California resident, Ran Phantom allegedly ran a debt collection scam from his home, according to the Federal trade Commission (FTC).

The defendants’ scheme involved more than 2.7 million calls to at least 600,000 different phone numbers nationwide, according to the Federal Trade Commission.  In less than 2 years, they fraudulently collected more than $5.2 million from consumers, many of whom were strapped for cash and thought the money they were paying would be applied to loans they owed, according to FTC documents filed with the court.

Often pretending to be law enforcement agents or representatives of fake government agencies like the “Federal Crime Unit of the Department of Justice,” callers from India who worked for the defendants would harass consumers with back-to-back calls, according to the FTC. One consumer reported that the caller threatened to have her children taken away if she did not pay, according to court documents.

In difficult economic times, desperate consumers often turn to high-interest, short-term payday loans between paychecks. The FTC alleges that information submitted by consumers who applied for these loans online found its way into the defendants’ hands. Because the callers had this information,  which often included Social Security or bank account numbers  and because many of the victims already were in a bad financial situations, they often believed that they owed the defendants the money, according to the FTC.

The defendants typically demanded several hundred dollars and, in violation of federal law, routinely used obscene language and threatened to sue or have consumers arrested, according to the FTC’s complaint. They also threatened to tell the victims’ employers, relatives, and neighbors about the bogus debt, and sometimes followed through on these threats, the FTC alleged.

Once victims were pressured into paying, the callers instructed them to use a pre-paid debit cards, credit cards or Western Union so the money could be deposited into one of the defendants’ merchant processing accounts, the FTC alleged. Even after victims made a payment, the harassing calls often continued, forcing them to change their phone numbers, or close their credit cards or bank accounts in an effort to get the calls to stop, according to documents filed with the court.

The FTC alleged that of the $5.2 million the defendants collected, almost $1 million was returned or charged back by their merchant processor, resulting in consumer injury totaling more than $4.2 million.

If you are being harassed about a debt that is not yours please call my office, The Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman at (877) 449-8898

Published: December 15, 2012

Updated: March 28, 2025


This is attorney advertising. These posts are written on behalf of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. and are intended solely as informational content. These blogs in no way provide specific or actionable legal advice, nor does your use of or engagement with this site establish any attorney-client relationship. Please read the disclaimer


More Insights from the TMF Blog

FDCPA Credit Reporting Errors

Credit Reporting Errors: How to Fix Your Credit Report and Sue for Damages

Table of Contents Key Takeaways Credit report errors affect millions of Americans, leading to denied loans, higher interest rates, and employment rejections. Understanding your ...

Unfair Business Practices: California’s UCL and Consumer Protection Remedies

Table of Contents Key Takeaways Four-year statute of limitations applies to most UCL claimsCalifornia’s Unfair Competition Law provides consumers with powerful tools to combat ...
a group of people in a courtroom looking at a screen

Delta’s Pricing Practices: Building the Case for Legal Action

Dynamic pricing algorithms used by Delta Air Lines may violate consumer protection laws, potentially leading to class-action lawsuits. Previous legal precedents set by actions against other companies over algorithmic bias and discriminatory practices could help challenge these systems. Various attributes like zip code, device type, or browsing history that impact pricing could lead to violation of consumer protection and civil rights protections. Investigations by multiple agencies signal a move towards a stronger stance against such practices.