May 21, 2024 • 38 mins
The story of Creating a Con: The Story of Bitconned has also been adapted into a Netflix documentary. Bitconned is available NOW, exclusively on Netflix. To learn more about the production, please take a listen to this encore presentation of Netflix's You Cant Make This Up where host Rebecca Lavoie interviews the documentary's director, Bryan Strokel. Be sure to check out the film, Bitconned, exclusively on Netflix and keep listening to Creating a Con: The Story of Bitconned. Enjoy!
At the height of the Bitcoin boom, Ray Trapani and his friends created a debit card for cryptocurrency. Even though the technology didn’t work and the card was a scam, Centra Tech was making millions of dollars a day. But anyone looking at the operation would discover cut-and-paste business plans, fake executives, and glitchy technology. Bitconned lets Trapani tell his story of fun, fame, and fraud as he awaits sentencing for the first high-profile case of the crypto era. Was it real? No. But did it work? Maybe.
In this episode of You Can't Make This Up, host Rebecca Lavoie interviews director Bryan Storkel.
SPOILER ALERT! If you haven't watched Bitconned yet, make sure to add it to your watch-list before listening on.
Listen to more from Netflix Podcasts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm Rebecca Levoy and this is you Can't Make This Up.
You Can't Make This Up as the podcast where we
uncover the true stories behind your favorite Netflix documentaries and films.
(00:22):
On today's episode, we take a closer look at the
Netflix documentary film Bitcomned.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
We didn't know anything about this fucking business, but it
didn't matter at all.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
It was too easy.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
We lied, we cheated, and made millions of dollars, and
now I'm facing over onundred years.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Today we're talking to director Brian Storkel. At the height
of the bitcoin boom, Ray for Pani and his friends
created a debit card for cryptocurrency. Even though the technology
didn't work and the card was a scam, Centritech was
making millions of dollars a day, but anyone looking at
the operation would discover cut and paste business plans, fake executives,
(01:01):
and glitchy technology. Once they tried to pass themselves off
to The New York Times as legitimate, the whole thing
fell apart.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Bitcoon.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Let's Trapanie tell a story of fun, fame, and fraud
as he awaits sentencing for the first high profile case
of the crypto era. Was it real? No? But did
it work.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
Maybe people can't give up on the promise, and part
of that promise is just the simple one that you
can get rich quickly.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
And I'm joined by director Brian Storkel. Brian, Welcome to
You Can't make This up.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Hey, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
So this story is about the rise and fall of
a cryptocurrency based product from a company called Center Tech,
and it's mostly total from the perspective of Ray Trapani.
So we hear from the top that he was caught
in a crypto scam and at that moment was awaiting
sentencing for his role in that scam. Why did Ray
agree to talk with you?
Speaker 5 (02:02):
You know, that's a really good question, and I should
ask him that again.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Now that we're that we're done with this.
Speaker 5 (02:09):
Some people just like to talk, I think, and he
had a great story and really wanted to share it,
I think part of it without giving too much away,
But he's you know, gone through the process of you know, everything,
having to deal with his case and is kind of
able to talk about it more now.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Yeah. So Ray says in the beginning that growing up
he always wanted to be a criminal, and at first
I thought he was being you know, maybe a little
self reflective, a little bit of nuance there, but he
literally says I always wanted to be a criminal. And
I didn't miss it right, Like he wasn't being nuanced.
He kind of always wanted to be a criminal.
Speaker 5 (02:45):
No, Yeah, we asked him that multiple times. I mean,
that's a very I haven't heard anyone else say that
ever since I was a kid, I've always wanted to
be a criminal. It was never like I'm going to
be a doctor or I'm going to be a scientist.
I you know, if I could have put it in
my eyearbook, I would have put I wanted to a criminal.
And I think it had to do with, you know,
being around his grandpa and the image that his grandfather
(03:05):
portrayed was something he looked up to, which was somewhat criminal.
It's questionable as to say whether it was, you know,
definitively criminal, but the image he saw was very much
scarface or you know, some you know, mobster type grandfather.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
The imagery of your interviews with Ray is really interesting
and great. The scenes that he's in and throughout the film,
you cut back and forth to him getting fitted for
this custom suit and the tailor keeps asking him questions
about his life also, and they're getting good answers the
people in the room with him, you know, helping him
fit the suit. So did you plan that to have
the tailors ask him questions or were they just good
(03:42):
conversationalists because of the work that they do with men
like Ray.
Speaker 5 (03:46):
Yeah, that was a beautiful little accident, honestly, Like, we
did one main interview with Ray, and then we took
him back to a bunch of locations where we were
going to do little mini interviews, and this was this
was kind of one of those I was gonna after
he got the suit try, you know, fitted, We were
going to have him stand there and answer a couple
of questions. But we kind of framed up the camera
so that he was looking into the mirror and the
(04:08):
tailors were still working on him, and they asked maybe
one question, and I was just like, keep going, keep going,
ask him some more, ask him some more.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
And how much have you made in total? On paper?
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Thirty two million, but like in reality we made like
a few hundred million. That's great, Yeah, two pennies.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Would you do it again?
Speaker 2 (04:29):
I always go back to this point of like, if
I knew one hundred percent that I was going to
make thirty million dollars doing something illegal, would I do
it or.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Would I not?
Speaker 5 (04:37):
Because they were genuinely interested in his story, and I think,
you know, coming from that place of curiosity, it's so
much more fascinating and so much you know, it's not
staged in the sense that even a sit down, formal
interview would be with a director.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
So they crushed it and we just let him keep going.
We're like, yeah, this is gold, keep going, keep going.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
So we hear his friend Andrew talk about this prescription
drug ring they ran, and when the cops busted them,
Ray read it out Andrew and his friends and walked
away free and clear. So my question is did Ray
get the tattoo that says loyalty before or after that.
Speaker 5 (05:13):
I believe that was before, but I think Ray would
also dispute as to whether he ratted them out, so
he you know, there's different stories, two sides to that,
I think, but he definitely has had that tattoo for
quite some time. And I think what's interesting is there's
another person in the film, one of the other central founders,
who also has a similar loyalty tattoo. That's a little
(05:36):
bit smaller but similar one.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
Yeah, and you have that great shot of him lifting weights,
and you've got a really great shot of that loyalty tattoo.
Was that on purpose?
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Yeah? Definitely.
Speaker 5 (05:45):
Yeah, we needed to see him with his shirt off.
I mean, this is you know, it's that kind of movie.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
So there is this lingering question throughout the film about
Ray's grandfather and his origin story, and it's implied that
he may have been connected in some way to the mob.
Maybe it's one of those things that no one seems
to really want to talk about, but they kind of
want you to think about, or you want us to
think about. And I'm just curious, like, was that just bluster?
(06:10):
Is that just like family lore? What do you think?
Speaker 5 (06:13):
You know, I think there's some truth to it, but
how much I'm not sure. I mean, it's great talking
to his grandma Pat like she's one of my favorite
parts of the film, and just the way she kind
of dismisses it. It's like, ah, no, he wasn't in
the mafia. You know, he had something to do with
the elevator business. I mean that it just leaves so
many questions and they definitely you know, both Ray's mom,
(06:35):
who was his grandmother's daughter. Obviously she said she saw
money laying around, you know, suitcases full of money. There
was definitely times where Ray found money, like, you know,
large amounts under the mattress and things, and you know,
it's that kind of I think, anytime you're dealing with
that amount of cash, that was one of the big
red flags. But then also just his grandfather Pop presented
(06:58):
this image that was very much of a movie.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
You know.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
The stories that people tell about him make it feel
like he was one of those guys from Goodfellas, right.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
And the fact that his wife can't actually say what
his actual job was but something to do with the
elevator business, doesn't help dispel that legend, right right, right.
There is a tension in Ray's life between wanting to
run some sort of criminal enterprise and get rich and
wanting to be legitimate to make his family proud. And
that's where this luxury rental car business comes into play.
(07:31):
Is there any chance that Ray and Sorby could have
made that work instead of pivoting to crypto Maybe if
they had just curbed their personal spending a little bit.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
I think possibly.
Speaker 5 (07:42):
But you've got a couple young guys in Miami with
a lot of money and exotic cars, and it's not
going to end well. I don't think for guys in
their twenties in that situation that too many people would
be able to have much longevity with that of business.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
So, for reasons that we learned later on, we don't
get to hear much from Sorby himself in bitcoinn I'm curious, Brian,
what are your impressions of Sorby?
