Complaint Review: FDP Capital Thomas J. Kent - New York New York

Thomas Jefferson Kent, Sanford Gottesman, Brad Robinson, Beno Matthews Thomas Kent, Thomas J. Kent, Jr., Thomas Jefferson Kent Thomas Jefferson Kent, Thomas Jefferson Kent, Jr., Thomas Kent, Thomas J. Kent Sentenced to 78 Months for Financial Fraud - All Case and Conviction Details Enclosed New York New York

Body:

Beginning in 2007, Thomas Jefferson Kent (aka Thomas J. Kent, Jr., Thomas Jefferson Kent, Jr. Thomas Kent) began carrying out a massive fraudulent scheme. Thomas Kent Jr., Thomas Kent, Thomas J. Kent, Jr., Thomas Jefferson Kent, Jr., Thomas Jefferson Kent tried to also sue or claim that he was suing rip-off report for disclosing his fraudulent scheme. He was nabbed by the Feds, him and his crew and all were sentenenced ranging from 36 to 78 months in a Federal Penitentiary with Kent getting the longest sentenced of them all.  Thomas Kent, Thomas Jefferson Kent, Jr. tried to appeal  but his case was shot down (see below) and he continues to rot in prison until April 2020 for his crimes that hurt so many. If you were damaged by Thomas Jefferson Kent and his crew you may be eligible for restitution. Here is a summary of what he got:

Thomas Jefferson Kent engaged in wire fraud conspiracy case against Kent, Sanford Gottesman, Brad Robinson, and Beno Matthews,who were each convicted in connection with their participation in an “advance fee” scheme—a scheme in which supposed lending companies operated by the defendants falsely promised loans to small businesses and collected fees for fraudulent expenses, while never issuing any loans. Following their arrests and indictment in February 2014, Kent, Robinson, and Matthews entered guilty pleas, 78 months' imprisonment, which was imposed after he pleaded guilty on February 19, 2014, to conspiring to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and ordered to pay $950,000 in restitution.

I. Factual Background 3

The scheme began in 2007, when Kent formed FDP Capital, LLC, to pose as a private investment banking firm willing to provide funding for small businesses. Through FDP Capital, Kent would contact small businesses seeking funding and represent that FDP Capital could provide them with loans. After collecting so-called advance fees from these businesses for various expenses, however, FDP Capital never issued any loans.

Kent recruited Robinson to work for FDP Capital as a broker. Robinson would find and contact prospective customers, solicit and review a “quick information form” submitted from interested businesses, and in turn send those businesses a “letter of intent” setting forth FDP Capital's intent to extend a loan. The letter of intent explained that, before wiring the funds for the loan, FDP Capital would need to conduct certain due diligence. In order to do so, FDP Capital asked the businesses to pay an advance fee to cover expenses, often including the cost of a “site visit” to meet the principals, review the loan proposal, and discuss repayment expectations. Kent and Robinson would conduct those visits themselves.

Through FDP Capital, Kent and Robinson obtained more than $325,000 in advance fees from more than 60 businesses. None of the businesses, however, ever received a loan. After securing the advance fee, FDP Capital would end all contact with the defrauded business, which would find itself unable to reach FDP Capital to inquire about its loan. As a result, many so-called customers filed online complaints about FDP Capital and Kent.

Following the posting of Internet complaints, Kent started a new company, Phoenix Global Holdings, Inc., to perform the same scheme as FDP Capital. He began using aliases—all variations of his name such as Tom Kent, Jeff Kent, and Thomas Jefferson—when communicating with prospective customers. Although Kent still conducted site visits and interacted with customers himself, he no longer did so without using an alias. He also no longer signed any customer documents.

In or around the summer of 2009, Robinson stopped working for Kent for a time, and Kent met and recruited Gottesman to assist in the fraudulent scheme. They agreed to go into business together in September 2009. Gottesman took on the role of conducting the site visits. Kent then enlisted Robinson once more and tasked him with maintaining the mass marketing e-mail server and signing letters of intent. Robinson would also keep Gottesman apprised of the status of client contacts for those businesses Gottesman had visited or was to visit.

