Phenoms going under (1 Viewer)

[Max Power]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

If Zangrilli didn't steal anything, what did he do? He breached his promise to pay out prizes. That unquestionably gives rise to civil liability. But breaches of contract are typically not criminal matters.

Maybe there was criminal fraud involved? Yes, maybe. This is where I have no expertise, and no real opinion. But I think it's a lot more complicated than some people are assuming.

Good post MT. I get where you are coming from on this.

I guess where I'm having my biggest hangup is that it appears Mike was still recruiting for leagues AFTER the point when there was a reasonable chance he would be able to make payouts in full. He started his contract with the developer in NOV 13.... 200K investment... At what point in 2014 did he go 630K in the hole? He was still forming leagues into Sep 2014. I don't see a reasonable businessman throwing money at a product that wont be available until next season while sacrificing his current season, clientele, and future growth. But if he did make the 430k payout AFTER enlisting his last owner, he Technically didn't defraud anyone?

And trying to take Mike up in small claims courts is basically worthless right? Unless you file in Utah, then maybe...

 

[cstu]

He started his contract with the developer in NOV 13.... 200K investment

Any evidence of this?

 

[fatness]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

 

[fatness]

What kind of auctions did Phenoms run?

Bid any amount you want and lose 100% of your entry fees auctions.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

 

[Osaurus]

If it can happen to the Danville Harvest Jubilee, it can happen to anyone.

 

[fatness]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

I disagree.

 

[ROCKET]

I hope this pos Mike gets prosecuted for fraud but I have my doubts as to that ever happening. IF he spent all the entry fees on gambling, hookers, coke or some other vice AND he can't prove that the money was invested into software or some other use for the business then I can see some possible criminal charges being filed.

We are talking close to one million dollars of revenue that he took in thru numerous transactions from all over the US, Canada and God knows where else. The more I think about this the more I can see him being held accountable. He better hope he can substantiate his claims that the money was spent on the business and not his vices. There will be a paper trail that will show where the money went.

The feds will do a thorough investigation and he better hope he covered his rear. To me the chances of him being smart enough to pull this off are slim to none if he just P'd away the $$. This isn't over by any means but it all boils down to him being to substantiate where the $$ went and what it was used for. His biggest concern might be the IRS when all is said and done.

 

[BRONG]

how much of a percentage will the bankruptcy lawyers take?

What bankruptcy?

What money?

I love that people think there is still money out there that they might get back.

Did you even read the thread/emails? Zangrilli said up to 40% is still out there, once they clear things up. Get a clue.

He also said at the beginning there would be a 16 week season and winning owners would be paid. Get a clue, he lies.

Did you not get the email from his legal counsel???

 

[ConnSKINS26]

how much of a percentage will the bankruptcy lawyers take?

What bankruptcy?

What money?

I love that people think there is still money out there that they might get back.

Did you even read the thread/emails? Zangrilli said up to 40% is still out there, once they clear things up. Get a clue.

He also said at the beginning there would be a 16 week season and winning owners would be paid. Get a clue, he lies.

Did you not get the email from his legal counsel???

Are you for real?

 

[buck naked]

He spent from the pool of fees allocated for payouts. This is a crime. It's illegal to run a Ponzi scheme and if he was planning to make payouts from next season's fees then this would also be illegal. Mike will soon be running the Fantasy Male Porn league from prison.

I know what he did. Feel free to let me know when he gets to prison.

 

[5Rings]

This is going to end well... I do agree that the family should be left out of it at this point. But why bash someone if they legally try to get their money back (winner or loser) for entering a contest with no payout?

I'm not bashing anyone...go back through the posts. I've been called an idiot, a fool, someone who doesn't understand what happened here, and I'm sure there's more but I just stopped reading for a while because of all the venom. All this even though I've got more on the line than 99% of the posters in this thread.

I'm calling out the scam of using a terrible situation, people making excuses, making definitive statements about phenoms' intents without support, and fabricating ridiculous analogies to justify chargebacks for 2014 leagues, win or lose. Guys who seem to think it's okay to call Mike's parents and harass them over the actions of their adult son and publish their names, addresses, and telephone numbers on a for cripes sakes public internet board, and telling Hank Doorknob in Quahog, Idaho to show up on their doorstep and demand their $50 back from the fantasy football league.

They conveniently forget that they got a league, got their draft fix, made waiver claims, talked smack, made trades, met some good people, watched the games, endured the highs of winning matchups and the lows of having Alshon Jeffery catch a garbage touchdown to beat them by one point.

There are guys who had funds on deposit and dynasty/keeper league deposits for 2015 who truthfully received nothing for their $. And because of these scams, those people who truly have a legit claim for not receiving any benefit for their money have a reduced likelihood of recovery. And then on top of that, they engage in personal attacks on anyone who calls them out for it.

It's a money grab, pure and simple...get yours while you can. These guys rip Mike for doing something dishonest...and turn around and act dishonestly themselves. You can rationalize it any way you want. Me, I'm gonna lose some $ but I'm at peace with it. It's only money.

Ok, Mike.

I think spyca is Tim. Ignore all other opinions and put your head in the sand, posting the same opinion over and over again while slowly moving into the martyr role.

 

[duckduckgoose]

It really doesn't matter whether the $$ was spent on hookers and blow or rent and a ford focus or on software development...it wasn't his to spend, period. Whether promising prompt payouts and a secure business bank account are legally binding enough to be criminally prosecuted I have not the slightest clue.

 

[BRONG]

how much of a percentage will the bankruptcy lawyers take?

What bankruptcy?

What money?

I love that people think there is still money out there that they might get back.

