Traffic Monsoon Receiver files revealing declarations
Nothing yet official from the Traffic Monsoon preliminary injunction hearing. We’re monitoring the hearing and will publish an article as soon as we hear something (the hearing is ongoing as I type this).
In the meantime, yesterday the Traffic Monsoon Receiver filed two revealing declarations in court. They pertain to Traffic Monsoon’s inner business operations and communications the Receivership has had.
Below I’ve sorted out the main points of the declarations into relevant categories.
Peggy Hunt’s credentials
Abused and often ridiculed by disgruntled Traffic Monsoon affiliates, turns out Peggy Hunt appears qualified to serve as Traffic Monsoon’s Receiver.
As per her filed declarations;
I have been a lawyer for 27 years. Outside of a one-year judicial clerkship for a Justice on the Connecticut Supreme Court immediately following my graduation from law school, my experience has focused on bankruptcy, insolvency and receivership law.
More relevant to this matter is that I have served on the Panel of Chapter 7 Trustees for the District of Utah since 2011.
In that post … I regularly represent fiduciaries, including bankruptcy trustees and equity receivers appointed in SEC civil enforcement actions in large cases involving Ponzi schemes and other types of securities fraud.
Communication with Traffic Monsoon investors and victims
The Receivership has been manning a call center since August 8th and accepting written inquiries since late September.
As of October 20th, 2016, the Traffic Monsoon Receivership has received 1648 communications via the above platforms.
This includes 40 written complaints submitted to the FBI and 110 call reports provided by the City of London Police (through their fraud reporting hotline).
- 1076 communications from Traffic Monsoon affiliates, a lot of whom wanted to know ‘if they would be getting their “revenue payout”‘.
- 345 communications from Traffic Monsoon affiliates who identified themselves as investors, as having invested or made an investment, or who expected to earn or make money. A number of these investors wanted to know ‘when the website would be reinstated so that they could “start their business again”‘.
- 147 communications from Traffic Monsoon affiliates who demanded the Traffic Monsoon website be reinstated.
- 74 communications from affiliates who identified themselves as victims involved in a fraud or scheme and/or alleging fraud or misrepresentation.
- 73 communications from affiliates who claimed they were “not investors”.
- 57 communications from Traffic Monsoon affiliates who declared they ‘relied on Traffic Monsoon for income or to pay debt‘.
- 43 communications from Traffic Monsoon affiliates who ‘stated they paid for but did not receive the services they expected or did not receive any services‘.
- 38 communications from persons who ‘stated that “life savings” were paid or “savings” were paid to Traffic Monsoon by themselves or others‘.
Examples of communications provided by the Receivership span England, Australia and the US and detail losses of $5000 AUD to £12,000 GBP.
Sunil Patel and the Traffic Monsoon affidavits
The Traffic Monsoon affidavit portal, through which affiliates could access prepared affidavits to sign, is owned by Lukasz Galuszka.
Galuszka ‘appears to be a Polish resident’ and Traffic Monsoon affiliate.
The person who appears to be one of the most vocal persons referring relevant parties to the affidavit site is Sunil Patel, an individual who resides in the United Kingdom, who identifies himself as a “Triple Diamond Member” of Traffic Monsoon, and who administers a Facebook site called “Traffic Monsoon Sunil”.
Mr. Patel claimed to have made £400 a day from his Traffic Monsoon work.
I served a demand on Mr. Patel, a UK citizen, to provide me information about his involvement in Traffic Monsoon.
He wrote me back stating that he is a customer of Traffic Monsoon and does not know why I would be requesting information from him.
The affidavits received by the SEC are noted as being ‘substantively identical and have not been changed in any substantive way from the form provided on the affidavit website‘.
Promotion of Traffic Monsoon
Many people were solicited to join Traffic Monsoon through presentations that touted Traffic Monsoon as, among other things, a way to earn money, as a way to gain passive income, and as a way to build wealth.
These presentations were in the form of live seminars that were broadcast on YouTube, YouTube videos, websites and social media sites.
Numerous sites of this kind use the Traffic Monsoon logo.
Sites such as “trafficmonsooncalculator.org” use the Traffic Monsoon logo and tout an ability to “earn” thousands.
Posts made on social media sites typically discuss Traffic Monsoon as a way to earn money; as a way to become a “millionaire”; and on providing secrets to getting huge referrals (which earns a referral fee).
Comments to social media posts often include statements about investments.
It would appear that based on how Traffic Monsoon was promoted by some people, many others would have joined Traffic Monsoon believing they were investing funds with an expectation of making a profit.
Traffic Monsoon’s corporate structure in the UK
The Traffic Monsoon website cited “Traffic Monsoon Global Limited” as a point of contact.
As per an investigation by the Receiver, Traffic Monsoon Global Limited was incorporated in the UK on December 18th, 2015.
The UK registration states that Traffic Monsoon Global Limited’s initial shareholders were Aamir Raja, Toseef Ahmed Sharif and Taheer Sardar, all identified as residents of London.
Mr. Raja and Mr. Sardar were appointed as the initial directors of Traffic Monsoon Global Limited.
In February, 2016, Mr. Raja and Mr. Sadar were terminated as directors, and Mr. Scoville, who is noted as a U.S. citizen, was appointed as a director, with a correspondence address of Apartment 27, the Quays, Salford, England M50 3BB.
An Annual Return filed in the UK in February 2016, states that Mr. Scoville is now the sole director and shareholder of Traffic Monsoon Global Limited, that he is an American, and that the country he is “Usually Resident” in is America.
Another entity, Traffic Monsoon UK Limited, was also investigated.
Based on filings dated February 14, 2016, Traffic Monsoon UK Limited … was incorporated in the UK.
The UK registration information states that the director of this company is Naila Arshad.
The addresses used to incorporate Traffic Monsoon in the UK are virtual mailboxes owned by Taheer. The Receiver has thus far been unable to gain control of the addresses.
I asked Mr. Scoville whether the Imperial location was a physical location where customers could go and interface with Traffic Monsoon, and he stated in response: “No, not really…”.
He stated that he was told by Mr. Raja that after PayPal froze funds, people would show up at this address because they wanted their money and to find out what was going on.
He paid Mr. Raja £6000 a month to handle dealing with these issues.
Mr. Scoville states:
I don’t really know how much all of this [is] true because somewhere around in here as well, I’ve come to believe Amir’s been lying to me especially because of the 6,000 pounds a month that I was paying to him for staff.
I just wasn’t sure whether or not staff were actually there, actually doing anything, if there was actually anything actually there because I would go in and they would say there’s nobody there.
So I really don’t know all the ins and outs of what’s actually been going on over there.
I checked into it a little bit myself. I went over there and apparently the person at the front desk didn’t know who I was, who asked to see the people that are working Traffic Monsoon, and they said that there’s nobody there.
So I don’t know all of the ins and outs of what’s going on there. I may have been scammed. I don’t know.
When asked why Traffic Monsoon was incorporated in the UK , Scoville told the Receiver it was because ‘Allied Wallet required a UK entity to set up an account‘.
In a July 29th, 2016 interview with the Receiver, Scoville stated:
We had someone that was there with us who said “I’ve got a UK company, we can change it to Traffic Monsoon, and then we can use that registration so you can use Allied Wallet”.
So that’s Taheer and Amir, both of them are on that business registration, but technically they don’t own any of the company.
The Receiver also notes that Scoville claimed to have “registered” Traffic Monsoon in Dubai.
As of this time, I have not been able to verify whether a Dubai entity exists.
Charles Scoville appears to be in hiding
Mr. Scoville is a US citizen who currently resides in Utah.
Mr. Scoville has rented the Murray apartment for several years.
Shortly after being appointed, I went to the Murray apartment. It is a one-bedroom basement apartment.
In approximately May 2016, Mr. Scoville prepaid his rent on the Murray apartment for a year.
Mr. Scoville was present in Utah in May 2016 when he was questioned by the SEC.
Documents that I obtained in the Murray apartment show that Mr. Scoville was present in the apartment as late as June or July 2016.
On August 1, 2016, Mr. Scoville signed an agreement to renew the lease on the Murray apartment for one year.
I have informed Mr. Scoville that he can live in the Murray apartment and provided his counsel with the keys.
I asked him to inform me if he does not plan to return to the Murray apartment because if he does not plan to live there I would like to turn the apartment over to the landlord and recover the prepaid rent.
At this time, I do not believe Mr. Scoville is living in the Murray apartment.
Despite several requests, Mr. Scoville has not told me whether he plans to live there.
The Receiver notes that at the time the SEC filed its lawsuit against Traffic Monsoon,
Mr. Scoville was residing in a London flat that was leased by his girlfriend/wife.
Mr. Scoville did not know the address of the London flat. I am informed from his girlfriend/wife/ex-spouse that he no longer has access to that flat.
The Receiver has asked Scoville for a copy of his passport but to date it hasn’t been turned over.
Traffic Monsoon’s physical business records
Mr. Scoville has informed me that he did not maintain independent account records for Traffic Monsoon.
Instead, all records are based on electronic transaction records maintained by banks, payment processors, and on the servers maintained for Traffic Monsoon.
I have requested a copy of Mr. Scoville’s personal computer which he says may have some Traffic Monsoon records.
To date, I have no received the computer.
Mr. Scoville filed taxes for himself with the Internal Revenue Service and the state of Utah.
His returns include the income of Traffic Monsoon, which is a pass through entity for tax purposes.
He reported more than $2 million of taxable income in 2015, which was derived from Traffic Monsoon, and his tax return worksheets state that he was a resident of Utah for the entire year of 2015.
Traffic Monsoon was sued by a consulting firm (Scoville refused PayPal refunds in March/April 2016)
As an aside in the Receiver’s declaration, it is revealed that in February 2016 Traffic Monsoon was sued by the consulting firms Simons Investment Company and SMI Group LLC.
Simons Investment Group is based out of Colorado and run by Jordan Simons. SMI Group LLC is based out of Delaware and run by Kenin Spivak, Ted Maloney and Edward Swanson.
As per the complaint, it is
for breach of contract and related claims of consulting firms Simons Investment Company and SMI Group LLC against Traffic Monsoon and Scoville for breach of a written, fully-executed consulting agreement, including their failure and refusal to pay compensation pursuant to that consulting agreement.