During this time the scheme grew, with the co-conspirators sometimes demanding not only advance fees, but also additional fees for fictitious bonds to secure the purported loans. Kent, under new aliases such as “Dan Green” or “Mike Ryan,” spoke with businesses about acquiring those additional payments to secure “investments” from one of the Wilshire entities.

In June 2010, Kent and Gottesman had a falling out. The two men nevertheless continued the same scheme, individually, at Wilshire Financial, Inc., Wilshire Capital, Inc., and subsequently at other entities. Kent recruited Matthews, who had previously helped with technology services, and continued substantially the same scheme through three new companies: Vouyer Capital LLC, Midwest Global Partners, Inc., and Northeast, Inc.

II. Plea and Sentencing Proceedings

Kent pleaded guilty on February 19, 2014, pursuant to a plea agreement that calculated a Guidelines total offense level of 22.4 Based on a criminal history category of I, Kent's stipulated Guidelines range was 41 to 51 months' incarceration. The United States Probation Office subsequently prepared a PSR that arrived at the same Guidelines range. On July 15 and 18, 2014, Kent and the Government filed submissions with the district court in anticipation of sentencing. Kent requested a downward deviation from the Guidelines range, asking that the court impose a 36–month prison sentence. The Government requested that the court impose an incarceration period within the Guidelines range of 41 to 51 months.

Following arguments for mitigation, the district court imposed its sentence on Kent. The district court explained the reasons for imposing the sentence at length, emphasizing the seriousness of Kent's actions. Ultimately, the district court stated that its sentence related to “the number of victims, the prolonged conduct, the severe impact on the victims, the need to incapacitate, the devices and artifices ․ used to escape detection, [the] knowledge as to what [Kent was] doing was wrong, [Kent's] lack of sympathy for the victims, [and] the harm that [was] done all across the country.” K.A. 160. The district court sentenced Kent to 78 months' imprisonment (at the top of the Guidelines range), three years of supervised release, and a mandatory $100 special assessment. It also ordered Kent to pay $953,232.81 in restitution and to forfeit $950,000.

Here is  the prison cell where Kent currently lives:

Send him a letter in prison.. Here are his details. Great job by Rip-Off Report to bring this criminal to justice.

THOMAS JEFFERSON KENT Register Number: 69072-054 Age:  42 Race:  Black Sex:  Male Located at: Lewisburg USP Release Date: 04/04/2020

Use the addresses below to send correspondence and parcels to inmates. Learn more about sending mail

For inmates at the USP: INMATE NAME & REGISTER NUMBER

USP Lewisburg

U.S. PENITENTIARY

P.O. BOX 1000

LEWISBURG, PA  17837

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. THOMAS JEFFERSON KENT, also known as Sealed Defendant 1, also known as Daryl Walker, Defendant-Appellant, SANFORD GOTTESMAN, also known as Sealed Defendant 2, BRAD ROBINSON, also known as Sealed Defendant 3, BENO MATTHEWS, also known as Sealed Defendant 4, Defendants.

16-3461-cr     Decided: October 05, 2017

Present: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.* For Defendant-Appellant: Yuancheng Lee, Of Counsel, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY. For Appellee: Paul M. Monteleoni, Karl Metzner, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Joon H. Kim, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-Appellant Thomas Jefferson Kent pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3571. On July 25, 2014, the district court, applying a § 3B1.1(a) enhancement pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”), sentenced Kent to 78 months' imprisonment. This initial sentence was at the top of the Guidelines range calculated by the district court. But the district court explained during the sentencing proceeding that the Guidelines range is “advisory only,” and that the “ultimate sentence is determined by the various factors under [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a).” J.A. 70. We vacated Kent's initial sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court did not make the required findings for applying the § 3B1.1(a) enhancement. United States v. Kent, 821 F.3d 362, 371 (2d Cir. 2016). On September 30, 2016, the district court conducted a resentencing hearing and imposed the same aggregate 78-month sentence, but this time without applying the § 3B1.1(a) enhancement. As a result, the same 78-month sentence became an above-Guidelines sentence upon resentencing. Kent appeals from that September 30, 2016 resentencing and contends that the district court's decision to impose such a sentence was vindictive and substantively unreasonable. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

* * *

First, relying on North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969), Kent argues that the sentence he received on remand was improper because it was imposed by the district court in retaliation for his successful appeal. Pearce held that due process precludes a judge from increasing a defendant's sentence on remand out of “vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction,” and that where a judge imposes “a more severe sentence” after appeal based only on factors present prior to the first sentence, vindictiveness may be presumed. Id. at 725–26; see also United States v. Weingarten, 713 F.3d 704, 713 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 374 (1982)).

