Connect with us

Business

Column: 'My life cannot be ruined by this scammer.' Two victims lost everything and sued their banks

Published

on

Column: 'My life cannot be ruined by this scammer.' Two victims lost everything and sued their banks

In a span of just three weeks in the summer of 2022, Alice Lin was swindled out of her life savings in an internet scam that began on a Chinese-language chat app. She lost more than $720,000 and sank so low that the 80-year-old two-time widow and mother of four considered taking her own life.

In the same year, Artemis Yaffe was targeted by a scammer posing as an IRS agent, losing her $1.8-million nest egg and — eventually — her home. It took less than two months for her life to be upended, sending the 77-year-old widow into a tailspin from which she has yet to emerge.

The scary thing is that as huge as these losses are, they’re not all that rare in the midst of an epidemic of ripoffs in which older adults, in particular, are targeted. The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center fielded 3.26 million consumer complaints in the five years ending in 2022 and reports that $10.3 billion was lost in that last year alone.

California is about to be hit by an aging population wave, and Steve Lopez is riding it. His column focuses on the blessings and burdens of advancing age — and how some folks are challenging the stigma associated with older adults.

Advertisement

Lin and Yaffe acknowledge their own lapses in judgment, but they filed lawsuits this week against JPMorgan Chase & Co. for not putting a halt to their repeated mass wire transfers.

“My life cannot be ruined by this scammer,” a weeping Lin told me in the dining room of her Alhambra home. She said that after being cleaned out of savings amassed by herself and her late husband, a medical researcher, she prayed daily for strength, planted dozens of roses to brighten her yard (she earned a master’s degree in botany decades ago), and decided to share her experience to help spare others the same nightmare.

“I wouldn’t want anyone ever to go through this,” Yaffe, a retired respiratory therapist from Redwood City, told me by phone from the rental property where she now lives. A year after she lost her husband to pancreatic cancer, she had to sell her home of 40 years to help manage her bills.

The cases are similar to those of two internet fraud victims I wrote about last year. One was a financial services retiree who was duped into wiring money out of the country under the guise of fixing a billing discrepancy. The other was a retired educator who was led to believe, after responding to a bogus virus alert on her computer screen, that she was assisting in a criminal investigation by moving money out of her bank accounts and into bitcoin machines for transfer to a third party.

Advertisement

Each victim lost roughly $80,000. And each one told me they were embarrassed to have been duped so easily. But we live in a time of numbing digital bombardment, and it’s not uncommon for any of us to fall prey to well-executed scams.

“I once represented a Nobel laureate, and I’ve represented professors” who were scammed, said Anne Marie Murphy, a lawyer with Cotchette, Pitre & McCarthy, which filed the Lin and Yaffe lawsuits. “Research tells us … that when people’s brains age, they’re so much more susceptible, and these scams are sophisticated.”

JPMorgan Chase spokesman Peter Kelley sent me a statement that read in part:

“We urge all consumers to ignore phone or internet requests for money or access to their computer or bank accounts. Legitimate organizations or companies won’t make these requests, but scammers will.

“When customers visit our branches to complete wire transactions, our bankers ask questions, raise awareness around various scam scenarios and provide clear warnings that once a wire is sent, you may not be able to recover your money. These interactions occurred in this case when Ms. Yaffe and Ms. Lin authorized wires from their accounts.”

Advertisement

That’s not quite how Lin remembers it. She told me she was given warnings on documents provided by JPMorgan Chase only after she had wired sums ranging from $20,000 to $200,000. She also said her eldest daughter is co-owner of the account and should have been consulted by the bank.

Another daughter, Floy Shieh, sat with her mother during my interview and asked how it can be that financial institutions frequently contact customers to question credit card purchases, but her mother got little or no resistance while uncustomarily moving vast sums of money through her accounts on five visits to her South Pasadena JPMorgan Chase bank and one in Redondo Beach.

Yaffe told me she first went to her Bank of America branch in San Mateo County to wire money but was turned down after being queried about what sounded to bank employees like suspicious circumstances. She said she was coached by her scammer to go to JPMorgan Chase, where on one occasion she was asked about the purpose of the transfer, but the transaction was approved.

During another attempt at a JPMorgan Chase branch in Menlo Park, the lawsuit says, “an employee pulled Yaffe into a private room and told her that he would decline the transaction, stating, ‘If you were my mother, I would not let you do this.’ Nevertheless, on the very same day … Yaffe was able to take a short drive to a nearby Chase … and transfer $286,000.”

