Banks Law Office filed a motion to amend the complaint. The defendants in the “proposed second amended complaint” include Marker Law, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and First Citizens Bank. A summary of the proposed second amended complaint is below.

Summary of Proposed Second Amended Complaint

Wealth Assistants is a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the Day family: Max K. Day, Max O. Day, Michael Day, and Jared Day. They are career criminals who have perpetrated similar schemes for decades, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from their victims.

Wealth Assistants obtained more than $50 million by defrauding more than 600 individuals.

Specifically, Wealth Assistants advertised that it would provide its clients with substantial income by setting up and managing lucrative online Amazon stores that the clients would own. But Wealth Assistants did not provide the promised services. Instead, it used the fees it collected from Plaintiffs and its other clients for the benefit of the Human Defendants.

Wealth Assistants’ clients would pay it an upfront fee of up to $125,000 to set up an online Amazon store in the client’s name and manage it. After that, the client would pay for the store’s inventory, along with certain other smaller fees. In return, the individual would be entitled to collect between 50 percent and 70 percent of the online store’s gross profits.

Wealth Assistants advertised that the profits of an online store it managed should grow to more than $10,000 per month by the end of the store’s first year.

Hundreds of individuals purchased the business opportunity Wealth Assistants offered. Most of these purchasers were middle class, and many had to use all their retirement savings or take out home equity loans to make the purchase.

Wealth Assistants never intended to follow through on its promises.

Some of Wealth Assistants’ clients never even received an online store after paying the fee. Others received stores (which themselves are valueless and can be easily and freely set up), but their stores were never stocked with any inventory. Others paid Wealth Assistants for inventory after receiving inventory invoices from Wealth Assistants that turned out to be fake; the inventory never actually appeared in their stores.

Ultimately, the vast majority of Wealth Assistants’ clients have received less than $10,000 in profits from their online stores, and many never received a single dollar of revenue from their stores (if they received stores at all).

Wealth Assistants perpetuated its fraudulent enterprise for as long as it could. When Plaintiffs and other individuals complained, Wealth Assistants invented excuses. It blamed “supply chain disruption,” for example. It asked its clients for patience.

Eventually, however, Plaintiffs and other individuals realized that they had been defrauded. Many of Wealth Assistants’ clients demanded their money back, complained to their banks, or alerted government agencies about the ongoing fraud.

Realizing that its fraud was being exposed, Wealth Assistants shut down. In October of 2023, Wealth Assistants announced to all of its clients that it was going out of business. The announcement told Plaintiffs that they would not receive further services and would not receive their money back.

Throughout this fraudulent scheme, instead of using the money collected from Wealth Assistants’ clients to provide the promised services, Wealth Assistants used much of the money it collected from its clients for the benefit of the Human Defendants. For example, Wealth Assistants’ CEO, Ryan Carroll, has flaunted his new Lamborghini.

Proficient Supply LLC is an entity that operated a scam nearly identical to Wealth Assistants’ scam beginning in 2020, before Wealth Assistants ever existed. Proficient Supply was shut down by the Federal Trade Commission in 2022, but a few months later, it was acquired by Wealth Assistants. Thereafter, as part of Wealth Assistants, it accepted payments from the Wealth Assistants Entity Defendants in transactions that served the sole purpose of helping Wealth Assistants conceal assets. Because of the intermingled assets, common ownership, and lack of distinct operations, Proficient Supply LLC is another alter ego of the Wealth Assistants Entity Defendants.

The Quantum-Wholesale Partnership Defendants—led by Defendants Troy Marchand and Bonnie Nichols—worked for Wealth Assistants and helped it carry out its fraudulent scheme. They also helped Wealth Assistants conceal its assets from Defendants by accepting fraudulent transfers totaling more than $1 million in the months before Wealth Assistants went out of business.

Defendant Travis Marker—acting through his two law offices, Defendant Law Office of Travis R. Marker and Defendant Parlay Law Group—served as an “escrow agent” to help Wealth Assistants conceal the proceeds of its fraudulent scheme. In particular, Travis Marker shipped credit card readers to many of Wealth Assistants’ clients for those clients to pay Wealth Assistants by making small discrete payments into different credit card readers. Those payments went to Travis Marker’s “escrow account,” and he would then pass those payments from the escrow accounts to undisclosed Wealth Assistants bank accounts, which helped prevent Plaintiffs from recovering the money that Wealth Assistants stole from them.