In late January 2016, Simon Investment Company and SMI Group LLC were approached to “assist” Scoville after PayPal froze investor funds. After that was resolved, the firms were to “help grow Traffic Monsoon”.
During the negotiation of the Consulting Agreement, as base compensation, a monthly, flat retainer initially was discussed.
In the end, a (1.25%) percentage fee based on Traffic Monsoon gross revenues was agreed and Scoville proposed that to ensure accurate computation and payment, the fee generally should be paid directly by Traffic Monsoon’s payment processors pursuant to special segregated accounts.
Basically Scoville was to pay Simons Investment Company and SMI Group LLC 1.25% of affiliate funds invested into Traffic Monsoon. The firms would also receive 2.5% ‘of any amounts released by PayPal‘.
The narrative from Scoville regarding PayPal’s freeze of funds is that no matter what he did, PayPal refused to release Traffic Monsoon investor funds.
This is not true.
Attorneys working with Traffic Monsoon and Scoville, through the consulting agreement,
developed a strategy around demonstrating that PayPal’s actions were not “reasonable” as required by its User Agreement with Traffic Monsoon.
This strategy saw
PayPal ultimately agree to release funds to Traffic Monsoon’s customers.
However, PayPal insisted that distributions of sums earned by affiliates be denominated as “refunds” when distributed.
Presumably, these refunds would be paid back into the accounts of the Traffic Monsoon affiliates they had originated from.
Scoville declined to distribute funds as so denominated.
A bid to have PayPal release the funds as payments failed, so the attorneys commenced a strategy to take PayPal to court.
By March 2016 Scoville had yet to pay the consulting firms for their work.
While Spivak (an attorney) was visiting with Scoville in Utah, Scoville inquired about what Simons was doing to help build Traffic Monsoon and questioned why he should pay SIC.
Spivak explained that [sic] Simons was doing, but also reminded Scoville that Phase 1 (of the agreement) was about PayPal and due diligence, not building new business for Traffic Monsoon, that he (Spivak) was working very long hours, and that any inequality between (the firms) was a matter to be adjusted between (the firms), not by Traffic Monsoon.
Despite representing to Spivak that he agreed the firms need to be paid, Scoville ultimately did not set up the agreed upon accounts.
Emails sent to Simons Investment Company revealed Scoville wanted to pay the attorneys the firms had put him in contact with, but not the firms themselves.
On March 22nd, 2016 Scoville “went dark” and stopped taking calls from the attorney’s he’d agreed to pay.
called the local police to check on Scoville to make certain he was not injured.
The police reported that Scoville was at home. Apparently Scoville had simply chosen to ignore (the attorneys).
Scoville eventually got in contact and expressed anger at the consulting firms for ‘seeking payment for purportedly doing no work‘. That said, he ‘again confirmed he would pay‘ the attorneys for their work.
Despite these reassurances, Scoville then went back to ignoring the attorneys.
The consulting firms finally issued a written demand on April 4th, requesting Scoville honor the consulting agreement.
Scoville responded and confirmed payment ‘belatedly would be paid‘.
At this point Scoville abandoned the established strategy put forth to address the PayPal issue, and instead, via email, communicated he
expected Simons Investment Company and SMI Group LLC to cause PayPal to release the funds it was holding and generate “billions” in new revenues for Traffic Monsoon.
The complaint alleges this was well outside the defined scope within the consulting agreement.
Scoville later refused to pay anyone unless the PayPal funds were unfrozen. This was not in the consulting agreement.
Simons Investment Company and SMI Group LLC’s complaint accuses Scoville and Traffic Monsoon of seven counts, spanning breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, anticipatory breach of contract, declaratory relief, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment and accounting.
The lawsuit was settled on July 22nd, 2016. Scoville ended up paying SMI Group LLC $722,538 and $1.5 million into a trust account.
$3.35 million was transferred out of the US by Scoville in July 2016 and remains unaccounted for
I discovered in June and July, 2016, $3.95 million was sent by Mr. Scoville via international wire transfers to an entity called EVP International from the Chase Bank accounts.
After several inquiries to Mr. Scoville about these transfers, Mr. Scoville’s counsel indicated that EVP International was just an intermediary for Payza, and that all of the wired funds went to Payza.
I requested that my accountants at Berkley Research Group analyze this issue using the financial records I have obtained from Chase Bank and Payza.
At this time, BRG has traced only $600,000 of the wire transfers into a Payza account during the time in question.
As noted in BRG’s analysis, the data received from Payza does not specifically identify the payee as “EVP International” … (however) these transactions appear to relate to the EVP International transactions identified in the Chase Bank accounts.
But, the majority of EVP International transactions have not been traced into a Payza account.
Thus, at least $3.35 million cannot be accounted for at this time.
I have informed Mr. Scoville’s counsel that until he explains where these funds are, I am not in a position to discuss providing him with a “living allowance”.
Ernie Ganz and Dave Barker’s call centers
Mr. Scoville said he made monthly payments for call centers operated by individuals located in Florida and North Carolina, Ernie Ganz and Dave Barker.
He stated that Ernie Ganz runs call centers in Florida and in the Philippines, and Dave Barker runs a call center in North Carolina.
Mr. Scoville said he paid a flat monthly fee of $42,000 to Mr. Ganz and $22,200 to Mr. Barker for the call center services.
When asked about the nature of the services provided by Mr. Ganz and Mr. Barker, Mr. Scoville stated the services related only to customer support and not sales.
I have served a subpoena on Mr. Ganz in Florida and have been contacted by his counsel, but I have not yet received the requested information.
Stay tuned for an update on today’s preliminary injunction hearing…
Great write up Oz
I noticed a small typo I think
‘Scoville later refused to pay anyone unless the PayPal funds were frozen.
Scoville later refused to pay anyone unless the PayPal funds were Unfrozen. ??
Thanks for catching that.
Had to set the alarm clock to get up early today. The Receiver’s declarations were a lot to go through first thing in the morning!
Tara Glassia blog owner of Tara Talks has the UK addresses of the virtual mailboxes in the UK, IT’S IN HER BLOG.
The Receiver included the addresses in her declarations. I left them out as not that important (had to trim where I could).
it’s late evening in utah now, court must be over for the day.
no news yet! has the hearing been continued to tomorrow?
about 2hrs back sunil patel reported the hearing was still going on. pretty long hearing i must say! has william bryant turned up and taken over the mic? 🙂
I haven’t heard anything on my end. Checking the Pacer docket every half our or so. Starting to think it might not be updated till tomorrow morning US time.
It’s almost 8pm in Utah now so the hearing is more than likely over. Those who attended are quiet but I’m trying not to read anything into it until I see an updated case docket.
Great report Oz. One more typo
I notice that Scoville is not a very well educated man seeing as he used actually about 5 times in the same sentence 😛
And lying about the missing $3.5 million is just digging a bigger hole for himself when the SEC bury him 🙁
Argh I hate you guys. 😀
around 3 hrs ago sunil patel was quoted quoting scoville:
looks like a continuation to me.
Regardless a decision has to be made on the TRO, it expired today IIRC.
The Judge can extend it but there has to be a corresponding order.
Sharon James posted this about an hour ago:
i guess the judge extended the TRO and the order will be uploaded by tomorrow morning utah time.
Well nevermind the boring information and facts, I’m sure Scoville’s amazing looks will prove Traffic Monsoon isn’t a Ponzi scheme.
Also Hunt would be addressing Scoville’s Motion to dissolve the Receivership. Rather than just explain to the court why Traffic Monsoon isn’t a Ponzi scheme Scoville clogged up the proceedings with his various motions.
Doesn’t sound like much of today had to do with the preliminary injunction but I’ll wait and see what the docket says when it’s updated.
yeah the judge heard $50 in/$55 out and everything afterwards was just yawnable.
not even scoville’s ‘amazing’ looks could keep her interested!
charles scoville has shared his interpretation of yesterdays hearing:
scoville, FB, 30 mins [edited for brevity]:
i don’t see why scoville is raging so much. he’s going to have the opportunity to cross examine peggy hunt and others and he can lay out the ‘truth’ in front of the judge.
he can explain where the 3.35 million in EVP international went to, and why exactly he needs ‘food’ money. and he can sell his definition of a ponzi to the judge and see if it flies!
why did the UK affiliates who flew to utah [sharon james, pinakee naik and 4 others] dress in black [except one guy]??
do they fancy themselves as some sort of a coolass swat team gone to rescue TM or something? 🙂
No Anjali that’s standard funeral wear – very fitting.
Would someone here who knows the procedure in these cases spell out what would happen if the judge threw the case out. How many appeals would be allowed? And does this work the same way in a criminal case like this?
Probably because nothing he posted explains how using new investor funds to pay a $55 ROI on $50 deposits isn’t a Ponzi scheme.
Remember Jerry… it’s not a lie… if you believe it.
I think they might be trying to give the illusion that they are in their “work” uniform for TM. I can’t make out the writing on the shirts, but they’re all the same.
Nothing new on the court docket today.
It’s the Traffic Monsoon Logo on the shirts. Just surprised they weren’t wearing the TM jacket.
What kind of dumbass question is this? (Scoville Facebook)
1. Why would clients be owed money back from a retainer? How is a legal retainer even remotely similar to a company advertising a $55 ROI on $50 deposits?
2. Paypal freezing Traffic Monsoon funds didn’t make it a Ponzi scheme. Charles Scoville using newly invested funds to pay off existing investors did.
PayPal freezing funds was a symptom of Ponzi fraud, not a cause.
I dont get it… it is SO SIMPLE.
Where in the world does the U.S.D. 5 dollar profit come from when a person purchases an adpack??
Am I missing the most basic argument. If Traffic Monsoon has a profit center.. other then” new investor funds to pay a $55 ROI on $50 deposits isn’t a Ponzi scheme.” then hey it is a homerun…
otherwise.. he is dead in the water…..
yeah, but scoville cant seem to wrap his head around it. what to do?
WHat businesses were on these ads anyways? I mean people obviously some ads to qualify for the payment… but what exactly were they clicking?