Lin and Yaffe told me they had no history of moving large sums of money into and out of accounts — which should have raised more questions from bank officials.

Advertisement

Should banks be doing more to help prevent this kind of fraud?

Put me down as a yes. At the very least, if one branch suspects fraud, why isn’t the account tagged so that a nearby branch is on alert?

“We all should be doing more, each and every one of us,” said Amy Nofziger of the AARP Fraud Watch Network.

Nofziger noted that lots of people make legitimate transfers unrelated to scams, and it can be difficult for banks to determine the true purpose. What’s more, she said, cryptocurrency-related scams are particularly prevalent at the moment. When I spoke to Nofziger on Wednesday morning, she said she’d just been in touch with a team member who told her, “I can’t believe how many crypto calls we’re getting today.”

In Lin’s case, the fraud began with a message from someone, a man, purportedly, asking if they knew each other. She said no, but he kept the conversation alive long enough to learn that she had been working in telehealth marketing recently, and he claimed he was in healthcare as well. Lin told him she had moved from Taiwan to the U.S. in the ’60s and lost two husbands to cancer. He claimed he’d lost his wife in a helicopter crash and sent her a photo that, he said, was taken in a hospital where he was recovering from the same accident.

Advertisement

Lin told him she had four grown children and cared for the youngest, who is disabled and lives with her. Her dream, she told him, was to have enough money so that her son could get by after her passing, and he told her he’d made good money investing in cryptocurrency.

Before long, he’d set Lin up with an online investment platform that showed big returns on her first deposit of $20,000. If she invested more, he said, she’d make more. So she kept wiring large sums of money, and trusted updated “statements” that indicated she’d made $300,000 in profits. Lin even called one of her daughters to ask for more money to invest. The daughter was immediately suspicious, but it was too late to retrieve any of the wired money.

Such operations are referred to by federal authorities as “pig butchering scams” — the victim is fattened up with confidence schemes before getting slaughtered. The fraud is sometimes orchestrated by Southeast Asian crime rings, authorities say, which use human trafficking victims to contact potential targets on dating apps and social media.

The Yaffe scam began when she was contacted by an alleged Amazon rep who was familiar with recent purchases and asked if she’d just bought four computers. When she said no, she was told she was being transferred to Amazon’s fraud department and, later, a supposed IRS investigator who told her that her Social Security number and name had been used by a criminal enterprise to set up fake companies. She needed to transfer her assets to protect her cash and establish her innocence.

“I was in so much shock, I couldn’t think clearly,” Yaffe told me.

Advertisement

The scammer went so far as to listen in on Yaffe’s phone, which was in her pocket, as she was turned down by Bank of America. Then he coached her to try Chase and to say she was investing in Hong Kong property for a meditation and alternative healing center she wanted to open. She followed instructions until her money was gone and the scammer was no longer reachable.

The Elder Fraud Protection Bill, introduced in Sacramento last year by Sen. Bill Dodd (D-Napa), could make banks liable if they assist in fraud schemes, knowingly or not.

“Banks must do a better job of preventing the most vulnerable Californians from getting ripped off,” Dodd said when introducing the legislation, which is scheduled for a hearing in June and is sure to face opposition from the banking industry.

Jacqui Serna, deputy legislative director for Consumer Attorneys of California, said the bill would require banks to step up fraud-prevention practices, including the consulting of secondary account holders or designated contacts.

“The primary thing is, we’re trying to get money back for the elderly person” who’s been fleeced, Serna said.

Advertisement

She added that four lawsuits similar to the Lin and Yaffe claims, which ask the court for restoration of losses, have led to settlements.

Lin, who testified at an earlier hearing on the Dodd bill, told me that after losing just about all of her retirement fund, she took up ballroom dancing to get her mind off her troubles.

And where did she dance?

At the Star Ballroom Dance Studio in Monterey Park, where 11 people were massacred a year ago in a shooting rampage. Lin said she knew some of the victims.

Lin said she has been comforted by her faith over the past few years, along with a close family and successful adult children who are helping with her bills.

