The Case of the Bronholly 9 - California's Most Bizarre Rental Scam - Los Angeles Police Department Issues Media Alert for Bobby Leon - Chronology of Events Involving the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office in this Los Angeles Rental Scam by Beachwood Canyon Productions, Susan Spaulding Smith, and Bobby Leon, Craigs List Scams, Los Angeles District Attorney Bobby Leon Wanted by LAPD, Los Angeles Police Department, Hollywood Fraud, Craigs List Fraud, Los Angeles District Attorney, Los Angeles Mayor
Where is the Los Angeles Police Chief? Where is the Los Angeles District Attorney? Where is the Los Angeles Mayor? Where is Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo? Where is the California Attorney General? Where is the California Bar Association? Where is the FBI?
Where is the Police Chief? Where is the District Attorney? Where is the Mayor? Where is the Los Angeles Attorney? Where is the Attorney General? Where is the California Bar Association? Where is
the FBI?
Update: New Rental Listing from the Scammers
The Fraud

The Chronology of Events

The Perpetrators

The Lawyers

The Law Enforcement Chronology
Bobby Leon Beachwood Canyon Productions Wanted by Los Angeles Police Department for Hollywood Hills Fraud and Craigs List Fraud
A picture of one of the perpetrators, Bobby Leon, distributed by the LAPD and seen on Fox 11 News. Why did the police wait to issue a "media alert" until Fox 11 News investigated the fraud -- 11 months after the fraud was reported to the LAPD and to the Los Angeles District Attorney?
The Fraud top

Among them are an actress, a record producer, a doctor, a musician, a filmmaker and others. They are a microcosm of Los Angeles. All were victims of a bizarre apartment rental fraud in Hollywood. Their story is shocking, but even more disturbing is the resistance they encountered in their plight to engage law enforcement agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office.

This is a crime that affects everyone in Los Angeles because everyone at some point rents an apartment, and most people use the Internet to search for available rentals.

 "Los Angeles is a scammers' paradise ... This is a crime that affects everyone in L.A. because everyone at some point rents an apartment."

Says one victim, "Los Angeles is a scammers' paradise. There's a reason they do business here. You might as well place a red carpet welcome mat under the Hollywood sign. These scammers know how to exploit the jurisdictional labyrinth. Had this crime occurred in any other city or county, these scammers would be behind bars."

The scammers believed they had a fool proof fraud. They never counted on the victims finding each other.

 "Had this crime occurred in any other city or county, these scammers would be behind bars."

An example of the fraudulent online advertisement, as currently seen on 1-800-Homes-For-Sale.com:
Beachwood Canyon Productions Rental Fraud Susan Spaulding Smith and Bobby Leon Fraud
Beachwood Canyon Productions Bobby Leon Susan Spaulding Smith Rental Fraud

How the Fraud Works

The perpetrators place online advertisements for a rental of a guest unit in the Hollywood Hills. A lease is signed. A lease deposit is paid by check or wire transfer. On the day of move in, the perpetrators refuse to allow the victim to move in, providing various excuses for why they are unable to deliver possession. Two excuses given to different victims are that the current tenant will not vacate and that there are electrical problems in the rental unit. In some cases, the perpetrators offer to return the lease deposit to the victim. In other cases, the money is never returned and the perpetrators are never heard from again.

 "The scammers believe that by offering to return the money to the victims ... and by employing attorneys to negotiate ... the scammers can confuse law enforcement."

The scammers believe that by offering to return the money to the victims -- even though in the majority of cases they don't -- and by employing attorneys to negotiate the return of the money to the victims, the scammers can confuse law enforcement and muddy the charge of criminal wrongdoing.

If the victim chooses not to accept a return of the money and demands to take possession of the rental unit, the victim is encouraged to move to a hotel while the scammers evict the current tenant (the current tenant is on record with the LAPD that the tenant was never asked to vacate). The victim is assured that the tenant will be evicted in a timely fashion and that a lawyer has initiated eviction procedures. In one victim's case, this process dragged on for over six weeks.

The victim is encouraged to save hotel receipts that will be credited toward future rent. In some cases, the victims demand that the perpetrators pay their hotel expenses directly.


If the victim chooses to accept a return of the lease deposit, the victim is referred to one of two Los Angeles attorneys. The attorney's job is to negotiate a settlement with the victim that is less than the amount paid to the perpetrators in the lease deposit. Secondarily, the attorney's job is to stall and delay the return of money. Most significantly, it is believed the scammers employ attorneys in order to make the victims believe that their cases are "civil matters" over a lease contract in which the lessor cannot deliver possession to a lessee.

 "The attorney requested that the victim sign a statement stating that the attorney was handing the victim an unopened envelope."

If the victim accepts the settlement negotiated by the attorney, the victim is required to sign a comprehensive waiver of liability. In addition to the waiver prepared by the attorney, the "settlement" check from the scammers is stamped with a separate release.

The attorneys are shrewd operators. In one victim's case, the attorney requested that a victim retrieve a settlement check from the attorney's office. When the victim arrived, the attorney requested that the victim sign a statement stating that the attorney was handing the victim an unopened envelope delivered to the attorney by the attorney's client. That check and others remain NSF to this day.

In a thirty-day period, between February and March of 2006, nearly $30,000 passed through the perpetrators' bank account from nine victims. That's just in a thirty day period and just from the known victims. Evidence shows that the fraud may have been active in September, 2005, and perhaps earlier.

Repeatedly, the victims have requested that law enforcement officials investigate the Bank of America checking account to which the victims' lease deposits have been paid. Such an investigation would reveal the duration of the fraud, the total dollar amount of the fraud, the names of other victims, the names of the lawyers paid by the scammers, and it would further link the perpetrators to the fraud.

"In a thirty-day period ... nearly $30,000 passed through the perpetrators' bank account ... just from the known victims."
The scammers depend on their victims walking away from the deal. They assume that the victims will not wait around to take possession of the rental unit while an eviction process is supposedly underway to evict the current tenant. Indeed, over time, the scammers changed the language in the victims' lease contracts in order to accelerate victim turnover.

One of the most bizarre aspects of this fraud goes to motive. What are the perpetrators doing with the money while it is in their possession that is profitable enough to pay legal fees to attorneys for perhaps as much as 25% of the victims' lease deposits in order to make the victims believe that their cases are civil matters and not criminal ones? What could be that profitable? Either the fraud is an elaborate Ponzi scheme gone awry or the scammers are engaged in other criminal financial activity.

