Monday, February 18, 2013

Ahmet Sandikci's History Cannot be Hidden

Scammer, Fraud & Con Artist Ahmet Sandikci, aka Ahmet Porsche
The self-proclaimed "world famous rare currency expert" Ahmet Sandikci (aka Ahmet Porsche), who owns Rare Collectables LLC in Florida, has a long history of ripping people off. This Turkish-American favors scamming Americans with stolen goods such as rare currency and then overgrading them (which he has no right, knowledge or power to do) then overprices them.

His online and real reputation is a very bad one and yet he tries to keep posting new content and uploading YouTube videos to push down the Federal Judge ruling of his embezzled more than $3.6 million from business owners who believed him. He also posts new content to try and bring down the many complaints and negative comments and bad reviews.

However, Ahmet Porsche Sandiki cannot hide his history especially because he continues to rip people off. At ebay you will find over-graded rare currency (some are stolen or purchased with money that he stole), gold coins and other rare items that are way overpriced. In his physical store on the Gulf of Mexico side of Florida in Tarpon Springs, you'll find more items that are not legally his yet they are overgraded and Ahmet Sandikci charges way too much. Customers are trusting in him yet do not realized that they are victims. And he has many victims on his long list of those he has scammed and frauded.

You can find the court rulings and transcripts where a Federal Judge has ruled that Turkish Ahmet Porsche cannot discharge stolen money in his bankruptcy and that the assets must be returned to their rightful owners. Be sure to Google his name and the name of his business so that you can find the real history of this man.


Friday, February 15, 2013

Ahmet Sandikci of Rare Collectibles LLC posts videos to drive down bad press

Scammer & Con Man Ahmet Porsche Sandikci Posts Videos & Content in Attempt to Drive Down Negative Press Online
Although criminal Ahmet Sandikci (a.k.a. Ahmet Porsche), owner of Rare Collectibles LLC continues to upload YouTube videos and posts content about himself to help drive down the bad press and negative reports about himself, people from around the nation and internationally continue to post negative feedback, complaints, lawsuits, court transcripts and Judge rulings against him because of his theft, fraud, and criminal actions. 

With the Internet, it's easy to upload things about yourself. Yet it's also easy for unhappy customers, particularly Americans who have been ripped off by this con man. Ahmet Sandiki has stolen from Floridians, overcharged and overpriced rare currencies (some or most that do not belong to him) and have sold them on ebay, conned and used fraud to trick business owners to invest money only to have them discover that they have been cheated. 

Google his name "Ahmet Sandikci" and you'll find that the many, many complaints and negative feedback do not lie. Neither do the words of a court hearing and ruling lie. Below you will find that Ahmet Porsche Sandikci owes some Floridians a lot of money as a federal judge has ruled that the Turkish-American Ahmet cannot discharge what was illegally gained in his bankruptcy. He must pay back $3.69 million and this is just one of the many bad dealings he has been involved in:

The Case No. is 8:11-bk-07915-MGW

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

IN RE:                        
    AHMET SANDIKCI : Case No. 8:11-bk-07915-MGW
    Chapter 7
    Debtor 

DeJAMES BUILDERS OF FLORIDA,  
INC., et al                     
    Plaintiff :  

  vs.                   Adversary 8:11-ap-01151

AHMET SANDIKCI               
 Defendant 

  U.S. Courthouse           
    801 N. Florida Avenue
    Tampa, Florida

    November 29, 2012
    9:42 A.M.

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
[Re: 8:11-ap-01151]
Court's Oral Ruling
Trial on Complaint

B E F O R E:  THE HONORABLE MICHAEL G. WILLIAMSON
              United States Bankruptcy Judge

PROCEEDINGS DIGITALLY RECORDED BY COURT PERSONNEL.
TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE
APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF U.S. COURTS
    ___________________________________


A P P E A R A N C E S:
For the Debtor:     JOEL TREUHAFT, Esquire
Palm Harbor Law Group, P.A.
2977 Alternate 19, Suite B
Palm Harbor, Florida  34683
(727) 797-7799
Joel@PalmHarborLaw.com
For DeJames 
Builders of Florida, 
Inc., Dennis Detrie;
Robert Detrie, Sr.;
Robert Detrie, Jr.;
Detrie Construction, 
Inc., Detrie 
Builders, Inc.;
Montana, Inc., and 
Daniel Schmidt: GREGORY S. WEISS, Esquire
(via telephone)
Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida  33410
(561) 515-1400
gweiss@leopoldkuvin.com

P R O C E E D I N G S
(Whereupon, the hearing commenced at 9:42 a.m.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  Case No. 11-7915, Ahmet
Sandikci; Adversary 11-1151.

Judge, we have Gregory Weiss attending by
telephone.
THE COURT:  Okay.  Mr. Weiss, do you want to make
your appearance?
MR. WEISS:  Yes, Your Honor.  Greg Weiss on behalf
of the Plaintiffs, and I appreciate the Court allowing me to
appear by telephone.
THE COURT:  Certainly.
MR. TREUHAFT:  Joel Treuhaft on behalf of Ahmet Sandikci.

THE COURT:  Thank you.  
And, Marti, is this CourtCall or is this --
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)

THE COURT:  Okay.  Very well.  The Court has
before it --
(The Court requested courtroom to become quiet.)
THE COURT:  Okay.  Very well.  The Court has
before it a final ruling in this case.  The case was tried
by the Court and very well-presented by both sides.  I
considered very carefully the evidence presented and took   
careful notes and considered the testimony of the witnesses
and their demeanor and credibility of the various witnesses.
I reviewed the extensive documentary evidence and
considered carefully the post-trial submissions, both of
which were excellent, on the issues involved.  And based on
that, I'm prepared and will now make my findings of fact and
conclusions of law.

This case involves the not unusual situation of a
fairly complicated series of transactions done without the
assistance of counsel at any stage of the parties' dealings. 
In such cases, a Court must analyze the facts established by
the evidence and determine the legal consequences of the
 parties' actions.

And, here, the facts regarding the parties'
transactions really are not in material dispute.  In fact,
the Defendant admits in his answer that he's indebted to the
Plaintiffs collectively in the amount of $3,691,000, subject
to certain unspecified setoffs.  
The parties have also stipulated that from
November 2, 2007 and March 1, 2008, Dennis and Robert Detrie
transferred $500,000 to the Debtor for the purchase and sale
of rare currency.  Between March 26th, 2008 and August --
excuse me, October 26th, 2008, Dennis and Robert Detrie,
either individually or through entities they owned,
transferred an additional 1.2 million to the purchase and
   
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466

sale of rare currency.  Daniel Schmidt also transferred
$200,000 to the Debtor for the purchase and sale of rare
currency during that same period.  
Some of the funds that Dennis Detrie transferred
to the Debtor were used to buy rare currency for a retail
currency store that Dennis Detrie, DeJames Builders and the
Debtors opened on Worth Avenue in Palm Beach, Florida, in
April 2008.  DeJames Builders paid for the material to build
out the store and also performed the labor.

