Hidden Utah

How to Protect Yourself from Fraud in Utah

For two state agencies heavily invested in protecting Utahns against fraud, it’s a strange decision to shield valuable resources from users

|


Illustration by Dung Hoang.

The following story was reported by The Utah Investigative Journalism Project in partnership with Utah Stories.

Suppose you make friends with a new member of your ward, softball team, bocce club, etc. One day your new pal offers to get you in on the ground floor of an incredible investment opportunity. It’s an exciting pitch even if the business idea doesn’t make all that much sense. After all, fleece jumpsuits for hairless cats doesn’t seem that lucrative to you, but then again, what do you know? You’re a dog person. Plus, you like your new friend and he’s very convincing.

What do you do?

Would you visit the state’s “Buyer Beware” list to see if your friend has run afoul of the Utah Division of Consumer Protection? Or would you perhaps visit the White-Collar Offender Registry site, utfraud.com, run by the Utah Attorney General’s Office, to see if he has been convicted of fraud in the last ten years? Or would you maybe just Google his name and see what comes up?

If you took the third option, you might find something or you might not. But one thing Google won’t take you to is the Division of Consumer Protection’s “Buyer Beware” list or the Attorney General’s White-Collar Offender Registry. That’s because the names of fraudsters on these very useful resources are not discoverable by Google — you have to find and login to the sites first and then search for offenders.

For two state agencies heavily invested in protecting Utahns against fraud, it’s a strange decision to shield valuable resources from users who have likely never heard of these sites but have probably heard of a company called Google before.  

“The legislature tied our hands”

Utah’s White Collar Offender Registry was a signature initiative of Sean Reyes when he took the helm of the Attorney General’s Office. It was a much celebrated move after Reyes took over the office from John Swallow, who along with his predecessor Mark Shurtleff, were engulfed in public corruption investigations. 

So the creation of a first-of-its-kind in the nation white-collar offender registry made headlines when it was rolled out in 2016, being covered by local outlets and national and international ones like The Atlantic and The Guardian.

But the media buzz has died down and the office doesn’t budget any special promotion or advertising of the site, says David Sonnenreich, deputy attorney general and director of the office’s antitrust section.

Sonnenreich says that the offenders on the registry are not discoverable by Google because of the way the law was written creating the registry. Before accessing the list, visitors agree to not use the information on the list to harass or stalk the offenders.

“[The disclaimer] has to be there before we identify the person by statute,” Sonnenreich says of the offenders. “They have to be behind the wall.” 

He says if the names of offenders popped up on a Google search, that would violate the anti-stalking and harassment provisions of the website. “The legislature tied our hands in that respect,” he says.

While Sonnenreich agrees that “the wall” limits the exposure the site gets, he also adds that the registry provides other benefits. He says offenders who learn they are put on the registry are then motivated not to reoffend knowing that it will keep them on the registry.

To get on the registry, offenders have to be convicted on a certain fraud charge in state court. Such charges range from securities fraud (investment fraud) to money laundering, communications or mortgage fraud, among other possible charges. As of press time there were 346 offenders on the registry.

In “Get Hard,” will Ferrell plays a millionaire convicted of fraud who recruits Darnell Lewis (Kevin Hart) as his prison coach. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

The Bigger Question

The Utah Division of Consumer Protection’s “Buyer Beware” list is another rich and useful database hidden from search engines. Users to the site can search by name to find people who have failed to respond to administrative subpoenas or consumer complaints, violated settlement agreements, or faced other actions by Consumer Protection. 

A recent search of the site has listings for a lawn company alleged to have ripped a consumer off over landscape services that weren’t provided, a contractor who pocketed thousands and walked away from building a deck for a consumer, and the case of a business retreat company that took tens of thousands from multiple consumers with too-good-to-be-true promises of helping them become successful entrepreneurs.  

When asked why the database is not discoverable by Google or other search engines, Ashley Beyer, a spokesperson for the division replied by email saying: “Because the Buyer Beware List is ever changing, the Department decided a database would be the most conducive to said changes and provide a user-friendly functionality.”

Wayne Klein is a former director of The Utah Division of Securities who now does consulting and expert witness work in securities cases. He points out that the “Buyer Beware” list is just the beginning. He notes that there are other databases under The Utah Department of Commerce similarly walled off from simple internet searches. The closed databases extend to disciplinary actions against doctors, nurses, contractors, and countless other licensees regulated by the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing. The same is true of actions taken against securities brokers.