Usual story, ads for other Ponzi schemes.
many ad’s of TM itself and other ponzi/pyramid schemes. a fraction of the ad’s were of businesses owned by TM affiliates.
I bought ads for my business and the traffic from TM was so significant that in less than a year I moved premises to a much larger one and my turnover increased 150%.
TM advertising was the ONLY internet advertising I have ever done in 12 years trading , my business has always been successful but there has been a significant increase in enquiries and sales since I started to advertise on the TM website.
The statement above: ” many ad’s of TM itself and other ponzi/pyramid schemes. a fraction of the ad’s were of businesses owned by TM affiliates.” is factually incorrect for many reasons.
1st because there was many many adverts on there for businesses owed by TM affiliates and also many ads on there for companies such as payza, STP, ryan air, bet365, supplement companies etc etc
A few facts that you have also omitted from your comments:
EVP is the payment filing company for PAYZA, so if the payments were made by EVP then they were paid to PAYZA as Charles has stated many a time. If Peggy can’t trace this then thats her error and no one else
The part where you show the complaints received etc: All of the complaints were received AFTER PayPal froze the money because websites just like yours kept saying that Charles was lying and that PayPal did no have the money.
Your scaremongering caused a lot of people who had paid for advertising to feel like they had been ripped off and that they would not receive the advertising that they paid for.
Paypal made a statement saying they did not have the money further fueling the fire that TM had stolen the money , yet later on had to admit that they were in fact holding the money and had lied.
Why are you NOT having a pop at PayPal? Why is TM getting all the flack here? If Paypal had not help the funds and then lied, then none of these complaints would have emerged.
That doesn’t negate Ponzi fraud.
I’m sure there were, and they’d have been trumped by advertising for MLM underbelly schemes. Primarily Traffic Monsoon itself, because most affiliates didn’t have anything else to advertise (primary reason for joining was ROI, as evidenced by all the “where’s my money?” post-shutdown).
PayPal froze the funds because of suspected financial fraud. They offered to refund money back into investor accounts in March or April, Scoville refused.
Why? Because a Ponzi scheme needs newly invested funds to pay off existing investors.
You also have no idea when complaints were received by regulators, so stop talking out of your ass.
That never happened.
That should be obvious. PayPal wasn’t a Ponzi scheme that ripped off investors to tune of $200 million.
All Ponzi schemes collapse in the end. This is obviously your first scam rodeo and I hope you’ve learnt something from it.
well, peggy hunt asked scoville to help her out about the missing 3.3 mil. i don’t think forensic accountants like the berkeley group will have a problem tracking money going into EVP and then payza. there is definitely something here that is not meeting the eye.
he’s just repeating the arguments scoville is putting out. i cant figure whether scoville pretends to be dumb or is really dumb.
Did you only purchase the advertising traffic for your company, or were you also part of the rev-share?
What kind of business did you advertise? I’m curious what the TM community was interested in other than TM? Thx
scoville’s update about latest hearing in utah yesterday:
i guess the judge is asking for relevant law about where a transaction took place due to scoville’s argument about most of TM’s business being outside the US.
the business was registered in utah, the servers were in the US, the hosting banks were in the US, scoville is a US citizen, so i think this is a slam dunk for the SEC.
regarding whether what was written on the website matters legally, i think courts look at how businesses function in ‘reality’ and not at what they ‘claim’.
as the SEC very clearly submitted to the court, a rose is a rose and calling it a daisy wont make it one! just simple logic!
What’s written on a website and terms and conditions has never trumped the Howey Test. Neither has a defendant’s amazing looks for that matter.
A US court overturning that and legalizing Ponzi schemes, even in Utah, isn’t going to happen.
an update about the hearing from a don olson who is apparently a military officer supporting TM:
seems like an unnecessary delay till the end of the month.
it quite obvious how judge parrish will rule.
well, someone has presented that photo in the right perspective! 🙂
What, they have hens representing them now ???
I only found this forum yesterday so I hav no idea how to put some in green and separate but I will try my best to put my point across !
PayPal returned some money to Charles I’m sure we all agree with that? Correct?
I’m guessing that if what you state to be correct is actually correct that they did this because they suspected there was a ponzi. So they held the money for 6 months approx in which time they were looking into the business and deciding if this was in fact the case.
Then they decided to send the money back to Charles…. This would make me think they did their due diligence saw there was nothing untoward and therefor it was safe to send to TM!
If they had still thought there was a problem then they simply would have been contractually obligated under their own terms and conditions to return the money to the Paypal account it came from. It’s very simple!
Scoville can not tell PayPal how to run their business because he too signed up to PayPal’s terms and conditions when he opened a PayPal account. FACT!
And yes 100% PayPal told members that they did not have the money, when I did not get my advertising that I paid for I went back to PayPal about getting my money back and they told me that I could not.
I emailed them back saying that TM were telling me that PayPal had the money and if I wanted it back then I should contact them. They told me they had no money. I have an email to prove this.
I have read many of your posts regarding TM now and in many of the replies to other people giving you their side of how they understand TM yiu have stated many many times that someone saying TM is not a ponzi does not mean TM not a ponzi.
I would turn this around to you sir and state that you continuously saying TM is a ponzi DOES NOT MAKE TM A PONZI!!!!!
In answer to the advertising question, my business is a car vinyl wrapping service, the business I got from the TM website was quite frankly astonishing! I bought the advertising with the revenue share. I spent $1000 on advertising and this meant that I would be included in the profit share if there was a profit to share.
OZ etc this is where your whole argument fails tbh because you keep twittering on about a return on investment ROI, there was no investment hence there could be no promise of a return! It clearly states in the terms and conditions (Ozedit: Pseudo-compliance waffle removed)
LITTLEROUNDMAN : I’m guessing as the worlds best typist you have never made a typo in your life? Yes?
I would also appreciate it if my posts were not edited before you put them on the forum (Ozedit: This isn’t Facebook. If you want to read BS head over to Scoville’s Facebook page.)
PayPal offered to refund every investor who used PayPal back in March/April, Scoville declined.
You have no idea what they did over that 6 months. If PayPal were to speak up on the matter (and they will at some point), you’ll likely find they held the funds for a mandatory period after having reported their suspicions to the authorities.
That PayPal and the SEC were in communication and working together is obvious. Exactly what they got up to will come out in legal documents at a later date.
“Cannot release the funds” != “we don’t have the money”.
How the funds were frozen for six months is unclear. Could have been a freeze at a financial institution level for all we know.
Traffic Monsoon paid affiliates a $55 ROI on $50 deposits, funded via subsequent investment.
Unless you explain how that flow of money isn’t Ponzi fraud, what you have to say is entirely irrelevant.
Of course not. See above. There’s a clear reason why Traffic Monsoon is a Ponzi scheme.
Getting back $55 on every $50 spent isn’t “buying advertising”. It’s a ROI, which makes your $1000 spend an investment.
What was bundled with that investment, in light of it being an investment attached to Ponzi fraud, is irrelevant.
As you’ve noted, stating Traffic Monsoon isn’t a Ponzi scheme does not make it so.
Affiliates deposited $50 and received a $55 ROI, funded by subsequent deposits. That makes Traffic Monsoon a Ponzi scheme.
So much idiocy in marketing these days it’s unreal.
If Charles conducted this type of business offline he would be seen as a conman and thief but because he is operating a ponzi online suddenly it becomes difficult to ascertain whether a system that takes money and returns it using the money from newer members is not a ponzi or an investment.
Just because you glued wings to a rat does not mean it can fly now.
Of course taking money and returning it is not so bad but what about the current situation where TM received $271 million but is obligated to pay out over $800 million.
That’s when things get ugly and we see a repeat of what Charles has always done with his previous 12 failed schemes. Take the money and run then come back and start again with a fresh batch of saps who have no issues with stealing money.
To attach a PTC element to an already pretty screwed system just speeds up its demise because now you are obligated to pay out even more money with no investment being made.
Regardless of whether the traffic was amazing (as som TM affiliates have described it) do you really think TM would have such amazing traffic if it wasn’t returning 110%?
Exactly. Because no-one would be clicking their obligations for 10 cents a day and that’s the whole point. TM as anything else other than a ponzi is too much hard work and Charles would not be able to scam as much as he has done and use it to buy houses and cars and flights to dubai.
You built him up to take a very hard fall and now you are the ones defending him. Does any of that make sense?
BTW this speech was aimed at the defenders of a system that was not licenced to hold securities and if it was applied for it would be refused because stealing money from the same investors on the same site is not a business. It’s a clear cut ponzi scheme on the brink of collapse.
“GUESSING” and “WOULD MAKE ME THINK” Eh ???
How about: “If you run a multi million dollar fraudulent scheme registered in the USA, based in the USA and using US based payment processors, money services businesses and banks, you WILL have Suspicious Activity Reports filed with the FinCEN department of the US Treasury and you WILL be reported to The Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, whose 40 plus members include the SEC, FBI, DoJ, IRS and the Offices of the Inspectors General and related entities.
In addition, the Bank Secrecy Act prevents money services businesses from revealing such suspicious activity reports have been filed AND allows the MSB to continue servicing the account/s at the direction of the relevant agencies AND revealing any and all information to said agencies.
Check out the Scoville / SEC interviews, the SEC knew everything BEFORE Scoville walked through the door
If the case was dismissed the Court would dissolve the receivership and order the release of any frozen funds.
The SEC can appeal a dismissal once. Theoretically they could file an entirely new case if circumstances warranted.
If by chance criminal charges were brought and subsequently dismissed, the Prosecutor could reframe his case and try again.
a security is established when you make an investment in a common enterprise and expect a profit from the efforts of others.
TM affiliates invested $50 and expected $55 back as their share of the profits of the business run by scoville. their only effort was to click a few ad’s a day which is a minimal effort and not enough to count.
scoville is arguing that TM did not offer a security because there was no investment to begin with, and TM had a real product.
but, no matter what product you tag to a security, if you expect an ROI from the efforts of others it is a security.
so, scoville was selling unregistered securities which is why the SEC has stepped in.
secondly, this illegal security was a ponzi scheme as scoville was paying older investors an ROI from new investors money and not from any true profit. this is why he will go to jail at a later date.
