Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19
Hey Vale, has this brutal silver market taken Tulving out? - Page 9
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 93

Thread: Hey Vale, has this brutal silver market taken Tulving out?

  1. #81
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by billmr View Post
    Hey Vale, have you heard anything more about this ?
    Funny you should ask today after all this time, I just received this information today. It's all about Tulving and his involvement with A-Mark. It's just over the size limit to fit on one post so I've split into two. Just for the record, these are not my words.

    This is part 1 of 2


    A Tiny Act of Free Press Overcoming Fear
    January 13, 2014 2:20PM EST - Updated January 13, 2014 5:05PM EST
    UPDATE: I want to make it clear that I do not have any information suggesting that A-Mark did anything illegal. Although I cannot see the benefit to a repo account in a case like this (versus an outright sale), I understand that bullion repo accounts can serve a legitimate need.
    I have a confession to make: For about 6 months now, I have not been posting all the facts I have about A-Mark Precious Metals, for fear that they would sue me for a past mistake. I am no Charlie Hebdo (I'm a small guy, and not dealing with evil organizations), but I felt the need to do this as a small gesture of support. Specifically, I wrote information on A-Mark in June, 2014 that A-Mark believes was based partially upon incorrect facts and assumptions. I was threatened with a lawsuit (within minutes, I had removed the entire page, not just the offending information), yet have been reluctant to post some facts about A-Mark due to the legal threats.

    The law allows me to post the truth, but I am also not aware of a law preventing A-Mark from choosing to be sleazy and punishing me for publishing the truth by filing a lawsuit for a past action of mine. And since A-Mark states that they have no secrets regarding Tulving, there really should be no reason for them to punish me for publishing the truth. I have given them the option to fact-check this article, and by press time they have not reported any inaccuracies.

    A-Mark also pushed for me to write some statements in the retraction, which are no longer true. Therefore, I could potentially face legal issues if I do not post the truth! Damned if I do, damned if I don't. The risk of a lawsuit, in the scheme of things, is a small price to pay for the getting truth into the hands of the people.

    To begin with, I need to correct my original retraction: I do personally believe that A-Mark bears some responsibility for the Tulving's financial problems and the loss of its customers' money1 (in that fees paid to A-Mark contributed significantly to Tulving's financial problems -- I do not have an opinion currently as to whether A-Mark acted inappropriately in any way).

    My opinion is based on a combination of factors, mostly undisputed facts and credible information that A-Mark has chosen not to deny2. It is also based in part on the feeling that I have that they have been extremely evasive, going so far as trying to confuse and mislead me3. I associate that type of behavior with companies that are trying to prevent the truth from being discovered. I have a very credible source, who A-Mark has been unable to discredit (except for semantics)4. I will no longer let their threats of lawsuits prevent the truth from being told. They may have a legal right to threaten me5, but not an ethical right. The First Amendment was intended to protect the truth, not squelch it. If you must sue me, sue me.

