19-002943 Office Of Financial Regulation vs. Payservices.Com, Inc., D/B/A Payservices.Com, And Lionel Danenberg Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, December 16, 2019.

Summary: OFR proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents failed to timely comply with reporting requirements. Recommended $6,000 fine.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION ,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 19 - 2943

PAYSERVICES.COM, INC., d/b/a

PAYSERVICES.COM, AND LIONEL

DANENBERG ,

Respondents .

/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case came before Administrative Law Judge Darren A.

Schwartz of the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") for

final hearing by vid eo teleconference on October 16 , 2019, at

sites in Tallahassee and West Palm Beach, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Joaquin Alvarez, Esquire

Office of Financial Regulation

Fletcher Building

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0370

For Respondent s : Lionel Danenberg, pro se

Payservices.com, Inc.,

d/b/a Payservices.com

14061 Pacific Point Place, Suite 204

Delray Beach, Florida 33484

STATEMENT OF T HE ISSUE S

Whether Respondents violated the statutes and rules alleged

in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what

is the appropriate penalty to be imposed against Respondents.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On April 22, 2019, Petitioner, Office of Financial

Regulation, Division of Consumer Finance ("OFR"), issued a

four - count Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondents

Payservices.com, Inc., d/b/a Payservices.com and

Lionel Danenberg. 1/ Subsequently, Respondents filed a "Respons e

by Respondents" and "Notice to Cease and Desist." On May 31,

2019, OFR referred the matter to DOAH to assign an

Administrative Law Judge to conduct the final hearing.

On June 11, 2019, the undersigned set the final hearing for

August 20, 2019. On June 11, 2019, Respondents filed a motion

to dismiss the Amended Administrative Complaint and motion for

summary judgment. On June 17, 2019, OFR filed a response in

opposition to Respondents' motions. On June 18, 2019, the

undersigned entered an Order granti ng Mr. Danenberg's motion to

dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend. On June 19,

2019, the undersigned entered an Order denying Payservices'

motions.

On July 8, 2019, OFR filed a motion for leave to file its

Second Amended Administrative Compl aint. On July 11, 2019,

Respondents filed a response in opposition to the motion. On

July 15, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order granting the

motion.

The Second Amended Administrative Complaint contains

three counts against Respondents. In Count I, OFR alleges that

Respondents failed to submit their annual financial audit report

within 120 days after the end of their fiscal year, in violation

of section 560.202(2), Florida Statutes. In Count II, OFR

alleges that Respondents failed to timely submit their Security

Device Calculation Form by January 31, 2018, as required by OFR

Form 560 - 07, incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative

Code Rule 69V - 560.1012 pursuant to rule 69V - 560.402. In

Count III, OFR alleges that Respondents failed to notif y OFR of

a change in Payservices' registered agent name and address

within 30 days, in violation of section 560.126(2) and

r ules 69V - 560.1012 and 69V - 560.102(5).

As to Count I, OFR seeks an administrative fine of $3,500

and a ten - day license suspension. As to Count II, OFR seeks an

administrative fine of $3,500 and a ten - day license suspension.

As to Count III, OFR seeks an administrative fine of $2,000.

Thus, OFR seeks a total administrative fine of $9,000 and a

20 - day license suspension.

On July 30, 2019, OFR filed a motion to compel

Mr. Danenberg's deposition and to continue the final hearing

scheduled for August 20, 2019, based on Mr. Danenberg's failure

to cooperate in the setting of his deposition. On July 31,

2019, Payservices filed a response in opposition to the motion.

On August 1, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order granting

OFR's motion to compel and ordered Mr. Danenberg to appear for

his deposition on August 20, 2019, the date Mr. Danenberg had

represented he was available for the fin al hearing. The Order

also granted the motion for continuance, and the final hearing

was rescheduled for October 16, 2019.

