Case Description

LOS ANGELES (CN) — A Burmese entrepreneur, who is a celebrity among the Southeast Asian community in the U.S., is on the hook for $3.2 million in damages for fleecing refugees from Myanmar out of their life savings with false promises of riches from “oil land.”

U.S. District Judge Hernán Vera on Thursday awarded a group of about a dozen defrauded Burmese immigrants $457,000 in economic damages, $1.4 million in punitive damages as well as $1.4 million in treble damages on their racketeering claim against Levi Sap Nei Thang.

“Put simply, Thang’s fraud and racketeering were widespread in scope, despicable in both form and substance, and caused enormous economic harm to the plaintiffs,” the judge said.

Thang, a Burmese immigrant who came to the U.S. in 2001, is a well-known figure in the Burmese American community, with business ventures spanning fashion, books, and perfume. Beginning in 2018, she purchased oil and gas leases, which she never developed, and resold them at steep markups to working-class Burmese refugees with limited English and industry knowledge. Plaintiffs say they were lured in by Thang’s Facebook livestreams, where she claimed insider expertise and pitched the deals as community-boosting opportunities sold at cost.

In one such livestream, Thang claimed that “In the American oil market, I am the only person from Burma. That’s why, if you are from Burma… and are interested in acquiring oil land, I will register for you…”

In addition, she told potential investors: “I will give [the leases] away at the same price I paid when I bought them. I do not need money for profit. Nothing at all.”

At a February bench trial, the Burmese refugees, who work as repairmen, cleaners and restaurant staff, testified they were drawn in by Thang’s claimed expertise and status in their community. They believed they were buying land, not leases, sold at cost out of goodwill, and that Thang and her brother would help with drilling.

“Plaintiffs—first-generation immigrants with limited English fluency, most with no formal education in the United States and no knowledge of the oil and gas industry—relied on Thang’s purported experience in the oil and gas industry and claims about the value of their purchases,” the judge said. “Indeed, Thang represented to several Plaintiffs that she would assist them in profiting from their leases.”

As a result, the plaintiffs drained their savings, only to end up with oil and gas leases they couldn’t develop. Unable to cover annual property taxes, many stopped paying, and the leases were eventually reclaimed by the states.

Thang testified at trial that she had no formal training in the oil and gas industry and that she educated herself by visiting energy company offices, reading magazines, and speaking to people in oil fields, according to the judge’s findings.

She also testified that she has never hired anyone to drill or paid any fees to drill. However, before completing her direct examination, Thang invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Thang’s attorney said they intend to challenge Vera’s order.

“Through handling this case, I have learned that the Burmese people are the most kindhearted and pure souls you’ll ever meet,” Alex Farzan, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said in a statement.  “The defendant knew that very well and exploited my clients and other victims.  My clients refused to enter into a settlement agreement with the defendant because they wanted their day in court.  This was a long battle and we never stopped fighting until justice was served.  We couldn’t be any happier with Judge Vera’s decision.”

A corporate giant like Uber will do just about anything to avoid being held accountable. In Aspoyan v. Uber, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, my office demanded justice for Mr. Aspoyan and Ms. Hakobyar. On September 25, 2022, Plaintiffs, after a night out with friends, sought a safe ride home to their three children. Naturally, Plaintiffs ordered a ride from Uber. During the Uber ride, one of the Plaintiffs grew nauseous and vomited in the back seat of the vehicle. The situation escalated alarmingly when the Uber driver engaged in an inappropriate argument with the Plaintiffs and shockingly and unlawfully stabbed Plaintiffs with a knife, inflicting multiple injuries on both Plaintiffs. 

Uber filed a demurrer, a procedural move often used by large corporations, to dismiss this case before it even reached trial. This demurrer posited a range of legal arguments, attempting to prove that Uber could not be held liable for the actions of its driver.

Drawing on legal precedents from Flores v. AutoZone W., Inc. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 373, 379-380, I successfully argued that the Uber driver’s assault on Plaintiffs was not “purely personal” but rather outgrowth of the driver’s relationship with Uber, thereby exposing Uber to potential vicarious liability. This legal strategy referenced key principles outlined in Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 510, 907 P.2d 358 which established that an employee’s willful, malicious, and even criminal torts may fall within the scope of his or her employment for purposes of respondeat superior, even though the employer has not authorized the employee to commit crimes or intentional torts. 