Thanks for stepping in there Anjali. Not really in the mood to address ignorance at the moment 😉
TM was not paying older investors with new investor money at all, I know many older members who advertised with TM and did not get the market share they would expect from the cost of this advertising, they then decided not to purchase any further advertising.
Two guys I can mention in particular bought the advertising when TM was in its infancy and in my opinion that is why they did not get as many hits as they expected on the business website.
They have not been receiving any income from their ad packs for well over a year now, whereas is your alleged Ponzi scheme / pyramid / scam set up they being old ‘Investors’ ( your word not mine ) would in fact be getting a passive residual income from TM for ever.
(Ozedit: Offtopic derail attempt removed)
A security is a financial instrument that represents an ownership position in a publicly-traded corporation (stock), a creditor relationship with governmental body or a corporation (bond), or rights to ownership as represented by an option. … The company or entity that issues the security is known as the issuer.
There are two types of securities—debt securities and equity securities. Debt securities are also called fixed-income securities, which include bonds and CDs. They are called debt securities because when we purchase a bond, the corporation or government entity that we buy it from is now in debt to us.
Equity securities, meanwhile, are commonly referred to as stocks. They are called stocks because you actually have a stake in the company.
Most debt and equity securities are liquid, which means that you can cash them out at any time. Liquidity is important because when you have reached your target goal and are ready to cash out of your investment, you may be able to do it right away, whereas with an asset like a house it may take several months to sell.
None of the above even vaguely apply to TM.
The primary source of revenue entering Traffic Monsoon was affiliate investment. That new money was used to pay off $55 ROIs is not under dispute.
This is indicative of the quality of advertising when those viewing ads are only there for self-serving financial reasons.
Also it’s already been revealed non-investment revenue was next to nothing. Upwards of 90% of funds deposited into Traffic Monsoon were $50 investments.
Among other things.
Here’s the full definition from the Securities Act:
The Traffic Monsoon website clearly advertised a $55 ROI on $50 deposits, thereby satisfying “evidence of indebtedness”.
So you are also going to completely ignore that my turnover increased over 150% since advertising on TM? Interesting.
I’ll acknowledge it, sure. And then tell you it’s completely irrelevant to Traffic Monsoon paying a $55 ROI on $50 deposits with subsequently deposited funds.
You obviously have no idea how business works do you? TM sold advertising (Ozedit: Snip.)
This is the last time I’m going to say this (again) before I permanently spam bin you.
Selling advertising doesn’t pay a ROI. An investment does.
$50 was deposited into Traffic Monsoon on the promise of a $55 ROI. Whatever was attached to that (advertising) is irrelevant.
If you wish to address how paying a $55 ROI on $50 investments with subsequently invested funds isn’t a Ponzi scheme, be my guest. All this crap about advertising is a strawman argument.
if you check the definition of securities posted by oz in comment#46 you will note the term ‘investment contract’.
securities are not only the commonly known instruments like stocks and bonds and options etc.
‘investment contracts’ are also securities which are defined as an investment in a common enterprise and expectation of a profit from the efforts of others.
TM offered securities in the form of investment contracts.
In addition to being vague your claims if true would be the exception rather than the rule as far as any results from traffic sources like TM.
If the results were so spectacular, you were actually losing money by buying adpacks instead of opting to buy 400% more fantastic traffic for $11.95 or whatever the advertising without the revshare attached to it provided was priced at.
By vague claims, I’m saying that claiming 150% increase is equal to what… an increase from $10 to $25 in sales for the year or $100k to $250k.
Never advertised online in 12 years of operating and the first thing you try is an online ponzi, interesting.
Many of us have been around plenty long enough to know exactly how the TM “business” model operated and what it was.
The only possible outcomes were it collapsing or being shut down.
lmao. are you really stupid enough to believe that of people that run legitimate businesses?
That’s great. Now I want want you to give all the people who bought wraps their money back plus an additional 10%.
Anjali, there was no investment contract. Please if you are so sure there is show it to me, thx.
dude what are you talking about?
an ‘investment contract’ is not some document that served as a contract between TM and it’s affiliates.
the ‘nature’ of the relationship between TM and it’s affiliates was that of an ‘investment contract’.
you all invested in the common enterprise of TM and expected an ROI based on the efforts of the management of TM ie scoville. your clicking on ad’s was a very minimal effort and the lions share of the work was performed by scoville in running and managing the business. this makes it an ‘investment contract’.
read up on securities before you rush in here demanding to SEE the investment contract!
You made some great points there Chris and the whole thing boils down to one question:
“If the advertising was so fabulous then why were you spending $39 more than you would’ve if you’d actually bought the advertising alone?”
And the answer is plainly obvious to anyone with a brain. It was done to get the return.
Its not that simple Migel.
Your contractual relationship with TM may not be, and probably isn’t in a single document. (I haven’t seen one)
Investment contracts can be written, verbal, or implied (or any combination thereof) and can be spread across multiple separate and seemingly unrelated agreements and understandings.
If someone is trying to skirt the law they will often represent (or go to great lengths to make it appear) that there is no investment involved (which might invite SEC scrutiny or dissuade participants such as yourself from giving the promoter your money).
Do you know that Paypal refunds poeple late, even after 180 days of guarantie were passed.
I dont understand as Paypal has returned all the money to Scoville how they are still refunding poeple?
It was advertised on the Traffic Monsoon website: Deposit $50 and get back $55. That’s an investment contract.
I leave most of the “ridiculous rants” published by Ponzi supporters. Where I draw the line is if someone says something, you refute it, they ignore what you say and publish the same thing.
For Traffic Monsoon it typically goes like this:
Pro Ponzi: Rahrah *Charles Scoville Facebook rant* rahrah advertising rahrah totally not an investment! (abuse) (abuse) (abuse)
Oz: Right. So how is accepting $50 deposits on the promise of a $55 ROI not a Ponzi scheme?
Pro Ponzi: Rahrah my business saw 900% increases *another Charles Scoville Facebook rant* rahrah selective posting of securities definition, rahrah more dodging the question bullshit.
If I put in the time to reply to the nonsense arguments, you better address them in kind. This isn’t Facebook where you just ignore what’s said and continue to publish your pro-Ponzi diatribes.
I can’t say if it applies to TM but implied contracts can be valid and enforceable.
In a general fraud is what creates criminal liability not the existence (or non existence of a contract) which may only be the artifice or vehicle use to perpetrate the fraud.
Read more: businessdictionary.com/definition/implied-contract.html
I don’t think anyone got a refund from PayPal. Other than perhaps a few affiliates just before/right after the freeze.
PayPal did offer to directly refund all Traffic Monsoon affiliates who used PayPal back in March/April but Scoville declined.
Oz … where on the website is that advertised?
Oz … Scoville has no standing with PayPal he can not tell them what to do, he agreed to exactly the same terms and conditions as everyone who uses PayPal so this is a ridiculous statement.
The part that said “give us $50 and we’ll give you $55”.
PayPal offered to refund every Traffic Monsoon affiliate who invested via PayPal back in March/April. After which they would have no doubt closed Traffic Monsoon’s account(s) and washed their hands of the suspected fraud taking place.
Scoville declined PayPal’s offer because he wanted to keep control of the money. Those are the facts.
PayPal never offered that and Scoville could not tell them what to do that is the facts
@Miguel : Just a followup on implied contracts. Maybe you picked up on this already?
I have read defenders of TM say they bought advertising, made no investment, had no contract, and that any increase in their account balance was due to “gifts” received from Scoville/TM. Even if this was not your understanding it was some people’s. The Receiver actually published a “List of Understandings” since there was no consistency among participants.
Here is what implied contract law says about “gifts” : “… a contract is implied when a party knowingly accepts a benefit from another party in circumstances where the benefit cannot be considered a gift.”
meh, Migel is just trolling now.
There is only one reason why anyone would pay $50 to TM for the same traffic package that they could get from TM for $10.95.
It’s called ROI. Return On Investment
Pretty simple to figure out.
So it would seem.
Yes, my point was that “gifts” in this circumstance constitute the de facto return on investment.
According to documents filed in court, yeah… they did.
Scoville didn’t want PayPal to refund people because then it meant he lost control of invested funds.
Anyway, if you want to ignore the facts then we’re done here. Keep the delusional anti-reality crap on Facebook please.
Oh, REALLY ???
As judge has requested for the terms and conditions, this will make it very clear that TM does not offer any security or investment. Victory to TM!
There was no fraud involved at all. TM members were well aware that they were purchasing a product, and in return they were getting revenue share in the company. How difficult is that to understand?
TM always paid on time. So why are TM being investigated when there are other so called revenue share companies out there that aren’t even paying? It’s because TM was the most successful.
I always got what I paid for, which was TRAFFIC! Why can’t you all understand that? The revenue share was just a bonus.
Because it can only ever last for so long before it eventually fails as all Ponzis do. Of course that can be decades, just look at Madoff.
People would not ‘have still continued to be paid’. Not possible. New money was paying for old. $50 in and $55 out, that’s the deal everyone understood. All made worse by people re-investing and affiliate commission for bringing in new suckers.
Virtually no affiliate cared about advertising. It’s barely relevant to the discussion. Although it’s worth noting that Scoville only delivered on a small fraction on what advertising he sold. But no one cared, it was all about the ROI.
According to Traffic Monsoon’s own records, Traffic Monsoon’s U.S.-based investors are owed approximately $56 million.
Thus far the Receiver has marshaled $49.5 million in assets.
And bear in mind that’s only US-based affiliates. 90% of Traffic Monsoon affiliates are based outside of the US.
If Traffic Monsoon’s Terms and Conditions stated Scoville wasn’t overweight and bald, would that make it so?
What’s in the Terms and Conditions is irrelevant, Traffic Monsoon fits the definition of a Ponzi scheme as per the Howey Test.
Using newly invested funds to pay of existing affiliates is financial fraud.
Whether affiliates were aware it is financial fraud is irrelevant.
If someone getting murdered realizes they’re getting murdered, that doesn’t make it any less of a murder.
