Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

)

In the Matter of )

Sabrina Javani )

d/b/a EZ Business Loans )
File No.: EB-TC-12-00000256
Steven Anthony Pashmfoush a/k/a )
Steven Pasha, Steven A. NAL/Acct. No.: 201232170005
Pashmfouroush, Steven Anthony )
Pashfouroush FRNs: 0021898572
)
Operating as EZ Business Loans 0021898606
)
Anthony Galdieri 0021898614
)
Operating as EZ Business Loans
)
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
)

)

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Adopted: July 9, 2012 Released: July 10, 2012

By the Commission:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find
that Sabrina Javani, Steven Anthony Pashmfoush (a/k/a Steven Pasha,
Steven A. Pashmfouroush, Steven Anthony Pashfouroush), and Anthony
Galdieri, all operating under the fictitious business name EZ Business
Loans, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section
227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(Communications Act or Act), and Section 64.1200(a)(3) of the
Commission's rules, by delivering 105 unsolicited advertisements, or
"junk faxes," to the telephone facsimile machines of 99 consumers.
Based on the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent
violations, we find that Ms. Javani, Mr. Pashmfoush, and Mr. Galdieri
are apparently jointly and severally liable for a forfeiture in the
amount of $1,680,000.

II. BACKGROUND

2. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 was enacted by Congress
to address problems of abusive telemarketing, including junk faxes.
Unsolicited faxes often impose unwanted burdens on the called party,
including costs of paper and ink, and making fax machines unavailable
for legitimate business messages. Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act thus
makes it "unlawful for any person within the United States, or any
person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United
States . . . to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or
other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited
advertisement . . . . "

3. On October 6, 2010, in response to 20 consumer complaints alleging
that EZ Business Loans had faxed unsolicited advertisements, the
Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) issued a citation to Anthony Galdieri,
Steven Pasha, and EZ Business Loans, pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of
the Act. The Bureau cited EZ Business Loans for using a telephone
facsimile machine, computer, or other device, to send unsolicited
advertisements to facsimile machines, in violation of Section
227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and Section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's
rules. The citation informed EZ Business Loans that within 30 days of
the date of the citation, it could request an interview with
Commission staff or provide a written statement responding to the
citation. EZ Business Loans did not respond. Despite the citation's
warning that subsequent violations could result in the imposition of
monetary forfeitures, we received over 200 additional consumer
complaints indicating that EZ Business Loans was continuing to send
unsolicited facsimile advertisements.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Apparent Violations of Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and the
Commission's Rules Restricting Unsolicited Facsimile
Advertisements

4. We find that Sabrina Javani, Steven Anthony Pashmfoush (a/k/a Steven
Pasha, Steven A. Pashmfouroush, Steven Anthony Pashfouroush), and
Anthony Galdieri, all operating as EZ Business Loans, violated Section
227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and Section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's
rules by sending 105 unsolicited advertisements to the telephone
facsimile machines of 99 consumers, identified in Appendix A. Each of
these consumers has provided evidence that he or she received a junk
fax or faxes from EZ Business Loans without having expressly
authorized such faxes to be sent or having an established business
relationship with EZ Business Loans. The facsimile transmissions
qualified as prohibited "unsolicited advertisements," as they promote
business loans.

5. The faxes at issue invite recipients to call 877-346-7770 or fax
877-395-9990 to obtain "a quick unsecured business loan." These
contact numbers demonstrate a link between the fictitious business
name established by Ms. Javani and the individual known as Anthony
Galdieri. As indicated above, Ms. Javani registered herself as owner
of the fictitious business name EZ Business Loans under two California
addresses: 3600 Wilshire Blvd, #1510, Los Angeles, CA 90010 as EZ
Business Loans's operating address and 221 S. Gale Dr., #306, Beverly
Hills, CA 90211 as her own address. Billing records associated with
both 877-346-7770 and 877-395-9990 trace to Anthony Galdieri at 221
South Gale Dr., Beverly Hills, CA 90211. In addition, these billing
records list Mr. Galdieri's contact number as 310-749-4882, a cell
phone number that traces, in turn, to Ms. Javani at 221 S. Gale Dr.,
Unit 306, Beverly Hills, CA 90211. In sum, it appears that the
telephone and fax numbers on the relevant faxes trace back to Mr.
Galdieri, with the billing address being the same one used by Ms.
Javani to register the EZ Business Loans fictitious business name.

