Report: #1458737

Complaint Review: 1st American Financial - Torrance california

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Rich — Clearwater FL United States
  • 1st American Financial
    21250 Hawthorne Blvd
    Torrance, california
    United States

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

The following is a narrated version of the report being finalized and soon to be sent to various authorities in regards to the illicit activities being perpetrated by Paul Nater of naterassociatesinc.com and Steve Jones of 1stamfi.com whom have victimized several entities by causing them well over $100 Million in losses and these allegations are 100% backed with written and recorded verbal communication from several parties.

This report is being made and published in the interests to help others prevent suffering losses at the hands of Nater and Jones as disclosed below.  I make no claims to the accuracy of the information and alligations contained and it’s important to know there is and will be ongoing civil and criminal investigations which will provide more proof of what’s being shared in this report.

If all of what’s alleged herein is found to be true, Nater and Jones practices don’t only cause their clients to suffer hundreds of millions in losses but also cause huge risks to vendors and large banking institutions who trust these financial instruments to be lawfully cash backed and insured as represented by Nater and Jones.

1st American Financial also goes by First American Financial and I believe Steve Jones is AKA Stephan Jones and Charles S Jones among others.  I have full background reports on Nater and Jones which I’m happy to share as well. It’s also important to note that while Jones lives and does business in California, he refuses to talk directly to clients and will at best communicate in writing.  He and Nater have stated several times that Jones only communicates through Nater and his other representatives.

There are several others I’ve spoke with whom have been defrauded by these characters and collectively, we plan to seek and hope for remedy to the great losses we’ve all suffered while Nater and Jones reap the rewards and profits they do from defrauding businesses of their money, time and energy. 

The following represents Nater and Jones absolute disregard to their clients and performing responsible and legal business transactions which causes much greater losses to the people who trust them than just the money Nater and Jones unjustly receive from their clients.

As the managing director of 2 businesses and after much due diligence including many conversations with Nater, I made the decision to trust Nater and Jones in issuing my company a $20 Million Cash Backed StandBy Letter of Credit (SBLC) which was to be used for purchasing $20 Million dollars of gold twice a month which would in turn, net my company over $9 Million per month.  The $20 Million cash backed SBLC was initially intended to secure the mutual interests of gold seller and buyer by preventing the buyer from having to risk payment for the gold before receiving the shipment and the seller would have access to the funds backing the SBLC in the event the buyer didn’t make payment in time.

The $20 Million cash for backing the SBLC was to come from a loan provided by Jones / 1st Am with me signing for the company I manage as the obligator.  I signed 2 promissory notes which one was for borrowing the funds which were to be held in an account in the event the SBLC had a draw against it and the other promissory note was to ensure I would repay any portion of the $20 Million if there was a draw against the SBLC thereby drawing against the $20 Million cash being held in an account.  To date, Nater nor Jones have never responded to repeated requests to prove the validity of the funds borrowed or the account for which the funds were supposed to be held in so as to protect the interest of the beneficiary of the SBLC.   

To protect 1st Am, Nater stated that the cash funds backing the SBLC would be protected by Credit Default Insurance (CDS) which the insurance premium was to be paid from the proceeds they received from the fees they charge their client.  In the event of any default and the SBLC not being returned unencumbered to 1st Am, the insurance company would pay for any losses to the account holding the $20 Million cash and then seek compensation for the defaulting party.

By making the gold seller the beneficiary of the SBLC and sending the SBLC to the gold sellers bank, the gold seller could confidently send his product to my refinery and know he would receive payment and in the event of my default of not making payment, the seller could take a draw against the SBLC thereby mitigating all risks to all parties.

While this scenario is to create a win/win for all parties, Nater and Jones chose to operate a fraudulent based business which only produces wins for them and significant losses to all the parties trusting them to produce the financial instruments they promote which Nater and Jones have produced many victims to.

Nater and or Jones represented

  • On their website they have in excess of $3 Billion in assets.