Did you even read the thread/emails? Zangrilli said up to 40% is still out there, once they clear things up. Get a clue.

He also said at the beginning there would be a 16 week season and winning owners would be paid. Get a clue, he lies.

Did you not get the email from his legal counsel???

Are you for real?

Hello, he was here for over 10 years and knew everybody!

 

[jon_mx]

I doubt if he has filed bankruptcy yet, but he has probably had legal council. I doubt there are legal charges pressed, but it is possible. Mike ran a business for several years which offered real services to his customers, so it is nothing remotely like the case posted above. This is a lot more complicated than a simple case of fraud many of you hope for. I am guessing there are a few issues that are problematic for his bankruptcy filing, like any payments or withdrawals that were recently made. Or there could be legal issues involved, as it is questionable if running such a website is legal. We will see when and if he actually files.

 

[ROCKET]

It really doesn't matter whether the $$ was spent on hookers and blow or rent and a ford focus or on software development...it wasn't his to spend, period. Whether promising prompt payouts and a secure business bank account are legally binding enough to be criminally prosecuted I have not the slightest clue.

It makes a huge difference in persuing criminal charges if the $$ was spent on legitimate expenses or was just blown on gambling or fun. For one, if he blew the money on things unrelated to the business he is in deep sh$t with the IRS. Lets say he blew it all, 1 million $ on whatever and none of it on the business. That then becomes income. So he then owes Uncle Sam 300K +. Bankruptcy isn't going to rid him of that debt. GL to him when they get thru with him.

The problem for him is his business isn't like most where there are tons of assets, debts etc. and there is a lot of cash flowing in all directions. If he stole all that money and can't prove he invested it into the business then that is fraud and bankruptcy won't absolve him of that. Unless he has some very shady and creative accountants or other businesses co-mingled with the FF one he is screwed if all that money just disappeared. Where the money went means everything.

 

[jon_mx]

It really doesn't matter whether the $$ was spent on hookers and blow or rent and a ford focus or on software development...it wasn't his to spend, period. Whether promising prompt payouts and a secure business bank account are legally binding enough to be criminally prosecuted I have not the slightest clue.

It makes a huge difference in persuing criminal charges if the $$ was spent on legitimate expenses or was just blown on gambling or fun. For one, if he blew the money on things unrelated to the business he is in deep sh$t with the IRS. Lets say he blew it all, 1 million $ on whatever and none of it on the business. That then becomes income. So he then owes Uncle Sam 300K +. Bankruptcy isn't going to rid him of that debt. GL to him when they get thru with him.

The problem for him is his business isn't like most where there are tons of assets, debts etc. and there is a lot of cash flowing in all directions. If he stole all that money and can't prove he invested it into the business then that is fraud and bankruptcy won't absolve him of that. Unless he has some very shady and creative accountants or other businesses co-mingled with the FF one he is screwed if all that money just disappeared. Where the money went means everything.

People can legally withdraw money from their business and use for personal uses. It does not neccessarily mean fraud. But yes, if he used that money for personal reasons, there will be a tax liability that the bankruptcy will do nothing for. There may or may not be rules about co-mingling. I kind of doubt it for the type of business he was running, but that is up for the state of Utah to decide. Too many people are assuming too many things about laws they know nothing about.

 

[ROCKET]

It really doesn't matter whether the $$ was spent on hookers and blow or rent and a ford focus or on software development...it wasn't his to spend, period. Whether promising prompt payouts and a secure business bank account are legally binding enough to be criminally prosecuted I have not the slightest clue.

It makes a huge difference in persuing criminal charges if the $$ was spent on legitimate expenses or was just blown on gambling or fun. For one, if he blew the money on things unrelated to the business he is in deep sh$t with the IRS. Lets say he blew it all, 1 million $ on whatever and none of it on the business. That then becomes income. So he then owes Uncle Sam 300K +. Bankruptcy isn't going to rid him of that debt. GL to him when they get thru with him.

The problem for him is his business isn't like most where there are tons of assets, debts etc. and there is a lot of cash flowing in all directions. If he stole all that money and can't prove he invested it into the business then that is fraud and bankruptcy won't absolve him of that. Unless he has some very shady and creative accountants or other businesses co-mingled with the FF one he is screwed if all that money just disappeared. Where the money went means everything.

People can legally withdraw money from their business and use for personal uses. It does not neccessarily mean fraud. But yes, if he used that money for personal reasons, there will be a tax liability that the bankruptcy will do nothing for. There may or may not be rules about co-mingling. I kind of doubt it for the type of business he was running, but that is up for the state of Utah to decide. Too many people are assuming too many things about laws they know nothing about.

My point is IF he did use the money for a legit purpose like a website upgrade then he avoids a lot of ugly scenarios as opposed to have just blown it. I still think the IRS issue will be a huge problem for him.

 

[riggidy]

Since all the money was 90% ours...and he used our money to buy the software. Aren't we all co-owners of the software? If this is the case, don't we have a right to know all about it?

Just thinking about this from a different angle.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

I disagree.

Your link says nothing at all about theft.

 

[BassNBrew]

It really doesn't matter whether the $$ was spent on hookers and blow or rent and a ford focus or on software development...it wasn't his to spend, period. Whether promising prompt payouts and a secure business bank account are legally binding enough to be criminally prosecuted I have not the slightest clue.

It makes a huge difference in persuing criminal charges if the $$ was spent on legitimate expenses or was just blown on gambling or fun. For one, if he blew the money on things unrelated to the business he is in deep sh$t with the IRS. Lets say he blew it all, 1 million $ on whatever and none of it on the business. That then becomes income. So he then owes Uncle Sam 300K +. Bankruptcy isn't going to rid him of that debt. GL to him when they get thru with him.

