Page 1 of 10

Edmar M. Amaya, Esq., LL.M.

Florida Bar No. 063816

edmar.amaya@edamlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

EDAM LAW PLLC

Latitude One Building

175 SW 7th Street, Suite 2410,

Miami FL 33130

Office + 1 (305) 643-0740

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (FORT LAUDERDALE)

Bankruptcy Petition #: 20-22993-SMG

IN RE: 

VITALY BAHAR,

Debtor,

_____________________________________

JONNY EDGARDO PINEDA RAPALO

Plaintiff/Creditor,

vs.

VITALY BAHAR,

individually, Defendant.

GROSSMAN

CASE NO: 20-22993-SMG

Chapter 7

COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE 

DISCHARGEABILITY AND IN 

OBJECTION TO DISCHARGE

[11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A, B); and 

523(a)(4, 6).]

COMPLAINT FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT

[11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A)(B) and 523(a)(4)]

(Jonny Edgardo Pineda Rapalo - $19,000.00 plus interest)

Plaintiff/Creditor, Jonny Edgardo Pineda Rapalo (“Pineda” or "Plaintiff/Creditor"), by and 

through undersigned counsel, files this Complaint, against Defendant/Debtor, Vitaly Bahar, 

(“Bahar” or "Defendant/Debtor") to determine the non-dischargeability of debt pursuant to 11 

U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A, B), and 523(a)(4, 6) and alleges as follows:

Case 21-01067-SMG Doc 1 Filed 02/26/21 Page 1 of 10
Page 2 of 10

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND THE PARTIES

1. This is an adversary proceeding in the debtor's Case No. 20-22993-SMG under 

Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, now pending in this Court. This Court 

has jurisdiction of this adversary proceeding pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 727, 523, and 365. This is 

a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(I) and (J).

2. Defendant/Debtor is not eligible for discharge as a debtor in his bankruptcy action 

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(4)(A). Defendant/Debtor is also indebted to Plaintiff/Creditor as 

fully detailed below, and the debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy by virtue of the provisions of 

11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A)(B), (4) and (6).

3. The Debtor herein resides in Broward County and submitted himself to the 

jurisdiction of the Court by filing a bankruptcy petition.

4. Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda is an individual, sui juris, who is a resident and citizen of 

Honduras. Pineda is in the heavy machinery and construction business in his home country of 

Honduras.

5. Defendant/Debtor Bahar, was, at all times material hereto, the co-owner of 2-

HANDS Machinery, Corp., and resides in Florida is over the age of 18 years, and is otherwise sui 

juris.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

6. On or about December 10th, 2019, Pineda used the website

www.machinerytrader.com to find an excavator (heavy construction equipment) to purchase for 

his construction business in Honduras.

7. Bahar and his girlfriend Libia Wong, are the co-owners of 2-HANDS Machinery,

Corp., advertised in www.machinerytrader.com and their website 

Case 21-01067-SMG Doc 1 Filed 02/26/21 Page 2 of 10
Page 3 of 10

https://www.2handsmachinery.com/ 1997 used Caterpillar 320LB Hydraulic Excavator, model

with Serial Number 6CR01636 (hereinafter the "Excavator").

8. On or about December 10, 2019, Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda contacted Wong and 

Defendant/Debtor Bahar by telephone to inquire about the Excavator and Wong told 

Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda that the Excavator was in perfect condition and that it was available for 

immediate delivery from Houston to Galveston, Texas for immediate shipment from Galveston to 

Honduras. In a subsequent WhatsApp text conversation, Wong offered to sell Plaintiff/Creditor 

Pineda the Excavator for the price of $19,000, but that she needed to receive payment immediately

of one half of the sales price since according to her, she had several clients "ready to purchase" the 

Excavator. 

9. On or about December 13, 2019, Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda agreed to purchase the 

Excavator for the total amount of $19,000.00 in two $9,500 payments. 

10. On December 13, 2019, Wong, sent Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda invoice number 2390

for $19,000.00 via WhatsApp, describing the Excavator with serial number 6CR01636. A true 

and correct copy of the invoice is hereby incorporated by reference and attached as exhibit “A.”

11. Defendant/Debtor Bahar and Wong assured Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda that the 

Excavator was going to be delivered to the port of Galveston, TX, within one or two weeks of 

payment, or on or before the first week of January 2020. In a further effort to have 

Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda wire the money to the Defendant/Debtor quickly, Wong sent videos and 

pictures of the purported Excavator to Pineda via WhatsApp text message. A true and correct copy 

of the photos of the Excavator sent to Pineda by Wong is attached as exhibit “B.”

12. Pineda wired the first payment to Defendant/Debtor on December 13, 2019, from 

a Honduras bank account (BanPais) in the amount of $9,500.00 and the second payment was wired 

Case 21-01067-SMG Doc 1 Filed 02/26/21 Page 3 of 10
Page 4 of 10

three days later on December 16, 2019, in the amount of $9,500.00. A true and correct copy of 

wire transfers to Defendant/Debtor's bank account number 4288291382 is hereby incorporated by 

reference and attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” Defendant/Debtor do not and cannot dispute that 

they have received both wires. 

