On August 8, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, filed a detailed First Amended Complaint that levels serious allegations against a corporate enterprise and its owner, who promised to help small minority-owned businesses secure grants. Doing business under the name “C Lee Enterprises LLC, also known as Grant Bae and Grant Bae Consulting and More,” the defendants allegedly presented themselves as saviors for struggling entrepreneurs who needed vital capital during the pandemic—particularly by tapping into COVID-19 relief funds and other forms of grant funding. Instead, according to the lawsuit, they left thousands of hopeful small-business owners with nothing but empty promises and mounting frustrations.

Among the more damning allegations is the claim that the corporate entity and its owner used federal pandemic relief funds—funds they themselves secured through the Paycheck Protection Program—to kick-start a deceptive business. Far from delivering any real relief to the entrepreneurs who engaged them, the operators allegedly fabricated “guaranteed grant” outcomes, continued to accept new clients, and never refunded thousands of dollars that small businesses had already invested. These misrepresentations, the Complaint contends, resulted in considerable harm to communities, especially minority-owned enterprises that were already struggling under the weight of the pandemic.

What makes these allegations so fucked is how they appear to embody many broader systemic issues: the alleged behavior took place against a backdrop of deregulation, lax oversight, and an economic environment where profit-maximization trumps ethical considerations. This investigative article, divided into eleven sections, will critically examine how the First Amended Complaint paints a broader portrait of what can go wrong under neoliberal capitalism when corporate accountability is weak and wealth disparity is allowed to widen. We also will explore the economic fallout for businesses that fell victim, the corporate greed on display, the public health dimension of misusing COVID relief, and the urgent need for meaningful reform to protect the well-being of both workers and local communities.

---

1. Corporate Intent Exposed

According to the First Amended Complaint, a key revelation is that the alleged mastermind behind “Grant Bae” had very little relevant background in grant writing. Yet she consistently portrayed herself as a seasoned expert who, after “years of entrepreneurial endeavor,” supposedly “mastered the gift” of securing grants. Federal and state authorities found that her last known legitimate employment involved an entirely different field—fast-food management—and that she had been convicted of stealing from her employer’s cash deposits. Despite these red flags, “Grant Bae” managed to attract an estimated 8,200 customers (according to the Complaint’s figures and the defendants’ own public boasts) by claiming near-miraculous rates of success in obtaining funding.

The allegations describe several carefully honed tactics:

1. Astounding “Guaranteed” Sums: Clients were told they qualified for anywhere between $25,000 to $250,000 in grants if they chose certain packages. The higher the package cost, the more money the defendants “guaranteed” the small business would get in return. One package promised a windfall of $100,000 in grants if the client paid around $4,499 in upfront fees.
2. Fictitious “Team” of Grant Writers: The enterprise boasted of twelve Ph.D.-level grant writers, each allegedly capable of preparing multiple, successful grant applications per day. However, investigators concluded that this was mathematically impossible. Data from the Complaint suggest that for them to secure “guaranteed” sums for all clients, each writer would have had to complete thousands of applications annually—and, further, every application would have had to yield 100% success.
3. Tying It to COVID-19 Aid: The complaint asserts that the defendants were able to jump-start operations with a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan. This loan, ironically intended to preserve small businesses, allegedly funded a scheme that targeted the very population that the PPP was designed to help.
4. Refusing to Disclose Sources of Funding: Once clients pressed them for details about which philanthropic or government grants they had supposedly “secured,” the defendants refused to name them, adding another layer of mystery.

In short, the corporate intent, as alleged, was not to provide an authentic service. Rather, it was to capture as many upfront fees from economically vulnerable small-business owners as possible. The FTC and the Florida Attorney General’s Office call this a deliberate bait-and-switch: the corporation, under the banner of altruism, lured in clients and left them with little more than “pending” grant statuses that never materialized.

These facts resonate with a broader theme in corporate corruption: the veneer of philanthropic or community-oriented mission statements, even in official marketing materials, often masks a profit-maximization motive. We see again how short-term corporate gains—especially under the guise of “helping underserved communities”—can override any genuine impetus to deliver a real service.

---

2. The Corporations Get Away With It

Before the authorities filed suit, thousands of hopeful entrepreneurs signed up, often paying thousands of dollars each. Clients thought they were merely a few steps away from receiving capital to sustain or grow their business. In reality, the Complaint argues, these sums were siphoned into a network of personal and family accounts, including accounts belonging to the owner’s associates who were listed as “relief defendants.” That is a legal term describing individuals or entities who allegedly received ill-gotten gains but are not accused of having violated the law themselves—yet have no legitimate claim to keep that money.