Defendant Bank of America operated bank accounts held by Wealth Assistants and Defendant Ryan Carroll. Bank of America quickly realized that Defendant Ryan Carroll was using those bank accounts to perpetrate a fraud because of blatant red flags, and in November of 2022, Bank of America froze some of those bank accounts. But instead of making efforts to return those funds to the individuals the funds had been stolen from, Bank of America simply wrote a cashier’s check to Wealth Assistants for more than $3.7 million so that it could conceal that money elsewhere. Even more egregiously, Bank of America continued operating many bank accounts held by Defendant Ryan Carroll after it had frozen Wealth Assistants’ accounts, and Bank of America continued helping Ryan Carroll conceal the proceeds of the Wealth Assistants fraudulent scheme.

Defendant Reyhan Pasinli is the owner and operator of Defendant Total Apps. Pasinli and Total Apps orchestrated Wealth Assistants’ Payment Processing Strategy (which, as explained below, aimed to conceal the proceeds of the fraudulent scheme and avoid money-laundering detection) by helping Wealth Assistants set up merchant bank accounts, recruiting other merchants to use their bank accounts in furtherance of Wealth Assistants’ Payment Processing Strategy, and serving as the “gateway” for transactions involving the various merchant accounts controlled by Wealth Assistants. Pasinli has long helped the Day family defendants conceal the proceeds of their various fraudulent schemes, and he knew that Wealth Assistants was a fraudulent scheme.

Total Apps is a registered independent sales organization of Wells Fargo Bank and, upon information and belief, Total Apps acted as Wells Fargo’s agent when it orchestrated Wealth Assistants’ Payment Processing Strategy. Therefore, Wells Fargo is vicariously liable for Total Apps’ participation in the fraudulent scheme.

Even if Total Apps were not associated with Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo would still be liable because it knowingly operated many Wealth Assistants bank accounts despite knowing of Wealth Assistants’ plan to fraudulently disperse its assets and conceal them from creditors.

First Citizens Bank knowingly operated a bank account for Providence Oak Properties, one of the Wealth Assistants Entity Defendants. First Citizens knew that the Providence Oak Properties bank account was being used for money laundering because—although Providence Oak Properties was purportedly a construction company—each of the wire transfers out of the Providence Oak Properties bank account explained that Providence Oak Properties was simply accepting transfers of cash and then wiring the cash back to the sender after deducting a fee. First Citizens Bank also did not keep records of the millions of dollars in transfers of money into the First Citizens Bank account.

The Federal Trade Commission has brought several lawsuits against other entities allegedly perpetrating identical scams this year, including: (1) FTC v. Automators LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01444 (S.D. Cal. 2023); (2) FTC v. Empire Holdings Group, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-4949 (E.D. Penn. 2024); (3) FTC v. THEFBAMACHINE Inc., Case No. 24-cv-06635 (D.N.J. 2024); (4) FTC v. Ascend Capventures Inc., Case No. 24-cv-07660 (C.D. Cal. 2024); (5) FTC v. Ecom Genie, Case No. 24-cv-23976 (S.D. Fla. 2024). Below, we briefly summarize the specific facts of each of those cases.

FTC v. Automators LLC (2023)

In August 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against Automators LLC and associated entities, alleging they operated a deceptive business opportunity scheme. The defendants promised consumers substantial returns by investing in online stores purportedly enhanced by artificial intelligence (AI). They claimed that their AI tools would ensure success and profitability for investors. However, the FTC contended that these promises were unfounded, leading consumers to invest approximately $22 million without realizing the advertised profits.

In February 2024, the owners of Automators LLC agreed to a settlement with the FTC. As part of the agreement, they surrendered millions in assets to provide refunds to affected consumers. Additionally, the businesses and two of their owners were permanently banned from selling business opportunities or coaching programs related to e-commerce stores.

FTC v. Empire Holdings Group (2024)

In September 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against Empire Holdings Group LLC, operating as Ecommerce Empire Builders and Storefunnels.net, along with its CEO, Peter Prusinowski. The FTC alleged that the defendants engaged in deceptive practices by marketing business opportunities that falsely promised consumers substantial income through “AI-powered” e-commerce stores. Consumers were encouraged to invest in training programs costing nearly $2,000 or to purchase “done-for-you” online storefronts for tens of thousands of dollars, with assurances of potential earnings reaching millions. However, the FTC contended that these profits rarely materialized, leaving consumers with little to no return on their investments.