A presumption of vindictiveness would not be appropriate in this case. We note at the outset that Pearce is not directly applicable here because Kent received the same sentence on remand that he had received initially, not a higher one. Kent argues that his sentence nevertheless should be treated as a “more severe” sentence because his case resembles one in which a court increases the sentence on remaining counts after vacatur of a count of conviction. See Weingarten, 713 F.3d at 710–11. Although his single count of conviction was not vacated, Kent contends that his vacated Guidelines enhancement is “functionally equivalent” to a vacated count of conviction. Def.-Appellant Br. 22. But a Guidelines adjustment does not affect “the extent of the harm legally attributable to the defendant” in the same way a vacated count of conviction does. Weingarten, 713 F.3d at 715. Here, resentencing entailed a new Guidelines analysis, but one clearly related to and not independent of the first. In such circumstances, Kent's case is more analogous to those cases involving the vacatur of related counts. And “[w]here one or more of several related counts have been vacated, and the district court on resentencing has increased the sentence on the remaining, related counts to maintain the same aggregate sentence as before, no presumption of vindictiveness applies.” Id. at 714.

Nor is this a case presenting any prospect of actual vindictiveness upon resentencing. Id. at 715 (rejecting actual vindictiveness in part because the “district court's conclusion that its initial aggregate sentence was still appropriate is understandable”); United States v. Hornick, 963 F.2d 546, 547 (2d Cir. 1992) (upholding resentencing because “[t]he original sentence was thus a reflection of the district court's assessment of the aggregate gravity of Hornick's crimes, not a sum arrived at through discrete consideration of distinct crimes”). Here, as in Hornick, “[t]he propriety of the resentence was implicit in our prior opinion.” 963 F.2d at 547. We noted in our prior opinion the possibility that the district court, after taking account of the procedural error we identified, might “impose[ ] the same sentence in any event,” but determined that because we could not know whether the district court would do so, remand for resentencing was proper. Kent, 821 F.3d at 371. We have previously upheld new sentences imposing the same aggregate sentence upon resentencing in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Weingarten, 713 F.3d at 711–12 (upholding new sentence that imposed the same aggregate sentence after vacating a related count of conviction); United States v. Chaklader, 232 F.3d 343, 346–47 (2d Cir. 2000) (upholding new sentence that imposed the same aggregate sentence by reapportioning original sentence between the underlying offenses and the sentencing enhancement after a mistake in calculating the initial sentence); Hornick, 963 F.2d at 546–47 (upholding new sentence that imposed the same aggregate sentence after remanding because a sentencing enhancement was improperly applied).

Finally, we do not agree with Kent that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The standard of review for substantive reasonableness is a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard,” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 194 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc), and we set aside a district court's sentencing judgment only in the “proverbial ‘rare case’ ” of a sentence that is “shockingly high” or “otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law,” United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 122 (2d Cir. 2009). The district court's imposition of a 78-month sentence (15 months greater than the top end of the calculated Guidelines range) cannot in the circumstances here be deemed either shocking or even unusual, especially because a reviewing court “may not apply a presumption of unreasonableness” simply because a sentence is outside the Guidelines range. United States v. Pope, 554 F.3d 240, 246 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). After all, “sentencing discretion is like an elevator in that it must run in both directions ․ [so] district courts have the power to impose sentences both above and below the Guidelines range.” Cavera, 550 F.3d at 194.

Furthermore, “a district court's decision to vary from the Guidelines ‘may attract the greatest respect when the sentencing judge finds a particular case outside the “heartland” to which the Commission intends individual Guidelines to apply.’ ” Id. at 193 (citation omitted). Here, the district court made the explicit finding that “[t]he Court does not believe that this particular offense was within the heartland of the guidelines.” J.A. 188. The district court also explained in depth its application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and why it viewed this crime as “outside the ‘heartland.’ ” J.A. 186–90. “[W]e must defer heavily to the expertise of district judges ․ [and so w]e do not consider what weight we would ourselves have given a particular factor.” Cavera, 550 F.3d at 191.