  • Nater had been in banking for around 30 years and with 1st Am for over 4 years

  • 1st Am had been in business since or before 2010

  • They had issued many SBLC’s in the past in amounts up to $1 Billion

  • Their SBLC’s are insured with CDS or other type of insurance

  • Their SBLC’s are cash backed

  • They would loan the $20 Million to my company which would be used to cash back the SBLC

  • The SBLC would be issued within 24 hours from receiving payment and paperwork

  • The SBLC would be sent via SWIFT by CitiBank NY to the beneficiaries bank

  • Client payments are protected in an escrow account until the terms of the agreement have been performed

  • They ordered a 5th SWIFT to be sent by Barclays UK for the SBLC issued by 1st Am

  • Nater paid and lost $75 Thousand for a 5th SWIFT transmission

  • All SWIFT’s were to be MT760 or MT710 messages

On April 20th, 2018, I signed an agreement with 1st Am and on April 23rd, 2018, United Escrow received my payment of $300 Thousand dollars.  I received a client copy of an SBLC which has as much value as a photocopy of a bank note. The only way an SBLC could be accepted by a bank for benefit of the beneficiary of the SBLC is if the SBLC was sent via SWIFT which is why Nater and Jones had originally set up the SWIFT transmissions to be facilitated by CitiBank.

A total of 4 SWIFT’s were initially and presumably sent by CitiBank to a total of 3 banks, Santander, United Bank of Africa and Wells Fargo which I directed as receiving banks.  I received transmission reports from Nater for each of the SBLC’s however, none of the 3 receiving banks received any of the 4 SWIFTS. I was lead to believe by Nater and Jones that the receiving banks I had directed the SWIFT’s to be sent to failed in their responsibilities to receiving the SWIFT’s.  Nater and Jones charged me another $75 Thousand in total for stopping the SWIFT’s, extending the time of the SBLC and charging me for sending 2 more SWIFT’s on top of the first one I paid for which was included in the $300 Thousand initial payment.

After the problems with Santander not receiving the SWIFT as promised and causing many weeks in delays, my gold supplier cancelled my contract which my company was to receive over $9 Million in monthly profits.  After several attempts to resolve the problem of the receiving bank not receiving the SWIFT, I later worked out another deal with an existing trade partner who agreed to pay my company $1,333,333 per month in income for the use of the $20 Million SBLC.  While it was significantly less than the $9 Million I had lost, I was grateful for the opportunity to profit from the SBLC I had paid $20,300,000 for in borrowed funds, paid $75 Thousand more than originally expected and still waiting for after over 2 months to be received by a bank which was originally to only take 3 or 4 days 

Now after more than 2 months and receiving 4 fraudulent SWIFT transmission reports by Nater, which he forwarded to me from the party he and Jones had contracted with to send the SWIFT’s, Nater confirmed the SWIFT transmission reports were fraudulent and he was going to arrange with another company to send the SWIFT which was now supposed to go through Barclays UK and Nater offered to pay the $75 Thousand SWIFT fee.  

It was on Wednesday, June 27, 2018, when Nater confirmed that he and Jones had a solution to the SWIFT issue and as stated above, the SBLC was going to be sent via SWIFT by Barclays UK and should be received by the receiving bank the following week at the latest.  Nater even updated me on the transfers and payments of the money he used to pay the SWIFT fee.

Nater stated he would pay the $75 Thousand SWIFT being charged by the new agent and of course, Jones would provide the cash backed SBLC and all would be expedited.

I waited for another 23 days and on Friday, July 20, 2018, being absolutely frustrated with the fraud and delays, I gave Nater and Jones an ultimatum to either produce the SWIFT and SBLC by having it received and accepted by the receiving bank I designated or I will report them to the authorities as well as fraud reporting websites, news media and anywhere else I can legally expect help in upholding Nater and Jones accountable to their contractual obligations and breaches of contract.  I also demanded the $375 Thousand to be refunded since they shouldn’t have received the funds due to the fact they represented to me they wouldn’t receive the funds until they had performed to the conditions of the agreement between 1st Am and the company I represent.

In response to my threats, Nater and Jones informed me that they had canceled the SBLC and the SWIFT which was never received by the 4 receiving bank after waiting another 23 days or so and they went on to accuse me of extortion.  They even claimed they had performed to the terms of the agreement and wouldn’t refund the $375 Thousand as they had lawfully earned the payment.

Jones even used the excuse that he nor 1st Am are responsible for the SWIFT being sent which is ridiculous in all sense of the word unless they’re admitting to intending to commit fraud in the beginning as the only way a SWIFT will be sent by a bank (Advising Bank) for another financial institution such as 1st Am in this case, is if 1st Am makes a request to an Advising Bank to SWIFT the SBLC which the funds backing the SBLC would first have to be verified and to date, Nater and Jones have never verified the funds and they refuse to do so even after continued requests and threats.