6. Other information shows how Mr. Pashmfoush (a/k/a Steven Pasha) is
associated with Ms. Javani and Mr. Galdieri in operating the
fictitious business name EZ Business Loans. The faxes include EZ
Business Loans's Internet address, www.ezbusinessloans.com, which
includes numerous links to two press releases that tout EZ Business
Loans and quote "Steven Pasha, COO of EZ Business Loans," listing
877-346-7770 as his contact number. A 2009 company profile for EZ
Business Loans also identifies Steven Pasha as chief operating
officer, providing 877-346-7770 as the "main telephone" for the
business and 310-749-4882 as an individual contact number for Mr.
Pasha and "Investor Relations." This latter number is the same cell
phone number that has been assigned to Ms. Javani since September 2009
and separately listed as a contact number for Anthony Galdieri in
billing records for EZ Business Loans's main telephone line,
877-346-7770. Court records also show that Steven Pashmfouroush has
used the South Gale Drive address that is contained in Ms. Javani's EZ
Business Loans fictitious business name registration. Our research
further reveals that the social security number assigned to Steven
Anthony Pashmfoush is also associated with the name Anthony Galdieri,
again at the same South Gale Drive address. We find that these closely
intertwined connections indicate that Sabrina Javani, Steven Anthony
Pashmfoush, and Anthony Galdieri are apparently operating under the
fictitious business name EZ Business Loans together, and are
responsible for sending the faxes listed in Appendix A.

A. Proposed Forfeiture

7. After we have first issued a citation to a person under Section
503(b)(5) of the Act, as we have in this case, Section 503(b)(1)
authorizes the Commission to propose a forfeiture for subsequent
conduct of the type described in the citation that violates the Act,
or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the
Act. Section 503(b)(2)(E) mandates that, "[i]n determining the amount
of such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee shall
take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such
other matters as justice may require." Our forfeiture guidelines set
forth the base amount for penalties for certain kinds of violations,
and identify criteria, consistent with the Section 503(b)(2)(E)
factors, that may influence whether we adjust the base amount downward
or upward. For example, we may adjust a penalty upward for
"[e]gregious misconduct," an "[i]ntentional violation," or where the
subject of an enforcement action has engaged in a "[r]epeated or
continuous violation." Currently, the Commission may impose a maximum
penalty of $16,000 per violation against individuals or entities such
as Ms. Javani, Mr. Pashmfoush, and Mr. Galdieri.

8. The Commission has generally considered a penalty of $4,500 per
unsolicited fax advertisement as an appropriate base forfeiture for
violating the prohibition against sending them. In addition, when the
consumer has requested that a violator stop sending facsimile messages
and the violator has continued to send them, the Commission has
previously considered $10,000 per unsolicited fax advertisement the
appropriate forfeiture for such egregious violations. It became
apparent, however, that the amount of our proposed forfeitures for
apparent violations of the junk fax prohibitions failed to deter the
more persistent wrongdoers. Accordingly, the Commission has applied
upward adjustments to multiple repeated violations of our junk fax
rules.

9. As our recent upward adjustments indicate, we believe that different
and more substantial penalties than those we have imposed in the past
are appropriate for persons and entities who engage in a significant
number of violations, such as Mr. Pashmfoush, Mr. Galdieri, and Ms.
Javani. These individuals, operating together as EZ Business Loans,
sent nearly 250 unlawful fax advertisements to over 200 consumers who
complained to the Commission after the Bureau first warned EZ Business
Loans that its conduct violated the law. Although Section 503(b)(6) of
the Act does not permit the Commission to assess a forfeiture for any
of these violations that occurred more than one year prior to the date
of this NAL, the egregious nature of the apparent violations persuades
us that we should impose the maximum penalty possible for the 105
violations that did occur with the past year.

