine whether a writ ne exeat should issue. Mathewson, 

1993 WL 113434, *1. Thus, the Court considers whether the FTC has a “fair and tenable chance 

of ultimate success,” and then the Court “weigh[s] the equities.” AmeriDebt, 373 F. Supp.2d at 

563. As shown above, the FTC has a very strong likelihood of success. Regarding the equities, 

the Fourth Circuit makes clear that “private injuries”—injuries to the defendants from being 

temporarily unable to leave the United States—”are not proper considerations for granting or 

withholding injunctive relief under Section 13(b).” Id. at 564 (quotation omitted). 

The public interest, however, in obtaining discovery and ultimately redress for victims is 

extremely strong. Likewise, the need to restrict travel of four Defendants (Pukke, Chadwick, 

Baker, and Costanzo) is substantial because each has shown that he will not comply with court 

orders. The Court is familiar with Pukke and Baker, both whom the Court held in contempt and 

coercively incarcerated, supra at 9-10, both of whom the Court found acted with “real 

mendacity,” PXQQ ¶ 96:101 at 26:5-6, and both of whom the Court found have “zero” 

credibility, id. As detailed above, the Florida Supreme Court ordered Costanzo to stop practicing 

law after finding he stole money from his clients, and then held him in contempt of its order 

when he continued to practice anyway. Supra at 62. Most recently, after ignoring a demand that 

he cease misappropriating the “Coldwell Banker” mark, Chadwick ignored a New Jersey court’s 
100 

order that he appear and respond to Coldwell Banker’s suit against him.143 Thus, the record is 

clear that—at minimum—the risk that Pukke, Chadwick, Baker, and Costanzo will not comply 

with this Court’s orders is substantial. Accordingly, the balance of equities favors issuing writs 

ne exeat because the Court cannot vindicate the Congressionally-mandated consumer protection 

policy that the FTC Act embodies if the Court does not have coercive remedies available should 

Defendants refuse to comply voluntarily (and the record suggests this is a substantial risk).144 

See Order, FTC v. Trudeau, No. 03-3904 (June 25, 2013), DE699 at 2 (issuing a temporary writ 

ne exeat in part because “[a]llowing [the defendant] to leave the court’s jurisdiction” likely 

would leave the court with “no means to compel defendant to comply with its order[s]”).145 

B. An Asset Freeze Is Necessary To Maximize the Ability To Redress Victims. 

 “The FTC’s burden of proof in the asset-freeze context is relatively light.” FTC v. IAB 

Mktg. Assocs., LP, No. 12-61830-Civ, 2013 WL 5278216 (S.D. Fla. 2013), aff’d, No. 12-16265, 

2014 WL 1245263, at *4 (11th Cir. Mar. 27, 2014). “There does not need to be evidence that 

assets will likely be dissipated in order to impose an asset freeze.” Id. Rather, where—as in an 

FTC enforcement action—the law presumes irreparable harm, AmeriDebt, 373 F. Supp. 2d at 

563, the FTC need only establish “a possibility of dissipation of assets” (as opposed to a 

                                                             143 PXQQ ¶ 307:327, Order to Show Cause, Realogy Group LLC v. Belize Real Estate 

Affiliates LLC and Luke Chadwick, No. MRS-L-1376-18 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. July 31, 

2018). In light of Chadwick’s failure to respond, the court ordered Chadwick to cease using 

Coldwell Banker’s marks. PXQQ ¶ 307:328, Order, Realogy Group, No. MRS-L-1376-18 (N.J. 

Super. Ct. Law Div. Sept. 6, 2018). Although Chadwick did not respond as the Court ordered 

him to, he did email Coldwell Banker and blame the misappropriation on his inability to reach 

Charmaine Voss, PXQQ ¶ 307:329, the SBE employee and Coldwell Banker Southern Belize 

realtor who appeared on HGTV promoting Sanctuary Belize, see supra at 68. Notably, in the 

Mango Springs litigation, Chadwick threatened to move to Australia. PXQQ ¶ 308:331. 