Repeatedly, the victims have asked law enforcement that very question. The victims have provided law enforcement with copies of the overlapping contracts, copies of the Internet advisements, wire transfer receipts and checks, and still the perpetrators are walking the streets of Los Angeles.

But that is the just beginning of the victims' shocking experiences in their attempts to seek justice in this crime.

 "Over time, the scammers changed the language in the victims' lease contracts in order to accelerate victim turnover."
The Chronology of Events top

Susan Spaulding Smith rented an apartment in the Hollywood Hills from a Los Angeles property management company in January, 2005. She lived at the residence with her boyfriend, Bobby Leon.

The building is three stories. The bottom floor is a guest unit with a separate entrance. Pictures of that guest unit were posted in various online advertisements, such as the ones here and here.

In April, 2005, Susan Spaulding Smith filed for a Fictitious Business Name with the County of Los Angeles. In Los Angeles, a Fictitious Business Name is also known as a "DBA" (doing business as) and allows an individual to legally conduct business in the county as an individual using a fictitious name. In the filing, Susan Spaulding Smith filed for the name of Beachwood Canyon Productions (hereafter sometimes referred to as "BCP") and listed her business address as her residence, the same property with the guest unit that BCP would later advertise for rental.

With that DBA filing, a business bank account was opened at the Bank of America under the name of Beachwood Canyon Productions.

Sometime thereafter, BCP began placing advertisements online to sublet the guest unit at BCP's place of business, the address of Susan Spaulding Smith's residence.

Most of the advertisements were placed online via Craig's List, however, an advertisement has also been found on 1-800-Homes-For-Sale.com. Profile information in this rental listing states that the ad poster has been a member of the service since September, 2005.

 "In L.A., a Fictitious Business Name allows an individual to legally conduct business."
The online advertisements list a 600 square foot guest house available for rental on a monthly basis. Prices vary in the advertisements from $1,000 to over $2,500 per month. The advertisements never state the actual address of the property. Instead, the street name is listed or the general neighborhood is described. Examples of the locations listed include "Franklin at Beachwood" or "Hollywood Hills."
Beachwood Canyon Productions Susan Smith Hollywood Fraud Rental Fraud

Although the scammers prey mostly on out-of-towners moving to Los Angeles, some victims were already residing in Los Angeles at the time of signing their leases.

In the 1-800-Homes-For-Sale.com advertisement, the contact name is listed as Bobby Leon (Susan Spaulding Smith's then boyfriend and co-resident of her rental property). The telephone number listed in the advertisement is 323-465-2622, a number registered to BCP at the address of Susan Spaulding Smith's residence.

Some victims faxed their signed leases to a fax machine working on that BCP telephone line.

The BCP email addresses used to communicate with the victims include beachwoodcynprod@sbcglobal.net, vintagekeys@yahoo.com, and beachwoodcynprod@yahoo.com. The victims believe that the "sbcglobal.net" email address can be linked to Susan Spaulding Smith's residence, as it is most likely a paid email account for a high speed Internet service. Credit card or other payment records from SBC Global would link a name to this email account.

Responders answering Craig's List advertisements submit their email inquiries to the anonymous Craig's List email address utilized by ad posters. This affords the perpetrators an opportunity to screen their victims prior to making contact with them. The victims believe that the perpetrators run background checks on the ad responders' names prior to sending a return email in order to ascertain whether the ad responders are members of law enforcement.

One Victim's Story

In November, 2005, one victim began searching Craig's List Advertisements for available apartment rentals in Los Angeles.

This victim responded to a Craig's List advertisement posted by BCP in late December, 2005, advertising a $1400.00 "Secluded and Private Studio Guesthouse" for rental in the Hollywood Hills. The victim received an email from BCP with the advertiser identifying himself as Bobby Leon and utilizing the email address beachwooncynprod@sbcglobal.net.

In the email exchange, the victim asked if the price was firm, and Bobby Leon responded by asking the victim to call him at 323-465-2622 (the BCP registered phone number) to discuss the victim's situation. The victim did not follow up on that email.

In late January, 2006, this victim moved to Los Angeles. Upon arrival in Los Angeles, the victim again searched apartment rental advertisements posted on Craig's List.

On February 3, 2006, the victim responded to Craig's List advertisement #130972148 posted by BCP on February 3, 2006. The advertisement listed a Hollywood Hills furnished apartment available for $1,500.00. Later, the victim would realize this was the same guest house the victim responded to in the December, 2005 email exchange with Bobby Leon.

On February 4, 2006, the victim received an email response from Bobby Leon at beachwoodcynprod@sbcglobal.net (the sbcglobal.net email address is most likely an email furnished to Susan Smith or BCP through a paid Internet account) asking the victim to call 323-465-2622.

The victim and Bobby Leon traded phone messages over the next two days and spoke by telephone for the first time on February 5th, 2006, at approximately 7:00 p.m., at which time they made arrangements to meet at Susan Spaulding Smith's residence where the rental was being offered.

Bobby Leon answered the door at the residence and met with the victim for approximately 45 minutes. Bobby Leon informed the victim that the reason Mr. Leon rented the residence in the first place was so that he could turn the downstairs guest unit into a recording studio but that when he began playing music, a female neighbor complained and he was forced to move his studio to a location in Van Nuys, and so he decided to begin renting the downstairs guest unit.

Bobby Leon asked the victim to email landlord references that night. The victim complied. They agreed to meet the following morning at Susan Spaudling Smith's residence in order to sign a lease. Mr. Leon stated that it could take several days for an out of state check to clear his bank account, and that he would require a wire transfer in order to "take the listing off the market."

 "Bobby Leon called the victim to state that he was having trouble vacating his current tenant."

Prior to arriving at the Susan Spaulding Smith residence on February 6, 2006, the victim asked Bobby Leon to email the victim Mr. Leon's checking account number, bank branch location, and wire routing information. Bobby Leon complied.

At 11:00 a.m. the victim reviewed the lease contract with Bobby Leon inside the Susan Spaulding Smith residence. The victim signed the lease and witnessed Bobby Leon's signature. Next, the victim faxed a wire transfer request to the victim's bank in Texas using the BCP fax machine. The victim left the residence with a signed lease for a move in on February 11, 2006, five days later.

The lease contract was signed by Bobby Leon in the victim's presence. The lessor is Beachwood Canyon Productions. A separate lease signed by Bobby Leon with another victim -- who also witnessed Mr. Leon's signature -- shows a different signature. It is assumed that Bobby Leon uses multiple signatures.

