The United States Department of Justice Department of Justice SealF The United States Department of Justice
Search The Site
 

This page lists current CPB case updates accessible to the public.

Note: Under the "Justice for All Act of 2004," crime victims have certain rights described here.

US v. United Nuclear Scientific Supplies, et al


Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (CLOSED)

Most recent update: 6/12/08

Tel-2-Net Corp. (aka Tel2Net), a Florida corporation was incorporated in or around December 2003. Tel2Net’s principal place of business was in Miami, Florida. See Justice Department Press Release, 11/5/07, regarding this and other related cases.

United States v. Avril Aronson, Case No. 07-cr-20515 (SD FL)

United States v. Matthew DeRose, Case No. 07-cr-20429 (SD FL)

United States v. Alan Freidman, Case No. 07-cr-20515 (SD FL)

United States v. Martin Hudson, Case No. 07-cr-20869 (SD FL)

United States v. Arthur Tulin, Case No. 05-cr-20137 (SD FL)

United States v. Avril Aronson

On July 9, 2007, Avril Aronson was charged by federal criminal information with 1 count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The charges alleged that Avril Aronson participated in business opportunity fraud through telemarketing. The charges were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and involved Avril Aronson's conduct at a fraudulent business opportunity firm called Tel-2-Net Corp.

On July 30, 2007, Avril Aronson pled guilty to 1 count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. In doing so, Avril Aronson admitted she had engaged in business opportunity fraud through telemarketing.

On January 2, 2008, Avril Aronson was sentenced to 5 months' probation and 600 hours of community service. During her term of probation, Avril Aronson is not permitted to sell business opportunities or engage in telemarketing without approval of the probation office and the Court.

Under federal law restitution is ordered in criminal cases, in general, on the basis of losses a defendant causes and without regard to the defendant's ability to pay the restitution. See 18 U.S.C.' 3664 (f)(1)(A), which provides: "In each order of restitution, the court shall order restitution to each victim in the full amount of each victim's losses as determined by the court and without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant." Any payments made by the defendant will go to the Court and will then be shared among victims. Any amount due a victim shall be reduced by any amount the victim recovers for the same loss from any other source. If you have any questions regarding the restitution order, please contact the Federal Probation Office of the Southern District of Florida.

Return to Top

United States v. Matthew DeRose

On May, 31, 2007, Matthew DeRose was charged by federal criminal information with 1 count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The charges alleged that Matthew DeRose participated in business opportunity fraud through telemarketing. Matthew DeRose has also been known as "Matt DeRose." The charges were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and involved Matthew DeRose's conduct at a fraudulent business opportunity firm called Tel-2-Net Corp.

On July 5, 2007, Matthew DeRose pled guilty to 1 count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. In doing so, Matthew DeRose admitted he had engaged in business opportunity fraud through telemarketing.

On September 17, 2007, Matthew DeRose was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, 3 years’ supervised release and $195,583 in restitution. During his term of supervised release, Matthew DeRose is not permitted to sell business opportunities or engage in telemarketing without approval of the probation office and the Court.

Under federal law restitution is ordered in criminal cases, in general, on the basis of losses a defendant causes and without regard to the defendant's ability to pay the restitution. See 18 U.S.C. 3664 (f)(1)(A), which provides: "In each order of restitution, the court shall order restitution to each victim in the full amount of each victim's losses as determined by the court and without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant." Any payments made by the defendant will go to the Court and will then be shared among victims. Any amount due a victim shall be reduced by any amount the victim recovers for the same loss from any other source. If you have any questions regarding the restitution order, please contact the Federal Probation Office of the Southern District of Florida.

Return to Top

United States v. Alan Freidman

On July 9, 2007, Alan Freidman was charged by federal criminal information with 1 count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The charges alleged that Alan Freidman participated in business opportunity fraud through telemarketing. The charges were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and involved Alan Freidman's conduct at a fraudulent business opportunity firm called Tel-2-Net Corp.

On July 30, 2007, Alan Freidman pled guilty to 1 count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. In doing so, Alan Freidman admitted he had engaged in business opportunity fraud through telemarketing.

On January 3, 2008, Alan Freidman was sentenced to 2 months' probation and 600 hours of community service. During his term of probation, Alan Freidman is not permitted to sell business opportunities or engage in telemarketing without approval of the probation office and the Court.

