LV Ponzi scheme case advances against two defendants

Brian Seals

Friday, May 29, 1998 | 10:55 a.m.

A San Diego man charged in an alleged Las Vegas-based Ponzi scheme was to be arraigned this morning in Clark County District Court.

Phil Balestrieri faces charges of racketeering, fraud and securities violations in operations of Affordable Media LLC, doing business as the Sterling Group.

Balestrieri turned himself in April 29. Another defendant, Ina Bell, was arraigned earlier this week and faces a Sept. 9 preliminary hearing on similar charges.

A third defendant, Eric S. Stein, is still at large and being sought by authorities. Stein headed the Sterling Group.

The charges stem from the company's operations in which it sold $5,000 units of television time to advertise impulse items. Investors who bought the units were told they could receive a 50 percent return in a 60-day period on the proceeds of the items sold.

While many initially saw returns on investments, complaints surfaced earlier this year that investors were not receiving their money back. Some investors visited Sterling's Las Vegas office only to find it vacated.

That led to a string of civil suits against the company and firms that solicited investors for it in state and federal court, a suit filed by the Federal Trade Commission among them. Authorities believe old investors were paid with new investor money.

In the FTC case, federal attorney are seeking to have two San Diego residents jailed until they disclose their overseas assets, according to documents filed in federal court Thursday. Michael and Denyse Anderson headed Financial Growth Consultants, a firm that solicited investors for the Sterling Group. They, along with principles of the Sterling Group, are named as defendants in the FTC case.

The Andersons' assets were frozen under an April 22 temporary restraining order and a May 22 preliminary injunction that also ordered them to account for their overseas assets.

According to court documents, the Andersons claim their overseas trust has a "duress" clause that dissolved their control of the trust once litigation began. Federal lawyers call that argument a "sham."

"Even if the Andersons could prove they are unable to repatriate their overseas assets, they are still in contempt to account for these funds," the FTC's filing states.