Yesterday afternoon, I received a check for $27.68, as compensation in a case brought by the FTC against J.K. communications. Upon reading the attached letter, I was convinced it was a scam, as were many others who received the same check. I quickly posted an article pointing out why I believed it was some kind of fraud.
I've since talked to Peter Kaplan and Doug Wolfe at the FTC, who have informed me that the checks are legitimate.
Here is a summary of the information I received from Mr. Wolfe:
The company in question was engaged in out and out fraud. They ran internet porn sites in California and were able to procure lists of credit card numbers from banks. They ran charges on these cards, usually one time charges for about $20 each. The cards belonged to people who had nothing to do with the company or the sites they ran. Some have reported that they didn't even have a computer at the time.
The FTC investigated the handful of complaints they got at the time, (late 90's) and were able to shut the company down. As it turns out there were hundreds of thousands of victims. The company was "very adept" at international money laundering. The FTC won a judgement of $37 million dollars and has dispersed $12 million thus far to over 400,000 people. They are still fighting to secure at least $8.8 million from foreign accounts.
I pointed out that the letter that came with these checks was worded very suspiciously (Here's the letter with my personal info deleted) Mr. Kaplan hadn't read it. Mr. Wolfe had and disagreed with my assessment.
In any case, you can reach Mr. Kaplan at FTC Public Affairs at 202-326-2334 and Mr. Wolfe at 202-326-3113 for more information.
More related info: ZoomInfo.com
Comments
what are you saying, we should cash the checks?
I reported, you decide. Get more info from the phone numbers and links above if you like.
I'm keeping mine as a souvenier.
wanna endorse it to me? hahaha.
Civil, not criminal -
"Civil" and not "criminal"
Behold the power of "wiki-editing"
I just contacted Peter Kaplan (he even picked up on the first ring), told him that I agreed with Ed Duffy's concerns, and asked that perhaps an organization that is supposed to help protect consumers from scams could be more weary of the fact that their check looks like a scam. I asked him to at least please update the FTC website with information about the "several hundred thousand" of these checks he says they sent out. Such a posting would lend a great deal of legitimacy. I'll keep mine until they post something about it on the site, and I told him as much. He seemed legitimately concerned that this could have been handled better, and hopefully he will be able to make changes for future checks.
Thanks J.
I made the same case, and Mr. Kaplan did seem to be concerned. Mr. Wolfe didn't think there was anything wrong with the letter.
I just cashed mine. I had my bank run the routing numbers, and they are legitimate. I know, I know, "The Bank of the West" looks a bit fishy.
If Mr. Wolfe sees nothing wrong with the check copy, then Mr. Wolfe should work for another agency. It's disappointing to think that his premise must be that: 1) even in today's world, we should just trust that the check is real without a critical examination since it claims to be from the FTC, and 2) there's really nothing wrong with the copy to him.
One might infer that Mr. Wolfe is an individual would be easily scammed, given that he sees nothing out of the ordinary with this check that has a lot of critical thinkers wasting their time over 27 bucks.
As for Kaplan and your comments on your other, older-but-more-popular article (maybe you can make the update link bigger), I must be confused. Apparently Peter Kaplan is mentioned somewhere else and I missed it. I thought he was someone you knew. A quick google of his name found that he used to be a writer for Reuters, so I did not look any further or review to see if I missed his name elsewhere.
J.
update link emboldened and italicized.
If you google Peter Kaplan, FTC, his name comes up in a number of articles as FTC spokesman or FTC Office of Public Affairs.
looks like Big Brother wants your bank account #
How do they know who to send the money to? Why do some get more than one check? And why only 60 days to cash it...and when's the last time you heard an attorney use the term "bounce" when speaking of a check?
I'll just go to my local Bank of the West branch and cash it there. No bank account number needed. Actually, I just spoke to a lady at the branch and she isn't familiar with this situation, but she says there is money in the account and that it is a valid account. She requested that I bring the letter in when I go to cash it so they can check into it also.
Thanks Danielle,
Keep us posted
In all honesty this check looked legit at first glance but there WERE several "red flags" for me.
RED FLAG #1 - MANY mail solicitors use the tactic of saying "by depositing this check you agree to such and such". It's nothing new. Even though this particular check does NOT say anything to that affect, it could still be a scam.
Also, when I called the bank to verify funds it referred me to call a "900" number -and that to me is a MAJOR red flag. Any other bank would just answer questions for FREE, not refer you to a costly 900#. I DEFINITELY WON'T call ANY 900#. To me they are scams in and of themselves! (another RED FLAG!)
Thirdly, I have moved SO MANY times in the past 5 years alone (as a lot of other posters are saying) that I find it VERY difficult to believe these people were SOO diligent in finding my current addresses.
For me, there were other fishy things about it too so I'm going to play it safe. Thankfully I don't need the $ THAT bad so I'm not chancing it.