The problem for him is his business isn't like most where there are tons of assets, debts etc. and there is a lot of cash flowing in all directions. If he stole all that money and can't prove he invested it into the business then that is fraud and bankruptcy won't absolve him of that. Unless he has some very shady and creative accountants or other businesses co-mingled with the FF one he is screwed if all that money just disappeared. Where the money went means everything.

People can legally withdraw money from their business and use for personal uses. It does not neccessarily mean fraud. But yes, if he used that money for personal reasons, there will be a tax liability that the bankruptcy will do nothing for. There may or may not be rules about co-mingling. I kind of doubt it for the type of business he was running, but that is up for the state of Utah to decide. Too many people are assuming too many things about laws they know nothing about.

One thing that will be interesting was that he was personally participating in these leagues.

 

[duckduckgoose]

It's either theft by deception or it isn't. That money wasn't an asset of his to spend on anything other than payouts. I'm no expert in the matter, but I'd guess really its going to come down to prosecutorial discretion, which may or may not be affected by what Mike spent it on (I'd wager all my Phenoms "winnings" on gambling).

 

[fatness]

I doubt if he has filed bankruptcy yet, but he has probably had legal council. I doubt there are legal charges pressed, but it is possible. Mike ran a business for several years which offered real services to his customers, so it is nothing remotely like the case posted above. This is a lot more complicated than a simple case of fraud many of you hope for. I am guessing there are a few issues that are problematic for his bankruptcy filing, like any payments or withdrawals that were recently made. Or there could be legal issues involved, as it is questionable if running such a website is legal. We will see when and if he actually files.

People can legally withdraw money from their business and use for personal uses. It does not neccessarily mean fraud. But yes, if he used that money for personal reasons, there will be a tax liability that the bankruptcy will do nothing for. There may or may not be rules about co-mingling. I kind of doubt it for the type of business he was running, but that is up for the state of Utah to decide. Too many people are assuming too many things about laws they know nothing about.

Thanks for clearing everything up.

 

[jon_mx]

I doubt if he has filed bankruptcy yet, but he has probably had legal council. I doubt there are legal charges pressed, but it is possible. Mike ran a business for several years which offered real services to his customers, so it is nothing remotely like the case posted above. This is a lot more complicated than a simple case of fraud many of you hope for. I am guessing there are a few issues that are problematic for his bankruptcy filing, like any payments or withdrawals that were recently made. Or there could be legal issues involved, as it is questionable if running such a website is legal. We will see when and if he actually files.

People can legally withdraw money from their business and use for personal uses. It does not neccessarily mean fraud. But yes, if he used that money for personal reasons, there will be a tax liability that the bankruptcy will do nothing for. There may or may not be rules about co-mingling. I kind of doubt it for the type of business he was running, but that is up for the state of Utah to decide. Too many people are assuming too many things about laws they know nothing about.

Thanks for clearing everything up.

It is where we are at in the game. People making definitive statements at this point are just showing their ignorance and are really just engaging in wishful thinking. Most cases involving a business going bankrupt have the business using money intended for one thing and pay another. Almost all rob Peter to pay Paul in a desparate attempt to stay afloat. In the vast majority of cases the state does not pursue criminal charges. It is pure speculation at this point which way the state of Utah will go in this case. The odds are probably against it, even if by the letter of the law it is potentially fraud. Trying to hang your hat on a case where the promoter had zero intent of ever booking a band is completely different than this case.

 

[cstu]

It is where we are at in the game. People making definitive statements at this point are just showing their ignorance and are really just engaging in wishful thinking. Most cases involving a business going bankrupt have the business using money intended for one thing and pay another. Almost all rob Peter to pay Paul in a desparate attempt to stay afloat. In the vast majority of cases the state does not pursue criminal charges. It is pure speculation at this point which way the state of Utah will go in this case. The odds are probably against it, even if by the letter of the law it is potentially fraud.

Trying to hang your hat on a case where the promoter had zero intent of ever booking a band is completely different than this case.

If Mike spent the money on something non-business related then wouldn't he have had zero intent of paying out the money?

There's been no evidence that he actually paid a developer $200k, much less the $630k he claimed.

 

[cstu]

The courts will apply the 'Piercing the Veil' doctrine if the creditor can prove either one of two legal theories:

• Undercapitalization. The creditor must prove that the owner intentionally underfunded the entity, when it was formed, to defraud the business's creditors.
• Alter Ego. The creditor must establish that the business owner failed to separate his financial affairs from the entity's financial affairs, and/or observe statutory formalities regarding division of authority within the entity, required meetings, and recordkeeping.

 

[cstu]

941

18 U.S.C. 1343—Elements of Wire Fraud

The elements of wire fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those of the mail fraud statute, but require the use of an interstate telephone call or electronic communication made in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 583 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); United States v. Frey, 42 F.3d 795, 797 (3d Cir. 1994) (wire fraud is identical to mail fraud statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire); see also, e.g., United States v. Profit, 49 F.3d 404, 406 n. 1 (8th Cir.) (the four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are:

(1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money;

(2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud;

(3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and

(4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used) (citing Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit 6.18.1341 (West 1994)), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2289 (1995); United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir. 1994) (two elements comprise the crime of wire fraud: (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud; and (2) use of interstate wire communication to facilitate that scheme); United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 771 (5th Cir. 1994) (essential elements of wire fraud are: (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) the use of, or causing the use of, interstate wire communications to execute the scheme), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 193 (1995); United States v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006 (1st Cir. 1993) (to prove wire fraud government must show (1) scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses, (2) defendant's knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and (3) use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of scheme); United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("Wire fraud requires proof of (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme.").