The following day, the victim called Bobby Leon at 323-465-2622 to advise him that the wire payment had been successfully transmitted to the Beachwood Canyon Productions Bank of America checking account. Bobby Leon stated that he was aware of the payment.

On Friday, February 10, 2006, the day before the victim was scheduled to move in to the rental, Bobby Leon called the victim to state that he was having trouble vacating his current tenant and that he would need an additional two days to vacate the current tenant. He stated that the tenant might leave the following day, Saturday, but that he would need to have the rental unit professionally cleaned and that the first-available move in date would be Monday at 3:00 p.m. Bobby Leon stated that he had a cleaning crew "standing by."

Bobby Leon asked the victim to save receipts from the victim's hotel stay in the three day interim and that Mr. Leon would reimburse the victim for temporary hotel stay as credit on future rent.

On Monday, February 13, as the victim was packing for the move to the rental unit, the victim received another telephone call from Mr. Leon stating that the current tenant had still not vacated the rental unit and that the victim would be unable to move in until the following day. Mr. Leon stated that he wanted "to be fair" with his current tenant.

Mr. Leon offered to return the victim's lease deposit. The victim refused, stating that the victim wanted to take possession of the rental unit and that the victim wished for Mr. Leon to deliver possession. Mr. Leon stated that he would call the victim by 8:00 a.m. the following morning to give an update on the eviction procedure.

The following day, when the victim did not receive a promised telephone call from Mr. Leon, the victim visited the Susan Spaulding Smith residence and knocked on the door. Mr. Leon answered the door. The victim and Mr. Leon met for approximately twenty minutes inside the residence.

 "I'm not a controversial guy. The last time I hired a lawyer was for my divorce from my ex-wife."

Mr. Leon stated that his difficulty in evicting the current tenant was that under the law, he was required to give the tenant three days to vacate. Mr. Leon assured the victim that the tenant would vacate by the following day at 3:00 p.m.

The victim and Mr. Leon spoke again by telephone at 3:00 p.m. that afternoon. Mr. Leon stated that the tenant was on schedule to leave by 12:00 p.m. the following day and that the cleaning crew would be finished by 3:00 p.m. the following day.

Mr. Leon informed the victim that Mr. Leon had spoken with a lawyer and that the lawyer had initiated legal proceedings to evict the tenant and that it would take "seven days to get a writ." Mr. Leon referred to his lawyer as a "he."

Mr. Leon informed the victim that Mr. Leon had called "several places" in Laurel Canyon that rented by the week and that he would pay to accommodate the victim for the seven day period until the tenant was legally evicted. The victim refused to accept the temporary housing and continued to demand possession.

The victim was faced with a dilemma. In the victim's lease contract, shown here, section 8, "Possession of Premises," stated that if the victim walked away from the deal, the Landlord would not be required to pay the victim's hotel expenses or damages. Specifically, the contract stated:

"In the event the Landlord is unable to deliver possession of the premises to Resident for any reason not within Landlord's control, including, but not limited to failure of prior occupants to vacate as agreed or required by law, Landlord shall not be liable to Resident except for the return of all sums previously paid to Landlord in the event Resident chooses to terminate this Rental Agreement."

Five days into the victim's lease, if the victim terminated the agreement, BCP would not owe the victim reimbursement for hotel expenses. The victim elected to wait it out, particularly since Mr. Leon assured the victim that the tenant would vacate any day and that Mr. Leon's lawyer had initiated eviction procedures against the current tenant.

BCP depends on the victims walking away from the deal. BCP assumes that in the high turnover of Los Angeles rental property, no one would wait around for an eviction procedure to reach completion. As the fraud progressed, BCP altered the language on possession in the victims' lease contracts in an attempt to limit BCP's liability and to accelerate victim turnover. See this comparison of BCP lease contracts.

On Thursday, February 16, 2006, Mr. Leon called the victim to ask that the victim visit a guest unit property in Tarzana that Mr. Leon was attempting to secure for the victim as "temporary housing." Mr. Leon stated that he had "discovered" that the property owner was a friend in the music business, that he had spoken with her several times by telephone, and that the property owner's husband worked for Microsoft.

 "If the victim terminated the agreement, Beachwood Canyon Productions would not owe the victim reimbursement for hotel expenses."

After visiting the Tarzana property, the victim spoke with Mr. Leon on February 17. Mr. Leon stated that the owner of the Tarzana property had been calling him to ask if the victim wished to take occupancy. The victim informed Mr. Leon that he did not wish to take possession of the temporary housing and that the victim demanded possession of Mr. Leon's rental unit.

Between February 18 and February 20 five phone calls were logged between the victim and Mr. Leon. The victim continued to ask about the status of the eviction procedure and Mr. Leon stated that it was a "day to day" procedure. Mr. Leon stated that the current tenant had "mental problems."

On Tuesday, February 22, Mr. Leon called the victim and asked the victim to email him a copy of the victim's hotel expenses to date so that Mr. Leon could "attach the bill as damages" to "another letter" his lawyer was presenting to the tenant. Mr. Leon stated that he was now faced with the challenge of trying to "recoup" damages from the tenant's deposit and that the victim's hotel bill would help to persuade the tenant to vacate. Mr. Leon cited the California Tenant Law, as if to suggest that the eviction procedure was a complicated one.

Mr. Leon stated to the victim "I'm not a controversial guy. The last time I hired a lawyer was for my divorce from my ex-wife."

The victim emailed Mr. Leon a copy of his hotel bill to date.

Between Wednesday, February 22, and Monday, February 27, at least thirteen phone calls were logged between Mr. Leon and the victim. Mr. Leon continually reported on the status of his tenant eviction and stated that progress was being made in the eviction procedure.

On Wednesday, March 1, 2006, Mr. Leon called the victim to state that he had "good news." Mr. Leon's lawyer had informed him that the deadline had passed for Mr. Leon's tenant to answer the eviction letter and that the tenant would be vacated by the following day.

 "Beachwood Canyon Productions depends on the victims walking away from the deal. BCP assumes that in the high turnover of L.A. rental property, no one would wait around for an eviction procedure."

The following day, Mr. Leon reported to the victim that the tenant had still not vacated. The victim referred Mr. Leon to a lawyer familiar with forcible detainer law. The victim requested that Mr. Leon or Mr. Leon's attorney call the victim's lawyer.

The victim's lawyer did not receive a phone call.

