8 Figure Dream Lifestyle defendants denied living expenses carveout
On July 2nd the 8 Figure Dream Lifestyle defendants sought relief from a court-ordered asset freeze.
The defendants argued that their use of the frozen assets to pay lawyers and personal expenses
outweigh(ed) any public interest in preserving frozen assets for deceived consumers.
Not surprisingly, the motion was denied.
In response to the 8 Figure Dream Lifestyle defendant’s relief motion, the FTC pointed out Alex Dee, Brian Kaplan, John Bain and Jerrold Maurer
have spent more than two years using false or unsubstantiated earnings claims to trick more than a thousand consumers into paying up to $22,000 for memberships in the 8FDL Program.
Defendants want this Court to allow them to resume lives of luxury, paying thousands per month for BMW and Audi car leases, a mortgage on a second home, paying down tens of thousands in credit card balances, and tens of thousands per month for their businesses, which the FTC has shown are vehicles for consumer fraud.
Defrauded consumers simply should not have to fund Defendants’ expenses.
The court agreed.
In a July 8th order denying the relief motion, the court observed the 8 Figure Dream Lifestyle defendants ‘to offer any countervailing evidence showing consumer harm here was minimal.‘
Also a deciding factor was the FTC’s allegation that ‘the potential monetary loss to consumers in this case far exceeds the amount of funds currently frozen‘.
All of that said, the court did throw Dee, Kaplan, Bain and Maurer a bone:
It’s possible that the asset freeze should be modified to allow for payment of reasonable attorney fees and basic living expenses.
This was more of a “lift the entire freeze so we can continue to squander the money” motion though.
The moving Defendants haven’t, for example, proposed a concrete amount of funds that should be unfrozen, or submitted documents detailing what these expenses might be.
Instead, the moving Defendants generally claim their unable to pay some unknown amount of expenses and ask that the asset freeze be modified for this reason.
Such a broad proposal can’t be feasibly implemented without further increasing the risk that assets might not be preserved for consumer redress.
As of yet no additional filings related to the asset-freeze have been made.
Even with leniency from the court, I imagine any request for a carve-out will be opposed by the FTC.
Looking forward, a preliminary injunction hearing remains scheduled for July 19th. Stay tuned…