Based on the record before us, there is no evidence of presumed or actual vindictiveness, and the district court's decision to impose the same 78-month sentence at Kent's resentencing was substantively reasonable. We have considered Kent's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

Justice was indeed served. Feds nailed Kent and his friends for Fraud in a New York Federal Courtroom a few years ago. Search for: Kent, Milroy, Robinson, Epstein too.  You should be able to find  all of them. Below is how you can find Thomas Jefferson Kent, Jr. (aka Thomas J. Kent, Jr.) or Thomas Jefferson Kent) and write to him in his prison cell.

He has been locked up ever since. You may be eligible for restitution if you were scammed by Thomas J. Kent, JR. (Thomas Jefferson Kent, Jr.), FDP Capital, etc. Send him a letter in prison.. Here are his details. Great job by Rip-Off Report to bring this criminal to justice.

THOMAS JEFFERSON KENT Register Number: 69072-054 Age:  42 Race:  Black Sex:  Male Located at: Lewisburg USP Release Date: 04/04/2020

Use the addresses below to send correspondence and parcels to inmates. Learn more about sending mail

For inmates at the USP: INMATE NAME & REGISTER NUMBER

USP Lewisburg

U.S. PENITENTIARY

P.O. BOX 1000

LEWISBURG, PA  17837

Sounds like omp10 is very jealous of Thomas Kent. Put your name up so people can see your real name. Sounds like this is Ted. Keep it up . Your time is almost over. You know this.

He is now calling himself Mike Ryan. Mike Ryan is Thomas Kent of FDP Capital and he is also going by Tom Kent.  Wilshire Inc. and Wilshire USA LLC are his newest scam company's!!! 

We sent them a project that did not even exist and we received an LOI for $9,500.  Then we got on a call with Mr. Ryan (aka Thomas Kent, or Tom Kent) and by our group of Brokers past experience we recognized his voice (absolutely no doubt) and he even made the mistake of using his own name during the conversation.

The guy is a CROOK!!!!!!

Pass it on to ALL of the Brokers out there, DO NOT DO BUSINESS with them!!!!!

The phone he is using now is (347)835-8671

Please HELP us take him down today!!!

This complaint is also being filed with the State of Delaware (recently filed as a New Business)

cc: State of Delaware

After we completed FDP's application WITH COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY regarding our business and backgrounds, FDP Capital 'pre-approved' us for a $5 million loan secured by equity in our company...FDP required that we pay them a refundable $5,500 for a site visit first so they could 'verify' our business. After the site visit we were told the $5 million were already allocated for our project and would be in our possession within 30-days, ANY WE RECEIVED A LETTER OF FUNDING IN WRITING. From that point forward not one commitment made by FDP was kept. We never heard from their attorneys, nor received any escrow information, and a few months later when we requested a refund, they said we needed to put it in writing and it would take two weeks to process...after two weeks came and went, they said we needed to notarize the refund request and wait another two weeks, which we did. Several months later we have not received any refund nor further communication from FDP Capital, just their online attempts to slander us personally and professionally. FDP's Modus Operandi: Once they have your site visit fee and they show up for a couple hours at your company for the supposed 'site-visit', they go into stall and excuse tactics until you finally give up hope or realize you have been scammed. We filed the following report against them: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/312/RipOff0312517.htm. Since then they have taken on a campaign to discredit our attempts to expose them, in addition to bizarre tactics to try and make them look legit. Here are some of those links, a little research will show their creativity of just adding a comment to news or blog articles: http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-news/6630850-1.html http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/property-law-real-property-zoning-land-use/6791564-1.html http://www.youngentrepreneur.com/forum/blogs/newsworthy2u/106-thomas-j-kent-jr-and-fdp-capital-shines-brightly.html IF WE WERE LOOKING TO OPERATE AN ILLEGAL VENTURE, why would We have indeed filed reports with the FBI (Case# 1727962), The New York Attorney General's office, the New York Chamber of Commerce (who removed them from membership) www.chamber.com , and the National Investment Bankers Association http://www.nibanet.org/ (who also since removed them)? Both the NY Chamber and NIBA were used as credibility references by FDP Capital in extracting $5,500 out of us. The facts are that not one verifiable company can be uncovered to support any of FDP's business claims, and the reports they have filed on this site about us are there to slander us and defend our attempts to protect others from the same misfortune as us. Please do a little research and you will find that they are nothing more than scam artists bilking individuals/companies such as ours out of supposed site visit fees in attempts to find funding. For us this is no longer about the $5,500, it is the principle that these scammers are still taking advantage of companies' hope to find funding, and using that hope to scam them out of 'site visit' fees. You have to ask yourself, if FDP is so connected on Wall Street, why are they worried about little ole RDI? If you contact FDP, ask them to provide you one verifiable registered company with address and phone (not a cell phone number) they have funded. DO NOT PAY UP FRONT FEES! Please feel free to call us to discuss at the number listed on this posting. 425-836-4000.

