Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/2382384/Sleater-Atlas-Capital-02-19-08-Complaint-Main-Document
Timestamp: 2018-06-20 16:02:52
Document Index: 73137025

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1963', '§1331', '§1367', '§1391', '§ 70', '§ 1963', '§ 1964', '§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1962', '§ 1961', '§ 1962', '§1961', '§ 1341', '§ 1962', '§ 1961', '§ 664', '§ 1341', '§ 1343', '§ 1343', '§ 1343', '§ 1343', '§ 1343', '§ 1343', '§ 1343', '§ 1343', '§ 1344', '§ 1964', '§ 1964', '§ 1964']

Sleater (Atlas Capital) - 02 19 08 Complaint (Main Document) | Fraud | Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act
Adam D. Ford (#11363) Daniel A.
Decker (#11555) 210 North 1200 East # 200 Lehi, UT 84043 Telephone: (801) 331-7300 Fax: (801) 401-7871
I THE U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
JEFF JOH S and SHIRLEY JOH S, KE ETH WILSO Plaintiffs, v. WADE SLEATER, ATLAS CAPITAL, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, ATLAS MARKETI G GROUP, L.C., a Utah Limited Liability Company, ATLAS COMMU ICATIO S GROUP, L.C., a Utah Limited Liability Company, ATLAS VE TURES, A Limited Liability Company of unknown registration, Defendants.
The Plaintiffs, Jeff Johns, Shirley Johns, and Kenneth Wilson, by and through their attorneys Adam D. Ford and Daniel A. Decker complain and allege as follows: ATURE OF ACTIO 1. This is an action to redress Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of
Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Unjust Enrichment, Fraud, Conversion, and Violations of 18
COMPLAI T 
诲眠삣眤 眦 眦
U.S.C.A. § 1963 et. seq. (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act “RICO”). 2. The plaintiffs seek compensation and damages pursuant to the above stated laws. PARTIES A D JURISDICTIO 3. Utah. 4. 5. of Utah. 6. Utah. 7. The defendant Atlas Capital, LLC (“Atlas Capital”) is a Utah Limited Liability The defendant Wade Sleater (“Sleater”) is a resident of Utah County, State of The plaintiff Shirley Johns (“Ms. Johns”) is a resident of the State of Washington. The plaintiff Kenneth Wilson (“Mr. Wilson”) is a resident of Utah County, State The plaintiff Jeff Johns (“Mr. Johns”) is a resident of Salt Lake County, State of
Company with its principle place of business in Utah County, State of Utah. 8. The defendant Atlas Marketing Group (“Atlas Marketing”), L.C. is a Utah
Limited Liability Company with its principle place of business in Utah County, State of Utah. 9. The defendant Atlas Communications Group, L.C. (“Atlas Communications”) is a
Utah Limited Liability Company with its principle place of business in Utah County, State of Utah. 10. The defendant Atlas Ventures (“Atlas Ventures”) is a Limited Liability Company
of unknown registration with its principle place of business in Utah County, State of Utah. 11. The defendants Atlas Capital, LLC, Atlas Marketing Group, L.C., Atlas
Communications Group L.C. and Atlas Ventures are hereinafter called the “The Atlas Entities.”
Jurisdiction is specifically conferred on the United States District Court by the
aforementioned statutes and by 28 U.S.C. §§1331 & 1332. The Court has supplemental and pendant jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. 13. The causes of action alleged in this complaint were committed in the District of
Utah and venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 (b) and (c). 14. The agreements, contracts, and acts which are the basis of this action occurred in
Salt Lake County, State of Utah. GE ERAL ALLEGATIO S 15. 16. Sleater is the single member and manager of Atlas Capital. Upon information and belief, including the statements of Kyle Nelson (“Nelson”),
Nelson is an employee and/or agent of defendant Sleater and Atlas Capital. 17. In late 2006, Nelson solicited an investment in the Atlas Entities from Mr. Johns.
