US v. William Savran & Associates, Inc.
Citation | 755 F. Supp. 1165 |
Decision Date | 29 January 1991 |
Docket Number | No. CV 90-4445 (ADS).,CV 90-4445 (ADS). |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM SAVRAN & ASSOCIATES, INC., a New York Corporation, d/b/a "Successful Systems"; Dr. William Savran; "John Does Nos. 1-10"; and "Jane Does Nos. 1-10", Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Andrew J. Maloney, U.S. Atty., E.D. N.Y., Brooklyn, N.Y. by Stephen J. Riegel, Asst. U.S. Atty., for plaintiff.
Newmark, Lamb, Dowling & Marchisio, Garden City, N.Y. (James W. Dowling, of counsel), for defendants.
Seeking vulnerable consumers who, in the hopes of earning "exceptional money" in the comfort and safety of their own home, paid $27 for the "Successful Systems" product, William Savran & Associates, Inc. now finds itself the subject of a criminal indictment for mail fraud and the defendant in this related civil forfeiture proceeding. Before the Court at this time is the motion of the defendants to vacate the warrant that seized a bank account, and the cross-motion of the plaintiff to freeze the defendants' assets, among other relief sought.
By a verified complaint in rem in a civil forfeiture action, dated December 17, 1990, the plaintiff United States of America ("the plaintiff") requested that a warrant be issued for the "arrest" of the defendant bank account at Citibank, 2-1 Park Plaza, Glen Head, New York. The action was brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 1956 and 1957, and also 18 U.S.C. § 1345 and 28 U.S.C. § 1355. A warrant for the arrest of the said bank account was issued on December 17, 1990 listing, as potential claimants: Dr. William Savran, William Savran & Associates, Inc. and Successful Systems. The warrant was executed and the bank account was seized and/or frozen in its entirety. Apparently the account was not physically seized, but only frozen.
By order to show cause dated December 26, 1990, the defendant William Savran ("Savran") moved for an order "vacating the warrant seizing" the said bank account. On December 27, 1990, the return date of the motion by Savran, the plaintiff also presented an order to show cause in support of a motion requesting a broad spectrum of relief including enjoining the defendant from sending out any mailings or advertisements from the "Successful Systems" business pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345. The plaintiff also requested a temporary restraining order asking for a wide range of remedies similar to the request in the order to show cause.
An evidentiary hearing was held on both parties' applications on December 27, 1990 and December 28, 1990. Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a), the following constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law (see also Society for Good Will to Retarded Children, Inc. v. Cuomo, 902 F.2d 1085, 1088 2d Cir.1990; Weitzman v. Stein, 897 F.2d 653, 658 2d Cir.1990).
The following is the evidence that was adduced at the hearing on the motions and the Court's findings of fact based thereon.
John McDermott, a United States Postal Inspector, testified that he investigated "Successful Systems", the defendants' business, since approximately September 1990 and reviewed the various documents mailed to potential consumers by the defendant William Savran & Associates, Inc. ("Associates"). McDermott explained the system used by Associates to effectuate the "Successful Systems" program, as follows:
The potential consumer is contacted in one of two ways: either by an advertisement in a magazine or by direct mail. The direct mail ad (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 in evidence) is the first document the consumer receives. It consists of eight separate pages and an envelope. Nowhere in these single-spaced pages is there any mention of the product to be sold. At the outset the Court finds that on its face the document is intentionally vague, ambiguous, confusing and difficult to read and comprehend. A repetitive reading of the paper did not substantially improve the Court's comprehension. Relevant portions of the initial document, which bear quotation, are as follows:
"`SUCCESSFUL SYSTEMS' Post Office Box 815 Horace Harding Station Flushing, New York 11362
HOMEWORKERS NEEDED NOW!
`Revolutionary' home-mailing program pays you up to $100 per single order.
You never have to buy stamps, envelopes, circulars, or any supplies.
An additional sheet in the enclosure headed by the large darkened letters "Revolutionary Home-Mailing Program" reiterates that the consumer will be paid $1.00 for every envelope you stuff plus 50% commission on every sale (up to $100/order). Again, this page clearly states that the plan "NEVER requires you to purchase ANY envelopes, postage stamps or circulars for as long as you stay in the program."
What program? What product? The Court finds that by reading the initial eight-page inducement ad, a reasonably prudent person could not ascertain such information.
Also enclosed in the package is the "Norisk Homeworkers Application". For $25 plus $2.00 for "S & H", or a total of $27, "Rush me my complete Home-mailing Kit", with the right to an "immediate refund".
The Court finds that there are a number of false and/or misleading and/or deceptive statements in the ad.
First, the Court agrees with Inspector McDermott that any consumer who reads this ad would believe that he or she would be stuffing envelopes and get paid a commission based on such envelopes. In actuality, the "program" apparently has nothing to do with stuffing envelopes.
Second, nowhere in the ad is there any mention of any product whatsoever.
Third, and, significantly, nowhere in the ad does it say that the consumer will have to spend his or her own...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crown Heights Jewish Community Council v. Fischer
...Although intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, see S.Q.K.F.C. Inc., 84 F.3d at 634; United States v. William Savran & Assocs., Inc., 755 F.Supp. 1165 (E.D.N.Y. 1991), acts done inadvertently or in good faith do not constitute mail fraud. See O'Malley v. New York City Transit ......
-
U.S. v. Somerstein
...use of the mails in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 723 (1st Cir.1996); United States v. William Savran & Assocs., 755 F.Supp. 1165, 1180 (E.D.N.Y.1991). A conviction requires a showing of specific intent to defraud. Sawyer, 85 F.3d at 723; United States v. ......
-
U.S. v. Sriram
...a fraud has been committed. E.g., United States v. Weingold, 844 F.Supp. 1560, 1573 (D.N.J.1994); United States v. William Savran & Assocs., Inc., 755 F.Supp. 1165, 1183 (E.D.N.Y.1991); United States v. Belden, 714 F.Supp. 42, 45-46 (N.D.N.Y.1987). Courts applying that standard have analogi......
-
US v. Weingold
......v. . Harold P. WEINGOLD, an individual, Helen Archer, Inc. a New York corporation, Future Forecasters Corp., a New Jersey ...Fair; (4) Dr. Paul Shaman; (5) Neil Cofino; (6) Dr. William George Roll; (7) Sister Mary T. Salermo; (8) Darren Burton; (9) Salvatore ...§ 1341. United States v. William Savran & Associates, Inc., 755 F.Supp. 1165, 1177 (E.D.N.Y.1991); United States ......
-
Doing Equity in Bankruptcy
...See United States Postal Serv. v. Beamish, 466 F.2d 804, 806 (3d Cir. 1972).88. See United States v. William Savran & Assocs., 755 F. Supp. 1165, 1179 (E.D.N.Y. 1990).89. See SEC v. Mgmt. Dynamics, Inc., 515 F.2d 801, 808-09 (2d Cir. 1978).90. 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. (2012); see United Stat......
-
Fighting the battle against health care fraud: federal enforcement actions.
...in this area, see United States v. Fang, 937 F. Supp. 1186 (D. Md. 1996). [22] United States v. William Savran & Associates, Inc., 755 F. Supp. 1165 (E.D.N.Y., [23] Although the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct contain no specific prohibition against a threat of criminal prosecutio......