WELLS, J.

Kingland Estates Limited ("KEL"), Classic Investments Limited (KEL's majority shareholder), and Richard Cox (sole shareholder and managing director of Classic and chairman and managing director of KEL) (collectively "the Barbados defendants")1, appeal from an order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We reverse the order on appeal and remand with instructions to dismiss the Barbados defendants from the instant action.

Plaintiff Marjorie Ilma Knox, around whom this action centers, is a citizen of Barbados currently living in Miami.2 This action has its genesis in the sale of shares in a family owned company, KEL, which was formed in 1958 to hold title to substantial acreage in Barbados. Beginning in 1992, members of Ms. Knox's family began to acquire other family members' shares of stock in KEL and ultimately in 2005, Classic purchased all but Ms. Knox's remaining shares in KEL, giving Classic control of the company.

Since that time, Ms. Knox has filed a number of actions in Barbados and at least one in Canada to secure a ruling that her remaining shares are worth more than evidenced by KEL's books and records. In 2007, Ms. Knox created a revocable trust funded by her shares of KEL stock. Her daughter, Kathleen I. Davis, as trustee and as Ms. Knox's attorney in fact, has now joined with Ms. Knox in these efforts, filing an action in the probate division of the circuit court. The instant action takes a new tack, this time claiming that the Barbados defendants and two of Ms. Knox's relatives, Iain Deane and Tess Rohmann — both of whom sold their shares in KEL to Classic in 2007 — have engaged in a criminal enterprise to force her to divest her interest in KEL for less than its full value. According to Ms. Knox and her daughter:

The complaint asserts four specific instances in which members of this enterprise purportedly acted in Florida in furtherance of their scheme:

The complaint asserts five causes of action. Count I seeks relief under section 895.03 of the Florida Statutes (Florida's RICO statute); Count II seeks relief under section 895.03(4) (for RICO conspiracy); Count III claims intentional infliction of severe emotional distress; Count IV claims defamation; and Count V claims a conspiracy. Jurisdiction over the Barbados defendants is invoked under section 48.193, Florida's long arm statute on a claim that based on the aforementioned acts these defendants committed these crimes and torts in the state of Florida.

The Barbados defendants moved to dismiss the action against them and supported that motion with the affidavit of Richard Cox. The court below denied the motion to dismiss concluding that the complaint satisfied the initial pleading requirements of section 48.193 of the Florida Statutes and that the Barbados defendants' affidavit did not directly contest the factual allegations in the complaint with respect to long arm jurisdiction or minimum contacts. We review this matter de novo, and reverse. See Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So.2d 1252, 1256 (Fla.2002) ("This Court must conduct a de novo review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction."); accord Edwards v. Airline Support Group, Inc., 138 So.3d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Swanky Apps, LLC v. Roony Invest & Fin., S.A., 126 So.3d 336, 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Extendicare, Inc. v. Estate of McGillen, 957 So.2d 58, 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Dev. Corp. of Palm Beach v. WBC Constr., L.L.C., 925 So.2d 1156, 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

By each count of their complaint, Ms. Knox and her daughter sought to secure jurisdiction over the Barbados defendants under section 48.193, which in pertinent part provides:

§ 48.193(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2014).

In Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla.1989), the Florida Supreme Court articulated a two-step analysis to determine whether personal jurisdiction exists over a nonresident defendant under section 48.193 of the Florida Statutes. "A court first must determine whether the complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the ambit of our long-arm statute. A court then must determine whether sufficient minimum contacts exist between our forum state and the defendant to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's due process requirements — in short, whether a nonresident defendant `should reasonably anticipate being haled into court' in Florida." Acquadro v. Bergeron, 851 So.2d 665, 669 n. 9 (Fla.2003) (quoting Doe v. Thompson, 620 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla.1993)); see Rollet v. de Bizemont, 159 So.3d 351, 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ("In Florida, `both parts [of the personal jurisdicition test] must be satisfied for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.' Hampton Island Pres., LLC v. Club & Cmty. Corp., 998 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting Am. Fin. Trading Corp. v. Bauer, 828 So.2d 1071, 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002))."). With regard to the Barbados defendants, neither prong of the Venatian Salami analysis was met.

Here, all five counts of the complaint are predicated on the same jurisdictional facts: that some unidentified and unknown individuals made threatening, defamatory statements on a blog maintained in Miami by Ms. Knox's daughter; that the defendants, which would include the Barbados defendants, sent false financial statements to Ms. Knox in Florida; and that the defendants, which would include the Barbados defendants, committed perjury in an action pending in Miami when Tess Rohmann "lied under oath regarding numerous issues, including the price per share at which she had sold her KEL shares."

First and most obviously, Count III claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress3 and Count IV claiming defamation4 fail to allege any jurisdictional facts that would bring this action within the ambit of Florida's long-arm jurisdiction statute. See Thorpe v. Gelbwaks, 953 So.2d 606, 609 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ("First, it must be determined that the complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the ambit of Florida's long-arm jurisdiction statute."); Gerber Trade Fin., Inc. v. Bayou Dock Seafood Co., 917 So.2d 964, 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (same). As the Florida Supreme Court has explained, a defendant, like the Barbados defendants, need not be physically present in Florida to commit a tortious act here but may commit a tortious act in Florida for purposes of section 48.193(1)(a)2,5 through "telephonic, electronic, or written communications into Florida." Acquadro, 851 So.2d at 670; see Wendt, 822 So.2d at 1253; Swanky Apps, LLC, 126 So.3d at 339. However, in this case, the complaint and the affidavits attached to and incorporated into it, concede that after years of effort, plaintiffs have been unable to identify the defendants as the individuals who posted the offending defamatory statements that form the basis for the claims asserted in Counts III and IV. Moreover, the affidavit submitted by Cox on behalf of the Barbados defendants affirmatively states that they were not involved in the conduct alleged.6 This evidence was wholly unrefuted. Thus, as to Counts III and IV, the established jurisdictional facts are insufficient to bring this action within the ambit of the long-arm statute.