Nelson assured Mr. Johns that he would receive a guaranteed 4% interest per month on his investment. 18. Nelson also asserted to Mr. Johns that the Atlas Entities would provide Mr. Johns
with an executed promissory note for the amount Mr. Johns loaned to the Atlas Entities. 19. Nelson asserted that the Atlas Entities would return any principle sums lent to the
Atlas Entities within 90 days of a return request received from Mr. Johns. 20. Nelson asserted in late 2006 that the Atlas Entities were in the process of
preparing a Private Placement Memorandum relating to the loans made by Mr. Johns, Ms. Johns, and Mr. Wilson.
In the spring of 2007 Nelson asserted to Mr. Johns that a Private Placement
Memorandum had been completed but it would only be available for viewing at Atlas Capital’s headquarters with prior arrangements made. 22. Johns. 23. Based upon the above representations Mr. Johns loaned to Atlas Capital A copy of the Private Placement Memorandum was never given or shown to Mr.
$205,000.00 in several disbursements as follows: a. On or about November 6, 2006 Mr. Johns wired to Atlas Capital $80,000.00. b. On or about November 23, 2006 Mr. Johns wired to Atlas Capital $40,000.00. c. On or about December 19, 2006 Mr. Johns wired to Atlas Capital $30,000.00. d. On or about January 2, 2007 Mr. Johns wired to Atlas Capital $30,000.00. e. On or about January 31, 2007 Mr. Johns wired to Atlas Capital $25,000.00. 24. Based upon the above representations Ms. Johns loaned to Atlas Capital $52,000
in several disbursements as follows: a. On or about January 12, 2007 Ms. Johns wired to Atlas Capital $46,000.00. b. On or about January 18, 2007 Ms. Johns wired to Atlas Capital $6,000.00. 25. as follows: a. On or about November 8, 2006 Mr. Wilson wired to Atlas Capital $10,000.00. 26. For ten months, from December 2006 to September 2007 Mr. Johns received Based upon the above representations Mr. Wilson loaned to Atlas Capital $10,000
interest payments from Atlas Capital, at 4% per month as agreed by the parties.
In May 2007, Mr. Johns requested a $10,000.00 repayment from Atlas Capital.
Mr. Johns received the $10,000.00 on June 27, 2007. 28. During the summer of 2007, Nelson requested Mr. Johns to allow the defendants
to pay the defendant’s debt with Mr. Johns’ American Express card. Nelson agreed with Mr. Johns that the defendants would pay the balance of the debt incurred on Mr. Johns American Express card in the ordinary course of business and in exchange for allowing the defendants to use Mr. John’s American Express card Mr. Johns would earn credit card points. 29. Express card. 30. The defendants have not paid the debt incurred by the defendants on Mr. John’s The defendants charged approximately $31,000.00 to Mr. John’s American
American Express card. 31. On or about August 8, 2007 Mr. Johns requested the return of all his remaining
principle investment loaned to Atlas Capital. According to the agreement made by Nelson as an agent and/or employee for the Defendants, the funds were due to Mr. Johns on November 8, 2007. 32. 33. The defendants have failed to return the principle investment to Mr. Johns. In August of 2007, Ms. Johns and Mr. Wilson requested their principle
investments back. 34. According to the agreement made by Nelson as an agent and/or employee for the
defendants, the funds were due to Ms. Johns and Mr. Wilson in November of 2007. 35. The defendants have failed to return the principle investment to Ms. Johns and
Mr. Wilson. 36. Starting in October of 2007 the defendants stopped paying Mr. Johns the interest
payment according the agreement and previous course of conduct of the parties. 37. On November 9, 2007, Mr. Johns requested that Atlas Capital provide him a copy
of the note governing the agreement that was promised to him by Nelson before he loaned Atlas Capital any money. 38. Alyssa Barrett “Barrett” first replied to Mr. Johns that they would provide Mr.