    Facts6:
    •Hannes Tulving, Jr. stated in court records that the reason for the bankruptcy was that The Tulving Company "could not pay its daily operating expenses, including high-interest payments on inventory that was collateralized for operating expenses."
    •My source stated that Tulving had a repurchase agreement (or hedged bullion account) with A-Mark. A-Mark denied that it was called a hedged bullion account, but A-Mark neither confirmed nor denied that it was a repurchase agreement, and the description they provided about the arrangement to me matches exactly what A-Mark calls a "repurchase agreement" (or arrangement).
    •A-Mark has documents that refer to inventory used in repurchase agreements as "collateral."
    •Although A-Mark disputes that Tulving paid them any interest ("no interest was ever paid by Tulving to A-Mark"), they do admit that Tulving paid a fee for this service, and A-Mark's documentation also shows cases where they refer to fees paid for repurchase agreements as interest. A-Mark's refusal to state their preferred term to categorize a payment ("interest" or "fee") does not entitle them to quash the truth.
    •The bankruptcy Trustee mentioned A-Mark by name, in the context of signficant money having been paid to A-Mark by Tulving. Although some of the facts in and behind the statement are either disputed or not known, A-Mark was the only company named in this context.
    •I have received credible information that Tulving paid A-Mark interest and/or fees of about $75,000 per month (A-Mark confirmed fees were paid, and did not deny the amount),
    •I have received credible information that the collateralized inventory A-Mark held for Tulving was worth approximately $10M (A-Mark confirmed the inventory, and did not deny the amount),
    •I have received credible information that the The Tulving Company paid A-Mark over $5M in interest and fees unrelated to any outright trades (A-Mark confirmed fees were paid, and did not deny the amount).
    •I see no evidence that Tulving had any collateralized inventory other than with A-Mark (or their subsidiary CFC).
    •My source has information about Tulving's interactions with A-Mark that I have not seen published anywhere, which A-Mark has confirmed as accurate. My source also knows an internal term used by A-Mark that appears nowhere on their website. This, along with other information (unrelated to A-Mark), leads me to find my source credible.
    •On about February 28, 2014, the inventory A-Mark held (reportedly valued at $10M) was liquidated in a manner than resulted in an approximately $130,000 wire transfer to The Tulving Company.
    •According to my source, the transaction on March 3, 2014 factored in a ~$75,000 interest/fee payment (I.E. A-Mark got paid after The Tulving Company stopped taking orders), and a ~$1,000 payment to CFC.
    Careful analysis of A-Mark's responses to my queries show that they were unable to discredit any information from my source, aside from semantics. This, in combination with their cafefully crafted responses, leads me to believe that my source is accurate.
    Taking all these facts into consideration, I take Tulving's explanation of the reason for bankruptcy to mean that fees The Tulving Company paid to A-Mark played a signficant role in the need to file for bankruptcy. Again to be clear, I do not mean to imply that A-Mark was at fault, just that it was those payments that played a significant (but not complete) role in the need to file for bankruptcy.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  2. #82
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    This is all about Tulving and his involvement with A-Mark. It's just over the size limit to fit on one post so I've split into two. Just for the record, these are not my words.

    This is part 2 of 2




    NOTES:
    [1] Although this could be legally construed as a fact that could be proven false (I.E. That A-Mark is responsibile for the bankruptcy), this is just my opinion -- and one A-Mark as forced me to state (unless I keep an untrue statement about A-Mark, which could potentially subject me to legal action). A-Mark coerced me to publish a fact about my beliefs that is no longer true (they asked my retraction to contain "I do not believe that A-Mark was responsible in any way for Tulving’s financial problems..."). The First Amendment allows me to publish the truth, and only way I can see to publish the truth here is... to do so! A-Mark is also aware of my opinion. I also write "some responsibility" to be clear, because I believe that there were other (and possibly more important) factors involved in Tulving's bankruptcy. The word "responsibility" comes from A-Mark, not me.

    [2] A-Mark chose not to respond to my direct requests for comment before I posted my original article in June, 2014, and when I later received information from my source that I attempted to confirm with A-Mark. I have had discussions with their attorney, who refuted some facts I asked for comment on, while purposely not responding to others.

    [3] For example, they claim:
    • "We have told you consistently, which you refuse to recognize, that there was no Tulving account" (I will leave it as an excersise to the reader (and hopefully not a jury!) as to whether Tulving had an account with A-Mark). From the phrasing, it is very clear this was intentional language on their part, and no accident.
    •They also stated that "A-Mark never engaged in ... transactions involving any type of commodity derivatives with Tulving" and "Tulving never had a 'hedged bullion account' with A-Mark", yet they admit there were transactions where Tulving paid for an option to purchase metal, which sounds to me to be what A-Mark refers to as a "repurchase agreement." The CFTC considers commodity options (A-Mark stated that Tulving paid for "an option to purchase" the inventory in question) to be derivatives.
    •They also state "no interest was ever paid by Tulving to A-Mark", yet the same person who told me that signed a statement that Tulving owed A-Mark subsidiary CFC money for a loan with an 8.500% fixed interest rate. My source also showed that the CFC interest was deducted from wire transfers from Tulving to A-Mark, which A-Mark did not deny.
    •They also state "There was never any loan by A-Mark to Tulving", yet we saw above that the person who told me that declared under penalty of perjury that A-Mark subsidiary CFC loaned Tulving money. And court and A-Mark documents refer to "interest" and "collateral", which imply a loan. My Mom said that behavior is called talking out of both sides of your mouth.
    •They state "A-Mark and Tulving are not and never were competitors", based on the fact that A-Mark "sells only wholesale." However, it is well known that Tulving also bought/sold from/to smaller bullion dealers, and even today their website "About" page states "Our clients include coin and metal dealers, investors, collectors..." In 2010, they accepted personal checks, and their FAQ used to state "we charge commission on all trades done by individuals".

