The Ambush of Guile: The Rogue Money Wire Fraud of V-the Guerrilla Economist

For among my people are found wicked men:  they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.  Jeremiah 5:26v-guerilla-feet-desk

In considering the motives of Viji Varghese, Steve Quayle and Douglas Hagmann in promoting the false credentials and business ventures of V- the Guerrilla Economist, Proverbs 26:28 has this to say:  A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin.  In this post I want to bring to the reader’s attention, the components of the criminal charge of wire fraud.  At, the website of the U. S. Department of Justice, commentary can be found on the elements of wire fraud which apply to the internet promotion of the false bona fides of  V-the Guerrilla Economist, the pseudonym of Viji Varghese. The internet has at its foundation an interstate network of  telephone and cable communication systems.

Under the subsection entitled 941.18 U. S. C.1343-Elements of Wire Fraud,  the DOJ article begins, “The elements of wire fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those of the mail fraud statute, but require the use of an interstate telephone call or electronic communication made in furtherance of the scheme”.  Four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are outlined:  “(1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and (4) that interstate wire communications were used.”

Under 942. The Scheme and Artifice to Defraud, comments on the meaning of these words, saying, “…the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes do not define the terms “scheme” or “artifice” and the courts have traditionally been reluctant to offer definitions of either term in the broadest and most general terms. Lemire,720 F.2d at 1335 (“Congress did not define ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ when it first coined that phrase, nor has it since.  Instead that expression has taken on its present meaning from 111 years of case law,”)”.

Continuing, states, “The fraudulent aspect of the scheme to defraud is to be measured by nontechnical standards and is not restricted by any common-law definition of false pretenses.  “[t}he words ‘to defraud’ in the mail fraud statute have the ‘common understanding’ of “wrongdoing one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes,” and “usually signify the deprivation of something of value by trick, chincane, or overreaching.”…”

Under 943.  No Loss or Gullible Victims, the U. S. Code on wire fraud is highly interesting, because many persons are stressing that V-the Guerrilla Economist was targeting the elderly, whereas the distinction between victims is in fact irrelevant under this  federal law.  This code de-emphasizes the vulnerability of the victims, saying, “It is the scheme to defraud and not actual fraud that is required.”  United States v. Reid F.2d 1255, 1264 (D.C.Cir. 1976).”No particular type of victim is required…nor need the scheme have succeeded.”

Three other quotations from case law are quoted: “[I}t makes no difference whether the persons the scheme is intended to defraud are gullible or skeptical, dull or bright…”;  “The monumental credulity of the victim is no shield for the accused…”.; and “To hold that actual loss to victim is required “would lead to the illogical result of that the legality of a defendant’s conduct would depend on his fortuitous choice of a gullible victim.”

Finally, under 944. Proof of Scheme and Artifice to Defraud, states, “To sustain a conviction the government must prove the existence of a scheme; it is not required, however, to prove all the details or all instances of allegedly illicit conduct.” And in conclusion they state, “All that is required is the [the defendant] knowingly and willingly participated in the scheme; she need not have performed every act herself.” United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1990).  The evidence need only show that defendant was a ‘knowing and active participant’ in scheme to defraud and that scheme involved interstate wire communications.” Id. (quoting United States v Wiehoff, 748 F.2d 1158, 1161 (7th Cir.1984)).”

Now that the identity of the man behind the mask of V-the Guerrilla Economist, who sold his fake insider information based on falsified credentials, has been made known, it must not be overlooked who actively promoted this fraud.  Here is a screenshot of the May 24, 2013 The Hagmann & Hagmann Report which was reprinted on has been documented on the false bonafides of V-the Guerrilla Economist at and can be noted in letters of complaint of fraud written to the Orange County, New York District Attorney.

When the day has arrived when the guile of self-appointed anointed Watchmen of God requires the bringing in of those who enforce criminal codes against fraud,  every Christian ought to be concerned. Many Christians have remained silent about such fraud, or actively promoted “Christian” radio and TV shysters. It is time for Christians to reflect on their own participation in the sins of  their leaders.  As Isaiah 28:17 begins, Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet…