[syavask]

Had a merchant on the board, saw that he got $20k from Prime Funding Direct and wired back $37,500 the same day so we requested an agreement from Prime to see what's going on..

They funded him for $25k, $5k fees netting him $20k, payback $37,500 with a daily of $1,875 so basically 20 days deal at 1.5 and 20% fees. At the same time he got a contract from ARKHAM Funding Direct, LLC (AFS) for $150,000 at 1.18 rate with no fees and they promised him that as soon as he pays off the first $25k contract, they'll wire him $150k as per the second contract. So ofc he paid them off the same day and ofc they didn't send him anything after. The guy behind it all is Anthony Foder based in Staten Island it seems like. Found a website for AFS but looks like owners listed there don't even exist..
The merchant is a hard-working immigrant just trying to make a living and obviously it's his fault for falling into a trap and taking this **** but wtf is happening to this industry.. I see this happening more and more to our merchants everyday and looks like it won't stop anytime soon.. But regardless just wanted to let y'all know to stay away from these people.

[Olderguy]

It's all fake. Saw the same thing happen this week. Client got a fake second offer.

[closer129]

Had a merchant on the board, saw that he got $20k from Prime Funding Direct and wired back $37,500 the same day so we requested an agreement from Prime to see what's going on..

They funded him for $25k, $5k fees netting him $20k, payback $37,500 with a daily of $1,875 so basically 20 days deal at 1.5 and 20% fees. At the same time he got a contract from ARKHAM Funding Direct, LLC (AFS) for $150,000 at 1.18 rate with no fees and they promised him that as soon as he pays off the first $25k contract, they'll wire him $150k as per the second contract. So ofc he paid them off the same day and ofc they didn't send him anything after. The guy behind it all is Anthony Foder based in Staten Island it seems like. Found a website for AFS but looks like owners listed there don't even exist..
The merchant is a hard-working immigrant just trying to make a living and obviously it's his fault for falling into a trap and taking this **** but wtf is happening to this industry.. I see this happening more and more to our merchants everyday and looks like it won't stop anytime soon.. But regardless just wanted to let y'all know to stay away from these people.

I been seeing this over the last several months or more. This will never stop until these merchants smarten up and do not take these deals. If one person gets busted then they get someone else to do it under there name or they use fake names.

[EdwinS]

No, this will stop when the actual MCA lender and all of its investors, are actually held accountable for all the damages caused to the merchant due to the lie by the broker. Yes, the MCA company and all of its investors, are DIRECTLY responsible for what lies the broker tells to get a deal done.

Once an example is made of the MCA and their investors, you will see how fast this trend will stop. Until this happens, the pattern will not stop- because the MCA company (and its investors) are hiding behind the protection of "oh, we are not responsible for what the broker told you"... ohhh really? How convenient. So you see, the MCAs actually want these deals to come in, and yet (in their little minds) be held not responsible for it. The ONLY one responsible is the MCA and its investors, because its' their bogus high interest rates that is creating this toxic environment.

[simonwein12]

No, this will stop when the actual MCA lender and all of its investors, are actually held accountable for all the damages caused to the merchant due to the lie by the broker. Yes, the MCA company and all of its investors, are DIRECTLY responsible for what lies the broker tells to get a deal done.

Once an example is made of the MCA and their investors, you will see how fast this trend will stop. Until this happens, the pattern will not stop- because the MCA company (and its investors) are hiding behind the protection of "oh, we are not responsible for what the broker told you"... ohhh really? How convenient. So you see, the MCAs actually want these deals to come in, and yet (in their little minds) be held not responsible for it. The ONLY one responsible is the MCA and its investors, because its' their bogus high interest rates that is creating this toxic environment.

Problem with that is that it is basically impossible to fully control and know what every broker is saying to their merchants. Normally on Funding call we confirm the exact deal the merchant is getting… If any funder is caught pushing the Bait and switch LOC on funding call then they should be dead to rights.

[Yankeeman07]

No, this will stop when the actual MCA lender and all of its investors, are actually held accountable for all the damages caused to the merchant due to the lie by the broker. Yes, the MCA company and all of its investors, are DIRECTLY responsible for what lies the broker tells to get a deal done.