Johns with the promissory note on November 9, 2007. On November 12, 2007 Barrett indicated that she was attempting to provide Mr. Johns with the promissory note. On November 16, 2007, Barrett informed Mr. Johns that Atlas Capital would not provide him a copy of the promissory note without it being cleared by their attorney. A copy of the promissory note has not been provided. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIO - BREACH OF CO TRACT 39. The plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 40. The defendants have failed to return the principle funds loaned to Atlas Capital by
Mr. Johns, Ms. Johns and Mr. Wilson under the contract, and have not complied with the terms of the agreement. 41. The defendants agreed to pay off the balance on Mr. John’s American Express
card in the ordinary course of business. 42. The defendants have failed to pay off the balance on Mr. John’s American
Express card in the ordinary course of business. 43. The defendants have breached the terms of the contract with Mr. Johns. There is
still a balance due under the agreement, which Mr. Johns is entitled to recover under the terms of the agreement. The defendants are liable to Mr. Johns under the terms of the agreement for an amount to be proven at trial, but at least $195,000.00 plus interest at 4% a month, attorney’s fees and other costs as provided for under the terms of the Note or the agreement. 44. The defendants have breached the terms of the contract with Ms. Johns. There is
still a balance due under the agreement, which Ms. Johns is entitled to recover under the terms of the agreement. The defendants are liable to Ms. Johns under the terms of the agreement for an amount to be proven at trial, but at least $52,000.00 plus interest at 2.5% per month, attorney’s fees and other costs as provided for under the terms of the Note or the agreement. 45. The defendants have breached the terms of the contract with Mr. Wilson. There is
still a balance due under the agreement, which Mr. Wilson is entitled to recover under the terms of the agreement. The defendants are liable to Mr. Wilson under the terms of the agreement for an amount to be proven at trial, but at least $10,000.00 plus interest at 3% per month, attorney’s fees and other costs as provided for under the terms of the Note or the agreement. 46. The defendants have breached the terms of the contract with Mr. Johns. The
defendants used Mr. Johns credit card incurring at least $31,000.00 and agreed to pay off the card in the ordinary course of business. Mr. Johns has been forced to make monthly credit card payments that are around $900 a month to keep the debt from affecting his credit. The defendants are liable to Mr. Johns under the terms of the agreement for an amount to be proven
at trial, but at least $31,000.00 plus interest, attorney’s fees and other costs. 47. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover the damages they have sustained by reason of
the defendants’ breach of contract. SECO D CAUSE OF ACTIO – BREACH OF IMPLIED COVE A T OF GOOD FAITH A D FAIR DEALI G 48. The plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 49. Pursuant to common law and Utah Code Ann. § 70A-1-203, every commercial
contract includes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and requires the parties to not intentionally or purposely do anything that will destroy or injure the other parties’ right to receive the fruits of that contract. 50. In order to comply with the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a party must
act consistent with the agreed common purpose and the justified expectations of the other party that are based upon the intentions of the contracting parties, the contract language and the parties’ past dealings. 51. The defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by not
refunding the principle funds loaned to Atlas Capital when requested back by plaintiffs and by failing to pay interest to plaintiffs in the agreed amounts on the agreed dates. 52. The defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by not
paying back the balance incurred on Mr. John’s American Express card. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ breaches of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, Mr. Johns has been damaged in an amount not less than $31,000.00 for the balance on his American Express card and $195,000.00 in principle funds loaned to Atlas Capital, plus interest due to the bad faith and unfair dealing of the defendants, and an additional award for attorney’s fees and costs incurred. 54. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ breaches of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, Ms. Johns has been damaged in an amount not less than $52,000.00 in principle funds loaned to Atlas Capital, plus interest due to the bad faith and unfair dealing of the Defendants, and an additional award for attorney’s fees and costs incurred. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ breaches of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, Mr. Wilson has been damaged in an amount not less than $10,000.00 in principle funds loaned to Atlas Capital, plus interest due to the bad faith and unfair dealing of the defendants, and an additional award for attorney’s fees and costs incurred. 56. The defendants did not act in good faith and did not deal fairly with the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of damages due to these breaches. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIO – U JUST E RICHME T/QUA TUM MERUIT 57. The plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 58. The defendants would be unjustly enriched at the expense of Mr. Johns, Ms.
