Description
BEFORE YOU JOIN B-EPIC: The Dan Putnam Record — Documents, Complaints, Court Records...
Purpose of This Report
This report is intended to provide consumers with publicly available information concerning B-Epic, Dan Putnam, and businesses and opportunities associated with them. It is based on publicly available government records, court documents, company websites, archived webpages, news reports, and firsthand documentation of my own experience.
The purpose is not to encourage harassment or make unsupported accusations. Rather, the purpose is to allow readers to examine the evidence themselves and make their own informed decisions.
Wherever possible, claims in this report are accompanied by links to the underlying source material so that readers can independently verify the information.
PART 1: The B-Epic Paper Trail
What the Public Record Says About Dan Putnam
Before I looked at the claims, I decided to look at the records.
B-Epic presents itself as a company built around health, financial opportunity, family, and integrity.
In fact, B-Epic's own website describes the company as a family-owned and operated business built on the values of “dedication, integrity, and hard work.” The company identifies Dan Putnam as its Founder and Chief Executive Officer and says B-Epic was founded in 2016 by Dan Putnam in partnership with his parents, Richard and Lynn Putnam.
Those are B-Epic's own words and that's where I decided to start as I wasn't interested in Facebook gossip. I wasn't interested in somebody's opinion about Dan Putnam. I wasn't interested in repeating something I couldn't verify.
I wanted to follow the paper trail, like:
What I found was considerably more complicated than simply looking at B-Epic's website.
And once I started following the names and companies through the public records, I discovered that B-Epic is only one piece of a much larger story.
Who Is Dan Putnam?
According to B-Epic's own website, Dan Putnam has been involved in network marketing for nearly three decades and has built multiple organizations in the direct-selling industry. B-Epic identifies him as the company's founder and CEO.
That's important because Dan Putnam isn't simply some random person whose name happens to appear somewhere on a website. He is publicly identified by B-Epic itself as the person who founded and leads the company.
So when we start examining Dan Putnam's history, we're not talking about some unrelated individual, as we're talking about the founder and CEO that B-Epic itself identifies as its leader, and that's where things start getting interesting.
Then the SEC Case Appears
On May 7, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a federal lawsuit against Daniel F. Putnam, Jean Paul Ramirez Rico, Angel A. Rodriguez, MMT Distribution LLC, (Modern Money Team), and R&D Global LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. Most of these links are from the behindmlm.com website. Use Google to broaden your search.
The Registered Agent on file for R&D Global is Richard Theodore Putnam & Judy Lynn Putnam, located at: 2052 W. 510 N. Circle St. George, UT 84770, and also at: 1526 N. Dixie Downs Rd. Unit #1 Saint George, UT 84770. You can see this report & info located at Bizapedia.
The case was SEC v. Daniel F. Putnam, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00301. If it has been taken down, download it HERE.
The SEC complaint alleged that, from approximately July 2017 through November 2019, the defendants participated in fraudulent offerings involving digital-asset-related securities.
The SEC alleged that more than $12 million was raised from more than 2,000 investors.
That's not a small allegation.
And this wasn't simply a complaint filed by an unhappy customer or former distributor.
It was a federal enforcement action brought by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The SEC alleged that Putnam recruited investors through material misrepresentations concerning the investment opportunities and how investor funds would be used.
The SEC also sought emergency relief, including an asset freeze.
On June 5, 2020, the SEC announced that it had obtained an asset freeze and other emergency relief against Putnam and the other defendants. The SEC described the case as involving cryptocurrency mining and trading schemes and said the complaint alleged that more than $12 million had been raised.
At this point, however, I want to make an important distinction.
A lawsuit is an allegation. When the SEC filed its complaint in 2020, the allegations were allegations.
That is why I'm not going to take a shortcut and simply say, “The SEC accused Dan of fraud, therefore everything was proven.”
That's not how responsible reporting works.
The much more important question is:
What happened after the complaint was filed?
That's where the story changes.
The Case Didn't Simply Disappear
The SEC case continued.
In January 2023, the court entered consent judgments involving Putnam, MMT Distribution, R&D Global and Ramirez Rico.
And this is a particularly important part of the record.
According to the federal court's later decision, the consent agreements provided that when the SEC eventually sought disgorgement and civil penalties, the defendants could not argue that they had not violated the federal securities laws alleged in the SEC complaint.
