Charles Scoville files Traffic Monsoon Ponzi decision appeal
Seems kind of pointless claiming a company that solicited $50 investments on the promise of a $55 ROI wasn’t an investment scheme, but if the alternative is admitting you conned thousands of people out of millions of dollars – here we are.
On April 14th Charles Scoville filed an interlocutory appeal against the recent granting of a preliminary injunction and denial of a motion to set aside the Traffic Monsoon Receivership.
The term “interlocutory appeal” applies to any appeal filed before the conclusion of the case. Whereas the granting of a preliminary injunction in MLM underbelly fraud cases typically brings about a settlement, Scoville is challenging the injunction decision.
Among other things, Scoville is arguing that Ponzi schemes that operate within the US but mostly solicit investment from offshore victims should be legal.
The appeal has been filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. It is unclear how long a decision on the appeal might take.
Traffic Monsoon investors meanwhile are being made to wait while Scoville delays the inevitable. Whilst the Receiver has control of seized assets, a victim claims process won’t go forward until a decision on the appeal is made.
Update 6th August 2017 – On July 21st Charles Scoville requested an extension of time to file his petitioner brief.
On July 26th the court granted Scoville’s motion.
A new deadline of September 5th has been set, with the court noting there will be no further extensions granted.
Update 17th October 2017 – As of October 17th, both Scoville and the SEC’s appeal briefs have been filed.
The briefs don’t cover any new ground and instead mostly reaffirm arguments presented before the District Court.
Scoville now has the option to file a response brief, after which it’s up to the court to schedule oral arguments or publish a decision. No timeline yet.
Update 25th January 2019 – On January 24th the Tenth Circuit appeals court denied Charles Scoville’s Traffic Monsoon appeal.
it appears the SEC/receiver is contacting TM affiliates, and affiliates are trying to avoid the calls, according to a conversation on FB an hour ago:
net winners may try to avoid the calls, but at some point they’ll be formally sued for clawback.
net losers had best communicate with the SEC/receiver and give depositions if required, if they want to hurry the process of getting their money back. the SEC is holding around 60 mil and all that money belongs to the net losers.
These guys are hiding out in the UK and think they’re untouchable.
They’ve got Scoville feeding them all sorts of nonsense on Facebook so it’s no wonder.
If the DOJ are building a criminal case they need to reveal their hand soon enough. Waiting for a year or more for the civil case to play out gives net-winners plenty of time to make up poverty stories.
utah is in the 10th circuit of the federal court system of the US.
according to statistics released in 2015, the 10th circuit court of appeals has the lowest Reversal Rate of district court rulings:
hmmm, an obvious ponzi [$50 in, $55 out] combined with an appeals court which has the lowest reversal rate = a recipe for disaster.
i mean, scoville barely has a chance of even ‘getting lucky’ at appeal. just a waste of a whole year, and net losers have to wait needlessly to get repaid.
bol.bna.com/federal-appeals-court-reversal-rates-show-disparities/
The net winners in the UK won’t have to pay the money back, if they didn’t go to the US at the time or if they don’t respond to the receiver or courts by submitting a a defense/argument.
The US can’t recover the money from the UK as debt as they were not part of the court proceedings.
“The US” doesn’t recover anything. The Receiver files a separate clawback lawsuit against the net-winners.
Yes but it can’t be enforced in the UK!
Ah well, let’s see how it plays out. Have to get this appeal out of the way first.
Jane, tell that to the UK members in Zeek that have been sued by the Receiver when they didn’t settle with him.
As Oz said, it isn’t the US that sues, but the Receiver. Same will happen in TM.
It makes no difference how soon or how late clawback start, the perps always claim poverty, or go to court trying to stop the Receiver from getting their ill-gotten gains back from them.
Out of curiosity I went and looked up the UK Zeek case. All nine named scammers had entries of default made against them.
That was in 2015, not sure of the collection status after that. I don’t recall reading anything about it in the quarterly Receiver reports.
Thats correct, but the money wasn’t recovered as it can’t be enforced in the UK.
