Key Takeaways
- A Ukrainian family was asked to sign a contract with a company called Chance Letikva, which promised a $1,500 filming fee and an additional $8,000 if a fundraising goal was met.
- The contract did not specify the fundraising goal, and the company’s address in New York and Beit Shemesh could not be found.
- An investigation revealed that Chance Letikva is one of many similar organizations, and the person who filmed a child’s campaign said he works for other companies like it.
- The companies seem to be linked to a man named Erez Hadari, who has been named in registration documents for several organizations.
- Charity experts say that advertising costs should not exceed 20% of the total raised by campaigns, but the companies claim that donations have been used for advertising without providing evidence.
Introduction to the Investigation
The story begins with Olena, a Ukrainian mother who was asked to sign a contract with a company called Chance Letikva. The contract promised a $1,500 filming fee for her family, as well as an additional $8,000 if a fundraising goal was met. However, the contract did not specify what the fundraising goal was, and the company’s address in New York and Beit Shemesh could not be found. This raised suspicions about the legitimacy of the company and its true intentions.
The Discovery of Multiple Organizations
As the investigation continued, it became clear that Chance Letikva was not a unique organization. The person who filmed Viktoriia’s campaign, who introduced himself as "Oleh," told a producer that he works for other similar companies. He mentioned that each time, it’s a different organization, and that they work like a "conveyor belt." He named two other companies, Saint Teresa and Little Angels, both registered in the US. When the registration documents for these companies were checked, Erez Hadari’s name was found, suggesting a link between the organizations.
The Unclear Fate of Donations
One of the most concerning aspects of this story is the unclear fate of the donations raised for the children. More than a year after Viktoriia’s filming, her mother Olena rang Oleh to find out what had happened to the donations. She was told that the donations had paid for advertising, but no evidence was provided to support this claim. Similarly, when Aljin, Khalil’s mother, confronted Erez Hadari over the phone, he told her that the company had lost money due to advertising costs. Charity experts say that advertising costs should not exceed 20% of the total raised by campaigns, which raises questions about where the rest of the money has gone.
The Selection Process for Children
A whistleblower who was previously employed to recruit children for Chance Letikva campaigns came forward to describe the selection process. They said that they were asked to visit oncology clinics to find children who fit certain criteria. The children had to be between three and nine years old, have white skin, be able to speak well, and be without hair. The whistleblower would send photos of potential children to Erez Hadari, who would then forward them to someone else in Israel. This raises concerns about the exploitation of vulnerable children for the purpose of fundraising.
The Elusive Erez Hadari
Despite efforts to reach him, Erez Hadari has proven to be elusive. He was tried at two addresses in Canada, but could not be found. He responded to one voice note asking about the money he had been apparently crowdfunding, saying that the organization "has never been active," without specifying which one. He did not respond to further questions and allegations, leaving many unanswered questions about his involvement in the organizations and the fate of the donations.
Conclusion
The investigation into Chance Letikva and its linked organizations has raised serious concerns about the exploitation of vulnerable children and the unclear fate of donations. The fact that multiple organizations seem to be linked to Erez Hadari, and that he has been unresponsive to questions, suggests a lack of transparency and accountability. The story highlights the need for greater scrutiny of crowdfunding campaigns and the organizations behind them, to ensure that donations are being used for their intended purpose and that vulnerable individuals are not being exploited.