Nater and Jones failed to

  • Register one or more of their California based financial businesses

  • Provide a $2 Million loan as contractually promised

  • Provide the borrowed $2 Million in cash backing for the SBLC

  • Provide any proof of a CDS or other insurance being used to protect the funds being used to back the SBLC

  • Successfully deliver a SWIFT to any of the 4 receiving banks after 5 attempts

  • Verify any assets they have represented to have

  • Provide any value whatsoever to several of their clients while enriching themselves

It’s my opinion and belief that Nater and or Jones

  • Committed fraud through Bait and Switch techniques and other misrepresentations of their businesses and their abilities to provide products and services for which they charge for.

  • Committed fraud by slandering and demaming Richard Olson and other clients

  • Don’t have the $3 Billion in assets as represented in the 1st Am website

  • Don’t have access to the $20 Million in cash assets which they represented to have

  • Never paid for a CDS or other insurance to protect the cash backing the SBLC

  • Never expected a legit SWIFT to be received by a receiving bank.

  • Fail to make legally required reports to the IRS

  • Never paid the $75 Thousand for the Barclays SWIFT

  • Illegally attempted to circumvent Olson and Maverick of what they paid for by dealing with another party.

  • Caused losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars to several businesses including ones managed by Rich Olson which to date are well over $100 Million.

  • Created fraudulent financial instruments which was to be used for defrauding their clients and banking institutions.

  • Received Unjust Enrichment through their many actions of fraud they played out on several victims who trusted them

There were many people in many parts of the world depending on Nater and Jones to simply do what they promised and contractually obligated to do.  Nater even spoke to a few of the people worried about this transaction taking place and he convinced them as much as me that all would go as represented and agreed which didn’t happen whatsoever.  This has caused many people great financial harm which Nater and Jones have no sympathy for as exhibited by their lack of interest in fulfilling their obligations.

Nater and Jones hide behind their narcissistic ridiculous rhetoric of making allegations, accusations, excuses and other defaming, slanderous and incriminating remarks instead of remedying their many fraudulent acts and breaches of contracts to the companies I manage as well as others who they have defrauded and is more apparent in other reports of their fraud.

If you would like to be a part of the criminal action that’s being pursued against them or about any of the info being reported, please contact me and the number and or email address so we can discuss this further.

Rich Olson



This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 08/29/2018 03:12 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/1st-american-financial/torrance-california-90503/1st-american-financial-first-american-financialnater-associatespaul-natersteve-jones-1458737. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 REBUTTAL Individual responds

Rebuttal to the rebuttals from Richard Olsen, Darren Williams and Todd Copley dated 9/13 to 9/14

AUTHOR: Paul - (United States)

POSTED: Friday, September 14, 2018

Apparently Richard Olson is continuing his fraudulent attempt to discredit me and the provider of the SBLC he obtained through First American Financial.  His latest sham is in the form of letters filed by two of his friends, expounding on the virtues of Olson.  More importantly, while both letters sound suspiciously like they were written by the same individual, and then slightly changed to sound as though they were written by two different people, both letters support Olson’s totally inaccurate scenario of what Olson would like everyone to believe.  Apparently, neither individual has taken the time to read the agreement for service Olson signed with the provider.  Olson’s “rock solid evidence” is based on his inability to read and understand the agreement he signed, or perhaps is  simply a refusal to accept the terms and conditions of that agreement now that he has lost his investors money.  The only true “facts” are those contained in the agreement with the provider, which was signed by Olson.  The true facts of this matter (not Olson’s fraudulent “alternate facts”) are contained in that agreement, and those facts totally contradict Olson’s “evidence”.  The entire foundation for Olson’s complaint is the agreement he signed with First American, yet he continues to be unable or unwilling to understand that agreement.  “The document speaks for itself” and it contradicts Olson’s entire complaint.  The agreement is the beginning and the end of this transaction.  All else is a smoke screen and an elaborate attempt by Olson to direct the reader to matters which are not relevant to the transaction.   Since Olson will not focus on the real truth of this issue, I will explain it in detail.


On April 24, 2018, Mr. Olson signed an agreement with First American Financial to provide a Stand By Letter of Credit (SBLC) in the amount of $20,000,000.00 and deliver that SBLC to United Escrow in Los Angeles.  I will attach a copy of that escrow. 


Per those same escrow instructions, SIGNED BY OLSON, Maverick Venture Partners (Maverick) was to wire funds to escrow to pay: 


1.) SBLC issuance fees ($269,000.00),

2.) escrow fees ($6,000.00), and

3.) fees ($25,000.00) payable to a third company MILLENNIUM INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS    DEVELOPMENT CORP.  which would transmit the SBLC as an MT760  


Olson wired those fees ($300,000.00).