Why did this continue unchecked for months? As with so many instances of alleged wrongdoing under late-stage capitalism, the lawsuit suggests that multiple loopholes and factors played into it:

1. Regulatory Gaps Online: Much of the marketing took place through social media, from Instagram to audio chat rooms like Clubhouse. In these spaces, the lines between genuine testimonials, influencer advertising, and outright deception can blur. There is no immediate gatekeeper verifying the authenticity of large claims about guaranteed grant money.
2. Difficulty in Enforcement Across Jurisdictions: Because the defendants offered services nationwide, clients from dozens of states had to figure out how to lodge complaints across lines of state or federal authority. Many victims discovered the redress window for credit-card chargebacks or bank disputes had passed, so they had few immediate remedies.
3. COVID-19 Chaos: During the pandemic, many small businesses were desperate for capital. With lockdowns and diminishing revenues, owners often had little time to investigate the authenticity of a consulting enterprise. These conditions of stress and urgency, combined with the public’s awareness that special government funding programs existed, created prime conditions for exploitation.
4. Sparse or Uneven Oversight of PPP Funds: According to the government’s filings, the entire operation may have been fueled by PPP money, ironically borrowed under the pretext of preserving the defendant’s own “legitimate” small business. Yet the same lack of rigorous vetting that led to widely reported COVID-19 relief fraud appears to have let certain unscrupulous operators pivot those funds into questionable ventures—falling through the cracks while regulators scrambled.

If one is to believe the Complaint’s allegations, the real advantage that the corporate enterprise exploited was a perfect storm: vulnerable small-business owners, the confusion of COVID-19 relief programs, and a patchwork of underfunded oversight agencies. These factors, the lawsuit contends, helped the defendants fly under the radar while they amassed substantial fees.

Through it all, the enterprise’s marketing hammered the point: “We have discovered philanthropic organizations eager to fund minority businesses. Join us, and you’ll be next!” After paying in, though, clients would be told to wait. Over time, those wait times extended indefinitely, past the cutoff point for recovering funds. And so, as these allegations highlight, the corporations “got away with it” for a while—at least until the lawsuit put an abrupt stop to further marketing and froze significant assets.

---

3. The Cost of Doing Business

One might assume that if clients did not receive the promised grants, refunds would be issued. But the Complaint states precisely the opposite: the corporation commonly denied or ignored customers’ pleas for refunds. This approach functioned as a direct form of profit maximization. Instead of paying back disillusioned small-business owners, the complaint alleges that the proprietors channeled that money toward personal use or gave it to family members and affiliates.

Economic Fallout for Consumers

For a typical small business, losing a few thousand dollars can be devastating. The Complaint cites individuals who spent their very last reserves or scrounged together personal savings hoping for a “guaranteed $50,000 or $100,000.” When the alleged “grants” never arrived, businesses risked permanent closure. Employees lost jobs. Owners fell behind on critical bills or rent. Several entrepreneurs who placed their hopes in these “consultants” saw no path to recoup their losses. In short, the cost of doing business with this outfit proved catastrophic.

Illusory Money-Back Guarantees

Defendants also purportedly advertised “money-back guarantees,” suggesting that there was no risk for any prospective client. But the lawsuit contends that these guarantees were nothing more than a seductive marketing device. When pressured by angry customers, the firm repeatedly delayed responding, blocked complaints on social media, or insisted that the next wave of deposits was “pending.” By the time clients realized the alleged “guarantee” meant nothing, many had lost their chance to dispute transactions through their banks.

Fees at Scale

After the scheme gained traction, fees rose. A “Premium” or “Elite” package could cost well over $4,000 to $6,999 upfront, while offering illusions of potential grants in excess of $100,000. The enterprise’s own claims suggested thousands of such clients were brought on board, which would translate to massive revenue for the alleged scammers—yet a total vacuum of actual grants.

This entire business model exemplifies how corporate greed can feed on the legitimate desperation of small businesses, especially during a crisis. Where mainstream lenders or well-regulated institutions might have offered structured loans or genuine resources, these alleged scammers threw out flashy, unverified numbers that overshadowed any reasoned approach to capital acquisition.

