Travel Life Go Direct

Sam Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453



June 2, 2007

Citibank
Debit Card Fraud Department

Control No. 71521623158

Dear Sirs:

I am the victim of a fraud. A total of four e-checks totaling $260.85
have been charged to my Citibank account. I have complained to an
investigator named John in your frauds department and he told me to
write a letter to you with the relevant information.

Each of these e-checks has a number to call for information. I have
called all the numbers. The pattern is the same. They will ask that,
if you want a free trip to Orlando, Florida, please press 1 and so on
to 9.

Finally, I got their customer service person on the line. They said
that they had sent me an offer in the mail. When I did not decline the
offer within seven business days, they had the right to charge my bank
account. The charges to my account come to a total of $260.85.

I asked them how they got my checking account number so as to be able
to charge my account. They told me that they have co-operative
arrangements with 50,000 different stores, including Home Depot and
Walgreens, where they acquire information about customers in those
stores. They said that if I bought something in one of those stores
and paid by check, then the store must have sold my bank account
number to them and that this is perfectly legal.

I told them that this is not possible as I almost never write a check
and when I buy something in a store I pay by cash or credit card,
never by check. The only check I have written in recent years is to
the United States Chess Federation and of course they would never sell
my checking account number.

Then they said that I must be buying something by Pay Direct, where an
amount is deducted from my bank account. I told them that this is not
possible either as I do not have any arrangements to pay for anything
by e-check and I never tell anybody my bank account number.

Here are the details on the four transactions. I demand that you
refund my money and that you investigate and catch the culprits and
put them in jail. Naturally, I am willing to testify in court.

Company Date Check
Number Amount Telephone number

Travel Life Go Direct 05-04-2007 CHECK No. 9798206 $
1.95 866-558-4013

Florida Way Direct 05-17-2007 CHECK No. 9796885 $
149.00 888-799-1880

Travel Life Go Direct 05-24-2007 CHECK No. 9796041 $
59.95 866-558-4013

Lucid Long Distance 05-31-2007 CHECK No. 9797620 $
49.95 877-470-4631


_________
TOTAL
$ 260.85




Very Truly Yours,



Samuel H. Sloan

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:57:56 -0700, samsloan
wrote:

Sam Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453



June 2, 2007

Citibank
Debit Card Fraud Department

Control No. 71521623158

Dear Sirs:

I am the victim of a fraud. A total of four e-checks totaling $260.85
have been charged to my Citibank account. I have complained to an
investigator named John in your frauds department and he told me to
write a letter to you with the relevant information.

Each of these e-checks has a number to call for information. I have
called all the numbers. The pattern is the same. They will ask that,
if you want a free trip to Orlando, Florida, please press 1 and so on
to 9.

Finally, I got their customer service person on the line. They said
that they had sent me an offer in the mail. When I did not decline the
offer within seven business days, they had the right to charge my bank
account. The charges to my account come to a total of $260.85.

I asked them how they got my checking account number so as to be able
to charge my account. They told me that they have co-operative
arrangements with 50,000 different stores, including Home Depot and
Walgreens, where they acquire information about customers in those
stores. They said that if I bought something in one of those stores
and paid by check, then the store must have sold my bank account
number to them and that this is perfectly legal.

I told them that this is not possible as I almost never write a check
and when I buy something in a store I pay by cash or credit card,
never by check. The only check I have written in recent years is to
the United States Chess Federation and of course they would never sell
my checking account number.

Then they said that I must be buying something by Pay Direct, where an
amount is deducted from my bank account. I told them that this is not
possible either as I do not have any arrangements to pay for anything
by e-check and I never tell anybody my bank account number.

Here are the details on the four transactions. I demand that you
refund my money and that you investigate and catch the culprits and
put them in jail. Naturally, I am willing to testify in court.

Company Date Check
Number Amount Telephone number

Travel Life Go Direct 05-04-2007 CHECK No. 9798206 $
1.95 866-558-4013

Florida Way Direct 05-17-2007 CHECK No. 9796885 $
149.00 888-799-1880

Travel Life Go Direct 05-24-2007 CHECK No. 9796041 $
59.95 866-558-4013

Lucid Long Distance 05-31-2007 CHECK No. 9797620 $
49.95 877-470-4631


_________
TOTAL
$ 260.85




Very Truly Yours,



Samuel H. Sloan

Take a look at this!!! The Florida Police raided the place, arrested
the ringleaders and the Federal Trade Commission shut them down, all
because of my complaint!!!

http://fastback.biz/blog/home/blog.php?id=91

Please note: Paul Truong has often claimed that he made millions in
"marketing" while he was living in Florida.

