LoC Global

Richard Provost Accused with Civil Fraud in U.S. Federal Court

Richard Provost

Richard Provost owner, principal, or manager of; Luxury Financial Solutions, Richard Provost Investments, The Property Masters and PMBC Home Buyers has been accused in a civil complaint in United States District Court in California with several counts of civil Fraud.

All described in detail at 8:2017cv01883  Sam Assaf et al v. Robert Carp et al California Central District Court.

Data extracted accurately at Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)

THE PARTIES
4. Defendant LUXURY FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Honolulu, Hawaii.

5. Defendant RICHARD PROVOST is an individual. PROVOST is domiciled in British Columbia, Canada

FACTS
15. On or about June 29, 2017, attorney for Defendants LFS and PROVOST, Defendant ROBERT CARP (CARP) forwarded wiring instructions to Plaintiff RIL for the EUR 650,000 “Commitment Fee.” A true and correct copy of CARP’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit H.

16. On or about June 30, 2017, Plaintiffs provided Defendants EUR 650,000 as they were instructed by CARP.

17. Since that time Plaintiffs have been unable to reach Defendants and each of them for information regarding the deal, the money, or the supposed credit rating and ‘rate lock.’

18. On information and belief, Defendants and each of them defrauded Plaintiffs out of a significant sum of money, breached an existing contract, and converted EUR 650,000.

COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT
21. Despite numerous requests and demands by Plaintiffs, Defendants have refused to refund to Plaintiffs any of the EUR 650,000 nor have they provided any proof that the money was used to receive “conditional approval on the Omega debt facility” and thus breached that agreement.

22. Supporting documents evidence numerous reassurances by Defendants that the EUR 650,000 was to be used to secure a ‘rate lock’ from Deutsche Bank and a credit rating from Moody’s; however, to date, there is no evidence that the money was ever used for this purpose.

23. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ breach of the Agreement including the EUR 650,000 and interest thereon,

COUNT II
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
26. Plaintiff RIL is entitled to a full refund of its EUR 650,000 provided that it was not used for the purpose for which Defendants were contractually obligated to use it for.

27. Defendants have failed to remit to Plaintiff RIL the EUR 650,000 and retained that money for themselves.

28. As a result, Defendants have been unjustly enriched and have benefited at the direct expense of Plaintiff RIL.

COUNT III
CONVERSION

30. Defendants are in possession of property, namely EUR 650,000, belonging to Plaintiff RIL, and despite repeated demands, will not return that property.

31. Plaintiff RIL has suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ conversion of RIL’s property.

COUNT IV
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that Defendants and each of them were aware that each and every other Defendant and each of them planned to defraud Plaintiffs and convert their property.

34. Further, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that Defendants and each of them were in agreement that each and every other Defendant and each of them intended to defraud Plaintiffs and convert their property. Defendant PROVOST required the use of Defendant CARP’s client trust account for the wire transfer and to lend legitimacy to the business dealing. Defendants, collectively, stood to profit substantially from their mutual arrangement.

COUNT V
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
36. Prior to wiring the EUR 650,000 to Defendants, Plaintiffs sought assurances from Defendants that the money was going to be used exclusively for securing a ‘rate lock’ from Deutsche Bank and a credit rating from Moody’s. Defendants provided written representations to Plaintiffs numerous times and on numerous occasions that the money would be used exclusively as such. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are a true and correct representative sample of such representations.

37. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that Defendants made the above-referenced assurances and representations when they knew, or should have known, they were false.

38. Plaintiffs justifiably, reasonably, and detrimentally relied on the written and verbal representations made by Defendants as they held themselves out as experts in the lending industry.

39. Plaintiffs financially suffered as a result of their justifiable reliance on Defendants’ intentional misrepresentations.

40. Had Plaintiff’s known that the representations made by Defendants were inaccurate, false, and misleading, Plaintiffs would not have used Defendants to facilitate the O’Mega yacht deal nor would Plaintiffs have wired Defendants EUR 650,000.

41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that the verbal and written representations made by Defendants were fraudulent misrepresentations designed to lure Plaintiff into wiring EUR 650,000 to Defendants.

COUNT VI
FRAUD BY INDUCEMENT
43. Prior to wiring the EUR 650,000 to Defendants, Plaintiffs sought assurances from Defendants that the money was going to be used exclusively for securing a ‘rate lock’ from Deutsche Bank and a credit rating from Moody’s. Defendants provided written representations to Plaintiffs numerous times and on numerous occasions that the money would be used exclusively as such. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct representative sample of such representations.

44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that Defendants made the above-referenced assurances and representations when they knew, or should have known, they were false so as to induce Plaintiffs’ use of Defendants to facilitate the O’Mega yacht deal and to wire them EUR 650,000.

45. Plaintiffs justifiably, reasonably, and detrimentally relied on the written and verbal representations made by Defendants as they held themselves out as experts in the lending industry.

46. Plaintiffs financially suffered as a result of their justifiable reliance on Defendants’ intentional misrepresentations.

COUNT VII
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
49. Prior to wiring the EUR 650,000 to Defendants, Plaintiffs sought assurances from Defendants that the money was going to be used exclusively for securing a ‘rate lock’ from Deutsche Bank and a credit rating from Moody’s. Defendants provided written representations to Plaintiffs numerous times and on numerous occasions that the money would be used exclusively as such. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are a true and correct representative sample of such representations.

50. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that Defendants made the above-referenced assurances and representations when they knew, or should have known, they were false thereby concealing their true intentions of converting and absconding with Plaintiffs property.

51. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that Defendants concealed the following essential and important information and facts in an effort to profit at Plaintiffs’ expense:
a. They had no relationship with Deutsche Bank;
b. They had no relationship with Moody’s Analytics; and
c. They had no intention of using Plaintiffs’ money for securing a rate lock or credit rating.

52. Plaintiffs justifiably, reasonably, and detrimentally relied on the written and verbal representations made by Defendants as they held themselves out as experts in the lending industry.

53. Plaintiffs financially suffered as a result of their justifiable reliance on Defendants’ intentional misrepresentations.

54. Had Plaintiff’s known about the concealed facts, Plaintiffs would not have used Defendants to facilitate the O’Mega yacht deal nor would Plaintiff have wired Defendants EUR 650,000.

55. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that the verbal and written representations made by Defendants were fraudulent misrepresentations designed to lure Plaintiffs into wiring EUR 650,000 to Defendants.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Popular News

To Top