Welcome to ScammedByEdnaMinasians.com
Have a bad experience online with Edna Minasians?
Think she might be a scammer? You guessed right!
Photo by Raul Roa / Staff Photographer of Glendale News-Press.
This is the face of "The Glendale Tumor" in 2019, at age 39, continues to metastasize in our society and claim new victims up to today.
Her true victim count is unknown as most do not have the resources to battle in court. The Glendale Tumor uses this fact to continue take advantage of and abusing vulnerable people.
It is extremely common for scammers to use medical issues as an excuse to manipulate their victims.
Who is Edna Minasians?
Edna is a professional scammer from Glendale, California with fraud dating back more than 20 years and is still actively scamming people in 2026.
She uses the profits from her victims to buy extravagant jewelry, which she claims consists of over 4000 items.
The American Justice System and Los Angeles County are failing to keep our community safe!
Have you already been scammed by Edna Minasians? Be sure to File a Complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) operated by the FBI to help stop this criminal.
Edna may use spellings of her last name in attempt to obfuscate:
- EDNA MINASIANS
- EDNA MINASSIAN
- EDNA MINNASSIAN
- EDNA MINAS
Fake Jeweler and Jewelry Reseller Companies
- The Marker Case LLC
- Offre Corp https://ednaminasians.blogspot.com
Beware of interacting with Edna Minasians on Instagram
Known handles:
- @jewelsjadore https://www.instagram.com/jewelsjadore
DO NOT BUY JEWELRY FROM EDNA. YOU WILL LOSE MONEY.
SHE IS AN EXPERT MANIPULATOR AND SOCIAL ENGINEER.
Resource: Six Psychological Tricks Scammers Use Against You (lifehacker.com)
Fraud and Theft History
Minasians was sued again after misrepresenting a product and refused to provide a refund, January, 2025. Court ruled for plaintiff and Minasians was ordered to pay restitution.
Superior Courts of California, County of Los Angeles Case Number 25BHSC00396
Lotus Gallery, INC. sues Edna Minasians after $38,000 was stolen June, 2023.
Superior Courts of California Case Number 24NNCV00154
Jiayin Chen sues Edna after she never delivers 6 pieces of jewelry and steals $165,000 June, 2024.
Superior Courts of California County of Los Angeles Case Number 25NNCV05653
Lotus Gallery, INC. sues Edna Minasians after $38,000 was stolen June, 2023.
Superior Courts of California Case Number 24NNCV00154
Von Gehr loses a charm by Van Cleef & Arpels valued at $11,5500 after she issued bad checks she wrote by under her alias "Minas" in October, 2018.
Superior Courts of California Case Number 19CHLC03257
Minasians attempts to defraud The UPS Store for $50,000 November, 2016.
Superior Courts of California County of Los Angeles Case Number BC642196
Scammed a jewelry dealer out of $6,000 in September 2016
Arrested for Grand Theft in Los Angeles in March 31, 2006.
Additional Links and Sources
Case numbers available for lookup with Los Angeles County Civil Case Access.- 25BHSC00396
- BC642196
- 19CHLC03257
- 24NNCV00154
- 25NNCV05653
- EC038898
Do you have a story about Edna Minasians you'd like to share? We'd love to hear from you!
Email [email protected] with your horror story about Edna Minasians.
Transcriptions of documents above
Case Number: 25BHSC00396
a. Why does the defendant owe the plaintiff money?
Defendant sold an 18k gold and sapphire intaglio ring to plaintiff via private sale which she claimed as antique dating from early 1800s and featured a sapphire stone that she stated weighed "between S and 7 carats" and "probable (sic) over 6 carats". After the sale, plaintiff had the ring appraised and discovered the stone's carat weight is 2.10 carats and the ring age is likely early 1900s, thereby diminishing the ring's value significantly. Plaintiff asked to return ring for a refund based on being provided fraudulent specs and defendant refused.
b. When did this happen? (Date). January 2, 2025
C. How did you calculate the money owed to you? (Do not include court costs or fees for service.)
The purchase price for the ring was $14,500; plaintiff is choosing to sue for the maximum allowable fee at small claims court to recoup as much of the cost as possible. Appraiser has estimated the actual retail value of ring at $3.000- $5,000 and replacement appraisal value at no more than $7,000.
Case Number: 25NNCV05653
In or about June 2024, Plaintiff purchased six (6) separate pieces of precious jewelry from Defendant for a total purchase price of $165,000.00 USD.
Defendant falsely represented that she had the jewelry items on hand and could provide immediate delivery. In reliance on these representations, Plaintiff transferred the full purchase price to Defendant.
In truth, Defendant did not possess the jewelry at the time of sale and never shipped the items despite multiple assurances to Plaintiff that they had been sent in various shipments.
In or about November 2024, Defendant admitted to Plaintiff that the jewelry had never been shipped, but requested more time to return the purchase funds. Plaintiff, acting in good faith, allowed Defendant additional time to make repayment.
To date, Defendant has failed and refused to return any portion of the $165,000.00 purchase price.
Case Number: 24NNCV00154
On or about June 12, 2023, Plaintiff Lotus Gallery, Inc. ("Lotus Gallery") purchased a Van Cleef & Arpels ""Ludo" watch (gold with invisibly set rubies) for $38,000 from Minassian Edna Minassian ("Minassian").
Lotus Gallery erroneously sent two $38,000 payments for the watch to Minassian.
Despite knowing she was entitled to only one $38,000 payment, Minassian kept both $38,000 payments and refused to return the extra funds despite repeated demands to do so.
Minassian's actions (including as alleged in more detail below) constitute conversion, violate Penal Code 496(c), and have resulted in Minassian's unjust enrichment.
Case Number: 19CHLC03257
Plaintiff delivered the charm to Defendant MINAS and owes no further obligations. Upon delivery, the amount of $11,550.00 was immediately owed and owing from Defendant MINAS.
Defendant MINAS paid for the charm with the two checks totaling $11,550.00. The checks were issued by Offre Corp for the personal purchase of Defendant Minas. Upon receipt of the checks, Plaintiff was authorized and entitled to negotiate the checks for the amounts shown on their face.
After deposit by Plaintiff, both checks issued by MINAS were returned due to insufficient funds. Defendant MINAS issued to Plaintiff two dishonored checks in lieu of payment for the charm.
Case Number: BC642196
As a direct, proximate, and legal result of each of the Defendants' breaches and violations of said agreement, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for the full insured value of the Jewelry Rings in the amount of $50,000.00, the loss of use of the Jewelry Rings, interest, and costs from each of the Defendants.