1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAVID C. SHONKA

Acting General Counsel

HONG PARK, DC Bar No. 475930

Federal Trade Commission

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

Washington, DC 20580

(202) 326-2158 (direct), -3197 (fax)

hpark@ftc.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMIE L. WHITE,

Defendant.

Case No. ____________

COMPLAINT FOR 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), for its Complaint alleges:

1. The FTC brings this action under Sections 13(b) and 19 of the 

Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 57b, and the 

Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (“Telemarketing 

Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108, to obtain permanent injunctive relief, rescission or 

reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of 

Case 2:17-cv-04533-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 13
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief for Defendants’ acts or practices in 

violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the FTC’s Trade 

Regulation Rule entitled Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), 16 C.F.R. Part 310, 

in connection with providing order fulfillment services and fraudulent merchant 

accounts to deceptive telemarketing operations.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1331, 1337(a), and 1345, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b), and 6105(b).

3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and 15 

U.S.C. § 53(b).

PLAINTIFF

4. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government 

created by statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

in or affecting commerce. The FTC also enforces the Telemarketing Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 6101–6108. Pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, the FTC promulgated 

and enforces the TSR, 16 C.F.R. Part 310, which prohibits deceptive and abusive 

telemarketing acts or practices.

5. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, 

by its own attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and the TSR and to 

secure such equitable relief as may be appropriate in each case, including 

rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and 

Case 2:17-cv-04533-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 2 of 13
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 56(a)(2)(A), 6102(c), 

and 6105(b).

DEFENDANT

6. Defendant Jamie L. White resides in Utah, and in connection with 

the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this district and 

throughout the United States. 

COMMERCE

7. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant has maintained a 

substantial course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in 

Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44. 

DEFENDANT’S BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

8. Beginning sometime in March of 2015 and continuing until at least

February 27, 2017, Defendant and her associates orchestrated a scheme to provide 

order fulfillment and payment processing services to telemarketing operations 

engaged in deceptive practices. Defendant and her associates provided these 

services to telemarketing operations owned and managed by Carl E. Morris, Jr. 

and located primarily in and around Phoenix, Arizona (collectively, 

“Telemarketing Operations”). 

9. The Telemarketing Operations deceived consumers by peddling 

purported opportunities involving Amazon-linked websites and grants, with false 

promises of substantial income. No consumers generated income through these 

opportunities. Defendant knew that the Telemarketing Operations were making 

Case 2:17-cv-04533-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 3 of 13
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

these false promises throughout the course of Defendant’s participation in the 

scheme.

10. Defendant provided order fulfillment services to the Telemarketing 

Operations. For consumers purchasing Amazon-linked website opportunities, 

Defendant used a template to create nominal websites linked to Amazon.com. The 

websites were practically indistinguishable from each other, did not function in 

numerous instances, and were not designed to generate the web traffic necessary 

to provide the promised income. 

11. For consumers purchasing the grant opportunities, Defendant 

provided purported training material for applying for grants. The training material 

contained general information and could never lead to successful grant 

applications because the grants promised to consumers did not exist. 

12. In addition, Defendant participated in all of the critical decisions to 

provide the Telemarketing Operations with straw merchant accounts to process 

consumer credit card payments for the worthless opportunities. In order to process 

credit card payments, a business needs a merchant account with an “acquirer” (i.e.,

a financial institution that is a member of the card associations, such as 

MasterCard or Visa). These acquirers have screening and underwriting standards 

for opening merchant accounts that the Telemarketing Operations could not meet 

given their deceptive business activity. The straw merchant accounts created by 

Defendant and her associates enabled the Telemarketing Operations to circumvent 

these standards by masking the true nature of their business activity from the 

Case 2:17-cv-04533-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 4 of 13
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

acquirers. 

13. Defendant and her associates obtained the straw merchant accounts 

by first recruiting individuals to serve as “nominees.” The nominees served as the 

principals of straw companies in whose names the merchant accounts were 

opened. Defendant forged financial documents to fabricate corporate histories for 

the straw companies, and provided these documents to her associates for the 

purpose of obtaining merchant accounts. Defendant’s associates used these 

documents, along with the nominees’ personal information (such as address and 

telephone, driver’s license, and Social Security numbers) and the straw 

companies’ corporate information, to apply for the merchant accounts through 

acquirers or their independent sales organizations (“ISOs”). 

14. After approval of the applications created by Defendant and her 

associates, the acquirers or their ISOs opened merchant accounts under written 

agreements with the straw companies. The written agreements only authorized the 

processing of credit card transactions between the straw companies and their 

customers. Defendant and her associates, however, submitted the Telemarketing 

Operations’ consumer credit card transaction records for processing through these 

merchant accounts. Defendant also attempted to minimize chargebacks of 

consumer payments by providing acquirers and their ISOs with misleading 

information to dispute consumer complaints regarding the worthless opportunities 

sold by the Telemarketing Operations.