Per those escrow instructions, SIGNED BY OLSON, upon receipt of the SBLC from the provider, $269,000 was released to First American.  The SBLC hard copy was sent overnight to the SWIFTing company, (MILLENNIUM INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORP via MRB Consulting.)  along with $25,000.  $6,000 was retained by escrow.  All of these funds were disbursed strictly per Olson’s instructions.  All funds having been disbursed per Olson’s escrow instructions, escrow was closed.


Per Olson’s agreement with First American, as well as Olson’s escrow instructions, First American’s contractual duties were performed and completed upon delivery of the SBLC to escrow.   Although this is clearly stated in the First American agreement signed by Olson, Olson continues to fraudulently claim that the agreement states something different.  A simple reading of the agreement proves Olson is simply lying when he claims otherwise.


Upon disbursing of all funds, and overnight transmittal of the hard copy SBLC, escrow had performed its duties to the letter as instructed by Olson, and escrow was closed.  Once again, these are documented, escrow instructions.  A simple reading of those instructions proves his allegations regarding escrow are fraudulent.


Since that time, MILLENNIUM INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORP.  failed to deliver the hard copy SBLC via SWIFT MT760.  I had located an alternate source for forwarding the MT 760, but 4 days after securing that source, Olson cancelled his account and SBLC with First American.  Both Olson and his underling, Darren Williams attempt (absurdly) to explain that Olson did not really cancel his account.  The fact that Olson’s “3 Day Demand for Refund” did not provide for any other solution than complete and immediate refund, I can see no other terminology other than “cancellation” that would fit Olson’s actions.  That however, doesn’t really matter, since the Maverick account expired 16 days later.  First American notified Olson that due to his demand, the account would be temporarily suspended while Olson’s demand was reviewed by the company attorney.  This would be standard and required practice for any company receiving such a demand and unilateral cancellation of its contract with a customer.   During that additional 16 day time period, Olson had the opportunity to go forward with the new SWIFTing company I had located, but chose instead to send e-mail after e-mail – sometimes 3 per day- demeaning, threatening, extorting, and acting with total disregard for any professionalism or civility, while demanding a refund of his money.  (As it turns out, Olson had absolutely not one dime of his own money into the transaction.).  Olson first cancelled his account prior to its expiration, and then chose not to accept a 90 day extension and SWIFT transmittal, both of which were offered to him at no cost whatsoever.


Olson’s current solution to the transaction he has now destroyed, is to blame First American and myself for his failure to be able to read a contractual agreement.  The agreement he signed with that company is clear.  It is  clearly explained and in  detailed.  I believe the term is “transparent”.


First American does not and has to my knowledge, never issued a “cash backed” SBLC.   Olson is attempting to convince everyone that this is what First American agreed to provide him.  But this is not stated in the agreement he signed with First American.  The notion itself is absurd.  What financial institution would issue a call on demand cash backed SBLC in the amount of $20,000,000 without collateral from the client, and for a paltry fee of $269,000?   More importantly, is that the contractual agreement signed by Olson does not state or even infer that the SBLC being issued will be “cash backed”.  This is a true fact that Olson will not address.


Aside from the illogical premise, the agreement signed by Olson said nothing about a cash backed instrument.  To believe that it was “understood” that the item would be cash backed, would be tantamount to saying that it was also “understood” that First American would be providing housing in Africa for Olson, as well as a limousine, while he worked on his (pie in the sky) undertaking. 


The First American agreement does not mention or even allude to anything “cash backed”.   It DOES state quite clearly however:


“This Agreement contains the total understanding between FIRST AMERICAN and Client, and supersedes any and all other documents or verbal agreements pertaining to the matters set forth in this Agreement. There are no additional understandings, agreements or promises made or implied other than those specifically stated herein.  Any specific issues not stated herein are neither implied nor a part of this Agreement.   Any changes or additions to this Agreement must be made in writing, executed by both parties to this Agreement, and attached hereto as a Rider.  It is further agreed that this Agreement shall become an integral part of any escrow between the parties as pertains to the collection of fees, if so agreed, due FIRST AMERICAN and the delivery of documents and instruments to Client.”