Johns, and Mr. Wilson if the defendants are allowed to retain Mr. Johns’, Ms. Johns’, and Mr. Wilson’s funds as well as any profit from funds which resulted from the capital loaned to Atlas Capital, by Mr. Johns, Ms. Johns, and Mr. Wilson.
As a result of the foregoing, Mr. Johns is entitled to an unjust enrichment
judgment against the defendants in the amount of no less then $226,000.00, plus interest, and an additional award for attorney’s fees and costs incurred. 60. As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Johns is entitled to an unjust enrichment
judgment against the Defendants in the amount of no less then $52,000.00, plus interest, and an additional award for attorney’s fees and costs incurred. 61. As a result of the foregoing, Mr. Wilson is entitled to an unjust enrichment
judgment against the Defendants in the amount of no less then $10,000.00, plus interest, and an additional award for attorney’s fees and costs incurred. 62. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover the damages they have sustained by reason
of Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTIO – FRAUD 63. The plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 64. The employees and/or agents of Atlas Capital agreed with Mr. Johns that he
would receive 4% monthly interest on his principle loan. Mr. Johns stopped receiving interest payments in October of 2007. 65. The employees and or agents of Atlas Capital agreed with Mr. Johns that he
would receive a return of his principle investment within 90 days of his request. Mr. Johns has not received the return of his principle. 66. The employees and/or agents of Atlas Capital informed Mr. Johns that he would
receive a copy of an executed note spelling out the terms of his loan. Mr. Johns never received a copy of the note governing his loan. 67. The employees and/or agents of Atlas Capital informed Mr. Johns that there was a
Private Placement Memorandum governing his investment. Mr. Johns never received a copy of the Private Placement Memorandum. 68. Based upon the forgoing representations Mr. Johns invested a currently
outstanding principle sum of $195,000.00 in Atlas Capital. 69. On or about the summer of 2007, Nelson requested Mr. Johns to allow the
defendants to pay Defendant’s debt with Mr. John’s American Express card. Nelson agreed with Mr. Johns that Defendants would pay the balance of the debt incurred on Mr. Johns American Express card in the ordinary course of business in exchange for allowing the defendants to use Mr. John’s American Express card Mr. Johns would earn credit card points. 70. Express card. 71. Mr. Johns relied upon the material statements of the agents of defendants and/or The defendants charged approximately $31,000.00 to Mr. John’s American
their agents or employees in deciding to invest money in Atlas Capital and by agreeing with the defendants to use his American Express card. 72. The foregoing material statements made by the agents of Defendants were false
and Defendants and/or its agents and/or employees knew or reasonably should have known they would not be able to perform. 73. Nelson as an agent of Atlas Capital induced Mr. Johns to allow Atlas Capital to
use his credit card for the debts of Atlas Capital and in return Mr. Johns would receive credit card points. The agreement between Nelson and Mr. Johns was that Atlas Capital would pay off his credit card in the ordinary course of business. 74. 75. Mr. Johns relied upon these representations. As a result of the inducement through material misrepresentations upon which
Mr. Johns relied, Mr. Johns has lost a principle sum of $195,000.00 plus interest and has become indebted in the amount of $31,000.00. 76. Because of the fraud perpetrated against Mr. Johns they seeks punitive damages
in an amount to be determined at trial. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTIO – CO VERSIO /EMBEZZLEME T/THEFT 77. The plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 78. interest. 79. interest. 80. interest. 81. Atlas Capital intentionally and willfully did not return Mr. John’s, Ms John’s and Atlas Capital possesses $10,000.00 of Mr. Wilson’s principle investment plus Atlas Capital possesses $52,000.00 of Ms. John’s principle investment plus Atlas Capital possesses $195,000.00 of Mr. John’s principle investment plus
