UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT of FLORIDA
Case no 06-60064 CR COOKE MAGISTRATE Judge BROWN
18 U.S.C. § 37 1
18 U.S.C. § 1341
18 U.S.C. § 1343
21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a), 352(a), (f), and (i), 333(a)(2)
21 U.S.C. §§ 331(b), 352(a), (f), and (i), 333(a)(2)
21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d), 355(a), 333(a)(2)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
ARTHUR VANMOOR,
a/k/a JACK JERSEY,
a/k/a PHILLIP ROTH,
Defendant.
INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges that :
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
At times material to this Indictment :
Regulatory Framework
1 . The United States Food and Drug Administration (`FDA") was the federal agency
charged with the responsibility of protecting the health and safety of the American public by
enforcing the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Title 21, United States Code, Sections 301,
et seg. ("FDCA"). One purpose of the FDCA was to ensure that drugs sold for consumption or
administration to humans were safe, effective, and bore labeling containing only true and accurate
information. The FDA's responsibilities under the FDCA included regulating the manufacture,
labeling, and distribution of all drugs and drug components shipped or received in interstate
commerce.
2. Under the FDCA, "drug" meant ". . . articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure,
mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; . . . and . . . articles (other
than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals . . .
" Title 21, United States Code, Section 321(g)(1) .
3 . Under the FDCA, a "drug" was misbranded if its labeling was "false or misleading
in any particular ." Title 21, United States Code, Section 352(a) . The FDCA defined "labeling" as
"all labels and other written, printed, or graphic matter (1) upon any article or any of its containers
or wrappers, or (2) accompanying such article." Title 21, United States Code, Section 321(m) .
4. Under the FDCA, a "drug" was also misbranded unless its labeling bore adequate
directions for use . Title 21, United States Code, Section 352(f) . Under the FDA's regulations,
"adequate directions for use" meant directions under which the layman can use a drug safely for the
purposes for which it is intended ." Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 201 .5 . The
"intended use" meant under the FDA's regulations ,
. . . the objective intent of the persons legally responsible for the
labeling of drugs . The intent is determined by such persons'
expressions or may be shown by the circumstances surrounding the
distribution of the article . This objective intent may, for example, be
shown by labeling claims, advertising matter, or oral or written
statements by such persons or their representatives . It may be shown
by the circumstances that the article is, with the knowledge of such
persons or their representatives, offered and used for a purpose for
which it is neither labeled nor advertised. The intended uses of an
article may change after it has been introduced into interstate
commerce by its manufacturer . . . . But if a manufacturer knows, or
has knowledge of facts that would give him notice, that a drug
introduced into interstate commerce by him is to be used fo r
-2-
conditions, purposes, or uses other than the ones for which he offers
it, he is required to provide adequate labeling for such a drug which
accords with such other uses to which the article is to be put .
Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 201 .128 .
5. Under the FDCA, a drug was also "misbranded" if it was offered for sale under the
name of another drug. Title 21, United States Code, Section 352(i)(3) .
6. The FDCA prohibited the introduction or delivery for introduction, or causing the
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any drug that was misbranded .
Title 21, United States Code, Section 331(a) .
7. The FDCA prohibited the misbranding of any drug in interstate commerce. Title 21,
United States Code, Section 331(b) .
8 . The term "new drug" was defined under the FDCA as any drug the composition of
which is such that the drug is not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training
and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under
the conditions prescribed, recommended or suggested in its labeling . Title 21, United States Code,
Section 321(p) .
9. Under the FDCA, no person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate
commerce any new drug, unless there was in effect an approval of a new drug application ("NDA")
pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 355(b), or an abbreviated new drug application
("ANDA") pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 355(j), or exempted from such
approval . Title 21, United States Code, Section 355(a) ; Title 21, United States Code, Section 355(i) .
10. The FDCA prohibited the introduction or delivery for introduction, or causing the
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any article in violation of Titl e
-3-
21, United States Code, Section 355 . Title 21, United States Code, Section 331(d).
The Corporations
11 . On or about January 25, 2005, Flu Fighter Corp . was incorporated in Florida, listing
Phillip Roth as the incorporator, registered agent , and owner. Florida corporate records identified
the business and mailing address of Flu Fighter Corp. as 22 S .E. 4th Street, #219, Boca Raton , Florida
33432 .