“The division of securities spends a lot of effort going to senior citizen centers and holding educational seminars trying to educate people about fraud, so it’s not like they’re trying to hide the information,” Klein says.

Indeed, the Division of Securities April 2021 education fund report shows the division had $24,000 set aside for public investor education for the year, and had spent $3,971 on pamphlets to help educate industry professionals about regulations. 

And yet, Klein says the department could boost its outreach significantly and inexpensively by making things more accessible to search engine crawlers. But he also realizes from experience that publishing information on offenders can rock the boat. As director, he published enforcement actions in a newsletter — a practice not continued by the director who took over when Klein resigned in 2008.

Klein’s resignation came on the heels of a highly critical legislative audit that accused him of violating the rights of alleged offenders. It was later revealed that one of the lawmakers who called for the audit did so on behalf of his friend Rick Koerber, a man later charged with multiple counts of securities fraud who is now serving a 14-year federal sentence.

For Klein, the bigger question involves more than just the “Buyer Beware” list and the White-Collar Offender registry. 

“The information in all these databases is public if you go look,” Klein says, “So the question is, does Utah want to keep it’s public information less accessible and harder to find?”

White Collar Offender Registry: to find individuals convicted of fraud in the past ten years.

“Buyer Beware” List: to find individuals and companies potentially in trouble with Consumer Protection.

Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing: To see if a license holder has been disciplined.

To see if they have a license.

Google

You knew this one already, but did you know companies will pay to have negative hits about their company buried in the page results? Google past the first few pages when looking for negative reviews or posts.

Subscribe to Utah Stories weekly newsletter and get our stories directly to your inbox

* indicates required




 

,

Join our newsletter.
Stay informed.


  • Helper, Utah: The Coal Town Reclaiming Its Glory

    Recently featured in The New York Times, Helper is now more than a sleepy little drive-by on the way to Moab. It’s becoming a destination in and of itself.


  • Utah Official’s $36K Travel Reimbursements Raise Questions About Use of Taxpayer Funds

    The trek into the office is a necessary evil for many employees; unpaid time that could be spent elsewhere. But some state employees are able to cash in on their commutes.

    That includes one member of Gov. Spencer Cox’s cabinet who heads the Utah Department of Cultural & Community Engagement. The department oversees a number of civic and social programs ranging from museums, libraries and the state historical society, to volunteerism efforts and multicultural affairs. 

    The employee’s in-state travel expenses made up a large chunk of the department’s employee reimbursements in recent years, according to documents obtained by The Utah Investigative Journalism Project obtained through a public records request. 

    The UIJP reviewed spreadsheets detailing the reimbursed expenses of the department’s 17-person leadership team over the 2024 and 2025 fiscal years. 

    The analysis showed one employee, Executive Director Donna Law, accounted for nearly a third of the team’s reimbursements in 2024 and 43% in 2025. Law, who lives in Cedar City, spent more than 11 times the average amount spent by all other employees included in the analysis. 

    The majority of Law’s expenses were categorized as in-state travel, which includes mileage and lodging. Between the two years, she spent $21,607.94 on lodging, $10,135.42  on auto mileage, and $1,455.00 in miscellaneous travel expenses and meals for a total of over $33,000. 

    The next highest amount spent on in-state travel was $3,385. Law’s overall spending far exceeded any other employee.

    The nearly $36,000 Law spent on travel and other items wasnearly three times that spent by the employee with the second highest amount in reimbursements. His expenses, in contrast, were largely out-of-state travel.

    To access this post, you must purchase Utah Stories (Digital + Print) or 3 month free trial (Digital).


  • The $7 Million Recruit: How NIL Changed College Athletics Forever

    In 2012, Jabari Parker, a top high school prospect and member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was facing his biggest decision to that point in his life: where to play college basketball. 

    Fans of BYU athletics hoped and perhaps prayed that Parker would pick the school owned by the church he was raised in. BYU was listed as one of his final choices. But he ultimately chose to spend his college years at Duke before attempting a career in the NBA. BYU fans were disappointed, but no one was truly surprised. Duke over BYU was the best choice for a young prospect in 2012. 

    A.J. Dybantsa.

    What changed between 2012 and 2024 when A.J. Dybantsa, the number one high school prospect, chose BYU over every other school? The answer is roughly $7 million dollars. That is what Dybantsa is reportedly making to play basketball at BYU. 

    The deal was supported by Utah Jazz owner Ryan Smith, who met multiple times with the Dybantsa family in multiple attempts to bring the young player to Provo. 

