koch vs royal wine merchant- daniel oliveros & jeff sokolin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COTJRTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLOzuDA

CASE NO:

WILIAM I. KOCH, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROYAL WINE MERCHANTS, LTD., aNewYork corporation; DANIEL OLIVEROS, an individual;and JEFF SOKOLIN, an individual,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff William I. Koch ("Koch" or "Plaintiff'), on personal knowledge as to himself,

and on information and belief as to defendants Royal Wine Merchants, Ltd. ("Royal"), Daniel

Oliveros ("Oliveros"), and Jeff Sokolin ("Sokolin") (collectively, "Defendants") as and for his

Complaint alleges:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Rare bottles of wine command prices in the thousands of dollars, creating strong

incentives to counterfeit them. This has drawn sophisticated wine counterfeiters to the rare wine

market. For years, these counterfeiters have duped wine collectors worldwide into paying

millions of dollars for near worthless bottles of wine.

2. Wine counterfeiters employ a variety of techniques. One technique is to obtain an

authentic empty wine bottle, fill it with inauthentic wine, affix a counterfeit label that

misrepresents the nature, vintage, and age of the wine inside, and seal it with an old cork. A

counterfeit bottle of high quality can often fool even meticulous collectors. It is not uncommon

STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITT¡RsoN, p.n.

Museum Tower . 150 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 . 305-789-3200

Case 9:11-cv-81197-DTKH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2011 of 48

for wine to go bad from legitimate causes such as poor storage conditions. Therefore, if a bottle

does not taste right, collectors often view it simply as bad luck. Not until Plaintiffs recent

investigation has the problem of Royal's counterfeit wine become known to Plaintiff.

3. Royal, Oliveros, and Sokolin have been instrumental in importing, promoting, and

' selling counterfeit rare wine to the American market. Koch's investigation has recently revealed

that from at least 1998 to 2008, Defendants knowingly purchased hundreds of bottles of

counterfeit wine and injected them into the marketplace. If real, the hundreds of counterfeit

bottles Defendants injected into the marketplace would have been worth more than eight million

dollars.

4. Defendant Royal Wine Merchants is a corporation organized in New York St¿te

that operates a retail wine store in New York City. At least as recently as May 201I, Royal's

website claimed it had "been drinking and selling the great wines of the world for twenty years,"

and that its cellar was "filled with the greatest producers on earth."

(http://www.royalwinemerchants.com/index2.htm, last checked May 17,20rr).

5. Defendants Oliveros and Sokolin are, and have been at all times relevant to this

Complaint, the principals of Royal. The New York Department of State website indicates that

Sokolin is the Principal Executive Officer and Chief Executive Offrcer of Royal. Koch alleges

on information and belief that Oliveros is or has otherwise held himself out to be a principal of

Royal. Furthermore, Oliveros is and has been at all times relevant to this Complaint the chief

sales manager of Royal. On information and belief, at aIl times relevant to this Complaint,

Defendants Oliveros and Sokolin were each and both responsible for Royal's day to day

operations.

-2-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITT¡RsoN, p.¡..

Museum Tower ' I50 west Flogler street . suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 - 3os-7ïg-3200


6. In the fine wine community, Defendants Sokolin and Oliveros are and were

known as the "sexy boys." They often described the wines they sold as "sexy juice." Defendants

Sokolin and Oliveros lived a lavish lifestyle, staying at ltxury hotels and throwing extravagant

parties. They had a reputation for acquiring, promoting, and selling extremely rare and valuable

vintages of fine wine. As described in the online magazine Slate:

what really set the sexy boys apart was their seemingly limitlessstock of legendary old wines, many of them in supersize bottles-quantities and formats that no one else could get their hands on.They bombarded clients with faxes touting their latest finds:multiple bottles of 196l Latour à Pomerol ("Kinky Juice!,'),magnums of 1945 Mouton Rothschild ("our latest sexy purchðe"),a double magnum of 1949 Cheval Blanc ("Perfect condition. Betterthan l947lll Trust me!!!"). It seemed too good to be true.Apparently, it was.

Mike Steinberger, what's in the Bottle?, SLnre, June 14,2010, available at

http : / / www . slate. c oml idl 22 5 67 7 5 .

7. In the 1990s, Defendants Sokolin and Oliveros met and befriended Hardy

Rodenstock, a well-known German wine counterfeiter who has for decades been involved in the

tasting and promotion of rare vintages of wine. Since the mid 1980s, Rodenstock has created, or

directed others to create, numerous bottles of counterfeit wine that he claims to have

"discovered" in exotic locations or to have acquired from persons he will not reveal. Since 1998,

Rodenstock has introduced well over two thousand bottles of counterfeit rare wine into the

United St¿tes market.

8. Records of a wine importing, distributing, and brokering company located in New

York and of a third parfy custom broker and freight forwarder located in New Jersey

(collectively, "import records"), reveal that from at least 1998 to 2008, Defendants served as the

primary importer of Rodenstock's counterfeit wine to the United States. The import records

reveal that virtually all the wine Defendants imported from Rodenstock purported to come from

-3 -STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITTERSON. P.N.

Museum Tower .l50 west Flogler Streer . suite 2200 - Miomi, FL 33130 - 3os-7ïg-3200


the finest French châteaux, to date from the most prized vintages, and to be bottled in the rarest

sized bottles. It tums out the wines were too fine, too prized, and too rare to be genuine.

Representatives of some of the châteaux have revealed to Koch that certain vintages and bottle-

sizes Defendants imported were likely never produced at all, and others were never produced in

the volume Defendants imported them. Still others were produced in the volume that Defendants

imported, but not in sufficient quantities to make it realistic for Defendants to have imported the

volume they imported.

9. Defendants at all times relevant to this Complaint knew that the wine Rodenstock

delivered to them was counterfeit or likely counterfeit. Nevertheless, on information and belief,

after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, Koch will likely have

evidentiary support to establish that Defendants entered into an agreement with Rodenstock-

whether tacit or implicit-to import, promote, and sell his counterfeit wine as genuine.

Defendants then carried out their agreement for more than ten years, from at least 1998 to at least

2008. During this period, Defendants imported and sold Rodenstock's wine into the American

markeþlace, turning a handsome profit, and injuring many unsuspecting victims, including

Koch.

10. Koch has recently discovered that he purchased at least 32 bottles that Defendants

imported and sold into the United States markeþlace. Koch purchased the 32 bottles from

Defendants indirectly and through multiple transactions. Despite knowing that each bottle was

counterfeit or probably counterfeit at the time they imported and sold it, Defendants represented

that each of the 32 bottles was genuine.

11. The 32 bottles Koch purchased, because they are counterfeit, ffe worth

substantially less than Koch paid for them. Koch would not have purchased them if he knew or

=4-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &- SITTERSON. p.n.

Museum Tower . I 50 West Flogler Street . Suíte 2200 . Miomi, FL 331 30 . 305-789-3200


suspected them to be counterfeit. Koch has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at

trial, but no less than $547,693, the amount Koch paid for the 32 counterfeit bottles. Koch

brings this suit against Defendants in order to be made whole, to demonstrate the culpability of

Defendants, and to enjoin Defendants from continuing to sell counterfeit wine to an unsuspecting

public.

PARTIES

12. PlaintiffWilliam I. Koch is aresident andcítizenof the State of Florida.

13. Defendant Royal Wine Merchants, Ltd., is a corporation organized under the laws

of New York with its principal place of business in New York, New york.

14- Defendant Daniel Oliveros is native of Venezuela and a citizen of the St¿te of

New York residing in New York, New York.

15. Defendant Jeff Sokolin is a citizen of the State of New Jersey residing in

Cresskill, New Jersey.

JT]RISDICTION AND VENUE

16. Jurisdiction over the claims arising under 18 U.S.C. ç1962 is proper in this Court

pursuantto 18U.S.C. $ 1964 and28 U.S.C. $1331. Supplementaljurisdictionoverthecommon

law and. state law claims alleged herein is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. $1367. This Court also

has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. $ 1332 as the matter is between citizens of

different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

17. Venue and personal jurisdiction are proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. $ 1391

and 18 U.S.C. $ 1965(a) and (b). Koch is and has at all times relevant to this complaint been a

citizen of Florid4 residing in the Southern District of Florida. Defendants have committed

tortious acts against Plaintiffwithin this District, and a substantial part of the events or omissions

-5-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITTTRsoN. p.n.

Museum Tower 150 west Flogler street . suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 - 3os-7\g-3200


giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this District. The bottles of counterfeit wine

Defendants indirectly and tortiously sold to Plaintiff are kept and stored within this District. In

accordance with 18 U.S.C. $ 1965(b), the ends ofjustice require that all Defendants be brought

before this Court.

FACTUAL ALLEGATTONS

I. Defendants Reach an lllicit Agreement with Hardy Rodenstock A NotoriousCounterf'eiter of Rare WÍne.

18. In the mid to late 1990s, Defendants reached an illicit agreement-whether tacit

or implicit-with Rodenstock. The agreement was that Defendants would promote and find

buyers for certain rare vintages of expensive Bordeaux. Rodenstock would then export to

Defendants counterfeits of that vintage of expensive Bordearx. The agreement offered

advantages to each party. For Defendants, the agreement earned them significant profit on each

counterfeit bottle they sold, and earned them renown for their exclusive access to rare wines.

Sokolir¡ as the o\ryner of Royal, earned significant sums from such sales. Oliveros also earned

significant sums. Though nominally a salesperson, Oliveros earned a "generous" commission,

based in part on the company's overall sales.

19. For Rodenstoclq the agreement perpetuated his long term wine fraud. Rodenstock

has had a long and illustrious career creating,promoting, and selling counterfeit wine. Since the

mid 1980s, he has promoted and sold many exotic, rare wines that he claimed to have

"discovered" under anazing circumstances. The wines often came from people or locations that

Rodenstock refused to identifu. The details he did provide were often incredible; he claimed to

have acquired wines from a bricked-up cellar in Paris, from secret caches in Venezuel4 and from

hidden imperial cellars in Russia. Selling these rare bottles earned Rodenstock fortune and fame

in the rare wine community. All or nearly all of the bottles were counterfeit.

-6-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITI¡RsoN. p.n.



