Dean Vagnozzi, founder of A Better Financial Plan, LLC. is under Receivership, which begs the question, who is the better financial plan for, his consumers or himself?

On July 24, 2020 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a lawsuit in United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida against defendants Par Funding, A Better Financial Plan and owner Dean Vagnozzi, along with several other individuals and entities. In the official complaint filed by the SEC, the defendants raised nearly half a billion dollars through alleged fraudulent practices — including lying and misinterpreting information to investors about the security of Merchant Cash Advance investments. Of the 8 cases of fraud outlined against the defendants, 7 of them included Vagnozzi and a Better Financial Plan. 

Homeowners like Dean Vagnozzi Sharpen Their Short Game With Backyard Putting Greens

As of July 27, the SEC put in place a receiver, Ryan M. Stumphauzer who is currently running Par Funding and A Better Financial Plan. A receiver’s purpose is to, “administer and manage their [companies under receivership] business affairs, funds, assets, causes of action and any other property of the Companies; marshal and safeguard all of the Companies’ assets; and take whatever actions are necessary for the protection of investors,” according to Document 4, filed on July 24, 2020 in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida. Ultimately, a receiver is appointed to take over a company when the suspicion of fraud has occured in an attempt to find and preserve information, assets, documents, and other materials pertaining to the case and company for the “protection of investors” as outlined in Document 4. 

As Stumphauzer took over receivership of both Par Funding and A Better Financial Plan, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) raided Par Funding’s headquarters along with multiple properties belonging to Joseph Laforte, the co-owner of Par Funding. By August 7, 2020, Laforte was arrested by authorities on illegal firearm possession in his Haverford, Pennsylvania home. Laforte, a convicted felon, was indicted on illegal gambling charges in 2009 and therefore was not allowed to own or possess firearms. 

After being put under receivership, the federal judge overseeing the case ceased electronic access to Par Funding’s company records on August 15, 2020. Stumphauzer blocked Par employees from their emails, as they had accessed and downloaded more than 100,000 documents pertaining to company information more than two weeks after the judge had ordered their access be taken away. Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II overseeing the case gave authority to Stumphauzer to remove Par Funding employees’ access while also ordering that any copies that were made by Par Funding staffers be sent to the receiver for review. 

Vagnozzi also came under scrutiny when the receiver uncovered a legal settlement payment made from a bank account to a client who had refused to sign a new deal with Par Funding. Outlined in a separate lawsuit as well as the SEC’s case against Vagnozzi, a Pennsylvania client sued Vagnozzi after refusing to accept a renegotiated promissory note contract from Par Funding. In July of 2020, Vagnozzi’s attorney negotiated a settlement with the client who had purchased a promissory note in March of 2020 for $601,000. The settlement concluded in principle with the client receiving a check for $550,000; however, the actual payment did not transact until after Vagnozzi had been placed under receivership. This information became public when the plaintiff filed a praecipe — an order requesting a writ or legal document — in late August, which showed that the settlement was backdated to July 29, 2020 despite no written agreement being concluded until August 12, 2020. By that date, Vagnozzi was already under receivership. 

As a result, Stumphauzer indicated in DE-208 that Vagnozzi was in violation of the receivership order for effectuating an agreement for the transfer of monies without the consent or knowledge of the receiver. The lawyer representing the receiver, Gaetan Alfano, requested that the client return the money that he had been paid in the settlement from Vagnozzi to the receiver as reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer in late August, but no known payment has been returned to date. 

In receivership documents DE-227 and DE-238, Stumphauzer outlines findings to the court that claimed Vagnozzi did not include a full and accurate depiction of his finances and omitted a bank account in a July 2020 filing that was used by A Better Financial Plan to collect money paid by Par Funding for the Merchant Cash Advance investments. As outlined in DE-227, this new bank account, MK Corporate Debt at Citizens Bank, was set up for the purpose of paying off investors who rejected the renegotiated 4% note that was released in the late Spring of 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 

When Par Funding and A Better Financial Plan could no longer keep up scheduled payments to investors due to the coronavirus shutting down businesses across the country, Vagnozzi and Par Funding executives renegotiated their promissory notes to offer a reduced return for an extended period of several years. Originally, Merchant Cash Advance promissory notes were issued for periods of 12 – 36 months, with 10% – 14% returns and a full repayment of principal at the end of the contract. The businesses who received these advances were forced to close and could no longer keep up their payments to Par Funding, creating a chain reaction through A Better Financial Plan causing their investors to not receive their monthly payments. 

As this process broke down, Par Funding and A Better Financial Plan renegotiated their notes and created a new bank account which, Par Funding funneled more than $4 million into to pay off investors who refused to sign the new extended notes of which there were several, including the client who settled with Vagnozzi for $550,000. In email correspondence to clients during April 2020, Vagnozzi claimed that if investors didn’t sign the new notes they could risk losing all of their investment money or spending thousands in legal fees to fight for what they are owed in court. A few weeks later, Vagnozzi and his attorney at the time, John Pauciulo, created a 16 minute long video on Vimeo explaining the new note to investors and encouraged urgency to get the notes signed and returned quickly so Par could resume the renegotiated payments the first week of June. 

As the SEC points out in DE-227, investors were not told about the more than $4 million that was put into a new account for investors who did not want to sign the renegotiated note. Investors who refused were paid back in-part, or in-full and in late July 2020, Vagnozzi removed the remaining funds, which consisted of more than $500,000 in the MK Corporate Debt bank account and placed that money into his personal bank account — this account and transfer was not disclosed in Vagnozzi’s July court filing per the receiver’s orders. Thus, Vagnozzi was then ordered to amend his disclosure to reflect the transfer as well as another transfer he had made moving $60,000 from Victory Bank into his own personal account. 

On page 2 of DE-227, the SEC wrote, “We have already identified two significant transfers he [Vagnozzi] made to himself after the Court’s entry of the Orders in this case, and we should not have to investigate to discover additional ones he might have made.” They continued stating, “This was the purpose of the sworn accounting, with which he [Vagnozzi] utterly failed to comply in full.” Despite already receiving orders and being placed under receivership, Vagnozzi attempted to maneuver funds without disclosing them, which placed the safety of investors funds in jeopardy according to the SEC. 

