Cutler v. AstraSoft Projects Ltd., et al.
A 71-year-old computer security professional with frontotemporal dementia was systematically defrauded of over $228,000 by an international romance scam. Five of America’s largest financial institutions failed to detect, prevent, or properly investigate the exploitation as required by federal law.
The Case
Between January 2023 and January 2025, AstraSoft Projects Ltd. — a Cyprus-based criminal enterprise — operated sophisticated romance scam websites including MySpecialDates.com and Okamour.com, targeting vulnerable elderly Americans. Their victim: Alan J. Cutler, a retired computer security professional suffering from undiagnosed Major Neurocognitive Disorder due to frontotemporal lobar degeneration (bvFTD).
Despite hundreds of identical transactions to foreign romance websites, systematic account depletion patterns following retirement deposits, and transaction volumes that no reasonable fraud detection system could miss — including days with 30 to 68 identical charges — five major financial institutions failed to detect, prevent, or properly investigate the exploitation as required by federal law.
When the Cutler family discovered the fraud and sent formal dispute notices under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and the Fair Credit Billing Act, the banks refused to investigate within the mandatory federal timeframes. Plaintiffs filed suit on September 30, 2025, and subsequently filed a First Amended Verified Complaint refining the claims and clarifying that Plaintiffs sue solely as Attorneys-in-Fact under a Durable General Power of Attorney for their father.
The Victim
Alan J. Cutler is a 71-year-old veteran and retired computer security professional — a man whose career was built on identifying and preventing exactly the kind of fraud that ultimately destroyed his retirement savings. A comprehensive clinical evaluation confirmed that by mid-2022, Mr. Cutler’s cognitive decline had already reached the point where he lacked the capacity to understand or appreciate the nature and consequences of financial transactions.
His professional background makes his sudden susceptibility to romance scams particularly indicative of severe cognitive impairment. Mr. Cutler now resides in a secured memory care facility, qualifies for Medicaid, and has less than $2,500 in assets. The fraud did not just take his money — it took his independence, his dignity, and his retirement security.
Fraud by Institution
* Net of $7,817.22 partial refund. Total Chase fraud processed: $91,225.88.
| Defendant | Counsel | Fraud Sum | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Citizens Bank | Greenberg Traurig | $91,225.88 | Active – MTD Filed |
| JP Morgan Chase | McGuireWoods | $83,408.66 | Active – MTD Filed |
| Goldman Sachs | Morgan Lewis | $62,233.32 | Active – Arbitration Motion |
| USAA Bank | Hinshaw & Culbertson | $39,001.91 | Active – MTD Filed |
| Barclays Bank | Holland & Knight | ~$20,000 | Active – Arbitration Motion |
| AstraSoft Ltd. | Unrepresented | $228,256.81 | Service Pending (Hague) |
“Too Big to Care”
Smaller financial institutions like PayPal and Woodforest National Bank conducted proper investigations under Regulation E and returned Mr. Cutler’s funds. The largest banks in America — institutions with billions in compliance budgets — refused to investigate at all.
This case asks a simple question: If community banks and fintech companies can comply with federal consumer protection law, why can’t Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Barclays?
Legal Claims — First Amended Verified Complaint
The First Amended Complaint refined the causes of action to focus on federal consumer protection claims while maintaining state law negligence as an alternative theory. State law elder financial exploitation claims were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice
Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice
Motion Practice
All five financial institution defendants have filed substantive motions. Two seek to compel arbitration, and three have filed motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs have filed consolidated oppositions to the first four motions and are preparing an opposition to JPMorgan Chase’s recently-filed motion to dismiss. Below is the status of each contested motion.