20. Rodenstock's long-term scheme duped numerous collectors, including Koch.

Koch purchased wines from Rodenstock, which \¡rere purported to have once belonged to

President Thomas Jefferson. Only in the mid-2000s, when a museum planned to exhibit a

photograph of some of these bottles, did Koch first learn that any of the bottles were probably

counterfeit. Thereafter, Koch's investigation exposed overwhelming evidence the wines were

counterfeit. Rodenstock had claimed the wines dated to the 18ú Century. Experts determined

that the bottles were engraved with electric tools. German witnesses admitted that they had

engraved wine bottles for Rodenstock. Another German witness admitted he had counterfeited

wine labels for Rodenstock. Koch initiated legal action against Rodenstock in the Southern

District of New York, and obtained a default judgment on May 17,2010.

il. Defendants Help Rodenstock Promote and Sell His Counterfeit Wine in the UnitedStates.

21. In order to succeed in his decades-long wine fraud, Rodenstock needed to create

demand for his counterfeit wine, and to sell his counterfeit wine without arousing unwanted

suspicion. Defendants helped him achieve both goals.

22. Defendants became the primary conduit for Rodenstock's counterfeit wine to the

United States. For more than ten years-from at least 1998 to 2008-they imported the majority

of all Rodenstock wine imported to the United States.

23. Defendants also promoted the wine aggressively. In addition to hosting tastings

on Rodenstock's behalf, the Defendants each undertook specific responsibilities. Oliveros, as

Royal's chief salesperson, promoted and marketed Rodenstock wines, especially at Royal's retail

storefront, and managed cerüain of Royal's client relationships through that storefront. Sokolin,

as Royal's owner and CEO, managed its higher end client relationships and promoted

Rodenstock wine at a wider range of locations, including tastings and conventions.

-7 -STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSoN, p.n.

Museum Tower . 150 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomí, FL 33I30 . 305-289-3200


But from at least the mid 1990s, the "heart and soul" of Defendants' business, and

the heart and soul of their efforts to promote Rodenstock wine, was the blitz of near-nightly

faxes that Oliveros and Sokolin sent their clientele. These faxes-typically handwritten

personally by either Sokolin or Oliveros-touted and promoted Rodenstock counterfeit wines.

The faxes included a description of the Rodenstock wine, background information on its

producer, and laudatory comments regarding its quality. In the latter part of the 2000s,

Defendants largely replaced these faxes with emails, but the emails included the same

representations. Specifically, these faxes and emails represented (a) the vintage in which each

offered wine was purportedly produced, and (b) the producer who purportedly produced it. For

re¿Nons set forth more fully below, Defendants knew at the time they distributed these faxes and

emails that such representations contained or probably contained at least two material

falsehoods. Defendants knew that the Rodenstock wines they imported and promoted were (a)

not produced in the vintage, and (b) not produced by the producer represented in the faxes and

emails.

ilI. Defendants Import Nearly Eisht Million Dollars'Worth of Rodenstock's CounterfeitWine to the United States, and Are the Primary Importer of Rodenstock's Wine.

25. Import records show that, between 1998 and 2008, Defendants imported to the

United States at least 2,067 bottles from Rodenstock, including at least 1,974 bottles between

2002 and 2007 alone. If genuine, the 2,067 total bottles Rodenstock delivered to Defendants

would have been worth more than eight million dollars. The2,067 bottles Rodenstock delivered

to Defendants purported to be of the finest French Châteaux. These included the famed

Bordeaux Château of Cheval Blanc; d'Yquem, Laffie, Lafleur, Latour, L'Eglise, L'Evangile,

Margaux, Mouton, and Pétrus. The 2,067 bottles also tended to come from the most renowned

vintages. Such vintages included 192I,1947, and 196I, which are generally regarded as among

-8-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITT¡RSOI.I. p.n.

Museum Tower . 150 West Flogler Streef . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33'l 30 . 305-789-3200

24.


the greatest Bordeaux vintages of the 20ú Century. The 2,067 bottles also tended to be bottled in

the largest, rarest, and most valuable formats.

26. A standard sized wine bottle holds 750 milliliters, but wine is sometimes bottled

in larger formats, including magnums (1,500 ml or two standard bottles), Marie Jeannes Q,250

ml or three standard bottles), double magnums (3,000 ml or four standard bottles), jeroboams

(4,500 ml or six standard bottles), and impériales (6,000 ml or eight standard bottles). Large

format bottles fetch higher prices at auction than do standard sized bottles, because large bottles

are Íarer and wine ages more slowly in them. As a result,large format bottles are ideal for

counterfeiting. Standard sized bottles, being standard, are produced by Châteaux in much greater

quantities than are bottles of any other size. Improbably, just a small fraction of the bottles

Defendants imported from Rodenstock were standard sized bottles. The vast majority were large

for-mat bottles ideal for counterfeiting, including many magnums, double magnums, jeroboams,

and even impériales.

27. The following shipments are representative of those that Defendants received

from Rodenstock:

On November 23, 1999, Defendants imported from Rodenstock at least three

magnrlms of 1961 Château Pétrus, two magnums of 1921 Château Pétrus, and one

bottle of 1811 Château Laftte.

On Novemb er 25, lgg9, Defendants imported from Rodenstock at least two more

magnums of Château Pétrus, one each of the l92l ard 1947 vintages.

On November 27, 1999, Defendants imported from Rodenstock more magnums of

Château Pétrus: a double magnum of the 1947 vintage and two magnums of the 1921

vintage.

-9 -STEARNS WEAVER MILLER W¡ISSr¡R ALHADEFF &. SITT¡Rso¡,I, p.n.

Museum Tower . 1 50 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 . 305-789-3200


In the span of just over two months, between October 14,2003 and December 19,

2003, Defendants imported from Rodenstock at least nine magnums of 1961 Château

Pétrus.

On July 26,2004, Defendants imported from Rodenstock at least six magnums of

1961 Chàteau Pétrus.

On December 6, 2004, Defendants imported from Rodenstock at least three magnums

of l92I Château Pétrus.

On February 1I,2006, Defendants imported from Rodenstock at least six magnums

of 1947 Château Cheval Blanc.

o On November 17, 2008, the most recent date for which Koch has access to import

records, Defendants imported from Rodenstock, via Lufthansa, an impériale of 1961

Château Pétrus.

28. If genuine, the market value of the 2,067 bottles Defendants imported from

Rodenstock amounted to well over eight million dollars. If Defendants turned even a modest

profit on such gross revenue, their profits were significant.

29. Other entities also imported Rodenstock's wine to the United States, but in smaller

proportions. Such entities include Bordeaux Wine Locators; Farr Vintners, Ltd.; and JEB Wine

Trading, Ltd. Records indicate that, including the 2,067 bottles delivered to Defendants

'constituted the substantial majority of the bottles that Rodenstock delivered to the United States

between 1998 and 2008. Thus, during that period at least, Defendants were the biggest conduit

for Rodenstock wine into the United Stales.

30. In importing each of the 2,067 bottles from Rodenstock, Defendants represented

in a bill of lading, invoice, and/or official United States customs documents (a) the vintage in

- 10-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITT¡RsoN, p.n.

Museum Tower . 150 West Flogler Streef . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 . 305-789-3200


which each wine was purportedly produced, and (b) the producer who purportedly produced it.

For reasons set forth more fully below, Defendants knew, at the time they drafted and submitted

these bills of lading, invoices, and/or official United States customs documents, that their

representations in those documents contained or probably contained at least two material

falsehoods. Defendants knew that the Rodenstock wines they imported were (a) not produced in

the vintage, and (b) not produced by the producer represented in these documents.

IV. I)efendants Conceal Rodenstock's ldentity. And Defendants' Relationship withRodenstock from Buyers

31. Aware that Rodenstock was a notorious counterfeiter, Defendants sought to

conceal the nature of their relationship and arrangement with him. For instance, Edward

Gelsman, owner of a wine store in Northern California, recalls discussing Rodenstock with

Oliveros, sometime in the mid 2000s. Gelsman asked Oliveros if a wine shipment to Defendants

bearing tape with "West German" notation was from Rodenstock. Oliveros, in an effort to

conceal his relationship with Rodenstock, refused to identiff the source of the wine. Gelsman

also recalls discussing Rodenstock \rrith Sokolin around the same time. Gelsman asked Sokolin

if a wine shipment to Defendants bearing tape with "Vy'est German" notation was from

Rodenstock. Sokolir¡ just like Oliveros, refused to identi$ the source of the wine. Based on

information currently available and described below, it appears that Rodenstock was likely the

source of the wine shipment Gelsman questioned.

32. In carrying out their illicit agreement, Defendants Oliveros and Sokolin

communicated with Rodenstock regularly by fax. By fax, Sokolin indicated those rare wines for

which Defendants had located a buyer. Such buyers included both individuals and auction

houses. For reasons that likely included Rodenstock's notoriety ¿rs a counterfeiter and the

- tl-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITTERSOI.I, P.N.

Museum Tower . I50 West Flogler Street . Suile 2200 . Miomí, FL 33ì 30 , 305-789-3200


improbable volume of his imports, neither Rodenstock nor Defendants.revealed to buyers that

Rodenstock was the source of the wine.

V. Defendants Know That Most If Not All the Bottles They Import from RodenstockAre Counterfeit.

33. Koch's investigation has revealed that certain vintages in certain formats-

including many of those that Defendants imported from Rodenstock-are and were almost

always counterfeit.

34. For instance, between 1998 and 2008, Defendants imported from Rodenstock

eighteen magnums of 1947 Château Lafleur. An owner of Château Lafleur has stated that, in

1947, the chateau bottled just f,rve magnums. Therefore, at least thirteen of the eighteen

magnums Defendants imported had to be counterfeit. But it is unlikely, to put it mildt¡ that

Defendants managed to obtain all five of the genuine magnums of 1947 Château Lafleur. This

feat would have required, among other things, that no one had ever consumed one. It is much

more likely that all eighteen, or nearly all eighteen, of the magnums Defendants imported were

counterfeit. From the improbable import volume alone, Defendants knew that these magnums

were counterfeit. Even if Defendants were not aware that Chateau Lafleur produced just five

magnums in 1947, they were aware that magnums of Chateau Lafleur----of any vintage-are

exceptionally rare. From their experience in the wine indusby, Defendants knew that eighteen

magnums of a single vintage from a single source was beyond improbable. Furthermore, this

fact alerted Defendants-if they did not already know-that Rodenstock's other bottles were

counterfeit or probably counterfeit. Defendants imported and sold the wine anyway.