 

[fatness]

I doubt if he has filed bankruptcy yet, but he has probably had legal council. I doubt there are legal charges pressed, but it is possible. Mike ran a business for several years which offered real services to his customers, so it is nothing remotely like the case posted above. This is a lot more complicated than a simple case of fraud many of you hope for. I am guessing there are a few issues that are problematic for his bankruptcy filing, like any payments or withdrawals that were recently made. Or there could be legal issues involved, as it is questionable if running such a website is legal. We will see when and if he actually files.

People can legally withdraw money from their business and use for personal uses. It does not neccessarily mean fraud. But yes, if he used that money for personal reasons, there will be a tax liability that the bankruptcy will do nothing for. There may or may not be rules about co-mingling. I kind of doubt it for the type of business he was running, but that is up for the state of Utah to decide. Too many people are assuming too many things about laws they know nothing about.

Thanks for clearing everything up.

It is where we are at in the game. People making definitive statements at this point are just showing their ignorance and are really just engaging in wishful thinking. Most cases involving a business going bankrupt have the business using money intended for one thing and pay another. Almost all rob Peter to pay Paul in a desparate attempt to stay afloat. In the vast majority of cases the state does not pursue criminal charges. It is pure speculation at this point which way the state of Utah will go in this case. The odds are probably against it, even if by the letter of the law it is potentially fraud. Trying to hang your hat on a case where the promoter had zero intent of ever booking a band is completely different than this case.

It's you defending Zangrilli, using the usual "you don't know what happened" method.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

http://www.fbi.gov/charlotte/press-releases/2010/ch080910.htm

Concert Promoter Sentenced for Fraud

U.S. Attorney’s Office August 09, 2010

• Eastern District of North Carolina (919) 856-4530

GREENVILLE—United States Attorney George E.B. Holding announced that in federal court today United States District Judge Malcolm J. Howard sentenced JOHN BURTON VICK, JR., 37, of Edenton, North Carolina, to 30 months’ imprisonment followed by three years supervised release. Additionally, the Court ordered restitution of $919,766.00.

A Criminal Information was filed on February 23, 2010. On April 12, 2010, VICK pled guilty to wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

According to the Criminal Information and statements made during the arraignment and sentencing hearings, VICK, used his concert promotion business to defraud the Danville Harvest Jubilee, a non-profit organization, as well as several investors, including investors in California and Wyoming. With regard to the Danville Harvest Jubilee, VICK promised to put on a concert featuring Big and Rich in the summer of 2009 in Danville, Virginia. The Danville Harvest Jubilee wired VICK $75,000 and later an additional $10,000, which he promised to use as an artist deposit and to put the money in escrow. In direct contradiction to this promise, VICK used the money to pay off an unrelated loan. He did not even have an escrow account. Later, VICK faxed a fictitious document purporting to be an offer for the concert. VICK eventually admitted that there were no contracts or offers for any concert in Danville. The concert never occurred and the Danville Harvest Jubilee was never repaid. VICK also defrauded investors from Wyoming and California with promises that he would use investments of $25,000 or multiples of $25,000 for concert-related expenses, returning the money of the investors and paying the investors a fee once the concert was completed. In reality, VICK used the money for salaries to himself and others, for past debts, and for other expenses unrelated to the promised concerts. VICK failed to put on several promised concerts, including multiple concerts by Tracey Lawrence, instead making numerous false statements to investors about his use of their money, his efforts to put on the concerts, and the reasons why the concerts did not occur. VICK’s fraud resulted in losses to investors and the Danville Harvest Jubilee of over $900,000.

Victims from Wyoming and California traveled to Greenville, North Carolin to speak with the court about their losses.

Investigation of this case was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney David Bragdon represented the government.

To me the best method for people to collect their money is to contact the FBI, Utah consumer protection and whatever government agency has jurisdiction. Let them determine if criminal activity has occurred. They have the resources to investigate and follow through if prosecution is warranted. The more people who file complaints, the more likely it is that they will take action.

A kid I grew up with was doing stuff like this. He organized a fake basketball tournament in Western Michigan, collected all the money, loaded the kids up onto a school bus provided to him by a Catholic High School, and left. Got to a certain town, drove the kids around for hours, got out at a local park and played hoops for an hour. Got kids back on the bus and drove them home in time for dinner!

He didn't get jail for that but he did after passing $200k in fake checks. Now he runs a payday loan place!

 

[jon_mx]

I doubt if he has filed bankruptcy yet, but he has probably had legal council. I doubt there are legal charges pressed, but it is possible. Mike ran a business for several years which offered real services to his customers, so it is nothing remotely like the case posted above. This is a lot more complicated than a simple case of fraud many of you hope for. I am guessing there are a few issues that are problematic for his bankruptcy filing, like any payments or withdrawals that were recently made. Or there could be legal issues involved, as it is questionable if running such a website is legal. We will see when and if he actually files.

People can legally withdraw money from their business and use for personal uses. It does not neccessarily mean fraud. But yes, if he used that money for personal reasons, there will be a tax liability that the bankruptcy will do nothing for. There may or may not be rules about co-mingling. I kind of doubt it for the type of business he was running, but that is up for the state of Utah to decide. Too many people are assuming too many things about laws they know nothing about.

Thanks for clearing everything up.

It is where we are at in the game. People making definitive statements at this point are just showing their ignorance and are really just engaging in wishful thinking. Most cases involving a business going bankrupt have the business using money intended for one thing and pay another. Almost all rob Peter to pay Paul in a desparate attempt to stay afloat. In the vast majority of cases the state does not pursue criminal charges. It is pure speculation at this point which way the state of Utah will go in this case. The odds are probably against it, even if by the letter of the law it is potentially fraud. Trying to hang your hat on a case where the promoter had zero intent of ever booking a band is completely different than this case.