Defendant Filing
Plaintiffs’ Response
Court Action
Goldman Sachs — Motion to Compel Arbitration [Dkt. 26]
Fully Briefed
| Goldman Sachs Argument | Plaintiffs’ Response |
|---|---|
| FAA mandates enforcement | FAA savings clause preserves incapacity defense — Doctor’s Assocs. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 |
| Valid written agreement exists (2019) | Agreement signed when competent, but disputes arose during incapacity; prospective clause cannot bind incapacitated party for future disputes |
| Consumer failed to opt out | Opt-out expired Nov. 2019 — two years before cognitive decline reached incapacity |
| Utah law governs | Utah law recognizes incapacity defense — Utah Code § 75-5-401 |
| Card usage = assent | Assent requires capacity; exploitation during incapacity is not consent — Restatement (2d) Contracts § 19 |
| Stay pending arbitration | No stay warranted where arbitration cannot be compelled |
Barclays — Motion to Compel Arbitration [Dkt. 25]
Fully Briefed
| Barclays Argument | Plaintiffs’ Response |
|---|---|
| Delegation clause sends arbitrability to arbitrator | Challenges to formation (capacity) are for the court, not the arbitrator — Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S. 63, 72 |
| “Clear and unmistakable” delegation exists | 2013 amendment sent 11 years before fraud; by 2023 Mr. Cutler could not understand any contractual provision due to dementia |
| POA agents bound by principal’s agreement | Agent’s authority derives from principal’s rights — if principal can’t be bound, neither can agents. POA permits but does not require arbitration. |
| Interstate commerce nexus established | Not disputed; but irrelevant to incapacity defense |
| Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1)/(3) | Dismissal improper under Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 — FAA requires stay, not dismissal |
Citizens Bank — Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. __]
Briefing Open
USAA — Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. __]
Briefing Open
JPMorgan Chase — Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 105]
Briefing Open
| Chase Argument | Plaintiffs’ Response | Previously Briefed? |
|---|---|---|
| POA agents lack standing | Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3) allows cure; POA validity itself creates a fatal contradiction — Chase can’t argue Mr. Cutler was too incapacitated for a valid POA and too competent for transactions to be unauthorized | USAA/Citizens Oppo. Part II |
| Transactions were “authorized” | EFTA defines “unauthorized” to include fraud-induced transfers — 12 C.F.R. § 1005.2(m). Restatement § 19 cmt. c: incapacitated person “cannot manifest assent.” Partial refund of $7,817.22 is Chase’s own admission of unauthorized activity. | USAA/Citizens Oppo. Part III; Arb. Oppo. Part V.B-D |
| EFTA 60-day notice not met | Bruno v. Erie Ins., 106 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014): doctrine doesn’t bar claims based on independent social duties. Elder protection statutes impose duties running to elderly persons generally. | USAA/Citizens Oppo. Part IV |
| Negligence barred by “economic loss” | Doctrine doesn’t bar claims based on independent social duties to the elderly. | USAA/Citizens Oppo. Part V |
| Declaratory judgment is duplicative | Declaration has prospective implications beyond damages — liability limitation under § 1693g, ongoing investigation obligations. Remedy is consolidation, not dismissal. | USAA/Citizens Oppo. Part VII |
The Red Flags Every Bank Ignored
Extreme transaction volumes — Some days featured 30 to 68 identical charges to the same foreign romance websites. On January 8, 2024, USAA processed 68 separate romance website transactions in a single day.
Systematic account depletion — Retirement deposits were immediately drained by romance scam charges. On January 9, 2024, $34,003 in deposits was followed by $7,220 in same-day scam charges.
High-risk foreign jurisdiction — All payments flowed to entities in Paphos and Limassol, Cyprus — jurisdictions recognized as high-risk for romance scam operations.
Demographic impossibility — Romance and dating website charges for an elderly customer with no prior history, at volumes inconsistent with any legitimate use.
Repetitive identical amounts — Charges of $19, $33, $99, $199, and $499 processed dozens of times in rapid succession, indicating automated exploitation.
Key Timeline
Damages: Who Owes What — and Why the Defense Costs Don’t Add Up
The bulk of the damages in this case are sought from the romance scammer — AstraSoft Projects Ltd., the Cyprus-based criminal enterprise that orchestrated the fraud. Against the financial institutions, Plaintiffs’ claims are grounded in federal consumer protection statutes that impose modest, capped statutory damages designed to enforce compliance with mandatory investigation and dispute resolution obligations.
