United States District Court, D. New Jersey
V. BROWN, MARIA TEMKIN, BROWN LEGAL CONSULTING, LLC On behalf
EKATERINA SCHOENEFELD SCHOENEFELD LAW FIRM LLC 32 CHAMBERS
STREET, SUITE 2 PRINCETON, N.J. 08542 On behalf of Defendant
DAS DAS LAW LLC On behalf of Defendants TRT International,
LTD and Oleg Mitnik
KAPUSTINA 137 GRASSHOPPER DRIVE WARMINSTER, PA 18974 Pro Se
MICHAEL GOLOVERYA 137 GRASSHOPPER DRIVE WARMINSTER, PA 18974
Pro Se Defendant
VLADIMIR SHTEYN 3325 WOODLAND CIRCLE HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA
19006 Pro Se Defendant
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
case is a companion to Akishev v. Kapustin, Civil
Action No. 13-7152 (NLH/AMD), and both cases concern a
“bait-and-switch” fraudulent scheme masterminded
and operated by defendant, Sergey Kapustin, and allegedly
assisted by other defendants, through deceptive online
advertising aimed at luring international customers to wire
funds for automobile purchases and then switching to higher
prices, misrepresenting mileage, condition and location and
ownership of these vehicles, extorting more funds, and
failing to deliver the paid-for vehicles. Presently before
the Court is the motion of Defendant Iskander Ibragimov to
dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against him. For the reasons
expressed below, Ibragimov's motion will be denied.
detailed recitation of the fraudulent scheme perpetrated by
Kapustin and other various defendants, see Akishev v.
Kapustin, Civil Action No. 13-7152 (NLH/AMD), Docket No.
272, 358, 395. This case concerns additional Plaintiffs,
Chingiz Matyev, Sergey Smirnov, and Igor Zuev, all citizens
of Eastern Europe who, like the Plaintiffs in Akishev v.
Kapustin, used Kaputin's websites to purchase a car
from the United States to be shipped overseas, wired money to
Kapustin, but never received any vehicle or a refund of their
current motion to dismiss is filed by Defendant Iskander
Ibragimov, who is not a party to the Akishev action.
Plaintiffs claim in this case that Ibragimov was involved in
Kapustin's fraudulent scheme because he developed and
managed the sham websites for the car dealerships, managed
the email accounts that Defendants used to communicate with
Plaintiffs and other victims, traveled from his residence in
Pennsylvania to the dealerships in New Jersey, transacted
business with co-defendant TRT International, and was a de
facto owner or director of Kapustin's corporate entities.
argues that Plaintiffs have failed to state any viable claims
against him under RICO or New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act
because Plaintiffs' complaint does not contain facts
connecting their experience with the Kapustin websites and
money wire transfers directly with Ibragimov. Ibragimov
further argues that the complaint does not set forth facts to
establish the “common purpose” element of a RICO
claim, and the statement that Ibragimov is a de facto owner
of the corporate entities is an inappropriate conclusion of
federal RICO statute, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1961-68,
provides, in relevant part, that:
It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated
with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which
affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or
participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such
enterprise's affairs through a ...