May 26, 2025
A Case That Questions the Very Nature of Justice
The Fritsch prosecution raises fundamental questions about prosecutorial discretion and governmental priorities.
Bernhard Fritsch was the largest investor in StarClub, and according to all available evidence, no one lost any money until the FBI showed up.
That’s RICO in reverse.
This is the Central District of California.
A Platform for Creators, Not Criminals
StarClub was a Santa Monica-based technology company founded in 2008 that developed e-commerce platforms and private social networks for celebrities and major brands. Its tools allowed influencers to directly engage with fans and convert followers into paying customers, integrating with platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Pinterest.
StarClub wasn’t your average dot-com fever dream. Founded by Fritsch, it played the influencer game better than the platforms they plugged into.
When the FBI destroyed the company – it had $200 million in revenue booked and a market cap of $2 billion.
In the Central District, every innovation is subject to reinterpretation.
Of 77 investors, only one—Danny Garrison Guy—had complained.
A Statute with Infinite Reach
The Fritsch prosecution exemplifies a growing trend in American law enforcement: the Department of Justice routinely transforms civil financial disputes into criminal cases using the wire fraud statute—a comprehensive legal weapon applicable to nearly any electronic transaction.
A simple email can be grounds for a wire fraud charge with penalties of up to 20 years.
The US Attorney for the Central District of California used wire fraud as its weapon.
A business deal turns sour, the FBI doesn’t understand it, and the DOJ pulls out the catch-all statute – elastic enough to criminalize a PayPal login.
The DOJ doesn’t need a crime—they just need a signal. A wire. A bank account. A Wi-Fi router. Then, they charge wire fraud. That’s what happened to Fritsch.
The Blind Leading the Armed
Federal agents and prosecutors—trained in criminal law—lack sufficient understanding of complex business operations and misinterpret standard commercial activity as fraudulent conduct.
They took what they didn’t understand and called it a crime. And when you don’t know how a thing works, you shouldn’t be allowed to destroy it
Because ignorance in a badge is still power.
And the man on trial became a metaphor for their own ignorance.
A Civil Dispute Turned Criminal
The dispute between Danny Guy and Bernhard Fritsch was civil, yet it escalated into a federal prosecution.
A business disagreement that they could have settled in a civil courtroom. Instead, it became a crusade—fueled by confusion, executed with force.
Bernhard Fritsch didn’t swindle anyone. Danny Guy had tried to take over the company and failed. So Guy brought in the FBI.
The result? Guy had expected he could come in and take over. Instead, StarClub imploded. Investors ran. The indictment reads like science fiction. But the fallout—financial, reputational, existential—was immediate. The indictment killed the company.
Only then did Danny Guy lose any money.
This case was never about theft. It was about power. And a swindler named Danny Guy.
They Called It Laundering. It Was Business.
In the prosecution of Fritsch, the DOJ also charged money laundering – stemming from standard business activities: intercompany transfers, payments to vendors, and consulting fees.
They called it money laundering. But it was only money—moving through hands, through banks, through agreements. The funds were real. The work was done.
It was business. Money moved the way money moves—between accounts, between people. But prosecutors who didn’t understand business looked at it and thought: this must be crime.
In the Fritsch case, they took lawful money movements—internal loans, vendor payments, standard operations—and called them money laundering. No fraud. No theft.
The Government Burned What It Couldn’t Grasp
The government didn’t understand the business, so they burned it.
“Laundering” once meant cleaning illicit money. Now it means moving money in a way the government doesn’t understand.
That’s what happened to Fritsch – though the judge dismissed the money laundering charges– the government did the damage. Fritsch’s assets were seized. His life was upended.
There’s something far more sinister than simple legal overreach. Once federal agents and prosecutors choose their target, innocence is irrelevant.
The government made up its mind — and from that point forward, the system worked not to discover the truth but to justify the accusation.
Built to Convict, Not Discover the Truth
By the time the US Attorney for the Central District of California filed the indictment against Fritsch in August 2017, the agents and prosecutors had spent months —— building their version of events. Their careers, reputations, and egos were invested. They could not afford to be wrong. They twisted the facts, ignored exculpatory evidence, and created a narrative built not on truth but on the illusion of infallibility.
And justice — at least at the Department of Justice — is a branding exercise, not a moral principle.
The system is so cocked up that, in practice, an indictment is treated like a conviction.
Media outlets report it as guilt. Banks act on it. Courts defer to it. Juries presume it.
The presumption of innocence is a legal fiction.
The Case Is Still Unfolding
This will be amply proven in the story of the prosecution and conviction of Bernhard Fritsch. Indicted in August 2017. Convicted of a single count of wire fraud in April 2025.
Fritsch is currently free on bond, pending sentencing in October. The US Attorney has made a motion to remand Fritsch before sentencing. Judge Dale Fischer set a hearing on the motion for June 2.
Fritsch anticipates an appeal and may very well succeed.
To be continued…
