Receiver decides Traffic Monsoon victims will not file written claims (updates)
A common trait of multi-million dollar Ponzi schemes is a lack of independent accounting on the backend.
Records are stored higgledy-piggledy and often riddled with errors and/or incomplete.
Traffic Monsoon is no exception, with the Receivership currently sifting through millions of transaction records in an attempt to forensically piece together the business.
While circumstances might change in the future, at this time the Receiver has determined, based on the sheer amount of data being processed, that Traffic Monsoon victims won’t be submitting written claims.
The revelation was made in the Receiver’s second Status Report, filed on July 31st.
It will not be efficient or beneficial to have investors submit written proof of claims due to, among other things, the number of investors, their varied locations, and the fact that Traffic Monsoon did not keep reliable contact information.
Another topic of interest is Scoville’s naming of Traffic Monsoon as an appellant.
Traffic Monsoon has been placed under complete control of the Receivership, who did not authorise it being named an appellant in the appeal.
The Receiver intends to have this issue stipulated upon in “the next reporting period”.
As reported in our update yesterday, Scoville has been granted a September 5th extension to file a petitioner brief.
Getting back the Receiver’s report, mention of a “security enforcement” also caught my eye.
During the reporting period the Receiver has been contacted by several groups of investors in various contexts, including counsel in a proposed class of investors who claim to have used PayPal for their Traffic Monsoon investments, and a group of investors who claim that their money was invested with Traffic Monsoon through a person who is now involved in a security enforcement action outside of the United States.
No idea who this person is or what the referenced security enforcement action is. Ernie Ganz comes to mind but I’m unaware of an enforcement action.
Anyone got any guesses as to who this person is?
A final point of interest is the Snoork hosting issue. Scoville hosted Traffic Monsoon’s servers on Snoork for $11,884 a month.
The Receivership had no interest in maintaining this arrangement and tried to negotiate a reduced fee. Snoork wouldn’t budge.
Not wanting to surrender the sensitive Traffic Monsoon investor data on the servers, the Receiver filed a motion requesting permission to erase the data and terminate the Snoork hosting agreement.
Scoville opposed the motion and wanted to preserve the data and continue paying the monthly fee. The court denied his opposition however and granted the Receiver’s request.
Our next update is expected to be coverage of Scoville’s appellant brief on September 5th. Stay tuned…