10. In addition, the faxes at issue in this NAL violate not only the
prohibition on sending junk faxes (discussed above) but other rules as
well. Both the Act and the Commission's rules require that all fax
advertisements-which are permissible under either an established
business relationship or prior express invitation or
permission-include a clear and conspicuous notice on the first page of
the advertisement that the fax recipient is entitled to request that
the sender not transmit any future fax advertisements. This notice
must include a domestic contact telephone number and a facsimile
machine number for the recipient to transmit such an opt-out request
to the sender 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; if neither of these
numbers is toll-free, a separate cost-free mechanism such as a website
or e-mail address must be available for a fax recipient to transmit an
opt-out request. Finally, the opt-out notice must state that failure
to honor a properly submitted opt-out request within 30 days is
unlawful.

11. The EZ Business Loans faxes attached to the relevant complaints do not
satisfy these requirements. While its faxes do include a toll-free
number, and in some cases, a website address that fax recipients may
contact "[i]f you received this fax in error, or if you want to be
removed," the notices do not include the required statement that
failure to comply with a properly filed opt-out request within 30 days
is unlawful. In addition, EZ Business Loans's opt-out notice
apparently was not clear and conspicuous in all cases; at least one
consumer has complained that she could not read the opt-out telephone
number. Further, EZ Business Loans apparently did not provide opt-out
opportunities 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as several consumers
report that they were unable make an opt-out request using either the
telephone number or website address provided in the opt-out notice.
Finally, as indicated in Appendix A, some consumers report that they
received an unsolicited facsimile advertisement from EZ Business Loans
more than 30 days after making a do-not-fax request to the phone
number or website provided in the opt-out notice. Each deficient
opt-out notice and each instance when EZ Business Loans either failed
to allow submission of an opt-out request or failed to honor a valid
opt-out request within 30 days represents additional violations of the
Commission's rules and the Junk Fax Act that could carry separate
penalties of up to $16,000 each. In this case, we consider these
additional violations as aggravating factors that also warrant upward
adjustments of our base forfeiture amounts.

12. Accordingly, weighing the facts before us, we propose the maximum
penalty allowed under the Act and the Commission's rules, $16,000, for
each junk fax recorded in Appendix A, for a total penalty of
$1,680,000. This penalty takes into account, in the language of
Section 503(b)(2)(E), the "degree of culpability" and "history of
prior offenses," and in the language of our forfeiture guidelines,
factors including the EZ Business Loans operators' apparent
"intentional violation[s]" and "prior violations of . . . FCC
requirements." We believe this upward adjustment and overall penalty
against Ms. Javani, Mr. Pashmfoush, and Mr. Galdieri takes into
account the number and scope of the apparent violations and the fact
that these individuals apparently sought to disguise their true
identities as senders of these faxes on behalf of the fictitious
business name EZ Business Loans. These factors strongly indicate
knowing and deliberate efforts to violate the junk fax rules and then
to conceal and evade responsibility for such violations. Those who
violate our junk fax rules are on notice that we intend to use the
full range of our enforcement power to deter future noncompliance and
protect consumers from the annoyance and harms caused by such conduct,
including assessing the statutory maximum forfeiture amount of $16,000
per violation.

IV. CONCLUSION

13. We have determined that Sabrina Javani, Steven Anthony Pashmfoush
(a/k/a Steven Pasha, Steven A. Pashmfouroush, Steven Anthony
Pashfouroush), and Anthony Galdieri, operating as EZ Business Loans
apparently violated Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and Section
64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, by using a telephone
facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send 105 unsolicited
advertisements to the 99 consumers identified in Appendix A. We have
further determined that Ms. Javani, Mr. Pashmfoush, and Mr. Galdieri
are apparently jointly and severally liable for a forfeiture in the
amount of $1,680,000.

V. ORDERING CLAUSES

14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and
Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that
Sabrina Javani, Steven Anthony Pashmfoush, and Anthony Galdieri,
operating as EZ Business Loans, are hereby NOTIFIED of this JOINT AND
SEVERAL APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of
$1,680,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 227(b)(1)(C)
of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and Section
64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3).

15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the
Commission's rules, within thirty (30) calendar days after the release
date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Sabrina
Javani, Steven Anthony Pashmfoush, and Anthony Galdieri SHALL PAY the
full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
forfeiture.

16. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check, credit card, or
similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN
referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO
63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank -
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number
021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001.
Regardless of the form of payment, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice)
must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the
NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter
the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Sabrina
Javani, Steven Anthony Pashmfoush, and Anthony Galdieri shall also
send electronic notification to Johnny.Drake@fcc.gov on the date said
payment is made. Requests for full payment under an installment plan
should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer - Financial Operations, 445
12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554. Please contact
the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email:
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.

17. The response, if any, must be mailed both to: Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Telecommunications
Consumers Division; and to Richard A. Hindman, Chief,
Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
Documents sent by overnight mail (other than United States Postal
Service Express Mail) must be addressed to: Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary,
9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. Hand or
messenger-delivered mail should be directed, without envelopes, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554
(deliveries accepted Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
only). See www.fcc.gov/osec/guidelines.html for further instructions
on FCC filing addresses.

18. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
(1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective
documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current
financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically
identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial
documentation submitted.

19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
Requested and First Class mail to Sabrina Javani, 3600 Wilshire Blvd.,
Suite 1510, Los Angeles, CA 90010-2619; Steven Anthony Pashmfoush,
3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1510, Los Angeles, CA 90010-2619; Anthony
Galdieri, 3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1510, Los Angeles, CA 90010-2619;
Sabrina Javani, 221 South Gale Drive, Unit 306, Beverly Hills, CA
90211; Steven Anthony Pashmfoush, 221 South Gale Drive, Unit 306,
Beverly Hills, CA 90211, and Anthony Galdieri, 221 South Gale Drive,
Unit 306, Beverly Hills, CA 90211.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

APPENDIX A

Complainants and Apparent Violation Dates

Complainant received facsimile solicitations Violation Date(s)