15. The acquirers deposited consumer payments processed through the 

Case 2:17-cv-04533-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 5 of 13
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

straw merchant accounts into bank accounts opened by the nominees in the straw 

companies’ names. Defendant and her associates maintained the credentials to 

control the funds deposited into these bank accounts. 

16. Typically, the nominees were unsophisticated individuals who were 

not aware that Defendant and her associates used their personal and corporate 

information to submit merchant account applications, and did not know that the 

Telemarketing Operations used the merchant accounts to process consumer credit 

card payments for the worthless opportunities. The nominees received a small 

percentage of the consumer credit card payments processed through the merchant 

accounts for their services. 

17. On or about May 2, 2016, Defendant and her associates prepared and 

submitted a merchant account application to CardFlex, Inc. d/b/a Cliq 

(“CardFlex”), an ISO for BMO Harris Bank, N.A. (“BMO”), using: nominee 

David Turnbull’s personal information; the corporate information for Velocity 

Solutions LLC, which Turnbull created at the direction of Defendant’s associates; 

and financial documents forged by Defendant. On or about May 3, 2016, 

CardFlex processed the application and opened a merchant account with Merchant 

Number ending in 9916. The merchant account operated under a written 

agreement with Velocity Solutions LLC, BMO, and Priority Payment Systems 

(“PPS”), a payment processor for BMO. The written agreement authorized only 

the processing of credit card transactions between Velocity Solutions LLC and its 

customers. 

Case 2:17-cv-04533-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 6 of 13
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18. On or about May 18, 2016, Defendant and her associates prepared 

and submitted a merchant account application to CardFlex using: nominee Ronald 

Bourgard’s personal information; the corporate information for Bay Harbor 

Associates Inc., which Bourgard provided at the direction of Defendant’s 

associates; and financial documents forged by Defendant. On or about May 20, 

2016, CardFlex processed the application and opened a merchant account with 

Merchant Number ending in 3518. The merchant account operated under a 

written agreement with Bay Harbor Associates Inc., BMO, and PPS, that 

authorized only the processing of credit card transactions between Bay Harbor 

Associates Inc. and its customers.

19. On or about June 13, 2016, Defendant and her associates prepared 

and submitted an application for a merchant account to CardFlex using: nominee 

Jack Gouverneur’s personal information; the corporate information for Bay 

Harbor Associates LLC, which Gouverneur created at the direction of Defendant’s 

associates; and financial documents forged by Defendant. On or about June 14, 

2016, CardFlex processed the application and opened a merchant account with 

Merchant Number ending in 4390. The merchant account operated under a 

written agreement with Bay Harbor Associates LLC, BMO, and PPS, that 

authorized only the processing of credit card transactions between Bay Harbor 

Associates LLC and its customers.

20. On or about June 14, 2016, Defendant and her associates prepared 

and submitted a merchant account application to CardFlex using nominee Hugh

Case 2:17-cv-04533-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 7 of 13
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Hubbard’s personal information; the corporate information for Texport Electronic 

Sales Company, which Hubbard created at the direction of Defendant’s associates; 

and financial documents forged by Defendant. On or about July 1, 2016, CardFlex 

processed the application and opened a merchant account with Merchant Number 

ending in 8895. The merchant account operated under a written agreement with 

Texport Electronic Sale Company, BMO, and PPS, that authorized only the 

processing of credit card transactions between Texport Electronic Sales Company 

and its customers.

21. On or about July 27, 2016, Defendant and her associates prepared 

and submitted a second merchant account application to CardFlex using

Hubbard’s personal information; the corporate information for Texport Electronic 

Sales Company; and financial documents forged by Defendant. On or about 

August 1, 2016, CardFlex processed the application and opened a merchant 

account with Merchant Number ending in 6433. The merchant account operated 

under a written agreement with Texport Electronic Sales Company, BMO, and

PPS, that authorized only the processing of credit card transactions between 

Texport Electronic Sales Company and its customers.

22. Defendant and her associates forged the nominees’ signatures on 

each of the merchant account applications identified in Paragraphs 17 to 21

(“Applications”) and submitted the Applications without the knowledge or consent 

of the nominees.

23. Each of the merchant accounts identified in Paragraphs 17 to 21

Case 2:17-cv-04533-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 8 of 13
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(“Merchant Accounts”) processed consumer credit card payments for the 

Telemarketing Operations and not the corporate entities named in the Applications 

or the corresponding agreements with BMO and PPS. 

24. Despite Defendant’s efforts to minimize chargebacks, by October 

2016, CardFlex had notified the nominees that each of the Merchant Accounts 

were terminated for excessively high chargeback rates (47% for the Merchant 

Accounts, collectively). 