Of the more than $4 million that was paid by Par Funding into the MK Corporate Debt account, more than $500,000 remained after settling with several investors. The funds that remained were then transferred into Vagnozzi’s personal account. In DE-238 the SEC ordered that those funds be placed under control of the receiver as they were moved from the MK account at Citizens Bank into Vagnozzi’s personal bank account at the end of July. 

As September came to an end, Stumphauzer and the court set in motion requests for a jury trial which would take place in August of 2021 and outlined the schedule and deadlines from September 2020 to August 2021 in DE-279. In DE-256, the SEC also levied a preliminary injunction against Vagnozzi to restrain him from violating multiple sections of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by offering or selling securities and destroying any records, documents, or items pertaining to the scope of investigation. 

While the case against Par Funding, Vagnozzi, and other defendants looks to be headed to trial, it is unclear what this will mean for A Better Financial Plan’s investors who did and did not sign the renegotiated note. The judge overseeing the case also warned that investors may not have all of their money returned, if any, depending on the outcome of the case and the future of Par Funding. For more information about the SEC case against Vagnozzi and Par Funding, SEC Receiver Ryan Stumphauzer set up a website where concerned citizens, investors, and others can access key documents to stay up-to-date as the case unfolds. 

The Truth Tracker continues its close look at A Better Financial Plan and its CEO, Dean Vagnozzi who proclaims he has a greater financial plan, “better than anything out there.” The firm’s advertisements vaguely describe multiple alternative investments that guarantee double-digit returns for their investors, with interest paid quarterly and the return of your principal investment after two years. A Better Financial Plan claimed that the enforcement order issued to them by the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities was due to a large gray area in the law. At least, this is their explanation to ease the minds of their clients to continue to do business with the firm. In reality, if an agent is engaged in the sale of securities on behalf of someone else, as Vagnozzi was, the agent must be registered. Even if the company issuing the securities is exempt from registering, the agent must. To control the narrative, A Better Financial Plan gave a letter given to clients from their legal team stating that they preferred to settle the case with the Department and pay a fine instead of taking on expensive litigation costs. The truth of the matter is that Vagnozzi would have lost the case. Therefore, in order to mitigate the damage, Vagnozzi settled and tried to spin the story.

In an emailed statement from A Better Financial Plan’s legal counsel regarding the 2019 enforcement order, it was said that Vagnozzi was in the process of obtaining the proper credentials to become a broker, however, according to the Department of Banking and Securities, this is not true. They further misrepresented the truth as they described the actions that took place leading up to the enforcement order by stating the Department was alleging that Vagnozzi was acting as a broker. The official redacted 2019 enforcement order alleges that Vagnozzi, “effected transactions in securities in Pennsylvania while neither registered nor exempt from registration as an ‘agent’ in willful violation of Section 301(a) of the 1972 Act 70 P.S. §1-301(a).” While the state’s definition for agent and broker-dealer are relatively similar, the difference comes down to how the transactions were being affected and whether or not compensation was received for effecting the sale. In this case, Vagnozzi was effecting transitions on behalf of Par Funding and receiving compensation from them, thus classifying him as an agent. Therefore, there is no gray area in the department’s ruling and in an attempt to set the record straight, A Better Financial Plan’s legal counsel willfully mislead clients on the matter.

Nearly one year following the enforcement order, A Better Financial Plan has found a way to exploit the gray area of the law. If what Mr. Doe explained in part two of the Truth Tracker is true, then the investment pattern has changed and A Better Financial Plan, not Par Funding, would be considered the issuer according to the Pennsylvania Securities Act of 1972. An issuer is defined as, “any person who issues or proposes to issue any security, and any promoter who acts for an issuer proposed to be formed.” This is significant because it connects how both A Better Financial Plan and Par Funding are still doing business with Merchant Cash Advances while remaining in compliance with the Pennsylvania State security regulations. So while this updated investment pattern is legal, A Better Financial Plan has skirted the gray area to comply with the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities.

To explain this process, the proposed investment pattern that took place before the enforcement order was issued must be analyzed. Prior to 2019, Par Funding issued non-negotiable, unregistered high-risk promissory notes to unregistered agents to be sold to investors on behalf of their company. Those funds were then used to lend Merchant Cash Advances to small businesses who would pay back the principal plus a high-interest payment. The payments from small businesses are generally derived from the business’s credit card sales as a way to ensure that the advance will be paid back in full plus interest. Additionally, the payments made by the small businesses would then be used to pay the monthly or annual payments on the client’s unregistered high-risk promissory notes – which were being sold by the agents working on behalf of Par Funding. Since Vagnozzi was not a properly registered agent to effect these transactions on behalf of Par Funding and received a commission from his sale of non-negotiable unregistered high-risk promissory notes, he was ordered to pay a fine. A fine that he would not have been able to litigate in court because he was in violation of the state’s security regulations.

This new process, as described by Mr. Doe, places A Better Financial Plan as the instigator of the post-enforcement proposed investment pattern. To avoid violating the regulations, A Better Financial Plan began issuing the unregistered high-risk promissory note securities and working around the registration requirements by filing Form D with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A Better Financial Plan issues these unregistered high-risk promissory notes through different investment funds registered with the SEC for Merchant Cash Advances. That investment money is then lent to an alternative lender – Par Funding who was also named in the 2019 enforcement order with Vagnozzi and A Better Financial Plan. Mr. Doe did make mention that Par Funding did sound familiar and that it was likely that they are still working with A Better Financial Plan.

After the money is invested, it is lent to Par Funding, which contracts small businesses in need of cash advances at an interest upwards of 35% or more. The small businesses pay back the principal and interest on those advances and the funds travel back through Par Funding to A Better Financial Plan and then each investor’s monthly interest payments are directly deposited into a bank account of their choice.

According to Doe in part two of the Truth Tracker, this investment pattern guarantees the annual returns of 10%, 12%, or 14%. Since A Better Financial Plan filed an exemption with the SEC to file Form D, they are exempt from registering their securities – in this case, unregistered high-risk promissory notes – with the State of Pennsylvania. In the same respect, because this exemption is filed, A Better Financial Plan does not have to be registered as an issuer of securities with the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities. Finally, Par Funding is not acting as an agent on behalf of A Better Financial Plan and does not need to be registered as an agent, nor do they need a license to engage in Merchant Cash Advances. Since the advances are not considered loans, no federal or state oversight is required.