J. Hudkins 7/11/2011

J. McCurry 7/11/2011

H. Sondheim 7/11/2011

M. Watt, CALL Primrose 7/12/2011

N. Carr-Ruffino 7/12/2011

A. MacIntyre 7/12/2011

C. Banducci, APW Co. 7/13/2011

A. Pfund 7/13/2011

W. Davis, Davis Associates, Inc. 7/13/2011; 7/28/2011;
8/5/2011

L. Messier, B&S Realty 7/14/2011

S. Steinberg 7/14/2011

E. Simon, Holiday Manufacturing Inc. 7/14/2011

R. Sidman 7/14/2011

R. Rast, Ambank Services, Inc. 7/14/2011; 7/25/2011

C. Connors, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 7/14/2011

J. Holochwost, Vision Forestry, LLC 7/15/2011

J. Dupont 7/15/2011

J. Gernert, Felicity Farm 7/15/2011

J. Beasley 7/15/2011

J. Blair 7/15/2011

D. Watkins III 7/15/2011

R. Soley, Tamalpais Advisors, Inc. 7/15/2011

S. Fisher 7/16/2011

P. Brady 7/18/2011

D. Won, Corner Deli 7/18/2011

G. Adelman 7/18/2011

C. Loo, Ameriprise Financial Services 7/18/2011

A. Gray 7/18/2011

A. DiMarco, Advantage Education 7/19/2011

G. Kissick, Nancy Kissick Nursing 7/19/2011

J. McCord, Jennifer McCord Associates LLC 7/19/2011

J. Lile, Shoults, Picard & Brooks, Attorneys 7/19/2011
at Law

R. Hasselquist 7/19/2011

B. Barkey 7/19/2011

J. Baareman, Fleet Compliance Group Ltd. 7/19/2011

J. Sheaffer 7/20/2011

A. Medvitz 7/20/2011

A. Wilson, RVAP 7/20/2011

S. Myerson 7/20/2011

D. Lavelle, Benchmark Builders, Inc. 7/21/2011

C. Hubler, Sun Welding 7/25/2011

D. Faiia 7/25/2011

T. Bell, Fresh Fish Inc. 7/25/2011

D. Byrd, Piazza Trading & Co., Ltd. 7/25/2011

G. Gregorian 7/25/2011

M. Oberle, Curious Cargo 7/25/2011

P. Stankowski, Granite Gold 7/27/2011

D. Stiteler 7/27/2011

L. Gardner, Gardner's Commercial Cleaning 7/27/2011

B. Delaney, Parke-West Fine Art Appraisal 7/27/2011
Service

R. Woodrow 7/27/2011

A. Hill, Active Plumbing Supply Com. 7/28/2011

T. Kilcrease, Hughes & Wright Funeral Home, 7/28/2011
Inc.

B. Bratton, City of Houston/Houston First 7/28/2011
Corp.

D. Rutherford, Knoxville Beverage Co. 7/28/2011

J. Sardo, Margaret Matthews CPA 7/28/2011

C. Goyda, Tapestry Solutions 7/28/2011; 8/5/2011;
8/19/2011

A. Linnebur, Linnebur Auctions, Inc. 7/28/2011

M. Robertson, Alpine Designs 7/28/2011

K. Brown, Motel 6 8/1/2011

S. Poe, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. 8/1/2011

P. Moran, Aurelios Pizza 8/2/2011

K. Camp, All American Quality Foods, Inc. 8/2/2011; 8/19/2011

T. Thomas, BioSeal System 8/3/2011

T. Schieler, WirelessUSA, Inc. 8/3/2011

A. Gniewek, Baseline-MOCON, Inc. 8/4/2011

B. Eliason, B&M Siren Mfg. Co. 8/4/2011

E. Lofgren, Boyd Lofgren & Co. 8/5/2011

J. Schroeder, Seagate Control Systems 8/5/2011

M. Mathews, Copier Supply Company Inc. 8/5/2011

A. D'Alessandro, Air Quality Control 8/8/2011
Environmental, Inc.

C. Kennedy 8/8/2011

K. Powell 8/8/2011

M. McQuire, Arthur Kowitz Realty 8/8/2011

R. Mitchell 8/9/2011

J. Terlizzi 8/9/2011

A. Snyder 8/9/2011

J. Finkel 8/9/2011

M. Kallay 8/9/2011

J. Rose 8/9/2011

C. Davidson 8/11/2011

F. Byron 8/11/2011

J. Armas, Colorado Concept Coatings LLC 8/11/2011

M. Borja 8/11/2011

S. Goba, Illinois Document Preparation Co. 8/11/2011

R. Lester, SEPTA 8/11/2011

A. Greene 8/12/2011

R. Warren, Warren Consulting Group, Inc. 8/12/2011

A. Chashin 8/17/2011

J. Thorne 8/17/2011

L. Connally 8/19/2011

R. Waller 8/19/2011

E. Palmer 8/25/2011

B. Burnham, Lexicomp 8/31/2011

I. Simpson 8/31/2011

Complainant received facsimile solicitations after Violation Date(s)
requesting no more be sent

W. Williams 7/12/2011

S. Cho 7/20/2011

T. Spandel, Bunn Packaging, Inc. 8/1/2011

J. Porter, Magnolia Clipping Service 8/4/2011

APPENDIX B

Examples of Faxes

"EZ Business Loans" is a fictitious business name registered to Sabrina
Javani at 3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1510, Los Angeles, CA 90010 and 221
South Gale Drive, Unit 306, Beverly Hills, CA 90211. EZ Business Loans,
Fictitious Business Name Record, ID No. 2011084263, filed Sep. 9, 2011,
Westlaw FBN-CA database available at http://westlaw.com (last visited May
7, 2012) (EZ Business Loans September 2011 Fictitious Name Registration).
As explained in detail below, our research further indicates that an
individual or individuals named or known as Steven Anthony Pashmfoush
(a/k/a Steven Pasha, Steven A. Pashmfouroush, Steven Anthony Pashfouroush)
and Anthony Galdieri also have operated as EZ Business Loans in concert
with Ms. Javani. See infra paras. 5-6. Accordingly, all references in this
NAL to EZ Business Loans encompass Sabrina Javani, Steven Anthony
Pashmfoush, and Anthony Galdieri.

47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). See also Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, Report and Order and Third Order on
Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 3787 (2006) (Junk Fax Prevention Act R&O),
modified on other grounds, 23 FCC Rcd 15059 (2008).

See Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105
Stat. 2394 (codified at 47 U.S.C. S: 227); see also Junk Fax Prevention
Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-21, 119 Stat. 359 (2005) (Junk Fax Act).