It's you defending Zangrilli, using the usual "you don't know what happened" method.

Defending him? No, just telling you the reality of the situtation and pointing out the case you posted has nothing at all to do with what went on here.

 

[alexr]

Been playing phenoms for almost 5 years now. Three things:

1) Mike has become a crook, and deserves to be locked up. There is no way someone "mismanaged" $600K. If you sign a contract for $200K to develop a web site and they don't deliver, you don't pay them another $400K. Mike had the gall to email me back on 12/5 asking folks to invest $100K in his company [now that we know it was bankrupt]. His timing was also perfect. So lets put the pressure on him cause he is just another Bernie Madoff.

2) However, Phenoms FF leagues were the greatest thing since sliced bread. Maybe better. I don't mind losing some money, but everything about Phenoms FF was great - the auction leagues, the deep leagues, the payout %-age, the scoring system, blind bidding, and the way the leagues were managed. What a stupid ### Mike was, he ruined a good thing for everyone including himself. Lets say he had 600 leagues * 12 people * $100per person - thats about $720000 gross. Now lets say the avg payout was 90% so that leaves him $72000 to pay for the web and the paypal fees. So lets say he takes in 6% which means he's only making $40-$50K. Thats not that much money. All Mike had to do was was change a few things (like insist that people dont use paypal/Visa) and maybe lower the payouts and he could double or triple his personal earnings. We'd still play. Mike - you blew a good thing!

3) Most importantly, where does the phenoms community go from here? I really want to do this FF stuff next year, with the same types of leagues and system. If there was safer way to put money into it (am not sold on leaguesafe), I'd do it. Why not have MyFantasyLeague.com partner up with a legit bank to hold the money? All we need some legit bank to be the banker (all money goes to/from the bank). The commissioner would manage "credits" rather than "dollars". Both the bank and the commish would take a small %-age, thus keeping the payouts to 90%. No paypal/Visa (their 3% fees are exhorbitant) allowed.

OK, who is going to do this next year??? There's money to be made for someone who wants to do this.

Lets start a phenoms player web page/blog, or make it part of footballguys.com !

 

[Davewhit]

I agree Alex. I had thought I found my new fantasy football home this year after playing with Antsports for 10 years. Turns out I was dead wrong. But there's no denying that the types of leagues he ran was awesome. I did my first slow auction league this year and it was great. I do believe he wouldn't have lost his customer base if he had decreased the payout percentages by a little bit. Once Antsports went under, he had a lot of customers wiling to play in his leagues. It's really a shame no matter what happened. I'm still pissed I lost over $1000 in this fiasco and want answers and justice done quickly. But like you, I'm also looking to find somewhere else to play next year that is similar to Phenoms. Although, without...ya know....the thievery.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

I disagree.

That's not at all relevant to what you posted or what Maurile stated. That linked story was a pure fraud.

 

[cstu]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

I disagree.

That's not at all relevant to what you posted or what Maurile stated. That linked story was a pure fraud.

Maybe I'm dumb when it comes to legal issues, but what is the difference between failing to put on a show and failing to pay out league winnings?

 

[TheWalk84]

Been playing phenoms for almost 5 years now. Three things:

1) Mike has become a crook, and deserves to be locked up. There is no way someone "mismanaged" $600K. If you sign a contract for $200K to develop a web site and they don't deliver, you don't pay them another $400K. Mike had the gall to email me back on 12/5 asking folks to invest $100K in his company [now that we know it was bankrupt]. His timing was also perfect. So lets put the pressure on him cause he is just another Bernie Madoff.

2) However, Phenoms FF leagues were the greatest thing since sliced bread. Maybe better. I don't mind losing some money, but everything about Phenoms FF was great - the auction leagues, the deep leagues, the payout %-age, the scoring system, blind bidding, and the way the leagues were managed. What a stupid ### Mike was, he ruined a good thing for everyone including himself. Lets say he had 600 leagues * 12 people * $100per person - thats about $720000 gross. Now lets say the avg payout was 90% so that leaves him $72000 to pay for the web and the paypal fees. So lets say he takes in 6% which means he's only making $40-$50K. Thats not that much money. All Mike had to do was was change a few things (like insist that people dont use paypal/Visa) and maybe lower the payouts and he could double or triple his personal earnings. We'd still play. Mike - you blew a good thing!

3) Most importantly, where does the phenoms community go from here? I really want to do this FF stuff next year, with the same types of leagues and system. If there was safer way to put money into it (am not sold on leaguesafe), I'd do it. Why not have MyFantasyLeague.com partner up with a legit bank to hold the money? All we need some legit bank to be the banker (all money goes to/from the bank). The commissioner would manage "credits" rather than "dollars". Both the bank and the commish would take a small %-age, thus keeping the payouts to 90%. No paypal/Visa (their 3% fees are exhorbitant) allowed.

OK, who is going to do this next year??? There's money to be made for someone who wants to do this.

Lets start a phenoms player web page/blog, or make it part of footballguys.com !

+1

Could not have said it better...

As many who have been on this thread know I have said over and over again, while I am still shocked and mad about losing the money, I am even more mad about losing the competitiveness and scoring system/Rosters/Slow drafts that came with Phenoms...

After looking tirelessly for a similar website or league, I gave up, and decided to just host my own playoff fantasy football league. I used MyfantasyLeague, and just copied all the roster size/scoring system from previous Phenom Playoff leagues..

