US v. MasterVend Marketing, Inc.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (CLOSED)

Most recent update 7/6/07 (See end of document)

United States v. Evans Eric Baros, Jr., et al., Case No. 06-CR-20742-Ungaro (S.D. Florida)
United States v. Allen Fialkoff, Case No. 06-CR-20741-Lenard (S.D. Florida)

Update 11/30/06:

On November 30, 2006, an indictment was filed that charged Evans Eric Baros, Jr., Samuel Elmowitz, and Dana Kerri Elmowitz Pearl with conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with MasterVend Marketing, Inc. (“MasterVend”). Also that day, an indictment was filed that charged Allen Fialkoff with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud, six counts of mail fraud, and six counts of wire fraud.

According to the Indictments, MasterVend was in business from January 2004 until in or around February 2005. Baros, Elmowitz, Pearl, and Fialkoff worked for MasterVend, a company which purportedly sold candy and “snack and soda” vending machine business opportunities to consumers across the United States. According to the Indictments, potential purchasers were told, among other things, that 80% of MasterVend business opportunity purchasers had ordered additional vending machines from MasterVend, when there were no repeat buyers. In addition, potential purchasers were told that certain references had previously purchased one or more vending machines from MasterVend, when those references did not pay for their vending machines and did not operate their own MasterVend vending machines.

Charges contained in the indictment are simply an accusation, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charges must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty it is to determine guilt or innocence.

Update 1/31/07:

Defendant Samuel Elmowitz pled guilty on January 31, 2007, to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. See U.S. Attorney's Office Press Release (1/31/07), “One MasterVend Marketing, Inc., Defendant Pleads Guilty to Business Opportunity Fraud.” Defendant Elmowitz was allowed to remain free on bond prior to sentencing. A sentencing date has not been finalized.

Update 2/7/2007:

Defendant Evans Eric Baros, Jr. pled guilty on February 7, 2007, to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. See U.S. Attorney's Office Press Release (2/7/07), “Two MasterVend Marketing, Inc. Defendants Plead Guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud.” Defendant Baros was allowed to remain free on bond prior to sentencing. A sentencing date has not been finalized.

Defendant Dana Kerri Elmowitz Pearl pled guilty on February 7, 2007, to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. See U.S. Attorney's Office Press Release (2/7/07), “Two MasterVend Marketing, Inc. Defendants Plead Guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud.” Defendant Pearl was allowed to remain free on bond prior to sentencing. A sentencing date has not been finalized.

Update 2/27/2007:

Defendant Allen Fialkoff pled guilty on February 27, 2007, to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud. Defendant Fialkoff was allowed to remain free on bond and was scheduled to be sentenced on May 7, 2007.

Update 5/7/07:

Defendant Allen Fialkoff was sentenced to serve 27 months of imprisonment in a federal penitentiary with two years’ supervised release. Defendant Fialkoff was ordered to pay a special assessment of $100. A hearing on the amount of restitution owed by Defendant Fialkoff was scheduled for July 30, 2007. Defendant Fialkoff was imprisoned immediately following the sentencing hearing.

Update 7/6/07:

On June 21, 2007, Evans Eric Baros, Samuel Elmowitz and Dana Kerri Elmowitz Pearl were sentenced for conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with MasterVend Marketing, Inc. Baros was sentenced to 26 months in prison, three years supervised release and ordered to pay $339,071 in restitution. Elmowitz was sentenced to five years probation, including one year of home detention with electronic monitoring, and ordered to pay $341,539 in restitution. Pearl was sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison, three years supervised release, 150 hours community service, and ordered to pay $359,763 in restitution. See U.S. Attorney's Office Press Release (6/21/07). Under federal law, restitution is imposed without regard to a defendant's ability to pay the amount of the award.