The FTC’s complaint also highlighted that the defendants failed to provide required disclosure documents, included non-disparagement clauses in their contracts to suppress negative reviews, and challenged consumers who sought refunds. These actions were alleged to violate the FTC Act, the Business Opportunity Rule, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act.

As a result of the FTC’s action, a federal court issued a temporary restraining order halting the scheme and appointed a receiver to take control of the business operations. The case remains pending, with the FTC seeking a permanent injunction and monetary relief to prevent further consumer harm.

FTC v. THEFBAMACHINE Inc. (2024)

In June 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) initiated legal action against TheFBAMachine Inc., Passive Scaling Inc., and associated entities, alleging that they operated a deceptive business opportunity scheme. The defendants purportedly promised consumers guaranteed income through online storefronts enhanced by artificial intelligence (AI) tools. They claimed that their AI-powered software would ensure substantial passive income for investors. However, the FTC contended that these promises were unfounded, leading consumers to invest significant sums without realizing the advertised profits.

The FTC’s complaint highlighted that the defendants made false or unsubstantiated earnings claims and failed to provide required disclosure documents. Additionally, they included non-disparagement clauses in their contracts to suppress negative reviews and challenged consumers who sought refunds. These actions were alleged to violate the FTC Act, the Business Opportunity Rule, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act.

As a result of the FTC’s action, a federal court issued a temporary restraining order halting the scheme and appointed a receiver to take control of the business operations. The case remains pending, with the FTC seeking a permanent injunction and monetary relief to prevent further consumer harm.

FTC v. Ascend Capventures Inc (2024)

In September 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against Ascend Capventures Inc., also operating under names such as Ascend Ecom, Ascend Ecommerce, ACV Partners, and ACV Nexus. The FTC alleged that the company, led by William Basta and Kenneth Leung, engaged in deceptive practices by promoting a business opportunity scheme that falsely promised consumers substantial passive income through AI-powered online stores on platforms like Amazon, Walmart, Etsy, and TikTok. Consumers were charged tens of thousands of dollars to start these online stores and were required to invest additional funds in inventory. Despite assurances of significant earnings, most consumers did not realize the promised profits and were left with considerable financial losses.

The FTC’s complaint also highlighted that Ascend Capventures failed to provide required disclosure documents, included non-disparagement clauses in their contracts to suppress negative reviews, and challenged consumers who sought refunds. These actions were alleged to violate the FTC Act, the Business Opportunity Rule, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act.

As a result of the FTC’s action, a federal court issued a temporary restraining order halting the scheme and appointed a receiver to take control of the business operations. The case remains pending, with the FTC seeking a permanent injunction and monetary relief to prevent further consumer harm.

FTC v. Ecom Genie (2024)

In October 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against Ecom Genie Consulting LLC and associated entities, alleging they operated a deceptive business opportunity scheme. The defendants promised consumers substantial profits by selling goods through online platforms like Amazon and Walmart, charging tens of thousands of dollars to start these e-commerce businesses. However, the FTC contended that the promised earnings rarely materialized, leading most consumers to lose significant amounts of money.

The scheme operated under various names, including Lunar Capital Ventures, Ecom Genie, and Profitable Automation, and was previously known as Valiant Consultants Inc. The FTC’s complaint highlighted that the operators used enticing but bogus claims to lure consumers, failing to provide the required disclosures mandated by the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule.

As a result of the FTC’s action, a federal court temporarily shut down the operations of the scheme, which had taken more than $12 million from consumers. The court also appointed a receiver to take control of the business operations. The case remains pending, with the FTC seeking a permanent injunction and monetary relief to prevent further consumer harm.

FTC v. AWS, LLC (2018)

In 2018, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took legal action against AWS, LLC, FBA Stores, and related entities for promoting a deceptive business opportunity scheme known as the “Amazing Wealth System.” The defendants falsely claimed that consumers could earn substantial income by purchasing their system to sell products on Amazon.com. However, most participants did not achieve the advertised earnings and often faced issues with their Amazon seller accounts, including suspensions.

The FTC’s complaint led to settlements that banned the defendants from marketing and selling business opportunities and business coaching services. Additionally, they were required to surrender funds and assets for consumer redress. In August 2020, the FTC distributed over $9.1 million in refunds to consumers affected by the scheme.