35. Between 1998 and 2008, Defendants imported from Rodenstock 44 magnums and

two double magnums of Château Pétrus from vintages of 1945 or earlier. Large format bottles of

Pétrus from vintages of 1945 and earlier ur" lik"ly counterfeit. As part of Koch's investigation,

-t2-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTE RsoN, p.e.

Museum Tower . .l50 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 | 305-789-3200


Koch's representative brought magnums that purported to be I92l Chãteau Pétrus to Jean Claude

Berrouet and Francois Veyssiere. Berrouet is a renowned winemaker of Château pétrus and the

former technical diiector of Établissements Jean-Pierre Moueix, which owns Château pétrus.

Veyssiere is the cellar-master of Château Pétrus. Until that time, neither Berrouet nor Veyssiere

had ever heard of a Château Pétrus magnum from 1921. Neither Berrouet nor Veyssiere believes

that Château Pétrus bottled any magnums from earlier than 1945. Likely all 46large format

bottles of Château Pétrus from 1945 and earlier that Defendants imported were counterfeit.

Furthermore, that Rodenstock delivered such a large volume of exceptionally rare bottles alerted

Defendants -if they did not already know-that Rodenstock's other bottles were counterfeit or

probably counterfeit. Defendants imported and sold the wine anyway.

36. Koch has discovered additional evidence suggesting that Rodenstock's large

format Château Pétrus is counterfeit. A confidential witness ("CV/") lived in the same area of

Germany as Rodenstock during the 1980s, and was an employee of a print shop CW's family

owned. According to CW, Rodenstock employed him and his family-owned print shop to create

labels for bottles of wine from several different Châteaux and vintages, including labels of

Château Pétrus from 1921, 1928, and 1929. On several occasions in the 1980s, Rodenstock

brought old wine labels into the family-owned print shop and asked CW to make copies of the

labels on old paper. Shown photographs of various wine bottles, CW identified his own

handiwork on labels of purported 1921, 1928, and 1929 Château Pétrus. Each of the Château

Pétrus labels CW identified as his own handiwork is on a bottle that came from Rodenstock.

37. Between 1998 and 2008, Defendants imported from Rodenstock 47 magnums,

two Marie Jeannes, one double magnum, two jeroboams, and one impériale of 1947 Cheval

Blanc. CW has stated that Rodenstock hired him to create copies of 1947 Cheval Blanc labels.

-13-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTE RsoN, ¿n.

Museum Tower ' I50 west Flogler street . suile 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 - 3os-lïg-3200


Likely all or nearly all the large format bottles of 1947 Château Cheval Blanc that Defendants

imported were counterfeit.

38. Between 1998 and 2008, Defendants imported from Rodenstock at least fifteen

magnums of 1947 Château L'Eglise Clinet. Magnums of 1947 Château L'Eglise Clinet are

exceptionally rare. To have discovered at least 15 is incredible, suggesting that Defendants

knowingly imported counterfeit wine.

39. Between 1998 and 2008, Defendants imported from Rodenstock 30 bottles, 80

magnums, and three jeroboams of purported 1945 Mouton-Rothschild. On each bottle of 1945

Mouton-Rothschild, the label states that the Château produced 1,475 magnums and. just 24

jeroboams of the 1945 vintage. Defendants therefore-during a ten year period-purportedly

imported nearly six percent of the magnums and nearly thirteen percent of the jeroboams ever

produced. For one wine shop to be the source of such a Iarge amount of rare vintage is highly

unlikely. The volume suggests that most if not all of the bottles of 7945 Mouton-Rothschild that

Defendants imported are counterfeit. Defendants knew they were importing an improbable

percentage of the large format 1945 Mouton-Rothschild ever produced. The information

necessary to determine this was literally printed on each bottle. Defendants imported and sold

the wine anyway.

40. Individual collectors of rare and fine wine often do not consume their wine, but

rather store, trade, and resell it. Individual collectors rarely detect counterfeits, because they

generally accept each bottle of wine to be what it purports to be, they usually do not taste or open

the wine, and they have little incentive to discover counterfeits. Once a bottle is determined to

be counterfeit it is next to worthless. Furthermore, unlike retailers such as Defendants,

individual collectors do not typically acquire a large volume of any particular rare wine. This

-14-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITT¡RsoT.I. p.n.



makes it difficult for collectors to compare different bottles, purported to be of the same rare

château, vintage, and format, against one another. This also prevents collectors from

recognizing, as Defendants did, that certain wines could not exist in the large numbers in which

they are sold, and that a large proportion of those sold are necessarily counterfeit. For all these

reasons, a counterfeit bottle may resurface and be resold in the marketplace multiple times.

41. Of the 2,067 bottles that Defendants imported, only a small fraction have been

identified, located, and removed from the marketplace. Most of the bottles Defendants imported

continue to circulate and to dupe collectors, investors, and consumers. Until all Defendants'

imports have been identified, located, and removed from the marketplace, victims will

proliferate. Thus, Defendants' fraud is ongoing.

VI. Koch Discovers Counterfeit Wines In HÍs Cellar Purchased from Defendants.

42. In 2007, Koch retained an expert to examine bottles he had purchased and to

assess whether any of them were counterfeit. During that inquiry, the expert was stunned to find

in Koch's cellar at least two of the bottles that the expert had inspected in another collector's

cellar in2002. The expert could be sure that these bottles came from the other collector's cellar

because they still bore stickers that the expert had placed on the bottles in2002. The two bottles

with the Expert's Stickers, numbered 4l and 42, each purported to be Château Latour 1928, and,

if authentic, would have a market value of more than $2,000 each. One of these bottles (number

41) was counterfeit and one (number 42) was genuine. The other collector had purchased each

of these bottles from Defendants.

VII. Auction Houses Acker, Christie's. Sotheby's, and Zachvs Dominate'Wine AuctionSales.

43. Most of the fine, rare, and collectable wine that was auctioned between 1998 and

2008 was auctioned by one of four major auction houses: Acker, Christie's, Sotheby's, and

_15_STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTE RsoN, p.¡..

Museum Tower . 150 West Flogler Street ' Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 . 305-789-3200


Zachys. At all times relevant to this Complaint and especially between 1998 and 2008, four

auction houses-Acker, Christie's, Sotheby's, and Zachys-dominated United States and

worldwide wine auction sales. Combined, the four houses were responsible for most of the rare

wine auctioned during this period. During this period, relatively few bottles were auctioned by

other auction houses. This means that most rare, f,rne, and collectable wine in circulation in the

United States during this period passed through one of these auction houses.

44. In 2004, these four auction houses led the United States market and worldwide

market in wine auction sales. Peter D. Meltze¡ Worldwide Wine Auctions Pass the 810}-Million

Mark, WrNe SpectatoR, Jan. 4,2005. In2004, the $70.3 million worth of wine that these four

houses combined to auction in the United States alone in2004 constituted nearly 65Yo of the total

wine auctioned worldwide, and a much larger percentage of the total wine auctioned in the

United States. .Id. In 2005, Zachys,Acker, and Sotheby's led domestic auction sales; Christie's,

Zachys, and Sotheby's led worldwide auction sales; and all four houses combined to account for

more than 75Yo of total worldwide auction sales. Peter D. Meltzer, 2005 Wine Auctions Exceed

8166 Millioz, WnrE Sp¡creroR, Dec. 22,2005. In2006, the four houses led both United St¿tes

and worldwide auction sales, combining to account for nearly 80Yo of total worldwide auction

sales. Peter D. Meltzer, 2006 Wine Auctíons Break the 8200 Míllion Mark, Wr¡qe SPectAtoR,

Dec.21,2006. In2007, Acker, Zachys, and Sotheby's led United States auction sales; and the

four led worldwide auction sales, combining to account for more than 77%o of total worldwide

auction sales. Peter D. Meltzer, Global Wine Auctions Break the 8300 Million Mark in 2007,

Wrlre Specr¿.roR, Dec. 19,2007. ln 2008, Acker andZachys led United States auction sales;

¿rnd the four lead worldwide auction sales, combining to account for more thøn 73%o of total

worldwide auction sales. Peter D. Meltzer, Global Wine Auctions Decline by 825 Million in

-t6-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &- SITTERSON, p.¡..

Museum Tower . i 50 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33ì 30 ' 305-289-3200


2008, Wr¡{s SpBcreroR, Dec. 29,2008. The four houses dominated auction sales in years prior

to 2004 as well. A fifth major United States auction house, Hart Davis Hart, has recently

loosened the four houses' stranglehold on the United States market. But Hart Davis Hart has

gro\iln rapidly in the past three years and did not conduct its first auction until 2005. Id.;Peter D.

Meltzer, In Chícago, There's a New Auction House on the Block, V/rNe SpecreroR, Oct. 21,

2004; Peter D. MeItzer, Hart Davis Hart's Inaugural Auction Brings in 82 Million, WrNp

SpecreroR, Feb. 2,2005. Therefore, most of the f,rne, rare, and collectable wine that was

auctioned between 1998 and 2008 was auctioned by one of these four auction houses.

VUI. Koch Discovers That 32 Counterfeit Wines In His Cellar Were Probably Importedand Sold into the United States Marketplace bv Defendants.

45. Tracing the ownership of an individual bottle of wine is often challenging. Many

perceive bottles of wine to be fungible. Even owners who track bottles by Château and vintage

may fait to track individual bottles. Furthermore, auction houses and wine retailers often view

the sources of their wines as proprietary information they are unwilling to divulge. This

challenge of tracing individual bottles has only exacerbated the problem of wine fraud.

46. In spite of this challenge, Koch's investigation has determined that he has in his

cellar at least 32 counterfeit or probably counterfeit bottles of rare wine that were imported or

were likely imported and sold into the United States market by Defendants. Koch purchased

each of the 32 counterfeit bottles on the reasonable and honest belief that the bottle was genuine.

