Business
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
A new delivery bot is coming to L.A., built stronger to survive in these streets
The rolling robots that deliver groceries and hot meals across Los Angeles are getting an upgrade.
Coco Robotics, a UCLA-born startup that’s deployed more than 1,000 bots across the country, unveiled its next-generation machines on Thursday.
The new robots are bigger, tougher and better equipped for autonomy than their predecessors. The company will use them to expand into new markets and increase its presence in Los Angeles, where it makes deliveries through a partnership with DoorDash.
Dubbed Coco 2, the next-gen bots have upgraded cameras and front-facing lidar, a laser-based sensor used in self-driving cars. They will use hardware built by Nvidia, the Santa Clara-based artificial intelligence chip giant.
Coco co-founder and chief executive Zach Rash said Coco 2 will be able to make deliveries even in conditions unsafe for human drivers. The robot is fully submersible in case of flooding and is compatible with special snow tires.
Zach Rash, co-founder and CEO of Coco, opens the top of the new Coco 2 (Next-Gen) at the Coco Robotics headquarters in Venice.
(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)
Early this month, a cute Coco was recorded struggling through flooded roads in L.A.
“She’s doing her best!” said the person recording the video. “She is doing her best, you guys.”
Instagram followers cheered the bot on, with one posting, “Go coco, go,” and others calling for someone to help the robot.
“We want it to have a lot more reliability in the most extreme conditions where it’s either unsafe or uncomfortable for human drivers to be on the road,” Rash said. “Those are the exact times where everyone wants to order.”
The company will ramp up mass production of Coco 2 this summer, Rash said, aiming to produce 1,000 bots each month.
The design is sleek and simple, with a pink-and-white ombré paint job, the company’s name printed in lowercase, and a keypad for loading and unloading the cargo area. The robots have four wheels and a bigger internal compartment for carrying food and goods .
Many of the bots will be used for expansion into new markets across Europe and Asia, but they will also hit the streets in Los Angeles and operate alongside the older Coco bots.
Coco has about 300 bots in Los Angeles already, serving customers from Santa Monica and Venice to Westwood, Mid-City, West Hollywood, Hollywood, Echo Park, Silver Lake, downtown, Koreatown and the USC area.
The new Coco 2 (Next-Gen) drives along the sidewalk at the Coco Robotics headquarters in Venice.
(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)
The company is in discussion with officials in Culver City, Long Beach and Pasadena about bringing autonomous delivery to those communities.
There’s also been demand for the bots in Studio City, Burbank and the San Fernando Valley, according to Rash.
“A lot of the markets that we go into have been telling us they can’t hire enough people to do the deliveries and to continue to grow at the pace that customers want,” Rash said. “There’s quite a lot of area in Los Angeles that we can still cover.”
The bots already operate in Chicago, Miami and Helsinki, Finland. Last month, they arrived in Jersey City, N.J.
Late last year, Coco announced a partnership with DashMart, DoorDash’s delivery-only online store. The partnership allows Coco bots to deliver fresh groceries, electronics and household essentials as well as hot prepared meals.
With the release of Coco 2, the company is eyeing faster deliveries using bike lanes and road shoulders as opposed to just sidewalks, in cities where it’s safe to do so. Coco 2 can adapt more quickly to new environments and physical obstacles, the company said.
Zach Rash, co-founder and CEO of Coco.
(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)
Coco 2 is designed to operate autonomously, but there will still be human oversight in case the robot runs into trouble, Rash said. Damaged sidewalks or unexpected construction can stop a bot in its tracks.
The need for human supervision has created a new field of jobs for Angelenos.
Though there have been reports of pedestrians bullying the robots by knocking them over or blocking their path, Rash said the community response has been overall positive. The bots are meant to inspire affection.
“One of the design principles on the color and the name and a lot of the branding was to feel warm and friendly to people,” Rash said.
Coco plans to add thousands of bots to its fleet this year. The delivery service got its start as a dorm room project in 2020, when Rash was a student at UCLA. He co-founded the company with fellow student Brad Squicciarini.
The Santa Monica-based company has completed more than 500,000 zero-emission deliveries and its bots have collectively traveled around 1 million miles.
Coco chooses neighborhoods to deploy its bots based on density, prioritizing areas with restaurants clustered together and short delivery distances as well as places where parking is difficult.
The robots can relieve congestion by taking cars and motorbikes off the roads. Rash said there is so much demand for delivery services that the company’s bots are not taking jobs from human drivers.
Instead, Coco can fill gaps in the delivery market while saving merchants money and improving the safety of city streets.
“This vehicle is inherently a lot safer for communities than a car,” Rash said. “We believe our vehicles can operate the highest quality of service and we can do it at the lowest price point.”
Business
Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon
President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.
In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”
“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.
The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.
Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.
The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.
“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.
Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”
The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.
On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.
The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.
Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.
“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”
Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.
Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.
“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.
Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.
Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.
“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”
Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.
The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”
Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.
The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.
Business
Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk
new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey
February 27, 2026
-
World3 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana6 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO3 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT