Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett Friday announced that a consumer protection lawsuit has been filed against a debt collection agency accused of using deceptive tactics to mislead, confuse or coerce consumers – including the use of bogus “hearings” allegedly held in a company office that was decorated to look like a courtroom.

Corbett said in a press release that the civil lawsuit was filed by the Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection against Unicredit America Inc., with corporate and business offices located in Erie, Penn., also identified as the “Unicredit Debt Resolution Center.”

“This is an unconscionable attempt to use fake court proceedings to deceive, mislead or frighten consumers into making payments or surrendering valuables to Unicredit without following lawful procedures for debt collection,” Corbett said in a statement. “Consumers also allegedly received dubious ‘hearing notices’ and letters – often hand-delivered by individuals who appear to be Sheriff Deputies – which implied they would be taken into custody by the Sheriff if they failed to appear at the phony court for ‘hearings’ or ‘depositions’.”

Corbett’s office said that in conjunction with the lawsuit, he has also filed a petition for special and preliminary injunction, asking the court to freeze all Unicredit assets; prohibit the company from engaging in any debt collection; immediately cease all bogus hearings or depositions; and to provide detailed information about company bank accounts, assets and business records.

According to Corbett, the fake courtroom Unicredit used allegedly contained furniture and decorations similar to those used in actual court offices, including a raised “bench” area where a judge would be seated; two tables and chairs in front of the “bench” for attorneys and defendants; a simulated witness stand; seating for spectators; and legal books on bookshelves.  During some proceedings, an individual dressed in black was seated where observers would expect to see a judge.

Attempts to reach Unicredit for comment were unsuccessful.


Next Article: Why the Meaningful Involvement Doctrine Should Not ...

Advertisement