The Ponzi ROI is not negated by whatever else Traffic Monsoon offered. Scoville could have bundled free blowjobs with deposits too, it doesn’t matter when you’re committing financial fraud.
I’ve spam-binned all of Migel’s strawman derailing. He won’t even acknowledge the reality behind Scoville denying PayPal refunds back in March/April.
Feel free to explain how paying an advertised $55 ROI on a $50 deposit with subsequent deposits is not Ponzi fraud Migel, otherwise that’s enough nonsense from you.
How can you say terms and conditions are irrelevant?
Because the Howey Test will be used in a court of law to determine if Traffic Monsoon functioned as a Ponzi scheme. This is legal precedent.
What’s in Traffic Monsoon’s Terms and Conditions doesn’t matter, the website clearly stated affiliates would receive $55 on each $50 deposit.
The reason this is not a ponzi is quite simple the returns were only ever to be paid if there was a revenue to share, this is clearly stated and 100% understood by all the members, no promises were made EVER!!
Madoff etc etc all the Ponzi scheme you care to quote all made promises of returns End of story case closed stop spouting rubbish
That is not in a factor of the Howey Test and is irrelevant.
The Traffic Monsoon website clearly advertised a $55 ROI on every $50 deposit.
PS. Any legal claims you do not substantiate with relevant caselaw will be marked as spam.
I have already stated (Ozedit: No. You will state specifically how Traffic Monsoon passes the Howey Test.)
Here’s two screenshots from the Traffic Monsoon website clearly advertising a $55 ROI on every $50 deposit.
Any claims to the contrary will be marked as spam.
The court will make that determination, not the defendant’s attorney. An argument is only as good as the judge or jury thinks it is.
Migel, you are a brain dead in denial loser.. end of.
No once again I will remind you this is the MAxIMUm that can be earnt from an ad pack it was never stated as a guaranteed amount.
Whether the ROI was stated as a maximum and/or guaranteed is irrelevant. That is not part of the Howey Test.
A $55 ROI was offered on $50 deposits, paid with subsequently invested funds. That’s all that is relevant in legally determining whether Traffic Monsoon committed financial fraud.
And once again I will point out that not a single person has not been paid the proportion of revenue share that is due so there is no financial fraud.
Advertising a $55 ROI on $50 deposits and paying that ROI with subsequent deposits is financial fraud.
Me just for the hell of it the final part of the howey test is as follows:
Let’s assume that the TM members were investors as you like to state even though they 100% were not , the fact that they ONLY got paid the revenue share if they clicked on the 50 ads means that the members own actions did not only largely dictate if the investment was to be profitable but were in fact 100% responsible for this!
End of debate howey test failed job done I thank you.
Clicking 50 ads didn’t generate any revenue for Traffic Monsoon. The only source of revenue was subsequent investment which, outside of direct recruitment, was “largely outside” an affiliate’s control.
Thus, as per the Howey Test, Traffic Monsoon investments were a security.
Certainly they were paid. You can’t buid a successful Ponzi by not paying out or no one would ever join! But you’re using new money to pay old. While also skimming off the top for yourself. The entire scheme is losing money from the get go.
A Ponzi is designed to eventually fail. It leaves winners and losers. You don’t seem to be aware of how they work. Or maybe you do…
“clicking on ads” is not accepted by the courts as being “work”.
SEC vs 12 Daily Pro
SEC vs Colon End Parenthesis (CEP)
DoJ vs Adsurf Daily
according to don olson a traffic monsoon affiliate who attended the court hearings:
nail number one – i wonder what new math TM’s lawyers have invented where $5 can be created out of thin air for every adpack of $50!
these lawyers are wasting their time in court. they should patent this new math and solve global poverty while keeping just one dollar for themselves out of every $5 dollars they ‘create’ and become richer than bill gates!
nail number two: the ‘real’ product TM had, was delivering only 1/10th of the clicks it promised. still ‘customers’ were buying scores of adpacks worth thousands of dollars!
this has to be a first in sales and marketing. the Less your product delivers the More your customers will Buy! a patentable discovery indeed!
nail number three: a ponzi scheme can declare conspiciously on it’s website – you are not investors! no returns guaranteed! – and this will protect it for all time to come!
^^this is such a simple solution to fool courts, i wonder why ponzi schemes haven’t thought of it before! another patent in the offing!
these unique inventions and discoveries combined with the ‘passion’ of the lawyers and the ‘love’ of the affiliates and topped off by scoville’s ‘amazing’ good looks is going to ‘pound’ the SEC into the ground.
so, how much are the lawyers charging scoville to pump him and his affiliates into such a delusional state of illogical belief?
TM is already balance sheet insolvent (Liabilities far in access of Assets).
TM may not be cash flow insolvent if it can meet its current obligations.
Current obligations is a variable which TM controls since payouts are contractually at the discretion of the company. So long as there is even a single dollar in a TM account and no contractual obligation to pay it, the company is technically cash flow solvent.
If TM liquidated tomorrow would TM be able to pay off its liabilities? No. Would investors be able to recover all principal investment? No.
TM was insolvent from the day it started and the first affiliate joined up.
the extra $5 that was owed to the first affiliate on his $50 purchase, has over time and over thousands of affiliates become millions of dollars.
no matter what contorted math TM’s lawyers invent, the truth is clear and simple.
Lol, bet they enjoyed billing for that.
Anyway as others have pointed out, $50 in and $55 out is unsustainable and creates an insolvent liability from day 1.
When the Judge sits down to go over everything, there’s no getting around that. All that’s then left is to acknowledge what $55 ROIs were paid out were funded by subsequent $50 deposits.
Meanwhile all Traffic Monsoon advocates have are their emotionally manipulative social media posts.
in your arguments you have quoted to me that people could have bought the same advertising for $11/12 or some similar figure but instead buying at $50 means they were only interested in the money making part of TM ….
let’s just loook at that, even by your own admission that leaves a pretty huge profit margin of $38/39 per pack and that is where the money comes from fro share, even my 2 year old chihuahua understands that!!
Just to make things simple for you TM has 10 members today and then sells 10 ad packs to 10 new members today (I will round to make life even easier for you ) @ £40 profit per pack which is $400, this leaves $400 to ‘share’ between those 20 members tomo!
Not rocket science at all, the PROFIT from the sales of advertising is used to pay the members and the cost of the advertising (using the information you have quoted a million times) is used to put the advertising on the website.
Just like any business, in order to pay commissions to agents, dividends to share holders etc etc you need to generate a PROFIT , 😉
Littleroundman / hoss and the ‘savage’ attack , I did not mention at any point that this clicking contintuted work I said that without clicking they would not be part of the rev share programme , that is a completely different matter! Oh I do hope I live to survive such a vicious mauling!!
…you’re aware that virtually none of these $11 advertising packs were sold right?
I forget the exact percentage but it was upwards of 95% of revenue entering Traffic Monsoon was derived from $50 investments.
Those investments had a ROI liability of $55 each. That’s not “profit”, that’s an unsustainable liability that increases with each new $50 deposit.
That courts have rejected clicking ads as counting as work is pertinent to establishing the passive nature of Traffic Monsoon’s ROI. You obviously missed that point.
Anjali, your thoughts here towards insolvency do not stand up, In retail (Ozedit: Offtopic derail attempt removed. Each $50 invested into Traffic Monsoon generated a $55 ROI liability and had nothing to do with the retail industry.)
It makes no difference what percentage of ads were soled as ad packs or otherwise (Ozedit: Snip. Yes it does, each $50 invested into Traffic Monsoon generated an unsustainable $55 ROI liability.)
Once again I will repeat I never said it was ‘work’ I was merely stating (Ozedit: something that had nothing to do with how courts establish Ponzi fraud. Offtopic derail attempts removed.)
Retail , advertising, banking, any business relies on profit, (Ozedit: Snip. Traffic Monsoon generated no profit. Each $50 invested into the scheme genreated an unsustainable $55 ROI liability.)
After three comments of trying to dodge the fact that each $50 invested into Traffic Monsoon generated an unsustainable $55 ROI liability, I hope it’s sunk in.
Enough strawman arguments and offtopic waffle. You can address the unsustainable ROI or we’re done here.
Revenue from purchases of AdPacks, including rollovers $738.5 million 99.6%
Revenue from purchases of products other than AdPacks** $3.0 million 0.4%
** This number does not include revenue from one of the products, the cash links product, which does not generate revenue for Traffic Monsoon.
Let’s take your example. Your 10 “members” today have each put in $50 and need to get $55 back. That means you currently have a liability of $550.
So you get 10 new “members” and get a cracking profit of $400, so you reduce the liability you had on your original 10 to $150, but generate liability for $550 on your 10 new members.
So you now are at $0 profit remaining, with $700 liability. That’s why it’s a ponzi, your liability to is constantly increasing and you can only continue to pay anyone out using the “profit” from the new “members”.
If there is genuine retail then schemes can work, but the numbers in this case don’t add up.
If you look at all the numbers we know.
$2.50 “costs”. $50 for the adpack.
So in theory you generate $47.50 for each adpack, but a $55 liability for the profit share. So a gap of $7.50
If we assume the $2.50 costs claimed is for the ad parts of that which you could purchase for $11. Then we are saying essentially you’d need to sell $10 elsewhere for each adpack in order to cover costs and pay out the profit share.
That’s fairy easy then, you need to sell $60 in total, $10 non-adpack, so about 1/6th needs to be non-adpack,so that’s around 16%.
In reality if was about 0.4% of non-adpack.
Even if we say the costs were actually zero (so no hosting costs, no money for Scoville etc.) then the numbers work out as
Needing to get $5 for each adpack sold.
So $55, $5 being 1/11th, or 9% would need to be non-adpack in order to be able to pay out. In reality it was 0.4%, still a massive gap.
99.6%… bloody hell. I’ll remember that figure.
The Judge no doubt will too.
Ironically, the fake revenue created by “repurchasing” actually makes it look worse.
In reality, non-adpack revenue was closer to 1.5%
Your breakdown doesn’t even account for the $5 cost of commission to the upline. 😉
Your describing balance sheet insolvency and you are correct.
It gets worse:
So, it’s a closed loop fraud.