25. Prior to terminating the Merchant Accounts, the Merchant Accounts 

processed approximately $3,074,000 in net consumer credit card payments for 

deceptive products and services sold by the Telemarketing Operations.

26. Upon information and belief, Defendant and her associates obtained 

additional fraudulent merchant accounts used to process consumer credit card 

payments for the Telemarketing Operations, by submitting false applications and 

causing acquirers and their payment processors to enter into agreements with 

straw companies. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TSR AND THE FTC ACT

27. Congress directed the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting abusive and 

deceptive telemarketing acts or practices pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108. The FTC adopted the original Telemarketing Sales Rule in 

1995, extensively amended it in 2003, and amended certain provisions thereafter. 

16 C.F.R. Part 310.

28. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

Case 2:17-cv-04533-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 9 of 13
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6102(c) and Section 18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of 

the TSR constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting 

commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).

29. The TSR prohibits any person from providing substantial assistance 

or support to any seller or telemarketer when that person knows or consciously 

avoids knowing that the seller or telemarketer is making a false or misleading 

statement to induce any person to pay for goods or services. 16 C.F.R. §§ 

310.3(a)(4) and (b) (prohibition against assisting and facilitating).

30. The Telemarketing Operations are telemarketers under the TSR. Id. 

at § 310.2(cc). 

31. Except as expressly permitted by the applicable credit card system, 

the TSR prohibits any person from employing, soliciting, or otherwise causing a 

merchant, or an employee, representative or agent of the merchant, to present to or 

deposit into the credit card system for payment, a credit card sales draft generated 

by a telemarketing transaction that is not the result of a telemarketing credit card 

transaction between the cardholder and the merchant. 16 C.F.R. §§ 310.3(c)(2) 

(prohibition against credit card laundering).

32. The nominees’ straw companies described in Paragraphs 13 to 21

are merchants under the TSR. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(u). 

Count I – Assisting and Facilitating

33. In numerous instances in connection with arranging the opening of 

merchant accounts, Defendant provided substantial assistance or support to the 

Case 2:17-cv-04533-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 10 of 13
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Telemarketing Operations when Defendant knew or consciously avoided knowing 

that the Telemarketing Operations were making false or misleading statements to 

induce consumers to pay for goods or services.

34. Defendant’s acts or practices, as described in Paragraph 33 above, 

violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b).

Count II – Assisting and Facilitating

35. In numerous instances in connection with fulfilling consumer orders 

for purported opportunities involving Amazon-linked websites and grants, 

Defendant provided substantial assistance or support to the Telemarketing 

Operations when Defendant knew or consciously avoided knowing that the 

Telemarketing Operations were making false or misleading statements to induce 

consumers to pay for goods or services.

36. Defendant’s acts or practices, as described in Paragraph 35 above, 

violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b).

Count III – Credit Card Laundering

37. In numerous instances, and without the express permission of the 

applicable credit card system, Defendant has employed, solicited or otherwise 

caused nominees’ companies to present to or deposit into, the credit card payment 

system for payment, a credit card sales draft generated by a telemarketing 

transaction that is not the result of a telemarketing credit card transaction between 

the cardholder and the nominees’ companies.

38. Defendant’s acts or practices, as described in Paragraph 37 above, 

Case 2:17-cv-04533-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 11 of 13
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(c)(2).

CONSUMER INJURY

39. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial 

injury as a result of Defendant’s violations of the FTC Act. In addition, Defendant

has been unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful acts or practices. Absent 

injunctive relief by this Court, Defendant is likely to continue to injure consumers, 

reap unjust enrichment, and harm the public interest. 

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF

40. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers this 

Court to grant injunctive and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate 

to halt and redress violations of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. The 

Court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, 

including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies 

paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to prevent and remedy any 

violation of any provision of law enforced by the FTC.

41. Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, and Section 6(b) of the 

Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6105(b), authorize this Court to grant such relief 

as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from 

Defendant’s violations of the TSR, including the rescission or reformation of 

contracts, and the refund of money.

Case 2:17-cv-04533-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 12 of 13
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff FTC, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 57b, Section 6(b) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

6105(b), and the Court’s own equitable powers, requests that the Court:

A. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC 

Act and the TSR by Defendant;

B. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to 

consumers resulting from Defendant’s violations of the FTC Act and the TSR, 

including but not limited to, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the 

refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies; and

C. Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such 

other and additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

David C. Shonka

Acting General Counsel

Dated: December 6, 2017 /s/ Hong Park

Hong Park

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Drop CC-9528

Washington, DC 20580

hpark@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-2158 (direct), -3197 (fax)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Case 2:17-cv-04533-JJT Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 13 of 13