Wider Social Toll

Another hidden cost: entrepreneurs typically spread the word about legitimate grant-writing services to other businesses. Here, the defendants’ marketing urged clients to promote “success stories” on social media. Those who had not yet recognized the scam sometimes recommended it to friends. Over time, this chain of referrals and false hope only multiplied the financial carnage. The complaint describes social media influencers receiving partial or token payments, which they crowed about publicly, prompting legions of new customers. The lawsuit thus underscores how illusions of success can be self-propagating in the digital age.

---

4. Systemic Failures

Central to the official allegations in this case is the idea that the wrongdoing was not merely the result of a single bad actor or incompetent leadership. Rather, it was facilitated by a series of systemic failures that allowed the operation to flourish for many months. Although the business environment in which this enterprise operated is shaped by many factors, three stand out:

1. Lax Regulation and Enforcement

Online business consultancies that promise to secure grants face little direct oversight. While organizations like the FTC actively monitor complaints, the sheer volume of potential fraud—especially during a pandemic—means that unscrupulous operators can often collect large sums quickly before an official complaint process catches up to them. The lawsuit cites these “regulatory blind spots” as one reason the enterprise succeeded in collecting funds from so many states.

2. The Pandemic Relief Landscape

The PPP was designed to rescue businesses teetering on the brink of collapse. Yet the application pipeline for PPP loans was notoriously overburdened. This environment enabled some applicants to misrepresent facts, receive federal funds, and pivot them to questionable business activities. The First Amended Complaint states that the entire “grant writing” enterprise may have been launched thanks to at least two PPP loans—one obtained by the corporate entity itself and another by its owner as an independent contractor.

At the same time, legitimate small businesses hammered by the pandemic and desperate for extra capital might have latched onto any purported expert or consultant who claimed knowledge of special grants. It is a potent example of how a government benefit, left only lightly policed, can be exploited by opportunists—another hallmark of neoliberal capitalism, where the impetus for private profit can overshadow the spirit of communal relief efforts.

3. Fragmented Consumer Protections

Clients who lose money to alleged grant-writing scams face a patchwork of consumer protection laws, each with limited jurisdiction. Some states have stronger consumer safeguards; others do not. Victims may be forced to wait for federal agencies like the FTC to build a case. Meanwhile, scammers can adopt stalling tactics—ignoring complaints, blocking social media contact, or offering partial payments to a select few figureheads—thus extending the scam’s lifespan.

Under these systemic gaps, many unscrupulous firms can operate for a considerable period, especially if they move quickly and brand themselves as philanthropic or oriented toward social justice. In the final analysis, a business environment shaped by deregulation, short-staffed enforcement agencies, and surging online marketing channels left an opening for alleged predators to step in. Whether or not these failures will be addressed remains an open question, but the allegations show how, at the intersection of COVID relief and e-commerce, unscrupulous business owners can weaponize vulnerabilities at scale.

---

5. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

Critics of late-stage capitalism and corporate corruption argue that the system itself cultivates such predatory activities. They point out that we should not view these episodes as isolated or “rogue” phenomena. Instead, the pattern of targeting vulnerable communities, pocketing fees in the name of social good, and then using legal loopholes or regulatory gaps to evade immediate consequences is a logical outgrowth of a model that rewards bottom-line success above all else.

Predatory Marketing Tactics Are Profitable

For those with the resources (or the daring) to set up an elaborate marketing funnel, the payoff can be enormous—if they can avoid or delay regulatory attention. In the “Grant Bae” case, the allegations paint the picture of a business that set up an online portal, claimed ties to philanthropic organizations, promised near-certain financial relief for minority-owned businesses, and demanded upfront fees. The entire structure was built to push illusions of guaranteed profits. This approach systematically enticed the very communities that could least afford to lose money, thus maximizing the enterprise’s gains.

“Filantrocaptialism” or Illusory Altruism?

The enterprise couched itself in philanthropic language and activism, referencing the plight of marginalized small-business owners. Yet once the money was in hand, the complaint says, the owners refused refunds, never distributed actual grants to the overwhelming majority of clients, and blocked negative feedback. I would characterize this as “filantrocaptialism”—using a false veneer of philanthropic messaging to capture market share from those craving moral or social alignment, only to revert to standard profit extraction. Indeed, the philanthropic tie was particularly strong here: the operators said they found “big-name donors” and “special programs” to help minority entrepreneurs, but apparently these were illusions used to justify high fees.

