Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Fake Cures—Arthur Vanmoor

A federal in Fort Lauderdale has indicted Arthur “Big Pimpin’ Pappy” Vanmoor “on fraud charges for peddling fake cures to cancer, migraines, the flu and cramps over his Internet Web sites.”[1] Mr. Vanmoor, who is thought to live overseas,[2] has been charged with to commit , , and Food Drug & Cosmetic Act [hereinafter FDCA] violations, as well as substantive mail fraud, wire fraud, and FDCA violations.[3]

The charges stem from allegations that Mr. Vanmoor and his co-conspirators “sold fake cures for cancer, migraines, influenza, and cramps over the Internet using approximately twenty websites with names such as www.breastcancercure.com and www.lungcancercure.org. Vanmoor and his co-conspirators used these websites to promote his products ‘Cancer Control,’ ‘Migraine Miracle,’ ‘Flu Fighter,’ and ‘Cramps Comforter’ as being ‘guaranteed’ cures and approved by the United States Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) for use on human beings, when, in fact, they were not.”[4] Allegedly bogus testimonials were also used to promote the products.[5]

These are not the only legal woes facing Mr. Vanmoor. A couple of years ago, Mr. Vanmoor was convicted and jailed for 18 months on charges related to a prostitution ring in Florida.[6] He was deported in 2004 after serving his sentence, and last month, he sued “johns who patronized his once-burgeoning escort service and blamed them for much of his legal woes.”[7] At the end of February, he also sued federal officials, accusing them of using illegal means to freeze his online brokerage account containing $343,726.60.[8]

Pre-trial seizure of assets is one of the hardest things for a defendant to deal with. If any real or personal property is involved in or traceable to a fraudulent or racketeering transaction, it is subject to forfeiture to the United States.[9] A defendant’s assets can be seized without warning or notice in an ex parte pretrial restraining order,[10] which generally enjoins the sale, pledge, or any other means of disposing of the property without the court’s approval.[11] The government must show either:
  • that, upon filing a civil forfeiture complaint, the property is subject to civil forfeiture;[12] or
  • prior to filing such a complaint, and after notice to persons and with opportunity to have a hearing, that “there is a substantial probability that the United States will prevail on the issue of forfeiture and that failure to enter the order will result in the property being destroyed, removed from the jurisdiction of the court, or otherwise made unavailable for forfeiture,” and “the need to preserve the availability of the property … outweighs the hardship on the party.”[13]
This can make it difficult for a defendant to hire an attorney to defend him, and courts often have little sympathy. They will often “hold a prompt hearing at which the property owner can contest the restraining order—without waiting until trial to do so—at least when the restrained assets are needed to pay for an attorney to defend him on associated criminal charges.”[14] That assurance, however, is hollow for two reasons: first, the defendant still needs to find an attorney to represent him for the seizure hearing, and second, “neither due process, nor the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, requires that assets needed to pay an attorney be exempted from restraining orders or, ultimately, from forfeiture.”[15]


[1] Sean Gardiner, , Sun-Sentinel, Mar. 15, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] US Attorneys Office, , Mar. 14, 2006.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Sean Gardiner, , Mar. 2, 2006.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A).
[10] Id. § 983(j)(1)(A).
[11] United States v. Melrose E. Subdivision, 357 F.3d 493, 496-97 (5th Cir. 2004).
[12] 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A).
[13] Id. § 983(j)(1)(B).
[14] Melrose, supra note 11, at 499-500
[15] Id.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 2:52 PM