GO TO WWW.STOPMADSENCOKER.COM John Madsen and Glenn Premru conned $7.7 Mil from people around the world. Madsen rolled on Premru which gave him a restitution of $2.5 Mil and probation of 5 years. The case was filed in 2001 but was not completed until 2005. Premru was on Arizona's Most Wanted list. John Madsen is now involved with GlobeTrack Wireless.
GO TO WWW.STOPMADSENCOKER.COM John Madsen and Glenn Premru conned $7.7 Mil from people around the world. Madsen rolled on Premru which gave him a restitution of $2.5 Mil and probation of 5 years. The case was filed in 2001 but was not completed until 2005. Premru was on Arizona's Most Wanted list. John Madsen is now involved with GlobeTrack Wireless.
GO TO WWW.STOPMADSENCOKER.COM John Madsen and Glenn Premru conned $7.7 Mil from people around the world. Madsen rolled on Premru which gave him a restitution of $2.5 Mil and probation of 5 years. The case was filed in 2001 but was not completed until 2005. Premru was on Arizona's Most Wanted list. John Madsen is now involved with GlobeTrack Wireless.
ies Sega oe NED __COPY
Case 1:08-cr-00204,Y Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 1 of 5
YmLED = _LOD@ED
—__ RECEI
2
Bue Noy = 5 2001
: OLERKU 8 DISTRICT COURT
ier ‘Avene, Suit 1200 bert IF ARIZONA
4) Boots 2 004 BY. DEPUTY,
5 iphone aa) S750
6
1
8
9
‘UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
ae wo. cro [o/o-HHE™ oe
» INEQRMATION
VIO: 18U,SC. § 1341
12), John J. Madsen, (Mail Fraud)
16 caine stan "ORNEY CHARGES:
|
|
18 COUNT 1
19 ‘Atall times material to this Information:
20 i. Defendant JOHN I, MADSEN cid business as The Madsen Group, Ltd. (ING).
a 2, MADSEN maintained addresses for TMG at 6560 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite
22 1.200, Scottsdale, AZ, 85253, and 8812N, 65* Stroct, Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253.
23 3, TMG was atall times relevant hereto, an Arizona corporation doing business in
24) Avizona and elsewhere, TMG was owned, operated and controlled by MADSEN, ‘MADSEN
25 | incorporated TMG during July 1995.
26 4 Glenn R. Premru did business as Atlantic and Pacific Investment Corporation, Inc.
27| (APIC), and Atlantic and Pasific Capital Corporation (APC).
2a) genes Tues wteges (2
7 oDcS
eo 2 ae AY
10
uw
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
a
2
23
24
28
26
28
|
Case 1:08-cr-00204-LY Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 2 of 5
5, Premru maintained addresses for APIC at 1 Shoreline Plaza, 800 North Shoreline
Boulevard, South Tower, Suite 1020, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401, and 8777 North Gainey Center
Drive, Suite 220, Scottsdale, Arizona 85258, APIC was a all times relevant hereto, a Texas
corporation doing business in Texas, Arizona and elsewhore, APIC was owed, operated and
controlled by Premru.
6. Premmu maintained an address for APCC at 8777 North Gainey Center Drive, Suite
200, Scottsdale, Arizona 85258. APCC was a allies relevant hereto, an Arizona corporation
doing busines in Arizona and elsewhere, APCC was owmed, operated and controlled by Prem,
7, From on or about mid-1994 through mid-1998, MADSEN and Premru were engaged in
an ongoing business relationship in Teas, Arizona and elsowhere, relative to hss companies APIC,
[APC and’ TMG. APIC and APCC were operated by Premru as purported loan companies capable
of funding cliont loans in excess of one million dollar. APIC and APCC successfully solicited
‘business during this seme time period from clients whose companies were based in the US and
Barope. MADSEN acted as a loa broker or agent, and refered to APIC and APCC numerous
clients seeking multi-million dollar loans, MADSEN initially acted in this capacity as an individual
Joen broker o agent, and later vs-Avis his business, TMG. MADSEN and Prem represented to
"APIC and APCC olionts that both entities wore loan companies capable of funding client loans in
excess of one million dollars. MADSEN end Promra further represented to ther clients, falsely, that
[APIC and APCC bad successfully funded prior cient loans, Prema required en advance loan
commitment fee from all APIC and APCC clients before initiating and/or proceeding with the
purported loan process. This feo usually totaled 1% ofthe loan araomt being requested, MADSEN
and Prennru eplit this fee betwoon themselves. APIC end APCC never funded any client loans,
MADSEN Imew that Premm never intended to fond any APIC and APCC client loans.
8, MADSEN end Premma represented to APIC and APC clients that both loan
companies would act asthe Sprincipal lender” or “principal funds provider". Premru provided
prospective olisuts with list of one hundred banks thet Premru identified as “World Money Center
Banks” MADSEN and Prem reprosentod to APIC and APCC clients faat both companies were
2Case 1:08-cr-00204-LY Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 3 of 5
1 | capable of funding multi-million dolar loans, via their purported “upstream comespondent World
2 | Money Centr Banks, The APIC and APCC lon documentation cotsnedJnguape ttn hat
3 cient oma commitment ees woold not be refinded ifthe cit “filed to perform," inning filing
4 || to provide “acceptable ‘bank instruments as collateral.”