Advertisement

If you suspect fraud or want to educate yourself on common scams and how to avoid being targeted, visit the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center. Or check out the AARP Fraud Watch Network, which can be reached at (877) 908-3360.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Business

New lawsuit alleges Uber is violating drivers’ rights. Here’s how

Published

on

New lawsuit alleges Uber is violating drivers’ rights. Here’s how

A gig drivers organization filed a lawsuit against Uber, alleging the company violated their rights by not providing a sufficient appeals process for deactivated accounts.

The lawsuit was announced Monday during a news conference by Rideshare Drivers United, an independent organization that represents more than 20,000 app-based drivers in California.

The organization, represented by attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, said thousands of drivers have been terminated with little to no explanation, many of whom had worked as drivers for years and had high ratings.

“Drivers want to stand up for themselves and for basic fairness, and we can’t when there is no fair appeals process,” said Jason Munderloh, the chairman of the organization’s Bay Area chapter.

The lawsuit is the latest in a long battle between drivers and major ride-hailing service companies. Uber, a frequent target of lawsuits, has often faced claims of labor violations and vehicle collisions.

Advertisement

The tension could reach the November ballot, as the ride-hailing giant attempts to curb the laundry list of legal action. Uber is advocating for legislation that could cap how much attorneys can earn in vehicle collision cases.

Rideshare Drivers United said Monday that Uber is violating Proposition 22, which passed in 2020 and was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2024. The legislation was a win for gig economy companies, allowing them to classify drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, provided certain requirements are met.

Uber is violating a clause in the proposition that requires the company to provide an appeals process for drivers who are terminated, the organization said.

“Uber has had six years of hiding behind Prop. 22 on issues favorable to it and ignored the law when it seemed inconvenient,” Munderloh said.

The lawsuit seeks a statewide judgment that Uber has failed to comply with Proposition 22, along with an opportunity for the thousands of deactivated drivers to appeal their terminations. The suit also seeks reactivation and back pay for drivers who were unfairly terminated.

Advertisement

Uber denied the claims in the lawsuit and reaffirmed that it offers a clear appeals process, in compliance with Proposition 22, a spokesperson told The Times.

“This is a baseless lawsuit by an opportunistic trial lawyer seeking to overturn Proposition 22 and the will of California voters,” the spokesperson said. “We’ll fight this publicity stunt in court while continuing to strengthen drivers’ voice on the platform.”

The company posted on a blog Friday that details its termination and appeals process. Every deactivated driver is given a reason for termination and offered a review process for more information. Drivers can then appeal, and the appeal is evaluated by a real person, according to the website.

Rirdeshare Drivers United said drivers are often terminated for vague reasons and are met with endless automated chatbots when inquiring about their terminations.

Drivers who request an appeal are either automatically denied or given the runaround without being offered an actual appeals process, Liss-Riordan said.

Advertisement

Devins Baker had given about 18,000 rides for Uber in eight years and boasted a 4.96 rating when his account was unexpectedly terminated just before Christmas in 2024. An automated message from the company claimed Baker had driven recklessly and offered no other information, he said.

He wasn’t told what resulted in his termination, but said that during his last ride, he had to drive defensively to avoid crashing into a vehicle that was merging recklessly on the freeway.

Baker had to hit the brakes to avoid the collision, and the passenger, who wasn’t wearing a seat belt, fell off the seat.

Baker was not offered a chance to appeal, he said.

Proposition 22 carved out a new classification for gig economy workers, affording them limited benefits, but not the rights granted to full-fledged employees.

Advertisement

The legislation received strong financial backing from Uber.

A group of drivers challenged Proposition 20 in 2024, claiming the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the state Legislature’s authority to provide workers’ compensation protections to drivers. Their claims were ultimately rejected by the state’s highest court.

Ride-hail drivers have long raised concerns about low wages, minimal workplace protections and exploitative practices.

More recently, they have grappled with rising gas prices amid the war in the Middle East, which has driven some away from the ride-hailing business.

“The pay is not good in the first place. We do what we can to create a solid framework for ourselves and our families,” said Munderloh, who works as a part-time Uber driver. “It’s hard enough with how little they pay us, and then even that is taken away.”

Advertisement

Various gig companies, including Uber, Lyft and DoorDash, have said Proposition 22 is a crucial component of their businesses and threatened to shut down in the state if the proposition were struck down. These companies poured hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign to sway voters on the proposition.