13. After the time for delivery passed, Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda inquired about the 

delivery of the Excavator by email and phone. Defendant/Debtor Bahar and Wong stated that she 

was not able to ship the Excavator to Galveston because of the Christmas holidays and that 

shipment to Galveston would have to wait until January. 

14. In January 2020, Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda again called and sent text messages to 

Wong to see when the Excavator was going to be delivered to Galveston for shipment to Honduras. 

In response, Wong came up with another lie and told Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda that the Excavator 

was broken and that the Defendants were trying to fix the Excavator, and that they would ship the 

Excavator to Pineda after it was fixed. 

15. During January and February of 2020, after Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda found out that 

the Excavator had still not arrived in Galveston, Texas (for shipment to Honduras) 

Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda contacted the Galveston shipping office INTERPORT, and they told him 

that they had made three appointments to have the Excavator delivered to them by 

Defendant/Debtor, but that Defendant/Debtor never showed up and never delivered the Excavator 

to them for shipment to Pineda. With this information, Pineda, contacted Defendant/Debtor Bahar,

the co-owner of 2-Hands, to ask for an explanation as to (i) why he was getting the runaround and 

being told different lies and stories, and (ii) why the Excavator that he had paid for in full by 

December 16, 2019, was still not being delivered to Galveston for shipment to Honduras even 

Case 21-01067-SMG Doc 1 Filed 02/26/21 Page 4 of 10
Page 5 of 10

though the Defendants promised that it would arrive in Galveston by the first week of January at 

the absolute latest for shipment to Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda in Honduras for use by his company. 

16. Towards the end of February of 2020 (approximately two months after the 

Excavator was already supposed to have arrived in Galveston for shipment to Honduras), 

Defendant/Debtor Bahar continued to provide false and misleading information to 

Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda in an attempt to cover-up his fraud and delay Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda’s 

discovery of the Defendant/Debtor’s fraudulent scheme. In actuality, the Defendant/Debtor never 

had the intention of shipping the Excavator to Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda, and only made the false 

promises to sell him the excavator (and sent pictures of the Excavator) as part of a scheme to steal 

the $19,000.00 purchase price from Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda. After Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda 

started getting suspicious about the Debtor/Defendant’s false promises, misrepresentations, lies, 

and excuses and their failure to deliver the excavator that he had paid for in full, Plaintiff/Creditor 

Pineda had his friend Miguel Gerardo Perdomo (“Perdomo”) who lived in Houston, go and check 

out the status of the Excavator which was situated in Houston and had not yet been shipped to 

Galveston. Perdomo discovered that Defendant/Debtor had lied, that the Excavator was broken

(it was in use by Defendant/Debtor), and the machine was not even washed or ready to be shipped 

as promised. Upon being advised of these facts from Perdomo, Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda for the 

first time realized that Defendant/Debtor had no intention of ever delivering the Excavator to him.

17. Accordingly, Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda demanded that Defendant/Debtor Bahar pay 

him a full refund of the $19,000.00 that Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda paid for the Excavator, but the 

Defendant/Debtor refused to return to Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda any of the amounts paid by him 

and stolen by the Defendant/Debtor. 

Case 21-01067-SMG Doc 1 Filed 02/26/21 Page 5 of 10
Page 6 of 10

18. The Excavator was never delivered to the port of Galveston for shipment to 

Honduras, and the funds paid to Defendant/Debtor Bahar, have never been returned to 

Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda.

19. Defendant/Debtor made false representations to Plaintiff/Creditor that he would get 

the Excavator; Plaintiff/Creditor relied on the representations of the Defendant/Debtor; 

Defendant/Debtor made the false representations knowingly with the intent to deceive the 

Plaintiff/Creditor, and maliciously and fraudulently did not intentionally send the equipment he 

purchased.

20. As a proximate legal result of the bankruptcy filing by Defendant/Debtor in an

attempt to discharge a debt incurred by the debtor in connection with the facts alleged herein, 

Plaintiff/Creditor has been damaged in the sum of $19,000.00 plus interest. By virtue of the 

conduct and acts of the Defendant/Debtor, such debt is non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 

§523(a)(2)(A)and (B) as it is a debt for services obtained to the extent obtained by pretenses, false 

representation, or actual fraud; and pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(4) for fraud.

21. After being criminally defrauded by the Debtor/Defendant, Pineda engaged the 

services of the undersigned attorney to file a Complaint Broward County Court, Jonny Edgardo 

Pineda Rapalo vs. 2 Hands Machinery LLC et al. 2020-023183-CC-DIV51. Coincidentally, in 

2016, the undersigned attorneys represented a different client against defendant Wong and her 

former company with strikingly similar facts. In the case of Jose Manuel Cely Rodriguez, vs. Libia 

A. Wong and American Equipment Dealers Corp., case number: 2016-4263 CA-04, filed in Miami 

Dade County court, Wong and her company at that time defrauded a Colombian developer into 

paying $50,000.00 for certain identified heavy equipment and never delivered the promised heavy 

equipment to the developer; they then attempted to hide behind a fraudulently established alterCase 21-01067-SMG Doc 1 Filed 02/26/21 Page 6 of 10
Page 7 of 10

ego company to try to excuse their fraud and theft. See also, Jose Manuel Cely vs. Power Heavy 

Machinery Corp and Juan C. Ladino Case Number 2004-24212-CA-01.

