This page collects first hand accounts from people who invested in, worked with, or paid Federico Pacquing directly, The Pacquing Group, or any of its affiliated entities.
Who this is about
Shown so you can confirm whether this is the person you dealt with. Publishing this photograph is not a statement about him.
Federico Pacquing is the founder of The Pacquing Group, which its website describes as a “values-driven global initiative” and a “virtual international conglomerate” built around what it calls Sustainable Capitalism. His public pages are pacquing.com and facebook.com/fpacquing. We link to them so you can confirm for yourself whether this is the person you dealt with.
“Federico Pacquing, Jr. is the founder of the Pacquing Group, a global values-based organization dedicated to Sustainable Capitalism. He is a former U.S. Air Force Special Operations officer, seasoned tech entrepreneur, and advocate for social change.
“Federico’s journey—from briefing U.S. Presidents and managing high-level financial operations, to enduring homelessness on Venice Beach—shaped his commitment to humanitarian leadership. Today, he leads Pacquing Financial and SEEDCITIES, integrating finance, faith, and purpose to uplift the underserved.
“His life’s work addresses global issues like poverty, trauma, and injustice, with a focus on victims of human trafficking, veterans with PTSD, foster youth, and the global poor. Federico Pacquing’s approach is deeply rooted in faith and the belief that business can be a tool for healing and hope.”
We have not verified any of the above. It is quoted because it is what he says about himself, not because we have checked his military service, his work with any administration, or anything else in it, and nothing on this page should be read as suggesting any of it is untrue. It appears here for one reason: so that a reader who recognises the description can be confident they have the right man.
Businesses he names himself. These are from his own site, quoted above.
The Pacquing Group
Pacquing Financial
SEEDCITIES
One note about the address Pacquing Financial publishes. As of September 14, 2026, pacquing-financial.com — which names Mr. Pacquing as its founder and links to pacquing.com — gives its business address as 1795 Baseline Rd, Grand Island, NY 14072. That address is a serviced office operated under the HQ brand. On that same date, the operator of that office wrote to say that it has no active agreement permitting Pacquing Financial US LLC to use the address, asked that it be removed from any listing or directory, and stated that it will tell anyone inquiring there that the business does not operate from that location. We hold that letter. It is the office operator’s account of its own contracts, and we publish it as that and nothing more.
Separately, a search of the New York Department of State’s register of active corporations and limited liability companies, queried on September 14, 2026 against data the state had refreshed that day, returns no active New York business entity under the Pacquing name. That register would not show a company formed in another state that never registered to do business in New York, and we have not searched Florida or any other state.
Possible other entities. Each of the following appears alongside his name in a court record set out below. We list them for one reason: someone who wired money to “Black Knight Art Fund” or worked for “VidiVici” may not recognise a page about The Pacquing Group, and would leave without ever realising it concerned the same person. This is not a statement about who owns or controls any of them, then or now, and several may be inactive. If you dealt with one of these, we would like to hear from you.
VidiVici, Inc. — co-defendant in two federal judgments (Puentener; Dela Rosa). A Nevada corporation whose corporate status the Puentener judgment records as revoked by the State of Nevada.
Reedeux Media, Inc. — co-defendant in Roscomare Housing, LLC v. Pacquing. Also the filer of two SEC Form D notices in 2016 (CIK 0001659261).
Black Knight Enterprises, LLC — a California limited liability company, named as a borrower on both August 2019 promissory notes in the $10,000,000 Hammack case.
Black Knight Art Fund, LLC — named as a borrower on both of those same notes.
Venivici Holding 1, LLC — named as a borrower on the $6 million note. Note that this is a different entity from VidiVici, Inc. above, despite the near-identical name.
This page does not accuse Mr. Pacquing of anything. It reports what is on the public court record, distinguishing throughout between what a party alleged, what a court ordered, and what he agreed to. Where an account appears below, it is the personal experience of the person who gave it, published with their permission, and it is their statement rather than ours.
