Merchant Account Underwriting Tools

The Resurrection Of Rachel From Cardholder Services

We have often seen those sanctioned by the FTC return to prohibited activities and, no doubt, with merchant accounts under different names. Yesterday I received a robocall from “Rachel of Cardholder Services.” On checking the number I found dozens of recent consumer complaints about the same call. I’m confident that the below defendants would not have violated the court order of July by re-starting their scam, thus subjecting themselves to the $9,238,155 judgment that was suspended.

“The Federal Trade Commission in July 2013 settled with a set of defendants associated with the A+ Financial Center scheme. They were charged in last year’s joint law enforcement sweep against five companies that made millions of illegal pre-recorded robocalls claiming to be from “Rachel” and “Cardholder Services” and pitching credit card interest rate reduction services.

In the five complaints announced in November 2012, the FTC charged the companies and their principals, Christopher L. Miano and Dana M. Mianom with misleading consumers about their services, calling phone numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, illegally collecting up-front fees, and making illegal robocalls. According to the FTC, the A+ Financial Center defendants told consumers that for an up-front fee of between $495 and $1,595, they would lower their credit card interest rate, often promising rates as low as six percent or even zero percent. But after collecting the fee, the defendants did little if anything to help consumers lower their credit card interest rates, or obtain the promised long-term savings.

The defendants are banned from making robocalls, continuing to pitch unsecured debt relief services, misrepresenting the attributes of any financial product or service, and engaging in abusive telemarketing practices such as calling numbers on the Do Not Call Registry. In addition, the order prohibits the A+ defendants from disclosing or benefiting from their customer lists.”

So, if its not them, then who? Certainly not the individual on W 27th Street in Wilmington, DE to whom the number is registered.

Leave a reply