Olson’s second complaint is that First American was somehow responsible for transmitting the hard copy SBLC after it was issued.  This allegation is also absurd, if only due to the fact that the agreement Olson signed with First American CLEARLY states:


“…The terms, conditions, understandings, and obligations, affecting this SWIFT transmission are undertaken by the Client and parties noted above in this Paragraph, and shall be considered apart from all other terms, conditions, understandings and obligations as agreed to in this Agreement.  Client understands that funds for the SWIFT transmission noted herein are not for the benefit of, and shall not be retained by, FIRST AMERICAN. The transmission of the SWIFT as noted herein is an accommodation to the Client, and is not  a contractual obligation of FIRST AMERICAN.”


The failure of Olson’s undertaking is due to two main factors:


The first reason was the company used by Olson to transmit his hard copy SBLC – “MILLENNIUM INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORP. “ defrauded Olson.  That company – who is Rufus Huff – took $75,000 and delivered 3 fraudulent SWIFT MT760 receipts.   Huff’s agreement was that he would provide an account that would render the MT760 a cash backed item prior to forwarding the SBLC via SWIFT.  This account is actually shown on 2 of the SWIFT transmittal receipts, as Olson is aware.  Olson went so far as to inquire to Huff, as to the last 4 digits of the account.  It is interesting to note however, that Olson continues to demand the return of his funds from First American, (knowing all the while that they were stolen by Huff) while at the same time demanding that Huff refund the funds to him.  Obviously Olson is merely trying to collect funds not owed to him, by pressuring the “deep pockets” – First American – to pay him.


The second reason for the failure of Olson’s transaction, was that Olson himself destroyed it with his threats, extortion, slander and endless child like e-mails.  Even after he cancelled his account, I was able to get First American to extend his original account by 90 days, and arranged for a new SWIFT provider, all at no cost.  Olson responded with threats, extortion, and demeaning emails.


After First American withdrew their 90 day free extension offer, due to Olson’s obnoxious, demeaning e-mails, I was again able to convince them to re-issue the expired SBLC, for 60 days, once again, at no cost to Olson.  This offer was also met with Olson’s standard unprofessional, threatening, child like emails.  Naturally, as any reputable firm would do, First American withdrew the offer.


Unbelievable though it may seem, I was able to convince First American a third time to re-issue the SBLC for free, for a 60 day maturity.  I pointed out to them that innocent investors would lose money if Olson were allowed to ‘scuttle’ the transaction, and First American agreed with a caveat that a release be executed by Maverick, releasing First American from all previous (false) accusations.  (Investor losses were never important to Olson.  He himself had no investment to lose.) First American  wanted to start fresh.  This final offer was met by not only Olson’s normal unprofessional, immature, threatening emails, but by demands from Olson’s underling/toadie, Darren Williams, who insisted that First American disclose its proprietary and financial business holdings and operations, and that they also deposit $20,000,000 in an account where Olson and Williams could access it.  As a final absurdity, Williams insisted that First American  issue a cash backed SBLC.


If you feel that my explanation is a bit harsh, please understand that I do not like scammers who take investor money under false pretenses,  promises that funds will be held safely in escrow and then spent, and then try to blame everyone but themselves when their house of cards collapses.  


Much as Olson continually attempts to claim some dark and conspiratorial connection between my company and the provider, my company is a separate, autonomous  entity.  I am not affiliated in any way with First American.  I am authorized to submit applications to them, as are 14 other brokers in the United States.  I cannot speak for the company.  I can quote rates and terms, just as I could if I was brokering a client loan to Bank of America.   I do business with First American because they are reliable and have been in business for over 13 years, without any legal problems.  I also conduct business with several other companies.  These facts however, do not serve Olson’s purposes and he tries not to address the issue directly. His claims of millions of dollars in client losses are absurd on their face.  A company could not remain in business if that claim were true.  Mr. Olson however, is not over endowed with common sense.  


While I am skeptical regarding the success of the project Olson convinced his investors to buy into (45% return on investment, monthly?!  From a gold company located in the gold scam headquarters of the world?!) I do know that the transaction(s) which I set up – ON 3 SEPARATE OCCASIONS – would have succeeded with more professional leadership.   The company – which is no more than Richard Olson himself, and the investors he has duped -  is lead by an immature, ego driven individual.  If Olson had invested any of his own money in the transaction, he might have been more concerned with the outcome.


This is the transaction as it actually took place.  Olson continually tries to twist the clear and precise verbiage of the First American agreement to indicate that there was to be a cash backed SBLC.  There was not and the agreement never states or even alludes to any “cash backed” instrument.  Even knowing this, Olson continues to base his “facts” on this fraudulent premise.  His knowledge of this, as well as other clearly stated points in the agreement which he continues to contradict, makes his complaint and allegations, not false, but fraudulent.


