[SBF]

I'm curious to know if Shannon's merchant actually received any equipment...

The Lessee's absolutely did receive the equipment.. and are utilizing it.

[admin]

After reading the FBI documents, Dan Coleman's lease scheme is nearly identical. Caveat Emptor

[admin]

"The equipment-lease applications, which were inflated so that the defendants could obtain lucrative “commissions” for themselves, were submitted along with false invoices that purported to document the sale of computer equipment to the small businesses. The defendants submitted the fraudulent equipment-lease applications because the qualifying criteria were less stringent than for a cash loan. After the lending institutions approved financing for the equipment leases, the proceeds were not used to purchase equipment as promised to the lenders. Instead, the money was used to make improper cash loans to the small businesses and to pay lucrative commissions to employees at CapitalWerks, Brickbanc and the other companies."

[admin]

Dan Coleman has been banned.

[Richard Gomez]

I read the report as well, I agree with you Admin 100%. @Karen37, good detective work. This guy trying to slap people around left & right, what a jerk!

[Karen37a]

I read the report as well, I agree with you Admin 100%. @Karen37, good detective work. This guy trying to slap people around left & right, what a jerk!

Thanks

I called a VP of a bank that I know that does equipment financing to be embarrassed ...he said that sounds like "operation lease fleece, they rounded up a bunch of brokers and its illegal, who the hell did you hear this from"

smh

I didn't blame the df participants I said a client ...geez lol

[MCNetwork]

Shannon should lawyer up. Wasn't she bragging about doing 4 of these transactions??

[Karen37a]

Shannon should lawyer up. Wasn't she bragging about doing 4 of these transactions??

yeah and they called me on the phone( for a referral for hard money and I do not appreciate them trying to con me)....fbi could have been listening

At least they saw...leave me out of this scam and stop trying to find shortcuts and do not participate in defaults

Maybe the original fool got busted somehow and he is trying to round up more people to get in trouble with him

he really cant sell slapping us around...that was the weirdest thing I have ever seen...and I saw alot in my life


Maybe he was the undercover agent all stiff with no sales ability ( this is a jk I hope)thinking we were all going to join in because we are mca brokers lol

[SBF]

After reading the FBI documents, Dan Coleman's lease scheme is nearly identical. Caveat Emptor

Hey, here are the differences between what is in that article and what we do:

The defendants in that article were doing the following:

1. The defendants were having their friends and associates buy shell corps and putting trade lines on them in order to defraud the leasing companies in to thinking that they were real, operating businesses.

1. DIFFERENCE: We do business only with real, operating businesses and NOT shell corps "disguised" as real businesses. We also have no nexus to these business clients. This is not a scheme.

2. The defendants were not providing equipment and were creating phony invoices to get paid on equipment that was "never delivered".

2. DIFFERENCE: Our vendors are absolutely providing the equipment and it is new and in the box.

3. The defendants were having the shell corp phony business lease clients lie and say that they had received the equipment when there was no equipment.

3. DIFFERENCE: Our vendor's clients are signing with either UPS or FedEx for the actual equipment and they actually have it.

4. The defendants also had set up phony bank accounts, phony trade references, and more.

4. DIFFERENCE: Our vendors are doing none of that. They are buying the equipment sitting on a shelf new in the box and then selling it for top value and then rebating back half to the client.
If rebates were against the law then every auto manufacturer would be in prison, as well as half of the manufacturers of other stuff in this world.

Hopefully this clears up any confusion on this matter.

[WestCoastFunding]

Hey, here are the differences between what is in that article and what we do:

The defendants in that article were doing the following:

1. The defendants were having their friends and associates buy shell corps and putting trade lines on them in order to defraud the leasing companies in to thinking that they were real, operating businesses.

1. DIFFERENCE: We do business only with real, operating businesses and NOT shell corps "disguised" as real businesses. We also have no nexus to these business clients. This is not a scheme.

2. The defendants were not providing equipment and were creating phony invoices to get paid on equipment that was "never delivered".

2. DIFFERENCE: Our vendors are absolutely providing the equipment and it is new and in the box.

3. The defendants were having the shell corp phony business lease clients lie and say that they had received the equipment when there was no equipment.

3. DIFFERENCE: Our vendor's clients are signing with either UPS or FedEx for the actual equipment and they actually have it.