Anyone hoping that is potentially fooling themselves. There are many cases under common law of the UK courts enforcing foreign judgments as a debt.
See the last section (The common law) here out-law.com/topics/dispute-resolution-and-litigation/enforcement/enforcing-foreign-judgments-in-england-and-wales/
Of course what receivers take into account is the likely cost of retrieval vs the likely amount of retrieval and ensure it’s offering good value for money.
For those net winners of small amounts maybe it’s not worth chasing, for large winners it almost certainly is.
in the case of businesses like TM which are run over the internet, the law examines ‘where a defendants actions were directed at’, and not whether they had physically visited the jurisdiction where the crime originated. if defendants don’t respond to the court, the court will issue a default judgement against them without trial.
i have not seen the TM website, did the website carry the address of the TM office in utah? under which jurisdiction was the affiliate agreement/contract signed?
if the answer to the above is – Utah, then the US federal court of Utah has jurisdiction over all foreign affiliates. this is because via access to the website of TM, and by signing the affiliate agreement/contract, foreign affiliates had Directed their Actions towards utah, USA.
the judgement of clawback by the utah court will be sent to the local jurisdiction of the netwinners, wherever they are. if the netwinner’s local court is satisfied that the case was tried legally in the US, they will order the enforcement of the judgement.
it is possible that countries like iran or north korea etc may not honor judgements of a foreign court, but countries like canada, the US and the UK which are traditional friends with similar judiciaries, will usually honor money judgments in such clear cut ponzi cases.
it may take a few years but the receiver can keep at it, as she’s getting paid out of collected funds and not financed by the state.
the madoff ponzi scheme clawback litigation is still going on, even now, 10 years after madoff was arrested.
netwinners can either live under the cloud of litigation for a large part of their lives, or do the easier and the honorable thing and settle with the receiver. as netwinners are also considered to be victims, generally receivers give netwinners a long rope and are sympathetic to their financial situation when making a settlement.
There are a number of case law where someone from the USA sued someone in the UK through the High Court, on appeal it was over turned, therefore, unless this applies below, they can’t even get it into the High Court.
Broadly speaking, these Acts reflect reciprocal arrangements which streamline the enforcement of judgments obtained in the listed countries in England and Wales.
A judgment obtained in one of the countries listed must first be registered in the High Court in England and Wales. It must be final, for a specific sum, not in respect of fines or taxes, not obtained by fraud or in breach of a jurisdiction or arbitration agreement.
Together with various other practical requirements, the court must be satisfied that the originating court had jurisdiction to deal with the original claim. This will be satisfied in a number of ways, including if the debtor:
was resident in that jurisdiction or had its principal place of business, or the place of business through which the relevant transaction was conducted, there;
agreed to submit to that court’s jurisdiction or voluntarily appeared in the proceedings.
Otherwise, the judgment should not be registered. If it has already been registered, it must be set aside if jurisdiction is later challenged by the judgment debtor.
The reason I know this, is that I was speaking to a person in Telexfree, they made over $400,000 and are in the UK. They instructed a lawyer in the USA to negotiate with the Receiver; the Receiver wouldn’t accept the offer.
The Receiver would have to go through the High Court in the UK, costs $30,000 and can take 12- 18 months for the hearing. So is $30K spend worth going for $400,000? This person got a UK lawyer and the Jurisdiction is the issue for the Receiver, even though the Receiver got the summons from the USA court, stating jurisdiction and the $400,000 as a debt, it still can’t be enforced.
In the UK you have the right to a fair hearing, most of these clawbacks are done without the knowledge of the Net Winner, and a default notice issued without the Net Winner even attending court, so they don’t even have the chance to a defence.
Can you find one person (net winner) from the UK, in any of the Ponzi’s that have gone down, that have had to pay the money back? They may have been sued, but has it been enforced?
Clawback litigation in the TelexFree case was put on hold pending the outcome of Merril’s criminal case. Merril was sentenced less than a month ago so it’s still early days yet.
Alone? Maybe not.
If you’re processing multiple net-winner cases that run into the millions at once through the same lawfirm at a discount? Most definitely.
