Harold Smith of Quick Lending, presented himself and his company as a viable commercial lending option, capable of facilitating both real restate and non-real estate transactions. Early on, Smith was very responsive in reviewing, responding, and presenting information. I had a transaction that needed to close in a short time frame and Smith confirmed that his company would be able to meet the deadline. I presented my data to Smith, he made his assessment and returned a loan approval. He also provided a proof of funds to illustrate his capacity to lend, a loan commitment, and an amortization schedule for me to review and approve. After the approval and the execution of the documents, he emailed a copy of a cashier’s check made out to my company for the value of the loan. I inquired if he were mailing a check or submitting a wire. He stated that a wire would be remitted and that the check was to show that the funds were ready to be distributed. I thought this to be odd, but everything to this point seemed straight-forward and verifiable. It should also be noted that, throughout the process, Smith continuously intimated that there would be no front-end fees associated with the loan. Smith claims that his business is accredited by the California Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending and the California Office of Financial Regulation. Both of these are fictitious entities as California only has a Department of Business Oversight.
Smith then provided a loan contract. When I received the loan contract, I noticed that it contained a line item listing, or breakdown of fees associated with the loan. The contract indicated a portion of the fees would be due prior to disbursement, with the remainder due post disbursement. I reached out to Smith to confirm. I went into detail regarding his assertion that there would not be any front-end fees and now there appear to be fees. The contract indicated a total amount of $12,080 with $6,000 due prior to disbursement and the remainder due after I received the funds.
After a few exchanges of emails to understand the change in position regarding the fee structure, I requested to speak with former customers to understand how their process went. He put me in touch with one customer by providing their email and phone number for me to speak with. For further assurance, he suggested that I set up an account with Joint American Trust Bank (JATB). The purpose of this was for JATB to act as an escrow agent to “protect the interests of both parties involved.” The funds were to be transferred to JATB, then I would make the required payment. Once the payment was confirmed, then I would be granted full access to transfer the funds to my corporate account. I contacted the former “customer” to discuss their prior interactions. We were able to communicate via telephone, text, and email. I set up the account. Smith transferred the funds and I remitted the payment.
The Issue
After the fee was remitted, I expected to have access to the funds and have the ability to transfer to my account. After the account was opened, I was able to log in and view the account and view funds availability, but I was not able to transfer the funds to my corporate account. Smith started giving me multiple excuses on why I could not access the capital. I could log into the account and view the funds, but in order to transfer to an external account, a transfer code was needed. I was told that the funds would be transferred on a specific date by Smith. I was then told that JATB needed to verify my corporate account. I was later told that his (Smith’s) partner was delaying the process because he thought that I should have paid more of the fee up front than what I actually did; although I did pay what was stipulated in the contract.
I also later learned that the email address provided for the former “customer” was not his true email address. Smith provided the correct name and phone number, but provided an email address that he (Smith) created himself. This is important because I only decided to move forward because of the exchanges that the former customer and I had. The former customer spoke positively of Smith on the phone and spoke extraordinarily positive of him via email. I learned of the difference during a very specific exchange. It is my conclusion that the email was set up by and monitored by Smith.
Conclusion
To date, nothing has happened. I have not received my funds and all communication has deteriorated. Smith has not responded to my messages. The last communication received from Smith came May 8th when he messaged me to say that he “now has full authority to transfer the funds to my account” and to request my banking coordinates. Clearly, that never occurred. I have received occasional communication from JATB, but they have spent their efforts siding with the Smith. It is my assumption that JATB and Smith are colluding with one another. I have reached this conclusion because JATB has done nothing to protect my interests in this transaction and has only made efforts that side with Smith. Further, JATB shared that the investor that works with Smith has demanded that the funds transferred to the bank, be returned. This comment does not correlate with the information that I received. In the beginning of the process, Smith provided me with a proof of funds; a screenshot of his bank account with his name on it showing significant enough capital to consummate this deal.
As a result of the fraudulent and collusive acts of Quick Lending, Harold Smith, and Joint American Trust Bank, I lost three significant deals for my company. Finally, because of the apparent extortion involved in obtaining the funds from me, racketeering may also be at play. In the end, Quick Lending, Harold Smith, and Joint American Trust Bank are fraudulent enterprises with no first hand verifiable legitimacy.