The Debtor repaid Detrie the initial 500,000 that
was transferred to him, along with some profit, but the
Plaintiffs were never repaid the additional $1.2 that they
transferred, nor do they have any of the currency that was
supposedly purchased with their money.

It is now up to the Court to sift through the
facts to determine what legal construct is most appropriate
for the relationship between these parties.  The parties
dispute the nature of the relationship.  The Plaintiffs say
they had a joint venture with the Debtor.  The Debtor says
that the money the Plaintiffs transferred to him were merely
a series of loans.

Determining whether the transfer of funds was part
of a joint venture or merely a loan or a series of loans is
critical because it affects whether the debt owed to the
Plaintiffs is dischargeable under Section 523(a)(4).
   
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466

523(a)(4) excepts from discharge any debt for fraud or
defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, and
embezzlement or larceny.

There are no allegations of larceny.  So the debt
owed to the Plaintiffs is nondischargeable:  (1) if the
Debtor committed fraud or defalcation while acting in a
fiduciary capacity; or (2) if the debt resulted from
embezzlement.  The Plaintiffs can satisfy the fiduciary
requirement by proving the existence of a joint venture.

And, here, the evidence is overwhelming that the parties
were part of a joint venture or a series of joint ventures. 
To begin with, this issue was previously litigated
in State Court in connection with a motion to appoint a
Receiver and for injunctive relief.  And the State Court
specifically determined that the Debtor solicited DeJames
Builders' involvement as a joint venture partner in retail
are currency business.

The State Court found that:  (1) The parties
agreed that the Debtor would provide the rare currency
expertise and DeJames would provide the capital; (2) The
parties opened a bank account solely for the joint venture
and DeJames funded the opening of the operating account; and
(3) Dennis Detrie was the sole partner onsite operating the
joint venture.

Ordinarily, the findings by the State Court would   
be collateral estoppel.  The Debtor is precluded from re-
itigating that same issue before this Court.  But even if
it weren't, this Court comes to the same conclusion as the
State Court.

The evidence is clear that the parties engaged in
a series of joint ventures in which each would invest in a
joint enterprise to buy rare currency and resell it at a
substantial profit.  The Debtor contributed his alleged
expertise and would perform the service of purchasing the
currency in bulk. And the Plaintiffs provided investment
capital. They would invest in the purchase of rare
currency; it would be resold; the initial capital would be
returned to the Plaintiff; and the parties could split the
profits.

The opening of the Palm Beach store was just
another step in this series of joint ventures.  And as part
of that transaction, Dennis Detrie provided the capital, not
only for acquisition of inventory, but for the start-up
costs and build-out of the Worth Avenue store.  Dennis also
executed the first and second addendum to the lease for the
Worth Avenue store, although that evidence overwhelmingly
supports a finding of a joint venture.

And the reality is, there is no evidence the
parties' relationship was anything other than a joint
venture. To be sure, the parties did sign a series of

JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466

promissory notes as part of the initial transfers of funds. 
But the Court does not give much weight to that, considering
that, as mentioned at the outset, none of the parties were
represented by counsel.  These notes were simply executed to
reflect that money had been transferred and the Plaintiffs
needed some evidence of that.
How the parties framed their pleadings in the
previous State Court filings is also not determinative of
their relationship.  Even if it had some bearing on what the
Plaintiffs really thought, it certainly does not outweigh
the overwhelming evidence of a joint venture.

So, for all of those reasons, the Court concluded
that the parties were engaged in a joint venture.  And
because the parties were part of a joint venture, the Debtor
was acting in a fiduciary capacity in his dealings with the Plaintiffs.

The Court must now turn to whether the Debtor
committed a fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary
capacity. And the evidence is likewise overwhelming that he
did.

The evidence at trial showed that the Debtor
befriended the Plaintiffs; he visited them at their homes;
he invited them to his home for social occasions.  He even
went so far as to buy one of the Plaintiffs' daughters a
birthday present.     

And once he befriended them, he engaged in a
pattern of misrepresentations at every turn in his dealings
with them. He misrepresented his expertise in the rare
currency area.  For instance, he told them he was the most
knowledgeable expert in the field of currency trading in the
United States.  In fact, he had only recent experience in
the field.

He misrepresented -- when he said he was using
their money to buy currency, to the contrary there is no
currency to show for the enormous investment made by the
Plaintiffs, only unfulfilled promise.  
And he lied with respect to specific transactions
in which he overstated the price he paid for rare currency. 

And as a consequence, the Plaintiffs overpaid for the
currency they acquired for the Palm Beach store.  
Perhaps the most egregious transaction was the 
$2-1/2 Indian Head coin transaction.  In that one, the
Debtor represented that the Indian Head coin could be
purchased for 310,000, and that he needed a hundred thousand
from Dennis to match the hundred thousand he was investing
and a hundred thousand that his friend, Mr. Raneire
(phonetic), would be investing.  It was represented that
those coins had a value of $550,000.

In fact, the coins were never graded, which is
significant in the coin industry.  Grading is required to   
determine the value of any coin.  And there was absolutely
no basis upon which the Debtor could make the representation
of value that he made.

He also deceived the Plaintiffs by creating a
catalog in which he listed rare currency that he either
owned or had previously sold as having a value of over 
$1 billion.  He induced the Plaintiffs to continue investing
with him by representing that the market was booming.

The Eleventh Circuit has previously stated that
defalcation refers to a failure to produce funds entrusted
to a fiduciary.  Although, the Court acknowledged that the
precise meaning of "defalcation" for purposes of Section
523(a)(4) has never been entirely clear.  More recently, the
Eleventh Circuit has held that defalcation under 523(a)(4)
requires a showing of recklessness.

The Plaintiffs have more than satisfied that
standard here.  The Debtor's conduct was plainly fraudulent
under Section 523(a)(4).  At a minimum, it was grossly negligent.  
As a consequence, the Court concludes that the
Debtor committed a fraud or defalcation while acting in a
fiduciary capacity.  Accordingly, the Court concludes that
the debt owed to the Plaintiffs is nondischargeable.  

Though the Court is focused on whether the Debtor   
committed a fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary
capacity, there is an additional basis for determining the
debt owed to the Plaintiffs as being nondischargeable.  
As mentioned earlier, Section 523(a)(4) excepts
from discharge any debt for embezzlement.  "Embezzlement" is
defined as the fraudulent appropriation of property by a
person to whom such property has been entrusted or into
whose hands it has lawfully come.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Plaintiffs
entrusted the Debtor with a substantial investment for the
purchase of rare currency.  At the end of the day, the
Debtor has not repaid the Plaintiff, nor has he produced any
of the inventory that was in the Palm Beach store.