Against AstraSoft Projects Ltd. (the Scammer):
| Damages Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Actual damages (total fraud extracted) | $220,439.59 |
| Treble damages under RICO — 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) | $661,318.77 |
| Punitive damages (minimum sought) | $1,500,000.00 |
| Constructive trust, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees | TBD |
| Total Against AstraSoft (minimum) | $2,381,758+ |
Against Each Financial Institution (Statutory Damages):
| Defendant | EFTA Statutory (§ 1693m) | TILA Statutory (§ 1640) | EFTA Treble (§ 1693f(e)) | Punitive (min.) | Total Exposure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citizens Bank | $1,000 | — | $273,677.64 | $100,000 | $374,677.64 |
| JPMorgan Chase | $1,000 | — | $250,225.98 | $100,000 | $351,225.98 |
| Goldman Sachs | $1,000 | $1,000 | $186,699.96 | $100,000 | $288,699.96 |
| USAA | $1,000 | — | $117,005.73 | $100,000 | $218,005.73 |
| Barclays | $1,000 | $1,000 | $60,000.00 | $100,000 | $162,000.00 |
| Total All Banks | $5,000 | $2,000 | $887,609.31 | $500,000 | $1,394,609+ |
Note: EFTA treble damages under § 1693f(e) apply only where a financial institution’s failure to investigate was not in good faith. Actual damages are not double-counted across defendants. Attorneys’ fees and costs are additional under both EFTA (§ 1693m) and TILA (§ 1640).
The Defense Cost Paradox
Consider the math. The EFTA statutory damages cap against any single bank is $1,000. The maximum TILA statutory damages against Goldman Sachs and Barclays are an additional $1,000 each. These are the amounts Congress set to incentivize banks to simply conduct the investigations that federal law already requires.
Instead of investigating — as smaller institutions like PayPal and Woodforest National Bank did, returning Mr. Cutler’s funds — five of America’s largest financial institutions retained five of America’s largest law firms:
| Defendant | Defense Counsel | Statutory Cap | Est. Costs to Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goldman Sachs | Morgan Lewis & Bockius | $2,000 | $150,000–250,000+ |
| Barclays | Holland & Knight | $2,000 | $150,000–250,000+ |
| Citizens Bank | Greenberg Traurig | $1,000 | $100,000–175,000+ |
| USAA | Hinshaw & Culbertson | $1,000 | $100,000–175,000+ |
| JPMorgan Chase | McGuireWoods | $1,000 | $75,000–150,000+ |
Each bank has already spent multiples of its total statutory exposure fighting a case that could have been resolved by conducting the investigation that federal law required in the first place. The Regulation E investigation deadline was 10 business days. Instead, these institutions chose to spend months and hundreds of thousands of dollars arguing that they had no obligation to investigate at all — while a 71-year-old dementia patient sits in a memory care facility with less than $2,500 to his name.
Court Documents
The following public court filings are available for review. All documents are public records obtained from PACER.
About JDKatz, P.C.
JDKatz, P.C. is a Bethesda, Maryland litigation firm representing individuals and families in complex federal consumer protection cases, elder financial exploitation claims, and international terrorism litigation against sovereign states. The firm’s practice includes claims under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), Regulation E, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), RICO, and state elder protection statutes.
The firm serves clients throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, including Montgomery County, Maryland; the District of Columbia; Northern Virginia; and nationwide in federal court. JDKatz, P.C. has particular experience in cases involving cognitive incapacity defenses, romance scam and elder fraud recovery, bank regulatory compliance failures, and multi-defendant federal litigation.
If you or a family member has been the victim of elder financial exploitation, romance scam fraud, or a financial institution’s failure to investigate unauthorized transactions, contact Jeffrey D. Katz at (301) 913-2948 for a consultation.
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Jeffrey D. Katz, Esq.
JDKatz, P.C.
4800 Montgomery Lane, Suite 600
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Tel: (301) 913-2948
Email: Jeffrey@JDKatz.com
Web: www.JDKatz.com