achieve-community-logoOne of the first things serial Ponzi scammers do when one of their schemes goes bust is file disputes with banks, payment processors and credit card providers.

The idea is that, even with an SEC injunction in place, financial institutions will cover their client’s losses while they investigate.

How effective this is I can’t say, but according to one Achieve Community investor the practice was widespread and has left her at a severe disadvantage.

Arla Mendenhall first sought to prioritize herself above other Achieve Community victims back in February.

Despite an exhaustive history of participating in a number of Ponzi schemes over the last few years, Mendenhall argued she ‘had no knowledge of anything illegal when‘ she joined Achieve Community.


The SEC naturally opposed Mendenhall’s request to attach herself as a plaintiff in their civil action against Achieve Community, arguing that she was no different to other victims in the scheme.

In Mendenhall’s July 16th response to the SEC’s opposition, she claims it is “public knowledge” that

a myriad of investors have already received their initial funds back that they have invested.

They have received chargebacks from their Credit Card companies by contacting them of this situation.

Many have also received their initial money invested thru (sic) their banks.

I have done neither, I have not received a chargeback from my Credit Card Company or gone thru (sic) my bank and received and (sic) money due to fraudulant (sic) activity.

I chose to go thru (sic) the court system. If I am not allowed to do that, I will suffer a great deal of loss which will create a hardship.

If credit card companies and banks are covering millions of dollars in Ponzi losses, then that’s certainly news to me.

I am aware that certain banks and financial institutions have cancelled recently issued checks in the past, but I’ve never heard of Ponzi investors in established schemes being issued refunds by their banks or credit providers.

I appreciate the SEC looking into helping investors receive their investments back but when just about all have already done chargebacks and bank refunds I do not see the necessity.

Anyone that has not should have contacted the court already.

Why Mendenhall herself didn’t request a chargeback and/or bank refund is not clarified. She also fails to provide any supporting evidence regarding allegations regarding “just about all” the other victims in the scheme.

I also see that much of the money will have to go others that are now involved in this case to compensate for their time and work on this.

As of yet a claim process for Achieve victims has yet to be established. Nor has a Receiver been appointed int he case, so what Mendenhall is talking about is unclear.

In any event, god forbid a third-party be paid to clean up the millions of dollars in Ponzi fraud mess Mendenhall and other Achieve investors sought to profit from.

I have sent in documents to the Court with my Investments documented and the losses in this business.

I hope that This can be resolved in at timely manner and not take too much more of the Courts (sic) time when this could be handled in a much easier and timely manner.

A decision on Mendenhall’s motion is now pending.

Meanwhile anyone care to explain why financial institutions are eating millions of dollars of losses in Ponzi fraud refunds?

I know the claims are filed by disingenuous investors but as far as I was aware they were pretty much universally denied.


Footnote: Our thanks to Don@ASDUpdates for providing a copy of Mendenhall’s July 16th response to the SEC’s opposition to her motion.


Update 22nd July 2015 – Mendenhall’s motion to add herself as a Plaintiff in the SEC civil case against Achieve Community has been denied.

In an order dated July 21st, Judge Blackburn wrote;

As more detailed fully in the SEC’s response to the motion (filed July 2, 2015) – which I adopt and incorporate by reference herein – Ms. Mendenhall’s request to join this action is barred by section 21(g) of the Exchange Act, which provides:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1407(a) of Title 28, or any other provision of law, no action for equitable relief
instituted by the Commission pursuant to the securities laws shall be consolidated or coordinated with other actions not brought by the Commission, even though such other actions may involve common questions of fact, unless such consolidation is consented to by the Commission.

Regardless whether interpreted as an absolute bar to joinder of an individual plaintiff absent consent of the SEC, or simply as impermissible when the putative intervenor’s claims would merely mimic those already joined by the SEC’s suit, section 12(g) plainly precludes Ms. Mendenhall from intervening as a party plaintiff in this action.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Ms. Mendenhall’s Motion To Be Joined in This Case as a Plaintiff, filed June 15, 2015, is denied.

And that’s that.