FDP Capital LLC is a Wall Street Private Investment Banking Firm, which means that we have a duty to protect our investors from the myriad of bad investment schemes that are out there trying to get funded. Obviously that includes thoroughly vetting a business that is looking for funding. Part of that process is to have one of our inspection agents do an on site inspection to insure that the project is real, has no undisclosed risks, and has the potential to earn enough capital to repay the investor. The potential client is required to pay the expenses for this inspection including airfare, room and board, and ground transportation and the inspectors time. After the inspector has completed his inspection of the project, he makes his report to the FDP Capital board for approval, rejection, or further investigation. In this case, when the inspector made his report on RDI Enterprises, further investigation was ordered into the gaming laws, and discrepancies were found. A conference call was set up with the principals of RDI Enterprises S.A. and FDP Capital LLC to address these discrepancies. During the conference several questions were asked about who would be clients for the casino, and how an offshore casino could repay its investors. The answers were disturbing. The principals of RDI Enterprises revealed that the online casino would be owned by a shell company based in a small Central American nation, but would have it's internet servers located in the US and would target gamblers living in the US, and that the investors would be repaid by sending the money through several offshore bank accounts owned by other shell companies in multiple Caribbean nations. Our legal department immediately warned us that such an arrangement would likely violate several money laundering and banking laws as well as US gaming laws. FDP Capital's board ultimately determined that RDI Enterprises was attempting to fund a likely criminal enterprise and that by doing so they had violated the terms of their contract and wasted our time. RDI Enterprises was subsequently informed that their project had been declined for breach of contract. Sometime later RDI submitted a request for refund of the balance of the site visit fee, this request was denied because the deposited funds had already been depleted and because the contract states that a refund is only applicable if the client is not at fault. In this case it was determined that RDI was at fault for failing to disclose serious legal problems inherent in its offshore gambling business model and because Mr. Phipps had been (to say the least) uncooperative with our employees. Mr. Phipps (a principal of RDI) deserves special mention here due to his campaign to abuse, intimidate, and injure FDP Capital and its employees via e-mail, telephone, and in various forms of postings on the internet. At times he appears to lose control and act out irrationally. When Mr. Phipps has not gotten his way, he has become increasingly aggressive, made threats, and attempted to intimidate those whom he has targeted. When those tactics were ineffective, he has shown that he is willing to lash out at his targets by making incendiary and defamatory anonymous comments on blogs and message boards on the internet attempting to damage the reputation of his targets. He even boasts about his tactics apparently hoping to further upset and intimidate his targets. Unfortunately for Mr. Phipps what he has been doing is against the law and we have assigned a legal team to work up a case on him and his company so that we may bring suit against him for damages caused by any and all unlawful acts and statements he, his partners, or his associates may have committed against us or our employees. It is indeed unfortunate that such steps need to be taken. Common sense would seem to dictate that a company looking for funding, were it legitimate, would not seek to antagonize and damage a well connected Wall Street investment banking firm. It is unclear how such a company, who has been looking for funding for the last four years, would believe that their actions with this firm would not effect their future prospects with other investment firms. But that is the track this company seems to be set on. 'alea iacta est' RDI Enterprises, it seems, prefers to blame us rather than themselves for the consequences of their actions. They continue to maintain that we were under some obligation to fund their scheme, we were not. We made no commitment to fund them and would not make such a commitment without first knowing what they are planning to do with the money and how they plan to repay the funds. Furthermore, any contract that involves an illegal enterprise is automatically void under US law. By accusing us of wrong doing, they appear to be attempting to shift the blame away from their offshore gambling scheme and the $5 million dollars that they would have received had they gotten the loan, money that likely could never be repaid legitimately if ever at all. Instead they attempt to focus public attention on the $5500 deposit they paid toward our expenses to inspect their project, most of which had been spent during the inspection process. Money that they lost because their project violated the terms of their contract with us. Any interested party wishing to know more about RDI Enterprises S.A. (aka RealDeck), its principals, or our own investment banking policies are encouraged to contact us through our website at: www.FDPcapital.com , or via email at: [email protected] . Our legal department will be happy to provide you with a packet of information to assist you in making an informed determination about RDI Enterprises S.A. and its offshore gambling scheme.

