Traffic Monsoon Receiver clawbacks to target 4,800 net-winners
Following on from claims process approval, the Traffic Monsoon Receiver has now filed for permission to pursue net-winners.
A March 5th motion filed by the Receiver seeks to recover Traffic Monsoon funds and assets, via ‘clawback actions, turnover actions, and other litigation‘.
As we saw in Zeek Rewards, the Traffic Monsoon Receiver is setting the clawback bar at $1000 or more.
That is to say if you’re a Traffic Monsoon affiliate who stole $1000 or more, you’re likely to be the subject of clawback proceedings.
Based on her investigation, there are over 4,800 Net Winners who received $1,000 or more in false profits from Traffic Monsoon while it operated under the control of Scoville.
Collectively, these Net Winners profited in amounts exceeding $42,000,000.
As to how net-winners will be sued,
the Receiver currently anticipates filing a class action against the Net Winners for avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers under the Utah Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, common law fraudulent transfer, unjust enrichment, and imposition of constructive trusts.
The Receiver also currently anticipates bringing suit for turnover of certain funds that may not be returned upon demand.
Targeted net-winners will include offshore investors, which as per my understanding make up the majority of Traffic Monsoon investors.
No word on how judgement will be enforced overseas. From memory (I’m not a lawyer disclaimer), you get an order in the US and then pursue it internationally through local counsel.
The barrier is cost effectiveness, which with $42 million in play shouldn’t be a problem for a while yet.
There is also likely going to be the option to settle, but there’s no mention of that in the Receiver’s lawsuit.
As at the time of publication a decision on the Receiver’s motion remains pending.
Update 25th March 2019 – The Receiver has been granted permission to pursue Traffic Monsoon net-winner clawbacks.
Actually I am surprised that it is only 4,800 that made over $1,000. I was expecting it to be 3-4 times this many people out of the 167,000+ who were buying adpacks.
Typically the percentage is 10-15% of those involved of the total members receiving more than $1,000.
You can bet all the major pimps out of the UK are going to claim poverty as they spent all the money, claim they aren’t subject to the SEC and US rules.
I hope they can make all the major pimps sell their houses and cars if they can’t cough up the cash. Now that would be justice.
Go for Ernie Ganz aswell as he also had millions of dollars from TM.
I think you find that they can’t claw back from the UK. The individual must have been present in the state or participated in the court case in the USA. i.e. replied to court documents or present at court.
Otherwise, the receiver/court has no jurisdiction in the UK. Only 4 net winners out of 9 from the UK, paid Zeek Rewards receiver after they received Lawyers letters (some got spooked and made an offer). Check out ZeeK docs.
Don’t take my word for it, do some research.
Who said clawback litigation had to be filed in the US?
If anything a sizable sum of UK net-winners would make it easier to file suit in the UK.
Whereas in Zeek UK net-winners only stole $1.4 mill, here we’re potentially talking tens of millions. That’s a pretty big incentive to hire local counsel and file suit.
Not saying it’s a certainty but let’s not write anything off just yet. I doubt the Receiver would restrict clawbacks to just US investors – or waste money pursuing non-enforceable judgments against UK investors.
Oz, do some research, they can’t enforce it the UK. They use Lawyers in the UK to send out letters, to try and get net winners to make a deal.
They blanket the letters in the hope some will pay! But unless the person attended the court in USA or responded to the court in defense, they can’t enforce it the UK.
Not here to argue lol just stating a fact!
Enforce what in the UK? This is a civil matter.
Hire local UK counsel and file a lawsuit. What are you not understanding?
The due process in the UK means that you have the right to respond to any allegation. If the courts in the USA don’t give the plaintiff the right to respond before the judgement is made, it can’t be enforced in the UK.
They can instruct lawyers in the UK to send out letters to scare people into a settlement, but can’t enforce through the courts.
And because it’s a civil matter, even if they could (which they can’t as a president was set a number of years ago) go to the High Court in the UK, its expensive and time consuming, and the High Court judges prefer out of court settlements.
Again, take a few minutes to research, as I know you like facts.
You are not understanding that they can’t!
So your assertion is essentially that you can escape civil liability by ignoring the US lawsuit, then skipping to the UK, where UK courts will dismiss a UK lawsuit filed against you out of hand because you stuck your fingers in your ears and went “lalalalala” when the suit was filed against you in the US.
This is of course total rot.
