A $20.3 million judgment after the FTC's first jury trial over a merchant cash advance
The FTC sued Richmond Capital Group (later RCG Advances, LLC) and its principals, including Robert Giardina and Jonathan Braun, alleging they misrepresented the terms of merchant cash advances, made unauthorized withdrawals from small businesses' bank accounts, used confessions of judgment to seize assets without consumers' knowledge, and threatened physical violence during collections. Giardina and other defendants settled in June 2022 for over $2.7 million in relief and a permanent industry ban. Braun litigated to trial; a federal court entered a $20.3 million judgment against him in February 2024 after the FTC's first-ever jury trial, along with a permanent ban from the merchant cash advance and debt collection industries.
- Year
- 2024
- Where
- United States
- Outcome
- Sanctioned
- Reported loss
- $20.3 million
- Victims
- Not stated in the sources
- Schemes
- Merchant cash advance fraud
- Last reviewed
- 2026-09-25
The facts, as recorded
- The FTC's complaint, filed in June 2020, named Robert Giardina (owner of Richmond Capital Group, later RCG Advances, LLC), Jonathan Braun, RAM Capital Funding, LLC and Tzvi Reich as defendants.
- The FTC alleged the defendants' websites falsely advertised merchant cash advances as requiring 'no personal guaranty or collateral,' while the actual contracts required a personal guaranty anyway.
- The complaint alleged customers received thousands of dollars less than the amount promised because of undisclosed fees deducted before funding.
- Businesses were required to sign confessions of judgment, documents allowing the defendants to seize assets without a hearing on an alleged default, which the FTC says were filed to seize assets 'without consumer knowledge or consent.'
- The FTC alleged collectors made threatening phone calls, including threats of physical violence such as a threat to 'break his jaw,' and made false accusations to third parties to pressure payment.
- Giardina, RAM Capital Funding and Tzvi Reich settled in June 2022: an upfront payment of $1.5 million plus a further $1.2 million-plus, totaling over $2.7 million in consumer relief, alongside a permanent ban from the merchant cash advance and debt collection industries.
- Jonathan Braun did not settle. A federal court granted the FTC summary judgment in October 2023 and entered a permanent injunction; after the FTC's first jury trial, held in January 2024, the court entered a $20.3 million final judgment against Braun on February 14, 2024: $3,421,067 in consumer redress and $16,956,000 in civil penalties, plus a permanent ban from the merchant cash advance and debt collection industries and a requirement to remove negative credit information he caused within 30 days.
- FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Samuel Levine said of the Giardina settlement: "These defendants lied to small businesses about financing, stole money from their accounts, made violent threats, and gave false documents to the courts," and called the Braun judgment a case that "sends a powerful message that lies and deception will not be tolerated in the marketplace."
Why this case matters
This is the FTC’s first jury trial ever held in a merchant cash advance case, and the largest individual judgment on this page. It shows the two tracks a documented MCA fraud case can take: a defendant who settles quickly for a fraction of the harm alleged (Giardina, $2.7 million), and one who litigates to trial and ends up owing far more once a jury has heard the underlying conduct (Braun, $20.3 million).
Two disguises in one contract
The complaint alleges the company misrepresented its product twice over: marketing claimed “no personal guaranty or collateral” required, while the signed contracts required a personal guaranty anyway: and the “cash advance” itself came in short, after undisclosed fees were deducted before the money ever reached the business. Both misrepresentations moved the same direction, toward the business owing more, and having agreed to more, than the pitch described.
What a confession of judgment was used for here
The FTC’s allegation is specific: confessions of judgment were used to seize business and personal assets “without consumer knowledge or consent.” That is the clause’s entire function once signed; it removes the step where a court would otherwise have to hear the business’s side before a judgment is entered.
The caveat
Robert Giardina, RAM Capital Funding and Tzvi Reich resolved the FTC’s allegations against them through a 2022 settlement, which is not a finding of liability by a court. Jonathan Braun’s case went further: a federal court granted the FTC summary judgment, and a jury then heard the case before the $20.3 million judgment was entered against him in February 2024, a fully litigated result, not a settlement. The violent-threat and false-accusation allegations describe conduct attributed to “the defendants” collectively in the FTC’s complaint; this case file does not have a further breakdown of which specific individual defendant a given call or threat is attributed to.
Sources
- FTC Action Results in Ban for Richmond Capital Group's Owner From the Merchant Cash Advance and Debt Collection Industries. US Federal Trade Commission. Accessed 2026-09-25. Supports: The defendant names, the June 2022 settlement terms and dollar figures, the false 'no personal guaranty' marketing, the confession of judgment mechanics, the undisclosed fees, the violent collection threats including the 'break his jaw' allegation, and the Samuel Levine quote.
- FTC Case Leads to Permanent Ban Against Merchant Cash Advance Owner for Deceiving Small Businesses, Seizing Their Funds. US Federal Trade Commission. Accessed 2026-09-25. Supports: The October 2023 summary judgment and permanent injunction against Jonathan Braun, the case's original June 2020 filing date, and the prior settlement relief figure of over $2 million from other defendants.
- Court Enters $20.3 Million Judgment in FTC Case Against Merchant Cash Advance Operator Jonathan Braun. US Federal Trade Commission. Accessed 2026-09-25. Supports: The $20.3 million final judgment, the redress/civil-penalty split, the January 2024 jury trial, the February 14, 2024 judgment date, the permanent ban, the credit-report correction requirement, and the Samuel Levine quote about the judgment.