Continue Reading

Business

The Onion Signs New Deal to Take Over Infowars

Published

on

The Onion Signs New Deal to Take Over Infowars

When Infowars, the website founded by the right-wing conspiracist Alex Jones, came up for sale two years ago, an unlikely suitor stepped up. The Onion, a satirical news outlet, planned to convert the site into a parody of itself.

That sale was scuttled by a bankruptcy court. Now, The Onion has re-emerged with a new plan: licensing the website from Gregory Milligan, the court-appointed manager of the site.

On Monday, Mr. Milligan asked Maya Guerra Gamble, a judge in Texas’ Travis County District Court overseeing the disposition of Infowars, to approve that licensing agreement in a court filing. Under the terms, The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, would pay $81,000 a month to license Infowars.com and its associated intellectual property — such as its name — for an initial six months, with an option to renew for another six months.

The licensing deal has been agreed to by The Onion and the court-appointed administrator. But it is not effective until Judge Guerra Gamble approves it, and Mr. Jones could appeal any ruling. That means the fate of Infowars remains in limbo until the court rules, probably sometime in the next two weeks. Mr. Jones continues to operate Infowars.com and host its weekday program, “The Alex Jones Show.”

Mr. Jones had no immediate comment.

Advertisement

The battle over Infowars has been a long and fraught saga, and Mr. Jones — a notorious peddler of lies and invective — has used his bully pulpit for more than a year to crusade against The Onion’s efforts to take over the platform. The site is in limbo because of a series of defamation lawsuits against Mr. Jones filed by families of victims of the mass shooting in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, which Mr. Jones falsely claimed was a hoax.

People who believed his lies that the shooting was staged subjected the families to years of online abuse, harassment and death threats.

In 2018, the families of two Sandy Hook victims sued Mr. Jones for defamation in Texas, where Infowars is based, and relatives of eight other victims sued him in Connecticut. In 2022, a jury in Texas awarded the parents of one victim $50 million.

Mr. Jones declared bankruptcy later that year. A trial pitting him against the parents of a second victim was delayed indefinitely by that move. Later that year, a jury awarded the families and a former law enforcement official who sued Mr. Jones in Connecticut a total of $1.4 billion.

Mr. Jones appealed the Connecticut verdict, the largest defamation award in history, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In October, the justices declined to hear the case.

Advertisement

To help satisfy Mr. Jones’s debts to the Sandy Hook families and other creditors, Judge Christopher Lopez of U.S. Bankruptcy Court ordered in mid-2024 that a court-appointed trustee sell off equipment, intellectual property and other assets owned by Free Speech Systems, Infowars’ parent company.

In late 2024, a sealed-bid silent auction drew only two contenders: The Onion’s parent and a company associated with Mr. Jones. The trustee and the families chose The Onion’s bid, despite its potential to yield less cash than the rival company’s. Mr. Jones and his lawyers cried foul, and Judge Lopez intervened, saying that the process was opaque and that The Onion’s bid was not obviously superior. He rejected plans for a do-over of the auction, instead directing the families to seek a liquidation through Judge Guerra Gamble’s court in Texas, where the first defamation case was heard and won.

In August, Judge Guerra Gamble ruled that a court-appointed administrator would take over and sell Infowars’ assets, reopening the door to The Onion. “We’re working on it,” Ben Collins, the chief executive of Global Tetrahedron, wrote on social media on the same day as Judge Guerra Gamble’s ruling.

The Onion’s proposal, worth $486,000 in its initial six-month term, does little to satisfy the enormous damages awarded to the Sandy Hook families. The families have been fighting to collect since Mr. Jones filed for personal and business bankruptcy. Mr. Jones is expected to lose access to his studio and equipment as part of the deal, Mr. Collins said.

The Onion plans to turn Infowars into a comedy site with satirical echoes of the fringe conspiracy theories that Mr. Jones is known for. Tim Heidecker, one of the comedians behind “Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!” on Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim, has been hired to serve as “creative director of Infowars.” He said he initially planned to parody Mr. Jones’s “whole modus operandi.”

Advertisement

Mr. Heidecker has been working on his impression of Mr. Jones. But eventually, when that joke gets old, Mr. Heidecker hopes to turn Infowars into a destination for independent and experimental comedy, he said.

“I just thought it would be just a beautiful joke if we could take this pretty toxic, negative, destructive force of Infowars and rebrand it as this beautiful place for our creativity,” Mr. Heidecker said in an interview. During a recent trip to Philadelphia, he traveled to the Liberty Bell to film a video in character as the new creative director of Infowars.