Speaker 5 (08:10):
Yeah, I all I know is what I've read in
the media and talked to, you know. I've talked to
his family. I've talked to people that knew him, that
used to date him, that are you know, coupled with
him now. I've talked to, you know, all sorts of
people that have spent a lot of time with him.
But one of the frustrations is I never got to
talk to him. And I worked for a long time,
(08:32):
over a year, to try to get an interview with
him for the film. I've talked with his lawyers as well.
I made trips to Miami, and you know, just really
tried to get him on board, and I think because
he had some ongoing appeals, he wasn't able to speak.
So we kept We kept trying up until the end,
and it was always like we'd get a reply from
(08:52):
one of his lawyers saying, Okay, he's ready to talk now,
and then something.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Would go wrong and we wouldn't be able to get it.
Speaker 5 (08:57):
And even after I turned in the film, I got
a mysage from you know, his brother in law basically saying, Hey,
he's ready to talk now, he's ready to be interviewed.
Is it too late? I was like, yeah, it's too late.
Unfortunately it's too late. Yes, we're airing it in, you know,
in a month. I wish I could say more about
him and really understand him more, but not having a
(09:18):
personal relationship with him or conversations with him, I don't
I can't really tell what, you know, what's really going
on inside of his head.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Yeah, I wish, you know, I could understand him a
little more too, because one of the things that I
couldn't work out is why Ray you know, wanted to
continue to work with him. I mean the business breakup
after that, the car business breakup wasn't necessarily a great breakup, right,
Like he accused Sorby of embezzling money from that business,
and I couldn't quite wrap my head around why he'd
(09:46):
want to work with Sorbi again. So Sorbie must have
something like to him that's as an appeal, right.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
Yeah, I guess so.
Speaker 5 (09:54):
I mean they definitely saw the dollar signs and they
created something that was unique at time.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Well maybe unique is the wrong word.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
There were other, you know, things like this out there
at the time, but they somehow were able to get
theirs off the ground.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
And I think.
Speaker 5 (10:10):
Ray saw that idea and saw the dollar signs and
just you know, went with it. In spite of, you
know what complications he may already have had with that
relationship with Sorby. They continued in this business.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
So they did identify a legitimate pain point in the
crypto market, which was with that crypto at that point,
you could be rich on paper, but it was hard
to access your actual money. So explain some more what
the product they were selling actually was. Were they creating
a cryptocurrency or just creating this way to access your cryptocurrency.
Speaker 5 (10:43):
Yeah, they had their own coins, so they did an
ico and they raised funds through that. They had CenTra
tokens that they were selling, and then they also had
the debit card, which was a way to spend your crypto,
and you could spend not only centric coins, but you
could spend all different versions of cryptocurrency on your card
in real time, and you would worked kind of like
a debit card where it would come out of an
(11:05):
account and transfer it would convert from whatever cryptocurrency to
US dollar and spend right at the grocery store. There
were several companies doing it at the time, and they
were in the process of making this card, making it
or faking it or whatever you want to say. Like
there's the question of whether it's fake or not as
tricky because some versions of a prototype of this card
(11:28):
were working. Were there lies and fraud along the way, Yes,
but I do believe that they were actively working towards
some sort of fully functioning card and company, even though
there was fraud and lies along the way.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
Not just fraud and lies. Right, actually confessed a crime
to you on camera that when he had access to
somebody's wallet, he just stole the money out of that guy.
It's wait, that was shocking to me that, like he's
just willing to just tell you on camera. Hey, yeah,
this guy accidentally gave me his pass code, so I
just you know, I saw the money there, and I
just took it.
Speaker 5 (12:02):
This is what I found fascinating about Ray is that
he was so honest, even about the most horrible things.
Most people you work with, criminals and such, are dodging
around the truth and trying to, you know, backpedaling over
their words and trying to, you know, not tell you everything.
But Ray, I really believe he was, you know, let's say,
ninety five percent honest with me. Like he he told
(12:25):
me stuff that I would look at him and look
at the camera guy next to me and say, like,
does he know this camera's rolling like we're he knows
he's saying this on record, right, because the things he
would say would be so ridiculous, And I mean, I
think part of that is his personality. I think another
part of it is that when he cooperated with the
(12:46):
with the government, he had to tell them everything he
did wrong. And once he told them those things, they
couldn't prosecute him form in the future. So I think
things like that he probably told to them. If he didn't,
he could potentially be prosecuted for it. But the way
it was explained to me was that after he had
shared all of those things, he could not be charged
(13:07):
with them anymore, which made him able to be a
bit more honest with us with everything.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Yeah, it was pretty incredible. Can you remind me how
Center convinced the world about the members of its c suite,
like the veracity of their credentials and you know existence.
Speaker 5 (13:25):
Yeah, I mean there was a lot of ways, but
their fake staff was one of them, you know, that
was their CEO.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
Was incredible.
Speaker 5 (13:33):
When we started working on this film and I heard
about Michael Edwards, the fake CEO, that has to be
a major plot point and I really want audiences to
believe that Michael Edwards is real and then at some
time flip it on them and realize that he's not.
But the fact that they had you know staff there
weren't even real people that supposedly worked at you know,
Wells Fargo and like Bank of America and things and
(13:56):
had this huge resume was incredible. And that led people,
I think to know how much did they trust in
them more because they had this fake CEO. I'm not sure,
but it was a factor. When people were going to
invest in a company and they see this guy, it
leads them to believe that there's someone they can trust there.
So we went after. You know, we knew we had
to find the real Michael Edwards, and so that was
(14:16):
like a big part of Upfront. I said, if I
could land him an interview with him, that would be
such a fun twist in the film.
Speaker 4 (14:23):
I'm Michael Edwards, founder and CEO of Center Tech.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Is that who you really are? No, that's not who
I really am. I'm doctor Andrew Hoileko. I'm a professor
at the University of Manitoba.
Speaker 5 (14:38):
I was stoked when he agreed to do it.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Were you surprised by how junior Varsity some of this
scam actually was? Like, you know, I don't know how
blockchain works, but I know how Google reverse image works.
I know that. You know, just saying you went to
Harvard on your LinkedIn does not erase your Instagram history
that shows you having owned a car dealership and notw
having gone to Harvard. I mean, it's jv right.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
It is.
Speaker 5 (15:05):
But what's even more fascinating is that people bought into it.
So to me, the fact that they were getting away
with these things that seemed so amateur was incredible to me.
I think the you know, if they were just doing
them and people weren't buying into them, that's one thing,
but the fact that they kept kind of failing upwards,
they would do something stupid and then raise more money.
(15:26):
I mean, you get to the point in the film
where you're like, certainly they're going down, and then that
Korean company reaches out with more money, and I think
that is what's incredible and also is kind of a
sign of what was happening at the time with these
types of things. In twenty seventeen, it was just the
wild West of cryptocurrencies, and you had all sorts of
people starting scammy companies and you know, milking people out
(15:51):
of their money, and people weren't asking questions. They were
just they could do no wrong, and they just assumed
that their money.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
Would just go up, go up, go up.
Speaker 5 (15:59):
You know, there was not there was no one keeping
anyone in check. And I think there was probably a
lot worse scams that were going on at the time
that people didn't get in trouble for.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
Yeah. I mean, it is worth noting that this was
before these really high profile cases like one coin and
Quadrigae SX or FTX, and few people knew a lot
about crypto let alone that most of these outfits were scammy, right,
Like consumers just were not aware of that at that time.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
Absolutely, I mean they you know, some people had made
some money in ethereum and a lot of people were
putting that into other coins. But yeah, there wasn't general
knowledge of what types of people were in this industry
and how scammy they were. I think Nathaniel Popper, who
wrote a great article for The New York Times about
Center Tech, he was looking at the time. He had
(16:49):
kind of become the de facto reporter at the Times
for anything crypto, and he knew there was all sorts
of scams going on and was trying to find something
to write about. But there was too many stories. It's like,
where do you even start. These things are everywhere, And
somehow he stumbled across CenTra.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
He looked at them and said, they have a little
bit of everything.
Speaker 5 (17:10):
They've got the celebrities, they've got the fake you know, CEOs,
they've got all sorts of things. They raised a good
amount of money, and they kind of summed up everything
that was wrong in the crypto world at that time.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
In a sense, CenTra was the story of crypto itself,
which is an endeavor that has something real underneath it,
but keeps failing and keeps running into problems, and yet
people keep coming back to it. There's something so alluring there.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (17:41):
I think the SEC went on to prosecute This did
become the first case that the SEC prosecuted in the
cryptocurrency space, and I think that was also because of
this New York Times article and because they had been
given some light there.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
What I thought was interesting about Nathaniel Popper was he
was talking about how you know, belittled his beat was
at the New York Times at the time. Can you
talk about how important he was to your film, like
having him in your film.