Olson attempts to convince anyone who will listen, that First American was to loan Maverick Venture Partners $20,000,000 and place that money in an account.  This is not stated in the agreement, nor is it implied.


Olson continues to claim that First American had a responsibility to transmit the SBLC via the SWIFT system.  This point is specifically PRECLUDED in the agreement.


First American’s contractual obligations and duties were totally performed upon delivery of its non cash backed SBLC to escrow, as clearly stated in its agreement and fully supported by Olson’s own escrow instructions.


There is no need for Olson’s continuing 3 and 4 page epic stories and (false) evidence.  The 3 points I have noted above tell the entire story.  These 3 points can be easily found in the agreement for service Olson has.  Read the agreement.  That is the entire matter without Olson’s smoke screen.






Paul Nater

Respond to this report!

#2 UPDATE Employee

Response to fraudulent complaint filed against me on Ripoff Report

AUTHOR: Paul - (United States)

POSTED: Tuesday, September 04, 2018




The fraudulent report to which I am responding, has been filed by a Mr. Richard Olson, Managing Director of Maverick Venture Partners, Inc.  Olson’s “report” is based in its entirety on his inability to read and understand the contractual agreement he signed with the instrument provider, as well as his total lack of understanding as to how an escrow is handled. 

In his opening statement, Olson states that “I make no claims to the accuracy of the information and allegations…”.  He then goes on to present his false allegations as fact!  The conclusions and “alternate facts” reached in Olson’s narrative are the product of his inability to read and understand the agreement he signed with the provider, First American.  The never ending stream of repetitive e-mails sent to me by Olson, continue to be filled with erroneous assumptions, threatening statements, and are more suited to a 16 year old teenage girl, “tweeting” to her girlfriends.  They have been to say the least, totally lacking in business professionalism and basic civility.

Before beginning my specific response, I feel I should address a blatant lie which Olson has included in his narrative.  In it he states: “Paul Nater of naterassociatesinc.com and Steve Jones of 1stamfi.com…have victimized several entities by causing them well over $100 Million in losses and these allegations are 100% backed with written and recorded verbal communication from several parties.”  In this blatant lie,Olson counts money that might have been made – perhaps even through the lottery, - as a loss.  One cannot lose what one never had, and would probably never have made.  In the particular of Olson’s transaction, he could never have lost any money because he did not have a single cent of his own money in the project.

The provider has been in business for over 13 years.  During that time, they have had 2 lawsuits filed against the company, the first being a filing in Federal Court in Georgia.  This filing was not even accepted by the court because no wrong doing could be demonstrated by the Plaintiff.  First American was not even required to make a court appearance.  The Plaintiff’s difficulties were with a third party, in no way associated with the client’s transaction with First American. (Much as with Olson’s fraudulent complaint.)

The second suit filed against First American never reached trial, in that the case was dismissed with prejudice by the Court.   First American was awarded a $60,000 summary judgement.

I am unaware of the “numerous” unhappy clients Olson has suddenly located.  I only hope he was not required to pay them an exorbitant amount of money for their new (fraudulent) complaints.  The only disenchanted client I am aware of was an executive officer of a company which was unable to obtain funding for his loan, after the provider had delivered his product.  The difficulty was that all lenders posed by the client’s broker, were aware of the fact that the company was currently being investigated by the SEC for securities fraud in connection with a Ponzi scheme.  Additionally, the SEC had confirmed that financials presented by the company were grossly inflated and fraudulent.  Shortly thereafter, the client’s own broker confirmed that his client was involved in a lawsuit with a bank, and withdrew the application from the broker attempting to locate financing.  Even with all of these facts known, the client continues to allege that both I and the provider were somehow responsible for not obtaining a loan for his company, presumably so he could continue his Ponzi scheme.

The real facts of the matter are simple and follow:

Richard Olson contracted with a provider First American, to provide a specific financial document, and to deliver that instrument specifically to escrow, for a specific fee.  There was no more to that agreement, contrary to what Olson has falsely claimed in his fraudulent report.  The document speaks for itself.

The instrument was delivered per Olson’s instructions.  At that point, all obligations and requirements as noted in the provider’s agreement - signed by Olson, had been performed by First American.

Olson’s escrow instructions which he had signed, further directed escrow, to forward the instrument - to a company he had approved, for transmitting to a lending bank chosen by Olson.  None of this portion of the escrow instructions had anything to do with First American.  For reasons well known and accepted by Olson, difficulties were experienced in the transmission of the instrument.  Olson further acknowledged that he understood that the delay was specifically not the fault of the provider, or myself, but was rather due to fraud on the part of the transmitting company.  These delays encompassed approximately 65 days. 