12. On or about February 15, 2005, an "Application for Registration of Fictitious Name"
was filed with the Florida Department of Commerce ("DOC") for " Flu Fighter Laboratories Inc .
[sic], listing an address of 22 S. E. 4" Street, #219, Boca Raton, Florida 33432 . The application
identified Amanda Vasquez Medina as the owner of the business .
13 . On or about November 1, 2005, an "Application for Registration of Fictitious Name"
was filed with the DOC for "Flu Fighter Laboratories," listing an address of 22 S .E. 4" Street, #209,
Boca Raton, Florida 33432 . The application identified Amanda Vasquez Medina as the owner of
the business .
14. On or about November 29, 2005, an "Application for Registration of Fictitious
Name" was filed with the DOC for "Flu-Fighter Laboratories ," listing an address of 22 S .E. 4"
Street , #219, Boca Raton , Florida 33432. The application identified Josephine Vasquez Medina as
the owner of the business .
15. On or about December 5, 2005, "Flu Fighter Laboratories Inc." was incorporated in
Florida, listing Phillip Roth as the incorporator and registered agent . The business and mailing
address of Flu Fighter Laboratories Inc . was listed as 22 S .E. 4`h Street, #219, Boca Raton , Florida
33432 .
-4-
16. 22 S .E. 4'h Street, Boca Raton, Florida 33432 is the location of the mail-drop business,
Mail Boxes International ("MBI") . Number 219 corresponded to a mailbox number rented by
defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR beginning on or about March 1, 1999 .
17. Flu Fighter Corp ., Flu Fighter Laboratories ,Inc ., Flu-Fighter Laboratories, and Flu
Fighter Laboratories Inc. (collectively referred to hereafter as "FFL") operated out of offices located
at 100 E. Sample Road, Suites 300 and 330, Pompano Beach, Florida 33044, which were identified
on the building roster and the office door as "Gold Entertainment ." Defendant ARTHUR
VANMOOR incorporated Gold Entertainment, Inc ., in Florida on or about November 16, 2001 .
The Products
18 . Defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR caused FFL to manufacture and produce, among
other things, "Cancer Control," "Flu Fighter," "Migraine Miracle," "Cramps Comforter," and
"Hangover Heaven ." Because defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR intended for the articles to be
used to treat and cure cancer, the flu, migraine headaches, cramps, and hangovers, respectively,
"Cancer Control," "Flu Fighter," "Migraine Miracle," "Cramps Comforter," and "Hangover Heaven"
were "drugs" within the meaning of the FDCA .
19 . "Cancer Control," "Flu Fighter," "Migraine Miracle," "Cramps Comforter," and
"Hangover Heaven" were not approved by the FDA for use in human beings.
COUNT 1
(18 U.S.C. § 371 : Conspiracy )
20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of the General Allegations are incorporated as though
realleged in their entirety herein .
21 . From on or about January 25, 2005, and continuing through on or about at leas t
-5-
March 3, 2006, at Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties, in the Southern District o f
Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant ,
ARTHUR VANMOOR,
a/k/a JACK JERSEY,
a/k/a PHILLIP ROTH,
did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with others known and
unknown to the Grand Jury, to defraud the United States and to commit certain other offenses against
the United States, namely :
a. to knowingly and with specific intent to defraud, devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations and promises, and, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to
knowingly transmit and cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communications in interstate and
foreign commerce, certain writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Sections 1343 ;
b. to knowingly and with specific intent to defraud, devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations and promises, and, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, and
attempting to do so, to knowingly cause to be delivered by the United States Postal Service and by
commercial interstate carrier, according to the directions thereon, certain matters and things, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 ;
c. with intent to defraud and mislead, to introduce and deliver for introduction into
interstate commerce and cause to be introduced and delivered for introduction into interstate
commerce, a drug within the meaning of Title 21, United States Code, Section 321(g)(1), that wa s
-6-
misbranded as defined by Title 21, United States Code, Sections 352(a), (f), and (i), in violation of
Title 21, United States Code, Sections 331(a) and 333(a)(2) ;
d. with intent to defraud and mislead, to misbrand, as defined by Title 21, United
States Code, Sections 352(a), (f), and (i), a drug within the meaning of Title 21, United States Code,
Section 321(g)(1), in interstate commerce, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections
331(b) and 333(a)(2) ;
e. with intent to defraud and mislead, to introduce and deliver for introduction and
cause to be introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce an unapproved newt
drug, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 331(d), 355(a) and 333(a)(2)o af7d'
OBJECTS OF THE CONSPIRACY
22 . It was the purpose and object of the conspiracy for the defendant and his coconspirators
to enrich themselves unjustly by introducing into and marketing and selling in interstate
commerce new drugs that were not approved by the FDA for use in human beings, to wit, "Cancer
Control," "Migraine Miracle," "Flu Fighter," "Cramps Comforter," "Hangover Heaven," that were
misbranded in that the labeling was false and misleading in particulars, the labeling failed to bear
adequate directions for use, and the products were offered for sale under the name of other drugs .