    [4] For example, let's say I have $10.2M in inventory, you give me $10M and hold on to the inventory until I pay you back, charging me $75,000 a month. Does it matter if you call the charge a "fee" rather than "interest"? Does it matter if it is an "account", "agreement", or "arrangement"? Does it matter if you feel it is your inventory and you owe me $10M, yet I call it an "option" for you to buy the metal that I own and that you owe me nothing? Does it matter if you feel that you owe the money, even though (unlike a loan) you can walk away at any time (with no debt or metal), similar to a "non-recourse loan"? It's mostly a matter of semantics (well, the title could become an issue in the event of a bankruptcy, but we know things like that never happen!). But calling me confused and trying to discredit my source due to the exact terms used? That's shameful.

    [5] To be crystal clear, they have not directly threatened to sue me for posting the truth. What they threatened was "immediate and decisive legal action" for what occurred in June, 2014 if I publish "false and inaccurate statements, innuendo, implications, rumors, third-party claims or other actionable conduct." In my interpretation, if I write "Tulving had an account with A-Mark" or "Tulving paid interest to A-Mark", they will sue me (both true to the best of my knowledge, but both of which they deny) -- as they can only initiate a lawsuit based on what they think it false, not what a court thinks is false. In other words, the only way to know if something I want to write about them will result in legal action is to write it and see if I get sued. Well, A-Mark, if that is what you want, you've got it.

    [6] These facts also include some information I have received from my source, which cannot be independently verified. Normally posting such information may be considered a fact (e.g. that I am stating that what my source said was a fact). I am attempting to show the information that I received, and why I feel the information to be accurate, without stating that it definitely is accurate. A-Mark has also stated that by not disclosing information I received (e.g. stating "I cannot disclose the type of account that Tulving had with A-Mark", because the information my source gave me differs from what A-Mark claims) is a "directly slanderous implication", which they said they would sue me for. So they are forcing me to disclose this information, if I wish to state my opinion and the reason for it.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  3. #83
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Here is the latest from the Tulving fiasco:




    Tulving Update - Trustee Report #5 Released (Bad News, Good News)

    Hi,

    Mr. Neilson has released Trustee Report #5 (you can find it at http://about.us3.list-manage.com/tra...d&e=8402ab6b40 ). I will summarize the contents, but urge you to read it in case there are parts relevant to you that I may have overlooked.

    The bad news is that it is becoming clear this will be a lengthy bankruptcy. The report suggests that in order to maximum the proceeds of the coins seized by the Secret Service, they should be auctioned over the course of several years. It also refers to an agreement to get the organization owing the $600K accounts receivable to pay it over 5 years.

    The good news, however, is that the coins seized by the Secret Service may be worth quite a bit more than was originally reported (first "worthless", then a $3M appraisal). Hannes Tulving, Jr. hired an expert who appraised the coins at a bit over $11M. A source of mine had told me that the coins had been on Tulving's books at $17M (based on the value they had sold at at wholesale prices). That said, Mr. Neilson warns us "not to be eager to fully embrace any of the valuations."

    The other interesting piece of information is that Mr. Neilson met with Hannes Tulving, Jr. for over 2 hours on December 8, 2014 (with an offer for subsequent interviews). Mr. Neilson chose not to delve into areas where Mr. Tulving is under investigation by federal authorities. Mr. Tulving's legal counsel informed Mr. Neilson of additional coins that were not seized that may belong to the estate (of an unknown value).

    The intellectual property (customer list, website, etc.) sold for $150K, after no bids were obtained for an auction. Great Collections, LLC (whose founder used to work with the now CEO of A-Mark) has since paid for the property.

    Mr. Neilson conducted a Rule 2004 exam of A-Mark Precious Metals, and received a significant amount of accounting records on December 30, 2014. Mr. Neilson hopes to provide information regarding the relationship between A-Mark and Tulving, and is also looking at other financial relationships between other parties and Tulving.

    Mr. Neilson also pointed out that Tulving's records turned out to be quite accurate. He also stated that they are trying to balance the costs of untangling the mess with recovering money (e.g. making decisions on whether to pursue possible assets based on how much it would cost to collect them).

    There will also be a hearing on March 12, 2015 for professionals to present fee applications. My understanding is that approved fees from when the bankruptcy was in Chapter 11 (before late May, 2014) will get paid, while more recent fees that are approved will not yet be paid.

    If you have any questions, feel free to let me know.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  4. #84
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    This latest entry is for anyone that is involved with this Tulving fiasco and how you "might" want to handle your taxes. If you click on the link below it will take you to the in depth detail for this short summary:



    TULVING TAXES AND YOU


    A number of people have asked how the Tulving situation may affect their taxes.

    First, the reminder/disclaimer: I am not a tax professional, account, lawyer, etc. My goal is to try to help you find relevant information, from which you can make decisions as they apply to your situation. With taxes, it is always best to consult with professionals, and you are ultimately responsible for your tax return.

    That said, I have put together a page with the information I have found out at: http://about.us3.list-manage.com/tra...f&e=8402ab6b40

    The short answer is that the tax implications are not straightforward. You should be able to deduct the loss, either as a capital loss (as you would with any other investment) or *possibly* as a theft loss. Deducting it as a theft loss typically results in a higher deduction if you itemize deductions, but has a high audit potential (and may or may not be allowed by the IRS). Deducting it as a capital loss usually results in a lower deduction, but is safer.

    Another important piece is that it looks like you should report the loss on the 2014 tax return (whether as a capital loss or theft loss), but report the entire loss *minus* any amount with a reasonable chance of recovery. As of the end of 2014, from what had been reported by the Trustee, only about 10-22% or so had a reasonable chance of recovery (as it was believed that there were assets valued at no more than about $4.1M, with $17.2M in claims, and perhaps ~50% going to professional fees). However, it looks now like quite a bit more money could be recovered. So while claiming 78% or a bit more as a loss (the other 22% having a 'reasonable chance of recovery') would likely be acceptable, a lower loss would be more realistic (and prevent you from having a later distribution taxed).

    Also, several people have mentioned "Safe Harbor" rules for victims of Ponzi schemes. I am quite confident that those rules do not apply in this situation (as they seem to only apply where you send money to someone for them to invest, where they promise to pay interest). So if you happen to come across references to them, feel free to ignore them (unless you think I am mistaken!).
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  5. #85
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Here is the latest on Tulving and wire fraud, I wonder if this will be more than a slap on the wrist:


    Things have been very quiet since mid-March, when the court approved payment of the professionals. Then, the DoJ filed criminal charges (1 count of wire fraud) against Hannes Tulving, Jr. and The Tulving Company last month. Hannes Tulving, Jr. signed a Plea Agreement, agreeing to plead guilty.

    I believe that part of the reason for this occurring now is to help transfer the seized coins (with an estimate value ranging from about $3M to $17M) from the Department of Justice to the bankruptcy court. Pending approval from the courts, this will happen, and R. Todd Neilson (the Chapter 7 Trustee) will be responsible for selling the coins and distributing the proceeds. My belief is that Hannes Tulving, Jr. chose to plead guilty in large part to assist in getting those coins to the bankruptcy court.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  6. #86
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    How long does it take to send one of these thieving bastards to jail and will they when they have the chance?


    Hearing Thursday in Criminal Case


    August 18, 2015 2:1PM EST

    On Thursday at 9:30AM there will be a hearing in Charlotte, NC. The purpose is for Mr. Tulving to enter a plea of guilty. Creditors are allowed to go and/or speak (you need to call ahead to speak). According to the U.S. Attorney's office, Mr. Tulving has already plead guilty.

    Because of the guilty plea, there will be no trial. The sentencing date is expected to be within about 6 months to 1 year.