While the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities has declined to comment on the proposed investment pattern, there is reasonable evidence to suggest that this is how A Better Financial Plan is issuing securities for the purpose of Merchant Cash Advances. It is also reasonable to assert that the other investment funds incorporated by A Better Financial Plan operate in a similar fashion. Based on literature acquired from Mr. Doe, the investment fund that was set up for Litigation Funding operates very similarly to that of the Merchant Cash Advances.

Investment opportunities are aplenty in the Philadelphia financial market. From putting investors money at risk on the stock market to investing in safe alternatives, there is no shortage of firms or investments for consumers. While investments in Merchant Cash Advances are legal, the business practices of A Better Financial Plan issuing unregistered high-risk promissory notes are not transparent. Referring back to part two of the Truth Tracker, John Doe received nothing in the form of physical paperwork regarding his investment. Further, Doe stated that when he requested to see a copy of the policy that protects his contract, he was denied. Rather, he was told to come into the office if he wanted to read the policy. His contract does not list who manages the investment, how the investment accrues its monthly interest payments, nor what the investment is for – the contract does not mention Merchant Cash Advances. The only information contained in Doe’s contract is that he invested a principal sum of money for a guaranteed 10% annual return after one year. As far as the purpose of his investment, this was all disclosed by an advisor through the use of PowerPoint. Considering Doe received no physical paperwork that would document the aforementioned information raises significant red flags about transparency and credibility.

In the end, while Vagnozzi claims he is the most ethical guy in the business, the truth is that he skirts around securities regulations and lacks transparency as an investment professional. He has denied clients access to information regarding their own investments, purposely misled clients concerning the 2019 enforcement order, and provides no physical paperwork that would educate or inform their clients about what they are investing in. Merchant Cash Advances are an unregulated high-risk alternative to the stock market, and for that reason, alternative investments such as Merchant Cash Advances should result in increased transparency during the investing process, not less. Misinformation not only hurts the image of A Better Financial Plan but significantly disadvantages their investors and puts them at risk. While A Better Financial Plan is technically within the bounds of the law and regulations, transparency is a real issue for the firm.

The Truth Tracker continues its close look at A Better Financial Plan and its CEO, Dean Vagnozzi who proclaims he has a greater financial plan, “better than anything out there.” The firm’s advertisements vaguely describe multiple alternative investments that guarantee double-digit returns for their investors, with interest paid monthly or quarterly and the return of your principal investment after two years. In a number of promotional videos, Vagnozzi can be heard proclaiming that he is the most ethical investor in the business, despite his history of financial negligence. Part one of the Truth Tracker investigation highlighted issues that arose with the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities and Par Funding, a predatory alternative lending company involved in the sale of non-negotiable high-risk promissory notes for the purpose of Merchant Cash Advances. According to Vagnozzi, breaking securities regulations for profit is an ethical decision. To expand on his interactions and business operations, the Truth Tracker sat down with a client of A Better Financial Plan.

John Doe, a resident of Pennsylvania, met with A Better Financial Plan to invest a large sum of money after hearing about the guaranteed double-digit returns on the radio. As a retired individual, Doe was seeking high-growth investments and decided to put A Better Financial Plan’s method to the test. After discussing the details of his contract with an advisor at A Better Financial Plan, Doe was guaranteed a 10% annual return and full repayment of his principal when the contract matured, one year later. As reported in part one of the Truth Tracker investigation, the returns are dependent on how much money was invested. According to a website advertising the Merchant Cash Advance investments, an investment of $100,000 – $250,000 will guarantee a return of 10%. $251,000 – $500,000 guarantees a return of 12%, and an investment of $501,000 or more guarantees a return of 14%.

It was explained to Doe, by A Better Financial Plan, that the monthly payments on his unregistered high-risk promissory note contract were derived from the interest paid on the Merchant Cash Advances. As discussed in part one of the Truth Tracker, Merchant Cash Advances or MCAs are given to small businesses attached with high-interest payments that can exceed 35% or more. Doe went on to explain how his investment plays a role in his guaranteed return. After making his investment and signing his unregistered high-risk promissory note contract, A Better Financial Plan lends the funds to an alternative lender, Par Funding, who then issues the MCAs. After the small business receives the advance, the payments made by the small business then get funneled back through Par Funding to A Better Financial Plan and that money is paid out to investors as their monthly interest payments. Therefore, the 35% interest payments, “legitimize the 10% [annual interest payments] to prospective customers,” said Doe.

Thus, the money travels from the investor to A Better Financial Plan in the form of an unregistered high-risk promissory note – which is considered a security – to Par Funding who contractually hands out Merchant Cash Advances to small businesses. As the money is repaid along with the interest, that money reverses track and finds its way back to A Better Financial Plan’s investors in the form of their monthly payment, which is a fraction of their annual 10%, 12% or 14% return. The money repaid to investors is done so through a direct deposit, according to Doe.

While talking to Doe about the contents of his unregistered high-risk promissory note with A Better Financial Plan, the process of investment that was explained to him by A Better Financial Plan is not outlined in his contract. Furthermore, he was not informed about who manages his money after it gets invested. Instead, the only documentation that the client received about his investment is in his contract, which states that he will receive a 10% annual return along with full repayment of his principal once the contract matures after one year. In their radio and television advertisements, A Better Financial Plan has increased the repayment period to two years, likely because of the economic downturn caused by COVID-19. Doe is not aware if Par Funding is partnered with A Better Financial Plan to engage in this investment, but said that the company name sounded familiar after reading the 2019 enforcement order which listed both A Better Financial Plan and Par Funding. With any investment, the investor should have a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of what they’re putting their money into and how the investment works, and based on Doe’s recollection of the meeting, this was not the case.

During Doe’s meeting with A Better Financial Plan, Doe stated that Merchant Cash Advances were the only investment opportunity being promoted and encouraged. Aside from leaflets left around the office of A Better Financial Plan, there wasn’t much information available for Doe to educate himself about MCAs. While sitting with one of A Better Financial Plan’s advisors, Doe recalled a PowerPoint presentation being used to swiftly explain the details of the investment, while adding, “[I received] no physical paperwork other than my contract.” Although Doe claims the encounter was professional, he stopped short of calling it informative. Following the meeting, Doe was informed that his contract was backed by a popular international insurance agency, wherein the event of a default on the unregistered high-risk promissory note, the insurance company would ensure that the investor accrued no losses. Doe requested a copy of the policy to review and keep in his records, however, his requests were denied. Instead, he was told to come into A Better Financial Plan’s office and read the policy in person with one of the advisors.