The next day, August 2, 2019, Respondents filed a motion

for protective order, seeking to prevent OFR from requiring

Mr. Danenberg to travel from outside the United States to West

Palm Beach, Florida for his deposition on August 20, 2019. In

the motion, Mr. Danenberg stated that he "is not a U.S. Citizen

and neither a permanent resident of the United States of

America." He further stated that he "has an E - eaty Investor

Visa which allows him to come and go to the United States for

certain periods of time, up to 2 years at once within the limits

of his visa." Mr. Danenberg further stated that to require him

to appear in south Flo rida for his deposition on August 20,

2019, would cause a financial burden. On August 5, 2019, OFR

filed a response in opposition to the motion.

On August 5, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order

granting the motion for protective order, concluding tha t

Mr. Danenberg is not required to appear in south Florida on

August 20, 2019, for his deposition. Nevertheless, because the

final hearing was continued to October 16, 2019, the undersigned

ordered that the parties confer within the next seven business

da ys and discuss, in detail, future arrangements for the taking

of Mr. Danenberg's deposition because of OFR's right to depose

Mr. Danenberg prior to the final hearing. In this regard, the

undersigned ordered that:

[T]he parties should determine whether th ere

is a mutually convenient date prior to the

October [16], 2019, final hearing, in which

Mr. Danenberg will be in the south Florida

area and, therefore, available to be deposed

in south Florida prior to the final hearing.

If not, the parties should deter mine

alternative arrangements for taking

Mr. Danenberg's deposition prior to the

final hearing, such as by video

teleconference or telephone. In any event,

by no later than August 15, 2019, the

parties shall file a joint status report

advising the undersi gned of the results of

their conferral.

On August 15, 2019, the parties filed unilateral status

reports, which show they were unable to reach an agreement

regarding the rescheduling of Mr. Danenberg's deposition.

In his continuous efforts to reschedu le Mr. Danenberg's

deposition, OFR's counsel emailed Mr. Danenberg on Thursday,

August 22, 2019, at 12:33 p.m., requesting that by noon on

Monday, August 26, 2019, Mr. Danenberg provide answers to

various questions, including:

1. When will you be in sout h Florida?

2. Where are you currently?

3. When are you available for a telephonic or video

teleconference deposition?

Having not received a response by noon on Monday,

August 26, 2019, at 12:48 p.m., that same day, OFR's counsel

emailed Mr. Danenberg, indicating his intent to file a motion to

compel or in the alternative a motion for an order to show

cause. OFR's counsel inquired of Mr. Danenberg whether he

agreed or objected. In response, on August 26, 2019,

Mr. Danenberg emailed OFR's counsel. In his response,

Mr. Danenberg refused to even acknowledge or address any of the

aforementioned questions previously asked of him that prior

Thursday. Nevertheless, on August 27, 2019, at 4:45 p.m., OFR's

counsel emailed Mr. Danenberg again requesting whethe r he would

object to a motion to compel regarding the requested deposition

information.

On August 29, 2019, OFR filed a Motion to Compel Production

of Documents and to Compel Deposition Information. On

September 3, 2019, Payservices filed a response in o pposition to

the motions. In the motion to compel deposition information,

OFR asked for nothing more than for Mr. Danenberg to provide

basic information necessary for the scheduling of his deposition

and to specify all dates, that are at least three weeks prior to

the final hearing, on which he is available for deposition.

On September 6, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order

denying OFR's motion to compel production of documents and

granting the motion to compel deposition information. In

granting the motion to compel deposition information, the

undersigned ordered that by no later than Friday, September 13,

2019, Mr. Danenberg must provide to OFR's counsel, in writing,

information which will permit OFR to schedule his deposition,

including, but not li mited to, answering the three questions

above, and specifying all dates, that are at least three weeks

prior to the hearing, on which he is available for deposition.

The Order specifically stated: "Failure to provide this

information will result in the i mposition of sanctions,

including the preclusion of Mr. Danenberg testifying as a

witness or party at the final hearing in this matter." On

September 16, 2019, OFR filed a motion to preclude Mr. Danenberg

from testifying at trial based on Mr. Danenberg's repeated

refusal of OFR's efforts to depose him prior to the final

hearing and failure to comply with the undersigned's

September 6, 2019, Order.

On October 11, 2019, OFR filed its witness and exhibit

lists. Respondents did not file any witness or exhibit list.