23 . It was further the purpose and object of the conspiracy for the defendant and his coconspirators
to enrich themselves unjustly by defrauding the FDA by distributing the drugs "Cancer
Control," "Migraine Miracle," "Flu Fighter," "Cramps Comforter," "Hangover Heaven," that were
not approved by the FDA for use in human beings, and that were misbranded in that the labeling was
false and misleading in particulars, the labeling failed to bear adequate directions for use, and the
products were offered for sale under the name of other drugs, and by failing to register as a dru g
-7-
manufacturer as required by Title 21, United States Code, Section 360 .
MANNER AND MEANS
The manner and means by which the defendant and others sought to accomplish the objects
of the conspiracy and the scheme and artifice to defraud included the following :
24. Defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR caused the various FFL entities to be
incorporated or registered as fictitious names in the state of Florida .
25 . Defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR caused a company to encapsulate and bottle the
products "Cancer Control ," "Migraine Miracle ," "Flu Fighter," "Hangover Heaven," and "Cramps
Comforter," all of which contained the same ingredients in the same proportions to each other.
26. Defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR caused the creation and maintenance of the
following websites , among others , which could be accessed from any computer in the world with
Internet access : cancer-cure. flu-cure .us, www. flucure.com,www.mirainecure.com.
crampscomforter, .cancercure .oru,
flufighter .net, livercancercure..lungcancercur. breastcancercure .com. breastcancercure .martinweinstock .com, www .cancercontrol .info, www .cancerchronicle .com,
cancernews . biz, .migraine-cure. fda-approvals. com, migrainemiracle
27. To induce consumers in interstate and foreign commerce to purchase "Cancer
Control ," "Migraine Miracle ," "Flu Fighter ," from FFL, defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR caused
these websites and others , which constituted "labeling" under Title 21, United States Code, Section
321(m) for the drugs "Cancer Control ," "Migraine Miracle," "Flu Fighter," to contain materially
false, misleading, and fraudulent claims, as well as omissions of material facts, about "Cance r
-8-
Control," "Migraine Miracle," "Flu Fighter," that were not approved for human use by the FDA,
including, but not limited, to the following :
a. that "Cancer Control," "Migraine Miracle," and "Flu Fighter" were "FDA[-
][a]pproved new medicine[s]," when, in truth and in fact, these products were not FDA-approved,
and neither defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR nor anyone else had ever even filed a new drug
application for any of these drugs with the FDA ;
b. that "Cancer Control" guaranteed the curing of "breast, lung, prostate, colon, skin,
liver, blood (leukemia), kidney, pancreas, brain and most other forms of metastatic and nonmetastatic
cancers within 6 weeks," when, in truth and in fact, defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR
had no scientifically reliable evidence that "Cancer Control" was sure to cure such cancers within
six weeks, and some "Cancer Control" users died from their cancer rather than being cured ;
c. that "Cancer Control" "eliminate[d] cancer pain and significantly reduce[d] tumor
size in days," when, in truth and in fact, defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR had no scientifically
reliable evidence to support such a claim ;
d . that "Cancer Control" had caused "[m]ore than 10,000 people [to be] cured and
cancer free," when, in truth and in fact, defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR had no scientifically
reliable evidence to support such a claim, and the claim was false ;
e. that "Cancer Control" was "[r]ecommended by leading cancer research
physicians," when, in truth and in fact, it was not, and defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR had
fabricated the names and existence of physicians and their testimonials regarding "Cancer Control"
that appeared on the websites ;
f. that individuals whose photographs appeared on the websites bore certain name s
-9-
and testified to the effectiveness of "Cancer Control," "Migraine Miracle," and "Flu Fighter," when,
in truth and in fact, defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR had stolen and otherwise misappropriated
the photographs of these individuals and their alleged testimonials from websites for other products,
and had modified them to give the individuals new names in some cases and to make it appear as