The Court’s ruling on the demurrer marked a significant turning point in our case against Uber. In a resounding victory for the Plaintiffs, the Court overruled Uber’s demurrer on all grounds. This decision was not merely a legal triumph but a testament to the Law Office of Alex Farzan’s commitment to justice and fairness, regardless of the opponent’s size or influence.   

You can view my firm’s opposition brief HERE.

What good are judgment awards if the plaintiff cannot collect them?  In Kim v. Chang, filed in Los Angeles superior court, my office was able to get justice for Ms. Kim, who was unable to collect on a six-figure judgment she was awarded against Mr. Chang over ten years ago.  Mr. Chang had stopped making payments on his debt to Ms. Kim and began hiding his assets in a corporation he formed years later.  However, because the corporation was not a party to the original judgment, Ms. Kim could not legally seize the corporation’s assets—that is, until my law firm got involved.  I successfully argued that the outside reverse corporate veil piercing doctrine should apply to single shareholder corporations, a case of first impression in California.  This allows a corporation to be held liable for the debts of its shareholders.  

Relying on Curci Investments, LLC v. Baldwin, 14 Cal. App. 5th 214 (2017), I successfully argued that the outside reverse corporate veil piercing doctrine should apply to single shareholder corporations, a case of first impression in California.  The doctrine, borrowed from other jurisdictions, allows a corporation to be held liable for the debts of its shareholders if: (1) normal judgment collection procedures do not apply; (2) innocent shareholders are not involved; and (3) legal remedies are not available to the judgment creditor.  Id. at 220-24.  Retroactively adding the corporation to the judgment does not violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution because the plaintiff is simply substituting the name of the proper defendant.  Misik v. D’Arco, 197 Cal. App. 4th 1065, 1074 (2011).

I am not afraid to go above-and-beyond for my clients, and once I overcame that legal hurdle, I was able to meet the high burden of proving Mr. Chang and his corporation were really one and the same under California’s alter ego doctrine because Mr. Chang was effectively using his corporation as his personal piggybank.  Accordingly, our office was able to seize Mr. Chang’s corporation’s assets on behalf of Ms. Kim to help satisfy Mr. Chang’s debt and help her get the justice she deserves.

JOLIET, Ill. (CBS) — All of a Joliet man’s Bitcoin went poof, gone, vanished, after a hacker got into his accounts and drained the cryptocurrency.

It all happened because the fraudster hijacked his phone number.

CBS 2’s Morning Insider Tim McNicholas asked the man’s provider for an explanation.

Cryptocurrency can be a gamble. But this was a hand that Phil Michno really didn’t expect.

“I’ve always heard this kind of stuff happen,” Michno said. “And of course you think. ‘Ah that’s not – that’s going to happen to somebody else.'”

In late May, Phil noticed his phone wasn’t working. So he used another phone to call his provider, Boost Mobile.

“They tell me that, oh, we see that you transferred to T-Mobile,” Michno said.

That was news to him. But then came another surprise – he couldn’t get onto his account with a cryptocurrency exchange called Coinbase.

The company would later tell him in an email, “Attackers were able to access your account through sim swap and steal his 3 bitcoin.

By the way, 3 bitcoin is worth more than $100,000.

“Almost all my friends and all my acquaintances say that couldn’t be done,” Michno said.

Not only can it be done, it’s happened to dozens of other people the exact same way. It turns out a fraudster somehow got enough of Michno’s personal information to convince Boost to switch his number to another phone.

That allowed the bad guy even more information, like the security passcodes used to login to banks – or in this case, a cryptocurrency exchange.

Other victims have flooded Reddit with their complaints and even sued Coinbase, but the company insists the breach is never on their end.

That brings Michno to his next question – “Why did boost mobile give my number of away without my authorization?”

We asked Boost about that. They sent a statement saying “port out” scams are rare among their customers, but they are an industry wide issue and they’re taking steps to prevent them.

“I’m glad to see that they’re aware of it,” Michno said, “but they need to fix the problem.”

Michno said they should also pay him back. But the company told us they’re “not liable” because the “fraud involves a hack into a separate account, unaffiliated with Boost.”

As for Michno, he replied, “That was compromised because of the incompetence of boost.”

He plans to sort it out in court.

Michno has reported this to the Joliet police and federal authorities but unfortunately, theft of digital currency is often tough to trace.

This is the full statement that Boost sent us for this story:

“At Boost, ensuring the security of our customers’ data and personal information is a high priority. While ‘Port-Out’ scams involving Boost customers are rare, our goal is to prevent them from happening at all. We know this has been highly frustrating for Mr. Michno, and our team is committed to investigating this issue and discovering how the fraud occurred. “We are continuously evaluating and improving our processes to prevent scams from occurring. Recently, Boost implemented several procedures within our customer care operations to prevent fraudsters from manipulating the system. We appreciate Mr. Michno for bringing this to our attention and sharing his experience with us. These ‘Port-Out’ scams are an industry-wide issue and no carrier is immune. We encourage all mobile users, whether they are a customer of Boost or one of our competitors, to learn how they can prevent these scams from impacting them. Our goal remains delivering an exceptional experience for our customers.” “Also, I wanted to share this resource from the FCC regarding these Port-Out scams. It’s a helpful tool for explaining to consumers how its done and what customers can do to protect their info.

We had some follow-up questions for Boost. Here are the questions and answers:

“You mention that Boost “implemented several procedures…to prevent fraudsters from manipulating the system.” Can you please explain what specific changes were made to increase security?” “These changes include an increase in the information we require from a customer if they need to make changes to their account, including if they would like to request or reset their PIN number.” “You also say you ‘appreciate Mr. Michno for bringing this to our attention.’ Did you know that this kind of fraud happened prior to his case? Also, why was his issue not investigated when he initially reached out to Boost?” “Boost is vigilant about fraud and works to protect our customers while ensuring they can legally access their account information when needed. Boost has investigated this case and found it to be Port-Out fraud. More information on this type of fraud is available via the FCC.” “Is Boost liable for the money that was stolen from his financial accounts because of this fraud?” “No, Boost is not liable for the money that was stolen from his financial accounts because the financial fraud involves a hack into a separate account unaffiliated with Boost. Our customer service team encouraged the customer to continue pursuing the return of his cryptocurrency through channels with the proper oversight. While Boost doesn’t have control over a user’s Coinbase account, customers can find more information on securing their accounts via the Coinbase website, available here.

T-Mobile also sent us a statement:

“Account takeover fraud is an industry-wide problem. These are criminal attacks against wireless customers and it is in everyone’s best interest to stop them. We can’t speak to the process of other companies, but each network has its own requirements for validating intercarrier porting requests. When T-Mobile receives a complaint from a carrier that a number has been ported to our network without the customer’s authorization, we work with that carrier to return the number. “T-Mobile offers our customers a variety of options, including PINs, to help them protect their own information. T-Mobile accounts must have a 6-15 digit PIN, and a T-Mobile number cannot be ported without verification of that PIN. We encourage customers to contact us to discuss security measures available to them. If a customer feels their account was altered against their wishes, they should contact us right away and we will work directly with them to address.”

Coinbase sent us this statement:

“Coinbase acknowledges having your personal information compromised can lead to terrible crimes with significant impact on consumers. With more and more of our personal information available online, it is increasingly important for consumers to understand how to protect their personal email accounts and cell phones from unauthorized third parties. Once a third party gains access to a consumer’s email or phone, that consumer’s other online accounts may also be at risk. That is why Coinbase regularly works to educate our customers about how to protect their personal email accounts and phones — it is the most important thing they can do to prevent unauthorized access to all of their online accounts, not just Coinbase. When a customer reaches out to report a potential breach of their account, we will lock their account as soon as possible, so no further unauthorized activity can take place. “Coinbase thoroughly investigates all incidents of unauthorized access to a Coinbase account, including Mr. Michno’s account. We are unable to provide specific details into the activity of Mr. Michno’s case, due to customer confidentiality, but we can confirm that there was no breach of the Coinbase platform or improper employee action. “With heightened interest in the crypto space, we are seeing an influx of support inquiries. We realize that many of our customers are experiencing delays in our customer support response time, and we acknowledge this is not the experience we want for our customers. Earlier this year, we shared the steps we’ve taken to support an increased volume of customer support requests, including exponentially increasing our support staff, improving self service within the product itself and building additional support channels such as live messaging.” https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/joliet-man-loses-bitcoin-fraudster-hijacks-phone-hacks-accounts/ First published on June 28, 2021 / 7:30 AM © 2021 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Resetting an account’s password is like having your hardware store make a new key to your home. Many use their phone numbers as a way to retrieve temporary codes to change their passwords for convenience. 