The same is true in the US. I imagine ignoring proceedings against you in the UK is as stupid as ignoring proceedings in the US.
Nah. The scumbags are well aware of the lawsuits filed against them. Your TelexFree friend is proof enough.
The Zeek Rewards Receiver has stated he’s seeing out clackback litigation and then he’s done. This would include overseas net-winners so we’ll have to wait and see how that plays out.
AFAIK only the Irish (from memory) litigation was dropped. Until we hear otherwise, the Zeek and TelexFree Receivers intend to collect from UK net-winners.
it’s still early days. the telexfree trustee filed the clawback suits in jan 2016. we are in early 2017 now.
i’m sure the telexfree netwinner will try to drag the matter out in the UK court and of course s/he should get a fair hearing. due process of law will take some time, but i’m fairly confident that the trustee will be able to have the judgment enforced.
if you follow the case, please keep us posted here.
You can’t do a class action (multiple) in the UK courts, every person has to sued individually.
Here is the question then. Take ZEEK net winners in the UK. I think it was $1.5 Million in total against 9 net winners. Worth taking to court?
How many have paid?
Nobody said anything about a class-action. I meant getting the lawsuits handled in bulk by one firm.
Of course. The Receiver’s goal is to maximize victim recovery funds. Spending tens of thousands to get back $1.5 million is a no brainer.
As I’ve said, the Zeek Receiver has stated all that’s left to wrap up is clawback litigation. How far that goes we’ll have to wait and see.
Personally I don’t think the stress is worth it but I’m not a scammer trying to hold onto ill-gotten gains.
He better be quick, its 5 years this August and if he takes the scammers through High Court (if he can) the hearing could take 18 months. 6 years is the cut off point in the UK for claiming a debt!
Care to point to a few, rather than merely just assert it? That way we can evaluate if they are similar circumstances or not to likely situations net winners here will find themselves in.
Fantastic. So you’ve quote part of the page I pointed to which is for a section “Other bilateral enforcement arrangements” which doesn’t apply – (“These mainly cover former and current Commonwealth countries, and include Crown states such as the Isle of Man and Jersey.” which the USA isn’t one of).
I pointed in my first comment the section which does apply.
Please feel free to delude yourself into believing that the receiver will blindly give up on significant net winners in the UK.
It’s amazing how people involved in these schemes always want to see the world working in their favour, I bet some of those hoping the law will ignore them now were those so convinced that their phony statements would influence the US proceedings just a few weeks ago.
The number listed in 1st comment appears to be Telemarketers from Robert Kiyosaki’s “Rich Dad Coaching” They are relentless.
Someone must have sold them TM contact info.
show-caller.com/us/+18017161170
800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-801-716-1170
So,
the court appointed receiver considers it worth pursuing UK based net winners, a US court agrees, the experienced receiver announces his intentions publicly as well as revealing he is working with UK based legal firms,
At the same time, a random poster says such action is not possible, based on the anecdotal evidence provided by a self confessed recipient of a substantial amount of stolen funds in an unrelated and thus far incomplete matter.
Who to believe, who to believe ????
UK – I do know one net winner who quietly settled at around $125K from $250K. Payment was made a little while back.
Show the evidence of the net winners that paid from the UK. Because at this present time there is no evidence to support it!
Thats my point.
Individual settlements are confidential. Don’t be a dumbass and ask for the impossible.
I’m not talking about settlements I’m taking about Court Orders to recover the money!
I have seen you OZ list net winners that settled, haven’t I?
Now you’re asking for court orders that don’t exist because the Receivership is still working clawbacks out?
No because like I said, individual settlements are confidential. Non affiliate settlements are separate lawsuits which I’ve reported on.
Next dumbass request is going into the spambin.
(Ozedit: BS removed. Permanently spam-binned.)
Peter == Jane.
Assume everything from Jane above is complete BS. Will be marking anything further as spam.
lol. I did from post one. it was confirmed when they insisted UK winners couldn’t be touched yet one allegedly got an attorney to work out a settlement. why if they can’t be touched?
Poor Jane, Seems she thought she was a man at the time she tried posting as Peter. A lot of that going around of late.