Koch could not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined any of the 32 bottles was

counterfeit at any time before he was advised by an expert that the bottle bore indicia of fraud,

including evidence of counterfeiting such as unusual or inappropriate capsules, labels, and

bottles, and unusual or inappropriate bottle condition. While these indicia should have been and

were recogni zable to Defendants because, for example, of their self-advertised standing as

-t7 -STEARNS WEAVER IVTILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITTERSON, P.¡..



experts in the wine indusbry, the indicia were not reasonably recognizable to Koch. Furthermore,

Koch could not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined that any of the 32 bottles

was imported and sold into the United States by Defendants at any time before he obtained

discovery of the third party import records.

47. The 32 bottles that Koch purchased and which he has currently identified as

having been imported and sold into the United States market by Defendants are:

A bottle of purported 1811 Château Lafite.

48. Import records show that, between 1998 and 2008, Defendants imported from

Rodenstock a total of six bottles of purported I I I 1 Château Laftte. During the same period, just

four such bottles were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and Sotheby's, and at the

end of no quarter during that period had the four auction houses auctioned more bottles than

Defendants had already imported. Given the rarity of this vintage; the near match between the

number of bottles Defendants imported and the number of bottles auctioned; and the relationship

between when the bottles were imported and when they were auctioned, Defendants likely

imported to the markeþlace the majority of bottles auctioned in the United States during this

time period as 1811 Château Lafite. Given that Defendants imported their bottles from

Rodenstock, an infamous counterfeiter, it is overwhelmingly likely that Defendants imported to

the marketplace the majority-if not all----of the counterfeit bottles auctioned during this time

period as I 8l I Château Laftte. During this period, Koch purchased a bottle of purported 181 I

Château Lafite as lot 380 at a Zachys' October 28, 2005 auction for $29,172.55. Koch

subsequently discovered the bottle is counterfeit. Therefore, it is highly likely the bottle was

imported to the United States and injected into the markeþlace by Defendants.

A bottle of purported 1864 Château Latour.

-18-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, NN.

Museum Tower . 150 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33i 30 ' 305-789-3200


Import records show that, between 1998 and 2008, Defendants imported from

Rodenstock a tot¿l of five bottles of purported 1864 Château Latour. During the same period,

just one was auctioned by Zachys, and the auction postdated Defendants'first import in 1998.

Christie's, Acker, and Sotheby's auctioned none. Given the rarity of this vintage and format, and

the disproportion between the number of bottles Defendants imported and the number of bottles

auctioned, Defendants likely imported to the markeþlace the one bottle auctioned in the United

States during this time period as 1864 Château Latour. Given that Defendants imported their

bottles from Rodenstock, an infamous counterfeiter, it is overwhelmingly likely that Defendants

imported to the markeþlace any counterfeit bottle auctioned in the United States during this time

period as 1864 Château Latour. During this period, Koch purchased a bottle of purported 1864

Château Latour as lot 40I aZachys' October 28,2005 auction for $15,912. Koch subsequently

discovered the bottle is counterfeit. Therefore, it is highly likely the bottle was imported to the

United St¿tes and iqiected into the marketplace by Defendants.

A bottle of purported 1865 Château Latou(.


Rodenstock atotalof ten bottles of purported 1865 Château Latour. During the same period, six

such bottles were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and Sotheby's, and at the end of

no quarter dwing that period had the four auction houses auctioned more bottles than Defendants

had already imported. Given the rarity of this vintage; the near match between the number of

bottles Defendants imported and number of bottles auctioned; and the relationship between when

the bottles were imported and when they were auctioned, it is likely that Defendants imported to

the markeþlace all or nearly all of the bottles auctioned in the United States during this time

period as 1865 Château Latour. Given that Defendants imported their bottles from Rodenstock,

_t9_STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &- SITTE RsoN. p.n.

Museum Tower . .l50 West Flogler Streei . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 . 305-789-3200

49.


an infamous counterfeiter, it is overwhelmingly likely that Defendants imported to the

marketplace all or nearly all of the counterfeit bottles auctioned during this time period as 1865

Château Latour. During this period, Koch purchased a bottle of purported 1865 Château Latour

as lot 402 aZachys' October 28,2005 auction for $15,912. Koch subsequently discovered the

bottle is counterfeit. Therefore, ít is highly likely the bottle was imported to the United States

and injected into the markeþlace by Defendants.

. A bottle of purported 1870 Château Lafite.


Rodenstock a total of four bottles of purported 1870 Château Lafite. During the same period,

four such bottles were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and Sotheby's. Given the

rarity of this vintage and format, and the exact match between the number of bottles Defendants

imported and the number of bottles auctioned, Defendants likely imported to the marketplace the

majority of bottles auctioned in the United States during this time period as 1870 Château Lafite.

Given that Defendants imported their bottles from Rodenstock, an infamous counterfeiter, it is

overwhelmingly likely that Defendants imported to the marketplace all or nearly all of the

counterfeit bottles auctioned in the United States during this time period as 1870 Château Lafite.

During this period, Koch purchased a bottle of purported 1870 Château Lafrte as lot 386 at

Zachys' October 28,2005 auction for $18,564. Koch subsequently discovered the bottle is

counterfeit. Therefore, it is highly likely the bottle was imported to the United States and

injected into the marketplace by Defendants.

A masnum of purported 1870 Château Lafite.


Rodenstock one magnum of purported 1870 Château Laftte in2003. That year, no such magnum

-20 -STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITT¡RSON, P.N.

Museum Tower . ì 50 West Flogler Sfreet ' Suife 2200 ' Miomi, FL 33130 ' 305-789-3200


was auctioned by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, or Sotheby's. At least one such magnum was

auctioned by Zachys in 2005. Given the rarity of this vintage and format, Defendants likely

imported to the marketplace the only magnum auctioned in the United States during this time

period as 1870 Château Laftte. Given that Defendants imported the magnum from Rodenstock,

an infamous counterfeiter, it is overwhelmingly likely that Defendants imported to the

marketplace all or nearly all of the counterfeit magnums auctioned during this time period as

1870 ChâteauLaftte. During this period, Koch purchased a magnum of purported 1870 Château

Laftte as lot 389 a Zachys' October 28,2005 auction for $33,150. Koch subsequently discovered

the magnum is counterfeit. Therefore, it is highly likely the magnum was imported to the United

States and injected into the marketplace by Defendants.

Two magnums of purported 1921 Château Cheval Blanc.


Rodenstock a total of eleven magnums of purported l92l Château Cheval Blanc. During the

same period, seven such magnums were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and

Sotheby's. Given the rarþ of this vintage and format, and the near match between the number

of bottles Defendants imported and the number of bottles auctioned, Defendants likely imported

to the marketplace the majority of magnums auctioned in the United States during this time

period as l92l Château Cheval Blanc. Given that Defendants imported their magnums from

Rodenstock, an infamous counterfeiter, and that the owner of the Château Cheval Blanc doubts

the authenticity of Rodenstock's large format bottles of Cheval Blanc, it is overwhelmingly likely

that Defendants imported to the marketplace all or nearly all of the counterfeit magnums

auctioned during this time period as l92l Château Cheval Blanc. During this period, Koch

purchased two magnums of purported l92I Château Cheval Blanc as lots 357 and 358 at Zachys'

-21 -STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITT¡RSOI'I. P.¡..

Museum Tower . 150 Wesf Flogler Street ' Suite 2200 ' Miomi, FL 33'l30 ' 305-789-3200


October 28,2005 auction for $17,283.33 each. Koch subsequently discovered each magnum is

counterfeit. Therefore, it is highly likely the magnums were imported to the United States and

injected into the markeþlace by Defendants.

Two maenums of purporúed 1921 Château Lafleur.

54. Import records show that Defendants imported from Rodenstock trwo magnums of

purported I92l Chãteau Lafleur, one in 2003 andone in 2005. During the same period, only two

such magnums were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and Sotheby's. Given the

runty of this vintage and format, and the exact match between the number of bottles Defendants

imported and the number of bottles auctioned, Defendants likely imported to the markeþlace

both or one of the bottles auctioned in the United States during this time period as l92I Château

Lafleur. Given that Defendants imported their magnum from Rodenstock, an infamous

counterfeiter, it is likely the magnums Defendants imported to the markeþlace were counterfeit.

During this period, Koch purchased two magnums of purported I92l Château Lafleur as lots 479

and 480 at Zachys' October 28,2005 auction, one for $18,564 and the other for $19,890. Koch

subsequently discovered each magnum is counterfeit. Therefore, it is highly likely that the

magnums were imported to the United States and injected into the marketplace by Defendants.

A magnum of purported 1921 Château Pétrus.


Rodenstock atotal of 21 magnums of purported l92l Château Pétrus. During the same period,

six such magnums were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and Sotheby's, and at the

end of no quarter during that period had the four auction houses auctioned more magnums than

Defendants had already imported. Given the significant number of magnums Defendants

imported relative to the number of magnums auctioned; and the relationship between when the

-22-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.¡.

Museum Tower I 50 West Flogler Street ' Suite 2200 ' Miomi, FL 33I 30 ' 305-789-3200


magnums \¡/ere imported and when they were auctioned, it is likely that Defendants imported to

the marketplace all or nearly all of the magnums auctioned during this time period as l92l

Château Pétrus. Given that Defendants imported their magnums from Rodenstock, an infamous

counterfeiter, it is overwhelmingly likely that Defendants imported to the markeþlace all or

nearly all of the counterfeit magnums auctioned during this time period as l92l Château Pétrus.

During this period, Koch purchased a magnum of purported l92l Château Pétrus as lot 443 at

Zachys' October 28,2005 auction for $33,151. Koch subsequently discovered the magnum is

counterfeit. Therefore, it is highly likely the magnum was imported to the United States and


Two bottles of purported 1928 Cþâteau Latour.

56. In2002, an expert inspected in another collector's cellar three bottles of purported

1928 Château Latour. The expert labeled the bottles with Expert Stickers numbers 41 through

43. The bottles labeled 41 and 43 were counterfeit and were purchased directly from

Defendants. The bottle labeled 42 was probably genuine and was acquired from another source.