The final hearing was held on October 16, 2019, with all

parties present. At the outset of the hearing, which commenced

at 9:00 a.m., the undersigned addressed OFR's motion to preclude

Mr. Danenberg from testifying at trial. Even though

Mr. Danen berg had failed to comply with the undersigned's

September 6, 2019, Order, the undersigned indicated that he

could order that a break be taken which would allow

Mr. Danenberg to be deposed by video teleconference that

morning. Mr. Danenberg stated he woul d not abide by such an

order. Accordingly, the undersigned granted OFR's motion to

preclude Mr. Danenberg f rom testifying at trial and

Mr. Danenberg was precluded from testifying at hearing on his

individual behalf and on behalf of Payservices.

At the hea ring, OFR presented the testimony of William C.

Morin, Jr., and Andrew Grosmai re. OFR's Exhibits 1, 2, and

4 through 8 were received into evidence. Respondents did not

present any witness testimony and no exhibits were received into

evidence. 2/ The unde rsigned granted OFR's ore tenus motion for

official recognition of section 560.1401.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned informed

the parties that "within ten days after the final hearing

transcript is filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings,"

they will have the opportunity to file proposed recommended

orders, which should consist of proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law based on the evidence presented at the

hearing . p. 2 00. 3/

The one - volume final hearing Transcript was filed on

November 14, 2 019. The parties timely filed proposed

recommended o rders, which were considered in the preparation of

this Recommended Order.

Unless otherwise indicated, citations to the Florida

Statutes and Florida Administrative Code provi sions are to those

versions in effect at the time of the alleged violations.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. OFR is the state agency charged with administering and

enforcing chapter 560, Florida Statutes, including part II

related to money services businesses.

2. At all times material hereto, Payservices has been a

foreign corporation and part II licensee pursuant to

chapter 560, specifically a "money services business," as

defined in section 560.102(22) , and "money transmitter," as

defined in section 560.102(23). 4/

3. At all times material hereto, Mr. Danenberg has been

the chief executive officer, compliance officer, and an owner of

Payservices. As such, Mr. Danenberg is an "affiliated party"

and a "responsible person" as defined in sections 560.103(1) and

560.10 3(33).

Count I

4. Licensees, such as Payservices, are required to

annually file a financial audit report within 120 days after the

end of the licensee's fiscal year.

5. The financial audit report is prepared by a certified

public accountant and is u sed to demonstrate to OFR that the

licensee has the financial health to conduct its business and

transmit funds within the State of Florida.

6. Payservices' fiscal year ends December 31st.

7. Respondents were required to provide Payservices' 2016

fina ncial audit report to OFR by no later than May 1, 2017.

8. On December 20, 2017 , William C. Morin, Jr., OFR's

Chief of the Bureau of R egistration, contacted Payservices by

email with regard to Payservices' failure to timely file a

financial audit report within 120 days after the 2016 fiscal

year ended.

9. Mr. Danenberg responded by email that same day, telling

Mr. Morin that Payservices' accountant had prepared a financial

audit report "many months ago," and that it was his "impression"

that it had been uploaded to the REAL system "at some point when

we filed the quarterly reports." Mr. Danenberg attached to his

December 20, 2017, email what OFR accepted as the financial

audit report that same day. Notably, the document indicated it

was prepared by a c ertified public accountant on June 15, 2017,

after the May 1, 2017, deadline.

10. In any event, Mr. Morin reviewed the REAL system

regarding Payservices and determined there were no problems with

the REAL system's ability to accept uploaded documents.

11. Mr. Morin testified that he could see on the REAL

system that Payservices successfully uploaded a quarterly report

and Security Device Calculation Form on January 26, 2017, which

created a transaction number. Mr. Morin also observed that

Payservices started to upload its financial audit report, which

would create a transaction number, but no financial audit report

was actually attached and uploaded to the REAL system on

January 26, 2017, under that transaction number.

12. According to Mr. Morin, Pa yservices may have attempted

to start to file a financial audit report on January 26, 2017,

but it did not complete the transaction because no financial

audit report was attached. At hearing, Mr. Morin acknowledged

that: "When I looked at the Financial A udit Report transaction,

nothing was attached. And I also know that the functionality of

the REAL system will kind of allow for the transaction to be

completed and nothing attached." Tr. p. 100.