144 Notably, the extensive involvement that Pukke, Baker, Chadwick, and Costanzo have 

with this scam shows they have deep connections overseas. And SBE has sent more than $25 

million offshore. PXB ¶ 31 (Table 1). Accordingly, these defendants have the ability to flee. 

145 The Proposed TRO requires Defendants to attend hearings unless the Court directs 

otherwise. See Proposed TRO § XXIX. 
101 

“likelihood” of dissipation). FSLIC v. Sahni, 868 F.2d 1096, 1097 (9th Cir. 1989); id. (“The 

district court’s substitution of a ‘likelihood’ of dissipation—as opposed to its ‘possibility’—[was 

error] as the standard placed an unnecessarily heavy burden on FSLIC.”); FTC v. Wealth 

Educators, Inc., No. CV 15-02375 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015) at 9 (“[W]hen a government agency 

is a movant, the mere ‘possibility’ (as opposed to likelihood) of dissipation of assets is sufficient 

to justify a freeze.”) (citing Sahni, 868 F.2d at 1097).146 

In this instance, it is far more than merely “possible” that SBE will dissipate assets badly 

needed to compensate victims. In AmeriDebt, Pukke and Baker engaged in elaborate efforts to 

secret assets that caused the Court to coercively incarcerate them. SBE has already moved 

approximately $25 million offshore, PXB ¶ 23 (the Proposed TRO would order offshore assets 

repatriated, see Proposed TRO § VI).147 SBE has dissipated millions of consumers’ lot payments 

through transfers that benefit Pukke and have nothing to do with finishing the development. See 

supra at 21-23. SBE’s controlpersons have disobeyed court orders, perjured themselves, and lied 

repeatedly to consumers. AIB has supported this activity—with knowledge, see supra at 95—

and the Relief Defendants took millions to which they have no legal entitlement, see supra at 74-

77. In fact, fraud permeates the entire undertaking. Fraudulent activities “lead to the conclusion 

that, absent a freeze, [defendants] would either dispose of, or conceal, or send abroad, all of the 

moneys that they have obtained[.]”148 FTC v. H. N. Singer, Inc., 668 F.2d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 

                                                             146 Assets frozen need not be traceable to unlawful activities. See, e.g., Kemp v. Peterson, 940 F.2d 110, 113-14 (4th Cir. 1991) (noting that assets may be frozen in HUD enforcement 

action “without respect to whether th[e] monies are traceable to proceeds or profits and income 

from the [wrongdoing]”). 

147 The Proposed TRO’s repatriation provision exempts Usher (who resides in Belize) 

and AIB (which is based in Belize) from the repatriation requirement. See Proposed TRO § VI. 

Similarly, the Proposed TRO’s injunctive provisions do not cover funds AIB holds for others 

(i.e., accountholder deposits). See id. § III(D). 

148 See also SEC v. Manor Nursing, 458 F.2d 1082, 1106 (2nd Cir. 1971) (“Because of 

the fraudulent nature of appellants’ violations, the court could not be assured that appellants 

would not waste their assets prior to refunding public investors’ money.”); FTC v. Int’l 

Computer Concepts, Inc., No. 5:94CV1678, 1994 WL 730144, *16 -17 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 24, 
102 

1982). There is essentially no chance that any defendant involved with the SBE scam will 

voluntarily preserve its assets so that they will remain available to compensate victims. 

Accordingly, an asset freeze is necessary. 

C. Proceeding Ex Parte Is Necessary Because Providing Notice Would Defeat 

the Court’s Ability To Provide Complete Relief. 

As the Supreme Court has explained, “[e]x parte temporary restraining orders are no 

doubt necessary in some circumstances,” and are appropriate when tailored to “preserving the 

status quo and preventing irreparable harm.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of 

Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974); see also In re Vuitton et Fils S.A., 606 F.2d 1, 4 (2nd Cir. 

