 |
Ahmet Sandikci aka Ahmet Porsche is a scammer, fraud and criminal. He preys on Americans. |
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
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.
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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
No comments:
Post a Comment