The Larger Landscape

The alleged scheme also echoes other controversies where major corporations or consulting outfits have used unscrupulous tactics to exploit crises. From environmental disasters to public health emergencies, we see how unscrupulous actors can pivot quickly to capitalize on new forms of relief funding or community need. Under neoliberal capitalism, each new crisis is likewise a new profit frontier, with insufficient checks on unethical or harmful behavior.

Never waste a good disaster, am I right?

In short, the evidence from the Complaint points not only to who might be at fault but also to why such an enterprise could so easily expand. When the structures of accountability are shallow, and the potential profits from exploitation are large, unscrupulous entities find that predation can be not just feasible but, indeed, a feature of a system structured to reward short-term gains.

---

6. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

One recurring theme in the First Amended Complaint is how the defendants responded when consumers began complaining in droves. The simplest technique they employed: stonewalling. Customers who demanded updates about the “pending deposits” or actual proof of funded grants might find their social media handles blocked. They rarely received clear communications about refunds. Instead, the defendants allegedly used a variety of PR spin tactics to quell discontent while continuing to solicit new business.

Social Media Distraction and Token Payments

Authorities claim the defendants might have targeted select individuals—particularly those with significant social media reach—and provided them with small or token amounts of “grant” money so they could tout “success stories.” The effect is that unsuspecting potential clients would see these influencers celebrating the deposit and trust that the system worked. Influencers are powerful marketing conduits, capable of lending instant credibility.

Aggressive Legal or Pseudo-Legal Threats

According to some client statements, the corporation threatened legal action or used intimidation if people spoke out. Indeed, in many corporate scandals, non-disparagement clauses or vague references to defamation suits can suppress negative feedback. The complaint does not detail every instance of this approach, but blocking critics and refusing refunds are reminiscent of a broader pattern used by unscrupulous companies: deny, deflect, or intimidate.

Shifting Deadlines and Blaming External Delays

Then came the tactic of perpetual delay. The corporate entity kept moving the promised “payout date.” First, it was 45 days post-contract. Then 90 days. Then 180 days. Each time, the brand would post a new wave of marketing videos on Instagram promising that a certain calendar date—perhaps the end of the month or the year—was the big windfall moment. By the time some consumers realized that these statements were empty, they had long missed their window to dispute charges or take swift legal action.

Reinventing Corporate Identity

Another hallmark of the corporate corruption cycle is the pivot. After negative publicity, some businesses might rebrand or reorganize, continuing essentially the same operation under a different name. Although the Complaint has halted many of these operations in this particular instance, the question remains whether the enterprise (or those behind it) could reappear under a new banner with equally deceptive claims.

All of these maneuvers fit into the modern corporate PR “playbook.” By controlling the narrative through social media illusions, selectively rewarding a few individuals, threatening critics, and deflecting accountability onto external forces or imaginary timelines, unscrupulous businesses can stave off mass outrage for a while. Only once the government stepped in with a well-documented complaint was the ruse systematically exposed.

---

7. Profits Over People

If the allegations hold true, the business’s approach is a textbook example of placing profits over people. Despite claiming to champion minority entrepreneurship and assisting struggling small businesses, the corporation’s real measure of success, as shown in the legal filings, appears to be the volume of fees collected rather than the efficacy of any service.

Undermining Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporations often tout terms like corporate social responsibility and ethical stewardship. When an enterprise markets itself as empowering minority-owned ventures, that suggests an even deeper sense of accountability to the community. Yet ironically, the complaint reveals the enterprise’s conduct was the opposite: the community was exploited for quick revenue, tarnishing the very concept of corporate responsibility.

Harm to Marginalized Communities

Particularly galling to investigators and the public is that the alleged fraud targeted those who were likely to feel the pandemic’s economic pain most acutely. Minority-owned businesses often face bigger hurdles in accessing capital. Federal relief programs like the PPP or EIDL exist precisely to address that shortfall. However, unscrupulous operators who themselves appear to have leveraged PPP loans to start such schemes effectively create a double victimization: first, they drain federal funds from the system; then they demand further payments from the minority business owners they claimed to serve.

The Shareholder Profit Model

Under neoliberal capitalism, many analysts point to the unbridled drive for shareholder or executive profit as a root cause of such misconduct. There is a legal structure that incentivizes businesses to focus on quarterly returns—wealth disparity grows when those at the top can carve out huge profits from a susceptible market. The complaint indicates that personal enrichment for the principal operators was the enterprise’s main focus, not building a stable, long-term grant-writing or business-consulting practice.