    UPDATE 20 Aug 2015 1:40PM: The hearing was held, and a guilty plea was entered.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  7. #87
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valerb View Post
    Here is the latest on Tulving and wire fraud, I wonder if this will be more than a slap on the wrist:


    Things have been very quiet since mid-March, when the court approved payment of the professionals. Then, the DoJ filed criminal charges (1 count of wire fraud) against Hannes Tulving, Jr. and The Tulving Company last month. Hannes Tulving, Jr. signed a Plea Agreement, agreeing to plead guilty.

    I believe that part of the reason for this occurring now is to help transfer the seized coins (with an estimate value ranging from about $3M to $17M) from the Department of Justice to the bankruptcy court. Pending approval from the courts, this will happen, and R. Todd Neilson (the Chapter 7 Trustee) will be responsible for selling the coins and distributing the proceeds. My belief is that Hannes Tulving, Jr. chose to plead guilty in large part to assist in getting those coins to the bankruptcy court.

    Here is the latest on those mysterious Tulving coins and what a decision the investors have to make and how did Tulving get his hands on 12,539 US Mint defective coins to begin with. That question isn't answered:


    Error Coins to go to Creditors

    December 2, 2015 3:00PM EST

    R. Todd Neilson, the Chapter 7 Trustee, has filed a motion regarding his proposed plan for liquidating the coins seized by the Secret Service.
    The coins are divided into 2 categories: 12,539 Presidential Error-Missing Edge Letter Coins, and roughly 175,000 non-error coins. The error coins are the ones that if auctioned all at once would likely reduce their value significantly (taking a number of years to auction to preserve the value).

    If approved by the court, Mr. Neilson plans to auction the non-error coins (with the proceeds going to creditors), and give the error coins an official valuation of $7,367,235 -- and distribute those error coins to creditors. Creditors would be free to do whatever they wanted with those coins: keep those coins, sell or auction them right away, sell or auction them in a few years, etc. Alternatively, there would be an option where a creditor could choose not to receive the coins, but have them auctioned along with the non-error coins (and receive his/her share of the auctioned error coins).

    This does seem to be a reasonable proposal. One thing to be aware of is that there is no indication of where the $7.3M valuation stands compared to previous valuations. The coins were originally described as "worthless" (which we knew to be untrue), then had a $3M valuation (without the error coins being noted), and then valuations of $11.3M and as high as about $20M. They were reportedly on Tulving's books at about $17M, based on the wholesale value. But there is no way to tell if the non-error coins have a value of nearly $3M, or over $10M -- nor is there a way to know where the valuation of the error coins lies (on the high side, low side, or somwhere in the middle).

    What needs to be noted is that when the error coins are distributed to creditors, their claim will go down by the estimated value of the coins. So if you have a claim of $10,000, you'll get about 8 error coins (worth about $4,800 per the $7.3M valuation) and your claim will now be $5,200. My understanding (as a non-lawyer) is that would limit your future distributions to a maximum of $5,200. So if the error coins end up being worth less than the $4,800, you cannot get a full recovery.

    This means the lower the valuation used for these coins, the better for creditors. Conversely, a valuation that is higher than what they are worth would, from what I can tell, be damaging to creditors. So everything hinges on whether the $7.3M valuation is reasonable.

    To see how this works, imagine the valuation of the error coins was $15M or so (the exact amount owed all creditors). The coins would be distributed to creditors, who would then have a $0 claim (but have those error coins).

    From what I can tell, the valuation does appear to be within reason. The coins (error and non-error) appear to have been on Tulving's books with a wholesale value of about $17M (nearly 2 years ago, however). And the 2 valuations we know of for all the coins were $11.4M and $20M. Combine that with the Secret Services' $3M valuation for all the coins (not knowing of the error coins), and $7.3M seems in line. But without more details, we are left to trust the professionals, but not verify.

