Free registration is required to access these resources. Login or Register.

Premium compliance products are also available in the insideARM Store

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court shut down a Houston-based debt collection operation that allegedly illegally used insults, lies, and false threats to collect on payday loans – including telling a Virginia woman that she would be arrested and jailed for three years, and would lose her disability payments if she did not pay a $980 debt.

The court also froze the operation’s assets, banned the defendants from engaging in debt collection, and appointed a receiver to take control of the business while the FTC moves forward with the case.

In addition to using false threats of arrest and imprisonment, the operation allegedly told some consumers their minor children would be taken into government custody; disclosed debts to family members and military superiors; falsely claimed to work hand-in-hand with local sheriff’s offices; and collected bogus late fees and attorneys’ fees, the FTC complaint alleged.

As part of its continuing crackdown on scams that target consumers in financial distress, the FTC filed a complaint against Goldman Schwartz, Inc., three affiliated companies, and three individuals who own or manage them.  The operation did business nationwide collecting debts for numerous payday loan companies, including Ace Cash Express, Advance America, Allied Cash Advance, Checkmate, First Cash Advance, and MoneyMart.

The complaint charges the defendants with multiple violations of the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), including:

  • falsely representing that Goldman Schwartz is a law firm and owner Gerald Wright is an attorney named Barry Schwartz.

  • falsely claiming that consumers have committed crimes by not paying their debts, will be arrested or jailed, and will lose custody of their minor children.

  • falsely claiming to be affiliated with or work in conjunction with law enforcement agencies.

  • harassing and abusing consumers by using obscene or profane language, calling repeatedly or continuously, and calling late in the evening or early in the morning.

  • adding unauthorized late fees and attorney’s fees to the amount consumers owe on their debts, and

  • failing to inform consumers of their rights to dispute the debts, have the debts verified, and obtain the names of the original creditors.

The FTC would like to thank the Harris County (Texas) Constable Precinct 5, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, and the Better Business Bureau of Greater Houston and South Texas for their invaluable assistance in this investigation.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0-1, with former Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch not participating.  The FTC filed the complaint and the request for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  On January 16, 2013, the court granted the FTC’s request for a temporary restraining order with an asset freeze and the appointment of a monitor.  Following a hearing on January 28, 2013, the court entered a preliminary injunction against all defendants that continued the asset freeze, banned collection activity, and appointed a receiver.

The complaint names as defendants Goldman Schwartz Inc, also doing business as Goldman, Schwartz, Lieberman & Stein; Debtcom, Inc., also doing business as Cole, Tanner, & Wright; Harris County Check Recovery Inc.; The G. Wright Group Inc., also doing business as The Wright Group; Gerald Wright, also known as Barry Schwartz; Starlette Foster, also known as Star Foster; and Jennifer Zamora.


Related Products

Telephone Communication Compliance: The CFPB's Consent Orders Thumbnail

Telephone Communication Compliance: The CFPB's Consent Orders

Our Telephone Communication Compliance: The CFPB’s Consent Orders guide is designed to help debt collectors comply with consent orders that hint at telephone communication violations. The report includes easy-to-understand explanations of each consent order and a comprehensive chart of all relevant consent orders, keeping the information you need right at your fingertips! This paper has been excerpted from insideARM's larger "The CFPB's Consent Orders Regulating the ARM Industry" report, available for sale now.

Staying Compliant – and Out of Court – with the TCPA Thumbnail

Staying Compliant – and Out of Court – with the TCPA

This reference guide distills the information presented in our webinar. It comes complete with a link to the full recording of the webinar – great for use for all-staff trainings and quarterly in-services -- as well as the slide deck and full transcript of the webinar. This guide doesn’t just walk through what agencies should and should not be doing, going forward -- it contains the full Q&A from the webinar, too. (This product is approved for DBA International Certification Credit.)

The CFPB's Consent Orders Regulating the ARM Industry Thumbnail

The CFPB's Consent Orders Regulating the ARM Industry

Our guide on The CFPB’s Consent Orders Regulating the ARM Industry is the first report of its kind designed to help debt collectors comply with consent orders. The report includes easy-to-understand explanations of each consent order and a comprehensive chart of all relevant consent orders, keeping the information you need right at your fingertips! This report will be updated quarterly.

UPDATED! CFPB’s Advice to the Consumer (through March 2016) Thumbnail

UPDATED! CFPB’s Advice to the Consumer (through March 2016)

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hosts more than 80 of the most common consumer questions about debt collection on its Ask CFPB website. And since the Bureau was created for the sole purpose of representing and protecting consumers, debt collectors need to know how the CFPB communicates with them. That’s why insideARM compiled the answers to all 88 questions in one user-friendly report. Using the CFPB’s guidance as a model for your own compliance priorities, policies and procedures means your company will be able to keep up with the Bureau before it feels the need to examine your agency. ALL ANSWERS UPDATED THROUGH MARCH 2016.

Advertisement