The real tragedy is that many of these small businesses, if connected to legitimate resources, could have qualified for authentic grants. Real philanthropic organizations and government programs exist to aid struggling entrepreneurs—although often they are overshadowed by better-promoted but entirely dubious claims. In short, “Grant Bae” would not be the first entity to exploit well-intentioned programs and vulnerable business owners, but it stands out for the sheer scale of its alleged misrepresentations and the cynicism behind the marketing.

---

8. The Human Toll on Workers and Communities

While the immediate victims are the small-business owners left with huge losses, the ripple effects extend far deeper. In many localities, especially communities that have historically faced wealth disparities, a small business can be a lifeline for jobs, cultural identity, and local economic circulation. If these owners do not get the funding they need or lose precious resources, the entire neighborhood can suffer.

Public Health Concerns

Though not a “pollution” scenario in the classic sense, there is a public-health dimension whenever pandemic relief is misused. Funds intended to shore up local economies and keep workers employed effectively vanish into private pockets. If workers lose health insurance or a means to sustain themselves, communities at large may suffer more severe outcomes. Socioeconomic instability can exacerbate health inequities—especially during a crisis like COVID-19.

Social Fabric Under Strain

Local business owners often serve as mentors and community pillars. The allegations in the complaint suggest that many of these owners sincerely believed in the promises from the defendants, sometimes investing the last of their capital or personal credit. When their businesses closed, entire families lost income. Layoffs or store closures roiled neighborhoods that could least withstand additional losses.

Emotional Repercussions

Beyond the financial devastation, small-business owners in minority communities often invest more than money into their enterprises. Their startups can be a path to generational wealth, personal identity, and community empowerment. When unscrupulous operators exploit that energy and trust, it contributes to a climate of cynicism, where future potential entrepreneurs may be deterred from seeking help, capital, or philanthropic partnerships. The emotional toll—frustration, humiliation, anger—can linger long after any lawsuit has concluded.

The crux is that “corporate wrongdoing” is rarely just about money. The intangible costs, from shattered trust to frayed social bonds, are significant. Even if the authorities secure monetary judgments or restitution, some of the damage may be irreversible. Workers cannot always easily reclaim their lost wages, and communities cannot always refill the void left by bankrupt local businesses. That is why allegations of blatant misrepresentations under the guise of altruism can spark such widespread outrage: it is not merely a corporate scandal; it is a betrayal that resonates through the entire community ecosystem.

---

9. Global Trends in Corporate Accountability

One might suspect that the alleged activities in this Florida-based enterprise were a localized anomaly. However, the pattern of corporate deception under pandemic conditions is part of a broader international phenomenon: a surge in fraudulent claims tied to COVID-19 relief and philanthropic resources. Governments worldwide scrambled to distribute financial support, and criminals or unscrupulous operators spotted opportunities to exploit the chaos.

Parallel Cases

In the United States, the Department of Justice has pursued dozens of cases where individuals or companies misused PPP or EIDL funds. Meanwhile, agencies like the FTC have flagged hundreds of online consulting schemes that promised small businesses direct lines to government or philanthropic grants. At the international level, major policing bodies like Interpol have noted spikes in pandemic-related scams. In each instance, an alarming lack of thorough oversight in disbursing funds left windows open for exploitation.

Deregulation and Race-to-the-Bottom Dynamics

In many capitalist economies, the emphasis on deregulation fosters an environment where new businesses can spring up quickly, often with minimal scrutiny. While that fosters innovation, it can also produce a race to the bottom in ethical standards. Predatory or unscrupulous practitioners can out-compete legitimate operators if they promise unrealistic results and collect money faster. Only after collecting enormous sums—and often crossing state or even international boundaries—do these players become priority targets for regulators.

Emergence of a New Consumer Advocacy Movement

Simultaneously, activism around corporate accountability is growing. In the wake of repeated allegations of corporate misconduct, grassroots campaigns are calling for stricter enforcement of laws governing financial consulting, more robust whistleblower protections, and broader powers for regulators. The Florida Attorney General’s involvement in the present lawsuit underscores how states can join federal agencies like the FTC to tackle cross-border, internet-based predatory schemes. But the question remains: how to close these legal and logistical loopholes before more small-business owners fall prey?

Ultimately, the “Grant Bae” saga points to a universal cautionary tale: unscrupulous organizations can quickly scale up by exploiting hot-button crises like COVID-19. This cross-pollinates with broader trends in modern capitalism, where global networks allow suspect enterprises to operate with near-immunity until investigations are mounted. Whether the systems in place can adapt quickly enough to stem the next wave of such activity remains open to debate.