$100 buy-in (using LeagueSafe) with 100% payout (1st- $400 2nd- $200), simple 6 team league, Semi-Slow Draft, starts Tomorrow

Have a couple of phenoms owners already in, If anyone is interested email me ASAP ryanwalker0430@gmail.com and we will get you set up.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

I disagree.

That's not at all relevant to what you posted or what Maurile stated. That linked story was a pure fraud.

Maybe I'm dumb when it comes to legal issues, but what is the difference between failing to put on a show and failing to pay out league winnings?

Vick never intended on putting on a concert and provided his investors with fictitious documents in furtherance of committing a fraud. His intent all along was to defraud his "investors" for his own gain.

It's possible Mike never intended to pay anyone from the start but I was just responding under the assumption that Maurile was making and based on the limited info that we have that it's unlikely he was playing a 10 year long scam. I don't necessarily buy the designer story at all, and I'm not even saying there's no possibility of fraud here, but it's not clear that Mike intended to "steal" the money from the start. My main point however was that fatness' plumber example really didn't make the point he thought it was. In fact it was even less of a theft than what may have happened here. That example was a pure civil breach of contract.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

how much of a percentage will the bankruptcy lawyers take?

What bankruptcy?

What money?

I love that people think there is still money out there that they might get back.

Did you even read the thread/emails? Zangrilli said up to 40% is still out there, once they clear things up. Get a clue.

He also said at the beginning there would be a 16 week season and winning owners would be paid. Get a clue, he lies.

Did you not get the email from his legal counsel???

Are you for real?

He's posting on the internet, isn't he?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Since all the money was 90% ours...and he used our money to buy the software. Aren't we all co-owners of the software? If this is the case, don't we have a right to know all about it?

Just thinking about this from a different angle.

Maybe you guys could take the software and build a killer competitor to MFL. that would be a sweet turnaround.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

and I definitely think that more people should try to argue with Maurile about a legal definition. Good use of your time. You'd be better off spending your time trying to get the rights to that software.

 

[cstu]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

I disagree.

That's not at all relevant to what you posted or what Maurile stated. That linked story was a pure fraud.

Maybe I'm dumb when it comes to legal issues, but what is the difference between failing to put on a show and failing to pay out league winnings?

Vick never intended on putting on a concert and provided his investors with fictitious documents in furtherance of committing a fraud. His intent all along was to defraud his "investors" for his own gain.

It's possible Mike never intended to pay anyone from the start but I was just responding under the assumption that Maurile was making and based on the limited info that we have that it's unlikely he was playing a 10 year long scam. I don't necessarily buy the designer story at all, and I'm not even saying there's no possibility of fraud here, but it's not clear that Mike intended to "steal" the money from the start. My main point however was that fatness' plumber example really didn't make the point he thought it was. In fact it was even less of a theft than what may have happened here. That example was a pure civil breach of contract.

IMO he intended for 9 years to pay out the money and in the 10th year intended to steal it.

It's akin to a concert promoter putting on concerts for 9 years and then doing what the guy in the link did in year 10.

It's fraud whether it happens in year one or year ten.

 

[duckduckgoose]

I don't really get what's so difficult to understand....

I managed a trust/escrow account to remit millions of dollars of retirment contributions every week. I can assure everyone involved in the process knew it wasn't our money to spend on anything other than retirement contributions. It was never considered income. Just because we had access to it didn't mean we could spend it. Didn't matter if it was on other legitimate business expenses or personal drug addictions.

Mike certainly sold Phenoms as partly a secure holding place for the leagues winnings. Whether it will be legally binding or not I don't know, but it certainly seems the very definition of theft by deception and wire fraud and it shouldn't matter one bit what it was spent on.

Did I fantasize about wiring myself a million dollars and crossing into Mexico? Yep. Sure did. Did we joke about such things? Yep. Sure did. But I can assure you not one of us touched a bloody dime of it because it would have been theft (rather easy to trace theft I might add) whether we spent it on web development or gambling on baseball.

 

[Short Corner]

I like the news outlet angle. Just need to find someone locally willing to sink their teeth into it.

This isn't some 16 year old who walked away with $867.

You can swing this story to read "local man collects millions in fantasy football games and leaves thousands high and dry"

Huffington post will publish it if enough people complain. I'm tied up for the next couple days and won't be able to reach out to them.

In relation to paying with paypal. PayPal has a dispute process. If you pay with credit card and it's after 90 days you cannot dispute with PayPal. You would have to contact your card issuer. The card issuer contacts PayPal. PayPal has a chargebacks department that works chargebacks all day long 24/7. The chargeback will come in and PayPal will notify you that you have filed a chargeback with your CC company. PayPal will notify scammer, I mean seller as well.

Scammer will have 7 days to respond. If scammer doesn't respond, PayPal will not be able to provide information to support scammer. Ultimately we should get our money back unless your card issuer states they don't provide protection for services.

Going through PayPal is great because the card issuer won't eat the loss. PayPal will. The card issuer knows this and will want to satisfy their customers. PayPal is trashed upon countlessly and these are reasons they are strict in regards to wanting to know what transactions are for and what not. However, in this situation no amount of risk mitigation really could been in place as he has had such a great track record.

So if you sell an item and PayPal holds the money, think of jerks like this guy who ruins it for everybody.

Just now making my way through this thread. I kind of find this hard to believe. I doubt PP would have been able to stay in business this long with this policy. Maybe I'm wrong though.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

I disagree.

That's not at all relevant to what you posted or what Maurile stated. That linked story was a pure fraud.

Maybe I'm dumb when it comes to legal issues, but what is the difference between failing to put on a show and failing to pay out league winnings?

