Court Awards $3.19M in Oil Lease Fraud Case

Facts in the Backdrop of the Incident

A group of Burmese immigrants living across the United States pursued the American dream through oil investment. Most worked outside the energy field—many as sushi chefs, laborers, or small business owners. They trusted Levi Sap Nei Thang, a well-known figure in their community. Thang and associated companies presented themselves as experienced oil and gas developers. Using that reputation, they approached members of the Burmese community and offered opportunities in oil and gas leases. The plaintiffs, with little knowledge of the industry, relied on these promises. Collectively, they paid over $565,000 for leases represented as valuable and ready for production.

Events Leading to the Legal Dispute

Defendants targeted the Burmese community with false claims. They promised oil leases capable of producing thousands of barrels daily. They offered geological surveys, drilling assistance, and help establishing oil companies. They assured investors the land was commercially viable. Plaintiffs entered contracts, believing they were acquiring valuable oil rights. However, the defendants were not oil developers. Instead, they purchased cheap leases from the U.S. government and resold them at grossly inflated prices. Using social media, religious messages, and cultural ties, they cultivated trust. Plaintiffs later learned the land was worthless for oil production.

Plaintiff’s Injuries and Their Impact

Plaintiffs suffered significant losses. Individually, they lost thousands; collectively, nearly $600,000. Their savings and business funds disappeared into the scheme. They received no functioning oil operations, no geological reports, and no real support. The promised assistance never arrived. Instead, they held useless plots of land. Beyond financial harm, plaintiffs experienced emotional distress. They felt betrayed by someone from their own community. Their dreams of entrepreneurship collapsed. The scheme eroded trust within their cultural network, leaving them vulnerable and disillusioned.

Claimed Damages

Plaintiffs sought general and special damages exceeding $565,000. They asked for prejudgment interest and punitive damages, citing intentional deception. They demanded attorney’s fees and costs of suit. They argued that defendants engaged in malicious, oppressive conduct with conscious disregard for their rights. Plaintiffs also requested treble damages under RICO provisions, given the allegations of wire and mail fraud.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Levi Sap Nei Thang Victims Association (Unincorporated Association) | Cherry Sui Oil and Gas LLC | Ban Bawilyan | Cin Sian Pau | Naing Naing | Shayam and Bijol Gas LLC | Yalu Bu | Miram Dahum | Shwe Di Peng | Daunan Lashi | David Zuthin Myint | Wunpawng LLC | Gum San Dashi | Tun Tun | Absolom Aye Ko Ko | Kyaw Htay | US Oil Fields Enterprises, LLC | Hiu Thang
Counsel for Plaintiffs: Alex Farzan
Defendant(s): Levi Sap Nei Thang (Individual) | Levi Sap Nei Thang LLC (New Mexico LLC) | I Am A Dreamer LLC (Missouri LLC) | Levi Sap Nei Thang Holding Company, LLC (Wyoming LLC) | Charles Manglian Sun Thang (Individual) | Does 1 through 25
Counsel for Defendants: Proud Usahacharoenporn | Jeffrey S. Flashman | Joseph G. McGuinness | Mark A. Alexander

Claims Against the Defendants

The complaint raised four causes of action. First, intentional misrepresentation—defendants knowingly made false promises about oil leases. Second, negligent misrepresentation—defendants misled plaintiffs without reasonable grounds. Third, breach of written, oral, and implied contract—defendants failed to transfer full property rights and provide promised services. Fourth, violations of federal RICO statutes—defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering through mail and wire fraud, conspiring to defraud the Burmese community. Plaintiffs demanded a jury trial, seeking accountability and restitution.

Defense

In their Answer, Defendant Levi Sap Nei Thang issued broad denials of nearly all allegations in the complaint, often citing lack of information or unintelligibility of claims. While admitting that some plaintiffs entered into leases and that she provided limited information to certain plaintiffs, she rejected all assertions of fraud, misrepresentation, contract breaches, or RICO violations. The Answer also challenged jurisdiction, venue, and the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ pleadings.

The Defendant further raised numerous affirmative defenses, including lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, improper venue, failure to state a claim, assumption of risk, unclean hands, waiver, estoppel, laches, statute of limitations, failure to mitigate damages, comparative fault of plaintiffs and others, and economic loss rule. She also denied the existence of any racketeering pattern or criminal enterprise, argued that no actual financial loss occurred, and asserted defenses based on good faith, limited liability, prior material breach by plaintiffs, and public policy. Ultimately, she sought dismissal, costs, and any other relief deemed just, while demanding a jury trial.

Judgment

On July 22, 2025, the Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them $3,197,816.44 against Defendant Levi Sap Nei Thang and her company. The decision rejected the defendant’s denials and affirmative defenses, finding sufficient evidence to establish the plaintiffs’ claims of misrepresentation, breach, and related wrongful conduct, and holding the defendants liable for the substantial financial losses suffered.

Court Documents

Court documents are available for purchase upon request at Jurimatic@exlitem.com