Banks Law Office has brought a class action lawsuit against Wealth Assistants (the case is called “Hough v. Carroll”) for perpetrating a similar scam.

Banks Law Office is currently investigating several entities that may be perpetrating similar Amazon store-management frauds, including:

• Ecom Authority, which is run by Daniel Cohen.
• Alluvium, which is run by Samantha Segrest.

If you have any information about these scams or similar ones, please contact us.

Fraudulent investment schemes have wreaked havoc on countless lives, and one of the most egregious cases to surface recently involves Wealth Assistants. We previously announced that a Court ordered an asset freeze against Wealth Assistants.

Wealth Assistants’ complex network of individuals and entities perpetrated a widespread scam, targeting over 600 victims and swindling over $50 million.

As attorneys representing the victims, we are committed to seeking justice for those who trusted this operation with their hard-earned money.

This blog post delves into the details of this fraudulent scheme, the legal action we’ve taken, and what this case represents for consumer protection and accountability.

The Wealth Assistants Scheme

Wealth Assistants marketed itself as a way for individuals to achieve financial freedom through passive income. The pitch was enticing: clients would invest in a fully managed Amazon store, pay upfront fees and inventory costs, and in return, enjoy substantial monthly profits. The promises included:

• Passive Income: Wealth Assistants claimed they would manage every aspect of the Amazon stores, from customer service to inventory procurement.
• High Returns: They projected monthly profits of $10,000 or more within the first year of operations.
• Risk-Free Investment: A buyback guarantee was offered if the promised returns were not met.

Unfortunately, these promises were lies. Instead of setting up successful stores, Wealth Assistants delivered either non-functional storefronts or nothing at all. Many clients were charged for inventory that was never purchased, and others never saw a penny of the profits they were promised.

A Pattern of Deception

The heart of this scheme was deception, carefully orchestrated by Wealth Assistants’ operators. Here’s how they carried out their fraud:

1. Aggressive Marketing: Using professional presentations, slick sales pitches, and inflated profit projections, they lured middle-class individuals who were often using retirement savings or home equity loans to invest.
2. False Guarantees: Contracts included promises of buybacks if returns weren’t realized, but these guarantees were never honored.
3. Financial Exploitation: Wealth Assistants charged onboarding fees as high as $125,000 and collected further payments for inventory and operational costs, all while knowing they would not fulfill their promises.
4. Blaming External Factors: When clients began to complain, Wealth Assistants cited vague issues like “supply chain disruptions” to delay refunds or performance.

The result? Victims received little to no return on their investments, and many were left financially devastated.

Our Legal Action: Standing Up for Victims

Our firm has filed a Second Amended Complaint as a class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. This lawsuit represents not just a handful of individuals but the hundreds of victims impacted by this egregious fraud. Our claims include:

1. Fraud Conspiracy: A detailed plan executed by Wealth Assistants and its affiliates to defraud clients.
2. Aiding and Abetting Fraud: Other parties, including financial institutions, knowingly or negligently enabled this fraud.
3. Fraudulent Transfers: Defendants moved funds to hide them from creditors and victims.
4. Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Certain professionals who should have acted in their clients’ interests instead facilitated the fraud.

The Role of Financial Institutions

Several well-known financial institutions allegedly played a role in enabling this scheme. These institutions allegedly failed to detect clear red flags and, in some cases, directly facilitated the fraudulent activities by providing banking services to Wealth Assistants and its affiliates.

Banks have strict obligations under anti-money laundering regulations, including monitoring transactions and identifying suspicious activities. In this case, some banks allegedly assisted Wealth Assistants in transferring and concealing funds, making it harder for victims to recover their money. Our lawsuit highlights the need for accountability not just from the fraudsters but also from those who enabled them.

Impact on Victims

The human toll of this scheme is staggering. Many of Wealth Assistants’ clients were middle-class individuals seeking to improve their financial situations. Instead, they found themselves burdened with significant losses:

• Families drained their savings and retirement accounts.
• Some investors took on home equity loans, risking their homes in the process.
• Many victims now face long-term financial struggles and emotional distress.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of unchecked fraud.

A Web of Fraudulent Entities

Wealth Assistants did not act alone. The complaint identifies a network of affiliated entities and individuals who worked together to perpetrate this scheme. Among them are:

• The Operators: Key individuals behind Wealth Assistants orchestrated the scam and reaped its profits, using client funds to finance lavish lifestyles.
• Alter Ego Entities: Shell companies were created to hide and transfer funds, making it harder for creditors to track the money.
• Partners in Fraud: Other e-commerce firms collaborated with Wealth Assistants, helping it expand its operations and conceal its activities.