But that method is also convenient for thieves looking for ways to access your most important accounts online. In some cases, knowing your name, your phone number and your phone’s carrier are all that a thief needs to inflict real damage. 

NBC 5 Responds found new federal regulations could help better protect you from these kinds of schemes in the future, but for now, it’s wise to implement stronger protection yourself. 

To start, ask yourself: How many accounts do you have tied to your phone number for security? And if someone stole your number, could they gain access to what matters most?

That’s what happened to one man in Joliet, who tells NBC 5 Responds his worst fears came true when out of the blue, his phone stopped working.

“I went to make a call and it wouldn’t make a call,” Phil Michno said. “I log into my email and I wasn’t able to, it said ‘Password Changed.'”

To find out what was going wrong, Michno said the first call he made was to his phone carrier: Boost Mobile. But the call left him with more questions than answers.

“I called Boost Mobile, and I said ‘Hey, what’s going on with my phone? It’s not working.’ And they said ‘Oh, we see that you changed to another company,'” Michno explained. “I said ‘I never changed to another company!'”

Michno said the Boost Mobile representative told him they had received a request – allegedly from him — to transfer his number to another carrier.

But Michno was not the person who made that request, a point he relayed to the new carrier his phone number was moved to in a conference call with Boost Mobile.

What happened to Michno is called “SIM swapping.”

The way SIM swapping works is a scammer, imitating you, convinces your current phone carrier to switch your number to another company through your “subscriber identity module” or SIM.

That SIM is then virtually connected to the thieves’ device, and now, they have access to everything on your phone, including password recovery texts. As they arrive, a scammer is sitting right there, receiving them.

SIM Swapping is a scheme that the Federal Communications Commission reports hundreds of people fall prey to each year.

In Michno’s case, the thieves went for his CoinBase account holding $135,000 of BitCoin, savings he says were meant to be the foundation of his daughter’s college fund.

Michno said when he contacted CoinBase to warn them he had been hacked, they told him it was too late. “They wrote, ‘Oh, we’ve found that you’ve been the victim of a SIM swap.’ And all of your bitcoin has been stolen,” Michno said.

In a statement, CoinBase told NBC 5 Responds it is prohibited from sharing details about Phil’s loss.

In most cases, the company said it “does not cover any losses … due to a compromise of a customer’s login credentials.”

Michno said his case is now in the hands of the FBI and that the Bureau told him many people are falling victim to SIM swapping schemes. And the longer you have had your phone number, the more information a hacker can find that is likely out there and tied to your number.

What happened to you is happening to a lot of people.

– Phil Michno, Savings Stolen After SIM Swap

The FCC said with the number of customer data breaches increasing over the last few years, more customer info, like a person’s phone number and carrier, are accessible in illicit markets on the dark web.

That’s why Michno believes phone carriers have a responsibility in protecting their customer’s information and phone numbers from unauthorized transfers. 

“Boost Mobile gave away my number. They were my carrier, they did not protect my information,” Michno said. “These cell phone carriers need to be responsible for people’s information.”

For its part, Boost Mobile said it is “committed to investigating [Phil Michno’s] issue and discovering how the fraud occurred.”

A company spokesperson also said it recently “implemented several procedures … to prevent fraudsters from manipulating the system.”

Those kinds of customer protections could soon be mandatory across the board in the United States. 

The FCC has proposed rules that would require phone carriers to do much more to authenticate if a customer is really the person requesting a phone number change to a new device.

How to Protect Yourself From SIM Swapping

While new federal rules for carriers could mandate stronger protection, there are some ways you can protect yourself. 

First, contact your phone carrier to see if they offer any kind of protection against unauthorized transfers.

These services are called “number blocking” or “number locking” and sometimes are as simple as checking a box in your profile. If that service is not available, the FCC suggests asking your carrier if you can set up a number or password required in order to transfer your number to a new device.

Another way to protect yourself is to use two-factor authentication for passwords. To learn more, click here.

Original Article Here https://www.nbcchicago.com/consumer/could-it-happen-to-you-thieves-target-joliet-mans-cryptocurrency-savings-through-sim-swap/2677322/