though the individuals had endorsed FFL's products, although they had not ;
g. that "Cancer Control" consumers' money would be fully refunded if the consumers
felt no improvement and did not get cured, when, in truth and in fact, "Cancer Control" consumers
who sought full refunds did not receive full refunds ;
h. that "Cancer Control" was really the FDA-approved Pfizer drug Camptosar®,
when, in truth and in fact, it was not, and it did not contain significant quantities, if any, of the active
ingredient in Camptosar® ;
i . that "Migraine Miracle" was really the FDA-approved drug Campral®, when, in
truth and in fact, it was not, and it did not contain significant quantities, if any, of the active
ingredient in Campral® ;
j . that "Flu Fighter" was really the FDA-approved drug Boniva®, when, in truth and
in fact, it was not, and it did not contain significant quantities, if any, of the active ingredient in
Boniva®;
k . that the United States Department of Health and Human Services Cancer
Prevention and Control, and the American Cancer Society had conducted successful tests on "Cancer
Control," showing the product to be effective, when, in truth and in fact, no one and no office within
or associated with the United States Department of Health or the American Cancer Society had
conducted such tests ;
-10-
1. that "Flu Fighter" was recommended by "leading flu research physicians," when,
in truth and in fact, it was not, and defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR had caused the names,
existence, and claims of the alleged "leading flu research physicians" to be fabricated ;
m. that "Migraine Miracle" was recommended by "leading migraine headache
research physicians," when, in truth and in fact, it was not, and defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR
had caused the names, existence, and claims of the alleged "leading migraine headache research
physicians" to be fabricated ;
n . that "[m]ore than 10,000 people [had been] cured and [were] flu free, thanks to
[Flu Fighter,]" when, in truth and in fact, defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR had no scientifically
reliable evidence of such a claim, and the claim was false ;
o. that "[m]ore than 10,000 people [had been] cured and migraine free, thanks to
[Migraine Miracle]," when, in truth and in fact, defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR had no
scientifically reliable evidence of such a claim, and the claim was false ;
p. that "Cancer Control" cured "everybody's cancer" except those who "refuse[d]
to follow the recommended dosage," when, in truth and in fact, defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR
had no scientifically reliable evidence to support such a claim .
28 . Defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR caused telephone lines, including toll-free
telephone lines, to be established to accept orders for "Cancer Control," "Migraine Miracle," "Flu
Fighter," which were not approved by the FDA for use in human beings .
29. Defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR caused co-conspirators and employees to answer
telephone calls to FFL and take orders for "Cancer Control," "Migraine Miracle," "Flu Fighter,"
which were not approved by the FDA for use in human beings .
-11-
30 . Defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR caused co-conspirators and employees answering
the telephones and taking orders for FFL to make false statements regarding, among other things,
the alleged FDA approval status of "Cancer Control," "Migraine Miracle," "Flu Fighter," which
drugs were not approved by the FDA for use in human beings .
31 . Defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR caused FFL to send "Cancer Control," "Migraine
Miracle," "Flu Fighter," which drugs were not approved by the FDA for use in human beings, by
United States mail and by interstate and international commercial courier to people who had ordered
and paid for the products .
OVERT ACTS
In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the objects thereof, the following overt acts,
among others, were committed in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties, in the Southern
District of Florida, and elsewhere, by at least one co-conspirator :
32 . In or about August 2005 defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR arranged for a coconspirator
to create "bogus articles from bogus doctors, . . . pictures of people dressed like doctors
holding the products ["Cancer Control," "Migraine Miracle," "Flu Fighter," and "Cramps
Comforter"], . . . [and] bogus testimonials" for websites promoting "Cancer Control," "Migraine
Miracle," "Flu Fighter," and "Cramps Comforter."
