“Why Bringing ASD down saved the participants, whether they know it or not” by Greggory B. Evans, PhD

Posted by on Jun 25, 2013 in Archive | 0 comments

Why Bringing ASD down saved the participants, whether they know it or not Greggory B. Evans, PhD The members of internet Ponzi scheme Ad Surf Daily ASD Cash Generator are a pretty vocal crowd, and some of them have active imaginations, too. The root cause if this is, like many internet scams, ASD preyed upon people who have an incredible ignorance about business in general and how “real companies” work in particular. Read their own support chat room and you find all manner of “evil government took down a perfectly legitimate company that no one had complained about” themes, some of them absurd enough to claim the prosecutors have in fact admitted they made a mistake but didn’t put it in writing and they’re going to go ahead and put President Andy Bowdoin in jail, simply because they can’t find a way out of the mess without losing face. Let me make this as plain as I can, ASD was a cheap ponzi scheme, new members money was used to pay older members (and of course, Andy managed to skim a few million for himself), there was no outside income and despite a clause in their Terms of Service that did not guarantee rebates, there were in fact at least three references to these payments that could and were construed to conflict with that. Legally, as soon as one dollar of new member money was paid to an older member, they broke the law, case closed. ASD has made a very public fight in the courts, but it’s only impressive to those unschooled in the law, at least one of the major motions filed is the brunt of jokes on a website frequented by attorneys who practice before the federal bar, one lawyer describing it as “read as though they were written by a Christian Scientist with appendicitis.” These filings are clearly intended for the unschooled masses and no one who was ever admitted to the bar thinks they have much chance of prevailing. The “Emergency Motion” filed to release seized funds asked the court to grant an evidentiary hearing, which the government chose not to oppose. The real comedy started when the court then issued subpoenas for the hearing that ASD asked for, only ASD through counsel decided to file to quash these subpoenas and claimed if ASD management was compelled to appear they would exercise their 5th amendment rights and refuse to answer questions. The faithful, as is typical of several of these financial cults of late, somehow managed to paint this train wreck as a quasi-victory, or explained it away as a government plot to entrap the good people in management, one going so far as...

Read More

Online Payment Processors, Enablers of Scams – Greggory B. Evans, PhD

Posted by on Jun 25, 2013 in Archive | 0 comments

Online Payment Processors, Enablers of Scams Greggory B. Evans, PhD Recently it came to light that online payment processor Solid Trust Pay had decided unilaterally to refund some participants in the besieged Autosurf ASD Cash Generator. In doing so, it appears they may have violated Canadian abandoned accounts regulations, but even if by some quirk of lightly regulated Canadian processors, this policy is ripe for abuse and almost assuredly resulted in inequitable treatment. ASD accepted payments from any number of methods, including direct deposits into bank accounts, as well as other online payment processors. In giving refunds based solely upon their own records, STP has no way of knowing if they are refunding people who are in fact otherwise in profit and made withdrawals from other processors. If these funds had been in the United States, where ASD assets were seized last August, this money would have been pooled into a consolidated estate and according to statements from the Justice Department, been available for refunds to losers in the scam, refunds based upon the complete records of ASD, from all sources. Another apparent problem with STP’s refund policy is it flies in the face of traditional practice, where merchants who have funds that belong to customers who have no activity have absolute rights to their property for periods that range from 7 years in most US States, up to the Canadian Policy that abandoned accounts in excess of $1000 of ten years at the merchant, and an additional period of up to 90 years, or indefinitely. Accounts of more than $100 but less than $1000 are retained by merchants in Canada for 10 years, and then turned over to the Canadian Central Bank, where they are held for 30 more years. The stated policy of Solid Trust Pay is to consider accounts “inactive” after 180 days, at which point they have in at least this case refunded some, but apparently not all, of the remaining funds in an account to the accounts from which it arrived. Their method of determining how much each participant receives is not known, and from personal knowledge of mine, some participants receive no refund at all. The reasons for this, the formula for determining refunds, and any fees STP retains for their trouble is not clear. It’s also not exactly clear that Canada, or Ontario where STP is located, place any limit on the fees a payment processor can charge, and in fact it may be perfectly legal for them to keep the biggest share of the funds and claim it as fees. Well, except for the unclaimed funds laws, which apparently they we unaware of. A poster here who identified herself as a representative of STP claimed that their refund policy had...