“The goal for the families we represent has always been to prevent Alex Jones from being able to cause harm at scale, the way he did against them,” said Chris Mattei, the lawyer who argued the Connecticut families’ case in court. The deal with The Onion promises “to significantly degrade his power to do that.”

The Onion also plans to sell merchandise and share the proceeds with the Sandy Hook families.

“We are excited to lie constantly for cold, hard cash, but this time in a cool way, and we’ll make sure some of it gets back to the families,” Mr. Collins said.

Advertisement

While broadcast programming is “out of my lane,” Mr. Mattei said, “satire and humor can be universal. If their programming can be of interest to Jones’s former audience, and help bring them out of the dark, that would be wonderful.”

In the meantime, the company has been filming satirical videos in antipation of the court’s ruling. One of them features a fictional anchor from the satirical Onion News Network, “Jim Haggerty,” who defects from the mainstream media to become a conspiracy monger. He will be played by the actor Brad Holbrook.

“For 35 years, I was part of the problem,” Mr. Haggerty intoned in a dramatic trailer released by The Onion. “But now, I’m free of my corporate shackles, and my only business is freedom.”

Continue Reading

Business

Tim Cook steps back as Apple appoints hardware chief as new CEO

Published

on

Tim Cook steps back as Apple appoints hardware chief as new CEO

Apple, one of the world’s most valuable companies, is getting a new chief executive, marking a new chapter in the story of what has become arguably the most influential company in consumer technology.

The Cupertino, Calif., smartphone maker said Monday that John Ternus, senior vice president of hardware engineering, will become Apple’s chief executive on Sept. 1.

Tim Cook, who has served as chief executive for roughly 15 years, will become executive chairman of the company’s board of directors, the company said. He was long expected to step down soon.

Under Cook’s leadership, Apple’s market capitalization grew to $4 trillion from about $350 billion, according to the company. Its revenue ballooned from $108 billion in fiscal year 2011 to more than $416 billion in fiscal year 2025.

Apple also expanded its business under Cook’s tenure, including its presence in entertainment with Apple TV and Apple Music. People also use other services such as Apple Pay and iCloud to store their photos, videos and other content.

Advertisement

The leadership transition marks a new era for Apple, which turned 50 years old in April. The company has revolutionized technology, selling popular consumer electronics including iPhones and smartwatches.

But the company has lagged behind as its rivals such as OpenAI, Google, Meta and more move quickly to dominate the artificial intelligence race. It has also had to grapple with tariffs and criticism for manufacturing its products in other countries, such as China and India, during President Trump’s second term.

“These will be big shoes to fill and the timing of Cook exiting stage left as CEO could make sense but also creates questions. Apple is making a major transition on its AI strategy, and longtime CEO and legendary Cook leaving now is a surprise,” Dan Ives, an analyst with Wedbush Securities, said in a statement.

In a statement, Cook expressed gratitude for his time leading Apple. The 65-year-old succeeded chief executive and co-founder Steve Jobs in 2011 after he passed away from pancreatic cancer.

“John Ternus has the mind of an engineer, the soul of an innovator, and the heart to lead with integrity and with honor,” Cook said in a statement. “He is a visionary whose contributions to Apple over 25 years are already too numerous to count, and he is without question the right person to lead Apple into the future.”

Advertisement

Ternus was widely expected to be next in line as chief executive.

In a statement, he said he’s worked at Apple for nearly his entire career, including under Jobs. He described Cook, who will work with him during the transition, as his mentor.

“I am humbled to step into this role, and I promise to lead with the values and vision that have come to define this special place for half a century,” Ternus said in a statement.

Ternus has served as Apple’s senior vice president of hardware engineering since 2021, working on new products such as the iPad and AirPods. Before that role, he was on Apple’s product design team in 2001 before becoming vice president of hardware engineering in 2013, according to the company.

“Ternus’s work on Mac has helped the category become more powerful and more popular globally than at any time in its 40-year history,” Apple said in its news release about the transition.

Advertisement

In the fiscal year ending in September, Apple reported revenue of $416 billion and a net income of $112 billion. Worldwide, there are more than 2.5 billion active Apple devices.

Apple’s stock was down less than 1% in early after-hours trading, changing hands at around $271 a share.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending