Ninety per cent to the fundraiser, less than two to the cause
In September 2020 the FTC and four states permanently banned Mark Gelvan and three associates from all charity fundraising. Their telefunding operation raised money for sham charities claiming to help homeless veterans, retired and disabled police officers and breast cancer survivors; as much as 90% of what was raised went to the defendants, and the charities sometimes received less than 2% for charitable purposes. The judgment against Gelvan and his companies was $56,023,481.
- Year
- 2020
- Where
- United States
- Outcome
- Sentenced
- Reported loss
- $56.0 million
- Victims
- Not stated in the sources
- Schemes
- Charity and disaster scams
- Last reviewed
- 2026-09-06
The facts, as recorded
- Announced 16 September 2020 by the FTC with the Attorneys General of New York, Virginia, Minnesota and New Jersey.
- Defendants: Mark Gelvan, Thomas Berkenbush, William English, Damian Muziani, and their companies Outreach Calling, Inc., Outsource 3000, Inc. and Production Consulting Corp.
- As much as 90% of the money raised went to the defendants themselves as payment for fundraising services.
- Charities sometimes received less than 2% for actual charitable purposes.
- The sham charities claimed to help homeless veterans, retired and disabled law enforcement officers, and breast cancer survivors.
- Judgment against Gelvan and his companies: $56,023,481, partially suspended on payment of $800,000 plus $45,386 in corporate surrenders.
- Further judgments: Berkenbush $1,132,155, English $873,293, Muziani $484,172.
- All defendants are permanently prohibited from participating in any charity fundraising and from deceiving consumers in any other fundraising effort, including for political action committees.
Why this case matters
The causes chosen here are not random, and that is the most instructive thing about the case.
Homeless veterans. Retired and disabled police officers. Breast cancer survivors. These are the causes with the least social permission to say no — the ones where hesitating on the phone feels like a statement about how you feel about veterans.
Against that, up to 90% of what donors gave went to the people making the calls, and the charities sometimes received under 2%.
The mechanism people do not know exists
Most donors have no idea that a large share of charitable telephone fundraising is contracted out to for-profit firms that keep a percentage.
That arrangement is legal and, at reasonable rates, unremarkable. The abuse is at the far end of the same structure: a shell charity that exists mainly to license its name to a fundraiser, and a fundraiser that keeps nearly everything.
It is why the permanent bans in this case cover more than charity. The defendants were also prohibited from deceptive fundraising for political action committees, which is the same business model applied to a cause with even weaker disclosure rules.
What it tells you about the scheme
The check that catches this is not “is the charity real?” — several of these were registered organisations. It is: what proportion of what I give reaches the cause, and who am I speaking to?
In most jurisdictions a paid fundraiser must identify themselves as one if you ask. Very few people ask, and the question is close to unanswerable for someone whose business depends on the answer.
The simplest defence remains the one that costs nothing. Give to organisations you sought out, on their own donation page. A phone call, a doorstep visit or a text is an argument for looking the charity up later, never for giving now.
Sources
- FTC Joins Four States in Action to Shut Down Alleged Sham Charity Funding Operation That Bilked Millions From Consumers. US Federal Trade Commission. Accessed 2026-09-06. Supports: Every defendant, figure, percentage, claimed cause and ban term above.