Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:18-cr-00375
Case Name:   USA v. Ziskind et al
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that VLADIMIR ZISKIND pled guilty to participating in a scheme to target elderly persons to solicit purchases of stock in a series of valueless companies through a variety of lies and misrepresentations.  ZISKIND pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and one count of securities fraud before U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Vladimir Ziskind callously preyed on elderly victims, cold-calling them with a time-sensitive offer to purchase an ‘IPO’ of a company that was ‘doing great.’  In reality, the companies for which Ziskand purported to be selling IPOs were under his control, and there was zero legitimate investment opportunity for his victims.  Ziskand has admitted to his scheme, which netted over $2 million, and now faces a prison term for his lies.”

According to the allegations contained in the Complaint, the Indictment, and statements made in related court filings and proceedings:[1]

For several years, ZISKIND and his co-defendants operated a fraudulent scheme in which a salesman named “Mike Palmer” would call elderly persons on the phone and offer them what he claimed was a time-sensitive opportunity to buy stock in certain companies.  In fact, there was no “Mike Palmer,” and the salesman was actually ZISKIND or co-defendant Kevin Weinzoff, who were taking turns using the fake alias.  The purported time-sensitive investment opportunity was also fabricated by the defendants, as the companies in which they solicited investments were actually companies under their control.  In one intercepted phone call conversation, ZISKIND described to co-defendant Keith Orlean, the chief executive officer of the company, his strategy for a successful investor sales pitch as: “You ram it down their fucking throat.”  In another intercepted call between ZISKIND and Orlean, upon learning that a particular victim investor died, ZISKIND remarked:  “I knew I should have pulled the last $10,000 out of him.”   

The most recent version of the defendants’ phony sales pitch included false representations about an impending initial public offering, or “IPO,” for their company, Digital Donations Technologies, Inc.  For example, in April 2018, ZISKIND assured a victim investor that “our company is doing great,” that the company had an offer for an IPO valued at approximately $300 million, and that Orlean was considering a private sale of the company for more than $1.5 billion.  In truth, however, the defendants knew that the company had little or no actual commercial value and that no such IPO or sale was taking place.   

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) estimates that since April 2014, the defendants have convinced more than approximately 50 elderly persons to purchase stock in companies controlled by one or more of the defendants based on false representations.  The defendants appear to have solicited more than $2 million in stock purchases from victims.

*                *                *

ZISKIND, 51, of Brooklyn, New York, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, and one count of securities fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

ZISKIND is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Broderick on January 16, 2020, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding work of the FBI.

The prosecution of this case is being overseen by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Robert L. Boone and Andrew Thomas are in charge of the case.

 



[1] As for the defendants who have pled not guilty, the description of the charges set forth herein constitute only allegations.





Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that KEITH ORLEAN, a/k/a “Jack Allen,” pled guilty to participating in a scheme to target elderly persons to solicit purchases of stock in a series of valueless companies through a variety of lies and misrepresentations.  ORLEAN pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and one count of securities fraud before U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As he admitted today, Keith Orlean purported to offer elderly victims time-sensitive investment opportunities.  In actuality, he was selling victims a package of false promises that yielded profit only for him and his co-defendants.  Orlean now awaits sentencing for his predatory practices.”

According to the allegations contained in the Complaint, the Indictment, and statements made in related court filings and proceedings:[1]

For several years, ORLEAN and his co-defendants operated a fraudulent scheme in which a salesman named “Mike Palmer” would call elderly persons on the phone and offer them what he claimed was a time-sensitive opportunity to buy stock in certain companies.  In fact, there was no “Mike Palmer,” and the salesman was actually one or the other of ORLEAN’s two co-defendants, who were taking turns using the fake alias.  The purported time-sensitive investment opportunity was also fabricated by the defendants, as the companies in which they solicited investments were actually companies under their control.  In one intercepted phone conversation, Co-defendant-1 described to ORLEAN his strategy for a successful investor sales pitch as:  “You ram it down their fucking throat.”  In another intercepted call between Co-defendant-1 and ORLEAN, upon learning that a particular victim investor died, Co-defendant-1 remarked:  “I knew I should have pulled the last $10,000 out of him.”   

The most recent version of the defendants’ phony sales pitch included false representations about an impending initial public offering, or “IPO,” for their company, Digital Donations Technologies, Inc.  For example, in April 2018, one of the defendants assured a victim investor that “our company is doing great,” that the company had an offer for an IPO valued at approximately $300 million, and that defendant KEITH ORLEAN was considering a private sale of the company for more than $1.5 billion.  In truth, however, the defendants knew that the company had little or no actual commercial value and that no such IPO or sale was taking place.  

The Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") estimates that since April 2014, the defendants have convinced more than approximately 50 elderly persons to purchase stock in companies controlled by one or more of the defendants based on false representations.  The defendants appear to have solicited more than $2 million in stock purchases from victims.

*                *                *

ORLEAN, 61, of Dix Hills, New York, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, and one count of securities fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.  The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

ORLEAN is scheduled to be sentenced before Judge Broderick on January 10, 2020, at 3:00 p.m.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding work of the FBI.

The prosecution of this case is being overseen by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Robert Boone and Andrew Thomas are in charge of the case.

 



[1] As for ORLEAN’s co-defendants, the description of the charges set forth herein constitute only allegations.





Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced the arrests of VLADIMIR ZISKIND, a/k/a “Mike Palmer,” KEITH ORLEAN, a/k/a “Jack Allen,” and KEVIN WEINZOFF, a/k/a “Mike Palmer,” and unsealing of a criminal complaint charging ZISKIND,  ORLEAN, and WEINZOFF with conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud in connection with their scheme to target elderly persons to solicit purchases of stock in a series of valueless companies through a variety of lies and misrepresentations.  The defendants are expected to be presented this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As alleged, the defendants worked together over several years to trick elderly individuals into investing millions of dollars in worthless stock.  The defendants allegedly deceived their victims into handing over their hard-earned money in exchange for nothing but lies and false promises.  Today’s arrests demonstrate that this profoundly harmful and cynical alleged conduct will not be tolerated.”

FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  “We take all cases of securities fraud seriously, but there are few fraud schemes sleazier than defrauding elderly victims through deceit and manipulation.  The defendants allegedly solicited more than $2 million in stock purchases from their more than four dozen victims.  While nothing could restore the damage that has already been done, today we begin the process of holding those charged accountable for their actions.”

According to the allegations in the Complaint filed today in Manhattan federal court:[1]

For several years, the defendants operated a fraudulent scheme in which a salesman named “Mike Palmer” would call elderly persons on the phone and offer them what he claimed was a time-sensitive opportunity to buy stock in certain companies.  In fact, there was no “Mike Palmer,” and the salesman was actually VLADIMIR ZISKIND or KEVIN WEINZOFF, who were taking turns using the fake alias.  The purported time-sensitive investment opportunity was also fabricated by the defendants, as the companies in which they solicited investments were actually companies under their control.  In one intercepted phone call conversation, ZISKIND described to KEITH ORLEAN his strategy for a successful investor sales pitch as: “You ram it down their fucking throat.”  In another intercepted call between ZISKIND and ORLEAN, upon learning that a particular victim investor died, ZISKIND remarked:  “I knew I should have pulled the last $10,000 out of him.”   

The most recent version of the defendants’ phony sales pitch included false representations about an impending initial public offering, or “IPO,” for their company, Digital Donations Technologies, Inc.  For example, in April 2018, one of the defendants assured a victim investor that “our company is doing great,” that the company had an offer for an IPO valued at approximately $300 million, and that defendant KEITH ORLEAN was considering a private sale of the company for more than $1.5 billion. In truth, however, the defendants knew that the company had little or no actual commercial value and that no such IPO or sale was taking place.   

The FBI estimates that since April 2014, the defendants have convinced more than approximately 50 elderly persons to purchase stock in companies controlled by one or more of the defendants based on false representations.  The defendants appear to have solicited more than $2 million in stock purchases from victims.

*                *                *

ZISKIND, 49, of Brooklyn, New York, ORLEAN, 60, of Dix Hills, New York, and WEINZOFF, 53, of Brooklyn, New York, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, one count of securities fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and one count of wire fraud.  The securities fraud, wire fraud, and wire fraud conspiracy counts each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.  The conspiracy to commit securities fraud count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.  The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding work of the FBI.

The prosecution of this case is being overseen by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Andrew Thomas and Max Nicholas are in charge of the case.

The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint, and the description of the Complaint set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation. 





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XKQdr02UtgR1iTiMGvcRAO1aa4OLX4nVNzWS4xYvEKU
  Last Updated: 2024-04-09 13:58:53 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:18-mj-03754
Case Name:   USA v. Ziskind
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XxkjWoVQoOPD5Eht81hYmpEZQBynnz9eh6ClCtSxIEY
  Last Updated: 2024-04-09 13:59:28 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E