So the Court concludes the debt is
nondischargeable for the additional reason that it arose out
of the Debtor's embezzlement.  Having concluded that the
debt owed to the Plaintiffs is nondischargeable, the Court
must now turn to the amount of the nondischargeable debt.

At the outset, the Court notes that the parties
expressly consented at the beginning of trial to this Court
entering a final judgment and liquidating the amount of any
nondischargeable debt.  The Debtor admits in his answer that
he's indebted to the Plaintiffs collectively in the amount
of $3,691,000. And a party is bound by their own
admissions, including admissions in pleadings.  That   
admission establishes the Plaintiff's prima facie case
regarding the amount of the debt.

Nonetheless, the Debtor contends that he's
permitted to rebut that prima facie showing or establish his
affirmative defense of setoff, which would ultimately reduce
the amount of the nondischargeable debt.  Even if the Debtor
is permitted to rebut the prima facie showing or establish
his setoff defense, the Court has reviewed its notes from
the trial and the exhibits introduced into evidence and
finds no competent substantial evidence of any payments to
the Plaintiffs.

Perhaps most telling, the Debtor's own memorandum
on judicial admissions or, for that matter, his closing
argument, does not cite to a single exhibit reflecting
payments by the Debtor to the Plaintiffs which would serve
as a basis for a setoff.  It appears, from the Debtor's
memorandum, that the sole support for the Debtor's setoff
defense is his testimony that he repaid Plaintiffs with
significant cash payments.

Without specificity, that is not the kind of
substantial competent evidence that would support this
affirmative defense.  Frankly, the Court did not find the
Debtor's testimony credible at all, much less on that
particular issue.

The Court also takes judicial notice of its oral 
ruling in the discharge action the U.S. Trustee filed
against the Debtor.  In its ruling, the Court found that the
Debtor had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars gambling at
the Seminole Hard Rock Casino.  
That finding formed a substantial basis for the
Court's ruling denying the Debtor his discharge. And the
Court thinks it provides some explanation of what really
happened to the money that the Plaintiffs invested with the
Debtor. It was not repaid to them in cash.  The Debtor
simply spent it.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the total
owed to the Plaintiff in the amount of $3,691,000 is
nondischargeable.  That will be apportioned for each
Plaintiff in the amount set forth in paragraph 4 of the
complaint in either a separate or one final judgment in
favor of each of the Plaintiffs in those respective amounts will be entered.

Mr. Weiss, if you could prepare a form of final
judgment and reciting it's for the reasons stated orally and
recorded in open court, which shall constitute the Court's
findings of fact and conclusions of law for purposes of Rule
22 52. And then also in that, enter judgment by separate
paragraph in favor of each Plaintiff for the respective
amounts cited in paragraph 4; and finding that all of those
debts are nondischargeable in this bankruptcy case.

Again, this case was well-tried.  I have to deal
with the facts as they're presented.  And facts are stubborn
things. And no matter what our inclinations or view of the
evidence at the end of day, make the decision, and that's
how I see this set of transactions and that will be my
finding.
Is there anything else we can cover at this point?
(No response.)
THE COURT:  Okay.  Very well.  Thank you.  This
Court is --
MR. WEISS:  Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Treuhaft.  
MR. TREUHAFT:  Thank you, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, the hearing concluded at 9:56 a.m.)

JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466

C E R T I F I C A T E
STATE OF FLORIDA        )
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH  )
I, Kimberley S. Johnson, Certified Verbatim
Reporter Master, and Notary Public, do hereby certify that
the foregoing proceeding was transcribed by me and that the
foregoing pages constitute a true and correct copy of my
transcription.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative, 
employee, attorney or counsel of the parties, nor a 
relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, nor 
financially interested in the foregoing action.
WITNESS my hand this 30th day of November, 2012,
at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida.
__________________________________

Kimberley S. Johnson, CVR-M
Certified Verbatim Reporter Master
Notary Commission No. DD0910133
Commission Expiration: 8/29/13

JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466




Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Ahmet Sandikci Charged Guilty by Judge Yet Continues to Fraud Americans

Ahmet Sandikci aka Ahmet Porsche is a scammer, fraud and criminal. He preys on Americans.

There are many reasons why Ahmet Sandikci, who also goes by the name Ahmet Porsche, was charged by Judge Michael Williamson of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Middle District of Florida, to pay several people in the Palm Beach, FL area $3,691,000.00. That's $3.69 MILLION dollars, not a small amount and yet that's only one lawsuit agains him.

The Debtor/Defendant, a man from Turkey who lives in Palm Beach and has dealings with with people on ebay and throughout the state of Florida, tried to get this large amount discharged in his bankruptcy but the court found him guilty of owing several business partners money which he scammed from them and then purchased rare currencies and over-valued and over-graded some which he then sold to innocent customers.

The funds that he acquired by lying, conning, and deceiving his business partners were used to buy these rare currencies and then to sale them at a true value and to divide the profits with his business partners. Yet Ahmet Sandikci (Ahmet Sandiki or Ahmet Porsche) kept everything for himself. He has some of his currencies and coins on ebay and some are posted as being the highest, most expensive items ever. Ahmet has no legitimate rights, certifications, knowledge, or power to grade monies and currencies yet he currently does so.

This Turkish king of fraud and embezzlement continues to run his own store as well as operates vendor booths at various trade shows and conventions to sell the stolen assets. When you speak to him and also when you google his name, you'll find videos and news that he has posted about himself in order to keep the negative comments, complaints and court judgement and rulings down on the search engines.

Yet it is obvious that this con artist has ripped off too many people, especially Americans. So beware when you see or hear the name Ahmet Sandikci a.k.a. Ahmet Porsche. There are many lawsuits and claims against him. Beware and don't be his next victim.
Below you'll find the transcript of the actual court hearing and judgement:

The Case No. is 8:11-bk-07915-MGW

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

IN RE:                        
    AHMET SANDIKCI : Case No. 8:11-bk-07915-MGW
    Chapter 7
    Debtor 

DeJAMES BUILDERS OF FLORIDA,  
INC., et al                     
    Plaintiff :  

  vs.                   Adversary 8:11-ap-01151

AHMET SANDIKCI               
 Defendant 

  U.S. Courthouse           
    801 N. Florida Avenue
    Tampa, Florida

    November 29, 2012
    9:42 A.M.