This network’s deliberate attempts to evade accountability further demonstrate the need for robust legal action.

Why This Case Matters

Our fight against Wealth Assistants is about more than recovering stolen funds. It’s about standing up to fraudulent practices that undermine trust and ruin lives. This case is a critical step in:

• Seeking Justice for Victims: Ensuring that those who were wronged are compensated for their losses.
• Holding Institutions Accountable: Sending a clear message to financial institutions that turning a blind eye to fraud is unacceptable.
• Preventing Future Fraud: Exposing the tactics used in this scheme can help others recognize and avoid similar scams.

Fraudsters often rely on the belief that their victims will not fight back. This lawsuit aims to prove them wrong.

How You Can Protect Yourself

This case is a reminder of the importance of due diligence when evaluating investment opportunities. Here are some tips to protect yourself:

1. Verify Claims: Always request evidence of past performance and confirm the legitimacy of guarantees.
2. Research the Company: Check for reviews, legal actions, or complaints against the business.
3. Be Skeptical of Unrealistic Promises: If an opportunity sounds too good to be true, it likely is.

If you believe you’ve been a victim of fraud, seek legal advice immediately.

Conclusion

Fraudulent schemes like Wealth Assistants prey on people’s hopes and dreams, often leaving them in financial ruin. Through this class action lawsuit, we aim to hold all responsible parties accountable and recover funds for those who were wronged.

At [Your Law Firm Name], we are committed to fighting for justice and protecting consumers from fraud. If you or someone you know has been affected by this scheme or a similar one, please reach out to us. Together, we can send a powerful message that fraud will not go unchecked.

I want to comment about “Fulfillment by Amazon” business opportunity scams. To carry out these scams, fraudsters advertise that they can set up and operate highly profitable Amazon ecommerce stores for “investors.” The “investors” send the fraudsters between $10,000 and $200,000 to set up and operate these stores, and the fraudsters pocket most of that money; they do not provide meaningful services for the investors, and sometimes they do not provide the investors with an Amazon store at all. These scams have collectively stolen hundreds of millions of dollars from their victims in the last five years. The FTC has brought several actions to shut down these scams, most recently last month in FTC v. Ecom Genie. But the scam continues to proliferate publicly: entities called Ecom Authority; Proficient Supply LLC; Quantum Ecommerce; Wholesale Universe; and Alluvium are just a few examples of entities that are operating this ongoing scheme. My comment is that the civil actions the FTC has taken against the FBA scams are appreciated, but they’ve proven to be insufficient. After the FTC obtains an injunction, the fraudsters go hide for a few months and then start back up again, re-branded. And I want to make two suggestions. First and foremost, these are large theft schemes that will not be deterred unless there are criminal consequences, so the FTC should be referring these cases to the FBI. Second, the FTC should be clear with Amazon that it has a duty to at least try to avoid providing a platform for these frauds, and to report the frauds to law enforcement when it discovers them. As it stands, Amazon is complicit. Right now, for example, it is continuing to let Proficient Supply operate on its platform despite the permanent restraining order the FTC obtained against that company.

As a disclosure, I should mention that I am the plaintiff’s attorney in a case called Hough v. Carroll, which is a putative class action brought against one of these scams called “Wealth Assistants.”

Thank you for your time.

A judge has ordered the owners of get-rich-on-Amazon startup Wealth Assistants to have their assests frozen

Earlier Business Insider articles describe the nightmare investors in Wealth Assistants are enduring:

More than 60 former Wealth Assistants clients sued the get-rich-on-Amazon startup, claiming they were defrauded out of millions

Banks Law Office attorney, Nico Banks, represents a group of investors in a lawsuit against Wealth Assistants and its owners. He seeks justice and restitution for those who have been wronged by the alleged fraudulent activities of the company. The allegations brought forth paint a troubling picture of intentional misrepresentations, asset dissipation, and attempts to conceal financial resources by the defendants.

The case revolves around a core accusation that Wealth Assistants, led by Ryan Carroll, Max K. Day, Michael Day, and others, misled clients and conspired to defraud them out of significant sums of money. Clients paid substantial fees with the expectation that their Amazon storefronts would be professionally managed and yield profitable results. However, many of them found their stores either lacking inventory or failing to generate sufficient sales to cover the upfront costs.

