Court Orders DOJ to Indict Serial Fraudster for Criminal Contempt
Post 4890
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gANKyfm5, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gHJncZe8 and at https://lnkd.in/gXjP5eUQ and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
September 13, 2024
The USDC described Defendant Alberto Marzan as a serial fraudster who has largely managed to dodge accountability for victimizing individuals in the entertainment industry. Plaintiff Michaleen Josephs sued Marzan and his company, Press Media Group (“PMG”), after Marzan fraudulently induced Josephs to issue a series of bogus investments and other payments. When Marzan failed to respond, the Court entered default judgment for Josephs and awarded damages and equitable relief, including a requirement that Marzan divest from his enterprises and provide any future potential investors, employees, or business associates with copies of the Court’s default judgment order and his 2014 guilty plea for insurance fraud.
In Michaleen Josephs v. Alberto Jose Marzan and Press Media Group, Inc., doing business as VumaTV, CIVIL No. 21-749 (JRT/DTS), United States District Court, D. Minnesota (August 22, 2024) found its patience exhausted because Marzan has continued to defraud others using the same businesses and has not complied with the Court’s disclosure orders, all while expressing his knowledge of, and disdain for, the Court’s order.
The Court asked the United States Department of Justice to prosecute Marzan for criminal contempt.
BACKGROUND
Marzan fraudulently induced Josephs to lend him and his business, PMG, more than $250,000, which he never repaid. Josephs also rented and furnished an apartment for Marzan based on his promise to repay her, incurring nearly $50,000 in additional expenses. Marzan’s fraud was nothing new: Josephs discovered Marzan’s prior convictions for insurance and investment fraud and eight unpaid default judgments for which Marzan was responsible.
Josephs sued Marzan for violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) predicated on mail and wire fraud, fraud, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and abuse of process. The Court ordered default judgment for Josephs and awarded her over $800,000 in damages, interest, and attorney’s fees.
The Court entered the injunction after considering the statutory and constitutional propriety of equitable relief. The USDC found that Marzan has created an enterprise designed to skirt damages awards and is using the enterprise to intentionally evade recovery by the same people and entities harmed by the enterprise. The undisputed facts show that he takes advantage of the court’s leniency to find a new victim.
Equitable relief is appropriate when defendants take advantage of the law to shield themselves from accountability at law.
VIOLATIONS
Marzan continues to defraud employees and contractors from a business that the Court ordered him to divest from and without issuing the required disclosures. And he has done so while making clear that he is aware of, but has no regard for, the Court’s order.
DISCUSSION
Because the Court cannot let Marzan’s blatant disregard for its order go unpunished and neither compensatory nor coercive civil contempt are appropriate, the Court refers this case to the United States Attorney for a criminal contempt prosecution.
Fines would likely accomplish nothing, as Marzan habitually ignores monetary judgments.
The Court found that Marzan knew of the Court’s order and the proper mechanisms to ask the Court to reconsider, but decided he would instead disobey the order while denigrating these proceedings. He was not entitled to take matters into his own hands by unilaterally deciding to disregard the Court’s order.
The Court, therefore, requests that the United States Department of Justice prosecute Defendant Alberto Jose Marzan for criminal contempt.
ZALMA OPINION
Marzan’s actions and disrespect and failure to obey court orders is a aggressive form of chutzpah. He blatantly disobeys the orders of the court, fails to appear after receiving an order to show cause, and ignores judgments rendered against him and disobeys orders of the court. It takes a great deal of abuse to cause a U.S. District Court Judge to request the DOJ to prosecute a party before the court for criminal contempt. Hopefully the DOJ will fulfill the court’s request. Fraud should not be allowed to continue.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Fraudsters Fight Over Ownership of the Subject of Their Fraud
Post number 5308
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/honor-among-thieves-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2nchc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Convicted Fraudsters Try to Cheat Each Other
After failing to defraud insurers about the loss of a diamond ring the two admitted fraudsters sought possession of the seized ring which was neither lost nor stolen but was seized by the state.
In State Of North Carolina v. Kevin Ray Reece and Debra Lee Goldman, No. COA25-569, Court of Appeals of North Carolina (March 18, 2026) two fraudsters disputed the ownership of a platinum-banded diamond ring seized during a criminal investigation as the subject of Insurance Fraud.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Kevin Ray Reece pleaded guilty to two counts of felony obstruction of justice related to the ring and requested its return...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