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
[Re: 8:11-ap-01151]
Court's Oral Ruling
Trial on Complaint

B E F O R E:  THE HONORABLE MICHAEL G. WILLIAMSON
              United States Bankruptcy Judge

PROCEEDINGS DIGITALLY RECORDED BY COURT PERSONNEL.
TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE
APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF U.S. COURTS
    ___________________________________


A P P E A R A N C E S:
For the Debtor:     JOEL TREUHAFT, Esquire
Palm Harbor Law Group, P.A.
2977 Alternate 19, Suite B
Palm Harbor, Florida  34683
(727) 797-7799
Joel@PalmHarborLaw.com
For DeJames 
Builders of Florida, 
Inc., Dennis Detrie;
Robert Detrie, Sr.;
Robert Detrie, Jr.;
Detrie Construction, 
Inc., Detrie 
Builders, Inc.;
Montana, Inc., and 
Daniel Schmidt: GREGORY S. WEISS, Esquire
(via telephone)
Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida  33410
(561) 515-1400
gweiss@leopoldkuvin.com

P R O C E E D I N G S
(Whereupon, the hearing commenced at 9:42 a.m.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  Case No. 11-7915, Ahmet
Sandikci; Adversary 11-1151.

Judge, we have Gregory Weiss attending by
telephone.
THE COURT:  Okay.  Mr. Weiss, do you want to make
your appearance?
MR. WEISS:  Yes, Your Honor.  Greg Weiss on behalf
of the Plaintiffs, and I appreciate the Court allowing me to
appear by telephone.
THE COURT:  Certainly.
MR. TREUHAFT:  Joel Treuhaft on behalf of Ahmet Sandikci.

THE COURT:  Thank you.  
And, Marti, is this CourtCall or is this --
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)

THE COURT:  Okay.  Very well.  The Court has
before it --
(The Court requested courtroom to become quiet.)
THE COURT:  Okay.  Very well.  The Court has
before it a final ruling in this case.  The case was tried
by the Court and very well-presented by both sides.  I
considered very carefully the evidence presented and took   
careful notes and considered the testimony of the witnesses
and their demeanor and credibility of the various witnesses.
I reviewed the extensive documentary evidence and
considered carefully the post-trial submissions, both of
which were excellent, on the issues involved.  And based on
that, I'm prepared and will now make my findings of fact and
conclusions of law.

This case involves the not unusual situation of a
fairly complicated series of transactions done without the
assistance of counsel at any stage of the parties' dealings. 
In such cases, a Court must analyze the facts established by
the evidence and determine the legal consequences of the
 parties' actions.

And, here, the facts regarding the parties'
transactions really are not in material dispute.  In fact,
the Defendant admits in his answer that he's indebted to the
Plaintiffs collectively in the amount of $3,691,000, subject
to certain unspecified setoffs.  
The parties have also stipulated that from
November 2, 2007 and March 1, 2008, Dennis and Robert Detrie
transferred $500,000 to the Debtor for the purchase and sale
of rare currency.  Between March 26th, 2008 and August --
excuse me, October 26th, 2008, Dennis and Robert Detrie,
either individually or through entities they owned,
transferred an additional 1.2 million to the purchase and
   
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466

sale of rare currency.  Daniel Schmidt also transferred
$200,000 to the Debtor for the purchase and sale of rare
currency during that same period.  
Some of the funds that Dennis Detrie transferred
to the Debtor were used to buy rare currency for a retail
currency store that Dennis Detrie, DeJames Builders and the
Debtors opened on Worth Avenue in Palm Beach, Florida, in
April 2008.  DeJames Builders paid for the material to build
out the store and also performed the labor.

The Debtor repaid Detrie the initial 500,000 that
was transferred to him, along with some profit, but the
Plaintiffs were never repaid the additional $1.2 that they
transferred, nor do they have any of the currency that was
supposedly purchased with their money.

It is now up to the Court to sift through the
facts to determine what legal construct is most appropriate
for the relationship between these parties.  The parties
dispute the nature of the relationship.  The Plaintiffs say
they had a joint venture with the Debtor.  The Debtor says
that the money the Plaintiffs transferred to him were merely
a series of loans.

Determining whether the transfer of funds was part
of a joint venture or merely a loan or a series of loans is
critical because it affects whether the debt owed to the
Plaintiffs is dischargeable under Section 523(a)(4).
   
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466

523(a)(4) excepts from discharge any debt for fraud or
defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, and
embezzlement or larceny.

There are no allegations of larceny.  So the debt
owed to the Plaintiffs is nondischargeable:  (1) if the
Debtor committed fraud or defalcation while acting in a
fiduciary capacity; or (2) if the debt resulted from
embezzlement.  The Plaintiffs can satisfy the fiduciary
requirement by proving the existence of a joint venture.

And, here, the evidence is overwhelming that the parties
were part of a joint venture or a series of joint ventures. 
To begin with, this issue was previously litigated
in State Court in connection with a motion to appoint a
Receiver and for injunctive relief.  And the State Court
specifically determined that the Debtor solicited DeJames
Builders' involvement as a joint venture partner in retail
are currency business.

The State Court found that:  (1) The parties
agreed that the Debtor would provide the rare currency
expertise and DeJames would provide the capital; (2) The
parties opened a bank account solely for the joint venture
and DeJames funded the opening of the operating account; and
(3) Dennis Detrie was the sole partner onsite operating the
joint venture.

Ordinarily, the findings by the State Court would   
be collateral estoppel.  The Debtor is precluded from re-
itigating that same issue before this Court.  But even if
it weren't, this Court comes to the same conclusion as the
State Court.

The evidence is clear that the parties engaged in
a series of joint ventures in which each would invest in a
joint enterprise to buy rare currency and resell it at a
substantial profit.  The Debtor contributed his alleged
expertise and would perform the service of purchasing the
currency in bulk. And the Plaintiffs provided investment
capital. They would invest in the purchase of rare
currency; it would be resold; the initial capital would be
returned to the Plaintiff; and the parties could split the
profits.

The opening of the Palm Beach store was just
another step in this series of joint ventures.  And as part
of that transaction, Dennis Detrie provided the capital, not
only for acquisition of inventory, but for the start-up
costs and build-out of the Worth Avenue store.  Dennis also
executed the first and second addendum to the lease for the
Worth Avenue store, although that evidence overwhelmingly
supports a finding of a joint venture.

And the reality is, there is no evidence the
parties' relationship was anything other than a joint
venture. To be sure, the parties did sign a series of  

JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466

promissory notes as part of the initial transfers of funds. 
But the Court does not give much weight to that, considering
that, as mentioned at the outset, none of the parties were
represented by counsel.  These notes were simply executed to
reflect that money had been transferred and the Plaintiffs
needed some evidence of that.
How the parties framed their pleadings in the
previous State Court filings is also not determinative of
their relationship.  Even if it had some bearing on what the
Plaintiffs really thought, it certainly does not outweigh
the overwhelming evidence of a joint venture.