Thereafter, Koch purchased three bottles of purported 1928 Château Latour as lots 408 and 409

1tZ,achys'October 28,2005 auction, one for $4,199 and the other two for $2,873 each. At least

two of these bottles of 1928 Château Latour had been labeled by the expert in the other

collector's cellar. The Expert Stickers, containing the expert's handwritten initials, were and are

still affixed to these bottles. They are bottles numbers 4l and 42. The bottle labeled 41 is

counterfeit. It was imported and sold into the United States by Defendants. The bottle labeled

42 is genuine and was not imported or sold into the United States by Defendants. The third

bottle, which does not feature an Expert Sticker, is probably counterfeit. Given that the other

two bottles were certainly identified as bottles 41 and 42by the expert, that this unlabeled bottle

-23 -STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITT¡RSOITI. P.N.

Museum Tower . ì 50 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33i 30 . 305-789-3200


is probably counterfeit, and that the Expert Sticker would have been easy to remove, the

unlabeled bottle is almost certainly the bottle that the expert labeled 43. Thus, it is highly likely

that two of Koch's counterfeit bottles of purporte d 1,928 Château Latour were imported and sold

into the United St¿tes market by Defendants.

Two magnums of purported 1928 Château Pétrus.


Rodenstock a total of four magnums of purported 1928 Château Pétrus. During the same period,

three such magnums were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and Sotheby's, and atthe


Defendants had already imported. Given the significant number of magnums Defendants

imported relative to the number of magnums auctioned, it is likely that Defendants imported to

the markeþlace all or nearly all of the magnums auctioned in the United States during this time

period as lg28 Château Pétrus. Given that Defendants imported their magnums from

Rodenstock, an infamous counterfeiter, it is overwhelmingly likely that Defendants imported to

the markeþlace all or nearly all of the counterfeít magnums auctioned during this time period as

lg28 ChâLteau Pétrus. During this period, Koch purchased two magnums of purported 1928

Château Pétrus as lots 445 and446 atZachys'October 28,2005 auction, one for $14,586.28 and

the other for $17,238.33. Koch subsequently discovered each magnum is counterfeit. Therefore,

it is highly likely the magnums were imported to the United States and injected into the

markeþlace by Defendants.

A maenum of purported 1947 Château Cheval Blanc.

58. Import records show that between 1998 and 2008, Defendants imported from

Rodenstock a total of 47 magnums of purported 1947 Château Cheval Blanc. During the same

-24 -STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITTTRSON, P .

Museum Tower . .l50 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 . 305-289-3200


period, 80 such magnums were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and Sotheby's, and

none prior to Defendants' first import in 2000. During most of that period, spikes in auction

sales followed spikes in Defendants' imports. Given the rarity of this vintage and format, and the

relationship between when the magnums were imported and when they were auctioned,

Defendants likely imported to the marketplace most or nearly most of the magnums auctioned in

the United States during this time period as 1947 Château Cheval Blanc. Given that Defendants

imported their magnums from Rodenstock, an infamous counterfeiter, and that the owner of

Château Cheval Blanc doubts the authenticity of Rodenstock's large format bottles of Cheval

Blanc, it is overwhelmingly likely that Defendants imported to the marketplace the majority-if

not all----o f the counterfeít magnums auctioned during this time period as 1947 Château Cheval

Blanc. During this period, Koch purchased a magnum of purported 1947 Château Cheval Blanc

as lot 413 at Acker's April 26,2005 auction for $12,925. Koch subsequently discovered the

magnum is counterfeit. Therefore, it is highly likely the magnum was imported to the United

States and injected into the markeþlace by Defendants.

A masnum of purported 1947 Clos L'Eglise Clinet.


Rodenstock atotal of 15 magnums of purported 1947 Clos L'Eglise Clinet. During the same

period, just seven such magnums were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and at the


Defendants had already imported. Given the rarity of this vintage and format, Rodenstock's

particular promotion of this wine, and the relationship between when the magnums \¡rere

imported and when they were auctioned, Defendants likely imported to the markeþlace the

majority of magnums auctioned in the United States during this time period as 1947 Clos

-25 -STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITT¡RsoN, p.I.

Museum Tower . I 50 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33'l30 . 305-789-3200


L'Eglise Clinet. Given that Defendants imported their magnums from Rodenstock, an infamous

counterfeiter, and that this wine "is virtually impossible to find" in a magnum, it is

overwhelmingly likely that Defendants imported to the marketplace the majority-if not all----of

the counterfeif magnums auctioned during this time period as 1947 Clos L'Eglise Clinet. During

this period, Koch purchased a magnum of purported 1947 Clos L'Eglise Clinet as lot 516 at

Zachys' October 28, 2005 auction for $19,890. Koch subsequently discovered the bottle is

counterfeit. Therefore, it is highly likely that the bottle was imported to the United States and


Two magnums of purported 1947 Château Lafleur.


Rodenstock a total of eighteen magnums of purported 1947 Château Lafleur. During the same

period, precisely eighteen such magnums were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and

Sotheby's, and at the end of no quarter during that period had the four auction houses auctioned

more magnums than Defendants had already imported. Given the rarity of this vintage; the

precise match between the number of magnums Defendants imported and number of magnums

auctioned; and the relationship between when the magnums \ryere imported and when they were

auctioned, it is likely that Defendants imported to the markeþlace all of the magnums auctioned

in the United States during this time period as 1947 Château Lafleur. Furthermore, according to

an owner of the Château, just five magnums of 1947 Château Lafleur were ever produced. It is

highly unlikely that Defendants obtained all five. Much more likely, especially given that

Defendants imported their bottles from Rodenstock, an infamous counterfeiter, is that all of the

eighteen bottles Defendants imported were counterfeit. Thus, it is overwhelmingly likely that

Defendants imported to the marketplace all of the counterfeir boftles auctioned during this time

-26 -STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITTERSON. P.N.

Museum Tower . .l50 West Flogler Streef ' Suite 2200 ' Miomi, FL 33130 ' 305-789-3200


period as 1947 Château Lafleur. During this period, Koch purchased two magnums of purported

1947 Chãteau Lafleur as lot 1464 at Zachys' December 2004 auctiorì, one for 523,323 and the

other for 519,440. Koch subsequently discovered each magnum is counterfeit. Therefore, it is

highly likely the magnums were imported to the United States and injected into the marketplace

by Defendants.

A magnum of purported 1947 Château Pétrus.


Rodenstock a total of 31 bottles of purported 1947 Château Pétrus. During the same period, 25

such bottles were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and Sotheby's, and none prior to

Defendants' first import in late 1999. During most of that period, spikes in auction sales

followed spikes in Defendants' imports. Given the rarity of this vintage and format; the near

match between the number of bottles Defendants imported and number of bottles auctioned; and

the relationship between when the magnums were imported and when they were auctioned, it is

likely that Defendants imported to the marketplace most or nearly all of the bottles auctioned in

the United States during this time period as 1947 Château Pétrus. Given that Defendants

imported their bottles from Rodenstock, an infamous counterfeiter, it is overwhelmingly likely

that Defendants imported to the markeþlace all or nearly all of the counterfeít bottles auctioned

during this time period as 1947 Château Pétrus. During this period, Koch purchased a magnum

of purported 1947 Château Pétrus as lot 431 at Acker's April 2005 auction for $5,816. The

magnum was consigned to Acker by Rudy Kurniawan. Koch subsequently discovered the

magnum is counterfeit. Therefore, it is highly likely the magnum was imported to the United

States and injected into the markeþlace by Defendants.

Five magnums of purported 1950 Château Lafleur.

-27 -STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITte RsoN, p.¡

Museum Tower . I 50 Wesi Flogler Sfreet . Suite 2200 . Míomi, FL 331 30 . 305-789-3200



Rodenstock a total of nine magnums of purported 1950 Château Lafleur. During the same

period, precisely nine such magmrms were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and

Sotheby's, and at the end of no quarter during that period had the four auction houses auctioned

more magnums than Defendants had already imported. Given the rarity of this vintage and

format; the precise match between the number of magnums Defendants imported and number of

magnums auctioned; and the relationship between when the magnums \Mere imported and when

they were auctioned, it is likely that Defendants imported to the marketplace all or nearly all of

the magnums auctioned in the United States during this time period as 1950 Château Lafleur.

Given that Defendants imported their magnums from Rodenstock, an infamous counterfeiter, it is


counterfeit magnums auctioned during this time period as 1950 Château Lafleur. During this

period, Koch purchased five magnums of purported 1950 Château Lafleur as lots 492,493, and

494 atZachys'October 28,2005 auction. Two he purchased for$17,238 each and the other

three he purchased for $14,14 4 each. Koch subsequently discovered each magnum is

counterfeit. Therefore, it is highly likely the magnums were imported to the United States and


Four maenums of purported 1950 Château Pétrus.


Rodenstock a total of nine magnums of purported 1950 Château Pétrus. During the same period,

precisely nine such magnums were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and Sotheby's,

and at the end of no quarter during that period had the four auction houses auctioned more

magnums than Defendants had already imported. Given the rarity of this vintage and format; the

_28 _

STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTE RsoN, p.n.

Museum Tower . ì 50 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33i 30 . 305-289-3200


precise match between the number of magnums Defendants imported and the number of

magnums auctioned; and the relationship between when the magnums were imported and when

they were auctioned, it is likely that Defendants imported to the marketplace all or nearly all of

the magnums auctioned in the United States during this time period as 1950 Château Pétrus.

Given that Defendants imported their magnums from Rodenstock, an infamous counterfeiter, it is


counterfeit magnums auctioned during this time period as 1950 Château Pétrus. During this

period, Koch purchased a total of four magnums of purported 1950 Château Pétrus. Koch

purchased one magnum of purported 1950 Château Pétrus as lot 1454 atZachys'December 2004

auction for $14,258. Koch also purchased three magnums of purported 1950 Château Pétrus as

lots 448, 449, and 450 at Zachys' October 28, 2005 auction, one for $18,890, and two for

$22,542 each. Koch subsequently discovered each magnum is counterfeit or probably

counterfeit. Therefore, is highly likely the magnums were imported to the United States and


A magnum of purported 1961 Château l?afleur.


