DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

BARBARA JACOBS ROTHSTEIN, District Judge.

Plaintiff, the United States of America, has filed a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and 18 U.S.C. § 1345 against Defendants Christine Reeves, also known as Christine Newman, and VCare USA LLC (hereinafter "Defendants"), based on Defendants' violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1956.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Court, having considered the Complaint; the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction, the declaration, and memorandum of points and authorities filed in support thereof; the United States' Status Update; the Clerk of Court's Order of Default; and the declarations, exhibits, and memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of the United States' Motion for Entry of Preliminary Injunction, and being otherwise advised, finds that:

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.

2. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is a proper venue for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Defendants are residents of this district and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred in this district.

3. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants under 18 U.S.C. § 1345.

5. Defendants have failed to answer or otherwise defend this action.

6. The Clerk of the Court properly entered a default against Defendants on July 29, 2019.

7. Because Defendants have defaulted, all allegations in the Complaint (other than allegations relating to the amount of damages, if any) are taken as true.

8. As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants have participated in and have knowingly and willingly acted in furtherance of an ongoing wire fraud scheme. The scheme preys upon consumers across the United States—disproportionately elderly individuals—by having overseas telemarketers misrepresent themselves as technicians for legitimate and well-known computer companies, such as Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, and claim that victims' personal computers are infected by a computer virus or other security threat and require immediate and expensive measures to respond to the threat and protect their systems going forward. The schemers persuade victims to pay considerable sums of money for purported technical services to address the false threats. Victims are told to send their payments to domestic entities that include Defendants in the present case. Defendants in this case have opened multiple bank accounts in Washington State to deposit these fraudulent proceeds, much of which they then transmit to their overseas affiliates through international transactions.

9. As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants have engaged in such financial transactions, and have transported, transmitted, or transferred funds from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying on of wire fraud contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Defendants have thus engaged in money laundering contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and in international money laundering contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A).

10. As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants have engaged in such financial transactions, and have transported, transmitted, or transferred funds from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States, knowing that the funds involved represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that such financial transactions and such transportation, transmission or transfer are designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of wire fraud contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and have thus engaged in money laundering contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and in international money laundering contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i).

11. The Court finds that absent a permanent injunction, Defendants are likely to resume the activities underlying the Complaint. Defendants' history of fraudulent and money laundering activity establishes an unacceptable risk that, absent a permanent injunction, they will continue committing wire fraud and banking law violations.

12. In a case involving statutory enforcement under a statute that authorizes injunctive relief, the government need not establish the traditional showing of irreparable injury to obtain an injunction. FTC v. Consumer Defense, LLC, 926 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir. 2019) (issued June 17, 2019).

13. Accordingly, a permanent injunction constraining Defendants' future activities and ensuring they cannot continue using the tools of their fraud and money laundering scheme is warranted.

14. This Court has the authority to issue this Default Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(b) and 65.

ORDER

PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, their agents, officers, and employees, and all other persons or entities in active concert or participation with them, are permanently restrained from:

ORDERED