The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has filed an emergency motion seeking to hold a pair of defendants in contempt of court for not honoring the terms of an enforcement action, and may have to resort to invoking a federal debt collection statute through which to attempt to collect on the fines and penalties that were assessed because the defendants transferred assets that were subject to a preliminary injunction.
A copy of the emergency motion in the case of CFPB v. Universal Debt & Payment Solutions et al can be accessed by clicking here.
Marcus Brown was alleged to be one of the masterminds behind a scheme in which the perpetrators harassed individuals into making payments on non-existent debts, deceived consumers, and threatened legal action against them, bilking more than $5 million fro consumers. Sarita Brown was also sued by the CFPB for being part of the scheme, and neither of them have complied with any of the required terms of the settlement that was reached. Such non-compliance from the pair “has been a recurring theme of this case,” according to the petition that was filed by the CFPB last week that seeks to hold both in contempt of court.
Both Marcus and Sarita Brown are also accused of violating an injunction by transferring assets and concealing properties that they owned. The pair failed to show up for scheduled depositions and failed to produce requested documents. Both were then found to be in contempt for not complying with the injunction, and a receiver was appointed to conserve the assets, an order to which Marcus Brown “promptly” violated.
After sending the injunction and several reminders to the Browns, and not receiving any responses, the CFPB filed the motion to have both found in contempt.
“Marcus Brown and Sarita Brown have provided no cause for comfort that they will respect rulings of the Court or that they will comply with the law unless the Permanent Injunction Order is enforced,” the CFPB said in its motion. “These Defendants have spent much of this years-long litigation in active contempt of the Court. This cannot continue.”
