Charles Scoville fancies himself as the next Mark Cuban
In the aftermath of Traffic Monsoon being declared a Ponzi scheme by a US Court, the most prominent rhetoric to emerge has been comparisons to Mark Cuban’s SEC case.
These efforts have been spear-headed by Charles Scoville, in what appears to be the latest attempt to string his victims along.
For those unfamiliar with the case, Mark Cuban was sued by the SEC back in 2008 for insider trading.
Long story short, the charges against Cuban were dismissed in 2009, the SEC won an appeal in 2010 and a jury decided in Cuban’s favor in 2013.
None of this is of course relevant, because Mark Cuban wasn’t running an adcredit Ponzi scheme.
But that hasn’t stopped Scoville from desperately trying to draw comparison between his SEC case and that of Cuban’s.
The reality is, short of being brought about by the same regulator, there are no similarities between the two cases.
Following a purported call with his lawyers, Scoville recorded a YouTube message for Traffic Monsoon investors.
Aside from the Cuban comparisons, Scoville rehashes the same pseudo-compliance arguments he lost the preliminary injunction motion on.
If we revisit Judge Parrish’s decision from yesterday, it’s clear that arguments such as “we told everyone it wasn’t an investment” have no legal weight.
So much so that most of Judge Parrish’s forty-five page preliminary injunction decision is spent dismantling Scoville’s pseudo-compliance arguments one after another.
Other than acknowledging the SEC’s opposing position, at no point did Judge Parrish challenge any of the SEC’s legal arguments.
Because at the core of Traffic Monsoon’s business model was the principal of $50 being deposited and that money used to fund $55 withdrawals.
Yeah, so much for the sympathetic telekinetic legal kung-fu between Scoville and the Judge following the injunction hearing last year.
Despite pretty much every Ponzi case brought about by the SEC settled, Scoville has informed Traffic Monsoon affiliates he plans to take the case to a jury trial.
Typically in civil litigation matters are decided by a Judge, however either party can opt for a jury trial instead.
To hear Scoville tell it, Judges and lawyers “get caught up in legal mumbo-jumbo”. A jury on the other hand will dismiss logic and legalize Ponzi fraud in the US.
Assuming the jury isn’t stacked with Traffic Monsoon investors (it won’t be), any objective jury will reach the same conclusion Judge Parrish did:
Paying out $55 on a $50 deposit using newly deposited funds is Ponzi fraud.
Nothing in Scoville’s fourteen minute rant addresses this key point. Which is strange, because it’s why a TRO was initially granted and precisely why Traffic Monsoon lost the preliminary injunction decision.
After consulting with his lawyers following yesterday’s decision, Scoville admits he has no idea how long taking the SEC’s case to a jury trial might take – but does at one point speculate on five years.
Personally I’m seeing criminal charges filed at some point and, once Scoville’s personal freedom is on the line, the SEC case settled quickly and quietly.
Until then I guess we can look forward to more self-serving but entirely non-legally grounded analysis from Scoville and his supporters.
Speaking of which, in an attempt to discredit the court-appointed Receiver, Scoville suggests to Traffic Monsoon affiliates that she is in cahoots with the SEC and willing to lie.
This group at the SEC works together with Peggy Hunt on many cases.
How does the receiver get paid? From the money she’s holding onto in receivership.
In a system where the SEC and receiver benefit from the money they hold onto, it screams agenda and motive..
The true financial crime that appears to have happened here is against me and my business..
I wonder how we can be awarded the return of the funds the receiver has spent on her expenses… what about damages?
This SEC office and this receiver seem to be giving each other high fives and back-rubs.
Peggy Hunt is supposed to be a neutral officer of the court simply to do what the judge wants her to do under court order, but what Peggy has done is become a working arm for the SEC.
Obviously she’s buddy-buddy with the SEC and happy to do what they ask her to do and feed them with as much info as she can with the intention to make me look bad, not with the intention to find truth..
What is her motivation to lie and make things appear to be different than they are in reality–?
Oh yeah.. she’s getting paid for it from the money she’s holding onto.. and if she can stretch this case to last longer.. it will mean she gets to have more of the money she’s holding onto..
As part of ongoing efforts to marshal assets and recover stolen Ponzi funds by the Zeek Rewards Receiver, it was recently announced that victims of the scheme will recover as much as 75% of their losses.
That’s the culmination of five years of work by the Zeek Rewards Receiver, who is paid in the exact same manner the Traffic Monsoon Receiver is (all Ponzi Receivers are).
Scoville’s gnashing of teeth at the prospect of his personal ill-gotten gains being spent to recover stolen Ponzi funds aside, I get the frustration from victims over having their funds frozen while the Receivership investigates.
At the end of the day though, whatever the Receiver is able to marshal and distribute to victims is far better than losing all your money (the inevitable conclusion of Traffic Monsoon Judge Parrish herself reached upon examination of the evidence).
And yeah, the Receiver has to be paid either way. It takes a ton of man-hours to sift through the mess Ponzi schemes generate.
Before you jump off the deep end into a pool of conspiracy theories, consider:
Traffic Monsoon is pretty small potatoes compared to Zeek Rewards. Yet the Zeek Rewards Receiver was able to recover up to 75% of losses for victims, despite working on the case and getting paid over the span of five years.
Traffic Monsoon victims might ultimately not recover 75% of their losses, but whatever the final amount is it’s still better than Traffic Monsoon collapsing and receiving nothing.
Looking forward Scoville has vowed to file an appeal, which we’ll cover going forward. Scoville also has a motion to dismiss pending, which is likely to be rejected in light of the preliminary injunction decision.
Seeing as the Receiver is now free to resume her investigation into the scheme, we’ll keep an eye out for developments there too.