As mentioned in part one of the Truth Tracker, A Better Financial Plan has multiple investment funds for the several investment opportunities that are available through their firm. Doe’s contract and check were written out to one of the six known income funds that deal with MCAs. He described that even though he wrote a check to one of the funds, he did not know its purpose, nor was it explained to him. “At worst, the contract is potentially misleading,” Doe said, although remaining confident in his investment.

The unregistered high-risk promissory note contract issued by A Better Financial Plan for MCAs to Doe is not registered with the State of Pennsylvania, nor the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities states that “[S]mall businesses that want to issue stock or debt and do not qualify for an exemption must register the security with the Department.” They go on to say, “The business may not make offers or sales of securities in Pennsylvania until the offering has been cleared by the Department.” Since A Better Financial Plan files for the exemption mentioned in part one of the Truth Tracker – Rule 506 of Regulation D – A Better Financial Plan and it’s CEO, Dean Vagnozzi, are not required to register their security or to register as a broker or issuer.

There were several instances where Doe’s recollection of his experience with A Better Financial Plan would raise issues of transparency. The first being the lack of information presented to the client during the meeting and the unavailability of physical paperwork other than the promissory note contract. When Doe requested more information about the protections in his contract, he was denied and told that he would have to physically come into the office as if the policy was a secret. Furthermore, Doe was not told who manages the investment fund, where the money goes after he invested the money, and there is no outline of how the investment works – that is troublesome, to say the least.

If what Doe described is true, about how his investment manufactures a return, then A Better Financial Plan and Par Funding have not moved on from their financially negligent past. Rather than fix and address the issues raised by the Department of Banking and Securities in 2019, the two companies decided to change the investment pattern to skirt around the regulations and simply file an exemption. Doe was alarmed, but not dismayed when he learned about the 2019 enforcement order, and A Better Financial Plan even sent Doe a letter explaining their side of the story and claimed that the enforcement was a result of a large “gray area” in the regulation of securities. Regardless of A Better Financial Plan’s retort to the enforcement order, Vagnozzi and A Better Financial Plan maintain serious transparency  issues with the State and with their clients. Despite correcting past wrongdoing by changing the investment pattern, A Better Financial Plan’s behind-closed-door tactics and unnecessary protection of information from clients certainly refutes their claim of being the most ethical in the business.

Throughout the tri-state area, investors can hear financial professionals advertising different types of investment opportunities. From encouraging investors to put their money at risk in the stock market to considering safer investment alternatives, there is no shortage of choices for individuals in the Philadelphia financial market. One Sales Firm, in particular, located in the suburbs of Philadelphia proclaims it has a greater financial plan, “better than anything out there.” Their advertisements vaguely describe multiple alternative investments that guarantee double-digit returns for their investors, with interest paid quarterly and the return of your principal investment after two years. These investments include Merchant Cash Advances, Litigation Funding, and Life Settlements.

Merchant Cash Advances (MCAs) are loans that are given to small businesses who are seeking short term capital for expansion or projects. The companies receiving MCAs typically do not have good enough credit to obtain a loan from a traditional lending institution, like a bank, and are required to pay immense interest rates on these advances. Sometimes the interest rates can exceed 35% on top of the principal. According to testimonials from A Better Financial Plan (the Philadelphia Sales Firm in question), as the interest is paid back on these loans, investors receive their guaranteed quarterly returns through direct deposit. Although the CEO of the sales firm, Dean Vagnozzi, has publicly stated that he is not guaranteeing double-digit returns, the returns on MCAs are advertised as a 10%, 12%, or 14% annual return. Further, the annual returns on investment are dependent on the amount of principal that was invested.

Vagnozzi and A Better Financial Plan has previously been hit with enforcement orders from the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities and ordered to pay a hefty fine for not being a registered broker. This is significant because the MCAs are not lent out from A Better Financial Plan. Instead, a Philadelphia based alternative lender, Complete Business Solutions Group (doing business as Par Funding), partnered with A Better Financial Plan to obtain the capital necessary to engage in the MCA program. Since Par Funding is not a bank and MCAs are not legally considered loans, there is no state or federal oversight regulating these cash advances. Thus, it begs the question of how the advances are funded and by whom.

In 2019, the fine was ordered to Vagnozzi and A Better Financial Plan because Vagnozzi was an unregistered broker working on behalf of Par Funding engaging in the sale of non-negotiable, unregistered high-risk promissory notes. Vagnozzi was in violation of security regulations outlined in the Pennsylvania Securities Act of 1972. Among those involved, Par Funding was also forced to pay a fine for issuing the unregistered high-risk promissory notes to unregistered brokers to be sold on behalf of their organization.

According to a 2019 Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing, both organizations still maintain a working relationship and continue to engage in Merchant Cash Advances. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that individuals who invest with A Better Financial Plan are having their investments funneled to Par Funding to make the cash advances, with the returning interest being used to pay investors monthly interest payments. This investment pattern was confirmed by a client of A Better Financial Plan who shared his contract – an unregistered high-risk promissory note – with the Truth Tracker for examination.

While examining other SEC filings by A Better Financial Plan, multiple investments and income funds have been set up for Merchant Cash Advances, Litigation Funding, and Life Settlements. All of these funds were made accessible through an EDGAR or SEC search, but there is no evidence to suggest that Vagnozzi has obtained the proper licensing to broker securities in the State of Pennsylvania. Since A Better Financial Plan and Par Funding still maintain a working relationship, Vagnozzi would have had to obtain a brokers license to continue selling securities for the purpose of Merchant Cash Advances; unless the pattern of investment was changed.

Through further research, A Better Financial Plan has filed certain exemptions with the SEC, which do not require that the securities being issued be registered with the state or SEC. Pursuant to SEC Rule 506 of Regulation D, the State of Pennsylvania’s Department of Banking and securities does not require registration of the individual, nor the securities being sold if they obtain exemptions through SEC Rule 506 of Regulation D. Therefore, while Vagnozzi is not a registered broker according to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) or Investment Advisor Public Disclosure (IAPD), the SEC’s rule makes him exempt. 