47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C). The prohibition is subject to certain
exceptions, such as if the sender has an established business relationship
(EBR) with the recipient, and the sender obtained the facsimile number
from the recipient through voluntary communication in the context of an
EBR, or from a directory, advertisement, or website through which the
recipient voluntarily agreed to make its facsimile number available for
public distribution. In addition, the unsolicited ad must notify the
recipient of how to opt out of receiving future such ads, subject to
certain requirements. The Commission has adopted implementing rules. See
47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3).

47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5).

Citation from Joshua P. Zeldis, Assistant Chief, Telecommunications
Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to EZ Business Loans (Oct. 6,
2010) (on file in EB-TC-12-00000256) (EZ Business Loans Citation). The
citation was addressed to "EZ Business Loans" and directed to the
attention of Mr. Pasha and Mr. Galdieri, and expressly warned that future
violations of the Act and the Commission's rules governing telephone
solicitations and unsolicited advertisements "may subject you and your
company to monetary forfeitures." Id.

See Appendix A for a listing of the actionable consumer complaints against
EZ Business Loans requesting Commission action.

The sender of a junk fax is "the person or entity on whose behalf a
facsimile unsolicited advertisement is sent or whose goods or services are
advertised or promoted in the unsolicited advertisement." 47 C.F.R. S:
64.1200(f)(8). The record shows that the faxes at issue here were sent by
or on behalf of Ms. Javani, Mr. Pashmfoush, or Mr. Galdieri, operating as
EZ Business Loans.

In filing complaints regarding the faxes listed in Appendix A, each
consumer stated that he or she had not agreed to receive fax
advertisements from EZ Business Loans and had not done any business with
or made an inquiry or application to EZ Business Loans. See also Junk Fax
Prevention Act R&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, para. 12, 3812, para. 46
(concluding that if a complaint is filed, the burden of proof rests on the
fax sender to demonstrate that there is a valid EBR with the recipient or
that prior express consent to fax was given).

See 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(5); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(13). The term
"unsolicited advertisement" means "any material advertising the commercial
availability or quality of any property, goods, or services, which is
transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation
or permission, in writing or otherwise." Id.

See sample faxes in Appendix B.

See infra note 14.

See supra note 1, EZ Business Loans September 2011 Fictitious Business
Name Registration. Public records indicate that Ms. Javani previously
registered EZ Business Loans as a fictitious name using 3600 Wilshire
Blvd, Suite #1510, Los Angeles, CA 90010 both as the business address and
owner address. EZ Business Loans, Fictitious Business Name Record, ID No.
2011036092, filed June 21, 2011, Westlaw FBN-ALL database available at
http://westlaw.com. (last visited May 7, 2012) (EZ Business Loans June
2011 Fictitious Business Name Registration). Ms. Javani later changed the
owner address to 221 S. Gale Dr., #306, Beverly Hills, CA 90211 in the EZ
Business Loans September 2011 Fictitious Business Name Registration.

E-mail from David Guerrero, Subpoena Processing, j2 Global Communications,
Inc., to Kimberly Thorne, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC
Enforcement Bureau (May 31, 2011, 12:13 PM); e-mail from Patricia Farris,
Provisioning Manager, j2 Global Communications, Inc., to Kimberly Thorne,
Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Jan. 10,
2011, 6:32 PM). These billing records show the accounts were established
under the name "B.C.A." with Anthony Galdieri listed as the contact.
Although the billing records do not include the unit number at the South
Gale Dr. address, other information described herein ties Mr. Galdieri to
that specific unit.

Id.

E-mail from Bill Wallace, Verizon Wireless, to Al McCloud,
Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (May 9,
2012, 10:59 AM) (310-749-4882 Billing Name and Address Response). Ms.
Javani did not register EZ Business Loans as a fictitious business name
until June 2011, over one year after consumers first began reporting the
entity's unlawful fax advertising to the Commission, and 18 months after
EZ Business Loans issued a company profile touting its loan program and
listing a telephone number belonging to Ms. Javani as a contact number for
supposed chief operating officer Steven Pasha. See EZ Business Loans June
2011 Fictitious Name Registration. See also "Company Profile for EZ
Business Loans," Dec. 11, 2009,
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20091211005109/en/Company-Profile-EZ-Business-Loans
(EZ Business Loans 2009 Profile). The failure of the individuals operating
as "EZ Business Loans" to file a fictitious business name statement within
40 days of beginning to transact business using that name appears to
violate California registration requirements. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code S:
17910. These requirements are "designed to make available to the public
the identities of persons doing business under the fictitious name." Id.
S: 17900(a)(1).

