Why Traffic Monsoon will lose the preliminary injunction hearing
OPINION: On September 23rd the SEC, Traffic Monsoon and Charles Scoville will face off in court.
The issue at hand is whether a preliminary injunction should be granted against Traffic Monsoon and Scoville, effectively ending Traffic Monsoon and Scoville’s marketing career.
Aside from the usual rhetoric from angry investors who still haven’t realized they’ve been had, little has come out of camp Scoville over the last week.
In an update published a few hours ago, Scoville has revealed the core of his case come September 23rd.
Scoville’s update, published 14 hours ago to Facebook, is thus:
People are asking for an update. Well, the Preliminary Injunction isn’t until the 23 of Sept.
I will just say this though. My attorney is very clear what a ponzi is. Ponzi is where someone says invest with them and they’ll give you some sort of return.
What you say doesn’t matter, it’s what you do that counts.
More specifically in the case of Traffic Monsoon, the solicitation of a $50 investment on the implied promise of a $55 ROI. That ROI was paid out of subsequently invested funds, making Traffic Monsoon a Ponzi scheme.
Scoville could have referred to Traffic Monsoon as a fast-food restaurant, a used car dealership, a cinema… it doesn’t mater. Neither does it matter if the returns were guaranteed, or what else was attached to affiliate investments (ad credits).
All that matters is the business model ($50 in, $55 out), which the SEC will nail Traffic Monsoon and Scoville for on September 23rd.
We’re currently nine days out now, so expect Traffic Monsoon pseudo-compliance rhetoric to ramp up over the next week and a bit.