Claim for 67 TelexFree accounts denied, investor not happy
On June 4th Abel D. Santana wrote to the court regarding a “fraudulent claim”.
Santana identifies himself as a “TelexFree creditor” and wrote to the court to request
a review of my claim … filed on June 28, 2016 for $16,768.50.
Santana claims he learned his claim was disallowed in November 2020 ‘because a fraudulent claim … was approved and paid … instead’.
Santana claims to have been in contact with the TelexFree Trustee’s legal counsel since then.
On April 23, 2021 they (the Trustee) received a mailed package I sent explaining that the payment made to (the allegedly fraudulent claim) was not me or related to me because I have not given authorization to anybody to process such claims on my behalf.
As of today, I have not heard from the Trustee and I beg your assistance in finding a solution to my case.
This traumatic experience of a fraud had [sic] made me fall into a deep depression and (I) trust that a fair decision will be made after the investigation.
Santana’s letter to the court appeared on the TelexFree case docket on August 13th.
On August 19th the Trustee filed a response, detailing the timeline of events that led to Santana’s claim being disallowed.
On June 28, 2016, Mr. Santana filed (a) claim … in the amount of $16,768.50.
On July 8, 2016, Katherine Sanchez filed (a) claim … in the amount of $16,768.50.
Both of the foregoing claims asserted ownership in the same sixty-seven user accounts. The claims were therefore duplicative.
Why Santana claimed ownership of sixty-seven TelexFree accounts is unclear.
On August 24, 2018, Mr. Santana was sent the First Notice stating that the Trustee proposed to disallow his claim as being duplicative of the later filed claim.
The First Notice was sent to the email address Santana provided in his claim.
No response was received to the First Notice.
Mr. Santana was sent the Second Notice … on November 26, 2018.
No response was received to the Second Notice.
As set forth in the Claims Procedure Order, failure to respond to the First Notice and the Second Notice resulted in disallowance of the claim.
Based upon the foregoing, there is no basis for the challenge made by the claimant, as the claim was properly disallowed more than two years ago.
A response from the court has yet to appear on the docket.
In any event the Trustee’s response raises some pertinent questions.
Firstly and again, why did Santana and Katherine Sanchez claim ownership of sixty-seven TelexFree accounts?
If Santana’s claim is to be believed, presumably the $16,768.50 he invested was spread out across these accounts?
This is obviously not typical investor behavior and looks pretty suspicious.
Second, why didn’t Santana reply to the First and Second Notices, sent to the email address he provided in his claim?
Third, what does he expect to the court to do years after the fact?
Santana’s letter to the court suggests Katherine Sanchez’s claim was approved and paid out.
There is no confirmation of this in the Trustee’s response.
Regardless, sounds like Santana needs to follow up with whoever Katherine Sanchez is if he wants to chase up his funds.
That’s assuming there’s nothing dodgy going on which, given the circumstances and how this played out, I’m not even remotely convinced there isn’t.
Update 24th August 2021 – The court has issued an order on Abel Santana’s letter.
If, after reviewing the (Trustee’s) response, Mr. Santander [sic] needs further relief he must file a proper motion with the Court explaining the relief he is requesting and the basis for said relief.
Not expecting anything further.
Note that the court incorrectly identifies Abel Santana as “Santander” on both the case docket and its August 23rd order.