Rodenstock at least 47 magnums of purported 1961 Château Lafleur. During the same period,

25 such magnums were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys,and Sotheby's, and at the


Defendants had already imported. Given the rarity of this vintage and format; the overwhelming

number of magnums Defendants imported compared to the number of magnums auctioned; and

the relationship between when the magnums \¡/ere imported and when they were auctioned, it is

likely that Defendants imported to the marketplace all or nearly all of the magnums auctioned in

-29 -STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITT¡RSON, p.n.

Museum Tower . I 50 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33.I 30 . 305-789-3200


the United States during this time period as 1961 Château Lafleur. Given that Defendants

imported their magnums from Rodenstock, ffi infamous counterfeiter, it is overwhelmingly

likely that Defendants imported to the marketplace all or nearly all of the counterfeif magnums

auctioned during this time period as 1961 Château Lafleur. During this period, Koch purchased

a magnum of purported 196I Château Lafleur as lot 1472 atZachys'December 2004 auction for

$16,849. Koch subsequently discovered the magnum is counterfeit. Therefore, it is highly likely

the magnum was imported to the United States and injected into the marketplace by Defendants.

Three magnums of purported I.961 Château Pétrus.


Rodenstock a total of 107 magnums of purported 196l Château Pétrus. During the same period,

38 such magnums were sold at auctions by Christie's, Acker, Zachys, and Sotheby's, and at the


Defendants had already imported. Given the rarity of this vintage and format; and the significant

number of magnums Defendants imported relative to the number of magnums auctioned; and the

relationship between when the magnums \ryere imported and when they were auctioned, it is

likely that Defendants imported to the markeþlace all or nearly all of the magnums auctioned in

the United States during this time period as 1961 Château Pétrus. Given that Defendants

imported their magnums from Rodenstock, m infamous counterfeiter, it is overwhelmingly

likely that Deftndants imported to the marketplace all or nearly all of the counterfelf magnums

auctioned during this time period as 1961 Château Pétrus. During this period, Koch purchased

three magnums of purported 196l Château Pétr.us. Koch purchased from Tribeca V/ine

Merchants two magnums of purported 1961 Château Pétrus for $11,500 each. Koch purchased a

magnum of purported 1961 Château Pétrus as lot 433 at Acker's April2005 auction for $13,571.

-30-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITT¡RSONI, P.N.

Museum Tower . 150 Wesl Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomí, FL 33ì 30 . 305-789-3200


The magnum was consigned to Acker by Rudy Kurniawan. Koch subsequently discovered each

of the three magnums is counterfeit or probably counterfeit. Therefore, it is highly likely the

magnums were imported to the United States and injected into the marketplace by Defendants.

66. The tot¿l price that Koch paid for the 32 bottles of wine described in paragraphs

48 to 65 is $547,693.

IX. Defendants Made Material Misrepresentations with Respect to Each CounterfeitBottle It Imported and Sold into the United States.

67. Defendants knew at the time they imported or sold each of the wines described at

paragraphs 48 to 65 that the wine was counterfeit or was probably counterfeit. Defendants knew

that Rodenstock was an infamous counterfeiter. Defendants knew that Rodenstock had exported

to them very rare wines in quantities that were improbable, impossible, md unbelievable.

Defendants knew, no later than2003 and probably much earlier, that customers considered wine

Defendants had imported from Rodenstock to be counterfeit. Finally, Defendants had ample

opportunity to inspect each of the wines they imported from Rodenstock. Self-proclaimed wine

experts that Defendants are, Defendants had ample ability to determine for themselves that the

wines were counterfeit. They did so. Yet for more than a decade, Defendants continued to

import and to sell these wines.

68. Defendants represented the wines described in paragraphs 48 to 65 to be genuine,

by the nature of each relevant sales transaction, as well as verbally and in writing on each

relevant invoice or receipt. Defendants'representations were material. Defendants' customers

reasonably relied on Defendants' representations in making their purchases. Furthermore,

Defendants reasonably believed and expected that their customers were likely in the future to

sell, trade, consign, or otherwise transfer any or all the wine that Defendants had imported and

sold them. Defendants reasonably believed and intended that in selling, trading, consigning, or

- 3t -STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &- SITTIRSON. NN.

Museum Tower . I 50 West Flogler Street ' Suite 2200 ' Miomi, FL 33.l 30 ' 305-789-3200


transferring such wine, their customers would repeat Defendants' representations regarding the

genuineness of the wine, and that Defendants' fraudulent representations would reasonably cause

others to believe the wine was genuine.

69. Defendants represented the wines described ínparagraphs 48 to 65 to be genuine,

by the nature and condition of each bottle, as well as by the language, images, nature, and

condition of each label thereon. Defendants' representations were material. Defendants'

customers reasonably relied on Defendants' representations in making their purchases.

Furthermore, Defendants reasonably believed and expected that their customers were likely in

the future to sell, trade, consign, or otherwise transfer any or all wine that Defendants had

imported and sold them. Defendants reasonably believed and intended that in selling, trading,

consigning, or transferring such wine, the nature and condition of the bottle, as well as the

language, images, nafiffe, and condition of the label thereon, would reasonably cause others to

believe the wine was genuine, and to rely upon that belief.

70. Defendants represented the wines described atparagraphs 48 to 65 to be genuine

by the language and nature of Defendants' advertising. Defendants advertised on Royal's

website, by fax, and by email. Royal's website claims, "[w]e carry the great and rare Bordeaux

from the 19th century to the present," and "[o]ur inventory ... is filled with the greatest producers

on earth." Defendants frequently solicited customers by fax. A New York Times article, which

Defendant Sokolin stated in an affidavit "fairly describes Royal's business," explains that

Defendant sent "faxes ... almost nightly to the store's customers alerting them to the small lots of

interesting wines that Royal's partners specialize in seeking out." Richard Grimes, Treasure

Islands in a Sea of Wine, New Yom TIves, June 30, 1999. As the article explains, these faxes

were "the heart and soul of [Defendant's] operation." In recent years, Defendants have continued

-32-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITTERSON. P.A.

Museum Tower . .l50 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 . 305-789-3200


to advertise in substantially the same manner, except that most of their faxes have been replaced

by emails.

71. In order to import each of the wines described atparagraphs 48 to 65, Defendants

used interstate and intemational wires, including but not limited to facsimile and telephone lines,

to communicate orders and other relevant information to Rodenstock, their supplier of

counterfeit wine. In order to sell each of the wines described atparugraphs 48 to 65, Defendants

used interstate wires. Regularly and continually from at least 1998 to 2008, Defendants sent

faxes and emails worldwide and throughout the United States, including Florid4 touting

Rodenstock's counterfeit wine as genuine. During the same period, Defendants also sent faxes of

invoices, receipts, and other supporting documents to customers, including to multiple customers

in Florida.

X. In order both to sell and to import counterfeit wine. Defendants used interstate andinternational mails. Defendants imported counterfeit wine vi4 international mails.and using international common carriers. including Lufthansa. Defendants shippedcounterfeit wine to domestÍc customers via interstate commercial carriers such asX'edEx and UPS. Usins these methods. Defendants shipped counterfeit wines toFlorida.Koch Relied On Defendants'Material Misrepresentations In Choosine ToPurchase Each of the 32 Counterfeit \ilineS.

72. As Defendants foresaw and intended, their material misrepresentations were

passed through the market. For instance, each of the 32 wines described in paragraph 48 to 65

was resold at one of several auctions held by the auction houses Acker andZachys. Prior to each

auction, Acker or T.achys distributed an auction catalog describing the wines it offered for

auction. In describing each of the wines, the catalogs repeated Defendants' explicit or implicit

representations that the wine derives from the producer and the vintâge identified on its label.

73- Since a consignor cannot sell a purported rare bottle of wine without representing

the wine's producer and vintage, the consignor made identical representations. Each auction

house relied on these representations in drafting the above descriptions and representations,

-33 -STEARNS WEAVER MIU-¡R WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTIRSON, P.N.

Museum Tower . I50 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 . 305-789-3200


basing its description in large part on the consignor's representations. The auction hor¡ses expect

that if a consignor knows of any reason to doubt the authenticity of a wine, he or she will reveal

such reason. In certain of these instances, Royal was the consignor. In others, the consignor was

yet another intermediary who in tum based his representations as to the wine's producer and

vintage on the representations of the bottle's source. With respect to all 32 of these bottles, that

source was Royal. Thus, Defendants caused numerous material misrepresentations, upon which

buyers such as Koch relied.

74. Specifrcally, in or about December 2l}4,Defendants caused Zachysto make the

following statements in its December 2004 auction catalog:

. Defendants caused Zachys to represent lot 1464 to be "Chateau Lafleur 1947,"

when in fact, and as Defendants knew, the wine contained in the bottle described as lot 1464 was

not produced by Chateau Lafleur and was not producedin 1947;

o Defendants caused Zachys to representlot 1472 to be "Chateau Lafleur 1961,"


not produced by Chateau Lafleur and was not produced in 1961"; and

. Defendants caused Zachys to represent lot 1.454 to be "Chateau Petrus 1950,'


not produced by Chateau Petrus and was not produced in 1950.

75. In or about April 2005, Defendants caused Acker to make the following

statements in its April2005 auction catalog:

o Defendants caused Acker to represent lot 433 to be "Chateau Petrus 196l,' when

in fact, and as Defendants knew, the wine contained in the bottle described as lot 433 was not

produced by Chateau Petrus and was not produced in 1961;

-34-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITT¡RSON, ¡.¡..

Museum Tower . ì 50 West Flogler Street . Suife 2200 ' Miomi, FL 33130 '305-789-3200


. Defendants caused Acker to represent lot 413 to be "Chateau Cheval Blanc

194'1," when in fact, and as Defendants knew, the wine contained in the bottle described as lot

413 was not produced by Chateau Cheval Blanc and was not producedin 1947; and

. Defendants caused Acker to represent lot 431 to be "Chateau Petrus 1947," when


produced by Chateau Petrus and was not producedinl947.