Since A Better Financial Plan is now issuing the unregistered high-risk promissory notes for Merchant Cash Advances, as confirmed by one of their clients, then the investment pattern was changed to avoid further enforcement from the State of Pennsylvania. Rather than issuing securities from Par Funding to brokers – as the two organizations did before the enforcement order – A Better Financial Plan now issues the securities, files for an exemption so the securities do not have to be registered, and then funnels that money to Par Funding who uses that investment money to engage with small businesses in the form of MCAs. The returning interest payments from the small businesses then get paid back to investors as part of their monthly returns. This process has been confirmed by one of A Better Financial Plan’s clients.

While this process may be legal, the question remains whether or not A Better Financial Plan is upholding the responsibility to consumers and their investments. Although Vagnozzi is not listed as a registered broker with FINRA or the IAPD, he and his firm are exempt from registering the securities which they are issuing. Thus, Vagnozzi is also exempt from becoming a registered broker pursuant to the rules outlined in SEC Rule 506 of Regulation D. Additionally, since the State of Pennsylvania is very lenient in their regulation of Merchant Cash Advances, as well as the licensing thereof, it is especially important that the involved parties – investors, issuers, and Par Funding – remain transparent in their transactions. Based on the conversation with one of A Better Financial Plan’s clients, transparency is a major issue.

Retirement Media Inc. Presents: The Truth Tracker. Over the last couple of weeks, the Truth Tracker revealed the dangers of Merchant Cash Advances for high-risk borrowers and high-risk lenders in the Philadelphia region. This week the Truth Tracker expanded its view to Texas, as a February enforcement order from the Texas State Securities Board has connected A Better Financial Plan (a Philadelphia Sales Firm) and the predatory alternative lender Par Funding (based in Philadelphia) to a Texas sales firm, Merchant Growth & Income, LLC.

There are potentially forty or more companies raising capital for Par Funding by issuing high-risk promissory notes for Merchant Cash Advances just like A Better Financial Plan.

Merchant Growth & Income, LLC engaged in the sale of high-risk unregistered securities – promissory notes – to investors and allegedly forwarded investors funds to A Better Financial Plan or Par Funding. The enforcement order was levied against Merchant Growth & Income, LLC, A Better Financial Plan and Par Funding for not being registered agents or dealers in the sale of high-risk, unregistered securities. Further, the Texas State Securities Board issued the enforcement because Merchant Growth & Income, LLC did not disclose the regulatory issues of both A Better Financial Plan and Par Funding, as well as, providing misleading information to investors.

As reported by the 2020 enforcement order, Par Funding has used Merchant Growth & Income, LLC and others to raise more than $270 million dollars in the past year for Merchant Cash Advances. In the case of A Better Financial Plan and the Merchant Growth & Income, LLC, the high-risk, unregistered promissory note investments are virtually identical. Both firms use limited liability companies to issue the high-risk, unregistered promissory notes and the guarantees on investors’ contracts are practically the same. Merchant Growth & Income, LLC offers five classes of promissory notes (Classes A through E), compared to the three classes offered by A Better Financial Plan for Merchant Cash Advances.

Investments in a Class A Promissory Note show a return of 8% annually which requires an investment of $74,000-$124,000. Class B Promissory Notes show a return of 10% annually and range from $125,000-$249,000. Class C Promissory Notes show a return of 12% annually for investments of $250,000-$399,000. Class D Promissory Notes carry a return of 13% annually if $400,000-$499,000 is invested and finally; Class E Promissory Notes give the investor a 14% annual return on any investment made above $500,000.

A Better Financial Plan offers three classes on their Merchant Cash Advance high-risk promissory notes with the lowest rate of return being 10% for investments made between $100,000-$249,000; 12% for investments made from $250,000-$500,000, and 14% annual returns for any investment made above $501,000.

The enforcement order asserts that Merchant Growth & Income, LLC has not disclosed regulatory issues relating to A Better Financial Plan or Par Funding to their clients. Not only did A Better Financial Plan receive enforcement from the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities for being an unregistered agent, but so did Par Funding for their role, as well as receiving enforcement from the State of New Jersey. Par Funding is also involved in a pending federal court case involving a Texas company that claimed that the predatory alternative lender charged illegal high-interest rates, and used deceptive tactics to prey on the Texas small business.

Further misleading information from Merchant Growth & Income, LLC alleges that they are telling investors that A Better Financial Plan or Par Funding is responsible for paying the investors returns – when in reality, the high-risk promissory note contracts state that Merchant Growth & Income, LLC is responsible. According to a promissory note contract obtained by the Truth Tracker from a client of A Better Financial Plan, Par Funding, nor Merchant Growth & Income, LLC, or any company for that matter is listed as the responsible party for paying the returns on their investment. Yet, it was the client’s understanding from the advisors at A Better Financial Plan that their investment would gain their returns from Merchant Cash Advances issued by Par Funding.

It is also alleged that Merchant Growth & Income, LLC – just like A Better Financial Plan – forwards invested funds to Par Funding for Merchant Cash Advances, with the returning funds from Par Funding being used to pay investors annual returns. The enforcement order states that Merchant Growth & Income, LLC may be lending the money to A Better Financial Plan first as part of a management agreement, however, prior research conducted by the Truth Tracker suggests that the money is most likely being forwarded directly to Par Funding. 

Once again, A Better Financial Plan is connected to violations in the securities industry as Merchant Growth & Income, LLC has been ordered to cease and desist from offering high-risk unregistered promissory notes, as well as, ceasing the spread of misinformation about their investments. Clients of both sales firms are unaware of how their investments are managed, how they gain their monthly returns and unaware of the regulatory issues that have been brought against both A Better Financial Plan and Par Funding. According to the Texas State Securities Board, this kind of misinformation is labeled as fraud and deceit.

The Merchant Cash Advance industry is filled with fraudulent, deceitful tactics and is exemplified in the Texas enforcement order based on the actions of A Better Financial Plan, Merchant Growth & Income, LLC and Par Funding. Guaranteeing certain returns based on a principal investment is more like a high-risk pay-to-play investment strategy and without proper education from the Sales Firms, investor’s funds could be left at risk with high-risk predatory Alternative Lenders.


Retirement Media Inc. Presents: The Truth Tracker. Last week you learned of a Philadelphia area sales-firm that is advertising on radio and television, guaranteeing double-digit rates of return, which is being accomplished in a confusing and very questionable manner. Supported with documentation, the Truth Tracker learned that these returns are made possible through the use of promissory notes and Merchant Cash Advances – commercial capital advances that carry incredibly unethical rates of interest. Small businesses obtain these high-risk advances when their credit is too weak to secure a loan from a traditional lending institution, such as a bank.