On Friday, March 3, 2006, Mr. Leon called the victim and stated that his lawyer would call the victim's lawyer later that day. Later, the victim called Mr. Leon at the BCP phone number and left a message stating that if Mr. Leon did not contact the victim's lawyer by that afternoon, the victim's lawyer would contact Mr. Leon.

Mr. Leon called the victim that afternoon and stated that his lawyer would contact the victim's lawyer on Monday. The victim asked Mr. Leon the name of his attorney. Mr. Leon provided the name, except up until now he had been referring to the lawyer as a "he." The lawyer's name Mr. Leon furnished was female.

On Tuesday, March 7, the victim contacted Mr. Leon to express concern that his lawyer had still not contacted the victim's lawyer. Mr. Leon stated that his lawyer was "researching the electrical issue" all weekend and that the delay in his lawyer calling had to do with the outcome of the "electrical issue." He stated that he was waiting to get an estimate from his "electrical engineer."

Mr. Leon stated that the current tenant was popping electrical circuits in the residence and that the tenant was now interfering with his ability to conduct business at the BCP property, and that Mr. Leon believed this would be another issue with which he could use to evict his tenant.

Later that day, the victim's lawyer called the BCP lawyer and they had a conversation about the lease.

The following day, Mr. Leon contacted the victim to state that his lawyer had contacted Mr. Leon to relay the nature of the previous day's telephone conversation between his lawyer and the victim's lawyer. Mr. Leon asked the victim why the victim's lawyer was asking his lawyer about the relationship between Beachwood Canyon Productions and the lease. Mr. Leon told the victim that Beachwood Canyon Productions was "the business that rented the unit." Mr. Leon remained optimistic that his current tenant would vacate quickly as a result of the new "electrical issue."

On Thursday, March 9, Mr. Leon's lawyer told the victim's lawyer that Mr. Leon's initial letter of eviction submitted to the tenant had been conducted improperly and that the lawyer had drafted a new letter of eviction that Mr. Leon delivered to his tenant the previous day. The lawyer stated that it would take three days to evict the tenant and perhaps longer, but that now there was an electrical issue and that, at a minimum, it might take a week to vacate the tenant. The victim's lawyer asked the BCP lawyer if the lawyer was the same person who had drafted Mr. Leon's initial letter of eviction to the tenant and the BCP lawyer stated that the lawyer was not.

 "The lawyer stated that it would take three days to evict the tenant and perhaps longer."

On Saturday, March 11, 2006, twenty-eight days from the victim's move in date, Mr. Leon's attorney contacted the victim's lawyer and stated that the tenant would vacate by Monday at 12:00 p.m. and then Mr. Leon would require an additional four days to fix the electrical issue, and that the victim would be allowed to take possession of the rental unit on Saturday, March 18th.

On March 19, the victim ran a search on Craig's List and found an advertisement similar to the one the victim had answered for BCP's rental unit. This Craig's List advertisement #143295644 posted on March 19th listed a "Hollywood Hills Furnished Guest House with Recording Studio" for $2,000 a month.

The victim asked a friend to pose as a potential tenant and contact the poster of the advertisement. The victim's friend responded to the advertisement by email and received an email response from Bobby Leon that night. Mr. Leon made arrangements to speak with the victim's friend by telephone at 11:00 p.m. PST.

At 11:00 p.m. PST, Mr. Leon and the victim's friend spoke by telephone. Mr. Leon described the guest unit available for rental. It was the same guest unit for which the victim had signed a lease. Mr. Leon advised the victim's friend that the victim's friend could take possession of the rental unit two days hence and that Mr. Leon would require a lease deposit in the amount of $8,250. The victim's friend requested that Mr. Leon email the lease which Mr. Leon did the following day.

Enter Law Enforcement and Other Victims

The victim immediately contacted the Los Angeles Police Department's Financial Crimes Unit and left a message stating that the victim wished to report a financial crime.

The following day, the victim received a return telephone call from a detective at LAPD Financial Crimes. The victim relayed the story and stated that there were now two overlapping leases for the same property. The detective told the victim that this was a "common fraud" in the Hollywood Hills. The detective asked the victim for the bank account number to which the victim had wired the lease deposit and a copy of the victim's bank wire transfer. Both were furnished to LAPD Financial Crimes.

Mr. Leon emailed the lease contract for $8,250.00 delivering possession of the rental unit on March 27th to the victim's friend. The victim's friend forwarded the lease contract to the detective at LAPD Financial Crimes. Simultaneously, the victim forwarded the victim's lease contract to that same detective.

The victim contacted the FBI by telephone to report a financial crime. The victim was referred to the LAPD.

 "The detective told the victim that this was a common fraud in the Hollywood Hills."

One victim submitted online crime reports to the FBI via the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (http://www.ic3.gov) during March and April, 2006. The online submissions chronicled the unfolding events of the fraud and were updated at numerous times.

A victim contacted the LAPD Hollywood Division to report a financial crime. The operator informed the victim that the fraud could not be reported to LAPD Hollywood, since the perpetrator "offered to give the money back." Said the operator, "the landlord has the prerogative to place as many ads as he pleases, even if he has a tenant in his unit."

The victim visited the Los Angeles County Assessor's office to research the ownership of the rental unit. The victim discovered that Bobby Leon was not the owner of the property. The victim also researched the owner of Beachwood Canyon Productions (the company listed as the lessor on the lease contracts) and located Susan Smith's DBA filing.

The victim's lawyer contacted the owner of the property. The owner claimed no knowledge of the fraud and referred the victim's lawyer to a property management company charged with leasing and managing the owner's property.

The property management company claimed no knowledge of the fraud, stating that the current tenant, Susan Spaulding Smith, did not have the legal authority to sublet any portion of her rented property.

 "LAPD Financial Crimes stated that they would not investigate the fraud since Mr. Leon offered to return the money."

That same day, Mr. Leon's attorney contacted the victim's lawyer and stated that Mr. Leon was unwilling to pay the victim for hotel reimbursement and that any "settlement" by Mr. Leon would be accompanied by a comprehensive waiver of liability that the victim would be required to sign.

The LAPD Financial Crimes detective stated that they would not investigate the fraud since Mr. Leon offered to return the money.

The victims believe this is exactly why Beachwood Canyon Productions offers to return the money -- even if BCP doesn't follow through with the offer -- because BCP knows that the offer to return the money will confuse law enforcement officials as to the fraud's criminality.

On March 27, 2006, a victim located another Craig's List advertisement (#145888644) placed on March 27th by BCP for the same rental unit.

