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.