After reading other posts I'm glad I'm deciding not to deposit this check. it's not worth any risk. Why is everyone getting the same amount? Why are some people getting more than one? How do they have everyone's correct address if this other 'scam' happend "many years ago" as the letter states? Why does the bank tell me to call some 900 number to ask about the check? Why would they say I would be charged a bank fee if THEIR check bounced?? They wouldn't have worded it that way to begin with they would have simply said "check void after 90 days" or sixty days. They wouldn't have gone out of their way to really try and GET you to deposit it. NO. Too many question marks here. They can keep their little 27 dollars. Whatever!!!
say this isn't a scam, and we're stepping back to ponder the fairness of this - if you were the presiding judge, would you accept a settlement that apparently just shotguns $27.68 checks out without any accounting traceability to the awardees? Two at a time, in some cases? What, neither the FTC nor the court-appointed receiver has a database drone available to lend this some semblance of accuracy by telling us at least the last four digits of the account/s we were supposedly scammed through? Not my definition of "judicial oversight." Even WITHOUT the lame text in the accompanying letter, this smells cheese-er-iffic.
Let me help those that are on the fence ...
Don't Do it !!!
If its real, and they get more later, then you'll get more later,
And we'll do this again ( maybe ) sometime
Just got my check it seems fishey but i'll ask my 3 letter friends about it, and see what they say.
This is from FTC website ,, judgement was in 2000. They are disbursing money now?
//www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/09/netfill.shtm
For Release: September 7, 2000
FTC Wins $37. 5 Million Judgment from X-Rated Web Site Operators (JK publications)
Bank Sold Defendants Access to Active MasterCard, Visa Card Numbers; More Than 700,000 Consumers Illegally Billed
My parents received the $27.68 settlement check also. Problem is....my parents have NEVER owned a credit card. EVER.
Cashed my check yesterday at my local Bank of the West Branch. I signed my name in a way that I don't usually, so if my signature shows up on something later looking like it, I will know it's bogus. Also, I refused to put my fingerprint on the check and the teller wrote my license number on the copy of the check that she made instead of the check itself. I gave my cell number to the teller to write on the copy of the check, so if it comes back or there is some other problem she can call me. So we'll see.
Companies can buy credit card numbers from banks? That can't be right. Maybe they buy names, but credit card numbers?
Both my husband and I received a check. We recently moved last month and the checks were addressed to our new home. Funny, all our other mail still comes with the change of address stickers posted to them.
Do you think the poor wording and term "bounce" was used because Gilardi & Co. wrote the letter and not the FTC? Does Gilardi keep the funds when checks are not cashed, so they word the letter to scare you? Hopefully, Danielle's check will clear without incident and we can all cash our checks.
Here's why it "smells" like a rat. Our son, who lived with us, as a minor, in the late 90's just got a check, too, sent to his home that he just bought under a year ago with his new bride in a completely different town far, far away from ours. Now that's some detective work on FTC's part to get money to a "minor" at the time of the "fraud" who did not own a credit card and was still in high school. If there's a scam, it's FTC's claim (if even legit) that they sent my son, a minor at the time, with no credit card, no credit card history, lived at a different address with us in a different town, never filled out any "claims" and he gets a check for the $27+ (?) at his brand new home... that's it's own fraud.
That's why this whole thing seems implausible no matter how many phone #'s are given. Our banks are clueless and unhelpful most of the time. If it smells like a rat, it probably is a rat. I say "rat".
I can understand being suspicious in the beginning, but for heaven's sake people do
some investigating first before declaring it must be a scam. The checks are legit.
The url in the letter works on the FTC web site. I read all the documents. Many
of you posters are spreading misinformation. If you know how to read and comprehend
what you read then you would have all the answers.
I'll correct some of the innaccuracies posted about this case:
1. This is not a class action lawsuit! The FTC filed this lawsuit on behalf of protecting consumers.
This is fraud plain and simple.
2. The amounts on the checks are the same because the amounts billed to credit cards
was $19.95.The rest might be interest accrued.
3. It is not a scam just because the judgement was $37 million and they are only going to
disburse $13.5 million. This is the amount the receiver decided he can disburse from the
amounts he has recovered.Read the document before you make some wild claim
4. It has taken several years to track victims down in this case. There were not a lot of records available in this case, mostly just the credit card numbers. If you want to know how this could be then read the 43 page case filed.
5. There were some more credit card numbers recovered later on that may have duplicates of some in the first batch. They felt that since it has been many years already, they will start sending money
now so that they don't lose contact with those that should get re-imbursed. Some people will get two checks.
6. If you do your homework and you called the FTC and they say it's legit and you still don't believe them I don't know what to tell you. Afterall, YOU CALLED THEM not vice-versa.
7. The 60 day limit is so they can put the unclaimed money into the US Treasury.
Speaking of the US Treasury -Now there is a scam.
cont.
7. The 60 day limit is so they can put the unclaimed money into the US Treasury.
Speaking of the US Treasury -Now there is a scam.
Government SCAMS!
