EDWARD NELSON PORTELLES at ALEXANDER CAPITAL, L.P. – View Complaints, Disclosures, Scams and Audit Report (Updated 2023)

Disclosure #1 for EDWARD PORTELLES

• • eventDate: 3/1/2006
  • Disclosure Type: Criminal
  • Disclosure Resolution: Final Disposition
  • Disclosure Detail :: criminalCharges :: Charges: ONE COUNT – FELONY FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION (CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD) – PLEAD NOT GUILTY ONE COUNT – FELONY FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO OR TELEVISION – PLEAD NOT GUILTY ONE COUNT – MISDEMEANOR BLACKMAIL – PLEAD GUILTY
  • Charge Type: FELONY
  • Disposition: THE TWO FELONY CHARGES WERE DISMISSED. I PLEAD GUILTY TO THE MISDEMEANOR CHARGE. I PAID $1,025 IN FINES ON 06/15/07. I HAVE TO COMPLETE ONE YEAR OF PROBATION WHICH STARTED ON 5/4/07.
  • Broker Comment: I PLEAD GUILTY TO THE MISDEMEANOR CHARGE TO AVOID FURTHER LITIGATION COSTS. I AGREED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO BLACKMAIL AS IT IS NOT ONE OF THE SEVEN MISDEMEANORS THAT PRODUCE A STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION BY THE NASD. I ENTERED INTO A BUSINESS VENTURE WITH A CLOSE PERSONAL FRIEND IN LATE 2001. THE BUSINESS FAILED AND WAS INVESTIGATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT AFTER A CREDITOR, A LARGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER, COMPLAINED TO THE GOVERMENT. ULTIMATELY, ALL FELONY CHARGES WERE DISMISSED ON THE GOVERMENT’S MOTION. AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS JOINT VENTURE, MY PARTNER AND I AGREED TO SHARE EXPENSES AND PROFITS. DURING THE COURSE OF THIS JOINT VENTURE, I RELIED ON MY PARTNER AND FOLLOWED HIS INSTRUCTIONS WHEN NEGOTITATING AND ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH A TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER. AS A RESULT OF THOSE INSTRUCTIONS ,AND MY RELIANCE ON THOSE INSTRUCTIONS, MY ACTIONS CAME UNDER SCRUTINY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. AFTER THIS OCCURED ,I ASKED MY PARTNER TO ASSIST IN THE PAYMENT OF MY ATTORNEY’S FEES. I WAS CHARGED WITH AND PLEAD GUILTY TO A MISDEMEANOR FOR ASKING MY PARTNER TO PAY MY ATTORNEY’S FEES IN EXCHANGE FOR NOT INFORMING LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT HE HAD PARTICIPATED IN A FRAUDLENT SCHEME. I PLEAD GUILTY TO THE MISDEMEANOR TO AVOID FURTHER LITIGATION COSTS. THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION OR EVIDENCE THAT I, IN FACT, OBTAINED ANY FUNDS. THERE WAS NOT EVEN AN ALLEGATION THAT I WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES,IE. THAT THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A WRONGFUL OBTAINING OF MONEY. IN FACT, I WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER MONEY FROM MY PARTNER. SIGNIFICANTLY, THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE REFERRED TO THIS MATTER AS AN ELEVATED COMMERCIAL DISPUTE AT SENTENCING.