1979) (noting that ex parte relief is particularly appropriate “when it is the sole method of 

preserving a state of affairs in which the court can provide effective final relief”). In this 

instance, ex parte relief is necessary because an asset freeze will not work if any Defendants 

learn that this action has commenced. See, e.g., Little Tor Auto Ctr. v. Exxon Co., USA, 822 F. 

Supp. 141, 143 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (explaining that ex parte relief is appropriate “where advance 

contact with the adversary would itself be likely to trigger irreparable injury”); S. Rep. No. 130, 

103rd CONG., 2D SESS. 15-16, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1776, 1790-91 (explaining that, under § 13(b), 

the FTC can proceed “ex parte to obtain an order freezing assets”). For the same reason, 

providing notice to any Defendant likely will render the writs ne exeat ineffective. 

Notably, the Court’s has broad equitable authority to issue preliminary relief “that may be 

needed to make permanent relief possible.” FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d 466, 469 (11th 

Cir. 1996); see also FTC v. Amy Travel Service, Inc., 875 F.2d 564, 571-72 (7th Cir. 1989) 

(under section 13(b), court has the “power to order any ancillary equitable relief necessary to 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

1994) (“Where, as in this case, business operations are permeated by fraud, there is a strong 

likelihood that assets may be dissipated during the pendency of the legal proceedings. Mindful 

of this, courts have ordered the freezing of assets solely on the basis of pervasive fraudulent 

activities[.]”) (citations omitted). 
103 

effectuate” its grant of authority); Singer, Inc., 668 F.2d at 1112-13 (power to grant permanent 

injunctive relief carries with it authority for ancillary equitable relief). In fact, when the public 

interest is implicated, the Court’s equitable powers “assume an even broader and more flexible 

character than when only a private controversy is at stake.” Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 

U.S. 395, 398 (1946). Because notice to Defendants would almost certainly mean the 

destruction of evidence and the dissipation of assets needed to compensate victims, it is 

necessary to proceed ex parte.

149 

D. The Appointment of a Temporary Receiver Is Necessary. 

Under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, the Court has wide latitude to fashion temporary 

relief that furthers the statutory purpose. Singer, 668 F.2d at 1112-13. This power includes 

appointing a temporary receiver. See, e.g., FTC v. U.S. Oil & Gas Corp., 748 F.2d 1431, 1432 

(11th Cir. 1984) (holding the court has inherent power “to grant ancillary relief, including 

freezing assets and appointing a Receiver, as an incident to its express statutory authority to issue 

a permanent injunction under Section 13”) (per curiam). Appointing a receiver is appropriate 

where, as here, there is “fraud, or the imminent danger of property being lost, injured, diminished 

in value or squandered, and where legal remedies are inadequate.” Leone Indus. v. Associated 

Packaging Inc., 795 F. Supp. 117, 120 (D.N.J. 1992). In fact, when a corporate defendant 

                                                             149 Additionally, ex parte relief is also necessary where defendants would “disregard[] a 

direct court order . . . within the time it would take for a hearing.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. 

McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006); see also First Tech. Safety Sys., Inc. v. Depinet,

11 F.3d 641, 651 (6th Cir.1998) (explaining that ex parte relief is appropriate if “the adverse 

party has a history of disposing of evidence or violating court orders or that persons similar to 

the adverse party have such a history”); Diretto v. Country Inn & Suites, No. 1:16CV1037, 2016 