33 . On or about December 24, 2005, after the court on December 22, 2005, in U .S . v.
Arthur Vanmoor, et al . , Case No. 05-61940-CV-LENARD/KLEIN (S .D . Fla.), entered a temporary
restraining order shutting down websites and prohibiting the further promotion, advertisement .
production, shipment, and/or sale of "Cancer Control," "Migraine Miracle," "Flu Fighter," and any
other new drugs that were not FDA-approved, and after GoDaddy, a web-hosting company locate d
-12-
in the United States, suspended service to certain of defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR's websites,
defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR attempted to cause the transfer of the websites
migrainecure. flucure. and cancercure. from GoDaddy to a South
African web-hosting company.
34. On or about January 2, 2006, after the court on December 22, 2005, in U .S . v . Arthur
Vanmoor, et al., Case No. 05-61940-CV-LENARD/KLEIN (S .D . Fla.), entered a temporary
restraining order shutting down websites and prohibiting the further promotion, advertisement,
production, shipment, and/or sale of "Cancer Control," "Migraine Miracle," "Flu Fighter," and any
other new drugs that were not FDA-approved, defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR caused the terms
"Food and Drug Administration" and "FDA" to be replaced with the term "Fighting Diseases
Association" on his websites .
35. Despite the entry on December 22, 2005, of a temporary restraining order shutting
down websites and prohibiting the further promotion, advertisement, production, shipment, and/or
sale of "Cancer Control," "Migraine Miracle," "Flu Fighter," and any other new drugs that were not
FDA-approved, on or about January 5, 2006, defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR e-mailed a coconspirator
that he was "putting the [web]sites back up . Things are looking better."
36. Despite the Court's direction on January 6, 2006, in U.S . v . Arthur Vanmoor, et al. ,
Case No. 05-61940-CV-LENARD/KLEIN (S .D. Fla.), that "all websites and phone numbers be shut
down immediately, by 5 p .m.," defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR refused to comply and instead
caused the websites and phone numbers to continue operating .
37 . On or about January 26, 2006, defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR caused a lawsuit
to be filed on behalf of FFL against Ceba-Tek, Inc ., and Southern Tape & Label, Inc ., after the y
-13-
cooperated with the United States in its investigation of defendant ARTHUR VANMOOR and his
co-conspirators .
38 . The allegations contained in Counts 2 through 12 of this Indictment are incorporated
by reference as overt acts .
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 .
COUNTS 2-6
(Wire Fraud : 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2)
39 . Paragraphs 1 through 19 of the General Allegations and paragraphs 23 through 31 of
Count 1 are incorporated by reference as though realleged in their entirety herein .
SCHEME AND ARTIFICE
40 . It was the object of the scheme and artifice to defraud for the defendant ARTHUR
VANMOOR to enrich himself unjustly by introducing into and marketing and selling in interstate
commerce new drugs that were not approved by the FDA for use in human beings, to wit, "Cancer
Control," "Migraine Miracle," "Flu Fighter," "Cramps Comforter," "Hangover Heaven," and that
were misbranded in that the labeling was false and misleading in particulars, the labeling failed to
bear adequate directions for use, and the products were offered for sale under the name of other
drugs .
USE OF THE WIRES
41 . On or about the dates listed below, at Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade
Counties, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant ,
ARTHUR VANMOOR,
a/k/a JACK JERSEY,
a/k/a PHILLIP ROTH,
-14-
did knowingly and willfully devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and
property, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and,
for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute such scheme and artifice, did knowingly
transmit and cause to be transmitted in interstate commerce by means of wire communications,
certain writings, signs, signals and sounds, as more specifically described below :
COUNT DATE DESCRIPTION OF WIRE COMMUNICATIO N
2 8/05 - 1/06 Communication over the website www.cancercure .org that
"Cancer Control" was FDA-approved, when, in fact, it was not .
3 8/05 - 1/06 Communication over the website www.niigrainecure. that
"Migraine Miracle" was FDA-approved, when, in fact, it wa s
not.
4 8/05 - 1/06 Communication over the website www.flufighter .net that "Flu
Fighter" was FDA-approved, when, in fact, it was not .