Last week the Truth Tracker laid out the proposed investment pattern: A Better Financial Plan takes money from an initial investor (like you) through a promissory note and lends that money to a “middle man” high-risk alternative lending company, Par Funding, which then may lend the money to high-risk borrowers (small businesses) throughout the country as Merchant Cash Advances (we emphasize this is supported by truth and documentation). The money that is paid back from the high-risk borrowers (the principal and interest) is then used to pay back the investors who were promised double-digit returns in the promissory notes which are guaranteed by A Better Financial Plan. 

Unlike bank loans, which are regulated and have protections in place for the borrowers, Merchant Cash Advances are alternative, high-risk commercial advances that are not regulated and leave vulnerable high-risk borrowers at the mercy of predatory alternative lenders. In some cases, and especially today as companies struggle with the COVID-19 pandemic, these advances carry a lethal dosage of risk.

There are hundreds of high-risk alternative lenders who deal in Merchant Cash Advances. They promise quick access to capital in as little as four hours with interest rates that can soar above 30%. High-risk borrowers pay back these advances using a percentage of their daily or weekly sales until the lender is paid-in-full (including interest). But this is where the problem comes in: with the pay-back! The Truth Tracker has learned that hundreds of high-risk borrowers that take these high-risk advances from the high-risk alternative lender are struggling to pay off the money that was lent to them.

Par Funding, a high-risk alternative lender that may frequently work with A Better Financial Plan, has opened hundreds of cases against their high-risk borrowers in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to collect on missed payments. According to court filings from January 2020 to April 2020, this high-risk alternative lender has sought payment from hundreds of high-risk borrowers across the country for the amount of more than $78 million dollars.

In there lies the issue with Merchant Cash Advances: If Par Funding, the high-risk alternative lender that works with A Better Financial Plan is not being paid back from their high-risk borrowers, then THEY, in turn, cannot pay back A Better Financial Plan, who cannot pay the initial investor (you) their guaranteed returns, promised to them through an unregulated promissory note! Thus potentially leading to a series of defaults on the promissory notes that you are invested in.

The strange thing is A Better Financial Plan (which may have issued you the promissory note for Merchant Cash Advances) acknowledges that there is risk involved with their investment programs but A Better Financial Plan is not liable or responsible for any losses that pertain to your unregulated promissory notes. Given today’s terrible economic landscape, these already high-risk Merchant Cash Advances could turn lethal for the high-risk borrowers defaulting on their payments and the unregulated promissory notes sold to you, the investor.

Considering that a majority of the country has been shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more high-risk borrowers with weak credit may begin to fold, so what does that mean for you as someone invested in these high-risk, unregulated Merchant Cash Advance promissory notes through A Better Financial Plan? It potentially could mean that your promissory note will default and the liability could be on you. But if you fully educate yourself on A Better Financial Plan and understand the dynamic between Par Funding, the high-risk alternative lenders, the high-risk borrowers, and the lethally high-risk advances being issued to the high-risk borrowers, you can avoid this nightmare altogether.

Dean James Vagnozzi, CEO of A Better Financial Plan Capital Management, LLC in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania can be heard marketing his company on KYW 1060-AM Radio from time to time. Considered by some to be a revolutionary investor for his outside of the box investments, Vagnozzi offers four known investments for his clients. These include litigation funding, real estate funds, life insurance, and merchant cash advances. Two investments have been disclosed to the public in a marketing scheme to promote ABFP Income Fund 4, LLC for merchant cash advances along with Atrium Legal Capital 3, LLC for litigation funding. Vagnozzi implores investors to come meet with him and his staff so they can be educated about the investments. If not, investors can spend fifty dollars to access educational videos produced by Vagnozzi and A Better Financial Plan, only to get the money back should they choose to invest.

When dealing with the investment community, most investors would agree that a degree of transparency is necessary to maintain confidence in investing. Vagnozzi prefers to operate behind closed doors, luring clients into his office with promises of high returns and mitigated risk. A handful of videos embedded in Vagnozzi’s website show many of the same consumers reiterating these high returns, specifically from Merchant Cash Advance investments.

Merchant cash advances (MCA) are loans that are given to small businesses who are seeking short term capital for expansion or projects. The companies receiving MCAs are required to pay immense interest rates on these advances, sometimes upwards of 35%. As the interest is paid back, according to Vagnozzi’s testimonials, investors receive their monthly guaranteed interest payments. Depending on the principal investment amount, investors are guaranteed to see a 10%, 12%, or even 14% annual return on MCAs. Vagnozzi has a history of guaranteeing double digit returns, although he refrains from publicly stating a guarantee – unless you go to ABFPIncomefund.com.

Vagnozzi also has a history of negligence in the investment community. Recently in 2019, Vagnozzi was featured in a Philadelphia Inquirer article highlighting an enforcement order that forced him to pay a fine of $490,000 to the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities. He was ordered to pay this fine for not complying with security regulations outlined in the Pennsylvania Securities Act of 1972 and being an unregistered broker in the sale of non-negotiable promissory notes. Among those included in the case was Complete Business Solutions Group, also referred to as Par Funding – a Philadelphia based company who lends small businesses money through merchant cash advances. In December of 2018, Par Funding was given a cease and desist order by authorities in New Jersey for their role in selling unregistered securities to raise capital for merchant cash advances.

According to a 2019 SEC filing, Par Funding and A Better Financial Plan still maintain a working relationship. Considering Par Funding issues MCAs, it is reasonable to believe that individuals who invest with Vagnozzi are having their investments lent to Par Funding to make cash advances, with the returning interest being used to pay investors monthly interest payments. One client of Vagnozzi’s financial business confirmed that their contract is being used to fund such investments.

When looking at Vagnozzi’s SEC filings, several investment and income funds list debt and equity securities as the primary investments being offered since 2018. Currently, all ABFP Income Funds are being advertised for MCAs and have been incorporated in Delaware since April 2018. This fund, along with three others have not been made accessible through an EDGAR or SEC search. Further, according to FINRA, there is no evidence to attest that Vagnozzi has obtained the proper licensing to broker securities in the State of Pennsylvania. It is known that Vagnozzi, through A Better Financial Plan, is paying investors using interest paid from merchant cash advances and at least one of the securities being issued to fund these advances has been confirmed as a promissory note – the same security that caused the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities to issue a final order against Vagnozzi in 2019.