99.6% of all revenue is generated within Traffic Monsoon AND TM has not and can not deliver the amount of advertising it claims
Yeah forgot about that, so even in my rather sympathetic case of no costs, I was being too sympathetic and the numbers still don’t stack up.
You were saying that TM was not offering securities because you were required to click ads to get paid. If, you were not saying that clicking equals work, what DID you think demonstrated that TM was not offering securities per Howey?
Clicking was either work, or it was not. You can’t argue both ways.
Why not charge $5000 and redistribute $3800 “profit”?
(One point of many)
It’s clear that you just don’t have the intelligence to understand simple maths so I’ll literally make this as simple as it can be.
Charles recieves $50 if I click i get $55 back.
$5 is given to the sponsor.
Each pack makes $10 debt immediately.
When you factor in costs and Charles paying his friends ridiculously high amounts for the worst customer services known to man plus the amount of funds Charles admits to giving away ($80) then the debt is much higher.
Most people deposited fresh funds just once but compounded packs to increase earnings. With no new investment that is 100% debt plus 20% for RevShare and commission.
Some people compounded for over 6 months. The debt alone on 10,000 invested and compounded for 6 months would be pretty large. Now apply that to 200 million dollars of investments. It’s simple. TM is a ponzi. A pretty massive one.
So, if as you state, TM’s “profit was $38 per pack how is it possible to give every adpack purchaser back $55? TM would be returning all of its profit PLUS $17 on every $50 adpack purchase.
How is this possible?
C’mon Hoss, that’s an easy one.
Everybody that joined Traffic Monsoon understood 100% without exception that no returns were guaranteed or expected.
There were no people setting goals of attaining and maintaining “x” number of Adpacks in order to create a full-time income from something that wasn’t guaranteed and should not be expected to continue indefinitely. Why, that would be completely foolish, wouldn’t it?
There were no Traffic Monsoon AdPack Calculators or spreadsheets being circulated around the ‘net being used to lure people into false expectations of an implied or guaranteed ROI of 2%/day on a $50 spend.
It makes complete sense that advertisers would willingly pay $50 for an $11 service and expect no additional benefits above and beyond what the $11 service provides.
Please stop being so silly. 😉
I’m hopelessly silly and I want to hear from the chihuahua!
Just curious … does your chihuahua understand tax law?
I’m wondering because while the ponzi nature of TM is what’s under the microscope now, there are other laws that could come into play for TM and its (U.S.) members.
Correct me if I’m wrong but, wasn’t there a tax liability for every dollar TM took in?
Did Charles figure this into the “huge profit margin” and pay out only after-tax earnings to members? If so, how was he able to calculate this on a daily basis?
Or was Charles just flowing through one member’s payment to another, sort of like a ponzi scheme, and assuming that having done so the amount would not be part of TM’s taxable income, sort of like when a real company deducts salaries paid to employees from company net income, or whatever.
What tax slips did TM issue to members to report their yearly earnings?
It seems to me that TM members would have paid their
ponzi participation feesadpack purchase with their own after tax dollars.
Under the scenario TM
ponzi apologistsclaim, i.e., money was paid for “advertising” only, the $50 each member paid then became TM income.
Members were later repaid $55 from supposed TM profits.
My suspicion would be that TM members would then be taxable on the entire $55 received from TM, rather than what would have been the $5 ROI if the $50 had been the “investment” TM members claim it wasn’t.
I’m not familiar with U.S. tax law, so perhaps someone who is could comment on what the IRS view of TM’s
shenanigansbusiness practices might be.
I for one will glad when Charles is absolved of any and all wrong-doing.
Thank heavens he ran his business professionally and above board at all times, keeping accurate records of everything and never fudging the numbers to keep the payout consistently around 2% per day. That’s something only convicted criminals like Paul Burks of Zeek Rewards would do.
His team of CPAs will be able to explain all money movement down to the penny.
The SEC won’t know what hit ’em.
As per the terms and conditions each member was responsible for their own tax records in their country.
A far as the $50 was concerned, as this was being used for advertising my company that is a legitimate business expense so comes out of company funds before taxation, I have no idea how this works in any other country.
“Yo quiero Taco Bell and tax law is my meat.” — the chihuahua probably.
If Trump is elected the SEC, and other regulatory agencies that exist only to inconvenience business with their consumer, environmental, etc., protection makarkey, could all be gone and Charles could end up Secretary of the Treasury.
With Charles at the economic helm, the U.S. government debt would no doubt be eliminated in record time and the U.S. would have full gainful employment, with citizens clicking away daily on the, to be implemented, Trump branded Traffic Buffoon site.
What about Scoville and Traffic Monsoons’ tax liability ???
a quick cruise across the net shows that most career ponzi players are trump supporters.
guess there is some truth in trump supporters being labeled ‘deplorables’ after all…
I have an idea how the US tax code would affect you. Here’s how:
What you call company “profit” would be subject to Federal and Utah State taxes. This means that about a 30% tax would be due on the $38 profit you claim TM makes on every $50 ad pack.
Because of this, (if TM is complying with the law) it can not draw on $38 to pay investors as you claim, but only $27 (this is called the after tax profit.)
Since there is virtually no sales income from anything other than ad packs, there is no apparent way the gap between the after tax $27 and $55 promise you can be filled.
This strongly suggests, (as the SEC alleges) that the only way an ad pack purchaser could possibly make money is by stealing if from subsequent investors
I assure you that two of my friends were refunded after more than 180 days. Apart from that Scoville refused the request of Paypal but it has refunded people even after the end of the 180 days warranty
Then that’s between PayPal and their bank/creditcard processor. Not sure what happened there (PayPal taking the loss as part of buyer protection?) but the refunds certainly weren’t paid from Traffic Monsoon funds.
william bryant has been exhibiting strange behavior ever since he received a subpoena from the TM receiver.
he removed posts which inquired about this subpoena, started a closed FB group to discuss TM legal matters, and now he has reverted back to his original open FB page, loudly complaining about the legal team doing a poor job of defending TM in court.
as expected, bryant did not attend the hearings in utah because he’s shit scared of the SEC and receiver, but he’s trying to hide behind the excuse of the poor representation by the legal team:
i really cannot understand what bryant is complaining about or how he thinks the case should have been argued, because he uses a lingo which looks like english but reads like gobbledygook:
…and he goes on and on and on.. relentless and merciless….
he’s also pissed that TM lawyers did not call him to avail of this ^^ expert strategy before the hearing:
now that bryant is thoroughly upset by the behavior and arguments of the TM legal team, he has a good excuse to not support TM anymore hasn’t he? and yeah, now that the legal team cant possibly save TM, he’ll just go ahead and cooperate with the receivers subpoena, right?
not because he’s scared shitless or anything, but just because this is a lost case now! right?
Just read a FB post on TM saying the SEC’s own forensic accountant could not demonstrate any scenario where TM could not pay its members
If this is the case then surely there must be a legitimate business model?
New investors stop signing up and all of a sudden everyone doesn’t get their $55 per $50 invested.
All this bullshit about “not guaranteed ROIs” evaporates and there are investor riots. There’s your collapse scenario.
Do you really think Sunil Patel and friends dropped thousands of dollars into Traffic Monsoon to not be paid anything? The only reason they’re so upset is because they think they’re going to continue to reinvest and magically there will be a never-ending supply of money for them to skim off the top.
So the forensic accountant employed by the SEC is wrong?
No idea. I’m not speculating on social media posts by Traffic Monsoon investors, I only go by the official court docs.
To date no filing in the case mentions an SEC forensic accountant being wrong about something.
No, the person who reported “The SEC forensic accountant couldn’t demonstrate a scenario where TM could not pay its’ members” is wrong, and, I suspect, deliberately so.
Check the source of the statement.
It was made by Scovilles’ mother, Shirley Scoville who is neither a lawyer, reporter or unbiased.
Providing that “sales” of adpacks expanded geometrically forever this might even be true, but such an assumption is fanciful.
Clearly a “University of Google” trained lawyer.
Re: gobbledygook, I’m a bit surprised that he hasn’t started rambling on about Admiralty Law, the Magna Carta, etc and changed his name in some nonsensical fashion so that U.S. law doesn’t, in his own mind, apply to him.
He seems a good fit for sovereign citizen craziness, with all it’s attendant word salad nonsense and magical thinking.
hahaha someone has uploaded a video showing charles scoville [or a lookalike?] dancing quite joyously and nimbly and titled ‘Charles Scoville says thank you for donations’.
well, funded justice shows scoville’s mother’s appeal for funds has collected all of a little over a thousand dollars so far.
so, maybe scoville is watching CNN and dancing today? the justice system just got trumped ! peggy hunt in jail with hillary!! 🙂
so, trump’s win has really energized top TM affiliates. they believe they now have a chance of winning against the SEC. this is a conversation on FB yesterday:
jose nunes is now shifting the blame of TM being a ponzi to its affiliates, who sold adpacks as an ‘investment’ and promised an ROI:
from saying that TM was definitely not a ponzi and was not selling ‘investments’, the argument has now moved to – if it is a ponzi it’s the affiliates fault!
soon they’ll be saying – even if it is a ponzi trump will save us! trump supports ponzi’s!
Jose Nunes is a dumbass.
Marketing a business as a Ponzi scheme doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme. Using newly invested funds to pay off existing investors does.
Affiliates who marketed and profited in Traffic Monsoon might very well be sued by the SEC at some point in the future, but that has no bearing on Charles Scoville’s liability as owner of the scheme.
The obvious answer to the “we were just buying ads and no return was promised, only profit sharing” is to open the site back up and run all the ads that were paid for, but not pay the returns or profit sharing.
If they took in $50 for the ad they did make some profit off it, and for every $50 of ads sold they could “share” that profit of say, $38 with everyone who bought the ads. Thus, if you bought a $50 ad, you would get a share of the $38 of said ads that were the real profit.
That’s how a real profit sharing arrangement would work, but since the profit is only a portion of the revenue, and does not include an unsupported payment of more than the actual revenue or the amount paid by the advertisers, then I suspect the sales of ads would drop off quite a bit.
That’s the true facts, if they sold an ad for $50 and $38 was profit, then they should be sharing that $38, not $55 which can only come from new purchases.
