Raymond James ‘Fails Fiduciary Responsibility,’ Named In Ski Resort Ponzi Scheme

No blue skies ahead for Raymond James on the fiduciary front.

No blue skies ahead for Raymond James on the fiduciary front.

Talk about a snow job. An investor in Jay Peak, a Vermont-ski-resort-turned-Ponzi-Scheme, has filed a class-action lawsuit in Miami federal court against Raymond James Financial. Alexandre Daccache, the investor, took legal action hoping to recoup funds that were allegedly misused, commingled, and stolen under the guidance of the mountain’s developer and CEO, with Raymond James purportedly facilitating these activities. The lawsuit charges that the firm and other defendants violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

According to the complaint, there was a concerted effort among the defendants to exploit investor funds for personal gain. “The members of the RICO enterprise had a common purpose: to increase and maximize their profits by illegally diverting funds that they knew belonged to investors for improper and unauthorized purposes. Defendants shared the bounty of their enterprise by sharing the illegal profits generated by the joint scheme,” Daccache’s attorney, Tucker Ronzetti, outlined in the filing.

This legal challenge comes in the wake of allegations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), supported by the state of Vermont, which in the previous month had leveled accusations of fraud against Jay Peak’s developer and CEO. The fraud was purportedly connected to the EB-5 immigrant investor program, designed to encourage foreign investment in economically underprivileged areas in exchange for a pathway to U.S. residency. Notably, Raymond James was not implicated in the SEC’s legal actions.

Currently, Jay Peak is managed under federal receivership, with Michael Goldberg, a court-appointed attorney, overseeing its operations. The lawsuit not only targets the financial institution but also implicates the broker responsible for the Raymond James account holding the investor’s funds, alleging a dereliction of fiduciary duty, thus broadening the scope of the legal battle to encompass a wider net of accountability for the financial debacle that ensnared unsuspecting investors.

Exit mobile version