Once an example is made of the MCA and their investors, you will see how fast this trend will stop. Until this happens, the pattern will not stop- because the MCA company (and its investors) are hiding behind the protection of "oh, we are not responsible for what the broker told you"... ohhh really? How convenient. So you see, the MCAs actually want these deals to come in, and yet (in their little minds) be held not responsible for it. The ONLY one responsible is the MCA and its investors, because its' their bogus high interest rates that is creating this toxic environment.

One issue which displays your lack of knowledge"

A MCA funder is purchasing future receivables, and the payback is a "Factor Rate " Not an "Interest Rate"

[Olderguy]

One issue which displays your lack of knowledge"

A MCA funder is purchasing future receivables, and the payback id a "Factor Rate " Not an "Interest Rate"

That's how they get away with 600% "interest" on money. Because a factor rate isn't interest.

$10,000 paid back $15,000 in 20 days is a factor rate of 1.50 X 12 months = 600% interest any way you look at it....you can't put lipstick on a pig.

[EdwinS]

Yes, thank you for brining up the "funding call", with the broker being absent on the funding call, IS the exact setup of the fraud, conveniently setup by the MCA together with the broker. The funding call has no value if the broker is absent from the recorded funding call, so it is a scam setup by the MCA and the broker jointly, to intentionally distribute the "responsibility" factor, making it harder for anyone to be responsible. Because when the fraud is exposed, the broker is nowhere to be found, and the "MCA lender" conveniently says "we do not know what the broker told you, and you didn't say anything on the "funding call". What a perfect scam setup!

You see, the fraud works like this: In these scams, a major part of it is the broker convincing the merchant to not say anything during the "funding call". And during the funding call, the MCA asks "has anyone promised you anything else?". And who do you think "ANYONE" is referring to but the broker? So if that "anyone" IS the broker, why isn't the broker on the call at the same time with the merchant during the "funding call"? The answer is simple- because the funding call, IS the actual main part of the scam orchestrated by the MCA and the broker. It is intentionally done so, so the "blame" is offloaded completely on the merchant, while the main scam entities (the MCA and the broker) cover their tracks.

Therefore, we go back to my original post- The ONLY one responsible in this bait and switch, IS the actual source of funds that generate this toxic environment. This would be the "MCA" funding company along with investors hiding behind it. Hold these people responsible, and you will see how fast this bait and switch stops.

But of course, no one wants this to stop, as the bait and switch is the natural part of the operation, and they WANT their scam to continue, while "not being responsible".

[BR-Nightmare]

Yes, thank you for brining up the "funding call", with the broker being absent on the funding call, IS the exact setup of the fraud, conveniently setup by the MCA together with the broker. The funding call has no value if the broker is absent from the recorded funding call, so it is a scam setup by the MCA and the broker jointly, to intentionally distribute the "responsibility" factor, making it harder for anyone to be responsible. Because when the fraud is exposed, the broker is nowhere to be found, and the "MCA lender" conveniently says "we do not know what the broker told you, and you didn't say anything on the "funding call". What a perfect scam setup!

You see, the fraud works like this: In these scams, a major part of it is the broker convincing the merchant to not say anything during the "funding call". And during the funding call, the MCA asks "has anyone promised you anything else?". And who do you think "ANYONE" is referring to but the broker? So if that "anyone" IS the broker, why isn't the broker on the call at the same time with the merchant during the "funding call"? The answer is simple- because the funding call, IS the actual main part of the scam orchestrated by the MCA and the broker. It is intentionally done so, so the "blame" is offloaded completely on the merchant, while the main scam entities (the MCA and the broker) cover their tracks.

Therefore, we go back to my original post- The ONLY one responsible in this bait and switch, IS the actual source of funds that generate this toxic environment. This would be the "MCA" funding company along with investors hiding behind it. Hold these people responsible, and you will see how fast this bait and switch stops.

But of course, no one wants this to stop, as the bait and switch is the natural part of the operation, and they WANT their scam to continue, while "not being responsible".

I beg to differ here.

Brokers should not be on the Funding Call. Your just enabling the bad apples to take notes on how to coach future Merchants. It's as if to say the UW should be on your sales call to see how you are pitching the Merchant.

Because we all know a vast majority of these reps refer to themselves as the "funder/lender" making it seem like we, the actual funder/lender, are working FOR them.