On March 30, 2006, a victim located yet another Craig's List advertisement (#146766792) placed on Craig's List on March 30th by BCP advertising the same rental unit. The victim responded to this advertisement under an assumed name and Mr. Leon responded to the victim with this email from vintagekeys2006@yahoo.com.

 "With overlapping lease contracts, their case was no longer a 'civil matter' but an orchestrated scheme to defraud multiple victims."

On April 5, 2006, a victim made contact with a second victim. The second victim furnished a lease signed with BCP on March 5th to take possession of the same rental unit on March 15, 2006.

This second victim recounted a similar story about being unable to take possession of the rental unit. The second victim stated that Bobby Leon stated that there were "electrical issues" with the rental unit making it uninhabitable.

The second victim revealed that BCP had referred this victim to another attorney unknown to the first victim who had been hired by BCP to negotiate a settlement of this second victim's lease deposit.

The second victim had answered a Craig's List advertisement, signed a lease, transacted a payment, and travelled across country in a U-Haul in order to take possession on the day of move in. All along the cross-country route, Bobby Leon telephoned this victim, asking the victim's current location. Upon the victim's arrival in Los Angeles, Bobby Leon telephoned this victim to state that the victim could not take possession of the rental unit.

Between April 6 and April 10, 2006, victims #1 and #2 independently contacted the office of LAPD Financial Crimes in order to report a financial crime.

 "All along the cross-country route, Bobby Leon telephoned the victim, asking the victim's current location. Upon the victim's arrival in L.A., Bobby Leon telephoned to state that the victim could not take possession of the rental unit."

The victims realized that with overlapping lease contracts, their case was no longer a "civil matter" but an orchestrated scheme to defraud multiple victims. The victims spoke with a total of three LAPD detectives who declined to investigate the fraud.

At this time, one victim visited the rental unit at the Susan Spaulding Smith residence. The victim showed the current tenant the victim's lease and the tenant stated that the tenant had never been asked to vacate, either orally or in writing. The tenant told the victim that the tenant would be willing to cooperate and go to the police.

The current tenant also stated that on the day the tenant took possession of the rental unit, the unit was still being shown to prospective tenants.

On April 10, 2006, Victim #1's lawyer contacted Mr. Leon's attorney (not the attorney working with Victim #2) and informed the attorney of the existence of a second attorney working for a second victim for the same client (BCP) for the same circumstance. The victim's lawyer informed the attorney that the attorney may be involved in criminal activity.

The victim's representative then telephoned the attorney hired by BCP to negotiate with Victim #2. The victim's representative informed this second attorney of the existence of another attorney working for another victim for the same client (BCP) for the same circumstance. The victim's representative informed the attorney that the attorney may be involved in criminal activity.

 "On the day the current tenant took possession, the unit was still being shown to prospective tenants."

It would later be revealed that this second attorney had previously settled a third victim in the fraud prior to negotiating with Victim #2 and that the first attorney had also previously settled an as yet unnamed victim prior to negotiating with Victim #1. The second attorney would also attempt to negotiate a settlement with a fourth victim.

The two victims then discovered the third victim, whose lease was signed on February 11th (5 days after Victim #1 signed a lease) and delivered possession of the same rental unit on February 21, 2006. Furthermore, this third victim had "settled" the victim's case on February 28th with the same attorney now attempting to negotiate a settlement with Victim #2. Included in the settlement was a waiver of liability drafted by the attorney that stated the reason this third victim could not take possession was the refusal of the current tenant to vacate the rental unit. The current tenant went on record with the LAPD as stating that the tenant was never asked to vacate the rental unit either orally or in writing.

Frustrated with the lack of progress of the LAPD Financial Crimes division, a victim contacted the Los Angeles District Attorney's office by telephone to report a financial crime. The victim spoke with an investigator who stated that the District Attorney's Office would not investigate the fraud.

Two weeks later, this victim contacted the Los Angeles District Attorney's office for a second time to report a financial crime now involving multiple victims. The victim spoke with a second investigator who stated that the District Attorney's office would await the outcome of the LAPD investigation.

Frustrated by the lack of response from both the LAPD and the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, the victim contacted the California Attorney General's Office in order to report a business conducting fraud in California. The victim was told that the Attorney General investigated California corporations, not DBAs, and that any fraud conducted by a DBA would have to be investigated by law enforcement officials at the county level. The victim was referred to the LAPD.

 "The investigator stated that the District Attorney's Office would not investigate the fraud."

Frustrated by the lack of response from three detectives at the LAPD Office of Financial Crimes, a victim contacted the lieutenant in charge of the division. The lieutenant spoke with the victim and stated, "well of course this a crime, but our office wouldn't investigate it. You have to go to LAPD Hollywood."

The victim visited the Hollywood Division of the LAPD in order to report a financial crime. The attending officer refused to take a police report.

The victim contacted the LAPD Office of Financial Crimes to inform them that LAPD Hollywood would not take a police report. The detective informed the victim that the victim should return to LAPD Hollywood to file a police report and that if LAPD Hollywood refused to take a police report for the second time, the officer in charge at LAPD Hollywood should contact the detective at LAPD Office of Financial Crimes for further information.

The victim returned to LAPD Hollywood and met with a detective to file a police report. In the presence of the victim, the detective then telephoned Bobby Leon to ask him if he intended to return the victim's money, thus alerting Bobby Leon that the police had been notified. The detective told Bobby Leon, "it sounds like a civil matter to me."

On April 11, 2006, two additional victims visited the LAPD Hollywood Division to file police reports. Accompanying them was the current tenant of Susan Spaulding Smith's rental unit (a person who had regular contact with Ms. Smith and Mr. Leon) who went on record in the police reports as stating that the tenant was never asked to vacate Ms. Smith's rental property, either orally or in writing.

 "The attending officer refused to take a police report."
On April 12, 2006, two victims visited the LAPD's office of Financial Crimes in person to express their frustration over the LAPD's lack of interest in the crime. The victims met in the lobby with the lieutenant in charge of the division and a fourth detective from Financial Crimes. Both officers reviewed the evidence (including lease contracts, phone records, a wire transfer statement, and copies of the Internet advertisements) but stated that their office would not investigate the crime. Again the officers stated that the Hollywood Division of LAPD would be responsible for the investigation.

On April 19, a victim met with an FBI agent in the Los Angeles Field Office. The victim described the fraud in detail and requested to furnish the agent with evidence, including copies of the lease contracts, the Internet advertisements, a wire transfer statement, and the contact numbers of all parties involved. The agent refused to accept the documentation but stated that he would forward the case to the white collar fraud division of the FBI.