So, for all of those reasons, the Court concluded
that the parties were engaged in a joint venture.  And
because the parties were part of a joint venture, the Debtor
was acting in a fiduciary capacity in his dealings with the Plaintiffs.

The Court must now turn to whether the Debtor
committed a fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary
capacity. And the evidence is likewise overwhelming that he
did.

The evidence at trial showed that the Debtor
befriended the Plaintiffs; he visited them at their homes;
he invited them to his home for social occasions.  He even
went so far as to buy one of the Plaintiffs' daughters a
birthday present.     

And once he befriended them, he engaged in a
pattern of misrepresentations at every turn in his dealings
with them. He misrepresented his expertise in the rare
currency area.  For instance, he told them he was the most
knowledgeable expert in the field of currency trading in the
United States.  In fact, he had only recent experience in
the field.

He misrepresented -- when he said he was using
their money to buy currency, to the contrary there is no
currency to show for the enormous investment made by the
Plaintiffs, only unfulfilled promise.  
And he lied with respect to specific transactions
in which he overstated the price he paid for rare currency. 

And as a consequence, the Plaintiffs overpaid for the
currency they acquired for the Palm Beach store.  
Perhaps the most egregious transaction was the 
$2-1/2 Indian Head coin transaction.  In that one, the
Debtor represented that the Indian Head coin could be
purchased for 310,000, and that he needed a hundred thousand
from Dennis to match the hundred thousand he was investing
and a hundred thousand that his friend, Mr. Raneire
(phonetic), would be investing.  It was represented that
those coins had a value of $550,000.

In fact, the coins were never graded, which is
significant in the coin industry.  Grading is required to   
determine the value of any coin.  And there was absolutely
no basis upon which the Debtor could make the representation
of value that he made.

He also deceived the Plaintiffs by creating a
catalog in which he listed rare currency that he either
owned or had previously sold as having a value of over 
$1 billion.  He induced the Plaintiffs to continue investing
with him by representing that the market was booming.

The Eleventh Circuit has previously stated that
defalcation refers to a failure to produce funds entrusted
to a fiduciary.  Although, the Court acknowledged that the
precise meaning of "defalcation" for purposes of Section
523(a)(4) has never been entirely clear.  More recently, the
Eleventh Circuit has held that defalcation under 523(a)(4)
requires a showing of recklessness.

The Plaintiffs have more than satisfied that
standard here.  The Debtor's conduct was plainly fraudulent
under Section 523(a)(4).  At a minimum, it was grossly negligent.  
As a consequence, the Court concludes that the
Debtor committed a fraud or defalcation while acting in a
fiduciary capacity.  Accordingly, the Court concludes that
the debt owed to the Plaintiffs is nondischargeable.  

Though the Court is focused on whether the Debtor   
committed a fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary
capacity, there is an additional basis for determining the
debt owed to the Plaintiffs as being nondischargeable.  
As mentioned earlier, Section 523(a)(4) excepts
from discharge any debt for embezzlement.  "Embezzlement" is
defined as the fraudulent appropriation of property by a
person to whom such property has been entrusted or into
whose hands it has lawfully come.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Plaintiffs
entrusted the Debtor with a substantial investment for the
purchase of rare currency.  At the end of the day, the
Debtor has not repaid the Plaintiff, nor has he produced any
of the inventory that was in the Palm Beach store.

So the Court concludes the debt is
nondischargeable for the additional reason that it arose out
of the Debtor's embezzlement.  Having concluded that the
debt owed to the Plaintiffs is nondischargeable, the Court
must now turn to the amount of the nondischargeable debt.

At the outset, the Court notes that the parties
expressly consented at the beginning of trial to this Court
entering a final judgment and liquidating the amount of any
nondischargeable debt.  The Debtor admits in his answer that
he's indebted to the Plaintiffs collectively in the amount
of $3,691,000. And a party is bound by their own
admissions, including admissions in pleadings.  That   
admission establishes the Plaintiff's prima facie case
regarding the amount of the debt.

Nonetheless, the Debtor contends that he's
permitted to rebut that prima facie showing or establish his
affirmative defense of setoff, which would ultimately reduce
the amount of the nondischargeable debt.  Even if the Debtor
is permitted to rebut the prima facie showing or establish
his setoff defense, the Court has reviewed its notes from
the trial and the exhibits introduced into evidence and
finds no competent substantial evidence of any payments to
the Plaintiffs.

Perhaps most telling, the Debtor's own memorandum
on judicial admissions or, for that matter, his closing
argument, does not cite to a single exhibit reflecting
payments by the Debtor to the Plaintiffs which would serve
as a basis for a setoff.  It appears, from the Debtor's
memorandum, that the sole support for the Debtor's setoff
defense is his testimony that he repaid Plaintiffs with
significant cash payments.

Without specificity, that is not the kind of
substantial competent evidence that would support this
affirmative defense.  Frankly, the Court did not find the
Debtor's testimony credible at all, much less on that
particular issue.

The Court also takes judicial notice of its oral 
ruling in the discharge action the U.S. Trustee filed
against the Debtor.  In its ruling, the Court found that the
Debtor had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars gambling at
the Seminole Hard Rock Casino.  
That finding formed a substantial basis for the
Court's ruling denying the Debtor his discharge. And the
Court thinks it provides some explanation of what really
happened to the money that the Plaintiffs invested with the
Debtor. It was not repaid to them in cash.  The Debtor
simply spent it.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the total
owed to the Plaintiff in the amount of $3,691,000 is
nondischargeable.  That will be apportioned for each
Plaintiff in the amount set forth in paragraph 4 of the
complaint in either a separate or one final judgment in
favor of each of the Plaintiffs in those respective amounts will be entered.

Mr. Weiss, if you could prepare a form of final
judgment and reciting it's for the reasons stated orally and
recorded in open court, which shall constitute the Court's
findings of fact and conclusions of law for purposes of Rule
22 52. And then also in that, enter judgment by separate
paragraph in favor of each Plaintiff for the respective
amounts cited in paragraph 4; and finding that all of those
debts are nondischargeable in this bankruptcy case.  

Again, this case was well-tried.  I have to deal
with the facts as they're presented.  And facts are stubborn
things. And no matter what our inclinations or view of the
evidence at the end of day, make the decision, and that's
how I see this set of transactions and that will be my
finding.
Is there anything else we can cover at this point?
(No response.)
THE COURT:  Okay.  Very well.  Thank you.  This
Court is --
MR. WEISS:  Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Treuhaft.  
MR. TREUHAFT:  Thank you, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, the hearing concluded at 9:56 a.m.)

JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466

C E R T I F I C A T E
STATE OF FLORIDA        )
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH  )
I, Kimberley S. Johnson, Certified Verbatim
Reporter Master, and Notary Public, do hereby certify that
the foregoing proceeding was transcribed by me and that the
foregoing pages constitute a true and correct copy of my
transcription.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative, 
employee, attorney or counsel of the parties, nor a 
relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, nor 
financially interested in the foregoing action.
WITNESS my hand this 30th day of November, 2012,
at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida.
__________________________________

Kimberley S. Johnson, CVR-M
Certified Verbatim Reporter Master
Notary Commission No. DD0910133
Commission Expiration: 8/29/13

JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466






Ahmet Sandicki "Ahmet Porsche" - Don't be his next victim!

Ahmet Sandicki a.k.a. Ahmet Porsche - Not Who He Claims to Be

Amidst the videos that Ahmet Sandikci, aka Ahmet Porsche, has been uploading, you'll find many complaints, warnings, lawsuits, court judgement and more by people who have been scammed by this Turkish American man who lives in Florida. His goal of posting “news” and videos about himself is to keep the negative content down. Yet it is a never-ending battle for him as more and more people have come out to complain about why he has used fraud, lies, scams, manipulations and deception to rob them of their money, their assets, and much more.

A few years back, Ahmet Sandikci (Ahmet Porsche) was entrusted to be in charge of the German Auto Repair Center in Palm Harbor, FL yet there were many unhappy customers who complained that he overcharged them and even charged them for work that was never done on their cars. Even former employees of the import autos shop have filed and posted complaints about this untrustworthy scam artist.

Ahmet Sandiki (Sandikci) claims that he is in the rare currency business because of he received his first rare bill from his father when he was a youngster. However, court rulings and hundreds of people, who have filed complaints and lawsuits, have proven that he has stolen many of the valuable rare currencies, gold coins, and other valuable assets. He has been sued many times by various people from around the nation as well as internationally. A most recent federal hearing charged that Ahmet cannot discharge over $3 million of assets that he acquired through scamming people out of their money then using the funds to buy rare bills and currencies and claiming them as his own.

This crook Ahmet Sandikci or Ahmet Porsche also overvalues the currencies that he sells so he overcharges people even though he has no power, certifications, rights or proof that he is able to value rare currencies.
For more information on this scam artist, be sure to Google his name “Ahmet Sandikci” and you can also locate the court documents that have been filed in the state of Florida.

Warning: This is more than buyer beware when dealing with a ponzi scheme fraudulent scam artist of many years. Ahmet is the king of manipulation, deception and lies. Go elsewhere before you, too, are one of his next victims and just another number in his ponzi schemes. 

Judgement Against Ahmet Sandikci a.k.a. Ahmet Porsche

Beware of Scammer & Fraud Ahmet Sandikci aka Ahmet Porsche
If you're looking at buying rare currencies, coins, gold bullion and other precious metals, beware of Ahmet Sandikci. He has been found guilty by a federal judge of fraud, scams and embezzlement and there is a judgement against him for over $3.69 million, which he tried to get discharged in his bankruptcy. 

This money was embezzled by innocent Americans who believed in him yet the money was taken only to purchase rare currencies for himself and to over-grade and overvalue them so that he can continue his scams in ripping people off by selling overvalued prices on stolen rare currencies, gold coins, precious metals and more. Although Ahmet Sandikci has been charged as guilty and has a judgment against him, he continues to deceive people and sell these items at his stores in Tarpon Springs and West Palm Beach, on eBay ( his ebay username is Porscheahmet) and his business name is Unique Collectibles by Porsche Ahmet. He also sells overpriced items at trade shows, conventions and events, particularly in Florida.  

Below you will the transcript of the case and judgement against Turkish Ahmet Sandikci, a.k.a. Ahmet Porsche. He tried to get the embezzled money discharged in his bankruptcy yet the Judge ruled that he could not do this as it is money that belongs to others:

The Case No. is 8:11-bk-07915-MGW

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION


IN RE:                        
    AHMET SANDIKCI : Case No. 8:11-bk-07915-MGW
    Chapter 7
    Debtor 


DeJAMES BUILDERS OF FLORIDA,  
INC., et al                     
    Plaintiff :  

  vs.                   Adversary 8:11-ap-01151

AHMET SANDIKCI               
 Defendant 


  U.S. Courthouse           
    801 N. Florida Avenue
    Tampa, Florida

    November 29, 2012
    9:42 A.M.

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
[Re: 8:11-ap-01151]
Court's Oral Ruling
Trial on Complaint


B E F O R E:  THE HONORABLE MICHAEL G. WILLIAMSON
              United States Bankruptcy Judge

PROCEEDINGS DIGITALLY RECORDED BY COURT PERSONNEL.
TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE
APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF U.S. COURTS
    ___________________________________






A P P E A R A N C E S:
For the Debtor:     JOEL TREUHAFT, Esquire
Palm Harbor Law Group, P.A.
2977 Alternate 19, Suite B
Palm Harbor, Florida  34683
(727) 797-7799
Joel@PalmHarborLaw.com
For DeJames 
Builders of Florida, 
Inc., Dennis Detrie;
Robert Detrie, Sr.;
Robert Detrie, Jr.;
Detrie Construction, 
Inc., Detrie 
Builders, Inc.;
Montana, Inc., and 
Daniel Schmidt: GREGORY S. WEISS, Esquire
(via telephone)
Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida  33410
(561) 515-1400
gweiss@leopoldkuvin.com