The same result obtains for the remaining three counts of the complaint — Count I claiming violation of section 895.03(1), (2), and (3) of the Florida Statutes — Florida's RICO act7; Count II claiming violation of section 895.03(4) of the Florida Statutes — RICO conspiracy provision8; and Count IV claiming the existence of a conspiracy.9,10 These three counts rely on the same factual predicate claiming that the Barbados defendants engaged in a conspiracy and a pattern of racketeering by:

Reduced, if possible, to their essence, these claims allege that the Barbados defendants and a number of unidentified others conspired to deprive Ms. Knox of the true value of her shares in KEL, and engaged in an enterprise to accomplish this goal by (1) anonymously making threatening posts to a Miami blog which defamed Ms. Knox and so threatened her that she was unable to appear in Barbados as a witness in proceedings pending there; (2) mailing several purportedly "false and fraudulent accounting records to Marjorie Knox ... at her present address in Miami, Florida thereby devaluing her KEL stock"; and, (3) suborning purportedly perjured testimony in another case pending in a Florida court as to the price one of Knox's relatives had received for her KEL shares.11,12

As with Counts III and IV, these allegations are insufficient to support personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute over the Barbados defendants. As already stated and as the complaint and its attachments concede, after years of trying, plaintiffs have been unable to tie any of the offending blog-posts to anyone much less to the Barbados defendants so as to bring the Barbados defendants within the jurisdiction of Florida's courts. With regard to the purported false entries or fraud related to KEL's annual statements, the allegations consist of no more than an accusation that miscellaneous information was not included in the audited annual financial statements and a wholly conclusory statement that as a consequence of the failure to include this information the statements were "false and fraudulent":

These allegations do not state facts that demonstrate that either a false statement was made or that a fraud has been perpetrated and will not support either a conspiracy claim or RICO claim much less personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute. See Salazar v. HSBC Bank, USA, NA, 158 So.3d 699, 702 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ("Salazar's claim that he had been trying to renegotiate his loan and that HSBC had represented that it would be worked out fails to state a claim under any of these grounds including a claim of misrepresentation or fraud. See Butler v. Yusem, 44 So.3d 102, 105 (Fla.2010) (holding that the essential elements of fraudulent misrepresentation are: (1) a false statement concerning a material fact; (2) made with the representor's knowledge that the statement is false; (3) made with the intention that the representation induce another to act on it; and (4) consequent injury by the party acting in reliance on the representation); Cady v. Chevy Chase Sav. & Loan, Inc., 528 So.2d 136, 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (confirming that `allegations that certain representations made were false without designating which ones were false and who made them does not constitute an acceptable pleading of a defense based upon false misrepresentation'); see also Parra de Rey v. Rey, 114 So.3d 371, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)(confirming that fraud must be pled with particularity and must specifically identify misrepresentations or omissions of fact, as well as the time, place or manner in which they were made).").

Similarly, no facts were alleged to establish perjury or that the purported perjurer conspired with or agreed to engage in a criminal enterprise with the Barbados defendants. The allegations as to this "claim" is that one of Knox's relatives lied "in a proceeding in Barbados regarding the sales price of his shares in KEL." Since this purportedly happened in Barbados, we fail to see how this subjects the Barbados defendants to jurisdiction in Florida. The complaint also alleges that in 2010 in an action pending in the probate division of the circuit court, one of Knox's relatives, Tess Rohmann, "a former shareholder in KEL," also "lied under oath regarding... the price per share at which she had sold her KEL shares. Specifically, Mrs. Rohmann claimed that she sold her shares in KEL at a deflated value of $857,100" when in fact she "actually sold her shares for approximately $1.5 million." The problem with these "facts" is that none of the KEL defendants was a party to that action and they successfully fought any claim of jurisdiction over them in that case. The complaint also confirms that Ms. Rohmann is no longer a shareholder of KEL and there are no facts alleged to show (1) that Ms. Rohmann has or at the time of her testimony had any interest, direct or indirect, in either KEL or any of the Barbados defendants; (2) that Ms. Rohmann entered into any agreement — that is conspired — with KEL or any Barbados defendant for any purpose; or (3) that Ms. Rohmann agreed to engage in any scheme or enterprise with KEL or any Barbados defendant for any purpose. Again, no facts were alleged with regard to a purported perjury that would support any of the claims alleged much less long-arm jurisdiction over these foreign defendants.

In sum, we find plaintiffs' complaint does not allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring any claim, and thus, this action within the ambit of our long-arm statute nor does it demonstrate that sufficient minimum contacts exist between Florida and the Barbados defendants to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's due process requirements. In fact, nothing was claimed in the complaint which would make the Barbados defendants reasonably anticipate being haled into a Florida court. See Rollet, 159 So.3d at 356; Carlyle v. Palm Beach Holdings, Inc., 842 So.2d 1013, 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ("Appellant has also raised issues as to whether any of the alleged torts are actionable and whether the appellees have met their burden to show appellant had sufficient minimal contacts with Florida to satisfy constitutional due process requirements. Our disposition of this appeal on the connexity issue makes it unnecessary for us to decide these other issues."). Moreover, the KEL defendants' affidavit controverted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and was not rebutted by the plaintiffs below.

Accordingly, the order denying defendants' motion to dismiss is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with direction to enter an order granting the Barbados defendants' motion to dismiss.13