13. Mr. Morin testified that Mr. Danenberg was cooperati ve

when he was contacted on Decemeber 20, 2017, and submitted the

financial audit report.

14. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at

hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondents

did not submit their financial audit report to OF R until

December 20, 2017, almost eight months after the May 1, 2017,

deadline.

Count II

15. Licensees, such as Payservices, are required to

annually file Form OFR - 560 - 07, Security Device Calculation Form,

by January 31st of each calendar year for the preceding calendar

year.

16. The Security Device Calculation Form requires

licensees to report to OFR the dollar amount of transactions

with Florida consumers. The dollar amount of transactions

identified in the form is then utilized by OFR to d etermine if

additional collateral is necessary to protect Florida consumers

in the event a claim is made against the collateral for monies

that were not properly transmitted by the licensee.

17. Andrew Grosmaire, OFR's Chief of E nforcement in the

Division of Consumer Finance, acknowledged at hearing that a

licensee has 60 days to amend the face value of its surety bond ,

should an increase be required, and that at all times material

here to, the value of Payservices' surety bond has been correct

for the mini mum amount required.

18. Nevertheless, Mr. Morin testified that Respondents did

not file Form OFR - 560 - 07, Security Device Calculation Form,

until February 10, 2018, ten days late.

19. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at

hearing clearly and c onvincingly establishes that Respondents

did not file Form OFR - 560 - 07, Security Device Calculation Form,

until February 10, 2018, ten days late.

Count III

20. Licensees, such as Payservices, are required to update

information contained in an initial app lication form, or any

amendment to such application, within 30 days after the change

is effective.

21. In Payservices' initial application dated

September 25, 2015, Respondents identified Corporate Access,

Inc., as its registered agent with an address f or service of

process at 236 East 6th Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32303.

22. According to the Department of State, Division of

Corporation's records, on January 10, 2017, Mr. Danenberg was

appointed as Payservices' registered agent with a new address

fo r service of process at 300 West Palmetto Park Road, A210,

Boca Raton, Florida 33432.

23. Respondents filed an amended license application with

OFR on August 28, 2017, which still listed Corporate Access,

Inc., as the registered agent for service of proc ess.

24. On February 26, 2018, Respondents amended their

registered agent information with the Department of State

listing a new address for Mr. Danenberg at 14061 Pacific Pointe

Place, No. 204, Delray Beach, Florida 33484.

25. Mr. Morin testified tha t at no time have Respondents

updated their initial application with OFR to reflect

Mr. Danenberg as the registered agent for Payservices and his

address as the registered agent. 5/

26. Mr. Morin and Mr. Grosmaire testified that the reason

a licensee need s to update a change in the registered agent's

name and address is so that OFR may effectuate service of

process against the licensee. Yet, Mr. Grosmaire acknowledged

that OFR has access to the Division of Corporation's records.

27. Nevertheless, the per suasive and credible evidence

adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that

Respondents did not update their initial application with OFR to

reflect Mr. Danenberg as the registered agent for Payservices

and his address as the registered agen t.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

28. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and subject

matter of this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 and

120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2019).

29. Pursuant to section 560.105, OFR is charged with the

responsibility of admin istering and enforcing the provisions of

chapter 560.

30. OFR has the burden of proving its allegations by clear

and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292

(Fla. 1987). The "clear and convincing evidence" standard requires that:

[T] he evidence must be found to be credible;

the facts to which the witnesses testify

must be distinctly remembered; the testimony

must be precise and explicit and the

witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to

the facts in issue. The evidence must be of

s uch weight that it produces in the mind of

the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

truth of the allegations sought to be

established.

In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994)(quoting

Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)).

31. Pursuant to section 560.114(1)(a), failure of a money

services business or affiliated party to comply with any

provision of chapter 560 or related rules constitutes grounds

for disciplinary action.

32. Th e phrase "Affiliated party" is defined in

section 560.103(1) as follows:

(1) "Affiliated party" means a director,

officer, responsible person, employee, or

foreign affiliate of a money services

business, or a person who has a controlling

interest in a mo ney services business as

provided in s. 560.127.