P R O C E E D I N G S
2 (Whereupon, the hearing commenced at 9:42 a.m.)
3 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  Case No. 11-7915, Ahmet
4 Sandikci; Adversary 11-1151.
5 Judge, we have Gregory Weiss attending by
6 telephone.
7 THE COURT:  Okay.  Mr. Weiss, do you want to make
8 your appearance?
9 MR. WEISS:  Yes, Your Honor.  Greg Weiss on behalf
10 of the Plaintiffs, and I appreciate the Court allowing me to
11 appear by telephone.
12 THE COURT:  Certainly.
13 MR. TREUHAFT:  Joel Treuhaft on behalf of Ahmet
14 Sandikci.
15 THE COURT:  Thank you.  
16 And, Marti, is this CourtCall or is this --
17 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  Yes.
18 (Discussion off the record.)
19 THE COURT:  Okay.  Very well.  The Court has
20 before it --
21 (The Court requested courtroom to become quiet.)
22 THE COURT:  Okay.  Very well.  The Court has
23 before it a final ruling in this case.  The case was tried
24 by the Court and very well-presented by both sides.  I
25 considered very carefully the evidence presented and took    4
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466
1 careful notes and considered the testimony of the witnesses
2 and their demeanor and credibility of the various witnesses.
3 I reviewed the extensive documentary evidence and
4 considered carefully the post-trial submissions, both of
5 which were excellent, on the issues involved.  And based on
6 that, I'm prepared and will now make my findings of fact and
7 conclusions of law.
8 This case involves the not unusual situation of a
9 fairly complicated series of transactions done without the
10 assistance of counsel at any stage of the parties' dealings. 
11 In such cases, a Court must analyze the facts established by
12 the evidence and determine the legal consequences of the
13 parties' actions.
14 And, here, the facts regarding the parties'
15 transactions really are not in material dispute.  In fact,
16 the Defendant admits in his answer that he's indebted to the
17 Plaintiffs collectively in the amount of $3,691,000, subject
18 to certain unspecified setoffs.  
19 The parties have also stipulated that from
20 November 2, 2007 and March 1, 2008, Dennis and Robert Detrie
21 transferred $500,000 to the Debtor for the purchase and sale
22 of rare currency.  Between March 26th, 2008 and August --
23 excuse me, October 26th, 2008, Dennis and Robert Detrie,
24 either individually or through entities they owned,
25 transferred an additional 1.2 million to the purchase and    5
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466
1 sale of rare currency.  Daniel Schmidt also transferred
2 $200,000 to the Debtor for the purchase and sale of rare
3 currency during that same period.  
4 Some of the funds that Dennis Detrie transferred
5 to the Debtor were used to buy rare currency for a retail
6 currency store that Dennis Detrie, DeJames Builders and the
7 Debtors opened on Worth Avenue in Palm Beach, Florida, in
8 April 2008.  DeJames Builders paid for the material to build
9 out the store and also performed the labor.
10 The Debtor repaid Detrie the initial 500,000 that
11 was transferred to him, along with some profit, but the
12 Plaintiffs were never repaid the additional $1.2 that they
13 transferred, nor do they have any of the currency that was
14 supposedly purchased with their money.
15 It is now up to the Court to sift through the
16 facts to determine what legal construct is most appropriate
17 for the relationship between these parties.  The parties
18 dispute the nature of the relationship.  The Plaintiffs say
19 they had a joint venture with the Debtor.  The Debtor says
20 that the money the Plaintiffs transferred to him were merely
21 a series of loans.
22 Determining whether the transfer of funds was part
23 of a joint venture or merely a loan or a series of loans is
24 critical because it affects whether the debt owed to the
25 Plaintiffs is dischargeable under Section 523(a)(4).     6
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466
1 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge any debt for fraud or
2 defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, and
3 embezzlement or larceny.
4 There are no allegations of larceny.  So the debt
5 owed to the Plaintiffs is nondischargeable:  (1) if the
6 Debtor committed fraud or defalcation while acting in a
7 fiduciary capacity; or (2) if the debt resulted from
8 embezzlement.  The Plaintiffs can satisfy the fiduciary
9 requirement by proving the existence of a joint venture.
10 And, here, the evidence is overwhelming that the parties
11 were part of a joint venture or a series of joint ventures. 
12 To begin with, this issue was previously litigated
13 in State Court in connection with a motion to appoint a
14 Receiver and for injunctive relief.  And the State Court
15 specifically determined that the Debtor solicited DeJames
16 Builders' involvement as a joint venture partner in retail
17 rare currency business.
18 The State Court found that:  (1) The parties
19 agreed that the Debtor would provide the rare currency
20 expertise and DeJames would provide the capital; (2) The
21 parties opened a bank account solely for the joint venture
22 and DeJames funded the opening of the operating account; and
23 (3) Dennis Detrie was the sole partner onsite operating the
24 joint venture.
25 Ordinarily, the findings by the State Court would    7
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466
1 be collateral estoppel.  The Debtor is precluded from re-
2 litigating that same issue before this Court.  But even if
3 it weren't, this Court comes to the same conclusion as the
4 State Court.  
5 The evidence is clear that the parties engaged in
6 a series of joint ventures in which each would invest in a
7 joint enterprise to buy rare currency and resell it at a
8 substantial profit.  The Debtor contributed his alleged
9 expertise and would perform the service of purchasing the
10 currency in bulk.  And the Plaintiffs provided investment
11 capital.  They would invest in the purchase of rare
12 currency; it would be resold; the initial capital would be
13 returned to the Plaintiff; and the parties could split the
14 profits.
15 The opening of the Palm Beach store was just
16 another step in this series of joint ventures.  And as part
17 of that transaction, Dennis Detrie provided the capital, not
18 only for acquisition of inventory, but for the start-up
19 costs and build-out of the Worth Avenue store.  Dennis also
20 executed the first and second addendum to the lease for the
21 Worth Avenue store, although that evidence overwhelmingly
22 supports a finding of a joint venture.
23 And the reality is, there is no evidence the
24 parties' relationship was anything other than a joint
25 venture.  To be sure, the parties did sign a series of    8
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466
1 promissory notes as part of the initial transfers of funds. 
2 But the Court does not give much weight to that, considering
3 that, as mentioned at the outset, none of the parties were
4 represented by counsel.  These notes were simply executed to
5 reflect that money had been transferred and the Plaintiffs
6 needed some evidence of that.
7 How the parties framed their pleadings in the
8 previous State Court filings is also not determinative of
9 their relationship.  Even if it had some bearing on what the
10 Plaintiffs really thought, it certainly does not outweigh
11 the overwhelming evidence of a joint venture.
12 So, for all of those reasons, the Court concluded
13 that the parties were engaged in a joint venture.  And
14 because the parties were part of a joint venture, the Debtor
15 was acting in a fiduciary capacity in his dealings with the
16 Plaintiffs.
17 The Court must now turn to whether the Debtor
18 committed a fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary
19 capacity.  And the evidence is likewise overwhelming that he
20 did.
21 The evidence at trial showed that the Debtor
22 befriended the Plaintiffs; he visited them at their homes;
23 he invited them to his home for social occasions.  He even
24 went so far as to buy one of the Plaintiffs' daughters a
25 birthday present.      9
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466
1 And once he befriended them, he engaged in a
2 pattern of misrepresentations at every turn in his dealings
3 with them.  He misrepresented his expertise in the rare
4 currency area.  For instance, he told them he was the most