Vick never intended on putting on a concert and provided his investors with fictitious documents in furtherance of committing a fraud. His intent all along was to defraud his "investors" for his own gain.

It's possible Mike never intended to pay anyone from the start but I was just responding under the assumption that Maurile was making and based on the limited info that we have that it's unlikely he was playing a 10 year long scam. I don't necessarily buy the designer story at all, and I'm not even saying there's no possibility of fraud here, but it's not clear that Mike intended to "steal" the money from the start. My main point however was that fatness' plumber example really didn't make the point he thought it was. In fact it was even less of a theft than what may have happened here. That example was a pure civil breach of contract.

IMO he intended for 9 years to pay out the money and in the 10th year intended to steal it.

It's akin to a concert promoter putting on concerts for 9 years and then doing what the guy in the link did in year 10.

It's fraud whether it happens in year one or year ten.

You could make that argument against about almost any business that went under. It is not how the legal system generally looks at things. Mike showed good faith in conducting his business for a number of years, and in all likelihood the legal system will view this more as a failed business than a case of criminal fraud. The state will probably view it as a civil matter.

 

[JohnnyU]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

I disagree.

That's not at all relevant to what you posted or what Maurile stated. That linked story was a pure fraud.

Maybe I'm dumb when it comes to legal issues, but what is the difference between failing to put on a show and failing to pay out league winnings?

Vick never intended on putting on a concert and provided his investors with fictitious documents in furtherance of committing a fraud. His intent all along was to defraud his "investors" for his own gain.

It's possible Mike never intended to pay anyone from the start but I was just responding under the assumption that Maurile was making and based on the limited info that we have that it's unlikely he was playing a 10 year long scam. I don't necessarily buy the designer story at all, and I'm not even saying there's no possibility of fraud here, but it's not clear that Mike intended to "steal" the money from the start. My main point however was that fatness' plumber example really didn't make the point he thought it was. In fact it was even less of a theft than what may have happened here. That example was a pure civil breach of contract.

IMO he intended for 9 years to pay out the money and in the 10th year intended to steal it.

It's akin to a concert promoter putting on concerts for 9 years and then doing what the guy in the link did in year 10.

It's fraud whether it happens in year one or year ten.

You could make that argument against about almost any business that went under. It is not how the legal system generally looks at things. Mike showed good faith in conducting his business for a number of years, and in all likelihood the legal system will view this more as a failed business than a case of criminal fraud. The state will probably view it as a civil matter.

Not if private investigators can prove he misused funds for such things as gambling.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

I disagree.

That's not at all relevant to what you posted or what Maurile stated. That linked story was a pure fraud.

Maybe I'm dumb when it comes to legal issues, but what is the difference between failing to put on a show and failing to pay out league winnings?

Vick never intended on putting on a concert and provided his investors with fictitious documents in furtherance of committing a fraud. His intent all along was to defraud his "investors" for his own gain.

It's possible Mike never intended to pay anyone from the start but I was just responding under the assumption that Maurile was making and based on the limited info that we have that it's unlikely he was playing a 10 year long scam. I don't necessarily buy the designer story at all, and I'm not even saying there's no possibility of fraud here, but it's not clear that Mike intended to "steal" the money from the start. My main point however was that fatness' plumber example really didn't make the point he thought it was. In fact it was even less of a theft than what may have happened here. That example was a pure civil breach of contract.

IMO he intended for 9 years to pay out the money and in the 10th year intended to steal it.

It's akin to a concert promoter putting on concerts for 9 years and then doing what the guy in the link did in year 10.

It's fraud whether it happens in year one or year ten.

It's really hard to make any definitive legal arguments without having hardly any facts - which I think was Maurile's point. I realize people are (rightfully) angry at Mike Z. right now, but we really don't know what is intents were (or if/when they changed) or what actually happened at this point.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

I disagree.

That's not at all relevant to what you posted or what Maurile stated. That linked story was a pure fraud.

Maybe I'm dumb when it comes to legal issues, but what is the difference between failing to put on a show and failing to pay out league winnings?

Vick never intended on putting on a concert and provided his investors with fictitious documents in furtherance of committing a fraud. His intent all along was to defraud his "investors" for his own gain.

It's possible Mike never intended to pay anyone from the start but I was just responding under the assumption that Maurile was making and based on the limited info that we have that it's unlikely he was playing a 10 year long scam. I don't necessarily buy the designer story at all, and I'm not even saying there's no possibility of fraud here, but it's not clear that Mike intended to "steal" the money from the start. My main point however was that fatness' plumber example really didn't make the point he thought it was. In fact it was even less of a theft than what may have happened here. That example was a pure civil breach of contract.

IMO he intended for 9 years to pay out the money and in the 10th year intended to steal it.

It's akin to a concert promoter putting on concerts for 9 years and then doing what the guy in the link did in year 10.

It's fraud whether it happens in year one or year ten.

You could make that argument against about almost any business that went under. It is not how the legal system generally looks at things. Mike showed good faith in conducting his business for a number of years, and in all likelihood the legal system will view this more as a failed business than a case of criminal fraud. The state will probably view it as a civil matter.

Not if private investigators can prove he misused funds for such things as gambling.

Who is going to come up with the $$$ to chase that goose?

 

[Warrior]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

I disagree.

That's not at all relevant to what you posted or what Maurile stated. That linked story was a pure fraud.

Maybe I'm dumb when it comes to legal issues, but what is the difference between failing to put on a show and failing to pay out league winnings?

Vick never intended on putting on a concert and provided his investors with fictitious documents in furtherance of committing a fraud. His intent all along was to defraud his "investors" for his own gain.