WL 4400498, *3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2016) (stating that “evidence concerning “the defendant’s 

past willingness to disregard court orders” supports ex parte relief) (citation omitted). In 

addition to the evidence above concerning Pukke, Chadwick, Baker and Costanzo, Greenfield 

and Kazazi both lied to this Court regarding Pukke’s role. Supra at 54-55. Usher helped SBE 

violate two Court orders, and Relief Defendant Vipulis helped Pukke violate a third (all of which 

are the subject of contemporaneously-filed contempt motions). Accordingly, Defendants track 

record of lawlessness further supports granting the requested relief ex parte. 
104 

deceives consumers to enrich itself, “it is likely that, in the absence of the appointment of a 

receiver to maintain the status quo,” “the corporate assets will be subject to diversion and 

waste,” to victims’ detriment. SEC v. First Fin. Group, 645 F.2d 429, 438 (5th Cir. 1981); see 

also SEC v. Keller Corp., 323 F.2d 397, 403 (7th Cir. 1963) (“It is hardly conceivable that the 

trial court should have permitted those who were enjoined from fraudulent misconduct to 

continue in control of [the company’s] affairs for the benefit of those shown to have been 

defrauded.”). Accordingly, the proposed TRO appoints Robb Evans & Associates (“Robb 

Evans”)—the AmeriDebt receiver—to serve as a Temporary Receiver. 

Notably, as the Court is aware, because Robb Evans has extensive familiarity with this 

matter, appointing Robb Evans will conserve resources. 

E. The Proposed TRO’s Other Provisions Are Necessary and Appropriate.150 

1. Immediate Access 

The Proposed TRO grants the FTC and Temporary Receiver immediate access to 3333 

Michelson to collect evidence.151 See Proposed TRO § XXIV. As noted above, see supra at 98 

                                                             150 This matter presents complex remedies issues caused by SBE’s extraordinarily 

deceptive and contemptuous behavior. Two Proposed TRO provisions unique to situation SBE 

created are noteworthy. First, Section XIII(K) underscores that lots (or ownership interests in 

lots) are not part of the receivership. Second, to the extent the Temporary Receiver must make 

judgments about who has what ownership interest in which lot, it is prohibited from considering 

actions to change or alter interests after this filing becomes public (an “interest freeze” 

provision). See Proposed TRO § XXVI(Y). Some consumers may learn that another victim has 

an interest in a lot they thought was theirs, that they have an interest SBE had told them they had 

lost (for instance, following a purported “foreclosure,” see supra at 48), or that they had been 

deceived about the nature of their interest in other ways. Accordingly, the “interest freeze” 

provision will discourage short-term actions that will exacerbate the situation including litigation 

between owners, efforts to influence Belizean authorities, or speculative behavior (consumers or 

third parties may believe, with some basis, that the lots’ value will now rise due to the possibility 

that a real developer will replace SBE, that lot owners will receive redress payments, or both). 

At the appropriate time, the FTC is likely to take the position that—consistent with decades of 

consumer protection jurisprudence—victims both (1) keep interests without additional payments 

(to the maximum extent this is possible), and (2) receive redress from Defendants’ assets 

proportional to the amounts they paid before this filing became public (so consumers who paid 

more will receive more) (again, to the maximum extent possible). 
105 

n.142, courts routinely grant the Commission immediate access when there is a risk—as there is 

here—that Defendants will destroy evidence.152 

2. Smartphones and Cloud Storage 

There is substantial evidence that individual Defendants regularly use personal email 

accounts and cellphones to conduct SBE business.153 Accordingly, the Proposed TRO allows the 

FTC and Receiver to image smartphones, tablets and other similar devices found at 3333 

Michelson.154 Proposed TRO § XVIII(E). Additionally, the Proposed TRO grants the Receiver 

immediate access to email and other SBE maintains in cloud storage (for instance, Gmail or 

Dropbox), and directs the Temporary Receiver to produce that information to the FTC.155 See 

Proposed TRO § XXIV(D). 

3. Safety 

Belize is one of the world’s most dangerous countries, PXQQ ¶ 309, and various parties 

have alleged that SBE is associated with drug trafficking and related violence, PXQQ ¶ 310; 

                                                                                                                                                                                                151 To facilitate control over assets and information, the Proposed TRO permits email 

service. See Proposed TRO § XXVII. Such provisions are typical in this context, see supra at 

98 n.142 (all orders cited therein allow for email service), and FRCP 65(d)(2) requires only 

“actual notice,” not formal Rule 4 service. Additionally, serving the TRO by email does not 

raise issues under international law because Nevis is not a party to the Hague Convention at all, 

see, e.g., TEMPO Networks LLC v. Gov't of NIA, No. 2:14-6334,, 2015 WL 4757911, *5 (D.N.J. 