The lawsuit against Wealth Assistants is about seeking transparency and justice. The plaintiffs have been wronged, and it is our duty to pursue all legal avenues to uncover the truth, locate hidden assets, and secure a favorable outcome for those who have suffered as a result of these alleged deceptive practices.

If you are a victim of Wealth Assitant’s misrepresentations, please contact us. You can review our experience here.

1. In or around 2021 or 2022, Defendants Ryan Carroll, Max K. Day, and Max O. Day (collectively, the “Original Individual Defendants”) conspired to defraud Plaintiffs and hundreds of other individuals out of millions of dollars. Specifically, the Original Individual Defendants advertised that they would provide their clients with substantial income by setting up and managing lucrative online Amazon stores that the clients would own. But the Original Individual Defendants did not provide the promised services. Instead, they used the fees they collected from Plaintiffs and their other clients for their personal benefit.
2. The Original Individual Defendants carried out their conspiracy to defraud Plaintiffs and other individuals by leading their brand “Wealth Assistants.” All of the following entity defendants (collectively, the “Original Wealth Assistants Entity Defendants”) did business as “Wealth Assistants:” Yax Ecommerce LLC (owned, at least in part, by Ryan Carroll), WA Distribution LLC (owned, at least in part, by Ryan Carroll), Precision Trading LLC (owned, at least in part, by Max K. Day), and Providence Oak Properties LLC (owned, at least in part, by Max K. Day).
3. Wealth Assistants’ clients would pay Wealth Assistants an upfront fee of up to $125,000 to set up and manage an online Amazon store in the individual’s name and manage it. After that, the individual would pay for the store’s inventory, along with certain other smaller fees. In return, the individual would be entitled to collect between 50 percent and 70 percent of the online store’s gross profits.
4. Wealth Assistants advertised that the profits of an online store it managed should grow to more than $10,000 per month by the end of the store’s first year.
5. Hundreds of individuals, including Plaintiffs, purchased the business opportunity Wealth Assistants offered. Most of these purchasers were middle class, and many had to use all their retirement savings or take out home equity loans to make the purchase.
6. The Original Individual Defendants always knew that Wealth Assistants would not follow through on its promises.
7. Some of Wealth Assistants’ clients never even received an online store after paying the fee. Others received stores (which themselves are valueless and can be easily and freely set up), but their stores were never stocked with any inventory. Others paid Wealth Assistants for inventory after receiving inventory invoices from Wealth Assistants that turned out to be fake; the inventory never actually appeared in their stores.
8. Ultimately, the vast majority of Wealth Assistants’ clients have received less than $10,000 in profits from their online stores, and many never received a single dollar of revenue from their stores (if they received stores at all).
9. Wealth Assistants perpetuated its fraudulent enterprise for as long as it could. When Plaintiffs and other individuals complained, Wealth Assistants invented excuses. It blamed “supply chain disruption,” for example. It asked Plaintiffs for patience.
10. Eventually, however, Plaintiffs and other individuals realized that they had been defrauded. Many of them began demanding their money back, complaining to their banks, or alerting government agencies about the ongoing fraud.
11. Realizing that their fraud was being exposed, the Original Individual Defendants decided to protect themselves by shutting down Wealth Assistants. In October of 2023, Wealth Assistants announced to all of its clients that it was going out of business. In the announcement, Defendant Ryan Carroll, the CEO of Wealth Assistants, told Plaintiffs that they would not receive further services and would not receive their money back.
12. Throughout this fraudulent scheme, instead of using the money collected from Wealth Assistants’ clients to provide the promised services, the Original Individual Defendants used much of the money they collected from Wealth Assistants’ clients for their own personal benefit. Ryan Carroll, for example, has recently flaunted his new Lamborghini and his very expensive watch.
13. Although Wealth Assistants has now purportedly gone out of business, its fraudulent scheme continues. In particular, Wealth Assistants has attempted to recruit its former clients, including Plaintiffs, to partner with the Quantum Ecom Entity Defendants and Defendant Wholesale Universe, which jointly operate a fraudulent scheme very similar to Wealth Assistants’ scheme. Moreover, Wholesale Universe has told many of Wealth Assistants’ former clients that Wealth Assistants transferred inventory to Wholesale Universe before going out of business.