Speaker 5 (18:07):
Yeah, he's incredible because I think you want somebody that's
gonna kind of help take down the bad guy, if
you will. I don't like to say that there's good
or bad guys in films, but that would be his
role here, the good guy investigating and trying to solve
the crime. He had done an incredible amount of research.
We reached out to him fairly early on, and we
(18:28):
were able to do an interview with him and get
a lot of information from him that was helpful in
all of other interviews after that and the crafting the
film and yeah, he was a huge help.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
So it seems like no one was more surprised than
Nathaniel that Sorby continued to talk to him when it
was clear this whole thing was a house of cards, right.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
Yeah, yeah, I think he says that in the film,
like he very much thought at some point they would
shut up, but they just kept answering his calls.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
The first thing is Visa has said nobody has applied
to issue a central card.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
I mean, I know, I know detailed about that.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
I mean, you know, I mean, but I mean, I
can't give you direct.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Bank on that.
Speaker 5 (19:11):
We have calls with Ray in the film. He talked
with Ray, you know, a decent amount, but he talked
with with Sorby much more. And those conversations, you know,
aren't in the film, but they're even more fascinating. And
just the you know, just the cover ups. As they
start getting down the road and he's asking him more
and more questions, he kind of just catches them over
(19:32):
and over again. And much like the interview they did
with Cliff High, which in the film seems to go
incredibly wrong. After that interview with Cliff High, they raised
even more money, Like things kept going even better because
of that attention. It's funny to see that, even with
the warning signs, that people were still buying into these things.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
It's interesting because agreeing to do a profile with the
New York Times seems like a terrible idea if you're
knowingly running a scam, right, So my question is, did
they sort of think they were doing something legit at
that point or did they just not understand like what
journalism is and they thought they were just going to
(20:14):
be able to fleece this New York Times reporter. That
was the big question I had about it.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (20:20):
I think if you ask Ray he would say, no,
we knew it was a scam the whole time. If
you ask Robert Farkas, who is one of the three
co founders, he would say, yes, we were legitimate. I
believe it, and I still believe in it today. It
might be mixed, but either way, they all thought, for
whatever reason, that this was a great idea to do
a profile in the New York Times, and they were
(20:41):
excited about it. I mean, you see the pictures. They
did a huge photo shoot in these in these suits.
The New York Times photographer and they, you know, were
all thrilled that they were going to get this press
because it meant good things for their you know, for
their company, and in some cases it might have been
I mean, most of the you know, attention they were getting,
(21:01):
even when it was negative, was again turning around into
something where they raised more money. So there's a chance
that you know, this New York Times thing, even if
it was negative, could have been good for them if
the SEC hadn't read that article and came after them.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Yeah, Unfortunately, people at the SEC do tend to read
The New York Times. Yes, it was interesting to me,
you know, Nathaniel decided to send the photographer there quickly
before they figure me out that I'm a real journalist,
which apparently they weren't going to do anyway. But there
were actual employees there, and I found myself wondering, did
they really hire employees who went to the office thinking
(21:37):
that this was a legit, non scammy company, Like did
they have infrastructure employees like payroll people.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
I'm pretty sure that yeah.
Speaker 5 (21:45):
Yeah. My guess is that most of the people there,
you know, assumed they were working for a legitimate company
and it was a normal job.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
I don't think there were too many people there that
went to work thinking or were scamming people.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Right, So you mentioned cliff High a minute ago. It
seems like CenTra made a lot of money also thanks
to a typo that cliff I made. Yeah, can you
just remind us who Cliffy is and what was that
mistake that he made in his blog.
Speaker 5 (22:11):
He's a crypto guru blogger and he found this this company,
you know, using these web bots, as we call him.
He found a company called CenTra, and it was the
wrong center. It was some sort of bank that he
had that he had thought that this bank was partnering
(22:31):
in a crypto venture and that was something he was
thrilled about, and he wrote along report about and turns
out his web bot had.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
Discovered the wrong CenTra.
Speaker 5 (22:42):
So he quickly retracted that, but it was kind of
too late because that was the you know, that was
the start of them raising thirty five million dollars was
because of this mistake and because of his endorsement, because
he was that powerful in that in that world.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
It also seems like maybe they didn't do a great
name search when they named their scamming company. It's like
some brand confusion.
Speaker 5 (23:05):
That would be a good scam would to be to
get your company to sound like anything you can and
copy the logos.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
So well, or copy a whole website and then just
find in the place right exactly. So Cliff tries to
atone by exposing CenTra for the benefit of the crypto community,
and Sorby decides to do an interview with Cliff.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
The first thing Sorby says in that cause we are
one not a scam. Starting off by saying this is
not a skim is the most bizarre thing in the world.
No one ever says that unless it's actually a scam.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
No, that's that's fine, that's mine. But your statement, your
statements don't mean anything. You stating you're not a scam
in no way proves you're not a scam.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
He doesn't do himself any favors in that interview, right.
Speaker 5 (23:51):
No, No, it does not go well. It's painful to watch,
especially in its entirety. It's a very painful interview.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
So the heat's rising now and Ray and Sorby and
Robert hire a lawyer to deal with the legal threat.
So talk about this guy who is Eric Pope.
Speaker 6 (24:09):
Oh.
Speaker 5 (24:09):
Eric Pope is an incredible lawyer based out of New York,
huge resume, He's got a great website. Eric Pope is
one of my favorite things about this because they really
really believed that Eric Pope was helping them and that
he was a very skilled and credentialed lawyer. And they
sent all of their stuff to Eric Pope. When they
(24:31):
got in trouble with the sec they sent it to him.
When they had other questions, they went to him. He
helped them with all of their paperwork, and they did
not find out until much later that he was a
college kid pretending to be a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
It was like this young kid, fucking maniac, and my
partner thought it was a legit lawyer the whole time
he was talking to him, and he basically like scammed
a company that was already scamming us, which was.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
Yeah, crazy. He did get busted for that.
Speaker 5 (25:00):
I think he only made I don't have it in
front of you, somewhere around forty thousand dollars being a
fake lawyer for three years. And he also had a partner,
so it wasn't it wasn't incredibly lucrative for him, but
because of CenTra and I think the attention it got.
I did hear that the CenTra executives cooperated with the
government to help put Eric Pope away.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Right, because they all have loyalty tattoos.
Speaker 3 (25:22):
Right, Yes, exactly, exactly.
Speaker 5 (25:25):
But it's one of my favorite parts, especially when he's
talking to the suit guys and they're so shocked to
you know, basically like they got scammed by the scammer
got scammed by another scam.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
It's incredible. It's karma.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Well that's the thing. Is it karma or are they
somehow And this is what I found myself wondering, are
they somehow more susceptible to somebody like Eric Pope because
this is how they operate. It's almost like they are
scam blind. That's that's why I found myself wondering.
Speaker 5 (25:54):
Maybe, I mean, they got tricked by their own scam.
I mean, especially the website. Just believing something off a
web site is pretty funny. I mean, I just I
find it really entertaining. And I think that he the
fact that this kid, you know, fooled them. I don't know,
I don't know if it's karma or what, but I
just it's a big laugh for me. I love it,
like it's so great.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
Yeah, I think the key to being a fake lawyer
is to go into a field of fake law where
other people don't know anything about what it is you're doing.
So the fact that they didn't know what they were
actually doing probably really helped this kid out a lot.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
Exactly.
Speaker 5 (26:27):
You just got to be confident and you know, and
that's it, that's all. It takes big words and confidence.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
Eventually they do need real lawyers though, because the FBI
finally does you know, go into CenTra. When you begin
interviewing Ray, he hadn't yet been sentenced. The guy with
a loyalty tattoo again cooperates with authorities to convict his
co defendants, and instead of getting decades in prison, he
was sentenced to time served and released no time. Bitch,
(27:00):
Oh she loved you.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
Comparing it to Sorbies was like night and day.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
Facing one hundred and seventy five years.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Did you think that was what was going to happen?
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Honestly? Like, no, not. At first.
Speaker 5 (27:11):
When we started this, his sentencing was probably a few
weeks or a month in advance, and we were rushing
to go film with Ray before.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
He got locked up.
Speaker 5 (27:22):
We were worried that if he went to prison, then
there's you know, we're trying to make this movie that's
going to be a little difficult, So the sentencing kept
getting pushed over a year I think. I mean, we
waited for quite a while for the sentencing, and as
we got farther down the road and talked to more
lawyers and people involved in the in the story, I
(27:42):
think I started to think that he probably would would
get off. But there was still a question even on
that day of whether, you know, how strict the penalty
would be. I mean, there was definitely on paper a
chance that he could get one hundred years or something.