[EdwinS]

yes, but what is enabling these brokers, is the MCA (and its investors) who are providing the funds and the illegal interest rate motivation which is hiding a loan behind fancy words like "future receivables"; therefore, the MCA and all of its investors are 100% liable for any damage to the merchant, due to any promises made by the broker (regardless of the "funding call" which is main part of the scam to being with conveniently setup by the MCA company).

There is no way around this, if you have real intent in stopping this toxic environment. Once the liability of all damages is shifted to the source of where funds are really coming from, then all of a sudden, this pattern will stop.

And while we are at it- let me see what you think is the responsibility of the "MCA lender" to check the background of the broker?

[BR-Nightmare]

yes, but what is enabling these brokers, is the MCA (and its investors) who are providing the funds and the illegal interest rate motivation which is hiding a loan behind fancy words like "future receivables"; therefore, the MCA and all of its investors are 100% liable for any damage to the merchant, due to any promises made by the broker (regardless of the "funding call" which is main part of the scam to being with conveniently setup by the MCA company).

There is no way around this, if you have real intent in stopping this toxic environment. Once the liability of all damages is shifted to the source of where funds are really coming from, then all of a sudden, this pattern will stop.

And while we are at it- let me see what you think is the responsibility of the "MCA lender" to check the background of the broker?

You're basing this off the initial post author who stated their Merchant was dooped by a "funder." A company no one has heard of that swindled the Merchant.

This wasn't your top funders doing this, it was a nobody. You continue to associate the wrong terminology to the product. This is easily going to turn against you.

9 times out of 10, the common denominator is a "company" (broker and/or funder) that no one knows who the **** it is.

Everyone has a right to their opinions, but your terms and associations to the product are incorrect. In this industry, as much as someone may fight for regulation or fight to abolish it, there is someone working twice as hard to do the opposite.

[syavask]

You're basing this off the initial post author who stated their Merchant was dooped by a "funder." A company no one has heard of that swindled the Merchant.

This wasn't your top funders doing this, it was a nobody. You continue to associate the wrong terminology to the product. This is easily going to turn against you.

9 times out of 10, the common denominator is a "company" (broker and/or funder) that no one knows who the **** it is.

Everyone has a right to their opinions, but your terms and associations to the product are incorrect. In this industry, as much as someone may fight for regulation or fight to abolish it, there is someone working twice as hard to do the opposite.

What surprises me the most is that the guy who owns Prime Funding Direct doesn't even try to hide.. usually, it's almost impossible to find anything about these types of "funders" or their owners, while in this case you just need to google the name and you'll see the face of this scumbag..

[syavask]

yes, but what is enabling these brokers, is the MCA (and its investors) who are providing the funds and the illegal interest rate motivation which is hiding a loan behind fancy words like "future receivables"; therefore, the MCA and all of its investors are 100% liable for any damage to the merchant, due to any promises made by the broker (regardless of the "funding call" which is main part of the scam to being with conveniently setup by the MCA company).

There is no way around this, if you have real intent in stopping this toxic environment. Once the liability of all damages is shifted to the source of where funds are really coming from, then all of a sudden, this pattern will stop.

And while we are at it- let me see what you think is the responsibility of the "MCA lender" to check the background of the broker?

You can't compare a legit funder with a scammer which no one has ever heard of before. My company does background on all the ISOs when signing them and I'm pretty sure any other legit funder does the same thing.

Regarding having brokers on a funding call, this just defeats the purpose of the call.. We usually use it to go over the contract, read the terms, fees etc, make sure merchant understands what they've signed and confirm that they haven't received any promises from the ISO (regarding LOC's, term loans, reduced payments etc.), if it turns out that the broker lied to the merchant, we'd cut them off, no discussion. Also just to clarify, in the MCA world, there's no such thing as "interest rate" or "loan", and that is explained to the merchants as well.

I fully agree with you that funders are 100% responsible when it comes to 20 days deals with the promise of a LOC or a term loan (I don't even think they work with brokers, probably have their own sales people), but you can't blame the whole industry for what those scumbags do, there are many many legit and honest funders out there.