I personally was waiting for Jane to post her law credentials since she loves stating the law according to her/him. Hard to know which persona is really her/him.
In short, when it is all said and done, the Receiver in the Zeek case will have succeeded in getting clawbacks from the major UK winners in Zeek, whether through a settlement agreement or court order. And Jane/Peter will still be claiming it is illegal to do so.
its amazing that Charles… still to this hour continues to post on skype about he has been taken and that TM is not a ponzi. UNREAL STUPIDITY.. and consistent…
Definition of Insanity is definitely taken place because he wants to do the same thing and expect different results..
It’s just ponzi groundhog day (all over again).
In the movie Bill Murray is condemned to relive the same day over and over until he ostensibly has learned all he can from it or leastwise, until he learned enough.
All we’re seeing here is Mr. Scoville’s endless loop of ponzi pitch prattle spooling out in a manner which doesn’t necessarily indicate he has any insight into how many times he’s said them to us all before.
I’m not saying that Charles is stuck in a temporal loop until he morally betters himself, the SEC doesn’t have the special effects budget for that.
What I am saying is that he has no rational excuse for not knowing the company he was running wass a ponzi scheme and the day he wishes he was always waking up on is the one before all the people who used to adore him lost any excuse for not knowing it too.
the receiver has to merely START a court action within 6 years, not have a final judgment within 6 years.
so, the receiver still has around 16 months to just ‘initiate’ his case against the zeek netwinners in the UK [if he hasn’t already filed initial paperwork with the UK court].
goodluck living your lives with bailiffs/debt collectors chasing you around forever!
It’s the foreign judgement which is treated as a debt. So any limit is from the time of the judgement, not from the time Zeek was shut down.
6 years is also only the limit against certain debt claims:
nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/time-limits-for-recovering-debts/statute-barred-debt.aspx#
A foreign court judgement I would doubt to be one such (a local judgement is indefinite).
Regardless I’d trust the receiver to be getting the right advice from the right people over anyone just writing on a web forum.
I know some guys from poland who are big net winners – i mean from 100 000$ to 250 000$.
Can I be sure that they will get Request cash back from the court?
Nope. That’s up to the Receiver.
Article updated with news of petitioner brief extension.
Scoville’s attorneys filed an 80 page appellant brief today, which is basically a rehash of the arguments that lost in the District Court.
1. The SEC has limited jurisdiction because 90% of Traffic Monsoon affiliates are located outside of the US
2. No securities offering was made because Traffic Monsoon is a “traffic exchange”
3. the District court was incorrect in identifying Traffic Monsoon as a Ponzi scheme “due to the lack of legal and factual support”
We’re all aware of the (tired) arguments so I’m not going to rehash them in a new article.
I will mention though that point 2 is particularly hilarious. Scoville basically spits the dummy over the SEC not acknowledging the traffic exchange side of the business and instead focusing on the $50 in, $55 out Ponzi aspect.
I imagine the SEC will file their response within a month (same arguments as they successfully argued int he District Court).
Scoville gets to file another response and then it’s oral arguments and finally a decision.
I’ll make a not of the SEC’s response but doubt I’ll be covering it in a separate article (already covered in our District Court case coverage).
The eventual Appeals Court decision is likely when I’ll pen a new article.
Oh and Scoville is looking to excuse himself from the proceedings…
Quick, someone tell Paul Burks and James Merrill to file sentence appeals. They didn’t commit Ponzi fraud, Zeek Rewards and TelexFree did.