The court also stated that, for purposes of deciding the SEC's request for monetary relief, the allegations in the complaint were to be accepted as true.
In other words, the case moved beyond the original complaint.
The court ultimately had to decide how much monetary relief should be imposed.
And that decision came on September 10, 2024.
September 10, 2024:
The Federal Court Judgment
This is probably the most important document in this entire investigation.
On September 10, 2024, U.S. District Judge David Barlow issued a memorandum decision and order granting the SEC's motion for monetary relief.
The court then entered judgment.
The court's decision describes the activities at issue between 2017 and 2019, including businesses operated by Putnam under the names Modern Money Team, Eyeline Trading and WealthBoss.
The court described the investment opportunities as involving cryptocurrency mining machines and cryptocurrency trading packages.
According to the court's decision, investors were offered cryptocurrency mining opportunities and later trading packages.
The court's decision states that Putnam raised approximately $3.25 million through the cryptocurrency mining operation.
It also describes later trading packages ranging from $20 to $500 and another investment involving an individual who invested 169 Bitcoin, while friends and family collectively invested another 993.29 Bitcoin.
The court concluded that, in total, more than $12 million had been raised.
Again, these aren't numbers I pulled from a blog post, as they are contained in the federal court's decision.
What Did the Court Actually Order?
This is where I want to be extremely precise.
I've seen online discussions that throw around various numbers such as "$12 million," "$16 million," and other totals.
But simply adding every number together can be misleading because some of the monetary obligations were joint and several, meaning the same obligation could apply to more than one defendant.
So rather than inventing one giant number and claiming “Dan paid $X,” I'm going to stick to what the judgment actually says.
The September 10, 2024 judgment ordered:
Putnam, MMT Distribution and R&D Global: $1,963,432 in disgorgement plus $336,593 in prejudgment interest — $2,300,025 jointly and severally.
Putnam and Ramirez Rico: an additional $1,248,258 in disgorgement plus $213,990 interest — $1,462,248 jointly and severally.
Daniel Putnam: a $1,960,000 civil penalty.
Jean Paul Ramirez Rico: a $4,620,000 civil penalty.
MMT Distribution: a $288,078 civil penalty.
R&D Global: a $288,078 civil penalty.
The court also permanently enjoined the defendants from violating the federal securities laws covered by the judgment.
So there is a very important distinction here:
The $12+ million figure relates to the amount the SEC alleged was raised. It is not the same thing as the amount personally ordered against Dan Putnam.
The judgment itself is the document I want readers to look at.
And What Did the Judge Say About the Conduct?
This is another area where I don't want to exaggerate.
The court didn't merely rubber-stamp a number.
It analyzed the SEC's evidence concerning the amount of money raised and the defendants' arguments about the calculations.
The court ultimately found that the SEC had provided a reasonable approximation of the defendants' ill-gotten gains and that the defendants had not sufficiently demonstrated that the SEC's estimate was unreasonable.
When determining the civil penalties, the court considered factors including the egregiousness of the violations, the degree of scienter, the repeated nature of the violations, the losses or potential losses to others, and other circumstances.
The court ultimately imposed a $1.96 million civil penalty against Dan Putnam.
That is no longer merely an allegation contained in a 2020 SEC complaint.
It is a federal court judgment entered in 2024 and that distinction matters.
So Where Does B-Epic Fit Into This?
This is the question that got me really interested.
Because if you search for Dan Putnam today, one of the prominent businesses associated with his name is B-Epic.
And B-Epic's own website says that Dan Putnam founded the company in 2016 and serves as its CEO.
But the federal SEC case involved R&D Global LLC.
And that becomes very interesting because R&D Global isn't simply a name that appears in the SEC lawsuit and then disappears.
There is another federal case involving R&D Global and the Putnams that becomes relevant to the B-Epic story.
That case involves another network-marketing company called Le-Vel Brands.
And this is where the story starts getting considerably bigger.
One Important Warning Before We Go Any Further
There is a temptation when researching something like this to connect every name, company and allegation together and declare that everything is part of one giant scam.
I'm deliberately not doing that.
Why?
Because some things are established by court judgments.
Some things are allegations in lawsuits.
Some things are statements made by companies themselves.
And some things are reports made by third parties.
Those are not the same thing.
For example, in the SEC case, there is a federal judgment.
That's a very different situation from an accusation made in a lawsuit that hasn't been adjudicated.