But I think just knowing, you know, talking to the
other lawyers in the case, it seemed like he was
probably gonna get off with very little time, maybe a
(28:04):
year at the most, and then ultimately, as you see
in the film, he gets no time.
Speaker 4 (28:10):
M m.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
The true measure of whether or not that was a
fair outcome perhaps came from investor Jacob Brunsel. How did
it feel to be the one to deliver the news
to Jacob that Ray got time served for stealing his money?
Speaker 5 (28:25):
Yeah, I uh, I mean felt kind of bad because
obviously Jacob would like to see him spend some time
in prison.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
That upsets me. That upsets me kind of well, I'm
gonna got him.
Speaker 6 (28:44):
Oh oh man, do you think he's really changed?
Speaker 3 (28:57):
I hope so, but that doesn't absolve him from what
he's done in this past.
Speaker 5 (29:00):
It was also a good moment that he could capture
on camera, so I'm glad he hadn't heard that news
anywhere else yet. But yeah, it is shocking at the surface.
I think Paul Percucci, who is Robert Farcas's lawyer, talks
about it and talked about it more than is in
the film. But that's just the way the government works
in New York is if you cooperate, you get no time. Personally,
(29:24):
I think there should be some middle ground. I mean,
give some sort of benefit for cooperating, but don't let
them get off completely either. Yeah, but it seems like
it's all or nothing. According to him.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Robert Farcas's attorney might be biased, but he said of
the three principal players, that Ray was the most likely
to reoffend, and he said it in a pretty colorful way.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Good shocking to me.
Speaker 6 (29:49):
With his record and as much of a scumback as
he admits he is, that he winds up with literally
the lowest sentence in this case.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Do you agree this might be the case.
Speaker 5 (30:01):
I don't have a comment on that. I would say,
he says that. I'd say, Samson ends are the you know,
the prosecutor. He says, sam is you know, the one
that would be most likely to reoffend and sees that
because of his criminal habits. Basically is what he would say,
is that over the over the years, if you look
at these things, I think they both agree that Robert
(30:22):
Farcas would be the least likely to reoffend and kind
of was just caught up in all this you know,
wrong place, wrong time, and.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
Bought into it because I think he believed in the company.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
He took a job, right, He just took a job.
Speaker 5 (30:35):
He was exactly exactly and I don't know how much
he knew of things that were illegal that were going
on or not, but he he did believe in it.
And I think probably I feel the most sorry for
him because he wasn't the one leading the charge but
still got roped into all of this.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
Yeah, although he never asked the question why am I
being made CFO of a company?
Speaker 3 (30:56):
When I true?
Speaker 5 (30:57):
I mean that's exciting though, Yeah, you get you get that.
I mean, I'm down, what's that? What's the salary?
Speaker 3 (31:03):
Let's go.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
You make the choice to include this several times that
you asked Ray and his family about his current finances,
including buying a house in particular, and whether he still
maybe has any of this stolen money, and you included
there somewhat evasive and somewhat differing answers. Can you talk
about your decision to include these conversations in the film.
Speaker 5 (31:27):
Yes, I think as a filmmaker, I want to know
what the viewer is asking, and I think everybody's going
to be asking where's the money?
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Like does he still have money?
Speaker 5 (31:35):
And I asked him multiple times throughout this production, and
there always was a bit of a playfulness or denial.
It wasn't the same honesty that I had in other
conversations with him.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
You're buying a house, yeah, How you mine a house?
Money answers?
Speaker 2 (31:51):
How it goes?
Speaker 4 (31:52):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (31:52):
How you have money to take for the house. How's
he buying a house?
Speaker 2 (31:55):
Ray?
Speaker 3 (31:56):
As Kim, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (31:58):
So those moments at the end of the film are
a little more raw than other moments, and I think
feel a little bit more real.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
But they were important for me.
Speaker 5 (32:07):
To include, because I'd been asking that question the whole
time and I don't have an answer. But I think
that there's something there, Like whether he has two hundred
dollars or two million dollars, there's potential that there's some
additional money, is my guess.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
Yeah. Now, you producer directed some great documentaries like The
Legend of Cocaine Island and The Pez Outlaw, and what
those have in common are quirky people who get into
trouble because they dream really big and maybe a little
(32:41):
naive of the law. But Ray says from the beginning
that he always wanted to be a criminal. He knew
the system and that he was hurting people, and now
he is buying houses and making loans to financially disadvantaged
people at fifty percent interest. He says this is going
to be his new business venture. They say, when people
(33:02):
show you who they are, believe them. So what am
I supposed to believe about who Ray Trapani is.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
I think you can believe what he tells you.
Speaker 5 (33:11):
I think I think you shouldn't trust him as far
as I would never give him money or enter a
business venture with him. I think Ray's probably loyal to
the closest people around him, but then he has other
priorities when it comes to everything else, mainly money. I
think what you believe about Ray Ray is complicated. Like
(33:33):
he's he's fascinating, he's so I've never met someone who
was so willing to talk about their dark side in
such an open way. There's so much stuff that didn't
make it in the film. There's so many adventures and
things that you know, I would never want my kids
to hear.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
But is there anything you can tell us about that
while we're talking?
Speaker 5 (33:56):
I mean, Ray, what can I tell you about? What
can I tell you about? He had so many stories though,
and it just it just I mean one of the
first things Ray told me was his favorite movie is
Wolf of Wall Street. And he really looks up to
and respects Jordan Belfort. He said when he went into CenTra,
(34:17):
he looked at Jordan Belford and said, I want to
model my company after him. Like, I think that says
a lot about someone. I don't know. There's probably a
deeper dive that a therapist could do, but that, to
me says everything.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
Yeah, Well, we see that he's fallen in love, gotten married,
now has a baby. Is he an open book with
his wife is now wife too, and does it seem
like he's an open book with her and in those
close relationships, I.
Speaker 5 (34:45):
Mean he's he's an open book with his wife. After
she sees this movie, I guess I think, you know,
I think she's aware of all of this. I mean,
she knew when she started dating him, she knew the
basic details. He was wearing a braslet when she met him,
and had a curfew so they would have to rush
home in time back to his grandmother's house every night
(35:07):
by twelve or something, and like barely make curfew. But
I think he's open with them. I mean, how much
will he tell his kids they're young. I'm I'm not sure,
but it's something that I don't feel like anyone around
him hasn't heard these stories. His best friend, Johnny, who's
in the movie, is like probably you know, loves him
(35:28):
and hates him, like he knows how messed up he
is in so many ways, and somehow they're still best friends.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
That says a lot.
Speaker 5 (35:35):
And I find ready to be frustratingly likable because you
don't want to like him. And I think you get
to the end of the film too, and that is
what's interesting is he's complicated in that way, like you're saying,
this guy is horrible. He's doing horrible things, but I
kind of like him, like why, And I think that
hopefully points the fingerback at the audience and makes them
(35:58):
ask a few questions too.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Well along those lines, Ray's mom did say that if
you make Ray look like a scumbag, You're going to
be in big trouble.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
I said it from the very beginning.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
I mean, if you make them look like a scumbag,
I'm really going to be pissed, because I swear to God,
you'll be in big trouble.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
I'm not kidding.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
So I have to ask are you looking over your
shoulder a little bit? For Ray's mom right now?
Speaker 5 (36:21):
Well, the big question is does Ray look like a scumbig?
Do you think Ray looks like a scumbag?
Speaker 3 (36:26):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
I kind of feel like you do.
Speaker 5 (36:28):
I mean, does Ray think Ray looks like a scumbig?
That'll be the question too. He hasn't seen the movie yet,
so by the time this comes out, he will, But
I'm guessing that Ray's gonna like it, and that hopefully
he can calm his mom down a little and that
I won't have to look over my shoulder.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
I like his mom.
Speaker 5 (36:47):
I think I've had meals with her, I've hung out
with her.
Speaker 3 (36:49):
Like she's lovely.
Speaker 5 (36:51):
It's tough if your son is a convicted felon and
it has controversy in his life. Of course you want
to stick up for your kid, like, but you also
know just it's like his best friend that like, yeah,
you love him and you hate him, like it's a
mixed bag.
Speaker 1 (37:05):
Well, Brian Storkle, the film is bitcom It's super interesting
and honestly a whole lot of fun to watch. Thank
you so much for coming on you can't make this
up to talk to me about it?