That same day, the victim visited the main office of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office on Temple street. The victim told an employee that the victim wished to report a financial crime. The employee stated that the District Attorney investigated frauds of $750,000 or more and that anything less had to be investigated by the LAPD.

Unsatisfied, the victim walked down the street to another building of the District Attorney's office. There, the victim walked into the Office of Major Fraud and asked to report a financial crime. An investigator met with the victim for a half-hour as the victim described the fraud. The investigator declined to accept the supporting documentation and advised the victim to fill out and submit a "Consumer Fraud Complaint Form" along with the documentation by mailing it to the District Attorney's Office.

On April 21, the victim mailed the Consumer Fraud Complaint form and the supporting documentation to the District Attorney's office.

On May 18, 2006, the victim received a telephone call from the supervising investigator for the District Attorney's office of Major Fraud, responding to the April 21st Consumer Fraud Complaint submission. The investigator informed the victim that his office would not investigate this fraud because his office required a $300,000 fraud threshold limit for involvement.

 "In the presence of the victim, the detective telephoned Bobby Leon to ask him if he intended to return the victim's money, thus alerting Bobby Leon that the police had been notified. The detective told Bobby Leon, 'it sounds like a civil matter to me.'"

The victim asked the investigator if he would investigate the Beachwood Canyon Productions Bank of America checking account, through which the victims' lease deposits were paid, whereupon he might discover a $300,000 fraud. The investigator stated that such an investigation would not be handled by his office. The investigator recommended filing a police report with the LAPD.

Later, the victim mailed a letter describing the fraud with supporting documentation to a Deputy District Attorney at the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, requesting that the District Attorney formally investigate the two known attorneys.

Meanwhile, the owner's property management company did not renew Susan Spaulding Smith's lease. Bobby Leon moved out from the rental property at the same time.

Prior to Susan Spaulding Smith's lease termination, two victims visited her at the main residence of the rental property to request the victims' mail that had already been forwarded to the rental address. Ms. Smith greeted them.

In a later conversation, two victims met with Ms. Smith in her residence to discuss the return of the victims' money, and Ms. Smith stated that she was "looking into another attorney."

Victim #1 visited BCP attorney #1's office to review a settlement check that had been prepared for the victim. In the attorney's office, the victim reviewed the settlement check (drafted in an amount less than the original lease deposit) and requested to the attorney that the victim make a copy of the check. The check was signed by Susan Smith, the owner of Beachwood Canyon Productions. The lawyer refused the victim's request, stating, "I don't think that would be in the best interest of my client."

The victim reported to LAPD Hollywood that Susan Smith's signature appeared on the check.

 "Prior to Susan Spaulding Smith vacating the premises, two victims visited her at the main residence of the rental property to request their mail that had already been forwarded to the rental address."

Victim #2, who had been dealing with Attorney #2 -- the same attorney who had previously "settled" yet another victim -- was asked by the attorney to retrieve a settlement check from the attorney's office. When the victim arrived at the attorney's office, the victim was asked to sign a statement prepared by the attorney stating that the victim was retrieving a sealed enveloped delivered to the attorney by the attorney's client. When the victim refused to sign the statement, the attorney told the victim to "get out." That the attorney never wanted "to see" the victim's "face again."

This same attorney would later attempt to settle yet another victim of this fraud. That fourth victim's lease was signed on March 7th for possession on April 5, 2006. In dealings related to the lease, this victim had personal contact with Susan Smith, the owner of Beachwood Canyon Productions.

As the weeks went on, yet another victim would come forward. When the victim arrived in Los Angeles in May, 2006, to take possession of the rental unit, the victim discovered new tenants living in the main residence, as Susan Spaulding Smith's lease had not been renewed by the property management company.

Other victims would come forward who had either negotiated with BCP to sign a lease or who had followed through with a lease but had never been allowed to take possession and their monies never returned. Some filed police reports with the LAPD Hollywood division.

No one is certain of the duration of the fraud.

A posting at this still current advertisement on 1-800-Rent-A-Home.com lists Bobby Leon as being a member of the posting community since September 27, 2005.

 "The attorney told the victim to 'get out' - that the attorney never wanted 'to see' the victim's 'face again.'"

The question that has been posed by victims to the various law enforcement agencies notified of the crime is "When will you investigate the Beachwood Canyon Productions Bank of America Checking account through which the victims monies were deposited?" In addition to the names of the current victims, law enforcement would find the names of other victims and determine the duration of the fraud, the names of the attorneys employed by Beachwood Canyon Productions, and the signature of Susan Spaulding Smith on various "settlement checks" that remain NSF to this day.

In February, 2006, Fox 11 News ran a story reporting this fraud. After Fox 11 called the LAPD, the LAPD issued a "media alert" with Bobby Leon's picture. In the Fox 11 investigation, Detective Gary Kukaua stated "If he is found or if he is seen or any information leading to his whereabouts, please call us and he can be arrested for Grand Theft."

Why did the LAPD wait to issue a "media alert" until Fox 11 investigated the case -- eleven months after the police reports were filed?

Why did the LAPD not issue an arrest warrant for Bobby Leon after they interviewed him?

Why did the LAPD not issue an arrest warrant for Susan Spaulding Smith whose "settlement checks" to the victims remain NSF?

Why did the District Attorney not investigate this fraud when notified of it by telephone, in person, and in writing?

"Why did the police wait to issue a 'media alert' until Fox 11 News investigated - eleven months after the police reports were filed?"
There are still unknown victims of this fraud residing in Los Angeles.

The Beachwood Canyon Productions attorneys are still practicing law in California.

And the two scammers are walking the streets of Los Angeles.

The Perpetrators top

There are two known perpetrators of the Beachwood Canyon Productions rental fraud.

Bobby Leon, whose name may be an alias, and Susan Spaulding Smith, the owner of Beachwood Canyon Productions and lease holder for the rental property.

In her Yahoo blog, Susan Smith furnishes her picture, lists her employment as "Beachwood Canyon Productions" and features a picture of Bobby Leon atop the Hollywood sign.

Bobby Leon was last seen driving a car registered to Susan Spaulding Smith.
A picture of one of the perpetrators, Bobby Leon, distributed by the LAPD and seen on Fox 11 News. Why did the police wait to issue a "media alert" until Fox 11 News investigated the fraud -- 12 months after the fraud was reported to the LAPD and to the District Attorney?
The Lawyers top

There are two known Los Angeles attorneys who attempted to negotiate settlements with the victims on behalf of Beachwood Canyon Productions.