76. In or about October 2005, Defendants caused Zachys to make the following

statements in its October 2005 auction catalog:

. Defendants caused Zachys to represent lot 380 to be "Chateau Lafite 1811," when


produced by Chateau Lafite and was not produced in 1811;

o Defendants caused Zachys to represent lot 401 to be "Chateau Latour 1864,"


not produced by Chateau Latour and was not produced in 1864;

o Defendants caused Zachys to represent lot 402 to be "Chateau Latour 1865,"


not produced by Chateau Latour and was not produced in 1865;

o Defendants caused Zachys to represent lots 386 and 389 to be "Chateau Lafite

Rothschild 1870," when in fact, and as Defendants knew, the wine contained in the bottles

described as lots 389 was not produced by Chateau Lafite and was not produced in 1870;

o Defendants caused Zachys to represent lots 357 and 358 to be "Chateau Cheval

Blanc 1921" when in fact, and as Defendants knew, the wine contained in the bottle described as

lots 357 and 358 was not produced by Chateau Petrus and was not produced in l92l;

-35-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITT¡RSON. P.¡,.

Museum Tower . 150 West Flogler Street ' Suite 2200 ' Miomi, FL 33130 ' 305-789-3200


. Defendants caused Zachys to represent lots 479 and 480 to be "Chateau Lafleur

I92I" when in fact, and as Defendants knew, the wine contained in the bottle described as lots

479 and480 was not produced by Chateau :Lafleur and was not producedinl92l;

o Defendants caused Zachys to represent lot 443 to be "Chateau Petrus 1921," when


produced by Chateau Petrus and was not producedinl92|'

o Defendants caused Zachys to represent lots 408 and 409 to be "Chateau Latour

1928" when in fact, and as Defendants knew, the wine contained in the bottle described as lots

408 and 409 was not produced by Chateau Latour and was not produced in 1928;

o Defendants caused Zachys to represent lots 445 and 446 to be "Chateau Petrus

1928" when in fact, and as Defendants knew, the wine contained in the bottle described as lots

445 and446 was not produced by Chateau Petrus and was not producedin 1928;

Defendants caused Zachys to represent lot 516 to be "Clos L'Eglise Clinet 1947,"


not produced by Chateau Clos L'Eglise Clinet and was not producedin 1947;

o Defendants caused 7-achys to represent lots 492, 493, and, 494 to be "Chateau

Lafleur 1950" when in fact, and as Defendants knew, the wine contained in the bottle described

as lots 492,493, and494 was not produced by Chateau Lafleur and was not produced in 1950;

. Defendants caused Zachys to represent lots 448, 449, and 450 to be "Chateau

Petrus 1950," when in fact, and as Defendants knew, the wine contained in the bottle described

as lots 448,449, and 450 was not produced by Chateau Petrus and was not produced in 1950;

77. Each of these representations contained at least two material falsehoods: one as to

the wine's producer and another as to its vintage. Defendants further caused Acker and Zachys

-36-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.¡..

Museum Tower . I 50 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 331 30 . 305-789-3200


to repeat and affirm each of these misrepresentations in their promotional materials associated

with each auction, and during each auction. Defendants also made these or similar

representations on or before the dates of these auctions in invoices, and other documents.

78. Koch or Koch's agent received such auction catalogs and read such catalog

descriptions prior to purchasing each of the wines described in paragraphs 48 to 65. [n choosing

to bid on and to purchase each of the wines, Koch relied on their catalog descriptions, including

those portions which repeated Defendants!material misrepresentations. Most prominently, Koch

relied on Defendants' representation that, each wine derives from the producer and vintage

identified on its label. These representations was false in two material ways. Koch also received

and relied on Defendants' misrepresentations as repeated or afÍirmed in the auction houses'

promotional materials and at each auction.

79. Additionally, Defendants' material misrepresentations were literally printed on

each counterfeit bottle they sold: the producer and vintage indicated on the bottle's label did and

continue to misrepresent the producer and vintage of the wine therein, Defendants, by their sale

and distribution of the 32 bottles, affirmed and vouchsafed the representations printed on each

bottle's label, knowing that such representations were false with respect to producer and to

vintage. Koch or Koch's agents likewise relied on the misrepresentations printed on the face of

each bottle. These representations, by their nature, are continuous and ongoing.

80. Koch would not have purchased the wines if he or his agent had not read such

representations in the auction catalogs or promotional materiatrs, and if he or his agent had not

heard such misrepresentations during the auctions. And he would not have purchased the bottles

if the representations as to producer and vintage were not printed on the label of each bottles.

Furthermore, Koch would not have purchased the wines if he knew that such misrepresentations

-37 -STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITT¡RSOI.I, P .

Museum Tower . 150 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 . 305-/89-3200


were false or likely false. Each of the wines described in paragraph 48 to 65 is kept and stored in

Palm Beach, Florida.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Cotr,tlr¿oN Lew FneuP)

(Acar¡,isr All DereNpeNrs)

81. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs I

through 80 of this Complaint as if set forth in full herein.

82. Defendants made material misrepresentations to and concealed or suppressed

material facts from third party purchasers, collectors, and resellers of rare wines. Such

misrepresentations and suppressed material facts include those listed in paragraphs 1 through 81.

83. Defendants' misrepresentations or omissions were material and were false and

misleading, and Defendants knew they were material and were false and misleading at the time

they made them.

84. In misrepresenting or omitting these facts, Defendants intended to cause, and had

reason to expect they would cause, purchasers and collectors of rare wines, a group that includes

Plaintift to act in reliance upon the misrepresentations or omissions, whether directly or

indirectly as foreseeably passed along by third parties.

85. Plaintiff did reasonably and justifiably rely on Defendants'misrepresentations and

omissions in purchasing the 32 bottles of counterfeit wine described in paragraphs 48 through

65.

86. At the time Plaintiff acted, Plaintiff was unaware of the misrepresented,

concealed, or suppressed facts and would have acted difÊerently if Plaintiff had known the true

facts.

-38-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITTERSON, p.,{.

Museum Tower . I 50 West Flogler Street . Suiie 2200 ' Miomi, FL 331 30 ' 305=789-3200


87. Each of the counterfeit wines purchased by Plaintiffis essentially worthless. As a

rêsult of Plaintiffs reliance upon Defendants' misrepresentations, Plaintiff has suffered damages

in an amount to be proved atftial, but not less than 5547,693.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Crvrr. CoNspnecy To Dprneuo)

(êcarNsr Ar.r. DBraruoerurs)


through 80 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein.

89. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants and Rodenstock knowingly

and intentionally agreed to mislead purchasers and collectors of rare wines, a group that includes

Plaintifl by creating, importing, and selling counterfeit wines as genuine.

90. In firrtherance of their conspiracy, Defendants and Rodenstock committed the acts

described herein, including those described in paragraphs I through 87.

gl. In furtherance of their conspiracy, Defendants and Rodenstock made material

misrepresentations to and concealed or suppressed material facts from third parfy purchasers,

collectors, and resellers of rare wines. Such misrepresentations and suppressed material facts

include those listed in paragraphs 1 through 87.

92. The omissions or representations by Defendants and Rodenstock were material

and were false and misleading, and Defendants and Rodenstock knew they were material and

were false and misleading at the time they made them.

93. In misrepresenting or omitting these facts, Defendants and Rodenstock intended

to cause, and had reason to expect they would cause, purchasers and collectors of rare wines, a

_39 _

STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITI¡RSON. P.N.

Museum Tower . I50 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33ì 30 . 305-789-3200


group that includes Plaintifl to act in reliance upon the misrepresentations or omissions, whether

directly or indirectly as foreseeably passed along by third parties.

94. Plaintiff did reasonably and justifiably rely on Defendants' and Rodenstock's

misrepresentations in purchasing the counterfeit bottles of wine described atparagraphs 48 to 65.

95. At the time Plaintiff acted, Plaintiff was unaware of the misrepresented,

concealed, or suppressed facts and would have acted differently if Plaintiff had known the true

facts.

96. Defendants and Rodenstock acted with a specific intent to harm purchasers and

collectors of rare wines, a group that includes Plaintiff, and knowingly and intentionally

perpetrated a continuing scheme to sell counterfeit wines, evade detection, and profit from

selling counterfeit wines.

97. Plaintiff has been injured by acts taken in fuitherance of the conspiracy between

Defendants and Rodenstock and has suffered damages of no less than 8547,693, the precise

amount of which is to be determined at trial.

98. By virtue of Defendants' \¡rillful, wanton, and morally culpable conduct, aimed at

the public generally, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount to be

determined at trial.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(AIprNc eNp AsprrrNc FRAUp)

(êcerNsr All DeneNpnxrs)



-40-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITTERSON, PA.

Museum Tower . ì 50 West Flogler Street ' Suite 2200 ' Miomi, FL 33130 ' 305-789-3200


100. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants knew that Hardy Rodenstock

was acting to defraud Plaintiff, third parties, and purchasers and collectors of rare wines, a group

that includes Plaintifl by creating and selling wines that Defendants and Rodenstock knew to be

counterfeit but which Rodenstock represented to be genuine.

101. Rodenstock did in fact defraud Plaintiff by, inter alia, selling Plaintiff, via

Defendants, Defendants' customers, Christie's auctions, Acker auctions, and Zachys auctions, at

least 32 bottles of wine that Rodenstock and Defendants knew to be counterfeit. Rodenstock

created or directed others to create each ofthe 32 bottles described inparagraphs 48 through 65,

including the fraudulent and misleading labels thereon. As Rodenstock intended and expected,

Plaintiff relied on Rodenstock's fraudulent and misleading labels and other representations

regarding the 32 boffles. So relying, Plaintiff purchased the 32 bottles at prices that far exceeded

their actual value, to his detriment and injury.

I02. Defendants substantially assisted Rodenstock to defraud Plaintiff, third parties,

and purchasers and collectors of rare wines, a group that includes Plaintiff. Defendants

substantially assisted Rodenstock by serving as the primary conduit for his counterfeit wine to

the United States market. Defendants substantially assisted Rodenstock by importing to the

United States between 1998 and 2008 more than 800 bottles of his counterfeit rare wine,

including each of the 32 bottles described at parugraphs 48 to 65. Defendants substantially

assisted Rodenstock by promoting, marketing, and selling his counterfeit rare wine in the United

States, including each of the 32 bottles described at paragraphs 48 to 65. Defendants

substantially assisted Rodenstock by concealing that he had exported to the United States an

improbable volume of particular vintages of rare wine that Defendants sold into the markeþlace.

