Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-OH  1:18-cr-00109
Case Name:   USA v. Shuklin et al
  Press Releases:
CINCINNATI – A federal grand jury has charged 12 individuals with conspiring in a racketeering enterprise to defraud individuals through their moving companies located throughout the United States, including in Florida, Ohio, Maryland, North Carolina, Illinois, Texas, California, Connecticut, Colorado and Missouri. More than 900 customers have been identified as victims of the scheme thus far.

Five defendants were arrested today. The indictment was returned July 25 and unsealed today.

Benjamin C. Glassman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, Thomas J. Ullom, Regional Special Agent-in-Charge, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and Angela L. Byers, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Cincinnati Division, announced the charges.

According to the indictment, the defendants operated and worked through a number of affiliated moving companies, which include:



First National Moving and Storage





Public Moving and Storage





Flagship Van Lines





Public Moving Services





Independent Van Lines





Smart Relocation Solutions





JBR Underground





Trident Auto Shipping





National Relocation Van Lines





Unified Van Lines





National Relocation Solutions





United National Moving and Storage





Presidential Moving Services





US Relocation Systems



The co-conspirators owned, operated and worked as employees, members and associates of the affiliated moving companies. The moving companies were operated principally out of a business address in Hollywood, Fla. and had a warehouse in West Chester, Ohio.

It is alleged that the defendants executed a scheme between April 2013 through July 2018 to enrich themselves by stealing from customers who hired their moving companies to move their household goods.

To execute the alleged scheme, the defendants allegedly lied to customers about how long their moving companies had been in business, claiming many years of experience for companies that had been created just a few months prior. The defendants also allegedly created fake online reviews, praising the work of their moving companies. 

When potential customers contacted the defendants, the defendants would allegedly provide customers with low binding estimates to do their move, promising to beat their competitor’s prices.  After the customers agreed to hire the moving companies, employees of the moving companies would allegedly load the customers’ goods onto the truck and then bump the price of the move.  Under federal regulations, in a binding estimate a customer and the motor carrier must both agree in writing to a charge for services prior to the start of any work. When an estimate is binding, USDOT prevents interstate carriers from raising the price of the move after loading customers’ items.

The defendants and the moving companies would allegedly refuse to give back the household goods until customers paid the inflated prices. If customers did not pay the inflated prices on the moves, it is alleged, the defendants would, in some cases, steal the customers’ household goods, never delivering them. 

For example, in July 2016, First National Moving and Storage loaded a customer’s goods to transport from Round Rock, Texas to Columbus, Ohio. After loading the goods, the company increased the cost of the move and told the customer that she had to agree to the higher price or the customer’s goods would not be returned to her. The customer called the company to complain, and, during one phone call, the customer was told by the company that her items would be auctioned if she did not pay the higher price.

After customers complained to federal regulators and others, it is alleged that the defendants would shut down the latest iteration of the moving company, and open a new moving company. In doing so, the defendants allegedly lied to federal regulators and hid the identities of the true owners in order to receive licenses to operate. The defendants and other employees of the moving companies also used aliases with customers and regulators.

The defendants are charged with conspiring to conduct the affairs of the moving companies through a pattern of racketeering activity, consisting of multiple acts of wire fraud, theft of an interstate shipment by carrier, Hobbs Act extortion and identification fraud.

Those arrested today include:



Name





Also Known As





Age





Residence





Andrey Shuklin





 





31





Miami, Fla.





Phyllis Ricci Quincoces





Faith Ashford, Grace Rubestello, Phyllis Ricci, Phyllis Ann





51





Hollywood, Fla.





Vladimir Pestereanu





Vova





28





Sunny Isles Beach, Fla.





Roman Iakovlev





 





31





Charlotte, N.C.





Jessica Martin





Emma Ricci, Mary Austin





28





Tamarac, Fla.



 

“The arrests and actions taken today stemming from a criminal investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (DOT-OIG) demonstrate our commitment to detecting and prosecuting fraudulent household goods movers who take advantage of unsuspecting customers by holding their personal belongings hostage for ransom,” said Thomas J. Ullom, DOT-OIG Regional Special Agent-in-Charge. “Working with our law enforcement and prosecutorial partners, as well as Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration officials, we will continue our vigorous efforts to ensure that commercial household goods movers adhere to Federal laws and regulations designed to protect the public.”

 

U.S. Attorney Glassman commended the investigation of this case by the USDOT and the assistance of the FBI, as well as Assistant United States Attorneys Megan Gaffney and Matthew Singer, who are prosecuting the case.

An indictment merely contains allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

If you believe you are a victim of this fraudulent activity, please call the Victim Hotline at 1-800-424-9071 or email hotline@oig.dot.gov.

# # #

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zLvjCA3XlfJksdG1eM-JD1mm0Y64JgZHGxZhHVWm9k4
  Last Updated: 2024-03-27 10:34:35 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: 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 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 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