On June 4th Abel D. Santana wrote to the courtroom concerning a “fraudulent declare”.
Santana identifies himself as a “TelexFree creditor” and wrote to the courtroom to request
a assessment of my declare … filed on June 28, 2016 for $16,768.50.
Santana claims he discovered his declare was disallowed in November 2020 ‘as a result of a fraudulent declare … was accepted and paid … as an alternative’.
Santana claims to have been in touch with the TelexFree Trustee’s authorized counsel since then.
On April 23, 2021 they (the Trustee) acquired a mailed package deal I despatched explaining that the fee made to (the allegedly fraudulent declare) was not me or associated to me as a result of I’ve not given authorization to anyone to course of such claims on my behalf.
As of right this moment, I’ve not heard from the Trustee and I urge your help to find an answer to my case.
This traumatic expertise of a fraud had [sic] made me fall right into a deep despair and (I) belief {that a} honest determination might be made after the investigation.
Santana’s letter to the courtroom appeared on the TelexFree case docket on August thirteenth.
On August nineteenth the Trustee filed a response, detailing the timeline of occasions that led to Santana’s declare being disallowed.
On June 28, 2016, Mr. Santana filed (a) declare … within the quantity of $16,768.50.
On July 8, 2016, Katherine Sanchez filed (a) declare … within the quantity of $16,768.50.
Each of the foregoing claims asserted possession in the identical sixty-seven consumer accounts. The claims have been subsequently duplicative.
Why Santana claimed possession of sixty-seven TelexFree accounts is unclear.
On August 24, 2018, Mr. Santana was despatched the First Discover stating that the Trustee proposed to disallow his declare as being duplicative of the later filed declare.
The First Discover was despatched to the e-mail handle Santana supplied in his declare.
No response was acquired to the First Discover.
Mr. Santana was despatched the Second Discover … on November 26, 2018.
No response was acquired to the Second Discover.
As set forth within the Claims Process Order, failure to answer the First Discover and the Second Discover resulted in disallowance of the declare.
Based mostly upon the foregoing, there isn’t a foundation for the problem made by the claimant, because the declare was correctly disallowed greater than two years in the past.
A response from the courtroom has but to look on the docket.
In any occasion the Trustee’s response raises some pertinent questions.
Firstly and once more, why did Santana and Katherine Sanchez declare possession of sixty-seven TelexFree accounts?
If Santana’s declare is to be believed, presumably the $16,768.50 he invested was unfold out throughout these accounts?
That is clearly not typical investor habits and appears fairly suspicious.
Second, why didn’t Santana reply to the First and Second Notices, despatched to the e-mail handle he supplied in his declare?
Third, what does he anticipate to the courtroom to do years after the actual fact?
Santana’s letter to the courtroom suggests Katherine Sanchez’s declare was accepted and paid out.
There isn’t a affirmation of this within the Trustee’s response.
Regardless, feels like Santana must observe up with whoever Katherine Sanchez is that if he desires to chase up his funds.
That’s assuming there’s nothing dodgy occurring which, given the circumstances and the way this performed out, I’m not even remotely satisfied there isn’t.
Replace twenty fourth August 2021 – The courtroom has issued an order on Abel Santana’s letter.
If, after reviewing the (Trustee’s) response, Mr. Santander [sic] wants additional aid he should file a correct movement with the Court docket explaining the aid he’s requesting and the idea for mentioned aid.
Not anticipating something additional.
Be aware that the courtroom incorrectly identifies Abel Santana as “Santander” on each the case docket and its August twenty third order.