Tulving in Trouble

My misread – TWICE (two convictions) + one more to follow, later in 2016? = will become "thrice." The Wheels of Justice grind on...

1) In FTC v. Hannes Tulving Rare Coin Investment, Inc., Civ. No. 3:90-mc-06565 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 1990), Tulving was accused by the Federal Trade Commission of overpricing rare coins and going back on return guarantees, and defrauded clients out of more than $40 mln. Tulving settled with the FTC in 1992 and agreed to pay $1.3 mln.

2) In “United States V. Hannes Tulving, Jr. and Tulving Company, et al.” before Judge David Keesler (8/20/2015 in Charlotte, NC) the defendant Hannes Tulving, Jr. plead guilty. On 2/17/2016, U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. sentenced Hannes Tulving, Jr., 60, of Newport Beach, California to 30 months in prison and three years of supervised release.

3) PENDING CASE: The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) charged Tulving on 9/11/2015 with fraudulent solicitation and misappropriation in connection with the precious metals markets.
http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7228-15


You believe the independent appraiser's estimate. That was understood.

“I believe the DOJ Et Al seized coins which they had appraised at $3M, which an independent defense appraiser stated to be $11,384,000.”

I don't believe sociopaths normally admit they're wrong - and I haven't read Tulving's apology to any victims who lost their life saving either, anyone?

I'm curious how many people here still actually believe Tulving is NOT a “fraudster, a schemer, a thief, a liar and a cheat”? Hmm. That’s exactly why, like others on the Collectors Universe forum (https://forums.collectors.com/), I am also inclined to presume Hannes will eventually be back in business & doing it again lol

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

IM, it appears that Tulving TRIED to keep the business afloat, he wasn't siphoning off $$$ for his personal use. That seems to be the gist of that investigative journal, right ?

 

The essence of the report is that the CFTC knowingly? embellished the truth, thus: "Previously, they said that Tulving "never actually purchased precious metals" (which, ironically, is exactly what Bullion Direct says Tulving did). The CFTC removed that completely from the new court documents. It kind of makes sense that they would remove that claim, since records show that Tulving bought well over $100M of metal during the period in question. How does one buy $100+M of metal and not actually purchase it?

The CFTC also added a bunch of qualifiers, especially the word "some". Previously, they made it sound like no Tulving customer got their metal (when in fact, over 99% of orders were fulfilled since Tulving began operations)."

I believe it can be established that the Tulving site instructions/statements could be misconstrued as charged, to mislead buyers into believing that Tulving had on-site PM available for "over-night" shipment. The site instructions respectively often stated that PM would be shipped in the future, inferred from an "out-source", occasionally with an approximate stated delayed shipping period.

I don't believe that the charges of premeditated thievery could be supported in any past/future trials, probably the reason for allowing a minimal plea and sentence.

JMHO

 

Well Stated!! I can accept your perspective in believing something, but not in stating that your beliefs are reality.

Having been intimately involved with clients of Hannes, and the individual himself, I understand the premise for charges against him, and believe that an objective investigation as I suggested to be read would disclose possible selective embellishment by prosecutors who had to establish a conviction, regardless of facts.

I believe you'll find that the prosecutors knew their failings, as outlined by the independent "investigator", ultimately accepting a lesser plea from Hannes. There wasn't a trial of full disclosure, but a believed agreement/plea that the "Tulving" site document had stipulations/statements that were occasionally misconstrued. Here again it isn't a surety that an objective trial would have resulted in a conviction of the initial charges if the independent investigator findings were allowed.

I've no opinion of the value/assessment for assets proposed to be returned to those damaged, but know it would be greater than any I've ever received in a similar incident, as reported in the 14 year Paypal delay of "damages" for their intentional thievery which needs to be currently proven by the victims. No charges, no apology, no complaints from observers other than Paypalsucks.com.

Regardless, I do agree with your past summation that Hannes Tulving was a less than perfect businessman.

JMHO

 

CFTC is woefully understaffed to regulate, let alone investigate. Their biggest success is shaking down big Wall Street firms for $$$ who'd rather pay than litigate and get smeared in the press for nonexistent violations. Trust me, I know.

These clowns didn't have any inkling about REFCO...what a debacle.

 

The bankruptcy trustee has sued Levon Gugasian, the Tulving landlord, for $1.9M.

Among other things, it alleges that The Tulving Company (with the landlord's knowledge) defrauded the IRS by lowering the rent on 2 greatly-above-market leases and raising another lease from market to greatly-above-market. And there was $450K paid in rent/expenses for a building that it appears The Tulving Company never used (it had been used by car repair shops).

There were a number of reasons for the 2 1/2 years. It started at Level 28, which would be about 6-8 years. The government moved to take that down 2 levels for cooperation, which would be 63-78 months. The judge ended up going down an extra 3 levels for cooperation, and an extra 4 levels for health reasons. There were other influencing factors as well. For example, it was brought up that the Chapter 7 Trustee did an analysis that revealed a "pattern of deception" on the part of some Tulving employees, at least one of whom refused to talk to the Trustee.

 

He will be out in a couple of years and probably selling again.