5 12/8/05 Acceptance of telephone call from Birmingham, Alabama, t o
FFL in the Southern District of Florida, in which FFL took a n
order from the caller for two bottles of "Cancer Control . "
6 12/28/05 Acceptance of telephone call from Louisiana to FFL in the
Southern District of Florida, in which FFL took an order fro m
the caller for two bottles of "Cancer Control ."
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2 .
COUNTS 7-8
(Mail Fraud : 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2)
42 . Paragraphs 1 through 19 of the General Allegations and paragraphs 23 through 31 of
Count 1 are incorporated by reference as though realleged in their entirety herein .
SCHEME AND ARTIFICE
43 . It was the object of the scheme and artifice to defraud for the defendant to enrich
himself unjustly by introducing into and marketing and selling in interstate commerce new drugs that
-15-
were not approved by the FDA for use in human beings, to wit, "Cancer Control," "Migraine
Miracle," "Flu Fighter," "Cramps Comforter," "Hangover Heaven," and that were misbranded in that
the labeling was false and misleading in particulars, the labeling failed to bear adequate directions
for use, and the products were offered for sale under the name of other drugs .
USE OF THE MAIL
44 . On or about the dates listed below, at Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade
Counties, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant ,
ARTHUR VANMOOR,
a/k/a JACK JERSEY,
a/k/a PHILLIP ROTH,
did knowingly and willfully devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and
property, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and,
for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute such scheme and artifice, did knowingly
cause to be delivered by United States Mail and private and commercial interstate carrier, according
to the directions thereon, certain mail matters and things, as more specifically described below :
COUNT DATE DESCRIPTION OF MAIL MATTER
7 12/8/05 Two bottles of "Cancer Control" sent from Miami, Florida, t o
Alabama
8 12/29/05 Two bottles of "Cancer Control" sent from the Southern District o f
Florida to Louisian a
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 2 .
COUNTS 9-10
(Misbranding : 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(b) ; 333( a)(2))
45 . Paragraphs 1 through 19 of the General Allegations and paragraphs 23 through 31 of
Count I are incorporated by reference as though realleged in their entirety herein .
-16-
46 . On or about the dates listed below, in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dad e
Counties, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant ,
ARTHUR VANMOOR,
a/k/a JACK JERSEY,
a/k/a PHILLIP ROTH,
with intent to defraud and mislead, and while the drugs were in interstate commerce did cause the
drugs listed below to be misbranded in the following ways : (1) as defined in Title 21, United States
Code, Section 352(a) in that the labeling was false and misleading in its particulars, as alleged above
in paragraphs 28 .a. - 28 .p . ; (2) as defined in Title 21, United States Code, Section 352(f)(1), in that
the labeling did not bear adequate directions for its intended use(s), in that the drugs were offered
for use to cure various ailments described below as to each count, knowing full well that the labeling
of the drugs did not and could never bear adequate directions for such use because the drugs did not
cure the conditions that they purported to cure; and (3) as defined in Title 21, United States Code.
Section 352(i)(3), in that they were offered for sale under the name of other drugs, each type of
misbranding constituting a violation of the FDCA, as set forth in the individual counts below :
COUNT DATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE TRANSACTIO N
9 12/8/05 Shipment of two bottles of "Cancer Control" from th e
Southern District of Florida to Alabam a
10 12/29/05 Shipment of two bottles of "Cancer Control" from th e
Southern District of Florida to Louisiana
All in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 331(b) and 333(a)(2), and Title 18 ,
United States Code, Section 2 .
COUNTS 11-12
(Unapproved New Drugs: 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) ; 355(a) ; 333(a)(2))
-17-
47. Paragraphs I through 19 of the General Allegations and paragraphs 23 through 31 of
Count 1 are incorporated by reference as though realleged in their entirety herein .
48 . On or about the dates listed below, in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade
Counties, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant ,
ARTHUR VANMOOR,
a/k/a JACK JERSEY,
a/k/a PHILLIP ROTH,
with intent to defraud and mislead, did cause to be introduced and delivered for introduction into
interstate commerce, "Cancer Control," a new drug within the meaning of Title 21, United States
Code, Section 331(p) that did not have in effect an approval of an application filed pursuant to Title
21, United States Code, Sections 355(b) or 355(j), and was not exempted from such approval
pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 355(i) as charged in the individual counts below :
COUNT DATE INTRODUCTION INTO INTERSTATE COMMERC E
11 12/8/05 Two bottles of "Cancer Control "shipped from the Souther n
District of Florida to Alabam a
12 12/29/05 Two bottles of "Cancer Control" shipped from the Souther n
District of Florida to Louisiana
All in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 331(d), 355(a) and 333(a)(2), and
Title 18, United States Code, Section 2 .
A TRUE BILL.
GRAND JURY FOREPERSO N
//r7- R
. AL XA ER ACO TA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
ADGES
AL ASSISTANT U .S . ATTORNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO .
vs. CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY*
ARTHUR VANMOOR
Superseding Case Information :
Court Division: (Select One) New Defendant(s) Yes No
Number of New Defendant s
Miami Key West Total number of counts
FTL WPB FTP
I do hereby certify that :
1 . 1 have carefully considered the allegations of the indictment, the number of defendants, the number
of probable witnesses and the legal complexities of the Indictment/Information attached hereto .
2. 1 am aware that the information supplied on this statement will be relied upon by the Judges of thi s
Court in setting their calendars and scheduling criminal trials under the mandate of the Speedy
Trial Act, Title 28 U .S.C. Section 3161 .
3. Interpreter: (Yes or No) Nn
List language and/or dialec t
4. This case will take 20 days for the parties to try .
5. Please check appropriate category and type of offense listed below :
(Check only one) (Check only one)
1 0 to 5 days
II 6 to 10 days
III 11 to 20 days
IV 21 to 60 days
V 61 days and over
Petty
Minor
Misdem.
Felony
6. Has this case been previously filed in this District Court? (Yes or No) No
If yes :
Judge: Case No.
(Attach copy of dispositive order )
Has a complaint been filed in this matter? (Yes or No) No
If yes :
Magistrate Case No .
Related Miscellaneous numbers :
Defendant(s) in federal custody as of
Defendant(s) in state custody as of
Rule 20 from the District of
Is this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) NO
7. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the U .S . Attorney's Office prior to
April 1, 2003? Yes X No
8. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the U . S . Attorney's Office prior to
April 1, 1999? Yes ) No
If yes, was it pending in the Central Region? Yes N o
10.
Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U .S . Attorney's Office
prior to October 14, 2003 Yes X No
May 18, 2003? Yes N
Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Narcotics Section (Miami) priolto
&JD IN S .
dd~a B6rNo.
AUM
D STATES ATTORNEY
8223
*Penalty Sheet(s) attached REV . 1/1 4/04
N :\hpantaleo\ROSE B UM\VANMOOR \INDPKG .wpd
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENALTY SHEET
Defendant's Name: ARTHUR VANMOOR No. :
Count # I :
Conspiracy; in violation of 18 :37 1
*Max Penalty : Five years' imnricnnment 250 fl(1 finP ;_c rc' ctipPrvikPrl releas e
Counts #2-6 :
Wire fraud ; in violation of 18:1343
*Max Penalty: Twenty vPr .a prisnnmPnt_2-,9n. Qn fine ; y r-,' siipprvisPdl rPlpgc a
Counts #7-8 :
Mail fraud ; in violation of 18 :1341
*Max Penalty : Twenty _year ricnnmPnt 25f1 flf)fl finP ;Iiearc' ciipervisPdi releas e
Counts #9-10 :
Misbranding ; in violation of 21 :331(b) and 33(a)(2 )
*Max Penalty : Three years' imnricnnment $950 .000 fine ; 1 years' si ip rviceri release
Count #11-12 :
Unapproved New Drugs ; in violation of 21 :331(d); 335(a) ; 333(a)(2)
*Max Penalty : Three years' imnricnnmPnt 25f1 flfl fine ; 1 years' s p rvisPrf releas e
Count # :
*Max Penalty :
Count # :
*Max Penalty :
Count # :
*Max Penalty:
Count # :
*Max Penalty:
Count # :
*Max Penalty :
Count # :
*Max Penalty :
Count # :
*Max Penalty :
Count # :
*Max Penalty :
*Refers only to possible term of incarceration , does not include possible fines, restitution,
spacial assessments,p arniA terms nr fnrfP_itllrA_R that may hp applicahip_
REV 12/12196
JIJ
N
z
