: Claim No: KB-2026-002571 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division 29 July 2026 Before: Mr Justice Fordham Between: HXS -v- Daniel Ryan Kane Robert Samms Dylan Nelson The person or persons unknown (a) who have communicated with the Claimant by email from the email address dannyryan_94@hotmail.co.uk; or (b) who have communicated with the Claimant by ordinary text message from +1 917 722 9086; or (c) who has communicated with the Claimant by WhatsApp numbers +1 940 601 2821 and +44 7423 436872; or (d) who have communicated with the Claimant by Telegram accounts @edm2181 and @dg96dg; or (e) who have communicated with the Claimant via the Seeking dating website; or (f) who use or have used a Revolut account under the name Daniel Ryan with the GB IBAN GB76 REVO 2301 2083 5150 68 and the BIC/SWIFT code REVOGB21; or (g) who use or have used the Wise bank account under the name Kane Robert Sams with IBAN: GB76 REVO 2301 2083 5150 68 and BIC/SWIFT: REVOGB21 The post HXS -v- persons unknown and others appeare[...]
: Claim No: KB-2026-002571 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division 29 July 2026 Before: Mr Justice Fordham Between: HSX -v- Daniel Ryan Kane Robert Samms Dylan Nelson The person or persons unknown (a) who have communicated with the Claimant by email from the email address dannyryan_94@hotmail.co.uk; or (b) who have communicated with the Claimant by ordinary text message from +1 917 722 9086; or (c) who has communicated with the Claimant by WhatsApp numbers +1 940 601 2821 and +44 7423 436872; or (d) who have communicated with the Claimant by Telegram accounts @edm2181 and @dg96dg; or (e) who have communicated with the Claimant via the Seeking dating website; or (f) who use or have used a Revolut account under the name Daniel Ryan with the GB IBAN GB76 REVO 2301 2083 5150 68 and the BIC/SWIFT code REVOGB21; or (g) who use or have used the Wise bank account under the name Kane Robert Sams with IBAN: GB76 REVO 2301 2083 5150 68 and BIC/SWIFT: REVOGB21 The post HSX -v- persons unknown and others appeare[...]
: We can’t go for that (no can do) lfair July 17, 2017 | 11:38AM We can’t go for that (no can do) By Lesley Fair Of course, phantom debt collection – the practice of pressuring people to pay “debts” they don’t owe – harms consumers. But as an FTC complaint demonstrates, when phantom debt collectors strike, they could affect your company, too. According to the FTC , a Florida-based outfit engaged in a scheme to defraud consumers through the collection of debts people didn’t actually owe or the company didn’t have the authority to collect. The complaint charges that the defendants – Hardco Holding Group, S & H Financial Group, Dequan M. Sicard, and Daryl M. Hall (no, not that Daryl Hall) – violated the FTC Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. When contacting consumers, in many instances the defendants allegedly impersonated attorneys and threatened to have people thrown in jail if they didn’t pay up on delinquent payday loans – loans, remember, that many consumers didn’t take out in the first place and de[...]
: Following widespread looting sprees and acts of violence occurring on the sidelines of the October 17 student protests, so-called “casseurs” seem to be the centre of attention. But the term, which comes from the French verb casser or “to break”, poses more questions than answers. The sociologist Paolo Stuppia examines the unprecedented situation many cities across France are having to contend with, and the complex combination of collective action whose motivations are unclear and the social media’s extreme agility. The Conversation: How unprecedented are the scenes of looting that we witnessed on the sidelines of the October 17 demonstrations? Paolo Stuppia: What may be unprecedented is the extent of the destruction of private property and the goods that have been stolen. It should be clear, however, that not all the looters can necessarily be sorted into identifiable groups, at least politically. Indeed, as the politician Xavier Crettiez, the sociologist Isabelle Sommier and the historian François Audigier [...]
: Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock chundycz May 8, 2020 | 9:01AM Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock By Andrew Smith, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, the FTC has released dozens of warning letters against people trying to make an illegal buck off the Coronavirus. More than a month in, it seems like a good time to look back at what’s happened. If you follow this blog, you’ll know these have been busy weeks – with advice about spotting the many scams we’re all facing, news of the warning letters sent on a wide range of scams, and some enforcement actions filed. You might wonder: Why send letters? Why not just sue the !*$@&#? Fair question. But the letters are working. And, given the scope of the scams out there right now, we want to get the best and fastest results we can with the most efficient tool we have. Right now, for these Coronavirus-related issues, that’s warning letters. In general, here’s how it goes: We spot someone advertising some[...]
: New data from the Federal Trade Commission reveal that people reported losing a staggering $3.5 billion to imposter scams in 2025, with reported losses increasing nearly three times since 2020. FTC data also show that people reported imposter scams more than any other fraud category in 2025—nearly one in three fraud reports were about imposter scams. These scams lured consumers through text, phone, email, social media, search engine results and other means. Some of the costliest impersonation scams start with a fake security alert, often from a bank. People are convinced to move money to “protect” it, with their losses often limited only by their available funds. Last year, people reported losing nearly $1 billion to business impersonators with the highest reported losses to bank impersonators—and about $920 million to government impersonators, up from $866 million and $789 million respectively in 2024. The FTC has seen a striking increase in reported fraud losses to all types of fraud—about $16 billion was [...]
: Alexander Mashinsky, the former CEO of cryptocurrency platform Celsius Network Inc. (Celsius), and his business partners, Shlomi Daniel Leon and Hanoch “Nuke” Goldstein, will pay a total of $16.5 million to resolve the Federal Trade Commission’s charges that they deceived users by falsely promising that deposits made to their cryptocurrency platform would be safe and always available. Mashinsky and Leon have also agreed to a ban on marketing or selling products or services that can be used to deposit, exchange, invest or withdraw assets. Similarly, Goldstein has agreed to a ban on marketing or selling retail products or services that can be used to buy, sell, deposit, withdraw, distribute or trade cryptocurrency. In its July 2023 complaint , the FTC alleged that Celsius and its co-founders promised consumers that Celsius was “safer” than a bank or other traditional financial institutions and misrepresented that their deposits were safe because Celsius earned profits at “no risk” to consumers by making secur[...]