IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ENMANUEL JOSE VICUNA NAVA

Plaintiff,

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO:

VS.

GENESIS RODRIGUEZ Individually, NEUDO ALEJANDRO

MATOS ROLDAN Individually, INTERNATIONAL E & N GROUP
CORP, A FLORIDA CORPORATION
Defendants,

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, JOSE ENMANUEL VICUNA NAVA , (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”) sue

the Defendants, GENESIS RODRIGUEZ AND NEUDO ALEJANDRO MATOS
ROLDAN as individuals, (hereinafter collectively “DEFENDANTS”), and as grounds
therefore states as follows:

1. This is an action for damages greater than $15,000.00.

2. Plaintiff s a resident of Miami Dade County Florida.
3. Defendant, RODRIGUEZ, an Individual, is a resident of Orange County Florida.
4. Defendant MATOS, an individual, is a resident of Orange County Florida.
5. Plaintiff is a residente of Miami Dade County Florida.
6. International is a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida.

FACTS

7. On or about December 2020, Defendants (who were already living in Florida) offered
Plaintiff, who at the time was living in Venezuela and did not yet have a U.S. social
security number but was planning to escape the political persecution he was
experiencing in Venezuela, which included threats of violence and death against
plaintiff and plaintiff’s family and move to Miami, was offered the ability to get a
head start by allowing him to open a company and open the account for his benefit
until the plaintiff got his own social security number after moving to Miami.
 8. The plaintiff accepted the offer and began depositing funds into the account opened
by the defendants. The plaintiff, from January 2021 thru summer of 2022 deposited a
total of $320,000.00.
9. The plaintiff would zelle the plaintiff Venezuela living expense funds every month
until March 2022.
10. The plaintiff then stopped making zelle deposits to the defendant in March 2022.
11. The defendant made up several stories about what happened with the plaintiffs funds
that totaleed over $300,000 at the time, defendantsstopped answering his phone of
emails.
12. The plaintiff obtained information and belief that the defendant had converted the
plaintiff’s funds in order to live a lavish lifestyle. Defendants bought new Ford
Mustang as well as Toyata Four Runner, bought a home, and used money to buy
dealership and other luxury items.

I. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I: ACCOUNTING
11. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-10
above as if fully set forth here.
12. As the bank account holding Plaintiff’s funds, belongs to the Defendants
and the Defendants pursuant to the agreement have a fiduciary duty to
Plaintiff.
13. Plaintiff hereby demand for a full accounting of the accounts to determine,
among other things, the account balances, the account histories,
and into what other accounts the monies have been transferred.

Wherefore,
COUNT II: UNJUST ENRICHMENT
14. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-13
as if fully set forth here.
15. The Defendants have benefitted at the expense of Plaintiff. More
specifically, the Defendants unlawfully detained, used, and profited
from the theft of plaintiffs funds that were entrusted to
Defendants and deposited in their bank account.
16. The benefits derived by the Defendants from the unlawful retention
of Plaintiff’s funds are unjust and inequitable. And it is inequitable
and unconscionable for the Defendants to retain those
benefits.
17. It is against equity and good conscience to permit the
Defendants to retain the unjust benefits of their unlawful retention,
use, transfer, and/or investment of the funds contained in
Defendants’ deposit account.
18. The amount of the Defendants unjust benefit should be disgorged and
returned to Plaintiff, in an amount to be proven at trial.
Wherefore,
COUNT III: TRESPASS TO CHATTELS
19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraph 1-18 as if
fully set forth here.
20. By virtue of the actions described herein, the Defendants intentionally
interfered with Plaintiff use and enjoyment of the funds originally
deposited in Defendants account with the express understanding that funds were
being held for the benefit of the Plaintiff.
21. The Defendants have intentionally interfered with and unlawfully detained
the subject deposit funds or have certainly acted with knowledge
that interference was and is substantially certain to result from their
ongoing misconduct.
22. All funds originally (and still held) in Defendant’s deposit accounts should
be immediately released and restored to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff
is likewise entitled compensatory damages resulting from the HSBC
Defendant’s wrongful interference together with interest
and costs.