Speaker 3 (37:15):
Awesome. Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (37:16):
That's it for this week's episode. Thanks so much again
to Brian Storkel. For more of my takes, check out
my other podcast, Crime Writers. On Each week, on that show,
we break down the latest and true crime documentaries, TV podcasts,
and pop culture. If you like you can't make this up,
please rate, interview this show, and share it with your friends.
You can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever
you're listening right now, and make sure to follow the
(37:39):
show to stay tuned for all new episodes. Our music
is by Kelly mac at Netflix Music Lab. You can't
make this up as a production of Netflix. I'm Rebecca Lavoy.
Thanks so much for listening.
Speaker 6 (38:00):
Toot
I'm Rebecca Levoy and this is you Can't Make This Up.
You Can't Make This Up as the podcast where we
uncover the true stories behind your favorite Netflix documentaries and films.
(00:22):
On today's episode, we take a closer look at the
Netflix documentary film Bitcomned.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
We didn't know anything about this fucking business, but it
didn't matter at all.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
It was too easy.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
We lied, we cheated, and made millions of dollars, and
now I'm facing over onundred years.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Today we're talking to director Brian Storkel. At the height
of the bitcoin boom, Ray for Pani and his friends
created a debit card for cryptocurrency. Even though the technology
didn't work and the card was a scam, Centritech was
making millions of dollars a day, but anyone looking at
the operation would discover cut and paste business plans, fake executives,
(01:01):
and glitchy technology. Once they tried to pass themselves off
to The New York Times as legitimate, the whole thing
fell apart.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Bitcoon.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Let's Trapanie tell a story of fun, fame, and fraud
as he awaits sentencing for the first high profile case
of the crypto era. Was it real? No? But did
it work.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
Maybe people can't give up on the promise, and part
of that promise is just the simple one that you
can get rich quickly.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
And I'm joined by director Brian Storkel. Brian, Welcome to
You Can't make This up.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Hey, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
So this story is about the rise and fall of
a cryptocurrency based product from a company called Center Tech,
and it's mostly total from the perspective of Ray Trapani.
So we hear from the top that he was caught
in a crypto scam and at that moment was awaiting
sentencing for his role in that scam. Why did Ray
agree to talk with you?
Speaker 5 (02:02):
You know, that's a really good question, and I should
ask him that again.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Now that we're that we're done with this.
Speaker 5 (02:09):
Some people just like to talk, I think, and he
had a great story and really wanted to share it,
I think part of it without giving too much away,
But he's you know, gone through the process of you know, everything,
having to deal with his case and is kind of
able to talk about it more now.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Yeah. So Ray says in the beginning that growing up
he always wanted to be a criminal, and at first
I thought he was being you know, maybe a little
self reflective, a little bit of nuance there, but he
literally says I always wanted to be a criminal. And
I didn't miss it right, Like he wasn't being nuanced.
He kind of always wanted to be a criminal.
Speaker 5 (02:45):
No, Yeah, we asked him that multiple times. I mean,
that's a very I haven't heard anyone else say that
ever since I was a kid, I've always wanted to
be a criminal. It was never like I'm going to
be a doctor or I'm going to be a scientist.
I you know, if I could have put it in
my eyearbook, I would have put I wanted to a criminal.
And I think it had to do with, you know,
being around his grandpa and the image that his grandfather
(03:05):
portrayed was something he looked up to, which was somewhat criminal.
It's questionable as to say whether it was, you know,
definitively criminal, but the image he saw was very much
scarface or you know, some you know, mobster type grandfather.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
The imagery of your interviews with Ray is really interesting
and great. The scenes that he's in and throughout the film,
you cut back and forth to him getting fitted for
this custom suit and the tailor keeps asking him questions
about his life also, and they're getting good answers the
people in the room with him, you know, helping him
fit the suit. So did you plan that to have
the tailors ask him questions or were they just good
(03:42):
conversationalists because of the work that they do with men
like Ray.
Speaker 5 (03:46):
Yeah, that was a beautiful little accident, honestly, Like, we
did one main interview with Ray, and then we took
him back to a bunch of locations where we were
going to do little mini interviews, and this was this
was kind of one of those I was gonna after
he got the suit try, you know, fitted, We were
going to have him stand there and answer a couple
of questions. But we kind of framed up the camera
so that he was looking into the mirror and the
(04:08):
tailors were still working on him, and they asked maybe
one question, and I was just like, keep going, keep going,
ask him some more, ask him some more.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
And how much have you made in total? On paper?
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Thirty two million, but like in reality we made like
a few hundred million. That's great, Yeah, two pennies.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Would you do it again?
Speaker 2 (04:29):
I always go back to this point of like, if
I knew one hundred percent that I was going to
make thirty million dollars doing something illegal, would I do
it or.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Would I not?
Speaker 5 (04:37):
Because they were genuinely interested in his story, and I think,
you know, coming from that place of curiosity, it's so
much more fascinating and so much you know, it's not
staged in the sense that even a sit down, formal
interview would be with a director.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
So they crushed it and we just let him keep going.
We're like, yeah, this is gold, keep going, keep going.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
So we hear his friend Andrew talk about this prescription
drug ring they ran, and when the cops busted them,
Ray read it out Andrew and his friends and walked
away free and clear. So my question is did Ray
get the tattoo that says loyalty before or after that.
Speaker 5 (05:13):
I believe that was before, but I think Ray would
also dispute as to whether he ratted them out, so
he you know, there's different stories, two sides to that,
I think, but he definitely has had that tattoo for
quite some time. And I think what's interesting is there's
another person in the film, one of the other central founders,
who also has a similar loyalty tattoo. That's a little
(05:36):
bit smaller but similar one.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
Yeah, and you have that great shot of him lifting weights,
and you've got a really great shot of that loyalty tattoo.
Was that on purpose?
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Yeah? Definitely.
Speaker 5 (05:45):
Yeah, we needed to see him with his shirt off.
I mean, this is you know, it's that kind of movie.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
So there is this lingering question throughout the film about
Ray's grandfather and his origin story, and it's implied that
he may have been connected in some way to the mob.
Maybe it's one of those things that no one seems
to really want to talk about, but they kind of
want you to think about, or you want us to
think about. And I'm just curious, like, was that just bluster?
(06:10):
Is that just like family lore? What do you think?
Speaker 5 (06:13):
You know, I think there's some truth to it, but
how much I'm not sure. I mean, it's great talking
to his grandma Pat like she's one of my favorite
parts of the film, and just the way she kind
of dismisses it. It's like, ah, no, he wasn't in
the mafia. You know, he had something to do with
the elevator business. I mean that it just leaves so
many questions and they definitely you know, both Ray's mom,
(06:35):
who was his grandmother's daughter. Obviously she said she saw
money laying around, you know, suitcases full of money. There
was definitely times where Ray found money, like, you know,
large amounts under the mattress and things, and you know,
it's that kind of I think, anytime you're dealing with
that amount of cash, that was one of the big
red flags. But then also just his grandfather Pop presented
(06:58):
this image that was very much of a movie.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
You know.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
The stories that people tell about him make it feel
like he was one of those guys from Goodfellas, right.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
And the fact that his wife can't actually say what
his actual job was but something to do with the
elevator business, doesn't help dispel that legend, right right, right.
There is a tension in Ray's life between wanting to
run some sort of criminal enterprise and get rich and
wanting to be legitimate to make his family proud. And
that's where this luxury rental car business comes into play.
(07:31):
Is there any chance that Ray and Sorby could have
made that work instead of pivoting to crypto Maybe if
they had just curbed their personal spending a little bit.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
I think possibly.
Speaker 5 (07:42):
But you've got a couple young guys in Miami with
a lot of money and exotic cars, and it's not
going to end well. I don't think for guys in
their twenties in that situation that too many people would
be able to have much longevity with that of business.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
So, for reasons that we learned later on, we don't
get to hear much from Sorby himself in bitcoinn I'm curious, Brian,
what are your impressions of Sorby?
Speaker 5 (08:10):
Yeah, I all I know is what I've read in
the media and talked to, you know. I've talked to
his family. I've talked to people that knew him, that
used to date him, that are you know, coupled with
him now. I've talked to, you know, all sorts of
people that have spent a lot of time with him.
But one of the frustrations is I never got to
talk to him. And I worked for a long time,
(08:32):
over a year, to try to get an interview with
him for the film. I've talked with his lawyers as well.
I made trips to Miami, and you know, just really
tried to get him on board, and I think because
he had some ongoing appeals, he wasn't able to speak.
So we kept We kept trying up until the end,
and it was always like we'd get a reply from
(08:52):
one of his lawyers saying, Okay, he's ready to talk now,
and then something.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Would go wrong and we wouldn't be able to get it.
Speaker 5 (08:57):
And even after I turned in the film, I got
a mysage from you know, his brother in law basically saying, Hey,
he's ready to talk now, he's ready to be interviewed.
Is it too late? I was like, yeah, it's too late.
Unfortunately it's too late. Yes, we're airing it in, you know,
in a month. I wish I could say more about
him and really understand him more, but not having a
(09:18):
personal relationship with him or conversations with him, I don't
I can't really tell what, you know, what's really going
on inside of his head.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Yeah, I wish, you know, I could understand him a
little more too, because one of the things that I
couldn't work out is why Ray you know, wanted to
continue to work with him. I mean the business breakup
after that, the car business breakup wasn't necessarily a great breakup, right,
Like he accused Sorby of embezzling money from that business,
and I couldn't quite wrap my head around why he'd
(09:46):
want to work with Sorbi again. So Sorbie must have
something like to him that's as an appeal, right.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
Yeah, I guess so.
Speaker 5 (09:54):
I mean they definitely saw the dollar signs and they
created something that was unique at time.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Well maybe unique is the wrong word.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
There were other, you know, things like this out there
at the time, but they somehow were able to get
theirs off the ground.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
And I think.
Speaker 5 (10:10):
Ray saw that idea and saw the dollar signs and
just you know, went with it. In spite of, you
know what complications he may already have had with that
relationship with Sorby. They continued in this business.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
So they did identify a legitimate pain point in the
crypto market, which was with that crypto at that point,
you could be rich on paper, but it was hard
to access your actual money. So explain some more what
the product they were selling actually was. Were they creating
a cryptocurrency or just creating this way to access your cryptocurrency.
Speaker 5 (10:43):
Yeah, they had their own coins, so they did an
ico and they raised funds through that. They had CenTra
tokens that they were selling, and then they also had
the debit card, which was a way to spend your crypto,
and you could spend not only centric coins, but you
could spend all different versions of cryptocurrency on your card
in real time, and you would worked kind of like
a debit card where it would come out of an
(11:05):
account and transfer it would convert from whatever cryptocurrency to
US dollar and spend right at the grocery store. There
were several companies doing it at the time, and they
were in the process of making this card, making it
or faking it or whatever you want to say. Like
there's the question of whether it's fake or not as
tricky because some versions of a prototype of this card
(11:28):
were working. Were there lies and fraud along the way, Yes,
but I do believe that they were actively working towards
some sort of fully functioning card and company, even though
there was fraud and lies along the way.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
Not just fraud and lies. Right, actually confessed a crime
to you on camera that when he had access to
somebody's wallet, he just stole the money out of that guy.
It's wait, that was shocking to me that, like he's
just willing to just tell you on camera. Hey, yeah,
this guy accidentally gave me his pass code, so I
just you know, I saw the money there, and I
just took it.
Speaker 5 (12:02):
This is what I found fascinating about Ray is that
he was so honest, even about the most horrible things.
Most people you work with, criminals and such, are dodging
around the truth and trying to, you know, backpedaling over
their words and trying to, you know, not tell you everything.
But Ray, I really believe he was, you know, let's say,
ninety five percent honest with me. Like he he told
(12:25):
me stuff that I would look at him and look
at the camera guy next to me and say, like,
does he know this camera's rolling like we're he knows
he's saying this on record, right, because the things he
would say would be so ridiculous, And I mean, I
think part of that is his personality. I think another
part of it is that when he cooperated with the
(12:46):
with the government, he had to tell them everything he
did wrong. And once he told them those things, they
couldn't prosecute him form in the future. So I think
things like that he probably told to them. If he didn't,
he could potentially be prosecuted for it. But the way
it was explained to me was that after he had
shared all of those things, he could not be charged
(13:07):
with them anymore, which made him able to be a
bit more honest with us with everything.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Yeah, it was pretty incredible. Can you remind me how
Center convinced the world about the members of its c suite,
like the veracity of their credentials and you know existence.
Speaker 5 (13:25):
Yeah, I mean there was a lot of ways, but
their fake staff was one of them, you know, that
was their CEO.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
Was incredible.
Speaker 5 (13:33):
When we started working on this film and I heard
about Michael Edwards, the fake CEO, that has to be
a major plot point and I really want audiences to
believe that Michael Edwards is real and then at some
time flip it on them and realize that he's not.
But the fact that they had you know staff there
weren't even real people that supposedly worked at you know,
Wells Fargo and like Bank of America and things and
(13:56):
had this huge resume was incredible. And that led people,
I think to know how much did they trust in
them more because they had this fake CEO. I'm not sure,
but it was a factor. When people were going to
invest in a company and they see this guy, it
leads them to believe that there's someone they can trust there.
So we went after. You know, we knew we had
to find the real Michael Edwards, and so that was
(14:16):
like a big part of Upfront. I said, if I
could land him an interview with him, that would be
such a fun twist in the film.
Speaker 4 (14:23):
I'm Michael Edwards, founder and CEO of Center Tech.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Is that who you really are? No, that's not who
I really am. I'm doctor Andrew Hoileko. I'm a professor
at the University of Manitoba.
Speaker 5 (14:38):
I was stoked when he agreed to do it.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Were you surprised by how junior Varsity some of this
scam actually was? Like, you know, I don't know how
blockchain works, but I know how Google reverse image works.
I know that. You know, just saying you went to
Harvard on your LinkedIn does not erase your Instagram history
that shows you having owned a car dealership and notw
having gone to Harvard. I mean, it's jv right.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
It is.
Speaker 5 (15:05):
But what's even more fascinating is that people bought into it.
So to me, the fact that they were getting away
with these things that seemed so amateur was incredible to me.
I think the you know, if they were just doing
them and people weren't buying into them, that's one thing,
but the fact that they kept kind of failing upwards,
they would do something stupid and then raise more money.
(15:26):
I mean, you get to the point in the film
where you're like, certainly they're going down, and then that
Korean company reaches out with more money, and I think
that is what's incredible and also is kind of a
sign of what was happening at the time with these
types of things. In twenty seventeen, it was just the
wild West of cryptocurrencies, and you had all sorts of
people starting scammy companies and you know, milking people out
(15:51):
of their money, and people weren't asking questions. They were
just they could do no wrong, and they just assumed
that their money.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
Would just go up, go up, go up.
Speaker 5 (15:59):
You know, there was not there was no one keeping
anyone in check. And I think there was probably a
lot worse scams that were going on at the time
that people didn't get in trouble for.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
Yeah. I mean, it is worth noting that this was
before these really high profile cases like one coin and
Quadrigae SX or FTX, and few people knew a lot
about crypto let alone that most of these outfits were scammy, right,
Like consumers just were not aware of that at that time.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
Absolutely, I mean they you know, some people had made
some money in ethereum and a lot of people were
putting that into other coins. But yeah, there wasn't general
knowledge of what types of people were in this industry
and how scammy they were. I think Nathaniel Popper, who
wrote a great article for The New York Times about
Center Tech, he was looking at the time. He had
(16:49):
kind of become the de facto reporter at the Times
for anything crypto, and he knew there was all sorts
of scams going on and was trying to find something
to write about. But there was too many stories. It's like,
where do you even start. These things are everywhere, And
somehow he stumbled across CenTra.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
He looked at them and said, they have a little
bit of everything.
Speaker 5 (17:10):
They've got the celebrities, they've got the fake you know, CEOs,
they've got all sorts of things. They raised a good
amount of money, and they kind of summed up everything
that was wrong in the crypto world at that time.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
In a sense, CenTra was the story of crypto itself,
which is an endeavor that has something real underneath it,
but keeps failing and keeps running into problems, and yet
people keep coming back to it. There's something so alluring there.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (17:41):
I think the SEC went on to prosecute This did
become the first case that the SEC prosecuted in the
cryptocurrency space, and I think that was also because of
this New York Times article and because they had been
given some light there.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
What I thought was interesting about Nathaniel Popper was he
was talking about how you know, belittled his beat was
at the New York Times at the time. Can you
talk about how important he was to your film, like
having him in your film.
Speaker 5 (18:07):
Yeah, he's incredible because I think you want somebody that's
gonna kind of help take down the bad guy, if
you will. I don't like to say that there's good
or bad guys in films, but that would be his
role here, the good guy investigating and trying to solve
the crime. He had done an incredible amount of research.