Yes, you have the right to respond. If you choose not to respond, that’s your problem, and you will get a default judgment made against you. As in the US, so in the UK.
This specious argument seems very familiar from another BehindMLM thread.
The Receivership, an entity unto itself, cannot file a civil lawsuit in the UK against Traffic Monsoon’s net-winners through local counsel?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight……t.
Ah, found it. Guess two years was long enough for Jane (aka Peter) to crawl out of Oz’s spam-bin.
https://behindmlm.com/companies/traffic-monsoon/charles-scoville-files-traffic-monsoon-ponzi-decision-appeal/
How’s the Ostrich Defence going for your friend who scammed $400,000? Probably not that well or you’d be naming them and providing links to the UK court judgments that found in their favour, instead of making vague “do your research” statements. (Which is no different to ending every sentence with “FACT” or “Is so” or other Year 3 debating techniques.)
Ah, we’ve been down this road before. Different email/IP address this time around.
It seems he or she still fails to understand the concept of the Receiver filing a lawsuit against Traffic Monsoon victims in the UK.
That and pretending to know how the Zeek UK settlements turned out is also a thing.
And from here you sell the judgement to debt collectors. Won’t get as much but no point further wasting Receivership funds on scammers.
What happens between the scammers and debt collectors? Who cares.
Correct! Check out the law in the UK. Far easier than trying to argue.
Nah, you show me the relevant law that says the Receiver can’t file a civil lawsuit in the UK against Traffic Monsoon net-winners. I’ll be marking anything else as spam.
You were full of shit back in 2017 and it seems nothing has changed.
You reading Oz,
penningtons.co.uk/news-publications/latest-news/2016/cross-border-disputes-enforcing-us-judgments-in-england-and-wales/
It’s highly likely that Jane’s net-winner “friend” who scammed $400,000 is Jane herself, in classic “My friend has this problem in the bedroom…” fashion.
I can’t see someone coming on to a random blog, apparently under the illusion that if they post “if you ignore service of a lawsuit in the US and then flee to the UK the UK courts will automatically award in your favour” enough times it will change reality, on behalf of some person they just happen to know. Not once but twice, two years apart.
Nobody else would take as much interest in an imaginary legal construct over a two year period.
My understanding is that the Zeek receiver gave up on clawbacks from Irish net winners (all emails were ignored) also on Uk net winners (too expensive to persue) and I’m not awhere of any Telexfree off shore net winner (from UK) having even been ‘asked’ to paid anything back so it will be interesting to see how this one pans out.
@Jane
Again, we’re not talking about enforcement of a US judgment. We’re talking about the Receiver filing a lawsuit against UK net-winners through local counsel.
Lawsuit filed and UK net-winners are served.
Receiver presents copious amounts of already gathered evidence that Traffic Monsoon was a Ponzi scheme and forensic evidence of net-winner stealing money (both the collecting of evidence and forensic work has already been paid for and done).
UK Traffic Monsoon net-winners can then
a) ignore the lawsuit and get a default judgment entered against them, which is then sold to debt collectors; or
b) argue Traffic Monsoon wasn’t a Ponzi scheme, inevitably lose and receive judgment against them. They can then either then pay up or have their judgment sold to debt collectors.
There’s a difference between filing a lawsuit in the US and trying to get judgment enforced in the UK, as opposed to pursuing a matter entirely through UK courts.
Despite rarely being policed by UK authorities, Ponzi schemes are just as illegal in the UK as they are in the US.
Cost shouldn’t be an issue with tens of millions on the line but it’s still up the Receiver how this goes forward.
Now this I can believe. In Zeek the amount stolen was $1.6 mil.
Here we’re talking potentially tens of millions so yeah, it’ll be interesting to see if and how the Receiver pursues Traffic Monsoon’s UK scammers.
And it is worth labouring the point that even if the TM Receiver decides not to pursue the tens of millions (one realistic possibility is that the UK’s TM net-winners decide to abandon Jane’s freeman-on-the-land-esque defence and instead pursue the more tried-and-tested strategy of legging it to Thailand, Dubai or Cambodia), that doesn’t mean UK courts will automatically find in favour of Ponzi scammers in a civil suit because they stuck their fingers in their ears and ignored a similar suit filed in the US.
Also worth bearing in mind that net-winners who put their hands up and settle with the Receiver are unlikely to boast about it.