I want this blog to make those distinctions clear, and I will not be putting in all the links I have discovered doing all this research, as that list is massive and exhausting.
WHAT WE KNOW
vs.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW
DOCUMENTED
B-Epic identifies Dan Putnam as its Founder and CEO.
The SEC filed a federal enforcement action against Dan Putnam and others in May 2020. PDF
The SEC alleged that more than $12 million was raised from more than 2,000 investors.
The federal court later entered judgments and monetary relief in the case. PDF
The September 10, 2024 judgment imposed a $1.96 million civil penalty against Dan Putnam.
The judgment also imposed disgorgement, prejudgment interest and penalties against the defendants/entities as specified in the judgment.
ALLEGATIONS / CLAIMS THAT
REQUIRE CAREFUL WORDING
Claims made by other companies or individuals in separate lawsuits should be described as allegations unless a court ultimately ruled on those allegations.
That includes the separate litigation involving Le-Vel that we're going to examine next.
MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
And then there is something completely different:
My own experience with B-Epic.
That's where I can speak firsthand.
If I bought something, and I can document what I bought.
I paid $150, and I can show the receipts.
I requested a refund, and I can show when I requested it.
I contacted the company, and I can show the correspondence.
And if something happened to me personally, I don't have to call it an allegation.
I can simply tell readers:
“This is what happened to me.”
That's the approach I'm going to take throughout this investigation.
Why I'm Writing This
I'm not writing this because I want to create drama.
I'm writing it because people put their money, trust and sometimes their livelihoods into companies like these.
And before somebody sends another $50, $100, $150 or thousands of dollars into a business opportunity, I think they deserve the ability to see the history behind the people running it.
My goal isn't to tell readers what they must believe.
My goal is to put the documents on the table.
Read them.
Look at the dates.
Look at the names.
Look at the companies.
And then make up your own mind.
And Then I Found Something Else...
At this point, I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the story.
However, I sure didn't.
Because while following R&D Global, I found another federal case involving Dan Putnam, Richard Putnam and Le-Vel Brands.
According to Le-Vel's allegations, the Putnams had previously enrolled as Le-Vel promoters and gained access to confidential and proprietary business information.
Le-Vel then alleged that the Putnams used that information in creating a competing network-marketing health and wellness company, and specifically alleged that R&D Global operated under names including B-Epic and LurraLife.
Those are Le-Vel's allegations, and I want to be very clear about that.
The federal court decision I found did not establish that every one of those allegations was true.
What the court did decide was a procedural issue concerning where the litigation should proceed, ultimately transferring the case to the Northern District of Texas. Read the PDF, or Download HERE.
But the allegations themselves are fascinating, because they raise a completely different set of questions.
Where did B-Epic come from?
What exactly is R&D Global's relationship to B-Epic?
What other companies have been connected to Dan Putnam?
What happened after the SEC case?
And perhaps most importantly:
What does all of this have to do with the B-Epic business opportunity that people are being offered today?
That's where this gets really interesting.
Litigation, Regulatory Actions, and Public Records
A Note to Readers
This report is based on publicly available court records, regulatory filings, published legal opinions, and other documented sources. Allegations made in lawsuits are allegations unless and until proven in court. Where courts, regulators, or agencies have made findings, those findings are identified as such. Readers are encouraged to review the original records and reach their own conclusions.
The Le-Vel Litigation
One of the most significant public disputes involving Dan Putnam and entities associated with him arose from litigation filed by Le-Vel Brands, LLC from Frisco, TX.
According to court records, Le-Vel alleged that Dan Putnam, Richard Putnam, R&D Global, and related entities used confidential information and business knowledge obtained while participating in Le-Vel's network-marketing system to establish a competing business. The court opinion states that Le-Vel alleged the Putnams had access to proprietary systems, marketing strategies, compensation structures, customer support plans, and other confidential information while serving as promoters for Le-Vel.
The opinion further states that Le-Vel alleged the Putnams used that information to create competing businesses operating under various names, including B-Epic and LurraLife. According to Le-Vel's allegations, the competing entities copied portions of Le-Vel's business model, compensation structure, marketing strategies, products, and trademarks while also soliciting Le-Vel customers and promoters.
It is important to understand what this particular court opinion did and did not decide.