If anyone can tell me how the TM system can fail then I will be very very very surprised.
And I’m not just asking someone to spout the usual $50 to $55 ROI bs you usually spout I want concrete mathematical proof using facts.
How does the $50 become $55? SOMEBODY had to put in the extra $5 somewhere, right? Money don’t grow on trees.
If there are not enough non-investor purchasers of ads who expect no return, TM cannot be legitimate.
If you want mathematical proof, it’s very simple. 50 != 55. Some sort of revenue source must add that extra $5. Yet thus far, TM has not demonstrated such source exists.
And if such a source exists, why would they need to charge $50 to start? Just sell those ads PERIOD. Google did it.
You’re just refusing to understand the problem.
And I read way back when Zeek was closed by SEC that it’ll relaunch in Europe, or SEC lawyer privately admitted they have no case, or some such drivel.
You should stop reading conspiracy theories. It fries your brain.
So please explain how share dividends work then?
Share capital is issued to a fixed amount to gather funds for a business to operate.
A dividend is a pay out to the share holders generally based on operating profit – purchase of shares themselves are not future profit and so have no impact on future dividends.
The value of a share is in essence the market trying to place a value on potential future profitability.
If a company could of it’s own accord simply issue more shares, then the value of existing shares would fall (be diluted) since you are now splitting that future profitability between more shares. As such issuance of further share capital is not common and done with consent of existing share holders.
So trying to compare AdPacks to shares and the profit share to dividends is simply a false comparison.
(1) Share sales are not profit and so do not impact the dividend
(2) Shares are not just sold indefinitely and created based on someone being willing to pay since it would dilute the value of the other shares.
Your math proof is above, but I’ll repeat it for you.
Assume running TM cost nothing – no fees for internet services, no wages, no income for Charles etc.
Assume that no recruitment bonuses were paid.
Assume no tax liability for the business.
i.e. the only money in and out is purchase of the services and the revenue share.
This is the best possible case, if any of these assumptions fail then the figures here will be worse, since you’ll be getting less “profit”, so to meet your payouts you’ll need to achieve more income.
So we have an AdPack costing $50, returning $55. It should be pretty clear here that if all is being bought is AdPacks then for each one sold, you are creating an additional $5 liability on the business.
Sell first adpack at $50, then a second. Now I’ve taken in $100, but have liability to pay out $110, add another and it’s $150 in and liability to pay out $165.
So I need to sell $5 of other services for each AdPack in order to be able to meet my liabilities.
So $5 of $55, or about 9% of my business needs to come from non AdPack.
So if the forensic accountant couldn’t see a failure model they weren’t very good – all it takes is for less than 9% of the business to be non-AdPack.
Remembering as above that this is an absolute best case with zero costs, if the cost was $1 per AdPack say, then rather than needing $5 from other revenue, it would need to be $6 etc. Which as a % of the $55 is clearly going to be bigger, so the 9% is an absolute best case and we know not achievable in the real world.
And what we have reported elsewhere is the % of income from AdPacks 99.6%. So non-AdPack was 0.4% which I don’t need to be a great accountant to know that 0.4% is way less than 9%
$50 in, $55 out is unsustainable when your only source of revenue is new investment.
You can’t get much more mathematical than: $50 (in) – $55 (out) = -$5.
A business running on an ever-increasing liability will collapse.
PS. Share dividends are offtopic, seeing as Traffic Monsoon’s Ponzi AdPacks have nothing to do with them.
Seeing as Paul has already published a lengthy explanation I’ll leave it up but otherwise it’s offtopic.
Once again you are forgetting the rev share is not paid out all at once OR over a set period …. share dividends (Ozedit: are offtopic. Derailing removed.)
Regardless, every $50 deposited into Traffic Monsoon generates a $55 ROI liability. That’s not sustainable when 99.6% of your revenue is $50 deposits.
Yep, I don’t understand it either, all these people fighting to keep something where they had no expectation of payout. You’d think they wouldn’t care less, they got the advertising they paid for.
Oh wait, there are plenty of TM “members” who are saying the representation they got was quite different.
Comparison to shares and dividends is a good one, Share are a security. Are you saying TM was in fact a security?
@Paul Just like the SEC you are trying to twist things , the reason I asked about dividends is that in my eyes they can only be paid if the company involved makes a profit from further sales — Oh! Just like TM makes profit from further sales of Advertising!
Also , there is always an expectation of payment because TM has always sold more advertising very successfully.
The representation EACH and EVERY member who bought advertising was the same. It basically said that previous performance can not be a guarantee or implied promise of future sales. BUT if sales keep on going the way they have in the past then you will do ok.
Oh yes I also forgot to remind you that $55 was the maximum that could ever be returned it was NOT promised.
David, you either have no real clue how these ponzis eventually crumble or you are in denial about it.
Every single revshare suffers the same fate in the end, collapse or shutdown.
Ponzi TOS don’t hold up in court, but you can keep living in dreamland.
Hell, a number of ponzis have had in the TOS that you agree that you aren’t a federal agent or any other type of law enforcement, lol.
Ponzi supporters like you trot out the same old tired arguments every time one of your scams goes down the crapper, whether it be by it’s own design or by authorities shutting it down.
Don’t worry, MAPS 3.0 is coming out. Jump right in and give Mike Deese some of your money if you haven’t already.
Yet TM pimps keep on trumpeting the fact TM had never missed a payment until the Paypal freeze.
You can’t have it both ways.
“Payment wasn’t guaranteed, but we never missed a payment since October 2014”
How long was the SEC expected to go along with that story before it recognized there was a disconnect between what Scoville was saying and what was actually happening ???
“Guaranteed” or not, payments were being made.
No they didn’t. TM delivered 1/10th the ads it claimed it should have served.
How am I twisting things. I’ve explained how the maths works. I’ve explained how shares and dividends work (nothing like TM since the future profits don’t come from selling more shares,nor do the shares expire etc.).
You’ve made the assertion that it’s like a dividend because you need future profit. I’ve shown the maths which demonstrates that future profit was not appearing.
You’ve made an assertion that there was no expectation of the defined return over any given time frame. The advertising part could be bought for $11, no one was paying $39 because they liked Charles, they did so believing they would get a return. If not I’ve got some magic beans they might be interested in.
Or do you think it’s twisting things to ask why all those who didn’t expect a return are complaining? Perhaps that is twisting things, because I know the truth – those people did actually expect a return and that’s why they are complaining.
Looping back to the begining, perhaps you could explain just what it is the SEC etc. gain by twisting things.
Yes keep telling yourself that, the advertising sold as just advertising was 0.4%. That should tell you something about what people were actually buying, and it wasn’t advertising.
Well it was a rhetorical statement to a degree, I haven’t seen anyone complaining that the ads they paid for didn’t happen – because simply the ads for most were a sideshow, they were just buying the $55 for $50, if ads ran or not, or were successful or not was of no matter.
Just to get things completely straight here ALL of the ad packs were sales of advertising with a rev share element.
The 0.4% you keep referring to was a completely separate kind of advertising. In your excerpt you stated that people paid an extra $39 for the privaledge! So anyone with a brain can see that at least that $39 must be profit. And it is that profit that TM is above share with its members.
The people that are complaining are complaining for 2 reasons A)When PayPal froze the money it interfered with TM’s ability to share these profits and B) Now the whole thing has been frozen by the SEC there are no adverts which have been paid for!
As I have stated previously IF the SEC had kept the website live so that the ads could be viewed then this would show that they had no interest in simply making an example of TM ….. Instead they have literally stolen members money.
Something TM NEVER did because you will NEVER find a single person who was part of TM who wasn’t paid what they should have been prior to PayPal interference!!!
Also there has been many people come to this thread complaining they didn’t get the ads they paid for but your esteemed leader just deletes these posts
Well, $39 doesn’t equal $55 either but keep trying.
Another thing anyone with a brain can see is that the only reason to spend an extra $39 on the same product you get for $11 is because it’s an investment with expectation of an ROI.
Charles ran the scam. Charles took the money. Charles allowed his top promoters to promote it as an investment. The SEC just shut it down.
If a drug dealer gets busted before delivering your goods, it’s not the fault of the authorities.
Wrong. They are complaining because TM is a fraud. These two reasons you came up on your own because you can’t accept the truth.
I explained the maths above, giving a much much more lenient example where in fact $50 was profit.
The problem was then to pay out $55 you needed at least 9% of the completely separate kind of advertising. If in fact it was only $39 profit, then the maths are far worse. You have a gap of $16 dollars, so you need to have about 29% of your revenue from that completely separate kind of advertising. So the 0.4% is an even smaller drop in the ocean.
At this point it seems quite clear that you aren’t even willing to try and understand what anyone presents here, so excuse me if I fail to respond to your deluded view of the world.
Realistically what I or anyone else says here will make no difference, the court process will follow it’s course and will reach an outcome, I know which way I’m betting, but I stand to lose nothing either way.
Selling advertisements doesn’t generate an “expectation of payment”.
Invested $50 on the promise of a $55 ROI does though.
$50 is invested, $39 is defined as “profit” and $55 is paid out.
If you can’t see the problem here you’re (insert expletive here).
At the time PayPal froze the Traffic Monsoon account it was still a growing ponzi. Lots of new money flowing in which meant there’s no reason not to pay anyone. People stop getting paid in a ponzi when the new money starts to dry up David.
However, its liabilities at the time of the PayPal freeze were totally insane. As Scoville admitted in his SEC interview, he had no way of covering those.
What has that got to do with anything ???
He hasn’t been charged with not paying someone / anyone, has he ???
A 355% mark-up on an $11 service?
If he had a brain, Charles could’ve charged $100 and made an $89 profit with an 809% mark-up. Or why not $1000? That would have made a lot more “profit” for you rev share particpants.
as suspected, people who set up fund collections and websites to ‘help’ scovilles legal case against the SEC, have been lining their own pockets and not turning the money over.
an FB fight broke out between ernie ganz and william bryant over the funds collected by them.
ernie ganz ran TM along with scoville, and after the SEC action he used the TM database to start up a similar ponzi revshare ‘traffichurricane’.
william bryant started up a gofundme page and encouraged affiliates to contribute for scoville’s legal fight.
a disgruntled TM affiliate ‘shane’ captured the conversation on FB before it was deleted:
meanwhile, scoville is posting ‘moral stories’ about sleeping with pet snakes who are preparing to eat you, it seems he’s commenting on ‘backstabbers’ in his flock [ernie ganz?]. seems like scoville’s ‘support’ is falling apart so soon into the court case!