An account from one investor
First published account
“These stories just kept adding up”
Given in a recorded interview, 10 September 2026 · name withheld
“Every single week it was something. Every single week. He always answered my phone call. He always called me back. He was always responsive. But every single week, ‘Oh, we’re gonna get the money Tuesday. Oh, we’re gonna get the money Friday.’”A financial advisor, on five years of asks
He put in $10,000 on a loan with a grant of shares on top, then was asked for more money roughly every week for the next five years. Over $20,000 of charges landed on a credit card he says he had provided on the understanding it would not be charged. He and Mr. Pacquing signed a settlement in 2020; he says nothing under it was ever paid.
Published with his permission. His name and the details that would identify him are withheld. We hold his agreements, his ledger of payments and his correspondence, and have now checked the account against them — including one claim we could not corroborate and say so about. No court has found that Mr. Pacquing committed fraud, and this site does not say that he did.
Published account
“Tomorrow, then another tomorrow”
Given as a written statement, September 2026 · name withheld
“I was repeatedly given assurances that payment or completion was imminent — frequently that it could happen ‘tomorrow.’ Tomorrow would arrive without payment.”On a year of closings that were always days away
He says Pacquing Financial was presented to him as a broker moving very large sums of U.S. dollars — in some cases hundreds of millions — for a commission of around 10%, and that through 2025 he was repeatedly asked for urgent money to satisfy one last requirement before a closing. One request, he says, was for approximately $100,000 by 6:00 p.m. on a Friday. He puts what he sent to Mr. Pacquing directly at more than $30,000. The closings did not happen, and communication eventually stopped.
We have not verified this account and say so on the page: there are no bank records for the sums he describes and no independent evidence of non-payment. He also did not take part as an individual investor — the money went in through a company he manages, under written agreements he signed. No court has found that Mr. Pacquing committed fraud, and this site does not say that he did.
If you arrived here searching for fraud or scam claims
Many people reach this page by searching his name together with the word fraud or the word scam — typically before sending money, or after sending it. That search deserves a direct answer rather than a page that quietly benefits from the question.
This site does not allege that Federico Pacquing committed fraud, and no court has found that he did. Searching “Federico Pacquing fraud” or “Federico Pacquing scam” will not turn up a criminal case, an SEC action, or a regulator’s finding, because as of August 2026 none exists. What does exist is a civil record: at least six money judgments entered against him personally, one complaint that pleaded fraud alongside breach of contract, and a $7 million debt he acknowledged in writing in a settlement that a sworn declaration says he then failed to pay. Those are three different kinds of fact and the section below keeps them apart, because the distinction is the whole point.
If you are checking him out before doing business, read the record and reach your own conclusion. If you already did business with him and it went badly, the form at the bottom of this page is where to tell us.
What is on the public record
We searched federal court records, California state court records, and SEC filings in August 2026. What follows is what those records show. We state it plainly, in both directions, because you deserve to know what does and does not exist before you read anything below.
There are at least six money judgments entered against Federico I. Pacquing, Jr. personally. There is no criminal case against him in any state or federal court, and no SEC or other regulatory action. Both of those things are true at the same time.
Judgments where we have obtained the court documents
$10,000,000
Hammack, as Administrator of the Estate of Jerry Monroe Cepel v. Pacquing · Placer County Superior Court, No. S-CV-0053560 · entered December 17, 2024
The estate of Jerry Monroe Cepel sued over two promissory notes from August 2019, for $1 million and $6 million, signed by Mr. Pacquing individually alongside Black Knight Enterprises, LLC, Black Knight Art Fund, LLC, and, on the $6 million note, Venivici Holding 1, LLC. The complaint pleaded breach of contract and fraud.
In a stipulation he signed, Mr. Pacquing “acknowledges that he is indebted to CEPEL ESTATE in the principal sum of $7 million under notes and guarantees executed by PACQUING.” The parties mediated and settled on September 21, 2024, with payment due October 15, 2024. A sworn declaration from the estate’s counsel states that Mr. Pacquing “breached the settlement agreement by failing to make any payment by the due date and has made no payments whatsoever.” Judgment for $10,000,000 was entered on the stipulation. An abstract of judgment, the step a creditor takes to place a lien on real property, was recorded on August 29, 2025.