---

10. The PR Playbook of Damage Control Part 2

One might note that we’ve already highlighted the corporation’s immediate damage-control strategies. Here, we revisit the bigger story of PR maneuvers that large corporations often use—strategies now mirrored in smaller-scale outfits like “Grant Bae.”

1. Faux Partnerships or Donations: Claiming alliances with philanthropic foundations or big-name corporations is a common tactic. In the lawsuit’s allegations, the defendants even boasted about ties to major philanthropic groups but refused to provide details. In high-profile global cases, companies sometimes tout philanthropic endeavors to soften public opinion while serious allegations loom.
2. Rebranding to Escape Scrutiny: Another trick is quietly rebranding or restructuring once public scrutiny intensifies. Even though the lawsuit froze major assets here, it remains a possibility that the same individuals could attempt to regroup under a different name. Without robust systems to track beneficial ownership of new companies, the cycle can repeat.
3. Influencer Marketing: The modern wave of influencer endorsements is a crucial PR weapon. Influencers—once they trust the brand or see quick payoffs—advertise to their audiences in good faith. But unscrupulous operators can exploit that influencer’s brand to appear trustworthy. The complaint describes how the corporation used these channels to maintain a veneer of legitimacy.

For each of these strategies, the lesson is clear: in the digital marketplace, it can be alarmingly easy for corporations of any size to shape a glowing public image, especially if they operate in a poorly regulated niche like “grant consulting.” By the time negative press emerges, the enterprise may have raked in millions of dollars.

---

11. Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

What happened in this case, if proven, underscores the critical need for structural reform and a revitalized consumer advocacy movement. The ultimate question is whether these alleged acts are rare, isolated incidents or part of a persistent pattern, likely to resurface elsewhere under a different corporate logo.

Strengthening Enforcement

Regulators like the FTC and state attorneys general need more resources for prompt investigation. Automated complaint-tracking systems and red-flag algorithms—particularly in areas of emergent funding, like PPP or EIDL—could spot suspicious patterns more quickly. By layering advanced analytics onto existing consumer complaint data, authorities could identify repeat offenders before they balloon to thousands of victims.

Transparent Oversight of Relief Funds

When governments disburse large sums, such as pandemic relief, they must enforce stricter auditing and require real-time transparency in how funds are used. The alleged pivot from PPP funds toward fueling a scam highlights the danger of insufficient checks. More robust compliance steps might block individuals with prior convictions for financial crimes from receiving major government grants or loans, or at least trigger immediate oversight of how those funds are allocated.

Empowering Consumers

Beyond official enforcement, community-based efforts to educate small-business owners are vital. Entrepreneurs should learn how to quickly verify if a given “consultant” is recognized or accredited by credible agencies. Teaching them how to cross-check philanthropic claims, read disclaimers, and demand references could prevent heartbreak. Meanwhile, those who have already fallen victim can benefit from stronger, standardized chargeback and refund protections that do not vanish after short deadlines—particularly in an era where unscrupulous operators often stall beyond the dispute period.

Reimagining Corporate Accountability

Finally, the broader political conversation about corporate ethics invites us to ask: Do we require structural changes that hold owners, board members, and even marketing teams personally accountable for fraudulent or harmful actions, especially when they target vulnerable communities? Some policy analysts advocate “piercing the corporate veil” more frequently in cases of egregious wrongdoing. Others call for global treaties or cross-border partnerships to clamp down on ephemeral, internet-based corporate structures.

In conclusion, the allegations in the First Amended Complaint reveal how a slickly marketed consultancy turned desperation into profit, harnessing PPP funds meant for genuine economic relief. This single case, in all its shocking details, is also a window into the deeper moral crisis at the heart of neoliberal capitalism. When the profit motive goes untempered by strong accountability, local communities, workers, and consumers pay the ultimate price.

Yet the future need not be quite so grim. If there is a lasting lesson to glean from this story, it is that robust enforcement, vigilant consumer advocacy, and systemic reform efforts can—and should—work in tandem to prevent a repeat scenario. Ultimately, ensuring corporate social responsibility and corporate accountability is more than just a slogan; it is a collective endeavor essential to the well-being and economic survival of communities nationwide.

---

The FTC also has a press release about this act of corporate misconduct: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-state-florida-act-permanently-shut-down-grant-bae-business-grant-scam