The Federal Trade Commission has charged an allegedly a deceptive mortgage foreclosure rescue and loan modification telemarketing operation with violating a 2001 court order.
Many homeowners paid the defendants up to $5,500 in advance and ultimately lost their homes to foreclosure, according to the FTC.
The FTC has asked the U.S. district Court for the Central District of California court to halt the allegedly unlawful practices, freeze the defendants’ assets, and seek compensation for victims.
Named as defendants were: Bryan D’Antonio and three companies he controls, The Rodis Law Group Inc., America’s Law Group Inc. and The Financial Group Inc., doing business as Tax Relief ASAP, the Commission said.
They violated a 2001 order that banned D’Antonio from telemarketing and misrepresenting material facts about goods or services, according to the FTC.
The FTC obtained the order against D’Antonio and his former company, Data Medical Capital Inc., for operating a work-at-home medical billing opportunity scheme. D’Antonio pleaded guilty to mail fraud for his involvement in the scam and served almost three years in prison, according to the FTC.
The FTC also asked the court to permanently ban D’Antonio from selling mortgage products or services, including foreclosure prevention and loan modification services, and to renew the 2001 order’s provisions banning D’Antonio from selling business ventures, employment opportunities or work-at-home opportunities, and from telemarketing.
The defendants allegedly told consumers that they would stop foreclosures, claiming they were “100% successful and had never lost a customer’s home to foreclosure” and advised consumers to pay them instead of making mortgage payments, the FTC continued.
They also claimed that they would negotiate modified mortgages with lower interest rates, monthly payments, and principal balances. The FTC charged that, in fact, they obtained few, if any, loan modifications for customers, according to the Commission.
The defendants also claimed that their selectivity in choosing customers helped them succeed, but they took on nearly every consumer willing to pay, according to the FTC. In addition, the defendants falsely claimed that they would provide experienced real estate attorneys who would represent customers nationwide and would review consumers’ loan documents to look for fraud and other lending violations, according to the FTC.
This case is on file in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, CA.
Network