We reached out to him fairly early on, and we
(18:28):
were able to do an interview with him and get
a lot of information from him that was helpful in
all of other interviews after that and the crafting the
film and yeah, he was a huge help.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
So it seems like no one was more surprised than
Nathaniel that Sorby continued to talk to him when it
was clear this whole thing was a house of cards, right.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
Yeah, yeah, I think he says that in the film,
like he very much thought at some point they would
shut up, but they just kept answering his calls.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
The first thing is Visa has said nobody has applied
to issue a central card.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
I mean, I know, I know detailed about that.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
I mean, you know, I mean, but I mean, I
can't give you direct.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Bank on that.
Speaker 5 (19:11):
We have calls with Ray in the film. He talked
with Ray, you know, a decent amount, but he talked
with with Sorby much more. And those conversations, you know,
aren't in the film, but they're even more fascinating. And
just the you know, just the cover ups. As they
start getting down the road and he's asking him more
and more questions, he kind of just catches them over
(19:32):
and over again. And much like the interview they did
with Cliff High, which in the film seems to go
incredibly wrong. After that interview with Cliff High, they raised
even more money, Like things kept going even better because
of that attention. It's funny to see that, even with
the warning signs, that people were still buying into these things.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
It's interesting because agreeing to do a profile with the
New York Times seems like a terrible idea if you're
knowingly running a scam, right, So my question is, did
they sort of think they were doing something legit at
that point or did they just not understand like what
journalism is and they thought they were just going to
(20:14):
be able to fleece this New York Times reporter. That
was the big question I had about it.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (20:20):
I think if you ask Ray he would say, no,
we knew it was a scam the whole time. If
you ask Robert Farkas, who is one of the three
co founders, he would say, yes, we were legitimate. I
believe it, and I still believe in it today. It
might be mixed, but either way, they all thought, for
whatever reason, that this was a great idea to do
a profile in the New York Times, and they were
(20:41):
excited about it. I mean, you see the pictures. They
did a huge photo shoot in these in these suits.
The New York Times photographer and they, you know, were
all thrilled that they were going to get this press
because it meant good things for their you know, for
their company, and in some cases it might have been
I mean, most of the you know, attention they were getting,
(21:01):
even when it was negative, was again turning around into
something where they raised more money. So there's a chance
that you know, this New York Times thing, even if
it was negative, could have been good for them if
the SEC hadn't read that article and came after them.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Yeah, Unfortunately, people at the SEC do tend to read
The New York Times. Yes, it was interesting to me,
you know, Nathaniel decided to send the photographer there quickly
before they figure me out that I'm a real journalist,
which apparently they weren't going to do anyway. But there
were actual employees there, and I found myself wondering, did
they really hire employees who went to the office thinking
(21:37):
that this was a legit, non scammy company, Like did
they have infrastructure employees like payroll people.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
I'm pretty sure that yeah.
Speaker 5 (21:45):
Yeah. My guess is that most of the people there,
you know, assumed they were working for a legitimate company
and it was a normal job.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
I don't think there were too many people there that
went to work thinking or were scamming people.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Right, So you mentioned cliff High a minute ago. It
seems like CenTra made a lot of money also thanks
to a typo that cliff I made. Yeah, can you
just remind us who Cliffy is and what was that
mistake that he made in his blog.
Speaker 5 (22:11):
He's a crypto guru blogger and he found this this company,
you know, using these web bots, as we call him.
He found a company called CenTra, and it was the
wrong center. It was some sort of bank that he
had that he had thought that this bank was partnering
(22:31):
in a crypto venture and that was something he was
thrilled about, and he wrote along report about and turns
out his web bot had.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
Discovered the wrong CenTra.
Speaker 5 (22:42):
So he quickly retracted that, but it was kind of
too late because that was the you know, that was
the start of them raising thirty five million dollars was
because of this mistake and because of his endorsement, because
he was that powerful in that in that world.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
It also seems like maybe they didn't do a great
name search when they named their scamming company. It's like
some brand confusion.
Speaker 5 (23:05):
That would be a good scam would to be to
get your company to sound like anything you can and
copy the logos.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
So well, or copy a whole website and then just
find in the place right exactly. So Cliff tries to
atone by exposing CenTra for the benefit of the crypto community,
and Sorby decides to do an interview with Cliff.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
The first thing Sorby says in that cause we are
one not a scam. Starting off by saying this is
not a skim is the most bizarre thing in the world.
No one ever says that unless it's actually a scam.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
No, that's that's fine, that's mine. But your statement, your
statements don't mean anything. You stating you're not a scam
in no way proves you're not a scam.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
He doesn't do himself any favors in that interview, right.
Speaker 5 (23:51):
No, No, it does not go well. It's painful to watch,
especially in its entirety. It's a very painful interview.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
So the heat's rising now and Ray and Sorby and
Robert hire a lawyer to deal with the legal threat.
So talk about this guy who is Eric Pope.
Speaker 6 (24:09):
Oh.
Speaker 5 (24:09):
Eric Pope is an incredible lawyer based out of New York,
huge resume, He's got a great website. Eric Pope is
one of my favorite things about this because they really
really believed that Eric Pope was helping them and that
he was a very skilled and credentialed lawyer. And they
sent all of their stuff to Eric Pope. When they
(24:31):
got in trouble with the sec they sent it to him.
When they had other questions, they went to him. He
helped them with all of their paperwork, and they did
not find out until much later that he was a
college kid pretending to be a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
It was like this young kid, fucking maniac, and my
partner thought it was a legit lawyer the whole time
he was talking to him, and he basically like scammed
a company that was already scamming us, which was.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
Yeah, crazy. He did get busted for that.
Speaker 5 (25:00):
I think he only made I don't have it in
front of you, somewhere around forty thousand dollars being a
fake lawyer for three years. And he also had a partner,
so it wasn't it wasn't incredibly lucrative for him, but
because of CenTra and I think the attention it got.
I did hear that the CenTra executives cooperated with the
government to help put Eric Pope away.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Right, because they all have loyalty tattoos.
Speaker 3 (25:22):
Right, Yes, exactly, exactly.
Speaker 5 (25:25):
But it's one of my favorite parts, especially when he's
talking to the suit guys and they're so shocked to
you know, basically like they got scammed by the scammer
got scammed by another scam.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
It's incredible. It's karma.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Well that's the thing. Is it karma or are they
somehow And this is what I found myself wondering, are
they somehow more susceptible to somebody like Eric Pope because
this is how they operate. It's almost like they are
scam blind. That's that's why I found myself wondering.
Speaker 5 (25:54):
Maybe, I mean, they got tricked by their own scam.
I mean, especially the website. Just believing something off a
web site is pretty funny. I mean, I just I
find it really entertaining. And I think that he the
fact that this kid, you know, fooled them. I don't know,
I don't know if it's karma or what, but I
just it's a big laugh for me. I love it,
like it's so great.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
Yeah, I think the key to being a fake lawyer
is to go into a field of fake law where
other people don't know anything about what it is you're doing.
So the fact that they didn't know what they were
actually doing probably really helped this kid out a lot.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
Exactly.
Speaker 5 (26:27):
You just got to be confident and you know, and
that's it, that's all. It takes big words and confidence.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
Eventually they do need real lawyers though, because the FBI
finally does you know, go into CenTra. When you begin
interviewing Ray, he hadn't yet been sentenced. The guy with
a loyalty tattoo again cooperates with authorities to convict his
co defendants, and instead of getting decades in prison, he
was sentenced to time served and released no time. Bitch,
(27:00):
Oh she loved you.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
Comparing it to Sorbies was like night and day.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
Facing one hundred and seventy five years.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Did you think that was what was going to happen?
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Honestly? Like, no, not. At first.
Speaker 5 (27:11):
When we started this, his sentencing was probably a few
weeks or a month in advance, and we were rushing
to go film with Ray before.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
He got locked up.
Speaker 5 (27:22):
We were worried that if he went to prison, then
there's you know, we're trying to make this movie that's
going to be a little difficult, So the sentencing kept
getting pushed over a year I think. I mean, we
waited for quite a while for the sentencing, and as
we got farther down the road and talked to more
lawyers and people involved in the in the story, I
(27:42):
think I started to think that he probably would would
get off. But there was still a question even on
that day of whether, you know, how strict the penalty
would be. I mean, there was definitely on paper a
chance that he could get one hundred years or something.
But I think just knowing, you know, talking to the
other lawyers in the case, it seemed like he was
probably gonna get off with very little time, maybe a
(28:04):
year at the most, and then ultimately, as you see
in the film, he gets no time.
Speaker 4 (28:10):
M m.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
The true measure of whether or not that was a
fair outcome perhaps came from investor Jacob Brunsel. How did
it feel to be the one to deliver the news
to Jacob that Ray got time served for stealing his money?
Speaker 5 (28:25):
Yeah, I uh, I mean felt kind of bad because
obviously Jacob would like to see him spend some time
in prison.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
That upsets me. That upsets me kind of well, I'm
gonna got him.
Speaker 6 (28:44):
Oh oh man, do you think he's really changed?
Speaker 3 (28:57):
I hope so, but that doesn't absolve him from what
he's done in this past.
Speaker 5 (29:00):
It was also a good moment that he could capture
on camera, so I'm glad he hadn't heard that news
anywhere else yet. But yeah, it is shocking at the surface.
I think Paul Percucci, who is Robert Farcas's lawyer, talks
about it and talked about it more than is in
the film. But that's just the way the government works
in New York is if you cooperate, you get no time. Personally,
(29:24):
I think there should be some middle ground. I mean,
give some sort of benefit for cooperating, but don't let
them get off completely either. Yeah, but it seems like
it's all or nothing. According to him.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Robert Farcas's attorney might be biased, but he said of
the three principal players, that Ray was the most likely
to reoffend, and he said it in a pretty colorful way.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Good shocking to me.
Speaker 6 (29:49):
With his record and as much of a scumback as
he admits he is, that he winds up with literally
the lowest sentence in this case.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Do you agree this might be the case.
Speaker 5 (30:01):
I don't have a comment on that. I would say,
he says that. I'd say, Samson ends are the you know,
the prosecutor. He says, sam is you know, the one
that would be most likely to reoffend and sees that
because of his criminal habits. Basically is what he would say,
is that over the over the years, if you look
at these things, I think they both agree that Robert
(30:22):
Farcas would be the least likely to reoffend and kind
of was just caught up in all this you know,
wrong place, wrong time, and.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
Bought into it because I think he believed in the company.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
He took a job, right, He just took a job.
Speaker 5 (30:35):
He was exactly exactly and I don't know how much
he knew of things that were illegal that were going
on or not, but he he did believe in it.
And I think probably I feel the most sorry for
him because he wasn't the one leading the charge but
still got roped into all of this.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
Yeah, although he never asked the question why am I
being made CFO of a company?
Speaker 3 (30:56):
When I true?
Speaker 5 (30:57):
I mean that's exciting though, Yeah, you get you get that.
I mean, I'm down, what's that? What's the salary?
Speaker 3 (31:03):
Let's go.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
You make the choice to include this several times that
you asked Ray and his family about his current finances,
including buying a house in particular, and whether he still
maybe has any of this stolen money, and you included
there somewhat evasive and somewhat differing answers. Can you talk
about your decision to include these conversations in the film.
Speaker 5 (31:27):
Yes, I think as a filmmaker, I want to know
what the viewer is asking, and I think everybody's going
to be asking where's the money?
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Like does he still have money?
Speaker 5 (31:35):
And I asked him multiple times throughout this production, and
there always was a bit of a playfulness or denial.
It wasn't the same honesty that I had in other
conversations with him.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
You're buying a house, yeah, How you mine a house?
Money answers?
Speaker 2 (31:51):
How it goes?
Speaker 4 (31:52):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (31:52):
How you have money to take for the house. How's
he buying a house?
Speaker 2 (31:55):
Ray?
Speaker 3 (31:56):
As Kim, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (31:58):
So those moments at the end of the film are
a little more raw than other moments, and I think
feel a little bit more real.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
But they were important for me.
Speaker 5 (32:07):
To include, because I'd been asking that question the whole
time and I don't have an answer. But I think
that there's something there, Like whether he has two hundred
dollars or two million dollars, there's potential that there's some
additional money, is my guess.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
Yeah. Now, you producer directed some great documentaries like The
Legend of Cocaine Island and The Pez Outlaw, and what
those have in common are quirky people who get into
trouble because they dream really big and maybe a little
(32:41):
naive of the law. But Ray says from the beginning
that he always wanted to be a criminal. He knew
the system and that he was hurting people, and now
he is buying houses and making loans to financially disadvantaged
people at fifty percent interest. He says this is going
to be his new business venture. They say, when people
(33:02):
show you who they are, believe them. So what am
I supposed to believe about who Ray Trapani is.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
I think you can believe what he tells you.
Speaker 5 (33:11):
I think I think you shouldn't trust him as far
as I would never give him money or enter a
business venture with him. I think Ray's probably loyal to
the closest people around him, but then he has other
priorities when it comes to everything else, mainly money. I
think what you believe about Ray Ray is complicated. Like
(33:33):
he's he's fascinating, he's so I've never met someone who
was so willing to talk about their dark side in
such an open way. There's so much stuff that didn't
make it in the film. There's so many adventures and
things that you know, I would never want my kids
to hear.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
But is there anything you can tell us about that
while we're talking?
Speaker 5 (33:56):
I mean, Ray, what can I tell you about? What
can I tell you about? He had so many stories though,
and it just it just I mean one of the
first things Ray told me was his favorite movie is
Wolf of Wall Street. And he really looks up to
and respects Jordan Belfort. He said when he went into CenTra,
(34:17):
he looked at Jordan Belford and said, I want to
model my company after him. Like, I think that says
a lot about someone. I don't know. There's probably a
deeper dive that a therapist could do, but that, to
me says everything.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
Yeah, Well, we see that he's fallen in love, gotten married,
now has a baby. Is he an open book with
his wife is now wife too, and does it seem
like he's an open book with her and in those
close relationships, I.
Speaker 5 (34:45):
Mean he's he's an open book with his wife. After
she sees this movie, I guess I think, you know,
I think she's aware of all of this. I mean,
she knew when she started dating him, she knew the
basic details. He was wearing a braslet when she met him,
and had a curfew so they would have to rush
home in time back to his grandmother's house every night
(35:07):
by twelve or something, and like barely make curfew. But
I think he's open with them. I mean, how much
will he tell his kids they're young. I'm I'm not sure,
but it's something that I don't feel like anyone around
him hasn't heard these stories. His best friend, Johnny, who's
in the movie, is like probably you know, loves him
(35:28):
and hates him, like he knows how messed up he
is in so many ways, and somehow they're still best friends.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
That says a lot.
Speaker 5 (35:35):
And I find ready to be frustratingly likable because you
don't want to like him. And I think you get
to the end of the film too, and that is
what's interesting is he's complicated in that way, like you're saying,
this guy is horrible. He's doing horrible things, but I
kind of like him, like why, And I think that
hopefully points the fingerback at the audience and makes them
(35:58):
ask a few questions too.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Well along those lines, Ray's mom did say that if
you make Ray look like a scumbag, You're going to
be in big trouble.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
I said it from the very beginning.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
I mean, if you make them look like a scumbag,
I'm really going to be pissed, because I swear to God,
you'll be in big trouble.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
I'm not kidding.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
So I have to ask are you looking over your
shoulder a little bit? For Ray's mom right now?
Speaker 5 (36:21):
Well, the big question is does Ray look like a scumbig?
Do you think Ray looks like a scumbag?
Speaker 3 (36:26):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
I kind of feel like you do.
Speaker 5 (36:28):
I mean, does Ray think Ray looks like a scumbig?
That'll be the question too. He hasn't seen the movie yet,
so by the time this comes out, he will, But
I'm guessing that Ray's gonna like it, and that hopefully
he can calm his mom down a little and that
I won't have to look over my shoulder.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
I like his mom.
Speaker 5 (36:47):
I think I've had meals with her, I've hung out
with her.
Speaker 3 (36:49):
Like she's lovely.
Speaker 5 (36:51):
It's tough if your son is a convicted felon and
it has controversy in his life. Of course you want
to stick up for your kid, like, but you also
know just it's like his best friend that like, yeah,
you love him and you hate him, like it's a
mixed bag.
Speaker 1 (37:05):
Well, Brian Storkle, the film is bitcom It's super interesting
and honestly a whole lot of fun to watch. Thank
you so much for coming on you can't make this
up to talk to me about it?
Speaker 3 (37:15):
Awesome. Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (37:16):
That's it for this week's episode. Thanks so much again
to Brian Storkel. For more of my takes, check out
my other podcast, Crime Writers. On Each week, on that show,
we break down the latest and true crime documentaries, TV podcasts,
and pop culture. If you like you can't make this up,
please rate, interview this show, and share it with your friends.
You can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever
you're listening right now, and make sure to follow the
(37:39):
show to stay tuned for all new episodes. Our music
is by Kelly mac at Netflix Music Lab. You can't
make this up as a production of Netflix. I'm Rebecca Lavoy.
Thanks so much for listening.
Speaker 6 (38:00):
Toot
Host
Jonny B. Good
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!