I am the unnamed member of the Burgwhore wine group mentioned by Don. I consider myself a friend of both Matt and Don and over the years have been in wine groups with each of them. I strongly believe that Matt did not auction wine for Rudy. Although I initially thought Matt said he had done so, I now believe I misunderstood him and that Matt instead said he had purchased (not sold) wine for Rudy at auction. As Bruce L mentions, it would have made no sense for Matt to make such a comment. Further, the conversation took place at a loud restaurant where lots of wine was consumed. Not the best of settings for such a conversation.
Don mentioned that the FBI found the story credible. In fairness to Matt, the FBI never asked me about Matt. Don tells me he now believes the FBI’s comment to him had to do with my credibility as a witness but not with respect to the (undiscussed) story about Matt.
I have discussed these issues with both Matt and Don, and Don has graciously agreed to delete the references in his post to Matt.
I think this might highlight why Koch decided to settle.
Meanwhile, billionaire businessman William Koch, who testified against Kurniawan in the federal trial, withdrew his restitution claims of more than $2 million in the criminal case. Instead, federal prosecutors said Koch was going to pursue his civil lawsuit against Kurniawan in the California state court.
Kurniawan confessed and admitted his guilt to both Koch and the California state court and has agreed to pay $3 million in damages to the billionaire businessman, Koch’s spokesman Brad Goldstein emailed.
In addition, > Koch demanded and Kurniawan agreed to fully cooperate and "provide documentation and other information regarding counterfeiting in the industry.> "
Howard–Thanks for coming forward and clearing the air; it is greatly appreciated. I think we’ve all been at wine dinners in loud restaurants where comments have been misheard or misinterpreted.
More generally, I hope that going forward in this thread, people will be MUCH more careful about what they post in terms of who else may have been involved in Rudy’s activities. I know that that is a topic of great interest, but please keep in mind that people’s reputations are also at stake here.
Just because they are not listed does not mean they were uncooperative. In one case in particular you know you are 100% WRONG that this particular victim did not work with the government from day 1. Shame on you sir, and you should voluntarily remove his name from your list with an apology for implying such.
I am sorry to see Marc Lazar’s name removed from Don’s post.
Marc has not been truthful when confronted with the allegations regarding
his involvement in selling Rudy’s wines.
In fact, he blatantly tried to cover up the fact that wines were coming from Rudy, and he denied Rudy being the source of the wines after he was confronted with evidence that the wines had been shipped by Rudy.
Furthermore, much of this occurred after he was specifically asked not to offer or sell any wines that were originating from Rudy’s cellar.
Unfortunately, there are multiple cases of Romanee Conti that were sold by Marc that originated from Rudy. We also believe there to be other wines as well that were sold, notably old Roumier and magnums of 1982 Petrus.
Marc has never been forthright with his involvement in this fiasco. He can claim ignorance, but he was still selling full cases of older Romanee Conti in June 2011, when it was well known in the industry that there were serious issues with any and all wines being sold by Rudy.
You have never posted on this forum. Are you using a real name? Seems like you claim some pretty detailed knowledge for someone who is making their first post. and who are the “we” that you are referring to? you are here to represent not only you own opinions but also those of other unnamed parties?
Why dont you introduce yourself, share you background as a collector or member of the trade, and man up.
Might you be the same member of the trade who uses fake names to shill bid at auctions?
I’ve received so many varying responses and requests regarding this thread, with names mentioned, that I’ve re-instated the original post Don made.
To the parties involved, and/or named, I encourage you to hammer it out individually, as I know some have already. Being selective with editing or censoring is not in the best interest of this thread, or all parties reading it, or named IN it.
There’s a lot of hurt feelings here, and I apologize in advance to any whose name was previously removed, and later added back. I’d prefer no Berserkers be named, and hope that the stories can be hashed out, and the post, as originally restored, can be amended to the satisfaction of all parties.
When it comes to facts, or conversations overheard, I’d appreciate as much proof posted as possible, to back one’s story/statement. Too much is at stake to go about this lightly.
