Case 2:20-cv-09701 Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:1

1 NICOLA T. HANNA
United States Attorney
2 BRANDON D. FOX
Assistant United States Attorney
3 Chief, Criminal Division
STEVEN R. WELK
4 Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section
5 DAN G. BOYLE (Cal. Bar No. Pending)
Assistant United States Attorney
6 Asset Forfeiture Section
1400 United States Courthouse
7 312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
8 Telephone: (213) 894-2426
Facsimile: (213) 894-0142
9 E-mail: Daniel.Boyle2@usdoj.gov

10
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

12

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 WESTERN DIVISION

16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NO. CV 20-9701

Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR FORFEITURE

17
v. 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)
18
$246,000 SEIZED FROM SIGNATURE [U.S.S.S.]
19
BANK ACCOUNT ‘5022, and $41,928
20 SEIZED FROM SIGNATURE BANK
ACCOUNT ‘50520,
21
Defendants.
22

23

24 The United States of America brings this claim against the

25 above-captioned defendants, and alleges as follows:
26 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
27 1. This is a civil forfeiture action brought pursuant to 18
28 U.S.C. §§ 981 (a)(1)(C).
 Case 2:20-cv-09701 Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:2

1 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28

2 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355.

3 3. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

4 § 1395(a).

5 PERSONS AND ENTITIES

6 4. The plaintiff is the United States of America (“plaintiff”

7 or the “government”).

8 5. The defendants are:

9 a. $246,000.00 seized from Signature Bank account ending

10 ‘5022 (the “Signature ‘5022 Account”); and

11 b. $41,928.00 seized from Signature Bank account ending

12 ‘0520 (the “Signature ‘0520 Account”) (collectively, the “Defendant

13 Funds”).

14 6. The Defendant Funds were seized by agents of the United

15 States Secret Service (“USSS”) in this district on or about June 5,

16 2020, pursuant to a seizure warrant issued by the Hon. Karen L.

17 Stevenson, United States Magistrate Judge.

18 7. The Defendant Funds are currently in the custody of the

19 United States Secret Service, where they shall remain subject to this

20 Court’s jurisdiction pending this action.

21 8. The interests of “M.M.” (as defined herein), Artur Hiaeve,

22 Alexandra Hiaeve, David Hiaeve, and Avi & Co. NY Corp. may be

23 adversely affected by these proceedings.

24 EVIDENCE SUPPORTING FORFEITURE

25 Background on Romance and Confidence Frauds

26 9. Confidence frauds occur when a victim transfers money

27 and/or property as a result of being deceived or misled by a

28 criminal. Romance frauds are a type of confidence fraud wherein a

2
 Case 2:20-cv-09701 Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:3

1 criminal typically adopts a fake identity to gain a victim’s

2 affection and trust, and then uses the illusion of a romantic or

3 close relationship to manipulate and/or steal from the victim.

4 Currently, confidence and romance frauds often occur through the

5 internet because it affords fraudsters anonymity, the ability to

6 create multiple false identifies easily, and the freedom to operate

7 between different legal jurisdictions.

8 10. Social engineering is a method used by criminals to

9 manipulate confidence and romance fraud victims into performing

10 certain actions or providing confidential information. When

11 successfully executed, social engineering techniques can cause a

12 victim to send money to someone whom he or she met on a dating

13 website or to provide confidential information such as his or her

14 personal identifiable information and bank account information.

15 11. Individuals committing confidence or romance frauds will

16 often send victims “good faith” payments that are fraudulent in

17 nature. The fraudsters will then request that those good-faith funds

18 be transferred to another bank account, in effect using the victim to

19 launder money, or ask the victim to hold the funds as collateral, in

20 order to give the victim false comfort and lure him or her deeper

21 into the scheme.

22 Evidence Supporting Forfeiture

23 12. M.M. is an individual residing in Santa Monica, California.

24 M.M. is retired, and was widowed in or about April of 2019.

25 13. Following the death of her spouse, M.M. began seeking new

26 relationships through online dating. In or about September 2019, M.M.

27 was contacted by an unidentified individual using the name “Robert

28 Ankeny” (hereinafter “UI-1”) on the dating website Match.com. Over

3
 Case 2:20-cv-09701 Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:4

1 the next several months, M.M. and UI-1 began an online relationship.

2 M.M. and UI-1 never met in person or communicated via live video chat

3 applications or software, and only communicated through telephone

4 conversations, text messages, Skype messages and emails.