Mr. Wilson’s principle sum upon request. 82. Atlas Capital’s failure to return Mr. John’s, Ms John’s and Mr. Wilson’s principle
sum is without justification. 83. As a result of the foregoing, Mr. Johns is entitled to a conversion judgment
against the defendants in the amount of no less then $195,000.00, plus interest, due to the willful and unjustified misappropriation of Mr. John’s money by the defendants, and an additional award for attorney’s fees and costs incurred. 84. As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Johns is entitled to a conversion judgment
against the Defendants in the amount of no less then $52,000.00, plus interest, due to the willful and unjustified misappropriation of Mr. John’s money by the defendants, and an additional award for attorney’s fees and costs incurred. 85. As a result of the foregoing, Mr. Wilson is entitled to a conversion judgment
against the defendants in the amount of no less then $10,000.00, plus interest, due to the willful and unjustified misappropriation of Mr. John’s money by the defendants, and an additional award for attorney’s fees and costs incurred. 86. The defendants converted the property of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled
to recovery of damages. SIXTH CAUSEOF ACTIO – VIOLATIO OF 18 U.S.C. § 1963 ET. SEQ. / RAQUETEER I FLUE CED CORRUPT ORGA IZATIO S ACT “RICO” 87. The plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. PART I 88. This claim arises under § 1964(c) of RICO. The plaintiffs assert claims for
violations of § 1962 (a) and (d) of RICO, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962(a) and (d). This claim is brought on behalf of Mr. Johns, Ms. Johns and Mr. Wilson against the defendants: the individual Sleater and entities Atlas Capital, Atlas Marketing, Atlas Communications, and Atlas Ventures. The plaintiffs Mr. Johns, Ms. Johns and Mr. Wilson are persons as defined in § 1961(3) of RICO. At all times relevant hereto, each of the defendants was and is a person as defined in § 1961(3) of RICO. In violation of § 1962(a) and (d) of RICO, the defendants received income that was derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity in which each defendant has participated as a principal, and used or invested, directly or indirectly, part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in the acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, enterprises that are engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, thereby proximately causing injury to plaintiffs' business or property. ACQUISITIO , ESTABLISHME T, OR OPERATIO OF THE RICO E TERPRISES 89. At all times relevant hereto, there have existed enterprises, as that term is defined
in § 1961(4) of RICO, and the defendants referenced below committed, aided and abetted, and/or conspired to commit violations of § 1962(a). 90. 91. There existed the following RICO enterprises: The Association-in-Fact-Enterprise consisting of the defendants: the individual
Sleater and entities Atlas Capital, Atlas Marketing, Atlas Communications, and Atlas Ventures which is referred to herein as the "Association-in-Fact-Enterprise.” Each of the members of the Association-in-Fact-Enterprise are persons or legally incorporated entities that conducted (and
conduct) business activities through the United States and overseas. The activities of the Association-in-Fact-Enterprise affected interstate or foreign commerce. As alleged in Part I of this Complaint, the members of the Association-in-Fact-Enterprise performed separate, discrete roles in conceiving and carrying out the schemes to defraud alleged herein, and they made decisions on a hierarchical and consensual basis. The Association-in-Fact-Enterprise had a hierarchical decision-making structure headed by Sleater leading Atlas Capital, Atlas Marketing, Atlas Communications, and Atlas Ventures. The Association-in-Fact-Enterprise also had a consensual decision making structure because the individual Sleater and entities Atlas Capital, Atlas Marketing, Atlas Communications, and Atlas Ventures voluntarily agreed to join the enterprise and played an active role in its affairs. Each of them was motivated by the desire to earn fees and receive payments derived from the schemes to defraud. The individual Sleater and entities Atlas Capital, Atlas Marketing, Atlas Communications, and Atlas Ventures conducted and/or conspired to conduct the affairs of the Association-in-Fact-Enterprise through a "pattern of racketeering activity," as defined in §1961(1) and (5) of RICO. The defendants identified in this paragraph committed, aided and abetted and/or conspired to commit violations of the following provisions § 1341 and 1343 (mail and wire fraud). These defendants' acts of "racketeering activity" are alleged in Part (II) of this count. 92. The Atlas Capital Enterprise is and has been a RICO enterprise, and it is referred