4. The defendants also had set up phony bank accounts, phony trade references, and more.

4. DIFFERENCE: Our vendors are doing none of that. They are buying the equipment sitting on a shelf new in the box and then selling it for top value and then rebating back half to the client.
If rebates were against the law then every auto manufacturer would be in prison, as well as half of the manufacturers of other stuff in this world.

Hopefully this clears up any confusion on this matter.

Here’s the thing, there is a ridiculous markup in what is paid by the vendor. So much so that the merchant and two brokers are walking away with serious cash. To do that without informing the financial institution seems illegal. That, to me, is all that matters. Everything else is just extra.

[Karen37a]

Hey, here are the differences between what is in that article and what we do:

The defendants in that article were doing the following:

1. The defendants were having their friends and associates buy shell corps and putting trade lines on them in order to defraud the leasing companies in to thinking that they were real, operating businesses.

1. DIFFERENCE: We do business only with real, operating businesses and NOT shell corps "disguised" as real businesses. We also have no nexus to these business clients. This is not a scheme.

2. The defendants were not providing equipment and were creating phony invoices to get paid on equipment that was "never delivered".

2. DIFFERENCE: Our vendors are absolutely providing the equipment and it is new and in the box.

3. The defendants were having the shell corp phony business lease clients lie and say that they had received the equipment when there was no equipment.

3. DIFFERENCE: Our vendor's clients are signing with either UPS or FedEx for the actual equipment and they actually have it.

4. The defendants also had set up phony bank accounts, phony trade references, and more.

4. DIFFERENCE: Our vendors are doing none of that. They are buying the equipment sitting on a shelf new in the box and then selling it for top value and then rebating back half to the client.
If rebates were against the law then every auto manufacturer would be in prison, as well as half of the manufacturers of other stuff in this world.

Hopefully this clears up any confusion on this matter.

yes ....now you are saying what "we" do...most of us picked up on the fact that you are tag teaming us moving in a pack

No one should give people business who cant say who they are , who they are giving the business to and pay thru a normal banking system.

[Michael I]

potato patato .

[ridextreme]

Hey, here are the differences between what is in that article and what we do:

The defendants in that article were doing the following:

1. The defendants were having their friends and associates buy shell corps and putting trade lines on them in order to defraud the leasing companies in to thinking that they were real, operating businesses.

1. DIFFERENCE: We do business only with real, operating businesses and NOT shell corps "disguised" as real businesses. We also have no nexus to these business clients. This is not a scheme.

2. The defendants were not providing equipment and were creating phony invoices to get paid on equipment that was "never delivered".

2. DIFFERENCE: Our vendors are absolutely providing the equipment and it is new and in the box.

3. The defendants were having the shell corp phony business lease clients lie and say that they had received the equipment when there was no equipment.

3. DIFFERENCE: Our vendor's clients are signing with either UPS or FedEx for the actual equipment and they actually have it.

4. The defendants also had set up phony bank accounts, phony trade references, and more.

4. DIFFERENCE: Our vendors are doing none of that. They are buying the equipment sitting on a shelf new in the box and then selling it for top value and then rebating back half to the client.
If rebates were against the law then every auto manufacturer would be in prison, as well as half of the manufacturers of other stuff in this world.

Hopefully this clears up any confusion on this matter.

then why did you remove your signature?

if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. A scam is a scam.

[WestCoastFunding]

yes ....now you are saying what "we" do...most of us picked up on the fact that you are tag teaming us moving in a pack

No one should give people business who cant say who they are , who they are giving the business to and pay thru a normal banking system.

Yeah, that “we” surprised me.

[Karen37a]

then why did you remove your signature?

if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. A scam is a scam.

I saved the signatures 2 days ago anticipating they would take them down.

They need to Stop trying to con advanced salespeople who have been in finance for years. The people on the Daily funder are not some schlub telemarketers...some of these guys and gals are millionaires with huge successful financial business with millions of dollars in a book of business and billions of assets under management.

[abfunders]

Not trying to stick up for Dan on account that everyone here is more or less sold that he's a fraud. Just to point out, after reading the article, the following:

- Fraudulent lease apps - This program is for real leases (no app). In the pitch Dan sent me, we need to tell the business owners that they have to keep the equipment. Susan testified that they actually received the equipment.
- False invoices - Dan offers real invoices
- Fake equipment vendors - Equipment was never delivered. It was a big network of lies.
- In the article, there were no real merchants: "Adam Zuckerman told Leasing News he set up phony bank accounts, trade references, fake vendors, knew how to fool site inspections, and existed before the days of Lease Police." The merchants that Dan is dealing with are yours and not shelf corps.

