For Immediate Release

EASYKNOCK UNDER FIRE FOR FRAUDULENT HOME TRANSACTIONS, SECURITIES VIOLATIONS, AND UNREGISTERED INVESTMENT STRUCTURES

AUSTIN, TX — Consumer-rights advocates and property owners in multiple states have announced new findings and legal actions against EasyKnock, Inc., a New York–based company operating under the guise of “sale-leaseback” programs that target homeowners in financial distress.

Over the past five years, EasyKnock has quietly expanded through a network of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs)—including EK Real Estate Fund I, LLC; TVC Funding III, LLC; LMCV DDO Fund I, LLC; and Moderne Coinvest Fund V – EasyKnock, LLC—used to pool, transfer, and securitize residential real estate assets. Evidence now shows that these SPVs may have been used to circumvent state homestead protections, Truth in Lending laws, and SEC registration requirements.

Background and Business Model

EasyKnock presents itself as a “residential sale-leaseback” company, purchasing homes from consumers and allowing them to remain as tenants with an option to repurchase. However, recent complaints allege that these transactions are structured to appear as sales while functioning in substance as disguised high-interest loans—in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and state-level consumer finance laws.

Homeowners in Texas, Illinois, Florida, and California have filed or joined legal actions claiming EasyKnock and its SPVs unlawfully deprived them of equity, transferred titles without clear disclosure, and misrepresented the nature of their contracts.

Ongoing and Recent Legal Actions

• Roberts v. Unlock Partnership Solutions AOI, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-01374) — alleges fraudulent conveyance, deceptive business practices, and unlawful eviction under the Cook County RTLO.

• Johnson v. EK Real Estate Fund I, LLC, Cook County Circuit Court — claims illegal sale and eviction of a disabled veteran’s property without due process or judicial oversight.

• Neal v. TVC Funding III, LLC, Texas — pending action challenging securitization of homestead property in violation of the Texas Constitution.

• Recently Filed Case in South Carolina Pending Michael Lynch, vs EK Real Estate Fund I Filed 7/10/2025 

Each complaint details similar conduct: the use of layered corporate entities to mask beneficial ownership, conceal securities offerings from regulators, and evade consumer protection laws.

Unregistered Securities and Investor Misrepresentation

Documents obtained from the SEC’s EDGAR database and state Form D filings indicate that EasyKnock and its affiliated funds have raised tens of millions of dollars from investors under exemptions for private offerings. Investigators argue that these offerings were not properly registered and involved unqualified securities backed by consumer home equity.

This activity potentially violates the Securities Act of 1933, SEC Rule 10b-5, and the Texas Securities Act, particularly provisions concerning misrepresentation, omission of material facts, and the sale of unregistered securities.

Violations and Consumer Impact

Analysis of EasyKnock’s business structure and property transfers reveals potential violations of:

• Truth in Lending Act (TILA) — failure to disclose loan terms and APR equivalents.

• Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) — undisclosed kickbacks and funding flows through affiliated entities.

• State Homestead Protections (Texas Const. Art. XVI, §50) — illegal alienation of homestead property under a simulated sale.

• Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 860 – True Sale Doctrine — improper recognition of sales when risks and rewards were not fully transferred.

• SEC Rule 10b-5 — material misrepresentation and concealment in investment solicitations.

• 42 U.S.C. §1983 — deprivation of property without due process in cooperation with local officials.

Call for Investigation

The Public Accountability Project and affected homeowners are calling on the SEC, FTC, CFPB, and state securities regulators to launch a comprehensive investigation into EasyKnock’s financing network, investor disclosures, and real estate practices.

“The evidence shows a coordinated scheme where private equity structures are being used to dispossess homeowners and convert residential equity into unregistered securities,” said  Richardson, complainant in the Texas action. “This isn’t just a real estate issue — it’s a systemic financial deception operating across state lines.”

Next Steps

Regulatory complaints have been formally filed with the Texas State Securities Board, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, and the Federal Trade Commission. A joint evidentiary brief connecting the company’s SPVs to unregistered securitization practices is expected to be released publicly later this year.

🧾 Case Overview

Case: United States v. Hilda Willis and Joseph Willis

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division)

Year of Conviction: 2022

Charges:

• Conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud

• RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)

• Money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956)

• Forgery and false statements (under Georgia criminal statutes)

🏠 Scheme Summary

From 2014–2020, the Willises operated a business advertised as a “foreclosure relief and home retention program” through several corporate entities, including:

• Golden Home Rescue LLC

• Homeowner Restoration Services Inc.

• Willis Property Investments

They targeted distressed homeowners who had fallen behind on mortgage payments, often elderly or disabled individuals, by promising to “save their homes” through temporary transfers of title.

🔍 What They Actually Did

1. Deceptive “Sale-Leaseback” Contracts:
   Homeowners were told they’d sell their homes temporarily to the company and lease them back while the company repaired credit or refinanced.
   In truth, the Willises kept title permanently, leaving homeowners as mere tenants — often without realizing they’d lost ownership.

2. Forged Notary Acknowledgments:
   Several deeds and affidavits of ownership were notarized without the homeowners present — a key RICO predicate act (forgery and wire/mail fraud).

3. Use of Shell LLCs and Straw Buyers:
   Properties were transferred between related entities and straw buyers to obscure ownership and strip out home equity via cash-out refinances.

4. Fraudulent Loan Applications:
   Once they had title, the Willises refinanced the properties or took out home equity loans, pocketing the funds.

5. Evictions and Intimidation:
   When homeowners stopped paying inflated “lease” payments, they were evicted, even though the supposed purpose of the program was to “save” the home.

6. Money Laundering:
   Funds were moved through multiple LLC accounts, then into personal accounts and offshore entities.