EZ Business Loans Home Page, http://www.ezbusinessloans.com (last visited
May 9, 2012).

See EZ Business Loans "Press Room" Page,
http://www.ezbusinessloans.com/press-room/ (last visited May 9, 2012)
(providing links to "Merchant Cash Advance: Business Owners Turn to EZ
Business Loans When Banks Deny Business Loans," Dec. 11, 2009,
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20091211005104/en, and "EZ Business
Loans Launches Invoice Factoring Program Servicing Companies Who Collect
30 to 60 Days," July 28, 2009,
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100728007130/en).

EZ Business Loans 2009 Profile.

See Steven Pashmfouroush, Bankruptcy Filing Record, U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Central District of California (Los Angeles), 2:11-BK-49706, filed Sep.
20, 2011, Westlaw ADVERSE-CA database available at http://westlaw.com
(listing 221 S. Gale Dr., Unit 306, Beverly Hills, CA 90211 as Mr.
Pashmfouroush's address).

LexisNexis Investigative Portal - Person Reports on SSN, Steven Anthony
Pashmfoush available at www.lexisnexis.com (last viewed on May 8, 2012).
It is unclear whether Steven Anthony Pashmfoush and Anthony Galdieri is
the same person. LexisNexis records indicate that these names are
associated with the same social security number. Id. These same records
show different dates of birth for each name. Id.

47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5).

Id. S: 503(b)(1)(B), (b)(5).

47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(6) note. The absence of a particular type of
violation from the forfeiture guidelines must "not be taken to mean that
the violation is unimportant or nonexistent," and "the Commission retains
discretion to impose forfeitures for other violations." Commission's
Forfeiture Policy Statement & Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to
Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087,
17110, para. 53 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement).

47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(6) note.

47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(C). Section 503(b)(2)(C) provides for forfeitures
of up to $10,000 for each violation in cases, as in the instant case,
where the violation does not involve a Commission licensee or common
carriers, among others. See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(C). In accordance with
the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321,
the Commission implemented an increase of the maximum statutory forfeiture
under Section 503(b)(2)(C) to $16,000. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(7); see
also Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of
Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008) (amendment
of Section 1.80(b) to reflect an increase in the maximum forfeiture for
this type of violator to $16,000).

See Get-Aways, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture, 15 FCC
Rcd 1805, 1812, para, 16 (1999); Get-Aways, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC
Rcd 4843 (2000); see also US Notary, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, 15 Rcd 16999, 17003, para. 13 (2000); US Notary, Inc.,
Forfeiture Order, 16 FCC Rcd 18398 (2001); Tri-Star Marketing, Inc.,
Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 11295, 11300,
para.12 (2000) (Tri-Star NAL); Tri-Star Marketing, Inc., Forfeiture Order,
15 FCC Rcd 23198 (2000).

See Tri-Star NAL, 15 FCC Rcd at 11300, para. 12; Carolina Liquidators,
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC 16837, 16842,
para. 12 (2000); 21st Century Fax(es) Ltd., AKA 20th Century Fax(es),
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 24406, 24411,
para. 13 (2000).

National Employees Benefit Group, File No. EB-10-TC-478, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 2734, 2737, para. 8 (2012)
(applying a $150,000 upward adjustment in proposing a forfeiture for 97
junk fax violations); Laser Technologies, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 10792, 10795, para. 9 (2011) (applying a $50,000
upward adjustment in proposing a forfeiture for 40 junk fax violations);
Presidential Who's Who, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26
FCC Rcd 8989, 8993-95, paras. 11-13 (2011) (applying a $150,000 upward
adjustment in proposing a forfeiture for 31 junk fax violations, taking
into account the violator's 73 prior junk fax violations); The Street Map
Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 8318,
8321-22, paras. 10-11 (2010) (applying a $75,000 upward adjustment in
proposing a forfeiture for 51 junk fax violations, taking into account the
violator's prior 11 junk fax violations).