[EdwinS]

Yes, you would cut them off because your fraud would be exposed now, so you cannot continue. The purpose of this fraud is that the MCA company has a broker who convinces a merchant to not say anything on the call, and then the funding call the MCA company takes its chances and preys that the Merchant does not say anything, because when the merchant does not say anything, now the MCA company has it recorded, and is able to "protect" the MCA company and it's investors. In the rare case that the merchant does say something, you cut the losses and do not do the deal. Do you see the fraud setup by this system? It is perfectly designed to try and protect the MCA and its investors, while shifting all the blame on the merchant, while conveniently the broker is missing from the equation. So it's a gamble the MCA/broker take together- they gamble on if the merchant follows the brokers advice and not say anything due to the fake promises or not.

The bottom line is If a merchant is promised a LOC, and has been convinced by the broker to not say anything on the funding call, and that LOC does not come through- the only 2 entities responsible are the broker and the MCA company, because as part of a "responsible/legit" MCA company, comes the responsibility to correctly filter out the ISO's you work with. The defense of "it's not my responsibility" simply does not work. Knowing your ISO and taking responsibility for the broker, IS the responsibility of the MCA company (especially if the broker is a known financial criminal).

But the MCA companies have these delusional assumptions that somehow, they are not responsible because of the their "funding call" where conveniently the one and only entity that has promised the fake deal, is absent from the call. The funding call has no value, if the broker is missing from the funding call. Actually that is part of the scam orchestrated by the MCA company- to intentionally have the broker be absent, which allows the MCA company to tell the merchant later on after the fraud is exposed "you didn't say anything during funding call, so it is not our responsibility"- oh yeah? What a convenient scam setup.

So the only way to correct this, is to hold the MCA funding company responsible for 100% of damages on the merchant regardless of any invalid funding call recording or MCA agreements signed, plus all kinds of punitive penalties until they learn their blistering lesson. a funding call without the broker, or an agreement without the broker on it, has no standing, and in fact, is part of the fraud operation intentionally setup to make sure the MCA company "is not responsible", and this fraud loophole setup must be stopped.

Even in the rare case that the MCA company is some kind of an innocent Saint and really is not involved in this scam with the broker, even in that case the MCA company is 100% responsible. Why? Because it is the MCA company task to know what brokers it is working with.

[Olderguy]

Uhhh...the broker isn't on the contract...the funder and merchant is....The broker is the referral agent....and has no legal place in the agreement between the lender and the merchant.

[EdwinS]

Yes, exactly the point... the perfect setup for a fraud, nicely orchestrated by the MCA and the broker, so that no one is responsible. Yes, the broker conveniently is not on the contract nor on the funding call, the MCA covers its tracks by the "recorded funding call" where the broker is absent. At the end when the fraud is exposed, the broker is nowhere to be found, and the MCA lender somehow claims " they are not responsible"... a fraud cannot be more perfect than this.

You see, fraud is not some mystical creature out there that with two horns on its head that we do not know what it is or how to show it. This setup is exact script of a classic fraud. By definition when fraud happens, the people orchestrating the fraud (the MCA company, its investors together with the broker) do the best to cover their own tracks, and what we have here, is a perfect example of fraud operation.

The fact that there is a recorded funding call, IS the proof for fraud, for the purpose of the funding call is for the MCA company to hope and pray that the merchant is fallen for the trap and does not bring up the broker promises, so that the MCA can cover its own tracks in the fraud through the funding call. Think about it- the only entity that could have promised the merchant a false promise, is the broker, but yet the merchant is cornered into the funding call trap alone, where the MCA and the broker hope the merchant will follow the false promise and do not bring it up. It's like gambling- the MCA and broker are rolling the dice with the merchant, trying to see how it falls out- if the merchant falls for the trap promised by the broker and does not bring up the promise, then the MCA and broker win their gambled bet, since now they have "recorded" merchant not saying anything. If the merchant does say something, they drop the file and move on, since they have their fraud exposed on recorded call.

[BR-Nightmare]

Yes, exactly the point... the perfect setup for a fraud, nicely orchestrated by the MCA and the broker, so that no one is responsible. Yes, the broker conveniently is not on the contract nor on the funding call, the MCA covers its tracks by the "recorded funding call" where the broker is absent. At the end when the fraud is exposed, the broker is nowhere to be found, and the MCA lender somehow claims " they are not responsible"... a fraud cannot be more perfect than this.