9/11, Oklahaoma City Bombing, Gulf of Tonkin, Goldman Sachs TARP Bailout, Federal Reserve, G. H. W. Bush, Clinton , G. W. Bush, Obama etc.are scams. Why are the last few Sec's.of Treasury all former employees of Goldman Sachs. Paulson pushed for TARP money and he still has an interest in Goldman Sachs CROOKS
I called Gilardi & Co., they are listed as the claims administrator and they told me that the check was legit. I used the ph. # off of their website...gilardi.com
I just checked the FTC website. They now have something up indicating the checks are valid. Looks like the checks were just ahead of their communications. See www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/06/jkpublications.shtm
Darren, I checked out that article too. However, it said that they mailed the checks to the names and addresses as of the date of the fraud. I lived in a differant state until six years ago and have moved 5 times during that time. I also have resumed my maiden name. How did they find me???? I am still a little suspicious.....
so it seems this is a real check..after the FTC posted it on its website, it must be.
however, it still seems odd to me how they determined that my wife and i were due $55.36.
what is that based on?
and it says they've sent out 12 million, i think, of the 37 mil total. maybe we'll get some more? lol
If'n I were a cynic, I'd say the FTC found themselves with a judgement they had to disperse and not much to go on as to who to disperse it to. They bought a list and mailed some checks....If'n I were a cynic
Well, Ed, the FTC posting finally does it for me. I'm cashing the check. Looks like Peter Kaplan listened to us. Thanks for your great article that helped a lot of us get this resolved. Now if I can just get back the time I wasted over $27...
Too bad for all you folks who tore up or shreded your checks...should have just waited a few days for the dust to settle.
"...Credit Reporting Agencies and banks provided the FTC with the names and addresses associated with the card numbers as of the date of the charges."
Kind of poorly written, but the credit reporting agencies have your current address. They were matching the credit card numbers as of the date of the transactions with your current info.
I wonder how they know where the bogus charges applied? Since these were legitimate websites, one would assume they did have some valid charges from consumers?? How would they know you DIDN'T authorize the charge?
I am taking my check to the bank tomorrow and getting my $27.68, I think I'll treat myself to luch after :)
I've received two checks now - one to current address and one to address from 2002.
I'm proceeding with caution.
It looks legit - but like others, I'm wondering how they got my current address! I just moved to my new residence 2 months ago!. The last comment about parent's never having a credit card also make me suspicious.
Took my check to the bank today. Asked them what they thought. I was told by the fraud dept. they would investigate for me, and if safe, would ONLY THEN, make the deposit. In todays electronic age, it even pays $27.68 to be cautious. $27.68 could cost you your identity... and for some, it has cost them their lives (figuratively) and savings.
As L I have moved but not once but 5 times since 2000 due to work and personal situations and the settlement came to my new address. I'm sorry but I don't buy the FTC is keeping that close a tab on me......at least I would hope not...if it is... big brother has some explaining to do! LOL
INVESTIGATE AND GO TO THE SOURCE INSTEAD OF OFFERING OPINIONS AND FEELINGS! ***WWW.FTC.GOV*** THAT IS THE WEBSITE FOR THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. IT IS ALL LEGIT.
You conspiracy theorists should open your eyes more to the privately held credit bureaus. Yes... that porn site you visited 11 years ago is still logged in TU.
J/k kidding... I know innocents were scammed, but trust me, your first bank account number and opening balance are still plain as day on a TU or EXP database.
If your card # was stolen & unless you have changed your SSN and identity... enjoy your treat.
I got two and I am going internet shopping ;-)
Thanks Ed!
I have a little history with this case, having had a brief business relationship with Ken Taves, the perpetrator of this scam, back in 1996. (I started smelling fraud even then, and ran away from the guy as fast as I could).
Since this was 13 years ago it took me a while to remember the guy, and I searched around the net.
The case is legit. The FCC took a long time to find money as Taves had moved most of it offshore.
I too shared your concerns about the wording of the letter attached to the check, how did the find me (I've lived 2 different places since 1996), why the short time-limit, etc.
I think from everything I've seen the checks are legit. You can cash them instead of deposit them if you are concerned about someone getting your bank #, but I don't think you have anything to fear.
Of course, I encourage anyone with doubts to do as some posters have indicated, call the FTC, call Gilardi, and call the bank.
Evidently a new round of checks is being sent out, as I received one yesterday (4/15/10). I have to agree with Mr. Dutty's take on the wording of the letter. Even after researching this Claim, and finding no victims of a scam, I'm still a bit skeptical about cashing the check. It is worded VERY badly, and calling the Claims Administrations number does nothing to reduce the confusion, as they just basically state what is written in the accompanying note. Shame on you FTC.
Somebody sends you a check that you can cash anywhere and you don't believe it's legit. Well, send your checks to me then. I don't have a problem going to the bank with a few thousand $27 checks.
For a legitimate check, that was a very poorly worded letter.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!