I have been reading Jane’s comments, and others, with interest. Since Jane wanted to talk about the Zeek Rewards results as the basis for what will happen in TM Jane has left out one very important statistic and a set of facts:
In Zeek Rewards, less than 10% of the members were from outside the US. In TM over 80% of the members were outside the US with the vast majority of them in the UK. The dollar amounts involved make it totally worthwhile for the Receiver to go after them.
In Zeek Rewards the Receiver went after the net winners individually due to the small number of them. In TM, the Receiver is doing a class action lawsuit which will group each group of major winners by country to be sued.
The filing against the net winners in the UK will not be done in the US, but in the UK court. But I love how now oranges are apples and one case fits all mantra.
Me thinks there are a lot of UK major winners who aren’t as confident as you are Jane, and shaking in their collective boots.
You can’t file a class action in the UK, but you can do a group action, which serves essentially the same purpose. In a group action each case still has to be heard individually but you use the same law firm to avoid reinventing the wheel and limit costs.
Minor point but I thought I would put it out there before Jane or someone else goes “You can’t do a class action in the UK LOLOLOLOL do your research so I get to keep the money”.
Shirley Scoville (mommy of convicted child sexual abuser/serial scammer/professional crackpot, etc Charles Scoville) has much to say about this article.
Denial is NOT the river that runs through Egypt…
bit.ly/2HoDLkx
Of course the funds seized won’t be enough to pay refunds, that’s not possible.
Ponzi math is a zero sum game. Once you’ve invested in one either
a) you scam a bunch of people by stealing from those who join after you and/or recruitment commissions;
b) you lose your money; or
c) you get some of your money back through a Receivership.
The argument that Traffic Monsoon wasn’t a Ponzi scheme is dead. It’s over. Move on.
Your all forgetting tm got moved to uk and registered as a company.
Where all the YouTube videos gone of these serial scammers guarantee this ain’t the first ponzi they all been invoked in Charles is 18th where the tm video in dubui open tm world bank.
Tm moved to uk where’s immy and sharon.
As it is with due-diligence, regulation wise a company registering itself in the UK is meaningless.
can somebody explain or define net winner?
i mean if i earned 1000$ just by clicking paid ads on site and earned referral click earnings worth 1000$ in 1 year without my referrals investments ?? am i a net winner????
The caveats that would determine whether you’re a net-winner with respect to clawback are:
1. the amount you personally invested being $999 or less (note monopoly money backoffice reinvestment doesn’t count towards this); and
2. withdrawing $1000 or more out of Traffic Monsoon ($1000 in backoffice monopoly money earnings is not the same as actually withdrawing $1000).
If those two conditions are met, then yes you are a net-winner.
Referral commissions just add to the sum total of what you might have withdrawn. Whether you recruited or not has no bearing on net-winner determination.
In the UK any litigation claim from the USA would need:
1. A Proof of Authority
2. A Proof of Claim
Jurisdiction is the key problem and even if TM fails at the US Supreme Court, that still doesn’t prove TM was a ponzi scheme according to UK Laws.
Let’s be frank… the rogue SEC came at TM like a bull in a china shop and ignored the clear terms and conditions which people agreed to. Terms which made a ponzi scheme contractually impossible.
The funds in TM accounts also show that TM was not in any debt rather it was millions in profit / reserves. So therefore a ponzi was also actually non-existent.
The ponzi scheme only exists in the SEC’s smoke and mirrors case bankrolled by the bottomless pit of US tax payers money.
Ponzi schemes are just as illegal in the UK as they are in the US.
actionfraud.police.uk/a-z-of-fraud/ponzi-schemes
You can’t “terms and conditions” your way out of investment fraud. The SEC operated well within their regulatory jurisdiction in shutting down Traffic Monsoon.
This has been ratified in three court judgments (TRO, prelim injunction and appeal denial).
I’m adopting a wait and see approach to how the Receiver handles overseas investors. In the UK at least it appears there’s millions to clawback so it should be financially viable.
Remember this will be a class judgment, not individual cases.
Traffic Monsoon took in ~$175 million and generated ROI liabilities of over $700 million.
No debt at all, if you don’t count how much money they owed!
By your logic, if I owe $500k on my mortgage, but I have $5 in the bank, than I don’t have any debt.
You’re pretty stupid, aren’t you?
Pfft of course you don’t owe anything.
Just draft up some terms and conditions and don’t refer to your mortgage as a mortgage. DEBT CLEARED!
Can you back my all money?
No. That’s not how Ponzi schemes work.