This is a reply to FDP Capital's rebuttal by "D. Epstein". I would love to respond to their rebuttal as if they are a legitimate company, but I cannot because they are scam artists. I have requested they have their attorney(s) contact me, but none ever did. I believe the best response is to paste in my very last email communication with FDP on October 25, 2007 which received no reply or calls from anyone at FDP. Do not let FDP scam you! Patrick Phipps -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 4:40 AM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Cc: Subject: RE: Regarding your recent email Mr. Milroy: To-date, FDP Capital has done nothing to prove that you are a legitimate business. Every commitment and promise you made to us has been broken. We were promised Escrow Attorney information from day one and here we are 8 weeks later with more evidence proving your operation to be a fraud and a scam, and less to support your case of being legitimate. I have uncovered multiple clients/victims of FDP that have claims similar to ours, and not one that has been funded. I would like you to prove to us that you are legitimate and prove you have $500 million under management or you are $30 million liquid, or that you had already allocated the $5 million for our project. I would be surprised if you could even provide one legitimate client you have funded. You listed fraudulently on your reference sheet that Vincent Breeding was a builder client of FDP's and "Thomas J. Kent, Jr." and Vincent said FDP funded a $35 million golf course project in Bakersfield. I have learned that Vincent is an inactive real estate and was acting as a "broker" similar to Brad Robinson, and not the client...not to mention no funding was ever accomplished, just additional site visit fees from other victims out of Bakersfield. I also have uncovered a number of other facts and lies about FDP that I have on file. If you look at the emails going back and forth, as I know you have, you would know that the only harassment, threats, intimidation, and defamation, not to mention the sharing of confidential information related to our project with 3rd parties not involved, came from your "partner", "Thomas J. Kent, Jr.". As for your accusation of civil rights violations, that is a very serious allegation with no proof whatsoever! I have seen the doctored email that your partner sent to Vincent Breeding and Brad Robinson supposedly from me. If you want to bring in the legal and criminal authorities, please do, I welcome it. I am 100% confident that you will not try and prove any of the above because you already know you cannot. The evidence I have uncovered shows that your business' purpose is simply in the business of taking site visit fees that are small enough that most people won't bother when you give them whatever excuse necessary to them as to why you could not fund them. Feel free to prove me wrong. PS, Mr. Milroy, what is your phone number? Because throughout this eight week experience, not one FDP associate has been able to be reached via your shared executive office space reception phone number. In the meantime, on principle, I will be doing everything in my power to protect other unsuspecting victims from your scam. Patrick Phipps RDI -----Original Message----- From: Sen -FDP Capital LLC [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:30 AM To: rdi Cc: 'kent llllll'; 'Patrick Phipps'; Subject: Regarding your recent email To: RDI Re: Real Deck Internet Casino Project As I am sure you are aware, FDP Capital, LLC has a refund policy and that policy is clearly stated in the agreement that you signed. That agreement is binding and it states that any request for refund must be notarized and in writing and received by our office as stipulated. Obviously that precludes any verbal, electronic or facsimile communication which our experience has shown can be unreliable and problematic with regard to record keeping. We have not adopted this policy lightly, but as a result of several past illusory requests for refund that clients have tried to use as a ploy to renegotiate the terms of their financing, therefore we now require all client requests for refund to be signed, in writing and independently authenticated by a notary public before we will accept it; since any request for refund terminates the client's agreement and any offers to finance the client's project; we must be sure that the person making the request has the authority to do so and that we can document that authority. We don't consider this to be a hardship on the client because most banks provide free walk in notary services for their depositors. Our website ( www.FDPcapital.com ) clearly states that both Thomas and I are Managing Partners of FDP Capital, LLC, and even though I often don't deal directly with fund seeking clients, I have always reserved the right to so when I feel that it is important and I reserve the right to veto any project that is brought to us for funding. We also don't take harassment, threats, intimidation, defamation, civil rights violations and/or verbal abuse directed against our staff, employees, or associates lightly; our policy is to prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law. Therefore you are requested to, if possible, make every effort to restrain your business associates' actions. Regards, Sen Milroy Managing Partner FDP Capital, LLC 67 Wall Street, Suite 2211 New York, NY 10005 Tel. (212) 709-8228 Fax: 215.252.5404 www.FDPcapital.com

