You have no doubt seen or read about how individuals who are the subject of enforcement actions at the state and federal level are often permanently banned from engaging in those activities moving forward. But do those bans apply only to the states in which they were signed? Or does it apply everywhere? An individual who previously agreed to a permanent ban from the collection industry tried to argue he should be allowed to work elsewhere, but lost a lawsuit he filed against the Attorney General of New York that sought to clarify whether the ban applied just within the borders of New York State or if it meant everywhere.
Andrew Fanelli was the owner of three collection companies that agreed to the ban and to repay $1.2 million in fines and restitution to consumers back in 2021. The companies were accused of engaging in illegal collection tactics, such as threatening legal action that the companies did not plan to take, falsely threatening to garnish the wages of consumers, falsely threatening to have consumers’ driver’s licenses suspended, implying that the collector was an attorney or law enforcement official, and threatening criminal action if debts were not paid.
Fanelli claimed that if he were not allowed to operated outside of New York, he would become insolvent. His lawyers also argued that there was not a single “syllable” in the Assurance of Discontinuance that Fanelli signed that mentions any waiver of jurisdictional authority beyond New York state. But the AG’s office claimed that allowing Fanelli to work anywhere would put consumers in New York and across the country at risk of being defrauded, according to a published report.
Ultimately, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that Fanelli filed his lawsuit too late and that the statute of limitations on his suit had run out. Even though there is no record of this type of case being filed anywhere else in the country, the judge opted to dismiss the suit on a technicality, rather than ruling on the merits of the arguments.