Scoville seems to be a bit ignorant on many points but I have tried to follow this situation there are things which have not been looked at and opinions would be good.
1. How can a Ponzi work as a Ponzi when – if my information is right – most members of Traffic Monsoon were free – they did not pay anything in and just followed the PTC part of the website? A Ponzi requires all new members to pay into the system – but this was not the case for Traffic Monsoon?
2. If Traffic Monsoon stopped getting new members who bought the advertising package for $50 – would it still be considered a Ponzi?
3. If N. 2 is that it would not be considered a Ponzi – an no new members joined – would the existant members be enough to keep the business running by always buying the services themselves?
4. Only some company (like Apple) (Ozedit: Offtopic derail attempt. Apple doesn’t pay a $55 ROI on $50 investments.)
5. One product – Coca Cola (Ozedit: Offtopic derail attempt removed. Coca Cola doesn’t pay a $55 ROI on $50 investments.)
So – IF the Traffic Monsoon said to people that they would get 55$ always and in a certain date/time then yes Traffic Monsoon was not working 100% legally (I think) but only Judge is one that can decide.
Free affiliates were paid peanuts. The bulk of revenue deposited and paid out as a $55 ROI by Traffic Monsoon was sourced from paid affiliates.
The PTC was an irrelevant sideshow.
Yup. Only it’d then be a “soon to be collapsed” Ponzi.
$50 in and $55 out is unsustainable without continuous new investment.
Existing affiliates won’t reinvest unless their paid $55 and that won’t happen without a continuous source of new victims.
Using newly invested funds to pay off existing investors made Traffic Monsoon a Ponzi scheme. How long it took is irrelevant.
One thing you haven’t followed is the fact Scoville hasn’t been charged with “Running a ponzi”
The type of fraud is incidental to the fact it’s fraud and these are “civil” or “administrative” charges, which are entirely different than “criminal” charges.
why were question changed/deleted? How are discussions possible if you only answer questions you like or can answer? I am not a member of Traffic Monsoon also – but like to understand all sides so do not change or delete what people post please.
First you say it is a Ponzi then you say Scoville is not charged of running a Ponzi – make a decision?
All companies always need new sales and always look for new clients to pay their expenses and grow their business – if that is what makes a Ponzi then all companies are illegal. So only thing to see if people could make money from the company was wrong. SEC say it is – Scoville say not – in the end Judge will decide.
So, what’s your question ??
It IS a ponzi, but he hasn’t been charged with running a ponzi – he’s been charged with securities violations and fraud.
It’s Oz’s site. He can do what he pleases. If we don’t approve, we can leave.
That said, trying to compare a revshare ponzi to companies like Coke and Apple is pointless.
I don’t buy an iPad from Apple for $800 and expect them to give me $880 back.
We don’t have to. We aren’t the SEC or the courts.
We call it a ponzi because that’s what it was. The SEC has to jump through all the technical and legal hoops to prosecute efficiently.
As simple spectators to this debacle, we can freely call a spade a spade.
And no real company pays their customers back 110% of their purchase price or even hints at it being a possibility.
The math really is not that challenging in ponzi schemes.
If you sell something and then claim you’re willing to give 110% back to the same people who buy it from you, you’re business won’t last long. Time frames and guarantees are irrlevant. It’s simply a silly concept.
Yep. We’re just killing time watching another scam fall and watching it’s defenders stomp their feet uselessly.
Follow this crap long enough and you see it plays out the same way all the time.
Your insistence in misinterpreting the issues is rather amusing.
Scoville was charged with violating the securities act and fraud. It has nothing to do with “selling stuff to make money”.
He claimed he’s selling stuff. What he did was he took money from people with promises of paying back more. That’s called accepting INVESTMENTS, and his misrepresentation of that is called FRAUD.
It really is that simple.
Traffic Monsoon was a Ponzi scheme because it paid a $55 ROI on $50 deposits, paid with subsequent deposits. It had nothing to do with “sales”.
Offtopic derail attempts add nothing to do the discussion.
Traffic Monsoon was a Ponzi scheme because it paid a $55 ROI on $50 deposits, paid with subsequent deposits. It had nothing to do with “sales”.
You keep using the words ‘Revenue’ and ‘Profit’ but none of those terms apply to TM.
Revenue would be money used to run the business and profit would be an excess of the revenue but you have to understand that ponzi models are in debt the very second the first sucker signs up and buys this ‘investment (implied or otherwise)’ ad-pack.
Then with every additional signup and purchase the system sinks into more debt brought on by increased activity.
With approximately 241,000 signups buying ad-packs you can quickly see why the debt escalates so quickly. In TMs case their obligation (regardless of whether a non-legal spiel in the terms states no promise) had increased to 4 times the so-called revenue stream.
Now with that kind of a black hole how can you continue to encourage new participation if you don’t continue to keep the most active ‘investors’ happy?
In other words how can you turn $271 million (first revenue figure stated by the SEC) into over $800 million when you have no outside knowledge of investment to return and everything you pay out comes from the additional members purchases of ad-packs?
You have to understand even if you managed to generate enough activity to pay off that $800 million (highly unlikely) then by the time you do, the sites debt would’ve risen to $3.2 billion (dependent on activity at this point).
Whichever way you look at this the number of people paying in and receiving nothing would be huge to the point even the top affiliates will stop buying ad-packs which pay the affiliate that referred them and on it goes until everyone stops paying and BOOM. Implosion.
Hundreds and thousands if not millions of members by that point lose money to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and Charles decides to shut up shop, take the remaining money in the system and lie low for a year. Then he comes back and launches his 14th system 100% based on the old system and does it all again.
So tell me. Which part of this model do you think is even the slightest bit legal or ethical?
Also have you noticed how important a terms page becomes to you leeches (which the majority of your downline didn’t read) when the shit hits the fan?
One more thing:
I am willing to bet big bucks that the top marketers of TM omitted to tell their prospects that the ROI was not promised because the whole system is not based on transparency. Not in the slightest.
Its pure deceit and greed. The age old model of making the rich much much richer while you do all the hard work with no safety net should things turn sour which they have.
Charles spent millions of dollars of your investment and even put his personal friends at the top of his ladder and for a site that is in debt from the 1st day someone uses it he certainly shouldn’t have been an affiliate in his own system but its very clear that he was and you all paid for his lifestyle.
Yet you defend this thief because you received a few breadcumbs.
Sounds like the EU model where a country pays into a system that gives them more money back whilst destroying that countries industry and manufacturing making it totally dependent on the handouts which are also not promised and can change at any time. Then the EU pulls the plug on the funding and the country, now in massive debt with the regular membership fee, defaults and becomes like Greece.
People pay in because they expect a return and if that return is not fulfilled they stop paying and the whole system implodes.
You lost and Charles will pay. He deserves everything that is coming to him. To do this once can be seen as a misdirection and forgivable but to do it 13 times knowing exactly what the outcome is and realizing how many lives you are ruining is downright despicable.
Its people like him that are giving this industry a bad name and making it even harder to find effective advertising.
If this is such a clear case of a ponzie why has judge has still not given her ruling after seven weeks?
Because Ponzi bullshit takes time to sift through.
Not much to go through really. Four half days in court.
Plus legal filings by both parties. In the real world courts don’t work like Judge Judy.
Typically the judge will deliver a verdict via a lengthy document going over the decision. All of this goes on while the Judge is hearing other cases and takes time to put together.
You obviously haven’t watched one of these things unfold, or you’d know it can take up to four years before the accused is finally gaoled.
You are still missing the point here. How can there be any profit in any purchase when the site is in debt by $10 on every purchase (if the referrer is not Charles himself otherwise its $5 debt)
Whether the Adpack costs $2.50 and the remaining $47.50 or $11 with $39 is this so-called profit its still not $55 and the more people buy with an ROI the deeper in debt the site becomes.
if comments on FB are true, then the judge has upto 90 days from the hearing to give her verdict about the preliminary injunction. since the last hearing was on nov 30 2016 that puts the decision date somewhere in march, assuming only working days are counted towards the 90 days window.
meanwhile scoville has filed a motion to dismiss on 25/01/201. scoville is reading the delay in the ruling, as the judge having a problem agreeing with the SEC’s case, and has accordingly filed the MTD to help the judge along!
the MTD repeats the old arguments put forward by scoville’s attorneys [just in case the judge has forgotten!] ie:
– 90% of TM affiliates were outside the US. the SEC has not proved that the point of sale of TM securities was in the US, and has hence not proved its jurisdiction.
– even if the TM scheme had more liability than it could pay, the SEC has not given any evidence of an intent to defraud or of scienter, as TM clearly informed participants that payments would be made only on sales of adpacks.
the SEC has 15 days to reply to this motion.
IMO, if the judge is having any difficulty, it is not about TM being a ponzi or not, but based on the jurisdictional issue of 90% participants being non US citizens.
I made note of Scoville’s filing in one of the other articles. It’s literally the same Facebook arguments they’ve filed against the injunction.
Ie. If the Judge sides with the SEC over the injunction the Motion to Dismiss is automatically moot.
Not sure why he wasted legal fees filing the same arguments under a different header until a decision is made on the preliminary injunction.
I suppose if it’s not your money your wasting it’s not so much of a big deal (keep those donations rolling in, suckers).
If 5he SEC is really there for the betterment of the people and not for theirr advantage, then I would suggest you direct Mr Scoville how to manage the business by the law rather than holding on the money and making poor people to suffer.
The SEC produces plenty of documentation on Ponzi and pyramid schemes.
At the end of the day regulation is reactory, if someone commits securities fraud on a large scale there’s a good chance they’ll get busted.
As for the poor people, Scoville and friends ripped you off in a Ponzi scheme. The SEC is just cleaning up the mess.