5 knowledgeable expert in the field of currency trading in the
6 United States.  In fact, he had only recent experience in
7 the field.
8 He misrepresented -- when he said he was using
9 their money to buy currency, to the contrary there is no
10 currency to show for the enormous investment made by the
11 Plaintiffs, only unfulfilled promise.  
12 And he lied with respect to specific transactions
13 in which he overstated the price he paid for rare currency. 
14 And as a consequence, the Plaintiffs overpaid for the
15 currency they acquired for the Palm Beach store.  
16 Perhaps the most egregious transaction was the 
17 $2-1/2 Indian Head coin transaction.  In that one, the
18 Debtor represented that the Indian Head coin could be
19 purchased for 310,000, and that he needed a hundred thousand
20 from Dennis to match the hundred thousand he was investing
21 and a hundred thousand that his friend, Mr. Raneire
22 (phonetic), would be investing.  It was represented that
23 those coins had a value of $550,000.
24  In fact, the coins were never graded, which is
25 significant in the coin industry.  Grading is required to   10
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466
1 determine the value of any coin.  And there was absolutely
2 no basis upon which the Debtor could make the representation
3 of value that he made.
4 He also deceived the Plaintiffs by creating a
5 catalog in which he listed rare currency that he either
6 owned or had previously sold as having a value of over 
7 $1 billion.  He induced the Plaintiffs to continue investing
8 with him by representing that the market was booming.
9 The Eleventh Circuit has previously stated that
10 defalcation refers to a failure to produce funds entrusted
11 to a fiduciary.  Although, the Court acknowledged that the
12 precise meaning of "defalcation" for purposes of Section
13 523(a)(4) has never been entirely clear.  More recently, the
14 Eleventh Circuit has held that defalcation under 523(a)(4)
15 requires a showing of 
16 recklessness.  
17 The Plaintiffs have more than satisfied that
18 standard here.  The Debtor's conduct was plainly fraudulent
19 under Section 523(a)(4).  At a minimum, it was grossly
20 negligent.  
21 As a consequence, the Court concludes that the
22 Debtor committed a fraud or defalcation while acting in a
23 fiduciary capacity.  Accordingly, the Court concludes that
24 the debt owed to the Plaintiffs is nondischargeable.  
25 Though the Court is focused on whether the Debtor   11
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466
1 committed a fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary
2 capacity, there is an additional basis for determining the
3 debt owed to the Plaintiffs as being nondischargeable.  
4 As mentioned earlier, Section 523(a)(4) excepts
5 from discharge any debt for embezzlement.  "Embezzlement" is
6 defined as the fraudulent appropriation of property by a
7 person to whom such property has been entrusted or into
8 whose hands it has lawfully come.  
9 The evidence is overwhelming that the Plaintiffs
10 entrusted the Debtor with a substantial investment for the
11 purchase of rare currency.  At the end of the day, the
12 Debtor has not repaid the Plaintiff, nor has he produced any
13 of the inventory that was in the Palm Beach store.  
14 So the Court concludes the debt is
15 nondischargeable for the additional reason that it arose out
16 of the Debtor's embezzlement.  Having concluded that the
17 debt owed to the Plaintiffs is nondischargeable, the Court
18 must now turn to the amount of the nondischargeable debt.  
19 At the outset, the Court notes that the parties
20 expressly consented at the beginning of trial to this Court
21 entering a final judgment and liquidating the amount of any
22 nondischargeable debt.  The Debtor admits in his answer that
23 he's indebted to the Plaintiffs collectively in the amount
24 of $3,691,000.  And a party is bound by their own
25 admissions, including admissions in pleadings.  That   12
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466
1 admission establishes the Plaintiff's prima facie case
2 regarding the amount of the debt.
3 Nonetheless, the Debtor contends that he's
4 permitted to rebut that prima facie showing or establish his
5 affirmative defense of setoff, which would ultimately reduce
6 the amount of the nondischargeable debt.  Even if the Debtor
7 is permitted to rebut the prima facie showing or establish
8 his setoff defense, the Court has reviewed its notes from
9 the trial and the exhibits introduced into evidence and
10 finds no competent substantial evidence of any payments to
11 the Plaintiffs.
12 Perhaps most telling, the Debtor's own memorandum
13 on judicial admissions or, for that matter, his closing
14 argument, does not cite to a single exhibit reflecting
15 payments by the Debtor to the Plaintiffs which would serve
16 as a basis for a setoff.  It appears, from the Debtor's
17 memorandum, that the sole support for the Debtor's setoff
18 defense is his testimony that he repaid Plaintiffs with
19 significant cash payments.  
20 Without specificity, that is not the kind of
21 substantial competent evidence that would support this
22 affirmative defense.  Frankly, the Court did not find the
23 Debtor's testimony credible at all, much less on that
24 particular issue.  
25 The Court also takes judicial notice of its oral   13
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466
1 ruling in the discharge action the U.S. Trustee filed
2 against the Debtor.  In its ruling, the Court found that the
3 Debtor had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars gambling at
4 the Seminole Hard Rock Casino.  
5 That finding formed a substantial basis for the
6 Court's ruling denying the Debtor his discharge.  And the
7 Court thinks it provides some explanation of what really
8 happened to the money that the Plaintiffs invested with the
9 Debtor.  It was not repaid to them in cash.  The Debtor
10 simply spent it.
11 Accordingly, the Court concludes that the total
12 owed to the Plaintiff in the amount of $3,691,000 is
13 nondischargeable.  That will be apportioned for each
14 Plaintiff in the amount set forth in paragraph 4 of the
15 complaint in either a separate or one final judgment in
16 favor of each of the Plaintiffs in those respective amounts
17 will be entered.
18 Mr. Weiss, if you could prepare a form of final
19 judgment and reciting it's for the reasons stated orally and
20 recorded in open court, which shall constitute the Court's
21 findings of fact and conclusions of law for purposes of Rule
22 52.  And then also in that, enter judgment by separate
23 paragraph in favor of each Plaintiff for the respective
24 amounts cited in paragraph 4; and finding that all of those
25 debts are nondischargeable in this bankruptcy case.     14
JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466
1 Again, this case was well-tried.  I have to deal
2 with the facts as they're presented.  And facts are stubborn
3 things.  And no matter what our inclinations or view of the
4 evidence at the end of day, make the decision, and that's
5 how I see this set of transactions and that will be my
6 finding.
7 Is there anything else we can cover at this point?
8 (No response.)
9 THE COURT:  Okay.  Very well.  Thank you.  This
10 Court is --
11 MR. WEISS:  Thank you, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Treuhaft.  
13 MR. TREUHAFT:  Thank you, Your Honor.
14 (Whereupon, the hearing concluded at 9:56 a.m.)

JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466

C E R T I F I C A T E
STATE OF FLORIDA        )
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH  )
I, Kimberley S. Johnson, Certified Verbatim
Reporter Master, and Notary Public, do hereby certify that
the foregoing proceeding was transcribed by me and that the
foregoing pages constitute a true and correct copy of my
transcription.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative, 
employee, attorney or counsel of the parties, nor a 
relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, nor 
financially interested in the foregoing action.
WITNESS my hand this 30th day of November, 2012,
at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida.
__________________________________

Kimberley S. Johnson, CVR-M
Certified Verbatim Reporter Master
Notary Commission No. DD0910133
Commission Expiration: 8/29/13

JOHNSON TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - (813) 920-1466