It could be that there are "lucrative" commissions, but guess what? MCAs also do, and they're not fraudulent! It's also not legally a loan, but, well.... tell that to the merchants and the media.

Whether or not Dan is doing a "fleece lease" is up to the courts to decide with real evidence if someone would sue him. However, there is a legit way to do it. Why were the equipment financing people giving money to them? Anyway, Dan's program is a rebate, directly from the vendor who shipped the equipment to the business owner via FedEx or UPS.

I'll leave it be at that. Unlike some people who promise to not talk, I promise I will not talk about it anymore. Admin banned him, so that's the last word. I just don't want this ending looking like I was "tricked" into a scam over here.

[Karen37a]

Not trying to stick up for Dan on account that everyone here is more or less sold that he's a fraud. Just to point out, after reading the article, the following:

- Fraudulent lease apps - This program is for real lease apps. In the pitch Dan sent me, we need to tell the business owners that they have to keep the equipment. Susan testified that they actually received the equipment.
- False invoices - Dan offers real invoices
- Fake equipment vendors - Equipment was never delivered. It was a big network of lies.
- In the article, there were no real merchants: "Adam Zuckerman told Leasing News he set up phoney bank accounts, trade references, fake vendors, knew how to fool site inspections, and existed before the days of Lease Police." The merchants that Dan is dealing with are yours and not shelf corps.

It could be that there are "lucrative" commissions, but guess what? MCAs also do, and they're not fraudulent! It's also not legally a loan, but, well.... tell that to the merchants and the media.

Whether or not Dan is doing a "fleece lease" is up to the courts to decide with real evidence if someone would sue him. However, there is a legit way to do it. Why were the equipment financing people giving money to them? Anyway, Dan's program is a rebate, directly from the vendor who shipped the equipment to the business owner via FedEx or UPS.

I'll leave it be at that. Unlike some people who promise to not talk, I promise I will not talk about it anymore. Admin banned him, so that's the last word. I just don't want this ending looking like I'm an idiot over here.

no the courts are not going to decide on someone who is in a Regus office. We are not the police or Sammy the bull Gravano

we just want to place deals and hot have crazy people committing schemes to defraud to default our merchants.

Simple. Learn how to market and sell and you won't create these crazy schemes

[ridextreme]

- Fraudulent lease apps - This program is for real lease apps.

No, Dan stated no app is needed. (Red flag#1).

[Karen37a]

No, Dan stated no app is needed. (Red flag#1).

there were like 30 red flags....some NERD slapping us was the first one

[abfunders]

No, Dan stated no app is needed. (Red flag#1).

Sorry, you're right.
Edited my previous post. No app, just D&B credit pull. The fleece-lease was a fake equipment lease. This is a rebate.

[Karen37a]

Sorry, you're right.
Edited my previous post. No app, just D&B credit pull. The fleece-lease was a fake equipment lease. This is a rebate.

here we go ( i never met so many stupid people in my entire life)

A rebate on what? Air? Who is supplying the funds? ( oh you cant say its a proprietary secret)...he isn't smart enough to use the con job sentence

"its a proprietary secret"

toss in a few "fiduciary responsibilities " and slap and hugs and you will make it to the big leagues

[WestCoastFunding]

- False invoices - Dan offers real invoices

What the FBI said:

“These invoices were designed to trick the lending institutions into paying for non-existent and/or overvalued equipment,” said FBI Special Agent William Bondurant..."

Notice the use of "overvalued". Of course Don is overvaluing the equipment. How else would the merchant net $50,000, broker #1 earn 15 points and broker #2 (Don Coleman) earn untold amount unless the equipment is ridiculously overvalued?

[Ktolbert85]

The Lessee's absolutely did receive the equipment.. and are utilizing it.

According to Dan the equipment stays in the box. smh.

[Sachip24]

Dan Coleman has been banned.

lol I knew it was same guy you banned a while ago with this lease rebate program. I couldn't find the old thread

[MCNetwork]

Ibm_pc_5150.jpg

Lease for only $15,000!!!