What did the lawyers know and when did they know it?

One attorney succeeded in negotiating a settlement with one victim and then attempted to settle two different victims after the first victim settlement. When this attorney instructed a victim to pick up a settlement check at the attorney's office, the attorney requested that the victim sign a statement that the victim was retrieving an unopened envelope delivered to the attorney by the attorney's client. Furthermore, the waiver of liability prepared by this attorney for his client, Beachwood Canyon Productions, stated that the reason the victim could not take possession of the rental unit was that the current tenant would not vacate. This tenant went on record with the LAPD as stating that the tenant was never asked to vacate, either orally or in writing, during the time these victims attempted to take possession.

This attorney attempted to settle at least three victims within the same thirty-day period.

The second attorney successfully negotiated a settlement with an as yet unnamed victim prior to settling a second named victim. According to Bobby Leon, this lawyer was researching the legality of an electrical issue that would prevent a tenant from taking possession. The "electrical issue" was an excuse given by BCP to another victim as to why that victim could not take possession of the rental unit. Was this lawyer engaged in that other victim's settlement as well? Did the lawyer research the "electrical issue" and if so, for what purpose?

 "What did the lawyers know and when did they know it?"
How many victims did these attorneys settle and when did they settle them?

On the same day, both attorneys were independently notified of the existence of another attorney working for the same client for the same circumstance with other victims and that they may be involved in criminal activity. Did these attorneys notify the ethics committee of the California Bar Association of their potential involvement as accessories in criminal activity?

Did either of these attorneys settle or attempt to settle additional victims after being notified of the fraud?

Who for Beachwood Canyon Productions signed the attorneys' retainer agreements?
The Law Enforcement Chronology top

1. In March, 2006, a victim and a potential victim contact the LAPD Division of Financial Crimes and submit their leases to a detective, seeking to report a financial crime.

2. A victim contacts the Los Angeles District Attorney's office and speaks with an investigator to report a financial crime. The investigator refuses to investigate the crime.

3. The LAPD Financial Crimes detective tells the victim and the potential victim that the LAPD division will not investigate the crime because the perpetrator has offered to return the money to the victims.

4. Another victim contacts a second detective at LAPD Financial Crimes. The LAPD division refuses to investigate the crime.

5. A victim contacts the Los Angeles District Attorney's office (a second time) and speaks with a second investigator. The investigator refuses to investigate the crime.

6. Another victim contacts the Lieutenant in charge of LAPD Financial Crimes. The lieutenant tells the victim to file a police report with the LAPD Hollywood division.

7. This victim attempts to file a police report with LAPD Hollywood. The division will not accept a police report on the crime, claiming that it is a "civil matter."

8. This victim contacts the Lieutenant in charge of LAPD Financial Crimes to state that LAPD Hollywood will not take a police report. The Lieutenant directs the victim to a detective at LAPD Financial Crimes. This new detective contacts LAPD Hollywood and requests that the division take a police report from the vicitm.

9. The victim visits LAPD Hollywood for a second time. A detective takes a police report. The detective telephones Bobby Leon in the victim's presence to ask the perpetrator if he intends to return the money to the victim, thus alerting the perpetrator that he may be under investigation.

10. Two additional victims file police reports at LAPD Hollywood. The victims are joined by the current tenant of the rental property who goes on record in the victims' reports as stating that the tenant was never asked by Bobby Leon or Beachwood Canyon Productions to vacate the rental property.

11. In April, 2006, a victim files a report with the FBI on Wilshire Boulevard. The agent states that he would refer the matter to the white collar fraud division.

12. A victim enters the main office of the District Attorney's office in order to report a financial crime. The attendant states that the District Attorney's office does not investigate financial frauds under $750,000.

13. The victim visits another office of the District Attorney's office: the office of Major Fraud. The victim meets with an investigator, however, the investigator requests that the victim submit a consumer fraud complaint form by mail.

14. The victim submits the fraud complaint form and supporting documentation to the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office.

15. The victim receives a telephone call from the supervising investigator of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office of Major Fraud. The investigator states that the office will not investigate the crime beause of a threshhold fraud limit of $300,000. He recommends that the victim contact the LAPD.

16. In September, 2006, a victim submits a detailed letter to a Deputy District Attorney at the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office describing the fraud along with supporting documentation including overlapping lease contracts, payment receipts, and contact numbers for the multiple victims.

17. At least two other victims file police reports at the LAPD Hollywood division.

18. In February, 2007, eleven months after the first police reports are filed, the LAPD issues a "media alert" for the arrest of Bobby Leon -- after being contacted by Fox 11 News.

Where is the Los Angeles Police Chief? top

This fraud was first reported to multiple detectives at the LAPD Office of Financial Crimes. On multiple occasions, as additional victims stepped forward, their office refused to investigate this fraud.

The LAPD Hollywood Division refused to take a police report from a victim when first presented with this fraud. On a second occasion, a detective called one of the perpetrators to ask if the perpetrator intended to return the victim's money, thus alerting the perpetrator that a victim had notified the police.

It is believed that LAPD Hollywood interviewed both suspects between April and June of 2006. Why did LAPD wait to issue a "media alert" on one of the suspects until February, 2007, when Fox 11 News began investigating the fraud?

Why did the LAPD issue a "media alert" and not an arrest warrant?

Why did the LAPD not issue an arrest warrant for Susan Spaulding Smith who, at a minimum, wrote multiple NSF checks in addition to having direct contact with multiple victims?

Where is the Los Angeles District Attorney? top

The Los Angeles District Attorney's office was notified of this fraud on multiple occasions.

In March, 2006, one victim contacted the District Attorney's office by telephone to report a financial crime on two separate occasions. On one occasion, the investigator stated that the DA's office would not investigate the fraud. On a second occasion, a second investigator stated that the DA's office would await the outcome of the LAPD investigation.

In April, 2006, one victim visited the main office of the Los Angeles District Attorney to report a financial crime. An employee told the victim that the DA's office only investigated frauds in the amount of $750,000 or more.

That same day, the victim visited another office of the Los Angeles District Attorney, the division of Major Fraud. The victim met with an investigator, but the investigator would not accept the victim's documentation. The victim was instructed to file a Consumer Fraud Complaint Form and submit the form and accompanying documentation to the DA's office by mail. The victim complied and submitted the form by mail with supporting documentation.