22. It has become apparent that Defendant/Debtor Bahar and Wong's modus operandi 

is to criminally defraud foreigners out of their money by (i) promising to sell and deliver heavy 

equipment or machinery, (ii) by receiving payment in full for the machinery (all along knowing 

that their companies and co-conspirators had no intention of ever delivering the equipment or 

machinery or refunding the purchase price); (iii) by making up excuses and refusing to deliver the 

equipment or machinery and failing and refusing to refund the purchase price paid by the defrauded 

victim. Upon information and belief, 2-HANDS is now the third alter ego entity created by

Defendant/Debtor Bahar and Wong and co-conspirators to perpetuate this fraudulent scheme. The 

scam continues until enough foreigners have been robbed and complaints start to appear, 

whereupon Defendant/Debtor closes the current entity, disappears, and the cycle begins again with 

a new alter ego, a new victim, and a new fraudulent scheme.

23. Upon information and belief, most of the Creditors in Debtor/Defendant's Chapter 

7 Petition for Bankruptcy are foreign persons or entities that have been defrauded similarly as 

described above. Debtor/Defendant is trying to discharge through Bankruptcy $411,926.61 worth 

of fraud.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(For a Determination Debtor's Debts Are Not Dischargeable Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 

§523(a)(2)(A, B)

24. Pineda incorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-23 of this 

Complaint as if more fully stated herein. 

25. Defendant/Debtor made false representations to Plaintiff/Creditor that he would get 

the Excavator he paid for in full but was never delivered; Plaintiff/Creditor relied on the 

Case 21-01067-SMG Doc 1 Filed 02/26/21 Page 7 of 10
Page 8 of 10

representations of the Defendant/Debtor; Defendant/Debtor's made the false representations 

knowingly with the intent to deceive the Plaintiff/Creditor, and maliciously and fraudulently did 

not intentionally send the Excavator he purchased.

26. As a proximate legal result of the bankruptcy filing by Defendant/Debtor in an 

attempt to discharge a debt incurred by the debtor in connection with the facts alleged herein, 

Plaintiff/Creditor has been damaged in the sum of $19,000,00 plus interest. By virtue of the 

conduct and acts of the Debtor/Defendant, such debt is non-dischargeable Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 

§523(a)(2)(A, B) as it is a debt obtained to the extent obtained by false pretenses, false 

representation, or actual fraud.

27. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Creditor prays as follows: That this Court determines that 

the debt of $19,000,00 plus accrued interest be determined to be non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C 

§ 523(a)(2)(A, B) and of the Bankruptcy Code according to proof; The Plaintiff/Creditor be 

entitled to judgment in the above amount; for an award of attorney's fees and costs as allowable 

by law in an amount the Court determines to be reasonable, and for such other and further relief 

that the Court deems just.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(For a Determination Debtor's Debts Are Not Dischargeable Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 

§523(a)(4) and/or §523(a)(6)

28. Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda incorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 

1-23 of this Complaint as if more fully stated herein.

29. Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda has conferred a $19,000 benefit on Defendant/Debtor

Bahar by paying for an Excavator that was never delivered by Defendant/Debtor Bahar, and in 

Case 21-01067-SMG Doc 1 Filed 02/26/21 Page 8 of 10
Page 9 of 10

fact, it was never his intention to ship Excavator and instead was part of a scam to defraud 

Plaintiff/Creditor Pineda of his hard-earned money. 

30. Defendant/Debtor's actions are both deliberate and malicious. Plaintiff/Creditor 

has been damaged in the sum of $19,000,00 plus interest. By virtue of the conduct and malicious

acts of the Defendant/Debtor in, such debt is non-dischargeable Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(4)

and/or § 523(a)(6) as it is a debt obtained by fraud.

31. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Creditor prays as follows: That this Court determines that 

the debt of $19,000,00 plus accrued interest be determined to be non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C 

§ 523(a)(4) and/or § 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code according to proof; The Plaintiff/Creditor 

be entitled to judgment in the above amount; for an award of attorney's fees and costs as allowable 

by law in an amount the Court determines to be reasonable; and for such other and further relief 

that the Court deems just.

DATED THIS February 26, 21. 

Respectfully submitted,

EDAM LAW PLLC

Latitude One Building

175 SW 7th Street, Suite 2410,

Miami FL 33130

Office + 1 (305) 643-0740

Fax No. +1 (786) 219-0581

 

EDMAR M. AMAYA, ESQUIRE

 Attorney for Plaintiff/Creditor

 Edmar M. Amaya LL.M.

 Florida Bar No. 063816

 edmar.amaya@edamlaw.com

Case 21-01067-SMG Doc 1 Filed 02/26/21 Page 9 of 10
Page 10 of 10

Case 21-01067-SMG Doc 1 Filed 02/26/21 Page 10 of 10