You see, fraud is not some mystical creature out there that with two horns on its head that we do not know what it is or how to show it. This setup is exact script of a classic fraud. By definition when fraud happens, the people orchestrating the fraud (the MCA company, its investors together with the broker) do the best to cover their own tracks, and what we have here, is a perfect example of fraud operation.

The fact that there is a recorded funding call, IS the proof for fraud, for the purpose of the funding call is for the MCA company to hope and pray that the merchant is fallen for the trap and does not bring up the broker promises, so that the MCA can cover its own tracks in the fraud through the funding call. Think about it- the only entity that could have promised the merchant a false promise, is the broker, but yet the merchant is cornered into the funding call trap alone, where the MCA and the broker hope the merchant will follow the false promise and do not bring it up. It's like gambling- the MCA and broker are rolling the dice with the merchant, trying to see how it falls out- if the merchant falls for the trap promised by the broker and does not bring up the promise, then the MCA and broker win their gambled bet, since now they have "recorded" merchant not saying anything. If the merchant does say something, they drop the file and move on, since they have their fraud exposed on recorded call.

Your thought process is a mystical creature.

So you mean to tell us EVERY FUNDER out there is knowingly committing this fraud? Yes or No answer is welcomed.

[Olderguy]

The government will eventually make MCA fundings illegal the way they currently operate so the problem will go away. Loan officers will have to take courses and pass a test like the NMLS and will be held responsible. Loan officers will have to be sponsored by brokers will be insured against fraud by posting a bond with the state.

[sweetleadz]

The government will eventually make MCA fundings illegal the way they currently operate so the problem will go away. Loan officers will have to take courses and pass a test like the NMLS and will be held responsible. Loan officers will have to be sponsored by brokers will be insured against fraud by posting a bond with the state.

linkedin.com/in/tony-fader
Website
scholar.google.com/citations?user=nWzxxGsAAAAJ&hl=en (Personal)

[BR-Nightmare]

The government will eventually make MCA fundings illegal the way they currently operate so the problem will go away. Loan officers will have to take courses and pass a test like the NMLS and will be held responsible. Loan officers will have to be sponsored by brokers will be insured against fraud by posting a bond with the state.

If their was a way to impose checks & balances for Funders that can go through a process of certification to conduct their business along with an annual certification system for Brokers, then maybe we can turn the page to become more acceptable and responsible.


But for now we have to distinguish those that do right and those that don't and stay in the know.

[EdwinS]

No, not every funder is. But to show a good funder is not involved in fraud operation, they must stand up in cracking down on MCAs who are up to no good and hold them responsible for paying the financial damages caused to the merchants due to the false promises. if you brush this off and say "oh well, this is the merchants problem", then you are no different than the MCA/broker pair who did the fraud. Also, if you claim to be clean funder, and it turns out your broker made false promises to the merchant when it comes out, and you do not stand up to cover the losses of the merchant, then you are no different than the broker. The MCA company and all of its investor must be personally liable for all damages to the merchant if there was a lie anywhere in the deal (regardless of the MCA agreement or the funding call).

[EdwinS]

That would be great, but not enough. all merchants who have been damaged, must be properly compensated by the industry first.

[Inquisitive]

It sounds like you’re a merchant that was taken advantage of by a bad broker or funder. If that’s the case I feel bad for you. It doesn’t make everyone else responsible for what happened to you. It was the fault of whoever took advantage of you. There are security measures taken on a funding to protect the funder that have nothing to do with fraud. For example there are bad merchants just like bad brokers and bad funders. I’ve seen Funders get taken advantage of by brokers and merchants as well. It’s unfortunate but if you’re a bad actor it doesn’t make a difference if you’re a broker a funder a merchant a bank a politician you’re just a bad actor. So it sucks that you got taken advantage of but that doesn’t mean the whole industry is fraudulent.

[Inquisitive]

Also if the broker you worked with told you to lie to the funder on the funding call and you lied then you’re just as guilty.

[fundinggrasshopper]

id throw up a list of all the "funders" and "brokers" ive seen engaging in this fraud but they're the same guys on here daily soliciting deals !!! Lol