5 14. M.M. sent or received substantially all of these

6 communications with UI-1 while present in Los Angeles County,

7 California.

8 15. In fact, UI-1 had misappropriated the identity of Robert

9 Ankeny, a real person believed to reside in Pennsylvania. At no time

10 was the real Robert Ankeny in communication with M.M.

11 16. In the course of these electronic communications, UI-1

12 represented to M.M. that he was traveling to Turkey to begin

13 construction of a hospital. In or about November of 2019, UI-1 asked

14 M.M. to help him financially with funding the construction efforts of

15 the hospital, stating to M.M. that his own funds for the project were

16 stuck in a Turkish bank, and that he was unable to access them. Based

17 on UI-1’s representations, M.M. wired $20,000 to a bank account

18 provided by UI-1.

19 17. In or about the same period in November 2019, M.M. received

20 a $25 million check addressed to “Robert Ankeny” via the United

21 States Postal Service (”USPS”). UI-1 represented to M.M. that the

22 check was a partial payment for the purported hospital construction

23 in Turkey, but that he could not deposit it into any Turkish

24 financial institutions, and requested M.M. hold onto the check for

25 him. M.M. was directed by UI-1 only to hold the check, and not to

26 attempt to deposit the funds.

27 18. As described above, the sending of “good faith money” is a

28 common ruse used by criminals perpetrating confidence or romance

4
 Case 2:20-cv-09701 Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:5

1 frauds to lull a victim and abate suspicion. The idea is to appear to

2 transfer a large amount of money to the victim for safekeeping, in

3 order to convince the victim that the fraudster has more than enough

4 money and that the victim need not worry about being defrauded. In

5 reality, the good faith money is often illusory or does not actually

6 belong to the fraudster. In M.M.’s case, the check sent by UI-1 was

7 ultimately determined not to be valid.

8 19. Shortly after the above-mentioned $20,000 wire transfer,

9 UI-1 told M.M. that he had been arrested by Turkish officials

10 following a construction accident. UI-1 claimed to be incarcerated,

11 but stated that he was able to communicate with M.M. via his mobile

12 telephone and email, and sent her a photograph purporting to show

13 himself in jail.

14 20. During the time period she was communicating with UI-1, in

15 or about October 2019, M.M. also was contacted through Match.com by

16 another currently-unidentified individual using the name “Sean Buck”

17 or “Scott Buck” (hereinafter “UI-2”). During the course of their

18 conversations, UI-2 represented to M.M. that he was an Admiral with

19 the United States Navy, and was stationed on an aircraft carrier in

20 the Middle East. M.M. never met UI-2 in person and only communicated

21 with UI-2 electronically, but stated that in some instances she and

22 UI-2 communicated via live chat on Skype, and that during these chats

23 UI-2 would always appear to be dressed in a military uniform.

24 21. M.M. sent or received substantially all of these

25 communications with UI-2 while present in Los Angeles County,

26 California.

27

28

5
 Case 2:20-cv-09701 Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:6

1 22. In fact, UI-2 had misappropriated the identity of Sean

2 Buck, a real person and active duty officer in the United States

3 Navy. At no time was the real Sean Buck in communication with M.M.

4 23. While M.M. believed she was communicating with UI-2 via

5 live chat on Skype, what she was seeing were actually manipulated

6 clips of preexisting publicly-available video of the real Admiral

7 Buck, and not the live video chats that M.M. believed them to be.

8 This technique is often associated with a practice known as “deep

9 fake” videos, where preexisting video footage is altered to create

10 the appearance that the subject pictured is saying or doing things

11 different from that captured in the original video footage.

12 24. Upon being told of UI-1’s purported arrest by Turkish

13 authorities in or about November of 2019, M.M. told UI-2 about UI-1

14 and what had purportedly happened to him while in Turkey. UI-2

15 represented to M.M. that he could use military resources to determine

16 what had happened to UI-1. Days later, UI-2 responded to M.M.

17 stating that he had confirmed that UI-1 had indeed been arrested, and

18 that he (UI-2) wanted to assist in getting UI-1 released from Turkish

19 jail. UI-2 stated that to obtain UI-1’s release, M.M. needed to

20 liquidate any financial instruments she may have and begin sending

21 the money to accounts identified by UI-2.

22 25. In fact, UI-2’s representations were materially false, as

23 UI-2 was not Sean Buck, had no military resources to deploy, and

24 funds sent by M.M. to accounts designated by UI-2 would not be used

25 to obtain the release of UI-1, or anyone else, from Turkish prison.