 

Anybody who buys from him in the age of the Internet has no one to blame but themselves.

 

If it's not him, it will be somebody else. There are enough slow learners to keep these guys in business. The threat of federal prison apparently doesn't deter them.

 

I think you got that here:
http://about.ag/tulving.htm

That AboutAg character is full of it; in the past, he's peddled garbage theories and nonsense around the Internet - and he's still a defender of Hannes. Utterly despicable!

The "mysterious debt" appears much less sinister now we all know it was tax fraud/ accounting shenanigans w/ the landlord, a couple of million dollars. The devil's in the details though, and now AboutAg must eat crow: Tulving was insolvent and in crisis back in 2010, according to the latest revelations. It stands to reason, Tulving started "borrowing" his customers' stored custodial bullion as far back as 2010, trying to keep his company afloat. By late 2010, Tulving also secretly structured whatever loans from the landlord - so we know (and now even AboutAg can no longer deny it!) Tulving was million$ deep in debt by 2011. As custodial customers "sold" in 2012 and 2013, Hannes had to juggle ever more furiously - and the earliest warnings he had ALREADY stolen-from-Peter-to-pay-Paul appeared in sporadic complaints from Summer 2012. What's the normal squeaky wheel complaint ratio: 1/25 disgruntled customers? Tell-tale signs of the Tulving Fraud were mounting in August 2012...

AboutAg has and continues to vigorously defend Tulving in the face of obvious chicanery, thusly: "He didn't have yachts or mansions or a Rolls Royces!" I laughed reading that - although it's probably immaterial to the victims, and how Tulving spent the money is irrelevant, this "private investigator" betrays an incredible naïveté that can scarcely be believed in 2016.

Nevermind the classic behavior (permanent short-tempered rage, gross/ pathological irresponsibility, catastrophic money probs, etc., etc.) and a long-standing, secret, furtive financial drain which could easily exceed $200k a year... over the decades it sure adds up.

Tulving never slept.
Tulving never slept.
Tulving never slept?

There's a word for people like that, and no it isn't precisely insomniac: that's just a symptom. Oh yeah, everyone admits his "health issue" but has anyone here seen his doctor's records? Plus, he got time off for "coming clean" and agreed to court supervision, lol, that sounds familiar too.

I'm guessing the forensic investigator didn't want to broach the obvious because it might damage Tulving's reputation, or something like that... and it's considered a disability - gotta stay pc, too!

Where do you think the money went?

 

FYI Re: Disability

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/1693344/site_id/1#import

I believe you'll find that his previous legal problems were implemental in the current practices of several firms publishing "price guides" with inferred repurchase practices. These similar practices seemingly are intent to lead buyers as Tulving had, that the coins could be returned at a stated schedule value, which isn't factual. These practices were implemental in the Minnesota bullion statutes requirement of full value bonding.

JMHO

 

Exactly.

There is a lot more to it that hasn't been made public yet. For example, *nobody* is talking about his wealthy business partner, who could be liable for the entire amount.

 

No, but he did state "I accept full and complete responsibility for all my actions in this case."

And has anyone thought about why someone would go to prison without appealing it, if someone had taken millions of dollars out of the company? He was charged with taking orders that he knew could not be fulfilled as advertised. Yet 85% of the orders during the time he is accused of were fulfilled (and over 99% of all orders his company took). He filed for bankruptcy, with a plan in place for a company to sell what was at the time believed to be $17M of coins (about the same as what customers were owed), and would have immediately gotten creditors 25% of what they were owed -- a plan that did not occur because the coins were seized.

 

I'm all about the truth, so please back that up. I think you are thinking of someone else (I debunk those garbage theories, like the guy that told the world that the gold in Fort Knox was stolen one night).

Tulving did not store metal for customers, so there was nothing to "borrow" from except by delaying incoming orders

The problem is that millions of dollars left the company; some are seen in the lawsuit. There was also the $1.7M accounting error. And a line of credit, involving millions of dollars, that may have been paid off around April, 2013 (causing the business to fail), that hasn't even come up in court documents.

If Hannes was responsible for those millions of dollars of losses, I'll go ahead and eat crow. When I make a mistake, I admit it. If someone else was responsible, would you be willing to eat crow?

For the health issue, I have seen details. As for where the money went, that's the $17M question the government failed to answer: the DoJ and CFTC both can only come up with the money going to customers and to pay business debt.

 

Never did and never would now do business with him.

 

You're not the only one! With the high minimum orders (slightly over $10K at the end), and his reputation for not being willing to "hand hold" customers ("Which should I buy, Eagles or Maples?"), a lot of people would not do business with him. But for those that did, he saved them a lot of money over the years (until the end, at least).

 

He will be out of the federal slammer before this discussion ends.

 

I wonder how people would react if the government said he had a partner who was in nearly full control of the company and chose to release Hannes? It would be interesting, wouldn't it.

 

He will have to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence.

 

Sounds like he will be in the slammer a good while.

Has anyone heard when Mark Jaffe of National Gold will be done serving his sentence? Is Paul Simonetti still in the hoosegow?