to herein as the “Atlas Capital Enterprise.” Defendant Sleater was employed by and/or associated with the Atlas Capital Enterprise. In violation of § 1962(c) of RICO, Sleater conducted and/or conspired to conduct the affairs of the Atlas Capital Enterprise through a "pattern of racketeering
activity," as that term is defined in § 1961(1) and (5) of RICO. The defendants identified in this paragraph committed, aided and abetted, and/or conspired to commit violations of the following provisions of Title 18 of U.S. Code: § 664 (pension offenses); §§ 1341 and 1343 (mail and wire fraud). Part II 93. The employees and/or agents of Atlas Capital agreed with Mr. Johns, Ms. Johns
and Mr. Wilson that he would receive monthly interest on his principle investment. 94. 95. Mr. Johns stopped receiving interest payments in October of 2007. The employees and/or agents of Atlas Capital agreed with Mr. Johns, Ms. Johns
and Mr. Wilson that they would receive a return of their principle investment loan within 90 days of their request. The plaintiffs have not received the return of the principle investment loan. 96. The employees and/or agents of Atlas Capital agreed with Mr. Johns that he
would receive a copy of an executed note spelling out the terms of his investment loan. Mr. Johns never received a copy of the note governing his investment loan. 97. The employees and/or agents of Atlas Capital agreed with Mr. Johns that there
was a private placement memorandum governing his investment. Mr. Johns never received a private placement memorandum. 98. Based upon the forgoing representations Mr. Johns invested a currently
outstanding principle sum of $195,000.00 in Atlas Capital plus interest. 99. Based upon the forgoing representations Ms. Johns invested a currently
outstanding principle sum of $52,000.00 in Atlas Capital plus interest.
Based upon the forgoing representations Mr. Wilson invested a currently
outstanding principle sum of $10,000.00 in Atlas Capital plus interest. 101. Mr. Johns, Ms. Johns, Mr. Wilson relied upon the material statements of the
agents of Atlas Capital in deciding to invest money in Atlas Capital. 102. investment. 103. Over the course of the defendant’s relationship with the plaintiffs, the defendants’ The defendants intended to defraud Mr. Johns, Ms. Johns and Mr. Wilson of their
conduct included the commission of predicate RICO acts, including, but not limited to: a. Fraud. The Association-in-Fact Enterprises and/or the Atlas Capital Enterprise, through its agents and employees made material false statements upon which the plaintiffs relied, which were reasonable to rely upon in an effort to obtain money from plaintiff and credit from Mr. Johns. b. Wire Fraud. The Association-in-Fact Enterprises and/or the Atlas Capital Enterprise, on or about November 6, 2006, having devised or intended to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmited or caused to be transmitted by means of wire, in interstate or foreign commerce, the funds of Mr. Johns with the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. c. Wire Fraud. The Association-in-Fact Enterprises and/or the Atlas Capital Enterprise, on or about November 8, 2006, having devised or intended to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmited or caused to be transmitted by means of wire, in interstate or foreign commerce, the funds of Mr. Wilson with the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. d. Wire Fraud. The Association-in-Fact Enterprises and/or the Atlas Capital Enterprise, on or about November 23, 2006, having devised or intended to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmited or caused to be
