PSA: Don't swipe recklessly for others

[Chief Rabbi of New York]

CRONY is a troll from toll land, just ignore him.

get a life
seriously after such a horrible thing you can say this ?

[cmey]

According to AJ Weissman's linked in page,  GSN Holdings, currently owns and operates, The Buzz of Brooklyn and Boro Park. Sterling Electronics of Crown Heights, and is partnered with DB Electronics of Lakewood.

linked-in page, https://www.linkedin.com/in/a-j-weissman-2abb19139/

Will all these stores also go under soon?

Is Westview involved as well?

[Yard sale]

DDF is not a courtroom to warrant knowing all of the details and facts in the case. Nor is it acceptable to voyeuristicly want to know all the juicy gossip about the pain that others are going through. On the other hand, the more details that are known, the more real the story becomes to others, and therefore the more effective a deterrent it becomes to others who are about to do the same.

I think that enough of the story has been told here to raise awareness of the risks of credit card swiping as well as the risks of putting your nest egg with a couple of well meaning guys who can boast of amazing profits on a line of product,  but who’s lack of accurate financials is telling a very different story than what is really taking place.

However, DDF has a limited readership, and is probably underrepresented by those who need to here it most; people with limited financial literacy and sometimes limited online access. It seems clear that the principles involved are well meaning people who got it over their heads to something they might not even fully have understood. I’m sure they would want to educate others to avoid what they are going through. If the parties that are involved can get out a story that is detailed enough to make it real without sacrificing the interests of all involved, in a form that can be disseminated more widely they would be doing the public a great service.

In just that past few weeks I was approached by someone for advice on how to connect to guys at BMG to apply/ swipe credit cards to fund the operations of a (non- Amazon type) business that seems to have a fairly decent track record and business plan. I sent him the link to this thread and told him it’s not a good idea. He’s a great guy, and they business he was looking to be an intermediary for seemed sound but I’m sure some of the others that people lost everything on did as well.

Some of these stories probably have multiple layers, i.e., the guy who takes a cut for bringing in “investors” which turns out to be funding from credit card swipes that may be run through an entirely separate business....

[zale]

That's something many people fail to pay attention to. If things get serious enough and go to a court of law, the court will not respect the corporate veil, if the owners didn't!

It’s not that simple.

You can only sue an entity other than the entity you gave money directly to (or was explicitly listed in the contract) if you can prove that your money was sent to that entity with intent by the defendant and that said defendant controls that entity. For example, if the merchant  paid a contractor $100K to remodel his store, you can’t seize the money from that contractor even if you believe that this was your money. But if the merchant moved the money to another business that is also  controlled by him, you will need to proof as stated above.

Sometimes in order to prove that, you would first need to sue the entity or person you gave the money to, and once you get a judgement in your favor  you can use that for discovery. This process can take many months. Once you can prove that the money was sent to another entity, you would then have to sue that entity. We are talking potentially 1-2 years and tens of thousands in legal expenses.

It’s been mentioned in earlier posts that some investors were given personal guarantees and contracts. Those investors have a clear advantage. Those who swiped with no contract will have an uphill battle. (Uphill battle is unfortunately a massive understatement)

[Chief Rabbi of New York]

It’s not that simple.

You can only sue an entity other than the entity you gave money directly to (or was explicitly listed in the contract) if you can prove that your money was sent to that entity with intent by the defendant and that said defendant controls that entity. For example, if the merchant  paid a contractor $100K to remodel his store, you can’t seize the money from that contractor even if you believe that this was your money. But if the merchant moved the money to another business that is also  controlled by him, you will need to proof as stated above.

Sometimes in order to prove that, you would first need to sue the entity or person you gave the money to, and once you get a judgement in your favor  you can use that for discovery. This process can take many months. Once you can prove that the money was sent to another entity, you would then have to sue that entity. We are talking potentially 1-2 years and tens of thousands in legal expenses.

It’s been mentioned in earlier posts that some investors were given personal guarantees and contracts. Those investors have a clear advantage. Those who swiped with no contract will have an uphill battle. (Uphill battle is unfortunately a massive understatement)

@sillypainter anything to add ?