Is it possible that this was the kind of marketing that he was doing?

Sam Sloan

For Release: July 25, 2007
http://ftc.gov/opa/2007/07/suntasia.shtm
FTC Stops Massive, Deceptive Telemarketer

The Federal Trade Commission, with assistance from local police and
the United States Postal Inspection Service, today halted the
operations of a massive, Largo, Florida-based telemarketing scheme
operated by Suntasia Marketing, Inc. The FTC alleges that over the
last several years, Suntasia used at least fifteen different business
names to defraud consumers across the United States out of tens, and
perhaps hundreds, of millions of dollars. According to the FTC, when
Suntasia’s telemarketers called consumers to offer supposedly “free”
trial memberships in discount buyers and travel clubs, they deceived
consumers into divulging their bank account information and later
charged consumers without authorization for a series of negative
option programs. With a negative option agreement, a company takes a
consumer’s silence or failure to cancel as acceptance of the offer,
and permission to bill them.

"The essence of this massive telemarketing scam was simple: trick
people into giving out their checking account numbers, send them a
brochure on a travel and buyers club, take money out of their bank
accounts for as long as possible, and make it very difficult to cancel
and get a refund," said C. Steven Baker, Director of the FTC’s Midwest
Region.

Consumers complained in near-record numbers about Suntasia’s
practices. In total, the FTC collected and reviewed more than 5,000
formal consumer complaints against Suntasia that were submitted to
various law enforcement agencies and the Better Business Bureau.

According to the FTC’s complaint, telemarketers typically began their
sales pitch by indicating that they were calling in regard to the
“banking account” of their “valued customers,” to make consumers
believe that Suntasia was affiliated with their banks. The
telemarketers explained that the consumers had been chosen to receive
a series of “free gifts,” typically a combination of either “$100 in
gas coupons,” “$400 in airlines savings vouchers,” or “two free nights
of hotel accommodations.” Consumers were told that they could keep
these gifts even if they ultimately canceled Suntasia’s negative
option program. These gifts turned out to be laden with undisclosed
conditions and restrictions that rendered them effectively worthless.
Also, the FTC alleges that the defendants honored the “gift” vouchers
only if consumers maintained enrollment in their programs, despite the
telemarketers’ promises.

After offering the “free gifts,” Suntasia telemarketers quickly
attempted to obtain consumers’ account numbers. They indicated that
they needed to “verify” this information to confirm consumers’
eligibility to receive the gifts. Having already pretended to be
affiliated with consumers’ banks, the telemarketers now purported to
already possess consumers’ bank account numbers. They read consumers
their publicly available bank routing numbers, and then asked
consumers to “verify” the remainder of the account number from the
bottom of a check. According to the FTC, many consumers disclosed
their account numbers because they believed they were simply verifying
information that the telemarketers already had. The FTC also alleges
that consumers frequently thought their account number was being
“verified” solely to confirm their eligibility to receive the free
gifts, not to authorize any future charges to their accounts.

According to the FTC’s court documents, after consumers divulged their
bank account number, the telemarketers quickly began recording a
“verification,” asking consumers to repeat the account number they had
just “provided.” At the end of the recording, Suntasia telemarketers
quickly offered consumers two additional negative option programs,
commonly referred to as “upsells.” The FTC alleges, however, that
these “upsell” offers were presented in such a way that consumers did
not realize they were being asked to authorize the purchase of
additional products and services.

The FTC maintains that Suntasia never disclosed key information about
its negative option programs. For instance, the telemarketers did not
tell consumers the date that Suntasia’s charges would be debited from
their accounts, or the telephone numbers consumers must call to cancel
to avoid being charged. Nor did Suntasia tell consumers that they
would be required to call three separate telephone numbers to cancel
the initial program and the two “upsells.”