Under federal law restitution is ordered in criminal cases, in general, on the basis of losses a defendant causes and without regard to the defendant's ability to pay the restitution. See 18 U.S.C. 3664 (f)(1)(A), which provides: "In each order of restitution, the court shall order restitution to each victim in the full amount of each victim's losses as determined by the court and without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant." Any payments made by the defendant will go to the Court and will then be shared among victims. Any amount due a victim shall be reduced by any amount the victim recovers for the same loss from any other source. If you have any questions regarding the restitution order, please contact the Federal Probation Office of the Southern District of Florida.

Return to Top

United States. v. Martin Hudson

Martin Hudson was charged by Information with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud under Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

Tel-2-Net engaged in the sale of Internet kiosk business opportunities. For a minimum purchase price of approximately $12,000, potential purchasers were told they would receive an Internet kiosk and assistance in running an Internet kiosk business. Potential purchasers were told that after being placed in various locations, members of the public would pay a fee to access the Internet, use a WiFi “hotspot,” send electronic greeting cards, and take advantage of other services the kiosk supplied. According to Tel-2-Net, a business opportunity purchaser, known as a “distributor,” would earn substantial profits from the fees generated when members of the public used the distributor’s kiosks.

Martin Hudson, doing business as CPL Locating Services, Inc., (“CPL Locating”) was a so-called “outside locator” hired to find locations for Tel-2-Net business opportunity purchasers to place their Internet kiosks. Tel-2-Net salespeople told potential purchasers to contact Hudson, who would describe the services CPL Locating would provide. Upon receiving calls from potential purchasers, Martin Hudson falsely stated that he had gone through the area where the potential purchasers were located before Tel-2--Net had advertised the business opportunity in that area. He stated that he had randomly selected business locations and spoke to them about the potential for placing Tel-2-Net kiosks in their locations. He falsely stated that he had a database of many locations ready to accept kiosks in the potential purchaser’s geographic area. He further falsely stated that kiosks would be placed in high-traffic, high profit locations.

Tel-2-Net fraudulently induced more than 80 consumers to invest more than $1 million in the kiosk opportunity. To date, four other individuals have been convicted in connection with their participation in Tel-2-Net.

On December 14, 2007, Hudson pled guily to the charges. Hudson faces a maximum statutory term of imprisonment of five years on the mail fraud conspiracy count, a fine, and mandatory restitution.

Return to Top

Update 6/12/08:

On February 22, 2008, Martin Hudson was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment, 3 years’ supervised release and $307,404.50 in restitution. During his term of supervised release, Martin Hudson is not permitted to sell business opportunities or engage in telemarketing without approval of the probation office and the Court.

Under federal law restitution is ordered in criminal cases, in general, on the basis of losses a defendant causes and without regard to the defendant's ability to pay the restitution. See 18 U.S.C. 3664 (f)(1)(A), which provides: "In each order of restitution, the court shall order restitution to each victim in the full amount of each victim's losses as determined by the court and without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant." Any payments made by the defendant will go to the Court and will then be shared among victims. Any amount due a victim shall be reduced by any amount the victim recovers for the same loss from any other source. If you have any questions regarding the restitution order, please contact the Federal Probation Office of the Southern District of Florida.

Return to Top

United States v. Arthur Tulin

On February 18, 2005, Arthur Tulin was charged by federal criminal information with 1 count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The charges alleged that Arthur Tulin participated in business opportunity fraud through telemarketing. The charges were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and involved Arthur Tulin's conduct at a fraudulent business opportunity firm called Tel-2-Net Corp.

On March 30, 2005, Arthur Tulin pled guilty to 1 count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. In doing so, Arthur Tulin admitted he had engaged in business opportunity fraud through telemarketing.

On October, 7, 2005, Arthur Tulin was sentenced to 51 months' imprisonment, 3 years’ supervised release and $630,581.90 in restitution. During his term of supervised release, Arthur Tulin is not permitted to sell business opportunities or engage in telemarketing without approval of the probation office and the Court.

Under federal law restitution is ordered in criminal cases, in general, on the basis of losses a defendant causes and without regard to the defendant's ability to pay the restitution. See 18 U.S.C. 3664 (f)(1)(A), which provides: "In each order of restitution, the court shall order restitution to each victim in the full amount of each victim's losses as determined by the court and without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant." Any payments made by the defendant will go to the Court and will then be shared among victims. Any amount due a victim shall be reduced by any amount the victim recovers for the same loss from any other source. If you have any questions regarding the restitution order, please contact the Federal Probation Office of the Southern District of Florida. 

Return to Top