[bermo]

@Dan maybe just make the shortest post ever. No details needed. Just say:

NEVER SWIPE YOUR CREDIT CARD IN ORDER TO BE REIMBURSED AN AMOUNT YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE!

Proposed subtitle:
Even for the most honest and trustworthy people, unexpected things beyond anyone's control can happen, that will make that reimbursement get seriously delayed (possibly indefinitely).

IMHO it would be important to explain that you can't just make a chargeback because you didn't get paid back.
From what I hear a big reason why people do this is because they rely on chargebacks.
Just my $0.02

[churnbabychurn]

It’s not that simple.

You can only sue an entity other than the entity you gave money directly to (or was explicitly listed in the contract) if you can prove that your money was sent to that entity with intent by the defendant and that said defendant controls that entity. For example, if the merchant  paid a contractor $100K to remodel his store, you can’t seize the money from that contractor even if you believe that this was your money. But if the merchant moved the money to another business that is also  controlled by him, you will need to proof as stated above.

Sometimes in order to prove that, you would first need to sue the entity or person you gave the money to, and once you get a judgement in your favor  you can use that for discovery. This process can take many months. Once you can prove that the money was sent to another entity, you would then have to sue that entity. We are talking potentially 1-2 years and tens of thousands in legal expenses.

It’s been mentioned in earlier posts that some investors were given personal guarantees and contracts. Those investors have a clear advantage. Those who swiped with no contract will have an uphill battle. (Uphill battle is unfortunately a massive understatement)

Unless a criminal investigation figures everything out paid for by the taxpayers..

[AJK]

@sillypainter anything to add ?

Your head-and-shoulders-above-everyone-else interest in this thread means either you've been scammed yourself (for which I'm sorry), or there is another explanation for your seeming incessant and relentless pursuit of more information.  What's come out already should be enough to dissuade others from involving themselves in this type of "arrangement."

Any more information -- e.g. who did it, when it happened, why it happened, where it happened, and what shul the other guys davens at -- is irrelevant to the point, which has been stated a dozen times in this thread and need not be repeated by me.

In either case, you need to relax, my friend. 

[ExGingi]

It’s not that simple.

...

It’s been mentioned in earlier posts that some investors were given personal guarantees and contracts. Those investors have a clear advantage. Those who swiped with no contract will have an uphill battle. (Uphill battle is unfortunately a massive understatement)

I didn't say it's simple. Winning something in court is never simple, guaranteed, or inexpensive. But if the numbers warrant the effort and expense, the owner of a cannot hide behind the corporate veil if he didn't respect it.

[Chief Rabbi of New York]

Your head-and-shoulders-above-everyone-else interest in this thread means either you've been scammed yourself (for which I'm sorry), or there is another explanation for your seeming incessant and relentless pursuit of more information.  What's come out already should be enough to dissuade others from involving themselves in this type of "arrangement."

Any more information -- e.g. who did it, when it happened, why it happened, where it happened, and what shul the other guys davens at -- is irrelevant to the point, which has been stated a dozen times in this thread and need not be repeated by me.

In either case, you need to relax, my friend. 

I dont lend my cc out to anyone
I used to until I got exact details from a different story yrs ago.
That being said there has been quotes before of 4 mil , 12 mil , 50 mil
Seems like just rumors and might not be accurate enough to dissuade someone
I know what it means to earns all those cc points and people can still get over their head

[chevron]

I dont lend my cc out to anyone
I used to until I got exact details from a different story yrs ago.
That being said there has been quotes before of 4 mil , 12 mil , 50 mil
Seems like just rumors and might not be accurate enough to dissuade someone
I know what it means to earns all those cc points and people can still get over their head

There are no rumors, you just aren't reading posts. These all refer to different stuff

[knowitall]

This thread has been quiet for two days
I guess that’s good news

[yakrot]

This thread has been quiet for two days
I guess that’s good news

Just means more ppl currently being scammed

[Menachem613]

Just means more ppl currently being scammed

Look at bright side, at least a frum guy is making money from it.

[gingyguy]

Look at bright side, at least a seemingly frum guy is making money from it.

FTFY