On or about July 5, 2018 I notified Olson that the problem had been rectified.  A transmitting source had been established, and due to the previous delay, First American had agreed to extend Olson’s account an additional 90 days at no cost, and I agreed to pay the fees for the SWIFT transmission.  An agreement to this effect was prepared by the provider, and Olson eagerly signed it.  Nine days later Olson cancelled his entire account with First American due to the transaction “taking too long.”

At the time of Olson’s cancellation of the account, there were an additional 16 days left to expiration of Olson’s account.  These extra days had already been paid for.  I have no rational explanation for    Olson’s cancellation in view of the fact that his account was to be extended an additional 90 days, and the instrument was to be SWIFTed as he had requested, AT NO COST TO HIM.

Upon cancellation, Olson began a never ending barrage of abusive, demeaning, slanderous, child like threats, accusing both First American and myself of fraud.  He has recently stooped to the use of foul language in his (continuing) e-mails.  This is not what one might expect from a “Managing Director”.

Olson is simply not well enough educated to read a contractual agreement, but he evidently will not accept the help of an attorney or financial experienced.  There were certain duties within the agreement executed by Olson, which were SPECIFICALLY STATED AS NOT BEING DUTIES OR OBLIGATIONS OF ESCROW OR FIRST AMERICAN.  Olson cannot seem to grasp this point.

The term of Olson’s financial instrument was to run until a specific date and with an extension previously granted, expired on October 1, 2018.  (First American had also agreed to an additional 90 day extension at no cost.)  Olson continues however, to act in a totally unacceptable, uncivilized , and unprofessional manner, and continues to demand private confidential company and financial information from First American.  His child like, obnoxious, belligerent emails continue, at least 2 per day.  I can only assume he plans to file a frivolous legal action against myself as well as the provider.

First American never cancelled Olson’s account.  He was instead, notified in writing that his account would be in “suspense” while First American’s attorney reviewed his request for refund.  Two weeks later, Olson’s account expired per the contractual agreement he had signed with   our company.

Olson’s problem is that he cannot or will not understand the CLEARLY STATED terms of his contractual agreement with First American.  On numerous occasions I have advised him to seek legal counsel regarding this matter, but to date he has apparently chosen not to do so.  I believe Olson will retain legal counsel soon, in that he is currently being sued by at least one of his own investors, for fraud.  I would hope that at that time, his legal representative will explain the provider’s contract to him. 

For a time, I had been working with a Director of Olson’s company, Mr. Darren Williams, but in the end, Mr. Williams turned out to be as oblivious to the facts of the matter, as to be no more than an agent for Olson and his unexplainable actions.  Mr. Williams continues to work on a solution to a problem that, at this point, has been rendered unsalvageable by Richard Olson.  Olson refused two previous (no cost) offers, one of which Mr. Williams stated today, was exactly what he and Olson wanted.  Olson’s never ending harassing and unprofessional e-mails continue, unabated.

I can only speculate that Olson might have had more interest in the three (free) offers I worked out with the provider, if he had invested any of his own money into his project. It should be noted that all funds to the company were provided by investors.  Olson had no investment of his own in the underlying project.  He guaranteed one investor that her money would be held in escrow, however no escrow was ever opened or even discussed with First American.  Olson authorized the use of that investor money for an entirely different purpose, without obtaining her approval.

In closing, I believe it needs to be emphasized that the provider had, on three separate occasions, offered to go forward with Olson’s undertaking, free of any additional charges.  The first offer was met with Olson’s demand for full refund of all fees paid to our company PLUS all fees paid to a third party.  The second offer made through a Director of Olson’s company was met within hours, with Olson’s scathing attack on First American, myself, and the officer handling his account for First American.  Our final offer was received in the same manner.  It is important to note, that in all three offers, First American had agreed to provide the services as Olson had originally contracted, FREE OF CHARGE.

These are the true facts of the matter, without Olson’s smoke screen of innuendo and unsubstantiated claims, all based on his misreading or misunderstanding of the provider contract which he executed.  As I have stated, his failure to accept the terms and conditions CLEARLY STATED in the agreement for service with the provider, are the basis for Mr. Olson’s false claims and beliefs that now follow.  Once (if) he accepts those facts – as he agreed to upon execution of his agreement – the remainder of his claims simply do not exist.  As it now stands, Olson sees a red car, but insists that it is blue.  Olson began his fraudulent report with “I make no claims to the accuracy of the information and allegations…”.  Please let me make it abundantly clear:  I DO state that the information and allegations in this rebuttal are accurate, true and correct.