It's possible Mike never intended to pay anyone from the start but I was just responding under the assumption that Maurile was making and based on the limited info that we have that it's unlikely he was playing a 10 year long scam. I don't necessarily buy the designer story at all, and I'm not even saying there's no possibility of fraud here, but it's not clear that Mike intended to "steal" the money from the start. My main point however was that fatness' plumber example really didn't make the point he thought it was. In fact it was even less of a theft than what may have happened here. That example was a pure civil breach of contract.

IMO he intended for 9 years to pay out the money and in the 10th year intended to steal it.

It's akin to a concert promoter putting on concerts for 9 years and then doing what the guy in the link did in year 10.

It's fraud whether it happens in year one or year ten.

Because 10 is a round #, right?

 

[Warrior]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

I disagree.

That's not at all relevant to what you posted or what Maurile stated. That linked story was a pure fraud.

Maybe I'm dumb when it comes to legal issues, but what is the difference between failing to put on a show and failing to pay out league winnings?

Vick never intended on putting on a concert and provided his investors with fictitious documents in furtherance of committing a fraud. His intent all along was to defraud his "investors" for his own gain.

It's possible Mike never intended to pay anyone from the start but I was just responding under the assumption that Maurile was making and based on the limited info that we have that it's unlikely he was playing a 10 year long scam. I don't necessarily buy the designer story at all, and I'm not even saying there's no possibility of fraud here, but it's not clear that Mike intended to "steal" the money from the start. My main point however was that fatness' plumber example really didn't make the point he thought it was. In fact it was even less of a theft than what may have happened here. That example was a pure civil breach of contract.

IMO he intended for 9 years to pay out the money and in the 10th year intended to steal it.

It's akin to a concert promoter putting on concerts for 9 years and then doing what the guy in the link did in year 10.

It's fraud whether it happens in year one or year ten.

You could make that argument against about almost any business that went under. It is not how the legal system generally looks at things. Mike showed good faith in conducting his business for a number of years, and in all likelihood the legal system will view this more as a failed business than a case of criminal fraud. The state will probably view it as a civil matter.

Not if private investigators can prove he misused funds for such things as gambling.

Also, not if unicorns can prove that leprechauns used wands for such things as magic. There is no private investigator.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I don't do criminal law, but I think I know enough to know that any potential criminal liability here seems like a rather complicated issue.

Zangrilli might have "stolen" the money in a casual, colloquial, informal, metaphorical sense. But he didn't literally steal it.

Stealing is taking money without permission. People voluntarily authorized payments to Phenoms. No theft involved there.

Example: I paid you $100 to fix plumbing. You spent it on software development. You did not have permission to do that.

I don't agree that there wasn't theft there.

BTW I'm sure Maurile is an excellent plumber.

Your example, makes Maurile's point. You would have a civil action based in contract law against the plumber in your example...no criminal charges would be filed. What he spent your money on is irrelevant. He did not perform under your bargained for contract: plumbing work in exchange for a cash payment.

I disagree.

That's not at all relevant to what you posted or what Maurile stated. That linked story was a pure fraud.

Maybe I'm dumb when it comes to legal issues, but what is the difference between failing to put on a show and failing to pay out league winnings?

Vick never intended on putting on a concert and provided his investors with fictitious documents in furtherance of committing a fraud. His intent all along was to defraud his "investors" for his own gain.

It's possible Mike never intended to pay anyone from the start but I was just responding under the assumption that Maurile was making and based on the limited info that we have that it's unlikely he was playing a 10 year long scam. I don't necessarily buy the designer story at all, and I'm not even saying there's no possibility of fraud here, but it's not clear that Mike intended to "steal" the money from the start. My main point however was that fatness' plumber example really didn't make the point he thought it was. In fact it was even less of a theft than what may have happened here. That example was a pure civil breach of contract.

IMO he intended for 9 years to pay out the money and in the 10th year intended to steal it.

It's akin to a concert promoter putting on concerts for 9 years and then doing what the guy in the link did in year 10.

It's fraud whether it happens in year one or year ten.

You could make that argument against about almost any business that went under. It is not how the legal system generally looks at things. Mike showed good faith in conducting his business for a number of years, and in all likelihood the legal system will view this more as a failed business than a case of criminal fraud. The state will probably view it as a civil matter.

This isn't the cash stream of a regular business that went under though. The prize money was never revenue for Phenoms to use. What Phenoms did is more similar to a lawyer using their trust fund account, or a non-profit using their endowment funds to fund operations. That would be a major issue for those organizations and if the authorities look into the Phenoms issue more they will see the same thing.

 

[Warrior]

It's been painful watching you guys take this from point A (reality) to point B (assumptions, guesses, and outright making things up).

As a completely unbiased party who has read most of the pages in this thread, here's what I've concluded to be the most likely situation and outcome:

The guy was a good commissioner, but a moron. He screwed up royally by thinking he could create his own platform and keep the costs down. He's probably going broke because of it. He'll never spend a second in jail for this, he'll just lose his business. No relaxing on an island somewhere and no getting violated in prison.

None of you will hire a private investigator, there will be no class action lawsuit. If it makes you all feel better, continue to say that he'll be prosecuted, he'll go to prision, karma will come back and get him, unicorns will trample his family, etc. Just be aware, that's only a coping mechanism and not based in reality.

I suggest chalking this up as a loss and moving on. Beyond filing chargeback claims with your credit cards and maybe getting $50 here and there if you're lucky, no 'justice' will come of this. Relieve your cognitive dissonance in other ways. Go to the gym or buy a pinata. Rambling on for another 50 pages based only on speculation and guesses isn't accomplishing anything.