On May 21, 2006, the victim received a telephone call from the Supervising Investigator of the Division of Major Fraud of the District Attorney's office who notified the victim that the his office would not investigate this fraud because the Division of Major Fraud only investigated frauds in the amount of $300,000 or more.

The victim asked if the District Attorney would investigate the Bank of America checking account through which multiple victims' monies were deposited, after which the total amount of the fraud might exceed $300,000. The investigator stated that his office would not investigate that claim but that he would forward the case to another division of the District Attorney's office.

In September, 2006, a victim wrote a Deputy District Attorney at the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office and submitted documentation related to the case. Additionally, the victim formally requested that the District Attorney investigate the two known attorneys who negotiated settlements with victims and who would also know of at least one unnamed victim.

Where is the Los Angeles City Attorney? top

When Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo was interviewed by Fox 11 News regarding this crime, he stated:

"Everyone who's out there committing these types of crimes, be mindful. That we're watching and that we will come in and uncover your scheme."

Where is Mr. Delgadillo's office now? What did Rocky Delgadillo do to investigate this crime after he appeared on Fox 11 News in February, 2006, to state that his office would not tolerate crimes of this kind?

Where is the Los Angeles Mayor? top

This is a crime that affects everyone in Los Angeles because everyone at some point rents an apartment, and most people use the Internet to search for available rentals.

The mayor has oversight of the LAPD's involvement in this case.

Moreover, the mayor has his own office of attorneys who regularly prosecute crimes of fraud.

Where is the California Attorney General? top

In March, 2006, a victim contacted the California Attorney General's office in order to report a financial crime. The victim was told that the Attorney General did not investigate business fraud conducted by DBAs (fictitious business names) and directed the victim to report the crime to Los Angeles county officials.

The victims believe that the scammers knew how to escape investigation by many law enforcement agencies by filing their business, Beachwood Canyon Productions, as a DBA and not as a corporation. The scammers know how to exploit the system.

Shouldn't the California Attorney General change his policies regarding the investigation of business fraud in the state of California to include the investigation of fraudulent DBAs?

Furthermore, the Attorney General has investigative jurisdiction over California companies like Craig's List, a company whose online services were utilized by these scammers to post fraudulent rental advertisements as well as the two California attorneys employed by Beachwood Canyon Productions who may be criminally culpable for their parts in the ongoing fraud.

Moreover, the California Attorney General has jurisdiction over the California tax returns that should have been filed by Susan Spaulding Smith and her company Beachwood Canyon Productions. Those tax returns would be key to investigating her involvement in the fraud and determining the full scope of the fraud's dollar amount, victims, and attorney involvement.

 "The California Attorney General has jurisdiction over the tax returns ... filed by Susan Spaulding Smith and her company."

Where is the California Bar Association? top

Beachwood Canyon Productions employed at least two California lawyers to negotiate "settlements" with the victims. Both known attorneys have settled or attempted to settle at least two victims each. The role of the attorneys in the Beachwood Canyon Productions fraud is to negotiate a cash "settlement" of each victim's lease deposits whose amount is less than the amount of the lease deposits paid by the victims to Beachwood Canyon Productions and to make the victims believe their lease disputes are civil matters, not criminal matters.

During their "negotiations" with the last known victims, both attorneys were independently notified on the same day of the existence of another attorney working for the same client for a similar circumstance and of the existence of multiple victims of the fraud. Both attorneys were notified that they may be involved in criminal activities.

One of the attorneys settled or attempted to settle at least three victims. This same attorney called a victim and requested that the victim come to the attorney's office to pick up a settlement check. When the victim arrived, the lawyer requested that the victim sign a release statement stating that all the attorney was doing was handing over an unopened envelope delivered to this attorney by his client. This same attorney told the victim to "get out" of the attorney's office and that he never wanted to see the victims "face" again.

Another victim arrived at the second attorney's office to review the "settlement check" prepared for this victim. When the victim saw the signature of Susan Smith (the owner of Beachwood Canyon Productions) on the check, the victim asked the attorney if the victim could make a copy of the check. The lawyer replied "I don't think that would be in the best interest of my client."

Beachwood Canyon Productions identified this same lawyer as the person who drafted an eviction notice to the current tenant of the rental property. (Beachwood Canyon Productions alleged that the reason at least two of the victims could not take possession of the rental unit was because the current tenant would not vacate.) This tenant later went on record with the LAPD as stating that the tenant was never asked to vacate the premises, either orally or in writing.

Did this attorney draft a letter of eviction to the tenant?

At the moment these attorneys agreed to take on the same client (Beachwood Canyon Productions) a second time (to settle a contract involving similar circumstances) the lawyers would have known they were involved in something suspicious. Why did the attorneys not report their activities at that moment to the ethics committee of the California Bar Association?

At the moment each attorney was notified of the existence of multiple victims in a fraud involving their client's lease contracts for which the attorneys were the principal negotiating agents with the victims, why did the attorneys not notify the ethics committee of the California Bar Association?

The names of the two attorneys and supporting documentation were submitted to the District Attorney's office in a letter from one of the victims formally requesting that the District Attorney investigate the possible criminal actions of the two attorneys. Did the District Attorney take action as the chief prosecutor for the county of Los Angeles?

Has the California Bar Association taken action to investigate the activities of the two known attorneys employed by Beachwood Canyon Productions who attempted to "settle" the victims of this fraud?

Why are these two attorneys still licensed to practice law in the state of California?
Where is the FBI? top

Initial contact with the victims is made via Internet and email. Lease contracts from Beachwood Canyon Productions were faxed back and forth across state lines between the perpetrators and the victims. Some lease deposit payments were wired via bank transfer across state lines.

One victim submitted online crime reports to the FBI via the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (http://www.ic3.gov) during March and April, 2006. The online submissions chronicled the unfolding events of the fraud and were updated at numerous times.

Frustrated by the lack of response from the FBI, in April, 2006, the victim visited the FBI field office on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles in order to report the crime. The victim met with an FBI agent and reported the fraud. The victim asked to submit accompanying documentation (including copies of the victims' overlapping lease contracts, the perpetrators' Internet advertisements and emails, and a wire transfer statement, among other things). The agent refused to accept the documentation, stating that he would first submit the fraud report to the FBI's division of White Collar Fraud.

The victims are puzzled that, during the same time period, the FBI had enough man power in Los Angeles to investigate the purported leak of gossip regarding a celebrity via email from a gossip magazine, but the office never contacted the victims of a financial crime originating in Los Angeles involving multiple victims.
Contact

contact@hollywoodfraud.com