    According to Smith, he had no financial role in bringing Dybantsa to BYU, but the influence of Utah’s most famous billionaire acting as a “booster” or unofficial recruiter certainly swayed the decision.

    Prior to 2021, boosters acting as recruiters was taboo to the NCAA governing body. It was called improper recruiting. But in 2021, California began the modern era of NIL, or the ability of a college athlete to benefit from their name, image, or likeness, when they passed the “Fair Pay to Play Act.” 

    This new law gave college athletes in California the ability to benefit from their NIL, something that was banned in the rest of the country to that point. The NCAA saw that this law would create an unfair advantage for California schools that could now give young athletes the chance to make money off their talent and image while still in college. 

    The NCAA knew they needed to do something quickly, so they rushed through a policy that opened up NIL to all college athletes in the country, and it has been expanding and evolving over the last four years. 

    Grant Duff, who has coached at the University of Utah, Weber State University, and is now the defensive coordinator for Idaho State University, says, “The best part of NIL is that athletes have an opportunity to make good money. The downside comes with the free-for-all that money causes.”

    Dybantsa confers with BYU Head coach, Kevin Young.

    One of the biggest current examples of what a school can do when the boosters are willing to pay for success is Texas Tech University. From 2020-2024, Texas Tech had 34 wins, which works out to 6.8 wins per year with a low of 4 wins and high of 8. Then Texas Tech’s boosters got involved, led by Cody Campbell, an oil industry businessman and Chairman of the Texas Tech board. The football program was given 28 million dollars for NIL with a simple message attached to the large pile of money: Win. And win now. And win they did. 

    By signing NIL deals with athletes in the transfer portal, Texas Tech went from a middle-of-the-pack school in their conference to one of the top 12 teams in the country. They didn’t just win games in 2025, they made many of their opponents look like they didn’t belong on the same field, including the University of Utah and BYU twice. That is what money can buy.

    To access this post, you must purchase Utah Stories (Digital + Print) or 3 month free trial (Digital).


  • Cottonwood Heights Corruption Allegations: A Case That Never Reached a Courtroom

    A year ago, we here at Utah Stories recorded a podcast episode that we never published. We were revisiting corruption allegations from ten years ago. We decided not to publish the video, so it sat there on YouTube for nearly 12 months.

    Then somehow the video was published. How? We are not sure, but once it got out there, the comments came pouring in.

    Dozens of viewers, then hundreds, supported the video with their comments on our examination of allegations of police misconduct in Cottonwood Heights. The video recounts how the Police Department was reported by business owners as focusing enforcement on customers of the former Canyon Inn bar. These allegations did not result in a publicly documented, full investigation by Utah’s Justice Department nor the FBI (at least to our knowledge). So why rehash the past?

    We believe the story of The Canyon Inn (and other area business owners) vs. CHPD and Cottonwood Heights Mayor Kelvin Cullimore raises questions about what can happen when allegations surface and do not move forward through a formal legal process with state or federal oversight.

    In 2012, Cottonwood Heights business owners at the mouth of the canyons began publicly objecting to police activity whereby up to seven cruisers were pulling over 711 and Canyon Inn bar customers on their busiest evenings.

    According to those accounts, drivers leaving the bar were frequently pulled over by police and were given DUI tickets, sometimes even after passing a sobriety examination. The volume and concentration of those stops led residents and business owners to complain about the “heavy-handed treatment” of CHPD toward motorists, especially in and around the Canyon Inn and neighboring 711, and eventually the Porcupine Pub.

    Customers responded in predictable ways. Some chose not to return and avoid the area. Others went to different establishments. Over time, the owner of the Canyon Inn, Jim Stojack, stated that his revenue declined by 70% and that he believed police activity near his business was the main contributing factor.

    Utah Stories reported on these concerns by conducting interviews; gathering video documentation provided by those involved; and making public records requests. Through our GRAMA requests, we reviewed DUI citations issued by the Cottonwood Heights Police Department and examined how those cases were resolved in Holladay Justice Court. During that period, we observed a higher number based on our review of DUI cases dismissed in court due to lack of evidence compared to other jurisdictions. One DUI attorney, Tyler Ayers, went on record saying that CHPD was issuing a high volume of DUI citations that were later dismissed.

    That observation raised questions about how cases were being documented and prosecuted. It did not, on its own, establish intent or misconduct, but it became part of a broader set of concerns raised by multiple sources.

    To access this post, you must purchase Utah Stories (Digital + Print) or 3 month free trial (Digital).