§ 560.103(1), Fla. Stat. (2016).

33. As to Count I, section 560.209(2) specifically

provides , in pertinent part:

(2) A licensee must obtain an annual

financial audit report, which must be

submitted to the office within 120 days

after the end of the licensee's fiscal year,

as disclosed to the office.

§ 560.209(2), Fla. Stat. (2016).

34. Rule 69V - 560.606 further provides:

(1) Each licensed money transmitter and

p ayment instrument seller shall annually

submit financial audit reports to the Office

in accordance with section 560.209(2), F.S.,

for the licensee's most recent fiscal year.

(2) Annual financial audit reports must be

received by the Office wit hin one hundred

twenty (120) days after the licensee's

fiscal year end.

(3) A report is "past due" if it is

received by the Office one or more days

beyond the period defined in subsection (2).

Fla. Admin. Code R. 65V - 560.606.

35. As detailed above, the persuasive and credible

evidence adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes

that Respondents did not submit their financial audit report to

OFR until December 20, 2017, almost eight months after the

May 1, 2017, deadline.

36. As to Count II, pursuant to rules 69V - 560.402 and

69V - 560.1012(g), licensees, such as Payservices, are required to

annually file Form OFR - 560 - 07, Security Device Calculation Form,

by January 31st of each calendar year for the preceding c alendar

year. As detailed above, the persuasive and credible evidence

adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that

Respondents did not file Form OFR - 560 - 07, Security Device

Calculation Form, until February 10, 2018, ten days late.

37. As to Count III, pursuant to section 560.126(2),

licensees, such as Payservices, are required to report, on a

form adopted by rule, any change in the information contained in

an initial license application form, or any amendment to such

application withi n 30 days after the change is effective.

Rule 69V - 560.102(5) further provides that if the information

contained in an application form for licensure as a money

services business, or in any amendment thereto, becomes

inaccurate for any reason, the applican t must file an amendment

correcting such information within 30 days of the change on

Form OFR - 560 - 01, which is incorporated by reference in

rule 69V - 560.1012. As detailed above, the persuasive and

credible evidence adduced at hearing clearly and convinci ngly

establishes that Respondents did not update their initial

application to reflect Mr. Danenberg as the registered agent for

Payservices and his address as the registered agent.

Penalty

38. Pursuant to sections 560.114(1)(a) and 560.1141, OF R

imposes penalties upon licensees in accordance with disciplinary

guidelines set forth in rule 69V - 560.1000.

39. As to Count I, the penalties are within a range of an

administrative fine between $3,500 to $7,500, a ten - day to

20 - day suspension, o r revocation. As to Count II, the penalties

are within a range of an administrative fine between $3,500 to

$7,500, a ten - day to 20 - day suspension, or revocation. As to

Count III, the penalty is within a range of an administrative

fine between $1,000 to $ 3,500.

40. Rule 69V - 560.1000(148) requires that OFR consider the

following circumstances in determining an appropriate penalty

within the range of penalties for each violation. Rule 69V -

560.1000( 1 48) also requires that OFR consider these

circumstances in determining a penalty that deviates from the

range of penalties for each violation:

(a) Whether the violation rate is less than

5% when compared to the overall sample size

reviewed;

(b) The degree of harm to the customers or

the public;

(c) The disciplinary history of the

licensee;

(d) Whether the licensee detected and

voluntarily instituted corrective responses

or measures to avoid the recurrence of a

violation prior to detection and

intervention by the Office;

(e) Whether the licensee's violation was the

result of willful misconduct or

recklessness;

(f) Whether at the time of the violation,

the licensee had developed and implemented

reasonable supervisory, operational or

technical procedures, or controls to avoid

the viol ation;

(g) Where the violation is attributable to

an individual officer, director, responsible

person, or authorized vendor, whether the

licensee removed or otherwise disciplined

the individual prior to detection and

intervention by the Office;

(h) W hether the licensee attempted to

conceal the violation or mislead or deceive

the Office;

(i) The length of time over which the

licensee engaged in the violations;

(j) Whether the licensee engaged in

numerous violations or a pattern of

misconduct;

(k ) The number, size and character of the

transactions in question;

(l) Whether the licensee provided

substantial assistance to the Office in its

examination or investigation of the

underlying misconduct;

(m) Other relevant, case - specific

circumstance s.

