Kevin Sianez - Kms Investigations ripoff Orange California

FORMER POLICE OFFICER CHARGED WITH DEFRAUDING CLIENTS BY STEALING PAYMENT FOR UNPERFORMED, UNLICENSED PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR WORK *Defendant also charged with conspiracy for soliciting women on Craigslist to commit bestiality with his dog

~~~~~~

SANTA ANA A former police officer working as an unlicensed private investigator was charged today with defrauding his clients and intimidating his detractors, including threatening to burn down the house of a licensed private investigator. He has also been charged with engaging in a conspiracy to commit the crime of sexual assault of an animal by posting ads on Craigslist to have women engage in bestiality with his dog.

~~~~~~

Kevin Michael Sianez, 53, Fountain Valley, has been charged in a 63-count criminal complaint. His felony charges include 20 counts of grand theft by false pretense, 12 counts of fraudulently using an access card, two counts of second degree commercial burglary, five counts of possession of a firearm by a felon stemming from a 1998 conviction for stalking, four counts of theft with a prior conviction for the same crime in 1999, four counts of obtaining electricity services through false representation, and one count each of identity theft, perjury by declaration, computer access and fraud, and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person. The misdemeanor charges against Sianez include three counts of conspiracy to commit sexual assault upon an animal, two counts of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, three counts of obtaining electricity services through false representation, and one count each of criminal threats, unlawful representation as a private investigator, engaging in the business of private investigation, and doing business without a valid license. He faces sentencing enhancements for aggravated white collar crime over $100,000 and property damage over $65,000. If convicted, Sianez faces a maximum sentence of 38 years in state prison. He was arrested June 24, 2010, by Orange County District Attorneys Office (OCDA) Investigators and is being held on $500,000 bail. He is expected to be arraigned Monday, June 28, 2010, at 8:30 a.m. in Department C-55, Central Justice Center, Santa Ana. Circumstances of the Case The defendant worked as a police officer between 1979 and 1986 for the Santa Ana and Stanton Police Departments. The Stanton Police Department no longer exists. Between November 2005 and June 2010, Sianez is accused of owning and illegally operating private investigation services without a license under the names KMS Investigations, Fore-Front Investigations, and 4Front Investigations. Business and Professions Code 7523 requires proper licensing through the California Department of Consumer Affairs Bureau of Security and Investigative Services to operate as a private investigator. The defendant is accused of falsely identifying himself as a licensed private investigator. The defendant is accused of posting false reviews of his various businesses on Internet investigator and referral websites to optimize his search engine presence. He is accused of using these fabricated reviews to mislead potential clients into believing his businesses had nationwide offices and investigators, when in fact he operated out of a small suite in Fountain Valley with less than five employees, who were primarily family members. Sianez is accused of defrauding clients by performing little or no work on their cases after receiving payment. He is also accused of defrauding properly licensed private investigation firms by subcontracting investigative work to them and failing to pay for their services. Sianez is accused of attempting to intimidate and dissuade witnesses of his fraudulent activities, including two former employees, by threatening to use his knowledge and contacts as a former police officer to file false police reports against them if they reported his actions to the police or public. He is accused of threatening to burn down the home of a private investigator if she did not remove Internet comments she had posted alerting the public about his fraudulent activity. The OCDA Bureau of Investigation began investigating this case after receiving a complaint in March 2010, from the California Department of Consumer Affairs. In the course of the fraud investigation, OCDA Investigators discovered additional evidence of a bestiality conspiracy. Between October 2009 and January 2010, Sianez is accused of posting ads on Craigslist seeking women to engage in acts of bestiality with his Labrador Retriever. He is accused of conspiring with several unknown co-conspirators via e-mail to set up meetings in order for the bestiality to occur. Anyone with additional information is encouraged to contact Supervising District Attorney Investigator Anthony Sosnowski at (714) 347-8814. Deputy District Attorney Israel Claustro of the Special Assignments Unit is prosecuting the case

As an affiliate with the company being accused of this wrongdoing to begin with, would it not be within your best interest to provide some kind of proof to support your defense? Rather than inviting this other person to come forward with something more substantial, why don't you take the initiative, as someone concerned with preserving your company's reputation, and provide concrete facts or evidence. You could, simply, address each issue raised in the original post, describing the reasoning, an answer or factual information to the contrary. Not only did the post complain of a "rip-off" but that your company is a complete fraud with not even a physical address. Therefore, if you do indeed have a physical address, why not state it and/or other basic company information that at least indicates you are a legitimate business? In regards to the other post, don't you have some kind of license number or any identification that would show proper service? What is the name of the competing company you mentioned? It should not be so difficult.

Search KMS Investigations on this site for information on this company.

The owner is not a licensed PI in California and the company is not a California Corporation as his website claims. He has multiple criminal convictions in Orange County California Superior Court for theft, stalking and failure to provide for minor child. The BBB has 19 complaints in Southern California and one pending in Delware.

Buyer beware!

Search KMS Investigations on this site for information on this company.

The owner is not a licensed PI in California and the company is not a California Corporation as his website claims. He has multiple criminal convictions in Orange County California Superior Court for theft, stalking and failure to provide for minor child. The BBB has 19 complaints in Southern California and one pending in Delware.

Buyer beware!

Mary? We did not service a woman with the first name of Mary from Newport Beach, California? What kind of site is this to allow a person to post a first name and make up matters without verification.

We strongly suspect this person is a competitor who we have been competing agaisnt and has conducted other sneaky tasks to undermine our business. We are inviting this "Mary" to identify herself and what case? did she have this company conduct for her? This is a non factual comment from what we believe is a competitor posting under a first name only and we are investigating this and this site for allowing this to occurr. We have been working with in excess of 60 other merchants experiencing bogus postings in these type of forums to address these matters in a legal forum.

We are taking the time to respond to Amy statement of rip off. This site has several filed complaints in different jurisdictions by businesses for unfair business practices. To simply open a forum up to where even competitors can post posing as a consumer to damage a competitors business is problematic. First names only from states stating they were ripped off? Very questionable.

Case in point in this complaint. Amy Hired our services to investigate stolen equipment valued at over $50,000. We conducted many hours of investigation into this matter which included surveillance of suspects, interviews with police detectives and insurance agents and reported out to Ms. Amy numerous times with findings. She incurred far more hours of investigation than she paid for and thus she was billed an additional $900.00. She authorized and accepted this additional bill for services rendered. Now this forum allows a consumer to post blindy as prima facia evidence of "rip off" Very problematic to merchants. To a consumer to see a comment such as Ms. Amy on the face of the comment is like a news reporter making up a story and putting on the air as fact? Remind you of someone from CBS? This is not a factual account of Ms. Gaffs case at all.

We are taking the time to respond to Amy statement of rip off. This site has several filed complaints in different jurisdictions by businesses for unfair business practices. To simply open a forum up to where even competitors can post posing as a consumer to damage a competitors business is problematic. First names only from states stating they were ripped off? Very questionable.

Case in point in this complaint. Amy Hired our services to investigate stolen equipment valued at over $50,000. We conducted many hours of investigation into this matter which included surveillance of suspects, interviews with police detectives and insurance agents and reported out to Ms. Amy numerous times with findings. She incurred far more hours of investigation than she paid for and thus she was billed an additional $900.00. She authorized and accepted this additional bill for services rendered. Now this forum allows a consumer to post blindy as prima facia evidence of "rip off" Very problematic to merchants. To a consumer to see a comment such as Ms. Amy on the face of the comment is like a news reporter making up a story and putting on the air as fact? Remind you of someone from CBS? This is not a factual account of Ms. Gaffs case at all.

We are taking the time to respond to Amy statement of rip off. This site has several filed complaints in different jurisdictions by businesses for unfair business practices. To simply open a forum up to where even competitors can post posing as a consumer to damage a competitors business is problematic. First names only from states stating they were ripped off? Very questionable.

Case in point in this complaint. Amy Hired our services to investigate stolen equipment valued at over $50,000. We conducted many hours of investigation into this matter which included surveillance of suspects, interviews with police detectives and insurance agents and reported out to Ms. Amy numerous times with findings. She incurred far more hours of investigation than she paid for and thus she was billed an additional $900.00. She authorized and accepted this additional bill for services rendered. Now this forum allows a consumer to post blindy as prima facia evidence of "rip off" Very problematic to merchants. To a consumer to see a comment such as Ms. Amy on the face of the comment is like a news reporter making up a story and putting on the air as fact? Remind you of someone from CBS? This is not a factual account of Ms. Gaffs case at all.

We are taking the time to respond to Amy statement of rip off. This site has several filed complaints in different jurisdictions by businesses for unfair business practices. To simply open a forum up to where even competitors can post posing as a consumer to damage a competitors business is problematic. First names only from states stating they were ripped off? Very questionable.

Case in point in this complaint. Amy Hired our services to investigate stolen equipment valued at over $50,000. We conducted many hours of investigation into this matter which included surveillance of suspects, interviews with police detectives and insurance agents and reported out to Ms. Amy numerous times with findings. She incurred far more hours of investigation than she paid for and thus she was billed an additional $900.00. She authorized and accepted this additional bill for services rendered. Now this forum allows a consumer to post blindy as prima facia evidence of "rip off" Very problematic to merchants. To a consumer to see a comment such as Ms. Amy on the face of the comment is like a news reporter making up a story and putting on the air as fact? Remind you of someone from CBS? This is not a factual account of Ms. Gaffs case at all.