These upward adjustments are consistent with the action taken by the
Commission with respect to Fax.com, Inc. where we imposed a harsher
penalty for egregious violations. Fax.com, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 15927 (2002) (applying an upward
adjustment of the base forfeiture for each of 489 apparent junk fax
violations, for a total proposed forfeiture of $5,379,000).

47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6). Businesses and individuals that attempt to
disguise their true identities complicate and prolong law enforcement
investigation and action. As explained elsewhere in this NAL, there is
evidence to suggest that the individuals operating as "EZ Business Loans"
did just that. See, e.g., infra note 42. In order not to reward such
businesses and individuals for the enforcement delays they cause, the
Commission must take their earlier acts into account in determining the
forfeiture to impose for their acts that occurred within one year prior to
the issuance of the NAL.

47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C)(iii), 227(b)(2)(D)(i) and (ii); 47 C.F.R. S:
64.1200(a)(3)(iii). For purposes of the opt-out notice, "clear and
conspicuous" means a notice that would be apparent to a reasonable
consumer, is separate from the advertising copy, and is placed either at
the top of or bottom of the facsimile. Junk Fax Prevention Act R&O, 21 FCC
Rcd at 3801, para. 26.

47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3)(iii)(D) and (E); see also 47 U.S.C. S:
227(b)(2)(D)(iv)(I).

47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3)(iii)(D)(2); 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(2)(D)(iv)(II).

47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3)(iii)(B); see also 47 U.S.C. S:
227(b)(2)(D)(ii).

See Appendix B.

FCC Form 1088 A - Junk Fax Complaint from A. Linnebur (July 28, 2011)
("could not read it [opt-out telephone number]").

FCC Form 1088A - Junk Fax Complaint from A. Gniewek (Aug. 4, 2011) ("All
removal contact information is fake."); FCC Form 1088A - Junk Fax
Complaint from K. Brown (Aug. 1, 2011) ("Attempted to opt-out via phone
and website. Phone number appears invalid, and could not access
website."); FCC Form 1088A - Junk Fax Complaint from S. Poe (Aug. 1, 2011)
("website does not exist"); FCC Form 1088A - Junk Fax Complaint from P.
Stankowski (July 27, 2011) ("I tried to be removed by calling the
telephone number listed, could not get through."); FCC Form 1088A - Junk
Fax Complaint from R. Mitchell (Aug. 9, 2011) ("phone rang without a
response").

47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(5) note, sec. II (Adjustment Criteria for Section 503
Forfeitures).

As indicated above, the individual identified as "Steven Pashmfoush" not
only appears to use somewhat different permutations of that name, such as
"Steven Pasha," but also may use the entirely different name of "Anthony
Galdieri," as evidenced by the fact that the same Social Security Number
appears to be used by these names. See supra para. 6. In addition, "EZ
Business Loans" appears to be linked to, or the same business as,
"Merchants Quest," in that both business names appear to be affiliated
with Sabrina Javani, "Steven Pasha," and "Anthony Galdieri," and both
business names use the addresses that Ms. Javani provided for her
fictitious business name statement for "EZ Business Loans." See
http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?domain=merchantsquest.com&prog_id=GoDaddy
(connecting Javani to domain name "merchantsquest.com");
http://www.manta.com/g/mt1jb60/steven-pasha (connecting "Steven Pasha" to
"Merchants Quest" at Wilshire Blvd address used by EZ Business Loans);
http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?domain=assetalliance.net&prog_id=GoDaddy
(connecting Galdieri to domain name "assetalliance.net" and "Merchants
Quest" at South Gale Drive address used by EZ Business Loans, and showing
him using email "steven@merchantsquest.com"). Moreover, as explained
above, see supra note 16, "EZ Business Loans" appears to have failed to
comply with California's fictitious business name registration
requirement-the purpose of which is "to make available to the public the
identities of the persons doing business under the fictitious name," Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code S: 17900(a)(1)-until months after it started transacting
business by that name.

Teresa Goldberg, File No. EB-10-TC-487, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, FCC 12-23, 2012 WL 600987 (Feb. 23, 2012).

47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

(continued from previous page)

(continued . . .)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-75