    But, we don't know a few things. For example, how could the professional appraisal firm hired by the Secret Services take 12 days to value the coins, and not know there were error coins? That could only happen if the error coins were raw (ungraded). But that is a big problem: the grade of the coins is crucial in determining their valuation (it could easily mean the difference between a $1M or $10M valuation). We also have no idea of exactly what the coins are: the best description appears to be "51,459 Dollar coins in plastic sleeves" -- which covers the error and non-error coins, with no idea on years, and whether they were graded or not (if so, they were almost certainly PCGS-graded). Since the appraisers hired by the government missed lots of error coins, it brings up the question of whether the coins previously used as collateral by CFC may have included error coins?
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  8. #88
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Yes, Tulving gets 30 months in a federal pen without parole, it may not be enough for what he stole, but it is better than nothing!!!

    I only hope the judge that gets ahold of that other thieving dealer that not only stole customer money but also dipped into IRA accounts, really lays into him.



    North Carolina » News

    Department of Justice - U.S. Attorney’s Office - Western District of North Carolina



    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


    Thursday, February 18, 2016

    Federal Judge Sentences Coin And Precious Metals Dealer And His Company For Defrauding Over 380 Customers Nationwide




    CHARLOTTE, N.C. – A coin and precious metals dealer and his company responsible for defrauding more than 380 customers of over $15 million were sentenced in federal court late Wednesday, February 17, 2016, announced Jill Westmoreland Rose, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. sentenced Hannes Tulving, Jr., 60, of Newport Beach, California to 30 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The company was ordered to pay a $10 million fine and was placed on a probationary period of two years. Judge Cogburn reserved his ruling on the amount of restitution owed by Tulving and the company for 90 days.

    Matthew Quinn, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the United States Secret Service, Charlotte Field Division joins U.S. Attorney Rose in making today’s announcement.

    According to the filed court documents and statements made in court, Hannes Tulving was the sole owner, shareholder and president of The Tulving Company, Inc. (Tulving Co.), a California-based business that sold coins, bullion, and other precious metals over the Internet. Court records show that from about August 2013 to January 2014, Tulving and his company executed a scheme to defraud customers nationwide by inducing them to place orders for coins and other merchandise knowing those orders could not be fulfilled. Court records show that the customers paid for the merchandise expecting their orders to be delivered within a certain time frame as advertised on the company’s website.

    Court documents show that Tulving and his company accepted the customers’ payments but failed to deliver some of the merchandise. Instead, they diverted the customers’ payments to fulfill other customers’ orders, to pay company debts and to return the money to previous customers who did not receive their merchandise. According to court documents filed in the case, the defendants defrauded more than 380 victims nationwide of over $15 million. Hannes Tulving and the Tulving Co. each pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in August 2015.

    In handing down Tulving’s sentence, Judge Cogburn noted what a staggering amount of money was stolen from the victims in such a short period of time. He also noted the seriousness of the offense and said that, “People were seriously harmed and their lives are affected. These people saved up money and they were hurt.”

    Hannes Tulving will be ordered to report to the Federal Bureau of Prisons upon designation of a federal facility. All federal sentences are served without the possibility of parole.

    The U.S. Secret Service handled the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Zolot prosecuted this case.
    Last edited by valerb; 18th February 2016 at 14:45.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  9. #89
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    For anyone still interested in the Tulving fiasco, you can find all the updates at: http://about.ag/Tulving.htm

    I haven't been looking into it since his sentencing and there has been so much posted since, but it's a lot of information about the facts and behind the scene details, some speculation.

    click on the Trustee report #8 for some in depth detail from the out going trustee, who was replaced on April 4th.

    My thought from early on was Tulving was hiding money and it still looks that way to me or he was paying off people for who knows what.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  10. #90
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Finally after two years, Tulving is in Prison!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Hannes Tulving in Prison

    April 21, 2016 6:50AM EST

    According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Hannes Tulving is now in prison, in Butner, NC, the location the judge recommended.For those that may not be following the situation closely, there have been concerns based on information recently discovered that Hannes may in fact not be guilty -- which becomes even more unusual since the U.S. Attorney's Office will not respond to queries about it (not even the "No Comment" that they frequently give). Some creditors have contacted the prosecutors with these concerns, and I am not aware of them responding (despite the law, of which the sponsors said "the victim has the right to confer with the Government concerning any critical stage or disposition of the case").
    Last edited by valerb; 21st April 2016 at 20:18.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •