He was called a “Con Artist” by the Asian Weekly; a “Charity Scammer” by the Seattle KOMO News, and now Andrew Jang is being called “a Fugitive” by the Wall Street Journal.   With so much attention on his dubious business practices, it is inevitable the next media source will ask questions how has he managed to continue his investment and charity schemes with impunity for over a decade?   Why has he yet to catch the attention of regulatory agencies such as the SEC and IRS?    

In its article, the Wall Street Journal revealed the alter ego of rising star, Andrew Jang, in  NFL-NBA fashion circles.   It seems Jang is a fugitive also known as Andrew (Drew) W. Morrison who is wanted in Seattle, Washington for various allegations ranging from investment fraud to tax evasion, and fleeing the state to evade a bench warrant.  Just as with other publications, the WSJ article summarizes a recurring pattern since 2009.    

Also, just as in previous exposes, Jang offers very little in his own defense; often commenting to interview questions with vagueness at best; and nonsense at worse.  But he does repeat his mantra of admitting his mistakes and vowing to “make it right” by those he wronged; the same mantra dating back to 2015 when he was confronted Seattle’s KOMO News. 

Business Manager Travis Swanson

In response to the WSJ article, The CityGuru Investor now extends an open invitation to both Andrew Jang and his business partner, Travis Swanson, to provide them each equal time; an opportunity to clarify or correct what the WSJ and other publications have published.  The CityGuru Investor will print their responses here, un-edited and in their own words. 

In giving Andrew Jang and Travis Swanson the floor, The CityGuru Investor wishes to start the dialogue with questions related to the WSJ article.

Mr. Jang and Mr. Swanson—you now have the floor:

Q-1   Your corporate counsel, Jamal Jackson, was quoted as saying “There’s no evidence that the past businesses of Andrew were fraudulent.”   In its own findings,  the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) tell quite a different story—and issued a Cease and Desist Order plus fines over $50,000 for your actions.   Do you dispute their findings of fraud and do you plan to challenge the DFI?       

 Q-2   In its article, the WSJ quoted a Washington judge saying that you fled the State of Washington and changed your name and identity so as to conceal your identity and whereabouts.   But Mr. Jang was quoted as saying: “It wasn’t to escape anything.”  Both attorneys for Mr. Jang’s judgment creditors, along with former investors, referred to the difficulty of finding Mr. Jang.   Mr. Jang has reported living out of various hotels with no apparent permanent residence.  Do you feel the WSJ was not justified in calling you a “fugitive”?  

Q-3  According to the WSJ, the bench warrant calls for your arrest if Jang is found in the state of Washington.  Jang has noted that he frequently travels to the NFL-NBA teams for suit measurements, having worked with over 20 of these teams.  Have you never been back to Washington state for teams such as the SeaHawks or the Mariners?

Q-4  Spokesmen for the Miami Dolphins claim they will cease working with you following the exposure by the WSJ article.  Has that affected any of your business with other NFL-NBA teams which is your bread-and-butter?  Are you still soliciting investments from other professional athletes?

Q-5    The WSJ article quotes Jang as saying there was a “miscommunication” between himself and the financial advisor of a Pro Athlete with whom Jang was soliciting investment funds.  The financial advisor was quoted as saying there were a “lot of red flags” to your investment offering, adding he and his client “dodged a bullet” by not accepting the investment offering.  Can you elaborate on what it was the financial advisor misunderstood?  

Q-6  Jang was quoted as telling a prospective investor that the company, Adriaen Black is worth “more than $25 million”.   Is this true or just marketing talk to entice the investor into investing?   How was this valuation determined for your company?  Who conducted the valuation?    

Q-7  Both Andrew Jang and Travis Swanson told the WSJ they were not aware of a 2017 IRS Tax Liend exceeding $400,000 against Jang though a copy of the Lien had previously been submitted to their corporate attorney, Jamal Jackson.   The Lien was mis-directed because the last address the IRS has for Jang is an old Washington address.   Yet, Travis Swanson told the WSJ that Jang is an “employee” of Adriaen Black.   As an employee, either a W-2 or 1099 surely would have been filed with the IRS who would have updated their contact information for Jang and contacted him by now.   Is the company filing for its employees as required by the IRS?  Is Jang filing his personal returns with the IRS though he has admitted in a past deposition that he has not filed a return “before 2007”?    

Q-8   In interview, Jang admitted to having made mistakes and his intentions of “making it right” by people with claims against him.   Jang has said this same thing in the past, but there are many more investors, vendors and charities involved since that time.   Do you plan to pay back ALL of these investors, vendors and charities (as well as government agencies such as the DFI and IRS?).   What have you done to date to demonstrate you are trying to “make it right” by the people who claim you wronged? 

Q-9  The WSJ cited a March 1 correspondence between Jang and an investor in which Jang admitted to “you all deserved better, you all deserved the truth and I was a coward for not offering it.”  Is this part of your “make it right” campaign and if so, have you contacted all of these people since they may have difficulties in locating you?  May this website make your contact information public?

Q-10  In correspondence with former investors, Jang threatened any investor associated with this website, and stated his intentions of bringing legal action against the owners of the website.   Can you elaborate on why you might want this website silenced, particularly since it is designed to provide education and information to your own investors?