Read More

Zeek Rewards Receiver’s Motion For Approval Of Claims Process

Posted by on Jun 25, 2013 in Archive | 0 comments

Zeek Rewards Receiver’s Motion For Approval Of Claims Process The court-appointed receiver overseeing the $600 million ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme has filed a motion seeking approval of a claims process to compensate what could be nearly 1 million victims. In a 21-page motion (the “Motion”), the receiver, Kenneth Bell, seeks court approval for the proposed procedures and manner of filing claims to be used by victims, as well as the use of an online claims submission form. Victims would be notified by email, would have 120 days from the Order approving the Motion to submit their claims, and any late-filed claims would be disallowed in their entirety. The Proposed Claims Process In the Motion, the Receiver estimates that while approximately 1 million affiliates paid money into Zeek, over 800,000 suffered losses, and the remainder were fortunate enough not only to recoup their principal investment but may also have profited. Should the Court approve the Motion in its current form, the Receiver proposes that he will provide notice to all interested parties via several methods: 1.Making the Claims Process publicly available on the Reeiver’s website at a soon-to-be-functional Claims Portal; 2.Emailing all known affiliates through email addresses obtained from Receivership records and collected at the Receiver’s website; 3.By U.S. Mail to trade creditors and other known, non-affiliate creditors; and 4.Publishing the Receiver’s Notice on the Receiver’s website, certain multilevel marketing sites, certain newspapers, and sending the Notice to certain trade groups in the financial industry. As previously alluded to in earlier articles on Ponzitracker, the Receiver cites the “great cost” of serving the over-2 million claimants by any other method and seeks court approval for the proposed notice procedures. As a last resort, should an email be found to be no longer valid, the Receiver will attempt service of the notice by an alternative method, which includes a different email address or postcard to the last known address. Within 14 days of court approval of the Motion and included in the court-approved notice to claimants, the Receiver proposes to have a Claims Portal active on his website, www.zeekrewardsreceivership.com. According to the Receiver, the Portal is “designed to capture the claims of all Claimants…in the most cost effective way possible.” Thus, all claimants, whether affiliates or non-affiliates, should files claims at the Claims Portal. Indeed, Failure to submit a validly completed claim on the Claim Portal (or by alternative means that are agreed to between such Claimant and the Receiver prior to the Bar Date) will preclude a Claimant from receiving a distribution from the Receivership Defendant regardless of the validity of the Claimant’s claims. The Receiver proposes that, if a Valid Proof of Claim is not received by any claimant within 120 days from the date of...

Read More

Zeek Rewards Receiver’s Message to Net-Winners Regarding Settlement Opportunity

Posted by on Jun 25, 2013 in Archive | 0 comments

Zeek Rewards Receiver’s Message to Net-Winners Regarding Settlement Opportunity April 1, 2013 Since I was appointed Receiver of Rex Venture Group, LLC d/b/a ZeekRewards.com (“Zeek”) I have tried to make clear to those who profited from Zeek that I intend to pursue claims against “net-winners” – regardless of amount – to recover their winnings which came at the expense of Zeek’s victims. Yet, I recognize that many of the net-winners also see themselves as victims of the scheme and are anxious to resolve their participation in Zeek without being drawn into court proceedings and the further cost and time involved in the legal process. So, on several occasions, I have encouraged net-winners to come forward to discuss settlement of their claims. A number of net-winners have done so, and we have successfully negotiated payments which will, subject to Court approval, result in the release of the Receiver’s claims against those winners. The settlements take into account the amount of the affiliate’s winnings, the nature of their involvement and their involvement of others, their cooperation, their ability to repay the money (and the time period in which the repayment can reasonably be made) and other individual factors and circumstances. The amounts of the settlements have ranged from approximately 40% to 80% of the affiliate’s net winnings. However, not all net winners have been or will be offered discounted settlements and the amounts of future settlements may vary from this range. The amount of the settlement offered to each net-winner will be based on the affiliate’s particular circumstances and ultimately must – in both my and the Court’s opinion – be in the overall best interests of the victims, considering the costs associated with the legal process. The time for court action is drawing closer. I am sending this message to make sure that net-winners understand that there is an opportunity for settlement, but that the window for the opportunity is closing. To allow a reasonable time for all those who would like to pursue a settlement to do so, I am going to continue to make my team available to negotiate settlements for at least 60 more days. Therefore, if net winners want to pursue a settlement they should contact us by no later than May 31, 2013. After that date, I will assume that all net-winners that want to avoid the legal process by discussing settlement have done so, and I will move forward with court action, likely in June 2013, against the remaining net-winners. Again, my goal is to compensate Zeek’s victims and to the extent I can do that fairly without legal action against net-winners, all the better. So, I encourage any net winner interested in agreeing...