Wherefore
COUNT IV: CONVERSION
23. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-asserts the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1-22 as if fully set forth herein.
24. By virtue of refusing Plaintiff’s demands for the release of the funds in the
accounts, Defendants have converted the funds.
25. Specifically, the funds in the Accounts are the property of the Plaintiff..
26. The Defendants have converted the funds for their own purposes and
have refused to provide Plaintiff with the funds belonging to the accounts.
27. As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged.
Wherefore,
COUNT V: CIVIL THEFT
28. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 - 27
as if fully set forth herein.
29. On April 6 2024, Plaintiff sent the Defendants a Civil Theft Demand Letter.
attached hereto as Exhibit ___.
30. Defendants knew that they were in possession of Plaintiff’s property.
31. That demand letter was ignored.
32. Instead, the Defendants acted intentionally to permanently deprive
Plaintiff of his right to the property and appropriated the funds for
the Defendants’ own use.
33. A civil theft demand letter, as required by Fla. Stat. § 772.11, was sent to
Defendants on April 24, 2024.
34. As of the date of filing this lawsuit, which is more than thirty days after the
date on which written demand was served on, Plaintiff’s demand
for the return of the funds has gone unfulfilled.
35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has
suffered damages.
 36. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 772.11, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from
Defendant three times the current amount in compensatory damages for
which Defendants would otherwise be liable.
37. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 772.11, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from
Defendants the reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees Plaintiff has incurred
in representing his interests in this matter.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands entry of judgment against the Defendants for an
amount within the jurisdictional limits of this court, including an award of interest and an award
of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 772.11.
COUNT VI: CIVIL CONSPIRACY
38. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-asserts the allegations contained in paragraphs
1- 37 as if fully set forth herein.
39. The Defendants agreed to deprive Plaintiff of funds belonging to him. The
purpose of this agreement was to accomplish an unlawful purpose and/or
a lawful purpose by unlawful means.
40. Pursuant to this agreement, the Defendants, acting in concert, engaged in
behavior meant to deny Plaintiff of those funds that belong to him. These
actions include, but are not limited to, Defendants receipt of the funds in
their and Accounts; Defendants refusing to provide Plaintiff with
access to his funds once a formal demand had been made.
41. As part of this civil conspiracy, the Defendants committed the following
acts:

a. They unjustly enriched themselves by retaining funds that did not belong to them
as set forth in Count ;
b. They conspired to commit trespass to chattels as set forth in Count;
c. They conspired to commit civil theft as set forth in Count; and
d. They conspired to convert funds that did not belong to them as set forth in Count;
42. The Defendants acted without privilege or justification.
43. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts done in
furtherance of the conspiracy.
44. Punitive or exemplary damages should also be awarded due to the
defendants willful and malicious actions.

Wherefore,
COUNT VII CIVIL RICO CONSPIRACY
45. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Federal RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c))
46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges paragraphs 1-44 set
forth above.
47. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct, and the conduct of each
Defendant named herein, constitutes racketeering as set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 1964(c). Specifically, Congress has defined “racketeering” to
include wire fraud, or committing fraud by means of electronic
transmissions over wire. The Defendants here engaged in
multiple instances of wire fraud, including conspiring
amongst each other to steal the $ belonging to plaintiff. They further
used the converted funds to purchase luxury goods on Amazon and other
internet vendors.
48. As detailed below, Plaintiff alleges three different causes of action
for federal RICO violations. In summary, Section 1962(c) provides relief
against parties who engage in a pattern of racketeering activity,
Section 1962(a) provides relief against parties who use income
generated through a pattern of racketeering activity, and Section
1962(d) provides relief against those who conspire to violate the
racketeering laws. Defendants are liable under each of these three
sections of the statute.
49. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) allows “any person injured in his business or property
by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter” to “sue
therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall
recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit,
including a reasonable attorney’s fee ....”

Wherefore,
COUNT VIII:VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)
50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges paragraphs 1 - 49 set
forth above.
51. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) makes it “unlawful for any person employed by or
associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect,
interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or
indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a
pattern of racketeering activity . . . ” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).

Wherefore

COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD, RACKETEERING, AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY

52. Each Defendants, at all relevant times, is and has been a “person” within
the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3) because each Defendant is capable
of holding, and does hold, “a legal or beneficial interest in
property.”
53. Defendants’ activities include at least two acts of racketeering activity
since 2023 Accordingly, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a “pattern” of
racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).
54. Upon information and belief that from January 2020 to the present day, the
defendant committed at least a dozen acts, in furtherance of
the activities, purpose and scheme of the Criminal Enterprise, by
converting the stolen funds through placing orders on Amazon with the
stolen cash among other internet vendors, thereby falsely and
fraudulently filed using interstate wires.
55. Other such acts are described further below. All of these acts were
continuous over the life of the Racketeering conspiracy.
 56. At all times relevant hereto, beginning on or around January 2020 and
continuing through the today’s date, each Defendant conducted and
participated in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of
racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
57. On or around October 21, 2016, Defendants formed an association-in-fact
Enterprise, described herein as the Criminal Enterprise, within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).
58. The Criminal Enterprise consists of a group of “persons” associated
together for the common purpose of intentionally and willfully defrauding
Plaintiff.
59. The Criminal Enterprise is an ongoing organization that functions as a
continuing unit. The Criminal Enterprise was created and used as a tool
to effectuate Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity.
60. All Defendants agreed to and did conduct and participate in the conduct of
the Criminal Enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity
including wire fraud as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and for the unlawful
purpose of intentionally defrauding Plaintiff.
61. The wire fraud committed by Defendants is based on a scheme developed
and carried out by the Criminal Enterprise wherein Defendant s
_____ fraudulently electronically filed misinformed plaintiff of the status of
the funds held in their accounts for the benefit of the plaintiff, fraudulently
claiming the account were the funds are being held was frozen. ·
Wires to the U.S. PT241. As a direct and proximate consequence of the conduct of
Defendants and each of them as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been
injured in its business and property, causing Plaintiff to suffer
monetary damages in an amount not less than $700,000, said damages
to be proven at the time of trial.
62. Because of Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), Defendants are
liable to Plaintiff for three times the damages Plaintiff has sustained, plus
the cost of this suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Wherefore,