FDP Capital and Thomas J. Kent claims to be an Investment Banking fund that manages $500 million to fund entrepreneurial ventures. They request you complete an application and if approved they will contact you. When they contact you they require that you wire $5,500 for travel and due diligence fees. Our company was seeking $5 million to launch and we were 'pre-approved for funding'. We were introduced to FDP via a 'broker', Brad Robinson (from Minnesota) that claimed to have done many deals with Thomas J. Kent and FDP Capital. We wired the $5,500 because there was a refund clause if funding was not provided. Thomas J. Kent traveled to our offices to conduct due diligence. We were immediately concerned because he didn't look like an individual who was worth or managed millions, and on top of that, he did not ask one probing question about our business. He did however say that he was impressed and that we would receive a letter of funding for the $5 million and escrow attorney information within a week, and funding within 30 days. We never received any escrow attorney information, or funding. We were given excuse after excuse to why there were delays. After a month of this we demanded our refund and sent in their required notarized refund request. It has been several months later and we have received NO refund nor further communication. FDP Capital operates out of an executive office suite (http://www.sri-ny.com/index.html) and has no real offices of their own. You can never get them on the phone by calling their offices. They work with desperate 'brokers'/introducers who are promised $500 for each $5,500 site visit fee. Since being scammed by FDP Capital we have conducted considerable research and uncovered at least four other companies that were scammed in the same way by FDP. We were not able to uncover one company that had been funded by FDP. Do not do business with FDP, they are in the business of fraud and collecting site visit fees, not investment funding.

Re: "Rd Bellevue, Washington U.S.A." FDP Capital, LLC is a Wall Street Investment Banking Firm. We represent qualified capital investors who wish to earn a competitive return on their investments but do so with as little risk as possible. Each of our prospective business clients are asked to provide a detailed summary of their business model and answer a battery of questions before we will consider them as a candidate for our investors. Based upon the information provided by the prospective client, we make a determination of the viability of the prospective clients business model. If we consider the model to be viable we issue the prospective client a signed letter of interest and a site inspection agreement. The client must agree to all of the provisions of the agreement which includes travel expenses, associated preparation time and appraisal costs, and may include an application fee depending on the type of funding request. Per the agreement the site visit fee is refundable less actual expenses incurred on the site visit and in preparation for the site visit PROVIDED that the client has been truthful in their answers and fully cooperative with the site inspector and provided full disclosure of any issues relating to the business that might effect the businesses ability to successfully repay the investor. We are not aware of any individual with the initials RD whom we may have dealt with in Washington State, but based on the other information provided we are confident that the individual who submitted this complaint is a principal of a company called Real Deck. Upon inspection of this business we had further questions regarding the legality of its business model and after some research we discovered information about its Internet based Casino business model that would likely violate federal gaming laws and international banking laws. Because the principals failed to disclose this information and because of uncooperative behavior on the part of the principals thereafter they were in violation of the terms of the agreement they signed and as such forfeited any right to a monetary refund of the remainder of their site visit fee and terminated their agreement with us. Obviously we reject this person's allegations and have referred the matter of this unsubstantiated public accusation to our attorneys for advisement. It would be helpful if the anonymous party who posted this complaint would come forward and identify him/herself so that we may have our attorneys discuss the matter with them. Thank you for your attention. D. Epstein Managing Director FDP Capital, LLC DE/sm