Is this the official PMFUS website?
No. This is an independent first-person account. It is not run by or affiliated with Premium Merchant Funding, and is not the company’s official website.
I approached Premium Merchant Funding (PMFUS) about financing for my trucking business. My business phone then became a source of constant interruption: financing calls and texts from unfamiliar contacts, some claiming access to my application or bank statements. Every ring forced me to stop working and consider whether it might be a customer, driver or shipper.
I could not responsibly block unknown calls: legitimate freight business often comes from numbers I have never seen. I found the repeated solicitations extremely frustrating and disruptive. This site documents my experience, not a proven conclusion that PMFUS itself placed the calls.
On October 1, 2026, the recovered records show calls and financing texts arriving throughout the working day. These are minimum reconstructed entries; the complete backup contains more outreach than the individual rows accessible for this edition.
Each count is a reconstructed call-log entry or finance-text conversation preview. It is not a complete or independently verified daily total. Hours without reconstructable entries are omitted.
Examine the chronological contact log →I own and operate a trucking business. New shippers, freight brokers, drivers, receivers, repair shops and other legitimate contacts often call from unfamiliar numbers. Rejecting all unknown callers could cost real business or delay solving a driver's problem.
Instead, I found myself continuously checking calls and texts that had little to do with running my company. I was frustrated that one financing inquiry seemed to have become a continuing interruption.
On September 9, 2026 at 4:43 p.m., Richard Brzezinski of PMFUS asked for the May, June and July bank statements without redactions. I say I submitted only redacted copies. Later, outside callers claimed to have statement files. I want to know precisely who accessed those documents and under what permission.
Read the dated email excerpt and PMFUS response“Received, any chance we can get May , June, and July unredacted as well?”Richard Brzezinski, email dated Sept. 9, 2026, 4:43 p.m.
These answers are limited to what the retained records and the publisher’s experience support.
No. This is an independent first-person account. It is not run by or affiliated with Premium Merchant Funding, and is not the company’s official website.
I have not established that Premium Merchant Funding made the calls. The contacts came from unfamiliar numbers. The unresolved question is how some solicitors obtained information relating to my inquiry.
I supplied redacted statements in the funding process. Some later callers and texters claimed access to my statements. Their statements are documented as claims; the full chain of distribution has not been independently verified. Read the bank-statement analysis.
The BBB lists an A+ grade. In a dated review analysis, 12 favorable entries shared February 22, 2024, and 19 were posted from February 22 through March 1. I think this is worth asking BBB to examine. Clustering alone is not proof of fabricated reviews.
I supplied redacted business bank statements during a funding inquiry. I expected the information to be handled for a defined financing purpose. I did not expect widespread, repeated solicitation from unrelated-looking contacts.
During the first several days I reported more than 100 calls, including repeated attempts and conversations I describe as abusive. That call total remains an estimate until all logs are reconciled.
See what is countedMy saved texts include 28 messages from 19 numbers explicitly claiming possession or review of my bank statements. Those messages prove what the senders claimed, not that their claims were true.
See the evidence chainI replied to funding solicitations asking to be removed and stop contacting me. I continued receiving outreach from other numbers. Whether those senders share a common source has not been established.
Review the chronologyThe concern is not merely the volume of calls. It is losing visibility and control over sensitive business records after one application.
I provided bank statements to PMFUS for a financing inquiry. I did not separately send those documents to the many unfamiliar contacts who subsequently approached me.
Callers and texters claimed that they had my application, statements or file. In one recorded conversation, a caller specifically identified PMFUS as the source of a redacted statement. These are attributed statements, not a verified transmission log.
The full sharing path, any authorizations applicable to the original application, the identities of all senders and any legal responsibility for the downstream contacts remain open questions.
Applicants should understand who may receive their application, under what authority and for what purpose.
A request to stop marketing should have a practical way to reach the parties who obtained the lead.
There should be a clear explanation of data transfers, retention, safeguards and corrections if a record is wrong.
A BBB profile can be read alongside the individual accounts it summarizes. Its letter grade is not its average customer review score.
That grade should not be confused with proof that every customer had a good experience.
Understand the ratingBBB listed 35 complaints over three years, with 31 categorized as “Answered” and 4 as “Resolved” in the snapshot reviewed. “Answered” does not necessarily mean the complainant was satisfied. BBB complaints
Read the status explanationThe dates, numbers, reported statements and sources are separated so readers can distinguish evidence from questions.