41. Applying the relevant circumstances to the particular

facts of the instant case, each of the violations entailed the

failure to comply with various reporting requirements. As to

Count I, Mr. Danenberg was cooperative with Mr. Morin on

Decem ber 20, 2017, the same day he was contacted by Mr. Morin.

In fact, Mr. Danenberg filed a document that same day, which was

accepted by OFR as Payservices' financial audit report.

42. As to Count II, Respondents' filing of Form

OFR - 560 - 07, Security Device Calculation Form, was only ten days

late. Even then, Payservices' surety bond was correct for the

minimum amount required. Had an increase been required,

Payservices would have had a 60 - day grace period to amend the

face of its surety bond. Takin g these mitigating factors into

account, and pursuant to the second sentence of rule 69V -

560.1000(148), a downward deviation of the penalty is

appropriate for Count II.

43. As to Count III, the failure to update the registered

agent name and address is only one question among many within

the initial application. No evidence was presented at hearing

that OFR was unable to serve Payservices because of the chan ge

of the registered agent name and address and OFR has had access

to the Division of Corporat ion's records and actual knowledge of

the changes.

44. There was no proven harm to the customers or the

public resulting from any of the violations. There is no

disciplinary history. Indeed, OFR concedes that the lack of any

disciplinary history i s a mitigating factor.

45. Based on the particular case - specific circumstances

and facts of this case, the undersigned recommends an

administrative fine of $3,500 for Count I, an administrative

fine of $1,500 for Count II, and an administrative fin e of

$1,000 for Count III, for a total administrative fine of $6,000,

with no suspension or revocation for any of the violations.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that OFR impose an administra tive fine

against Respondents in the amount of $6,000.

DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of D ecember , 2019 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

DARREN A. SCHWARTZ

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hear ings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 16th day of December , 2019 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ Respondents shall be referred to herein collectively as

"Respondents" or by their individual names ("Mr. Danenberg" and

"Payservices").

2/ dents requested to question At hearing, Respon

Mr. Joaquin Alvarez, Ms. Melinda Butler, Assistant General

Counsel f or OFR, and Ms. Wilkin son, Chief Counsel of OFR.

OFR objected at the hearing and made an ore tenus motion for

protective order, which was granted.

3/ The undersigned further stated at the hearing:

Now, if you want to order a copy of the

transcript, th en I believe you will need to

get with the court reporter who's there

today to make those arrangements. And you

should monitor the docket to see when the

transcript is filed. Sometimes the court

reporter files it herself. Sometimes the

agency files it.

But you just need to realize that the

deadline to file your Proposed Orders turn

on -- the clock starts ticking ten days from

the date the transcript is filed at DOAH.

So just keep an eye on the docket. Since

you're both registered for electronic

filing , you should be notified when that's

done.

Tr. P. 200.

4/ Pursuant to section 560.103(22), Florida Statutes, a "money

services business" includes a corporation, qualified to do

business in Florida, which receives currency, monetary value, or

payment i nstruments for the purpose of transmitting the same by

any means, within this country, or to or from this country.

Pursuant to section 560.103(23), a "money transmitter"

includes a corporation, qualified to do business in Florida,

which receives curr ency, monetary value, or payment instruments

for the purpose of transmitting the same by any means, within

this country, or to or from this country.

5/ Notably, the Amended Adminitrative Complaint referred by OFR

to DOAH indicated it was served on Mr. Da nenberg at 14061

Pacific Point Place, No. 204, Delray Beach, Florida 33484.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Joaquin Alvarez, Esquire

Office of Financial Regulation

Fletcher Building

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0370

(eServed)

Lionel Danenberg

Payservices.Com, Inc. ,

d/b/a Payservices.com

14061 Pacific Point Place , Suite 204

Delray Beach, Florida 33484

(eServed)

Commissioner

Office of Financial Regulation

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0350

Anthony Cammarata, General Couns el

Office of Financial Regulation

Fletcher Building, Suite 118

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0370

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.