5 9, From on or about mid-1996 through mid-1998, MADSEN also acted, via his company
6 | TMG, as a purported “collateral provider” for APCC clients who were seeking “acceptable”
7| collateral in the form of letters of credit, bank guarantees and bank debentures, in order to receive a
{toa fom APCC. MADSEN dd so with Prom's nowlsdge an consent, Prem also soered to
9], MADSEN and TMG numerous APCC clients seeking collateral for ‘their APCC loan requests.
10 MADSEN represented to his clients that TMG had established « working relationship with large and
11 |] well-known banks that were capable of providing collateral to TMG clients sooking loans from
12] APCC, even though he Imew that none of those banks ‘ever would in fact provide collateral, and that
13] APCC or APIC would never fund a loa . MADSEN charged all of these clients a “collateral
14 | provider fe” for bis purported services, MADSEN and Prem spit tis fee between thanseives
15 || and usually in half. MADSEN and IMG never provided collatoral of any kind to a single TMG
16 | elem, MADSEN als never intended to provide collateral to any TMG clients Instead, MADSEN's
17| and Premra’s agreed objective was to generate additional collateral provider foes from these
18} applicants, which they would then spit.
to] 30. MADSEN and Premrureeived and shared betwown themselves approximately 7.7
20} million dollars in fees froma APIC, APCC and TMG clients during their ‘operation of all three
21 companies, 7
22 11. MADSEN did not sclose to any of his clients that APIC and APCC were incapable of
3 fanding the multi-million dollar oan requests that his clients were seeking, MADSEN alse did not
24 | disclose to his cligots thet TMG would never provide collateral from any banks or similar financial
25 | institutions. MADSEN further failed to disclose to his clients that APIC and APCC had never
16 | fade a single cient loan, sud thet Peru didnot intend to fund any cleat oms, MADSEN did
27) no islet his client that TMG had novercbsind collateral fom e ban or sini financial
2B 3{
woe
10
n
12
13
4
45
16
uw
18
9
20
2
2
2B
2s
wb
21
28
Case 1:08-cr-00204-LY Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 4 of 5
institution, and that he knew he would never secure collateral for any of his ‘TMG clients. MADSEN
‘would regularly, vie either verbal statements or writen correspondence, attempt to pacify or ll his
clients into belioving TMG was about to secure collateral with a bank. At Premru’s direction,
‘MADSEN would also regularly falsely reassure TMG clients that: ‘their loans with APCC would soon
close, when, in fact, he knew no such loans were fortheoming,
‘THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD
12, Beginning on or about mid-1994, and through on or about mid-1998, in the District of
‘Arizona and elsewhere, JOHN J. MADSEN, d/b/a TMG, helped devise and participate in, along with
Glen R. Promru, d/b/a/ APIC and APCC, a scheme to defraud in which MADSEN would obtain
‘money in the form of fees from TMG, ‘APIC md APCC clients who were seeking fonding for multi-
million dollar loans, by referring clients to APIC and APCC, and by falsely representing to these
ction that; 1) APIC and APCC were capable of funding mult-xillion dollar loans; 2) APIC and
“APCC had muocessfilly faded prior client multi-million dollar loens; 3) TMG was & “collateral
provider” capable of providing | “acceptable” collateral. from banka for APCC clients; and 4) TMG
hod successfully secured collateral for priot TMG clients.
13. Onor ebout Jamary 31, 1997, in the District of Arizona and elsewhere, JOHNJ.
MADSEN, having helped devise and intended to devise the aforesaid scheme to defraud and obtain
money exd property of others by means of false representation, for the purnose of executing and.
attempting to execute the scheme, did. Jmowingly cause to be delivered by the ‘United States Postal
Service according to the direction thereaa, a cover letter and notarized loan, ‘oxtension letter, both
dated January 30, 1997 from Glenn R, Prema, Chairman ofthe Board, Atlantic and Pacific Capital
Corporation, Scottsdale, Arizona, and. addressed to James Childers, President, Regency’ ‘Managemest
Company, Marion, North Carolina.
‘Allin violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 134125
26
27
28
Case 1:08-cr-00204-LY Document 1-3 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 5 of 5
Dated this 15* day of October, 2001.
PAULK. CHARLTON
United States Attorney
District of Arizona
‘TUCHI
stant United States Attorney
Central National Bank of Waco, Texas v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, As Receiver For First Republicbank Waco, N.A., 910 F.2d 1279, 1st Cir. (1990)
First National Bank of Hominy, Oklahoma, A Banking Corporation v. The Citizens and Southern Bank of Cobb County, Marietta, Georgia, 651 F.2d 696, 1st Cir. (1981)