Quick Lending Reviews
Harold Smith of Quick Lending, presented himself and his company as a viable commercial lending option, capable of facilitating both real restate and non-real estate transactions. Early on, Smith was very responsive in reviewing, responding, and presenting information. I had a transaction that needed to close in a short time frame and Smith confirmed that his company would be able to meet the deadline. I presented my data to Smith, he made his assessment and returned a loan approval. He also provided a proof of funds to illustrate his capacity to lend, a loan commitment, and an amortization schedule for me to review and approve. After the approval and the execution of the documents, he emailed a copy of a cashier’s check made out to my company for the value of the loan. I inquired if he were mailing a check or submitting a wire. He stated that a wire would be remitted and that the check was to show that the funds were ready to be distributed. I thought this to be odd, but everything to this point seemed straight-forward and verifiable. It should also be noted that, throughout the process, Smith continuously intimated that there would be no front-end fees associated with the loan. Smith claims that his business is accredited by the California Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending and the California Office of Financial Regulation. Both of these are fictitious entities as California only has a Department of Business Oversight.
Smith then provided a loan contract. When I received the loan contract, I noticed that it contained a line item listing, or breakdown of fees associated with the loan. The contract indicated a portion of the fees would be due prior to disbursement, with the remainder due post disbursement. I reached out to Smith to confirm. I went into detail regarding his assertion that there would not be any front-end fees and now there appear to be fees. The contract indicated a total amount of $12,080 with $6,000 due prior to disbursement and the remainder due after I received the funds.
After a few exchanges of emails to understand the change in position regarding the fee structure, I requested to speak with former customers to understand how their process went. He put me in touch with one customer by providing their email and phone number for me to speak with. For further assurance, he suggested that I set up an account with Joint American Trust Bank (JATB). The purpose of this was for JATB to act as an escrow agent to “protect the interests of both parties involved.” The funds were to be transferred to JATB, then I would make the required payment. Once the payment was confirmed, then I would be granted full access to transfer the funds to my corporate account. I contacted the former “customer” to discuss their prior interactions. We were able to communicate via telephone, text, and email. I set up the account. Smith transferred the funds and I remitted the payment.
The Issue
After the fee was remitted, I expected to have access to the funds and have the ability to transfer to my account. After the account was opened, I was able to log in and view the account and view funds availability, but I was not able to transfer the funds to my corporate account. Smith started giving me multiple excuses on why I could not access the capital. I could log into the account and view the funds, but in order to transfer to an external account, a transfer code was needed. I was told that the funds would be transferred on a specific date by Smith. I was then told that JATB needed to verify my corporate account. I was later told that his (Smith’s) partner was delaying the process because he thought that I should have paid more of the fee up front than what I actually did; although I did pay what was stipulated in the contract.
I also later learned that the email address provided for the former “customer” was not his true email address. Smith provided the correct name and phone number, but provided an email address that he (Smith) created himself. This is important because I only decided to move forward because of the exchanges that the former customer and I had. The former customer spoke positively of Smith on the phone and spoke extraordinarily positive of him via email. I learned of the difference during a very specific exchange. It is my conclusion that the email was set up by and monitored by Smith.
Conclusion
To date, nothing has happened. I have not received my funds and all communication has deteriorated. Smith has not responded to my messages. The last communication received from Smith came May 8th when he messaged me to say that he “now has full authority to transfer the funds to my account” and to request my banking coordinates. Clearly, that never occurred. I have received occasional communication from JATB, but they have spent their efforts siding with the Smith. It is my assumption that JATB and Smith are colluding with one another. I have reached this conclusion because JATB has done nothing to protect my interests in this transaction and has only made efforts that side with Smith. Further, JATB shared that the investor that works with Smith has demanded that the funds transferred to the bank, be returned. This comment does not correlate with the information that I received. In the beginning of the process, Smith provided me with a proof of funds; a screenshot of his bank account with his name on it showing significant enough capital to consummate this deal.
As a result of the fraudulent and collusive acts of Quick Lending, Harold Smith, and Joint American Trust Bank, I lost three significant deals for my company. Finally, because of the apparent extortion involved in obtaining the funds from me, racketeering may also be at play. In the end, Quick Lending, Harold Smith, and Joint American Trust Bank are fraudulent enterprises with no first hand verifiable legitimacy.