transmitted by means of wire, in interstate or foreign commerce, the funds of Mr. Johns with the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. e. Wire Fraud. The Association-in-Fact Enterprises and/or the Atlas Capital Enterprise, on or about December 19, 2006, having devised or intended to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmited or caused to be transmitted by means of wire, in interstate or foreign commerce, the funds of Mr. Johns with the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. f. Wire Fraud. The Association-in-Fact Enterprises and/or the Atlas Capital Enterprise, on or about January 2, 2006, having devised or intended to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmited or caused to be transmitted by means of wire, in interstate or foreign commerce, the funds of Mr. Johns with the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 . g. Wire Fraud. The Association-in-Fact Enterprises and/or the Atlas Capital Enterprise, on or about January 12, 2006, having devised or intended to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmited or caused to be transmitted by means of wire, in interstate or foreign commerce, the funds of Ms. Johns with the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. h. Wire Fraud. The Association-in-Fact Enterprises and/or the Atlas Capital Enterprise, on or about January 18, 2006, having devised or intended to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmited or caused to be transmitted by means of wire, in interstate or foreign commerce, the funds of Ms. Johns with the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. i. Wire Fraud. The Association-in-Fact Enterprises and/or the Atlas Capital Enterprise, on or about January 31, 2006, having devised or intended to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmited or caused to be transmitted by means of wire, in interstate or foreign commerce, the funds of Mr.
Johns with the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 . j. Bank Fraud. The Association-in-Fact Enterprises and/or the Atlas Capital Enterprise, on or about the Summer of 2007, knowingly executed, or attempted to execute, a scheme or artifice: to obtain the moneys under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 104. As a result of the inducement through material misrepresentations upon which
Mr. Johns relied, they have lost a principle sum of $195,000.00 plus interest. 105. As a result of the inducement through material misrepresentations upon which
Mr. Johns relied, Mr. Johns has become indebted to a balance of $31,000.00 plus interest. 106. Because of the fraud perpetrated against Mr. Johns he seeks treble damages under
18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) in an amount no less that $678,000.00 plus interest and attorneys fees. 107. Because of the fraud perpetrated against Ms. Johns she seeks treble damages
under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) in an amount no less that $156,000.00 plus interest and attorneys fees. 108. Because of the fraud perpetrated against Mr. Wilson he seeks treble damages
under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) in an amount no less that $30,000.00 plus interest and attorneys fees. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows: 1. For the amount still owing to Mr. Johns under the terms of the Note, trebled, plus
interest but at least the amount of $678,000.00 plus, attorney’s fees and costs. 2. For the amount still owing to Ms. Johns under the terms of the Note, trebled, plus
interest but at least the amount of $156,000.00 plus, attorney’s fees and costs. 3. For the amount still owing to Mr. Wilson under the terms of the Note, trebled,
plus interest but at least the amount of $30,000.00 plus, attorney’s fees and costs. 4. 5. For punitive damages for an amount to be awarded at trial. For any other relief the Court deems just under the circumstances.
/s/ Adam D. Ford Adam D. Ford Attorney for Plaintiffs
Documents Similar To Sleater (Atlas Capital) - 02 19 08 Complaint (Main Document)
4thExamObli
Recorded Completed 15-3400 Third Circuit Court of Appeals Documents ORDER and in Forma Pauperis Application November 4, 2015
EOI forMarketing1
Ruchita Nathani Bhagat
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Case No. 108 MM 2016 REQUEST for APPEARANCE Re Kathleen Kane AMICUS in Support of Motion to DISMISS Charges August 3, 2016
SaulMeyer
motion for reconsideration estafa complaint
329259432-Solution-Manual-for-Fraud-Examination-5th-Edition-by-Albrecht-doc (1).pdf
BP-22-And-....-Paper-1
jjhjhjhjjhhhhhh
khalifa_omar