[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.