Vagnozzi does not have to register these securities with the State of Pennsylvania due to an exemption. Pursuant to SEC rule 506 of Regulation D, Vagnozzi is exempt from listing and registering the securities he sells. According to the Department of Banking and Securities however, you must be a registered broker-dealer, agent, or issuer to sell securities. According to the same regulation, the State of Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities does not require registration of the individual if they obtain exemptions to register the securities they issue. Therefore, although Vagnozzi is not listed on FINRA or IAPD as a registered broker, he is exempt due to the department’s rules.

His involvement with Par Funding is only the tipping point of Vagnozzi’s negligence in the investment community. In 2016-2017 Vagnozzi was listed as a defendant in a bankruptcy case in Texas. Although the case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice, the claims of the case speak for themselves. Specifically dealing with life settlements, an investment avenue that Vagnozzi allegedly continues to promote, defendant licensees were said to have misrepresented life expectancies when conducting sales on behalf of Life Partner Holdings, Inc. in order to force investors to pay premiums for a longer term and eventually abandon the contracts. Defendants in the case were also alleged to have received large amounts of finder’s fees and commissions, more than what Texas regulatory laws deemed as fair.

The question still remains whether or not Dean Vagnozzi is upholding his responsibility to protect consumers and their investments. While FINRA and IAPD are accurate in not listing Vagnozzi as a licensed broker, Pennsylvania securities regulations dictate that he is exempt from registration. Since the securities he sells are exempt, so is he from having to register as a broker, agent, or issuer. Considering the State of Pennsylvania is very lenient in their regulation of merchant cash advances, as well as the licensing thereof, it is especially important that the involved parties remain transparent in their transactions. Transparency issues were raised in a statement from one client of Vagnozzi, as the client was not aware of which Philadelphia based company is involved with the MCAs.

Dean J. Vagnozzi, CEO of A Better Financial Plan Capital Management, LLC claims he is the most ethical investor in the business, despite his history of financial negligence. Part one of this Truth Tracker investigation highlighted multiple instances where this claim would come into question. Included in that article were the enforcement order issued by the Department of Banking and Securities, his defense as a licensee in bankruptcy court, and his interactions with clients. In an attempt to expand on his interactions, Retirement Media, Inc. sat down with a client of A Better Financial Plan to shed light onto the dealings of Vagnozzi and his business.

John Doe, a resident of Pennsylvania met with Vagnozzi’s staff to invest a large sum of money after hearing about A Better Financial Plan’s enormous returns. As a retired individual, he was seeking high-growth investments  and decided to put Vagnozzi’s method to the test. After discussing the outlines of the deal, Vagnozzi guaranteed a 10% annual return and full repayment of principal once the contract matured. This is not a deviation from prior rhetoric from Vagnozzi’s business as he is currently advertising 10%-14% returns on abfpincomefund.com. The investment being advertised on that website is merchant cash advances. 

According to Doe, his monthly earnings are derived from interest paid on merchant cash advances. As discussed in part one, merchant cash advances or MCAs, are given to small businesses attached with high interest payments of 35% or more. The client went on to explain that after he makes his investment, A Better Financial Plan lends the funds to a Philadelphia based company that then issues the MCAs. When asked if he knew what company was working with Vagnozzi, he stated that he was unaware. Further, after the small business receives the advance they must pay back the loan along with interest. This 35% interest payment “legitimizes the 10% [annual interest payments] to prospective customers,” said Doe.

Thus, the money travels from the investor (lender) to Vagnozzi’s company (borrower), which then lends the money again to an unknown Philadelphia based company who hands out the merchant cash advances. Once the money is repaid along with the interest, that money funnels its way back through the unknown company to Vagnozzi, which he then uses to deposit the investor’s monthly interest payments. There is sufficient evidence however, to believe that the Philadelphia based company is Par Funding – the business that is associated with Vagnozzi who received an enforcement order for the sale of unregistered securities. This process was not outlined in the client’s contract and further, Doe stated that he was not informed about who manages the money after it gets invested. The only information the client has about his investment is contained in his contract, stating that he will receive a 10% annual return along with full repayment of principal once the contract matures.

In his meeting with A Better Financial Plan, Doe stated that merchant cash advances were the only investment opportunity being promoted by Vagnozzi’s staff. Further, the only information Doe gathered about other investments were from leaflets around the office. While in the meeting he recalled a powerpoint presentation being used to quickly explain the details of the investment while adding, “[I received] no physical paperwork other than my contract.” While the entire encounter was professional, Doe stopped short of calling it informative. Following the meeting, Doe was informed that his contract was backed by Allianz, in the event of default. When he requested a copy of the policy to read he was denied. Instead, he was told to come and read the policy in their office.

The contract that Doe referred to is a promissory note issued by one of the several income funds incorporated in Delaware, but doing business in King of Prussia at A Better Financial Plan. Doe explained that even though he wrote a check to one of the funds, he did not know its purpose. “At worst, the contract is potentially misleading,” Doe said, but remains confident in his investment.

Doe’s contract also consists of an unsecured promissory note which states that it is not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, nor with the State of Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities states that, “[S]mall businesses that want to issue stock or debt and do not qualify for an exemption must register the security with the Department. ” They go on to say, “The business may not make offers or sales of securities in Pennsylvania until the offering has been cleared by the department.”

With that said, Vagnozzi is exempt from registering the securities he sells with the SEC and Pennsylvania due to Rule 506 of Regulation D. He is also exempt from being a registered broker due to the same rules as discussed in part one. Vagnozzi was previously fined by the Department of Banking and Securities for not being a registered agent and selling unregistered securities. The order levied a fine of $490,000 against Vagnozzi. When the client learned of this, he was alerted, but not dismayed about the 2019 enforcement order. Doe maintained that Vagnozzi’s staff claimed the enforcement was due to a large gray area in the regulation of securities.

While Vagnozzi is exempt from registering his securities with the state and exempt from being a registered issuer, the process that Doe described raises a few red flags. First and foremost, the client was only presented with one investment option and received no physical paperwork explaining the details of his investment. Doe was also denied the ability to read the policy that protects his plan unless he were to physically come to A Better Financial Plan’s headquarters. The fact that the client was not aware of who manages his money after he invested is troublesome to say the least. At the end of the day, Dean Vagnozzi seems to have corrected past wrongdoing despite his behind closed doors tactics. 

