[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.23.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”115px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.23.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”-76px|auto||auto||” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.23.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.24.0″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”|||-85px||” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]

Worth Avenue, the world-renowned shopping destination, Palm Beach police have arrested Olena Austin, a longstanding jewelry store owner, for allegedly selling counterfeit designer items valued at approximately $2 million if they were genuine.

Palm Beach police conducted an eight-month undercover investigation into Austin’s two Blesk Jewelry stores following a tip-off from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). On Thursday night, both stores were raided.

“This is some of the cash we seized last night — about $4,900. We found counterfeit items including Rolex watches, Van Cleef & Arpels pieces, and Tiffany items,” said Captain Will Rothrock.

The investigation into Austin’s stores, located on South County Road and Worth Avenue, began in October after the FBI alerted the police. Undercover officers posed as customers, purchasing items such as a $415 Pucci shirt, Chanel earrings for $694, and a Van Cleef & Arpels bracelet for $500. All these items were later confirmed to be counterfeit by professional authenticators. Moreover, Blesk Jewelry is not authorized to sell these designer brands, even if the products were legitimate.

During the court appearance, Austin, who has no prior criminal record and has owned Blesk Jewelry for 11 years, appeared to be searching for her husband in the courtroom. Her husband departed from the jail without making a comment.

“We had to employ professional authenticators to confirm that these items were counterfeit. A typical customer would likely believe they were purchasing authentic goods,” Rothrock stated, noting that it is possible some customers were aware they were buying counterfeit items.

Rothrock also mentioned that further charges might be filed as the inventory of approximately 800 seized items continues.

 Authorities encourage anyone who suspects they have purchased counterfeit goods from Blesk Jewelry to contact them at 561-227-6464.

Potential Charges

• Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods: Selling or distributing goods that are falsely represented as genuine designer products.
• Trademark Infringement: Unauthorized use of trademarked brands in a way that could cause confusion or deception.
• Fraud: Deceiving customers into believing they were buying authentic products when they were not.
• Money Laundering: Engaging in financial transactions involving the proceeds from the sale of counterfeit goods.
• Possession of Counterfeit Goods with Intent to Sell: Holding counterfeit items with the intention to sell them.

Possible Defenses

• Lack of Knowledge: Claiming that Austin was unaware that the goods were counterfeit and believed they were genuine.

  • Evidence Needed: Testimonies, purchase records, and communications with suppliers indicating a lack of awareness.

• Good Faith: Asserting that Austin took reasonable steps to verify the authenticity of the goods but was misled by suppliers.

  • Evidence Needed: Documentation of efforts to authenticate items and any verification attempts.

• Supplier Misrepresentation: Arguing that the suppliers misrepresented the goods as authentic, and Austin was a victim of their deception.

  • Evidence Needed: Contracts, invoices, and communications with suppliers showing misrepresentation.

• Entrapment: Claiming that the undercover investigation led Austin into committing acts she would not have otherwise done.

  • Evidence Needed: Proof of inducement by law enforcement beyond providing an opportunity to commit the crime.

• Absence of Intent to Deceive: Contending that there was no intent to deceive customers, possibly relying on misinformation or poor quality control from suppliers.

  • Evidence Needed: Internal policies on quality control, supplier selection, and customer interactions.

• Challenge to Evidence Authenticity: Questioning the methods used by the police and professional authenticators in determining the goods were counterfeit.

  • Evidence Needed: Expert testimony challenging the authenticity evaluation methods used.

• Due Process Violation: Arguing that law enforcement’s investigation or raid did not follow legal procedures, violating Austin’s rights.

  • Evidence Needed: Documentation or testimony indicating procedural errors or rights violations during the investigation or raid.

• First-Time Offender: Highlighting Austin’s clean criminal record and the possibility of leniency or alternative sentencing options.

  • Evidence Needed: Character references, evidence of good standing in the community, and documentation of her business practices over the years.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]