If Suntasia telemarketers did discuss the length of the free trial
period, they represented that this period would begin only once
consumers received program materials in the mail. The FTC alleges that
Suntasia actually started consumers’ free trial periods on the date of
the sales call, however, meaning that consumers often had little, if
any, time to cancel Suntasia’s programs without being charged.
According to the FTC’s complaint, some consumers did not receive any
program mailings from Suntasia and thus had no opportunity to cancel
before they were charged. In many instances, these consumers received
their first notice of the trial memberships when the defendants began
charging them. In other instances, consumers received the program
mailings only a day or two before their accounts were to be charged.
Suntasia did not provide any consumers with the free trial period that
was promised in their telemarketing calls.
The package consumers received in the mail also disclosed, for the
first time, the telephone number that consumers must call to cancel.
Prior to receiving this package, consumers had no way to contact
Suntasia to cancel or to ask questions. The FTC alleges that in some
instances, Suntasia proceeded to charge the accounts of even those
consumers who canceled its programs. In addition, if consumers
successfully canceled one program, they were not told that they still
may be charged for two other programs, or that they must call
different telephone numbers to cancel each of those programs.

The FTC alleges that the defendants misrepresented their affiliation
with consumers’ banks or other third parties, that they already had
consumers’ account numbers, the starting point and length of the free
trial period, that they would honor consumers’ cancellation requests,
that consumers may easily cancel their participation in a program, and
that consumers are entitled to keep and to use the promised free gifts
even if they ultimately cancel the negative option program. The FTC
also alleges that the defendants failed to disclose, or to disclose
adequately, the following: that the consumer’s account would be
charged unless the consumer takes affirmative action to avoid the
charge, that consumer’s checking account information would be used to
debit their bank accounts, the cost of the programs, the dates the
consumers’ account would be charged, the dates that the trial period
begins and ends, the specific steps consumers must take in order to
cancel, including that consumers must cancel each of the programs by
calling a separate telephone number, and the conditions and
restrictions on the “free gift” vouchers that severely limit their
value and usefulness.

The FTC also alleges that the defendants debited funds from consumers’
accounts without their express verifiable authorization and express
informed consent, and that they did not clearly and conspicuously
disclose that the purpose of their call was to sell goods or services
and the nature of those goods or services, as required by the
Telemarketing Sales Rule. The defendants also allegedly illegally
purchased leads containing consumers’ unencrypted bank account numbers
for use in telemarketing.

At the FTC’s request, a U.S. district court in Tampa has entered a
temporary restraining order that temporarily halts the allegedly
deceptive scheme, freezes the assets of all defendants, and appoints a
temporary receiver over the scheme’s corporate participants. According
to the FTC, the scheme is run by nine interrelated companies that
employ more than 700 people. The defendants charged a FTN
Promotions, Inc., doing business as Suntasia Inc., Suntasia Marketing,
Inc., and Capital Vacations; Guardian Marketing Services Corp, doing
business as Guardian Escrow Service; Strategia Marketing, LLC;
Co-Compliance, LLC; JPW Consultants, Inc., doing business as Freedom
Gold, Variety!, Credit Life, and Freedom Ring ULD; Travel Agents
Direct, LLC, doing business as Travel Agents Go Direct, Florida
Direct, and Lucid Long Distance; Agent’s Travel Network, Inc., doing
business as Florida Passport; Bay Pines Travel, Inc.; Suntasia
Properties, Inc.; Byron W. Wolf; Roy A. Eliasson; Alfred H. Wolf;
Donald L. Booth; Jeffrey P. Wolf; and John Louis Smith II.

The FTC received invaluable assistance in this matter from the United
States Postal Inspection Service and the Largo, Florida Police
Department. The Better Business Bureau of West Florida, Inc., the
Pinellas County Department of Justice and Consumer Services, the
University of Central Florida Police Department, the Miami-Dade Police
Department, and the Department of Commerce's Office of Export
Enforcement also helped with this action.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint was 5-0.
The complaint and temporary restraining order were filed under seal in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, with the
seal lifting today.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has "reason to believe"
that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the
Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint
is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated
the law. The case will be decided by the court.

The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and
unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot,
stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click
http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC
enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other
fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online
database available to more than 1,600 civil and criminal law
enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a
variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Jackie Dizdul
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2472
STAFF CONTACT:
C. Steven Baker, Todd M. Kossow, or Rozina C. Bhimani
312-960-5634