Documents we have reviewed: the complaint, the stipulation for entry of judgment, the declaration in support of judgment, the signed judgment, and the abstract of judgment, all obtained from the Placer County Superior Court’s public portal. This is a stipulated judgment. Mr. Pacquing agreed to its entry. No court has found that he committed fraud.
$290,415
Puentener v. Pacquing · U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 2:23-cv-01948-DMG · entered November 2023
The judgment holds Mr. Pacquing and VidiVici, Inc. “jointly and severally liable for the sum of $290,415 for their breach of the Settlement Agreement,” with interest at 10 percent. The underlying claim was breach of two settlement agreements: a $260,000 settlement signed October 17, 2023 and due October 31, 2023 was not paid, and that default produced the larger judgment.
Documents we have reviewed: the stipulated judgment (docket entry 40). Read it here. This is a stipulated judgment, not a finding after trial.
$160,000
Dela Rosa v. VidiVici, Inc. and Pacquing · U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 2:22-cv-02773-RGK · entered February 15, 2023
The court’s docket records that the defendants “defaulted on the Settlement Agreement by failing to pay the agreed-upon amount of $160,000 on or before 2/13/2023,” and entered judgment against VidiVici, Inc. and Federico Pacquing, Jr. jointly and severally.
That judgment is still being collected. The docket runs to more than 110 entries and consists almost entirely of enforcement: a writ of execution, and more than fourteen judgment debtor examinations of Mr. Pacquing set and re-set since June 2023. A filing dated July 10, 2026 continues his examination to September 2026.
Documents we have reviewed: the court’s own docket text and the federal court calendar listing his examination. Read the docket here. This is a stipulated judgment, not a finding after trial.
Additional judgments shown on court dockets
Three more judgments appear on Los Angeles County Superior Court dockets. We have confirmed that each judgment was entered, but we have not obtained the judgment documents themselves, so we report the amounts as the docket summaries state them.
Roscomare Housing, LLC v. Pacquing, No. 20STCV16197 — default judgment entered May 14, 2021 against Mr. Pacquing and Reedeux Media, Inc., with an abstract of judgment issued five days later. Docket summaries report the total as $219,788.46.
Hand v. Pacquing, Jr., No. BC694398 — judgment pursuant to stipulation, entered March 25, 2019, with an abstract of judgment issued June 13, 2019. The amount is not shown publicly.
TLC Management v. Pacquing — an unlawful detainer judgment entered March 8, 2019, reported as $92,985. This is the one judgment on this page that the record shows was paid: the writ of execution was returned wholly satisfied on May 10, 2019.
What we did not find
No criminal charge or conviction in any state or federal court. No enforcement action, litigation release, or administrative proceeding by the Securities and Exchange Commission. No action by the Federal Trade Commission, any state attorney general, or the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation. No complaints about him on the Better Business Bureau, Trustpilot, or Complaints Board. No news coverage of any of these disputes.
That search was run when this record was compiled, in September 2026. Consumer reports about him have since appeared on Ripoff Report: report #1542721.
How to read this section. A complaint is an allegation that one side has made, not a fact a court has established. A stipulated judgment means the defendant agreed to have judgment entered; a default judgment means the defendant did not defend. Neither is a ruling that the underlying accusations are true. Five of the six judgments above are of that kind. We say so every time rather than letting the dollar figures speak for something they do not prove. If you believe we have any of this wrong, write to info@FPacquingInquiry.com and we will correct it.
Calls to this number are recorded for quality purposes. If you would rather not be recorded, write to info@FPacquingInquiry.com instead; it reaches the same people. You can text the same number and we will read it, but we answer by phone or by email and never by text. This site sends no automated calls and no marketing messages of any kind.
Nothing you send is published without your permission. Submissions come to us privately. We review them to identify common patterns and, where you agree, to support reports to regulators or a referral to counsel. Describe only what you personally experienced, and keep every document you have.