Aug. 12, 2015), and the Hague convention does not prohibit “service by means of email,” FTC v. 

PCCare247 Inc., No. 12-civ-7189, 2013 WL 841037, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2013). 

152 See, e.g., FTC v. Sale Slash, LLC, No. CV15-03107, 2015 WL 12762060, at *1 (C.D. 

Cal. Apr. 27, 2015) (“Good cause exists for . . . permitting the FTC immediate access to 

Defendants’ business premises”); FTC v. Wealth Educators, Inc., No. CV1502357, 2015 WL 

11439063, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015) (“Section 13(b) also permits the Court to grant 

whatever . . . relief is necessary to preserve the possibility of effective final relief,” including “an 

order . . . permitting expedited discovery and immediate access”) (citations omitted). 

153 See supra at 58 n. 91 (Pukke); id. at 69 n.62 (Chadwick); id. at 62 n.96 (Costanzo). 

154 The Proposed TRO also requires Pukke and Baker to produce to the FTC devices not 

found onsite. Proposed TRO § XVIII(F). 

155 See, e.g., FTC v. Kutzner, No. 8:16CV00999, 2016 WL 4491629, at *7 (C.D. Cal. 

Aug. 24, 2016) (providing “the Receiver immediate access to electronically stored information 

stored, hosted, or otherwise maintained on behalf of Defendant Foti for forensic imaging”). 
106 

PXBB ¶ 22; PXEE ¶16.156 Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the Proposed TRO allows 

the FTC to require that all depositions occur behind a U.S. government security perimeter (such 

as at government offices). Proposed TRO § XXVI(A). Additionally, also as a precautionary 

measure, the Proposed TRO makes all Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”) “Attorney’s 

Eyes Only.” Proposed TRO § XVIII(proviso). The Proposed TRO also contains anti-tampering 

language that prevents Defendants and their non-attorney agents from contacting witnesses who 

have submitted declarations attached hereto, or from unlawfully attempting to influence the 

testimony of any witness.157 Id. § XIV. Finally, Proposed TRO § XVI(Z) requires the 

Temporary Receiver to attempt to contact any prospective purchasers touring the development 

(or scheduled to tour it), and other consumers who may be present at the development, as soon as 

possible.158 

 

                                                             156 The FTC can provide more information if necessary. 

157 As discussed above, attorney Tom Herskowitz led the IOSB, which litigated against 

SBE in Belize. See supra at 50-51. Herskowitz received hundreds of thousands in undisclosed 

payments after he gave testimony surprisingly favorable to SBE. See id. SBE has also taken 

other measures to intimidate owners including a baseless Belizean defamation action. See id. at 

51. Additionally, the FTC has received reports of threats and direct physical intimidation of 

consumers who speak out about SBE’s practices. PXQQ ¶ 310. 

158 If the Court enters the Proposed TRO, the FTC will attempt to conduct the immediate 

access and commence service mid-week to minimize the chance that any prospective purchasers 

are touring Sanctuary Belize when Defendants learn about this filing. Prospective purchasers 

typically tour over the weekend, supra at 15-16, often beginning on Thursdays and concluding 

on Mondays. 
CONCLUSION 

For all the aforementioned reasons, the Court should enter the proposed ex parte TRO. 

Dated:~ ON N COHEN, D. Md. Bar No. 16776 

h2@ftc.gov 

NJAMIN J. THEISMAN 

btheisman@ftc.gov 

AMANDA B. KOSTNER 

akostner@ftc.gov 

KHOURY ANNA DIPRIMA 

kdiprima@ftc.gov 

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, CC-9528 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-2551 (Cohen); -2223 (Theisman); -2029 

(DiPrima); -3197 (facsimile) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 

107