Defendants substantially assisted Rodenstock by concealing that he had exported to the United

-4r-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, p.¡.

Museum Tower . 150 West Flogler Streef . Suiie 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 . 305-789-3200


States particular bottles of rare wine Defendants sold into the marketplace. Defendants

substantially assisted Rodenstock by agreeing to import and sell into the markeþlace wine from

Rodenstock despite knowing that Rodenstock was a prodigious counterfeiter who had defrauded

and continued to defraud Plaintiff and others.

103. At the time Plaintiff relied on Rodenstock's misrepresentations, Plaintiff was

unaware of the concealed or suppressed facts and would have acted differently if Ptaintiff had

known the true facts.

104. As a result of Defendants' substantial and active assistance of Rodenstock's

fraudulent scheme, Plaintiffhas suffered damages of no less than $547,693, the precise amount

of which is to be determined attrial.

105. By Defendants' willful, wanton, and morally culpable conduct, aimed at the

public generally, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount to be determined

attrial.

FOTJRTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(CTn RICO 18 U.S.C. $ 1962)

(Acer¡,tsr ALL DereNpeNrs)



107. Section 1962(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code prohibits any person from

conducting an enterprise or participating in the conduct of an enterprise's affairs through a

pattern of racketeering activity. Section I964(d) of Title 18 provides that "[a]ny person injured

in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 ... may sue therefor in any

_42_STEARNS WEAVER MILLER W¡IssI-¡R ALHADEFF & SITTe RsoN. p.n.

Museum Tower . 150 Wesf Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33-l30 . 305-789-3200


appropriate United States district court." Plaintiff has been injured in his business and property

by Defendants'violation of section 1962.

108. As alleged inparagraphs 1 through 105, Defendants, in concert with Rodenstock,

have engaged in a paltem of racketeering activþ, the activities of which afFect interstate and

foreign coÍtmerce. Plaintiff is one of many victims of such racketeerin g activity . Plaintiff relied

on Defendants' misrepresentations that wine Defendants imported was genuine,

misrepresentations which were passed through the marketplace and were embodied in the wine

bottles Defendants sold. Plaintiff would not have purchased the 32 bottles of wine if it had been

disclosed by Defendants that the wine was counterfeit. Each of the 32 counterfeit wines he

purchased indirectly from Defendants is essentially worthless. The misrepresentations caused

harm to Plaintiffin the full amount that he paid for them.

109. As described herein, Defendants and Rodenstock operated together as an

association-in-fact enterprise. Rodenstock's role was, in part, to "discover" rare wine. In fact, as

Defendants knew, Rodenstock counterfeited it. Defendants' role was to cultivate and to find

buyers for the rare wine Rodenstock "discovered," and then to import and sell the counterfeit

wine into the United States market. Defendants' role'required Defendants to advertise, to

promote, and to extol the virtues of those vintages of rare wine that Rodenstock counterfeited.

110. The Rodenstock/RoyaVOliveros/Sokolin enterprise has been active since at least

1998. Between 1998 and 2008, Defendants served as the primary conduit of Rodenstock

counterfeit wine into the United States. Defendants Sokolin and Oliveros \¡/ere both and each

responsible for top-level managerial, strategic, and executive decisions within the enterprise.

-43-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITTERSON, pn

Museum Tower . 150 West Flogler Street ' Suite 2200 ' Miomi, FL 33.I30 ' 305-789-3200


111. In the course of, and in fuitherance of this racketeering conduct and the

Rodenstock/RoyaVOliveros/Sokolin enterprise, Defendants engaged in wire fraud, in violation of

18 U.S.C. $ 1343:

o In an effort to promote its counterfeit wines, Defendants "bombarded [their]

clients with faxes touting their latest finds," which they knew to be counterfeit.

Defendants sent these faxes "almost nightly," and the faxes were the "heart and

soul of the operation." Richard Grimes, Treasure Islands in a Sea of Wine,New

Yom TIvtes, June 30, 1999. As detailed inparagaphs I tlnough 105, Defendants

sent faxes throughout the United States and the world repeatedly between at least

1998 and 2008 that contained false descriptions, and inaccurately described the

vintage and producer of counterfeit wines Defendants offered for sale. Such faxes

furthered Defendants' fraudulent scheme to sell counterfeit wine to an

unsuspecting public.

In an effort to import each of the wines described at paragraphs 48 to 65, as well

as each of the 2,067 bottles Defendants imported from Rodenstock between 1998

and 2008, Defendants used interstate and intemational wires, including but not

limited to fax and telephone lines, to communicate orders and other relevant

information to Rodenstock, their supplier of counterfeit wine. Between 1998 and

2008, Defendants sent such faxes to Germany regularly and repeatedly. The faxes

furthered Defendants' fraudulent scheme to sell counterfeit wine to an

unsuspecting public.

ll2. In the course of, and in furtherance ol this racketeering conduct and the

RodenstocVRoyaUOliveros/Sokolin enterprise, Defendants engaged in mail fraud, in violation of

-44-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &- SITTERSON, P-N.

Museum Tower . ,l50 Wesf Flogler Street ' Suite 2200 ' Miomi, FL 33'l30 ' 305-289-3200


18 U.S.C. $ 1341. Between at least 1998 and 2009, Defendants regularly imported counterfeit

wine to the United States via international common carriers, including Lufthansa. Between at

least 1998 and 2008, Defendants regularly shþed counterfeit wine it had imported from

Rodenstock to customers via interstate commercial carriers such as FedEx and UPS.

113. As a proximate result of Defendants' wire and mail fraud activities, and as a

proximate result of Defendants' criminal enterprise, Koch has suffered damages, including

paying for the 32 bottles of wine at prices that far exceed their actual value. Plaintiffs property

has been injured by reason of a violation of 18 U.S.C. ç L962 and he is entitled to treble damages

under 18 U.S.C. $ 196a(c). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 1964(a), this Court should restrain and

enjoin further violations of 18 U.S.C. ç 1962. The Defendants' pattern of racketeering activity

has extended over a substantial period of time and it is continuing, warranting injunctive relief.

FIFTH CLAIM F'OR RELIEF'

(VIolertoN or SBcrtoN 501.204 op rsB FLoRne Deceprrvp exo UNrerR TReoe Pnecrrcps

Acr)

(Acer¡{sr ALL DereNpeNrs)

lI4. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs I

through 80 of this Complaint as if set forth in full herein.

115. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") $ 501.204

prohibits "[u]nfair methods of competitior¡ unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or

deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.rr

116. As alleged herein, Defendants have engaged in materially unfair methods of

competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in

conducting trade and commerce in the state of Florida. Defendants engaged in such methods,

-45-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITT¡RsoI.¡, p.n.

Museum Tower . I50 West Flogler Street . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33130 . 305-289-3200


acts, and practices by importing and selling to consumers in Florida bottles of purported rare

wine that Defendants knew to be counterfeit; misrepresenting to consumers in Florida and others

that bottles of wine Defendants knew to be counterfeit were genuine; and falsely advertising, by

sending mass faxes and emails to Florida and elsewhere that misrepresented the authenticity of

wines, and by representing on Royal's website that Defendants sold genuine rare wine.

lI7. Such methods, acts, and practices were directed at and affected consumers in

Florida" including purchasers and collectors of rare wines, a group that includes Plaintifl in

violation of FDUTPA $ 501.204. Defendants'methods, acts, and practices described herein were

likely to mislead, and did mislead, by causing reasonable purchasers and collectors of rare wines

to rely upon Defendants' false representations and advertising.

118. FDUTPA $ 501.211(2) provides in relevant part that "anyone aggrieved by a

violation of this part may bring an action to obtain declaratory judgment ... [and] may recover

actual damages, plus attorney's fees and court costs."

119. Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on Defendants' deceptive, misleading or

false representations and advertising in purchasing the 32 bottles of counterfeit wine described at

paragraphs 48 to 65.

120. Defendants'violation of FDUTPA $ 501.204 has caused Plaintiffto suffer injury

including, inter alia, paying for the 32 counterfeit bottles of wine described in paragraphs 48 to

65. As a result of Defendants'violation of FDUTPA $ 501.204, Plaintiff has suffered damages

in an amount to be proved at trial, but not less than 5547,693.

L2I. Defendants willfully and knowingly engaged in the conduct alleged herein.

122. Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including injunctive relief, declaratory relief,

attomeys' fees, and court costs pursuant to FDUTPA $ 501.204.

-46-STE¡.R¡S WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITTERSON. P.,A.

Museum Tower 150 West Flogler Street ' Suite 2200 ' Miomi, FL 33130 ' 305-789-3200


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays for judgment inhis favor as follows:

a. Injunctive relief to prohibit further wrongdoing by Defendants;

b. Damages for all injuries suffered as a result of Defendants' unlawful

conduct;

c. Exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

d. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

e. Declaratory relief, as appropriate under FDUTPA $ 501.211;

f. Attorney's fees, as appropriate under FDUTPA $ 501.211;

g. Court costs, as appropriate under FDUTPA $ 501.21l;

h. Treble damages, as appropriate under 18 U.S.C. $ 196a(c);

i. Pre-judgment interest; and

j. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as may be just and proper.

_47 _

STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &. SITTERSON, P.A.



DEMAND F'OR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands trial by

jury in this action for all issues so triable.

Dated: October 27,2011 Respectfully submitted,

Abigail G. Corbett (31332)acorbett@stearnsweaver. comSrBeRNs V/BnwR Mru.eR V/erssleRAlnlperr & StrrensoN, P.A.150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200Miami, FL 33130(30s) 789-3200

John C. Hueston (pro hac vice application forthcoming)Marshall A. Camp Qro hac vice application forthcoming)IR¡r.l & Meuelra LLP1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900Los Angeles, California 90067 -427 6(310) 203-7ts2

Attorneysfor Plaíntíff

-48-STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSoN. p.¡.

Museum Tower . I 50 West Flogler Streef . Suite 2200 . Miomi, FL 33I 30 . 305-789-3200

Respectfully submitted,

Jay B. S (77636r)


koch vs royal wine merchant- daniel oliveros & jeff sokolin

Documents