Payday Loan King Scott Tucker Loses FTC Fight: Must Pay $1.3 BillionOctober 2, 2016 | By: deBanked Staff
Deceptive payday lending has come at a steep price for one Scott Tucker, who was briefly an accomplished professional race car driver. On Friday, September 30th, United States District Judge Gloria M. Navarro ordered a judgment be entered in favor of the FTC in the amount of $1,301,897,652. That concludes a case that had carried on for four years.
The $1.3 Billion judgment is no doubt a bad omen for Tucker as he awaits his criminal trial in New York. He was arrested earlier this year in February and charged with multiple counts of conspiracy, collection of unlawful debts and false TILA disclosures. In that case, US Attorney Preet Bharara seeks a forfeiture of at least $2 Billion. An initial accounting of his assets subject to forfeiture are his ferraris, porsches, a private jet, homes and more than a dozen bank accounts, according to the indictment.
That should be a big blow to Tucker considering that an asset freeze has forced him to rely on court-appointed attorneys in the criminal case. However, the FTC alleged last month that Tucker was still managing to live a lavish lifestyle that included steakhouses, country clubs, and spa visits. Documents filed in the FTC case show that as recent as July 22nd, the court was still ordering newly discovered bank accounts related to Tucker to be frozen. Given the billions sought in damages, one local newspaper in Kansas City, named The Pitch, questioned back in May where all of the money went.
We may soon find out. The judge’s order in the FTC case not only banned Tucker and his co-defendants from participating in consumer lending for life but also ordered that he must identify all business activities for which he performs services whether as an employee or otherwise and any entity in which he has an ownership interest in. The FTC was also awarded the authorization to obtain additional discovery without court consent and the permission to pose as a consumer, supplier, or other individual or entity to the defendants or any individual or entity affiliated with the defendants without the necessity of identification or prior notice.
The judgment was entered in case number 2:12-cv-00536.Last modified: October 2, 2016