Penalty Amount
$22,865,008
Consumers Affected
1,659
Consumer fraud enforcement action where the FTC is distributing $23 million in refunds to investors defrauded by the Sanctuary Belize and Kanantik real estate schemes. The defendants deceived consumers about luxury amenities and resale potential, resulting in losses of over $100 million. This is the second round of refunds following a court judgment.
The FTC is sending $22,865,008.34 in refunds to 1,659 consumers, with average checks of $16,462 for Sanctuary Belize investors and $6,346.39 for Kanantik investors.
In-house legal teams should review all vendor, customer, and investment-related agreements—particularly those involving real estate development, overseas property sales, or investment opportunities. Focus on clauses governing representations and warranties about property features, resale value, and luxury amenities; marketing and advertising commitments; and any guarantees related to investment returns or property appreciation. Given the allegations of deceptive marketing about amenities and resale potential, contracts should be audited for accuracy in descriptive language, and consider adding explicit disclaimers or verification requirements for promotional claims, especially for projects still in development or located offshore.
Entity
Sanctuary Belize
Industry
Real EstateOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/02/ftc-sending-nearly-23-million-consumers-who-invested-deceptive-sanctuary-belize-kanantik-real-estate
1377 1 opinion of fourth circuit
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1377-1_-_opinion_of_fourth_circuit.pdf
1446 order implementing next phase of redress plan
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1446_order_implementing_next_phase_of_redress_plan.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Sanctuary Belize"
"sending a total of $22,865,008.34 to consumers"
"deceived consumers who invested in Sanctuary Belize by promising they were investing in a luxury development and resort. The defendants, however, failed to deliver on the promised amenities"
The FTC referred a complaint against REPS & Company Inc. and company executives, alleging they bypassed ticket-issuer security controls and purchasing limits to acquire millions of tickets for resale. The complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, and the case will be decided by the court; the press release does not report a penalty or other remedy imposed.
The FTC sued Digital Forensics Corporation LLC and affiliated defendants, alleging they misled sextortion victims with promises of investigative and monitoring services that often were not provided, and used fake positive reviews. A federal court granted the FTC’s request to temporarily halt the defendants’ activities; the complaint remains for the court to decide.
The FTC alleged that Greenway Auto Group advertised vehicle prices thousands of dollars below the amounts consumers actually paid and used mailers falsely suggesting recipients had won cash prizes. Greenway agreed to an order requiring transparent pricing and prohibiting deceptive prize mailers and other misrepresentations; the press release does not state a monetary penalty.
The FTC sent warning letters to 24 large healthcare services companies, cautioning that incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely pricing information for scheduled medical care may be unfair or deceptive. The letters urge recipients to review their price-disclosure practices and take corrective action; they announce no fine or formal order.
$1.9M
The FTC alleged that Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC made deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about the Premier Martial Arts franchise opportunity and violated the Franchise Rule. The proposed settlements require the companies to pay a combined $1.85 million to compensate franchisees, prohibit certain misrepresentations, and require Franchise Rule compliance; certain franchisees may also cancel their agreements without penalty.
The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.