As I read the post, I don’t get that all of the listed victims refused to cooparate with the Feds. “In many cases” is not the same as “All” in my opinion.
You’re right, I had a PM with Don about this already and admit I read it in a negative manner. However the only reason I was pointed to the thread today was many communications implying that Don’s comments were in a negative manner, so I wasn’t the only one who read it that way. Apologies all around.
To avoid any further confusion, I added “(but not all)” to my statement about many on the list being non-cooperative. I also moved Don’s name down the list somewhat and I also added some information about his assistance to the government leading up to and during the trial. Don is one of Rudy’s victims, but he did cooperate with the government.
I agree. Better to let everyone have their say. This is a public board, not a court of law. Anyone posting false, libelous or defamatory statements does so at their own risk, but let the public see the entire debate, warts and all.
Actually, yes there is Todd. You should delete the entirety of the section titled “Missing or uncooperative victims”, as it appears to be almost entirely speculation. As much as I appreciate the endless hours that Don has devoted to this subject and the genuinely valuable information and analysis he has provided, this one section is unnecessarily incendiary and doesn’t do anything to move this topic forward.
We all know that there are missing victims. Speculating on who may have victimized them in tandem (knowingly or unknowingly with Rudy) doesn’t do anything to help anyone other than get people’s shackles up. If someone truly sold wine for Rudy knowing the wines were fake, let law enforcement deal with it as they’re supposed to.
As for uncooperative victims, there seems to be a lot of speculation there. Unless the LEOs directly told Don about the people they suspect were victims but refused to cooperate, it’s speculation.
Before anyone starts accusing me of being a shill for someone, I will make this declarative statement: I have never met or otherwise spoken with anyone listed as involved or possibly involved in this whole enterprise, with the exception of having met John Kapon a total of one time at a wine event in Chicago. I talked to Kapon for a grand total of less than five minutes, at which time it was clear to me that he was an ass and I moved on.
It’s not only speculation, but it’s hearsay even if an FBI agent told Don (or anyone else) that Person X declined to cooperate. In addition, it’s always possible that someone agreed to provide information to the FBI with the understanding that they would not be identified publicly unless and until they had to be called as a witness before a grand jury or at trial.
In any event, I’m concerned that some people may draw an adverse inference if in fact a particular person declined to provide information voluntarily to the FBI. People decide for all sorts of legitimate reasons not to provide information voluntarily to a government investigation. In particular, people think “I don’t want to get dragged into this mess.” Look at this whole thread, and all of the negative things that have been said about people in Rudy’s various circles–would you want to get dragged into all that? Or have to spend lots of time in depositions and/or trials if you come forward?
Bruce, I believe it is important to gain some perspective about the sheer magnitude of Rudy’s manufacturing business. I appreciate Don casting a wide net to sum it all up. Some data points are more fully proven than others, but so what? The questioned names are named as victims, not perpetrators (and one where the story got changed, with the principals all posting here to clarify).
Lew–I have no problem with perspective, as long as it’s based on actual facts and evidence; not on speculation or theories or weak hearsay.
To answer your “so what” question, this topic involves the reputations and business interests of real people. If someone were to post, without any proof or objectively reasonable basis, that Collector A bought $$$ worth of counterfeit wine, that post has the very real potential to harm that collector’s reputation in the wine community and the value of their collection.
You seem to be a motorcycle guy, from your avatar, so let me use an analogy. Imagine some dealer had been caught selling some counterfeit motorcycles. Let’s further assume that you have a very extensive collection of rare and valuable Ducatis. Then someone goes onto a prominent motorcycle Internet discussion site and falsely claims that this dealer sold lots of fake Ducatis in the last decade. What do you think just happened to the value of your Ducati collection? Now let’s take it to the next step. Imagine someone else comes onto that site and falsely claims that YOU bought all of YOUR Ducatis from this dealer and that they were all fake. Now what do you think just happened to the value of your Ducati collection?
Going forward, there is going to be a lot of discussion and analysis of just how extensive Rudy’s scheme was, and what happened to the wines he may have sold. From my perspective, I believe it’s critical that public postings on that topic be accurate and based on verifiable information.