Read More

Fraudulent Life Settlement Or Viatical Insurance Plans

Posted by on Jun 25, 2013 in Archive | 0 comments

There has been a great deal of attention lately on the ‘new’ Wall Street investment called LIFE SETTLEMENT or VIATICALS. As investments these are not ‘new’ at all, and have been around for quite a while. How They Work: Historically, some insurance companies have offered an accelerated death benefits option which allows the insured an opportunity to receive up to 80% of the death benefit at any time within the last year of their projected life. The remaining 20% is then paid to the insured’s estate. On the other hand, the business of viatical settlements involves the selling of a policy death benefit, at less than face value, by a terminally ill person to a third party. This is accomplished, for a commission, with the assistance of a broker who offers the policies to settlement provider companies for bid, with the highest bidder obtaining the policy for resale to investors. The broker receives a commission based on the sale price. The theory is investors buy a group of “pooled life insurance policies” that have been sold by the owners of the policies. Investor money buys the policies at a discount, so when the holder of the policy dies, the investors makes a healthy profit when the policy pays off. While returns of 15% to 25% are frequently offered to investors, it’s estimated that up to 50% of the policies being sold to investors are fraudulent. Experts estimate that investors have lost more than $400 million in these types of investments since the industry started in the 1980’s. One corporation alone, charged with 155 felony counts relating to criminal fraud had bad policies with a face value of $12.7 million. The PITCH to get you to buy: That your investment will produce a 100% rate of return because you are assigned a policy with a face value of twice your investment which you can claim upon their death; That you will have the option of reselling your policy once it becomes incontestable (two years after the date the policy is issued) for 70% of the face value; and That if the policy is contested or canceled by the insurer, the promoters will provide a replacement policy through a “replacement policy trust” managed by them. They say these are better investments than stocks, mutual funds, annuities, and CD’s because viatical investments have the following attributes: “Full liquidity at maturity from rock solid ‘A’ rated insurance companies!” “Tax advantaged & hassle free! 100% fixed rate of return which is fully secured.” “Zero risk to principal, a totally safe investment with no load & no fees!” “Short holding periods with early buyout options available as well!” “No speculation, no interest rate risk, no market risk, no...

Read More

Job Scam Alert!

Posted by on Jun 25, 2013 in Archive | 0 comments

For all of you who are posting your resume’s on Monster, Craigslist, or any other online job search website, be very careful from any replies you receive. There is a new scam going around, and here is how it works: You will receive an E-mail advising you they are interested in interviewing you for a position, but before they can do this you must pass a background check and a credit check. They will provide you a link for you to obtain your credit report from CreditReport.com. The link is a bogus link, but it will appear to be the official website for CreditReport.com. Here’s a real E-mail that was received regarding this scam. I have removed the person’s real name and E-mail address, and used a fake name and E-mail address for security purposes. It is the only changes that I have made to the E-mail: Subject: Re: Outstanding Data Entry/Filing Clerk – Ima Fake From: myofficestaffing@earthlink.net To: imafake@hotmail.com Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:01:51 -0700 Dear Ms., We’ve taken some time to look through the applications. And we’ve decided we’d love to have you as a part of our team! We’d like you to come in sometime before the end of the week for a face-to-face interview. This is for the Data Entry/Filing Clerk position, with compensation starting at $35,550 a year plus a benefit package which includes health, medical, dental and 401k after 30 days of employment. We are REQUIRED to run credit and background checks on all our employees, due to the nature of the work and also due to sensitive documents and materials that will be easily accessible to you. The credit check can be done now via this link: http://bit.ly/aEbnNW It’s free, no worries. We are also not judging your score, like I previously said, this is just a security requirement. After you have taken the credit check, send us the confirmation code via e-mail, and we’ll set up an interview right away. We do not want to see any sensitive or private info via e-mail and the background check will be taken at our face-to-face interview. For any questions, feel free to e-mail me. I am looking forward to speaking with you in person! Sarah Murphy So, what are the Red Flags about this E-mail? In the Subject line it shows the name of the person they are contacting about this job opportunity, and in whom they have a high degree of interest in interviewing. The From Line shows a free E-mail account, not an account from the company doing their hiring. The Salutation is Ms, yet they know your name but don’t use it. You do not run a credit and background check on a potential...

Read More