Rodrigues sells out to secure $200,000 visa fraud bond
Following the posting of $200,000 bail in Sanderley Rodrigues’ visa fraud case, there was a bit of speculation as to where the funds had originated.
For his part in defrauding investors through TelexFree, Rodrigues is currently subject to an asset-freezing injunction.
Through filings made in the SEC’s civil case against TelexFree and Rodrigues, we can now reveal the $200,000 paid was sourced from previously frozen funds.
On the surface it might seem strange that the SEC themselves filed a motion requesting Rodrigues (right) be granted permission to pay $200,000 bond in a visa fraud case, with funds frozen due to another fraud case – but the request did come at a price.
In exchange for cooperation with the SEC in using frozen funds to post his visa fraud bail, Rodrigues had to agree to provide the agency a substantial cache of personal financial and business-related information.
Under penalty of perjury, Rodrigues was required to identify and disclose to the SEC
A) all transfers or payments of funds to him or any other entity controlled by him from investors or “promoters” in connection with the misconduct described in the (SEC’s) complaint (the identification shall include the amount of each such transfer of payment, the date of the transfer of payment, and the name, address, account number and financial instittion of the party making and the party receiving the transfer of payment)
B) in detail the precise disposition of each transfer or payment identified (see point A) and all assets derived therefrom, including but not limited to:
a. the nature of results of any investment in which the funds were used
b. any subsequent transfer or payment of the funds (the identification shall include the amount of each such transfer or payments, the date of the transfer or payment, the name, address, account number and financial institution of the party making and receiving the transfer o payments, and the reason for the transfer or payment) and
c. any fees or expenses charged and a detailed statement of the nature and purpose of such fees and expenses
C) by name and address, all persons, entities and accounts currently holding funds or assets derived from the transfers or payments described (see point A) and the reason each received the funds or assets (the identification shall include the amount each received, the date received, the reason received, the institution and account number or location in which the funds or other assets are held and the name, address, account number and financial institution of the person or entity who provided each with the funds or other assets)
D) assets of every type and description with the value of at least five hundred dollars presently owned by or held for the direct indirect benefit, or subject to the direct or indirect control, of Rodrigues, whether in the United States or elsewhere prior to April 15, 2014
E) all accounts held at any bank, brokerage or other financial institution in the United States or elsewhere in the name, for the direct or indirect benefit, or under the direct or indirect control, of TelexFree and/or the Individual Defendants, or in which TelexFree and/or the Individual Defendants has or had any indirect beneficial interest, at any time from January 1, 2012 to the present.
And that’s only the beginning, with additional information likely to shed light on Rodrigues’ involvement in iFreeX:
A) a list of all domestic and foreign businesses that (Rodrigues) has a direct or indirect ownership interest and/or direct or indirect controls:
1. For each business, a list date of incorporation and owners
2. A list of all financial accounts, including but not limited to bank accounts, brokerage account, investment accounts, and payment processor accounts, held by those businesses from April 15, 2014, forward including both domestic and foreign accounts.
April 2014 of course being the very month the SEC shut down TelexFree.
The list includes, but is not limited to, institution name, account number and signatories.
3. A list of any transactions that occurred in (Point 2) from the date of April 15, 2014 forward.
4. A list of recipients of any of the funds transferred from any account identified in (Point 2).
5. A list of all assets owned by those businesses (or were owned by those businesses) of more than $500, including but not limited to, real property, cars, jewelry and boats).
6. To the extent that any of those assets identified in (Point 5) were sold or transferred, identify the buyer (recipient), the amount of money of (sic) received for the sale and the disposition of the proceeds.
Rodrigues family are also to be put under the microscope, with Rodrigues required to provide the SEC with
B) a list of all financial accounts, including but not limited to bank accounts, brokerage accounts, investment accounts, payment processor accounts, in which Rodrigues, his wife and/or his dependent children have a direct or indirect beneficial interest, or over which they have exercised direct or indirect control from April 15, 2014, forward including both domestic and foreign accounts.
The list will include, but is not limited to, institution name, account number and signatories.
C) a list of any transactions that occurred in (Point B) from April 15, 2014 forward.
D) an accounting provided a list (of) the recipients of any of the funds transferred from any account identified in (Point B)
E) a list of all assets owned by Rodrigues or his wife or dependent children of more than $500, including but not limited to real property, cars, jewelry and boats from April 15, 2014 forward.
F) an accounting listing the amount of money of (sic) received for the sale and the disposition of the proceeds.
The SEC’s motion was filed on the 10th of June, with Rodrigues posting $200,000 in late May.
How that worked out I’m not sure. Did Rodrigues borrow the funds from a third-party and have to pay them back?
Earlier this year DFRF Enterprises, a Ponzi scheme shutdown by the SEC earlier this month, paid $310,000 to Rodrigues for services unknown.
I’m thinking there might be a connection here but until further information is revealed, can’t quite put my finger on it.
In any event Rodrigues was provided to supply the SEC with the requested information within five days of the 10th of June filing.
Judge Morton approved the request on the 19th, indicating Rodrigues provided the SEC with the requested information.
Information that no doubt saw Rodrigues dish the dirt on his own dealings and involvement in TelexFree, along with those he worked with.
Ditto Rodrigues’ dealings with iFreeX.
Whereas the SEC might have had to obtain this information via lengthy process of discovery, in using Rodrigues’ visa fraud case as leverage, they instead had him serve it up on a timely platter.
Recently it was uncovered that, in addition to receiving $310,000 from owner Daniel Filho, Rodrigues himself was promoting DFRF Enterprises. Whether that information was gleaned of information Rodrigues provided through this deal or otherwise however is unclear.
Pending anything further of interest uncovered through the information Rodrigues has provided the SEC, stay tuned…
Footnote: Our thanks to Don@ASDUpdates for providing a copy of the SEC’s Assented to Motion to modify Rodrigues’ preliminary injunction conditions, along with Judge Gorton’s corresponding June 19th order of approval.