Dean J. Vagnozzi, CEO of A Better Financial Plan Capital Management, LLC claimed that the enforcement order issued to him by the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities was due to a large gray area in the law. In reality, if an agent is engaged in the sale of securities on behalf of someone else, the agent must be registered – even if the issuing company is exempt from registering. Vagnozzi’s legal team stated that they preferred a settlement with the department instead of expensive litigation. The truth of the matter is that Vagnozzi would have lost the case. Therefore, in order to mitigate the damage, Vagnozzi and his team settled and tried to spin the story.

In an emailed statement from Vagnozzi’s legal team, it was said that Vagnozzi was in the process of obtaining the proper credentials to become a broker, however, according to the Department of Banking and Securities, this is not true. In an email to clients, Vagnozzi’s attorney claimed that the Department had alleged Vagnozzi acted as a broker in connection to the securities being sold by Par Funding. This statement is also a blatant lie. According to the official redacted 2019 enforcement order, the Department alleged that, “[Vagnozzi] effected transactions in securities in Pennsylvania while neither registered nor exempt from registration as an ‘agent’ in willful violation of Section 301(a) of the 1972 Act 70 P.S. §1-301(a).” While the state’s definition for agent and broker-dealer are relatively similar, the difference comes down to how the transactions were being effected and whether or not compensation was received for effecting the sale. In this case, Vagnozzi was effecting transactions on behalf of Par Funding and receiving compensation for them, thus classifying him as an agent. Therefore, there is no gray area in the department’s ruling and in an attempt to set the record straight, Vagnozzi’s legal staff willfully misled clients on the matter.

Nearly one year following Vagnozzi’s enforcement order, A Better Financial Plan, LLC has found a way to exploit the “gray area” of the law. Although legal, Vagnozzi and his team skirted the so-called gray area to comply with regulations. If what Mr. Doe explained in part two is true about how his promissory note investment works, Vagnozzi would now be considered an “Issuer” according to the PA Securities Act of 1972. An issuer is defined as, “any person who issues or proposes to issue any security, and any promoter who acts for an issuer proposed to be formed.”

In order to explain this process, the proposed investment pattern that took place pre-enforcement must be analyzed. Prior to 2019, a Philadelphia based company, Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc (d/b/a Par Funding) issued non-negotiable promissory notes to unregistered agents to be sold to investors on behalf of Par Funding. Those funds would then be used to lend merchant cash advances to small businesses who would pay back the principal plus a high interest payment. Those payments would then be used to pay the monthly and annual payments on client’s promissory notes. Since Vagnozzi was not a properly registered agent to effect transactions on behalf of Par Funding, he was forced to pay a fine. 

In order to skirt these regulations, Vagnozzi began issuing the securities, thus working around the laws and registration requirements. The new process, according to Mr. Doe places Dean Vagnozzi (d/b/a A Better Financial Plan) as the instigator of the post-enforcement proposed investment pattern. Through several ABFP Income Funds registered with the SEC through Form D, Vagnozzi issued promissory notes (and potentially other securities) to investors. The investment money is then lent to a Philadelphia based company for the purpose of merchant cash advances – it is not known what company specifically engages in the advances, however, Par Funding sounds familiar according to Doe. Using this information, it is reasonable to believe that Par Funding is still engaged in this process with A Better Financial Plan. After the investment money is lent to Par Funding, that money is then given out as advances to small businesses at interest rates of 35% or more. The companies pay back the principal and interest on those advances and the earned funds reverse track through Par Funding, back to A Better Financial Plan and then into the accounts of Vagnozzi’s investors as their monthly interest payments.

This is how Vagnozzi guarantees and legitimizes double digit annual returns of 10%, 12%, or 14%. The return however is dependent on the principal investment from the investor. Investing 100k-250k guarantees a return of 10%. 251k-500k guarantees a 12% return and 501k or more guarantees a 14% annual return. This linear process, according to Doe, legitimized his investment in promissory notes with A Better Financial Plan. Since Vagnozzi filed an exemption with the SEC to file Form D, he is exempt from registering the securities – in this case promissory notes – with the State of Pennsylvania. In the same respect, because he filed this exemption, Vagnozzi does not have to register himself as an issuer of securities with the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities. Further, Par Funding is not acting as an agent of A Better Financial Plan and does not need a license to engage in merchant cash advances. Since these advances are not considered loans, no federal or state oversight is required.

While the Department of Banking and Securities declined to comment on this proposed investment pattern, there is reasonable evidence to suggest that this is how A Better Financial Plan issues securities for merchant cash advances. It is also reasonable to assert that the other investment funds incorporated by Vagnozzi operate in a similar fashion. These limited liability and limited partnerships include: Atrium Legal Capital I,II, and III, several Pillar Life Settlement Funds, a Woodland Falls Investment Fund, two ABFP Multi-Strategy Investment Funds, and an ABFP Libra Fund. Based on a flyer from a Vagnozzi event promoting litigation funding for the Atrium Legal Capital, LLC, the pattern of investment remains similar to that of merchant cash advances.

Vagnozzi’s investment opportunities are legal, but they are certainly not transparent. John Doe received nothing in the form of physical paperwork regarding his investment in merchant cash advances. Further, in article two Doe stated that when he requested to see a copy of the policy that protects his contract, he was denied. Rather, he was told to come into the office to read the policy. Doe’s contract does not list who manages the investment, how the investment accrues its monthly and annual interest payments, nor what the investment is for – the contract does not mention merchant cash advances. The only information contained in Doe’s contract is that he invested a principal sum of money for a guaranteed 10% annual interest rate. Considering he received no physical paperwork that would document the aforementioned information about how the investment works raises significant red flags about transparency.

In the end, while Vagnozzi claims he is the most ethical guy in the business, the truth is that he skirts around securities regulations and lacks transparency as an investment professional. He denies clients access to information regarding their contracts unless they physically come to his office, purposely misleads clients concerning his 2019 enforcement order, and his staff issues contracts and provides no physical paperwork for his clients. The investment packages promoted by Vagnozzi are certainly alternative to the mainstream and that should result in increased transparency during the process, not less. While he is technically within the bounds of the law and regulations, transparency seems to remain an issue for Vagnozzi.