26 26. Believing that UI-1 was in danger, and believing UI-2’s

27 representation that he could help UI-1, M.M. began to wire money to

28 financial institutions located in Turkey and the United States. M.M.

6
 Case 2:20-cv-09701 Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:7

1 ultimately initiated at least seven wire transfers originating from

2 bank accounts M.M. controlled at JP Morgan Chase Bank and Wells Fargo

3 Bank. Of the seven wire transfers, three were to Valley National

4 bank (“VNB”), a domestic financial institution in the United States

5 (the “Domestic Transfers”):

6 27. UI-2 represented to M.M that the Domestic Transfers would

7 go to accounts of a lawyer in New York who would forward the funds to

8 Turkey to aid in securing UI-1’s release.

9 28. The Domestic Transfers were made into a VNB checking

10 account ending in ‘5107 (the “VNB ‘5107 Account”), held in the name

11 of AVI & CO. NY Corp. Specifically:

12 a. On or about December 27, 2019, M.M. wired $200,000.00

13 from her JP Morgan Chase Bank checking account to the VNB ‘5107

14 Account.

15 b. On or about December 31, 2019, M.M. wired $46,000 from

16 her JP Morgan Chase Bank checking account to the VNB ‘5107 Account.

17 c. On or about January 17, 2020, M.M. wired $41,928.00

18 from her Wells Fargo Bank checking account the VNB ‘5107 Account.

19 29. In total, M.M. wired $287,928.00 to the VNB ‘5107 Account

20 (the Defendant Funds).

21 30. Between December 30, 2019 and January 22, 2020, the

22 Defendant Funds were transferred from the VNB ‘5107 Account to the

23 Signature ‘5022 Account:

24 a. On or about December 30, 2019, $359,580 from the VNB

25 ‘5107 Account was paid by check to the Signature ‘5022 Account. This

26 included the funds from M.M.’s $200,000 wire transfer.

27

28

7
 Case 2:20-cv-09701 Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:8

1 b. On or about January 6, 2020, $511,000 from the VNB

2 ‘5107 Account was paid by check to the Signature ‘5022 Account. This

3 included the funds from M.M.’s $46,000 wire transfer.

4 c. On or about January 22, 2020, $79,706.49 from the VNB

5 ‘5107 Account was paid by check to the Signature ‘0522 Account. This

6 included the funds from M.M.’s $41,928 wire transfer.

7 31. After sending the wire transfers and speaking with her son,

8 M.M. became concerned that she may have been defrauded. M.M.

9 contacted JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo and attempted to recall the

10 wire transfers. One wire transfer from JP Morgan Chase was

11 successfully recalled.

12 32. When M.M. informed UI-2 that she had become concerned and

13 was trying to recall the wires, UI-2 became angry and repeatedly

14 attempted to contact M.M. and demand funds. UI-2 represented to M.M.

15 he never received certain transfers M.M. had initiated, however,

16 M.M.’s bank records show this transfer was successfully executed.

17 33. In or about February 2020, M.M. was still receiving

18 communications from both UI-1 and UI-2. Each continued to request

19 that M.M. send them additional money, but M.M. refused. Both UI-1

20 and UI-2 represented that they would repay M.M. all of her money once

21 they returned to the United States. To date, none of the funds (other

22 than the Defendant Funds) have been recovered or returned.

23 //

24 //

25 //

26

27

28

8
 Case 2:20-cv-09701 Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:9

1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)

3 34. Based on the facts set out above, Plaintiff alleges that

4 the Defendant Funds constitute or are derived from proceeds traceable

5 to one or more violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud). The

6 Defendant Funds is therefore subject to forfeiture to the United

7 States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C).

8 WHEREFORE, plaintiff United States of America prays:

9 (a) that due process issue to enforce the forfeiture of the

10 Defendant Funds;

11 (b) that due notice be given to all interested parties to

12 appear and show cause why forfeiture should not be decreed;

13 (c) that this Court decree forfeiture of the Defendant Funds to

14 the United States of America for disposition according to law; and

15 (d) for such other and further relief as this Court may deem

16 just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this

17 action.

18 Dated: October 22, 2020 NICOLA T. HANNA

United States Attorney
19 BRANDON D. FOX
Assistant United States Attorney
20 Chief, Criminal Division
STEVEN R. WELK
21 Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section
22

23 /s/ Dan G. Boyle

DAN G. BOYLE
24 Assistant United States Attorney

25 Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
26

27

28

9
Case 2:20-cv-09701 Document 1 Filed 10/22/20 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:10