The March 2021 opinion did not determine whether Le-Vel's allegations were true. Instead, the court was deciding procedural questions involving venue, claim splitting, and whether related lawsuits should proceed in different federal courts. The court ultimately transferred one of the cases to the Northern District of Texas because it found substantial overlap between the matters being litigated.
As a result, the opinion serves as evidence that the allegations were made and that litigation occurred, but it should not be interpreted as a judicial finding that the allegations were proven.
B-Epic and Advertising Compliance Reviews
In addition to litigation, B-Epic became the subject of reviews by the Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC), a program administered by BBB National Programs.
According to DSSRC publications, the organization reviewed social-media advertising claims made by members of the B-Epic sales force. The reviews identified a variety of earnings claims and health-related claims involving product benefits. DSSRC publications referenced claims relating to conditions such as anxiety, depression, stress, blood sugar, blood pressure, weight loss, immune-system benefits, and other health-related topics. DSSRC recommended that certain claims be removed or modified.
Complaint 1 READ or DOWNLOAD.
Complaint 2 READ or DOWNLOAD.
The published compliance reviews also indicate that B-Epic removed a number of the identified claims and took steps to seek removal of additional claims posted by distributors and former distributors. DSSRC reported that the company demonstrated efforts toward compliance while also noting ongoing concerns about the continued appearance of similar claims on social-media platforms.
These reviews are not findings of fraud, nor are they court judgments. However, they provide evidence that advertising practices associated with the company's sales force attracted scrutiny from an industry self-regulatory body.
The SEC Enforcement Action
The most significant public record involving Daniel Putnam, R&D Global, and related entities is the enforcement action filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
According to the SEC's complaint filed in May 2020, the agency alleged that Daniel Putnam, MMT Distribution, R&D Global, and others participated in the offering of digital-asset-related investment programs. The complaint alleged that more than $12 million was raised from over 2,000 investors in the United States and internationally.
The SEC further alleged that investment opportunities were promoted through entities including Modern Money Team, Eyeline Trading, and WealthBoss. According to the complaint, investors were offered cryptocurrency mining opportunities and digital-asset trading packages.
As with any complaint, the SEC's filing represented allegations at the time it was filed. The significance of this matter is that it did not end at the complaint stage.
In January 2023, the federal court entered judgments against Daniel Putnam, MMT Distribution, and R&D Global pursuant to consent judgments. The SEC's judgment documents state that the defendants consented to the entry of judgment without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, a common provision in SEC settlements. The judgments included permanent injunctions against future violations of specified securities laws.
The litigation later proceeded to the issue of monetary relief.
On September 10, 2024, United States District Judge David Barlow granted the SEC's motion for monetary relief. The court ordered Daniel Putnam, MMT Distribution, and R&D Global to disgorge $1,963,432 plus prejudgment interest of $336,593, for a combined total of $2,300,025, jointly and severally. The court also ordered civil penalties, including a $1,960,000 civil penalty against Daniel Putnam and separate civil penalties against MMT Distribution and R&D Global.
SEC records identify September 10, 2024, as the date of the qualifying judgment and order in the case.
Public court records further indicate that appeals were filed following the September 2024 judgment. As with any appeal, the appellate process exists to allow review of issues raised by the parties. Public docket records reflect that appellate proceedings were initiated in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Questions Consumers and
Prospective Participants
May Wish to Consider
When evaluating any company, opportunity, investment, or business venture, consumers may find it useful to review publicly available records and ask several questions:
These questions are not directed at any particular company. They are general due-diligence considerations that consumers may wish to apply whenever evaluating business opportunities.
Conclusion
The public record surrounding Daniel Putnam and associated entities includes substantial litigation, regulatory activity, and published court decisions.
The available records show that:
Le-Vel filed litigation alleging misuse of confidential business information and the creation of competing enterprises. Those allegations were litigated, but the court opinion discussed in this report primarily addressed procedural issues rather than deciding the underlying claims.
B-Epic and its sales-force marketing practices were reviewed by DSSRC, which recommended removal of certain earnings and health-related claims.
The SEC brought a federal enforcement action alleging securities-law violations involving digital-asset investment programs.
Federal judgments and monetary relief orders were later entered in the SEC matter, including disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.
Readers reviewing these events should examine the original court filings, judgments, and regulatory records for themselves and draw their own conclusions based upon the documented evidence.
Reviews
To write a review, you must login first.
SPONSORED ADS
Location
VICTIM'S INFO