Paul Nater

Respond to this report!

#3 Author of original report

More Ridiculous Excuses and Rhetoric

AUTHOR: Richard - (United States)

POSTED: Saturday, September 01, 2018

As I stated in my original report, I'm very transparent and willing to supply any written texts and emails to support any statements I make.  These are being shared with the authorities as well.

Nater and Jones continue to attempt to defend themselves even with all the overwhelming evedence and many complaints against them by doing the only thing they know, twisting other peoples words and making false representations.

As can be seen in other ripoff reports, Nater and Jones have defrauded others and unfortunately, I didn't become aware of their fraudulent business activities with their other victims until I had already paid Nater and Jones hundreds of thousands of dollars and borrowed $20 Million dollars from 1st American Financial which is unaccounted for even after repeated requests for verification.

Even with all the clear evidence and multiple victims surfacing, I believe Nater and Jones will defend themselves to the end and when the end comes and the authorities hold them accountable for their ongoing financial scams and other fraudulent activities, I and other victims will report all including Nater and Jones to prison for many years.

If you read these posts and pay Nater and Jones any money and don't receive anything in return, I can only say you were been warned.  On the other hand, the more people they rip off and the fraud is reported, the more the authorities will have to use against them. I just despies scam artists and honest people being taken advantage of.

Contact me and I will share the information I have and I invite you to contact Nater and Jones and request any proof they have the $3 Billion they represent in having or even the $20 Million they contracted to lend me and was supposedly used to cash back the SBLC which they failed to SWIFT on 5 different occasions.

I and others have asked Nater and Jones to provide any proof they have of the capital they represent, attest to and contractually obligated and to date, they have not produced any evidence whatsoever of the capital and I doubt the authorities will either which means they committed international bank fraud as well as many other serious criminal offenses by producing a fraudulent financial instrument  and maning numerous false representations and accusations.

I welcome all emails, phone calls and texts.

Richard Olson 

Respond to this report!

#4 UPDATE Employee


AUTHOR: S. Jones - (United States)

POSTED: Saturday, September 01, 2018

 This "fraudulent” report has been filed by Mr. Richard Olson, Managing Director of Maverick Venture Partners, Inc. Mr. Olson begins by saying "I make no claims to the accuracy of the information and allegations…”, which is a preface well taken. Mr. Olson’s "report”, while worthy of the National Enquirer as it is, is not based on facts but rather upon distortions and unfounded assumptions. His "evidence” is based on "facts”, that he has misinterpreted and or simply does not understand. Mr. Olson’s narrative is either the product of his inability to read and understand the contractual agreement he signed with First American or perhaps it is his need to find someone to blame for his failed African transaction, and a place to point his investors away from himself. We are sorry that Mr. Olson is unhappy with the transaction he entered into with us, and that he was not able to borrow and then pay $20 Million to someone for African gold, which Mr. Olson states would instantly be worth $29 Million. This transaction in itself immediately raises questions. One wonders why the world’s big money players haven’t snapped up this opportunity. A promised 45% per month profit should ring bells. That which sounds too good to be true, usually is.

After the claimed failure of Mr. Olson’s African gold transaction, we received from Mr. Olson a never- ending stream of repetitive e-mails filled with erroneous claims and assumptions, threatening statements and individual attacks so lacking in business professionalism or even basic civility that we finally determined we could no longer communicate with him. Mr. Olson’s filing does not warrant or deserve a lengthy response. It should be noted however, that First American is not involved in any way in "Business funding, Cash Services, Commercial Real Estate Lending, International Investment Banking Fraud, or Selling of Project funding securities”, fake or otherwise, as the category Mr. Olson has selected for his false report.

It should further be noted that First American, on three separate occasions, offered to go forward with Maverick Venture Partners, Inc.’s undertaking, free of any additional charges. Our first offer was met with Mr. Olson’s demand for full refund of all fees paid to our company PLUS the fees paid to a third party. Our second offer made through another Director of Maverick was met within hours by a scathing attack on our Company, his broker, and myself, from Mr. Olson. Our final offer was received and responded to in the same manner. It is important to note, that in all three offers, First American had agreed to provide the services just as Mr. Olson had originally contracted, except that they would be completely FREE OF CHARGE. Mr. Olson’s fraudulent complaint does not warrant any further response. S. Jones SVP Financial Services

Respond to this report!