(I feel sorry for the Judges having to go through and take this filing seriously…)
according to scoville’s mom shirley scoville, the final decision could be around 6 months away:
and of course, shirley scoville is running around FB begging for donations. if you donate to the TM legal fund you get entry to the ‘hallowed’ – Traffic Monsoon Booster Club!! but note that – ‘Do not request to join UNTIL you have donated’.
with TM dead and gone and the appeals brief looking like a pisspoor rehash, god knows what special treats they’re offering on the Traffic Monsoon Booster Club?? if its pole dances or something i’m in for a dollar!!
as the TM court case drags on to an inevitable ponzi finding, scoville’s bestest friends and staunchest supporters and topmost earners from TM are falling away like shit flies off a fan.
ernie ganz- gone, sunil patel – gone, sharon james – gone and now immy aslam -gone.
and the ‘going aways’ are pretty ugly with these ponzi scamsters throwing as much muck as they can on each other!
just yesterday scoville has launched an FB attack on immy aslam accusing him of desertion, deception and blaming the entire TM dubai bank account lie on him:
there’s also an interesting piece of gossip about a woman called ‘hinda’:
ponzi pals fallouts are not a very pretty sight are they? scam fails and the shit comes pouring out! ugh.
turns out hinda bakkali is scoville’s ex wife who dumped him on their honeymoon.
i thought scoville’s threat to expose hinda bakkali had something to do with TM, but its just a rant against his ex, accusing her of using him for money.
it’s disgraceful and disgusting that scoville is publically humiliating his ex wife on facebook like this.
i’m bringing this up because it seems to me that scoville is slowly but surely losing his mind.
from his incessant repetitive posts about TM not being a ponzi, then moving on to attacking his TM ex-pals relentlessly, then to fixating about USI tech and ranting endlessly on about it, then to humiliating his ex wife publically- and now suddenly sermonizing about the bible and jesus christ and the devil and god knows what not.
guess this ^^ means scoville is not a muslim anymore.
even his rant against usi tech has taken on a full blown religious fervor now:
between themselves, scoville and sunil patel can keep a whole host of psychiatrists in business with their batshit craziness.
Scoville’s just mad his “white guy in the muslim brotherhood” fantasy fell apart.
He probably genuinely believed people were interested in him and not just getting on the inside of his Ponzi scheme.
The second the SEC shut down Traffic Monsoon he was dropped like a hot potato by the UK muslim community he associated with. Ouch.
That and his parents have probably been working him the last year. They are, after all, the ones controlling his life financially at the moment.
The SEC filed their brief on October 16th.
It’s 74 pages long. I’ve gone through it and it looks pretty solid.
As with Scoville’s brief there’s no new arguments though (it’s an appeal), so I’m holding off publishing an article till a decision is made.
Its so ridiculous because Charlie Scolooserville admits that 2% of sales are NON ADPACKS yet he pays out 10% comission for each adpack and 10% earnings for each adpack which equates to 20% Minimum???
Am I missing something here? How can he claim that he had/has/will have enough funds in his account to pay out all outstadning shares with associated profit if the 2% information is true???
Charles’s placing in the “Gigantic Douchebags Hall Of Fame” is absolutely assured.
What is going to be interesting to me is if the SEC in their response to Charles motion for an appeal if they pointed out that Charles does not own TM, the Receiver does. Therefore he has no standing to file an appeal on behalf of TM. This alone will toss the appeal.
You can bet that Charles’s attorneys will file a response to the SEC’s response. If Charles is not the owner of TM and has no standing is in the SEC response, it will be interesting to see how his attorneys try to get around that one.
uh, looks like scoville has been grounded by his parents and has lost access to the internet and his phone.
his last post on facebook was on oct 15th, 2017, which went like:
possibly worried about the impact of scoville’s nutjob religious rants on FB, his mother shirley scoville posted around oct 21, 2017:
if scoville ‘shows’ signs of mental instability will regulators avoid pursuing him criminally? hmmm, food for thought.
Daniel Filho put up the looney tunes defense and his criminal proceedings are still dragging on.
Well, his parents clearly have a sense of humour, which requires the capacity for abstract thought. Shame they didn’t pay more attention to the development of their son’s mind before he scammed people out of millions of dollars.
Is he twelve years old or something?
Sounds like he’s limbering up for his next career as a preacher. “I was a serial fraudster but then I found Jesus and was SAVED, give me your money and you can be saved too” etc etc.
There’s nothing crazy about it. Religion is essentially the ultimate Ponzi scheme, only the big payday isn’t next month or October 2018, it’s after you die, so it’s a Ponzi scheme that never collapses.