Ad View Global, New ‘Advertising’ Program, Debuts
This morning we read an early pitch for Ad View Global (AVGlobal), a new “advertising” company that is coming online in the wake of the $100 million government seizure of assets tied to AdSurfDaily Inc.
AVGlobal, according to the promoter’s ad we read, is positioning itself as a guarantee against the recession and poor economy. You’ll have to plunk down a minimum of $360 to get paid for viewing ads. ASD’s minimum purchase was $10, so AVGlobal wants 36 times more to get you started earning fabulous amounts of money for viewing ads while the economy is in the tank.
Talk about stoking the furnace.
AVGlobal, which for shorthand purposes also is called AVG, is headquarted in Uruguay, according to the promoter. You shouldn’t worry about this, he implied, because the company has banking relationships throughout the free world and “many” of its employees are “citizens” of the United States or other affluent countries.
It’s not clear if the “citizens” employed by AVG will continue to live in the United States while they’re running a business from South America.
At least two of the employees are identified in the promotion, and at least one is an ASD executive: “Gary,” whose last name wasn’t mentioned, appears to be the head man, and Juan Fernandez, chief executive officer of AdSurfDaily, is listed as “national sales manager.”
Whether Fernandez’ job is to serve exclusively as “national sales manager” for a single country is unclear. One would think a company headquartered in Uruguay might appoint an “international sales manager,” as opposed to a more localized “national sales manager.”
“National Sales Manager” is an interesting title, to be sure.
Fernandez, through counsel, notified the federal judge in the ASD case that he would take the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination if called to testify at the Sept. 30-Oct. 1 evidentiary hearing. The judge ruled last month that ASD had not demonstrated it was operating legally and not a Ponzi scheme at the hearing.
Just two paragraphs below the place in the pitch where the promoter mentions “Gary” and Fernandez by name, he insists “there is no connection with the company ASD . . .”
There is no disclosure at any point in the pitch about ASD’s legal troubles and the risk associated with participating in an autosurf. What’s important, according to the promoter, is that you can “Make Your Financial Life Recession Proof” by joining Ad View Global, which permits you to plunk down up to $9,500 a day for ad purchases.
One of the reasons ASD put itself on federal radar screens is because it permitted purchases of $10,000 or more, something that catches the attention of banks, the U.S. Secret Service and the IRS. Banks and the Secret Service and the IRS can become suspicious even of $9,500 transactions, though. They’re smart enough to understand that, if $10,000 is viewed as the magic cutoff to avoid suspicion, some folks just might dial it down a bit.
It appears that everyone who joins AVGlobal gets dubbed an “account executive,” but if you want to earn you have to become a “VIP” account executive. VIP stands for “Viewing Incentive Program.”
The promoter stressed that AVGlobal is selling “page impressions,” not simple advertisements.
“Imagine if NBC paid you to watch their station during the hours of 4:00pm – 8:00 pm each evening, regardless of time zone?” the promoter droned. “What if they had hundreds of thousands of people worldwide that they could guarantee to be watching NBC during this time period? Just how valuable would this time be worth?”
Exciting stuff, to be sure.
Hmmm. Perhaps NBC should start paying people for viewing ads, only after making a minimum $360 purchase, registering as account executive VIPs and running things out of South America, of course. If the venture proved to be a Ponzi scheme, NBC could use its own news division to sanitize its own Bernard Madoff or Andy Bowdoin-like scandal.
Here’s a headline idea: “Make Your Financial Life Recession Proof.”
Oops. Already taken by AVGlobal. Regardless, NBC has lots of talented writers. Someone will be able to come up with a good headline if the network enters the paid-to-view-ads fray.
It’s a plain fact that people are hurting as a result of poor economic times. It’s also a plain fact that many folks are turning to the Web to learn ways to supplement their income. Here’s hoping they decide against viewing “page impressions” for a living.
The Feds believe that ASD President Andy Bowdoin was running a criminal enterprise that sold unregistered securities, called them “advertisements” and operated as a Ponzi scheme. Bowdoin’s own attorneys say he is the target of a criminal probe, and he has been sued in a separate action under federal racketeering laws.
As pointed out above, Juan Fernandez, Bowdoin’s own CEO, took the 5th at the ASD evidentiary hearing. So did Bowdoin.
Bowdoin also has been sued by Bill McCollum, the attorney general of Florida, under pyramid statutes. Not long ago Bowdoin claimed during a conference call that “Ponzi” allegations had been dropped in Florida, but “Ponzi” allegations never even were brought in Florida, McCollum’s office said. The state always used pyramid statutes, unlike the federal government, which brought Ponzi allegations.
Now AVG has emerged, using a similar business model, changing a few things, running things offshore and asking for at least $360 up front so people can play. Perhaps they’ll even get the chance to meet the “national sales manager.”
Hi Patrick,
I hope dissenting viewpoints are still welcome on your blog. I applaud AVG’s defiance of the U.S. Attorney’s & Fed. Judge’s lack of confidence in our Free enterprise system, and the ability of ASD to progressively acquire sustaining back up revenues, thus a “Ponzi.”
AVG, fortunately, is located in a country that favors free enterprise, and does NOT sabotage its own citizens in that quest.
All business is a gamble. You know it, Patrick. A high percentage of conventional businesses go out of business in just a few years. MLM and online businesses are fairly riskier. People spend money of their own free will. That’s just business, their prerogative and intelligent choice.
If 100,000+ ma and pa stores had their funds snatched from them, there would be a national UPROAR. Why the double standard toward us ASDers, when 100,000+ of us business people had our funds snatched from US? Who is now the recipient of OUR money? What gives the U.S. Treasury the right to retain it, over the original holders of the cash, or to decide where it’s spent??? Why does the retrieval process drag on for years? And why can victims expect to receive only partial compensation at that time?
Another double standard: LOTTO. Why would the Gov’t, that claims to “protect” its citizens, not protect them from paying into a gimmick, that is a sure Loser for most of its participants?
What about the national debt and social security Ponzi schemes? MAY THE PARTY WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE, Patrick!!! And may they leave us venturers alone!
Ty, ASD Supporter
Patrick,
As always you post great information in your Blog. To Ty the ASD supporter I would ask the following: Judge Collyer ruled that the funds seized by the government belonged to Andy Bowdoin, not to ASD and certainly not to its members (such as yourself, presumably). Further, in Bowdoin’s response to the forfeiture, he acknowledges that the funds do in fact belong to him. How do you reconcile these data with your statement of “100,000+ of us business people had our funds snatched from us?” Best I can see, you didn’t actually have anything taken from you — Andy did and Andy agrees.
Hi Ty,
Naturally I agree with Entertained’s point of view on this and, as always, I wish you well.
Patrick
Hi Entertained,
Thanks for your note. I’ve read about your “Black Box Test.” It deserves widespread distribution. I’ve seen the Black Box model referred to in the Bernard Madoff case, and instantly thought of you.
As time permits and if you’re so inclined, please contact us through our form. We’d love to publish your “Black Box” commentary in the form of a guest column.
https://patrickpretty.com/support.html
Thanks, Entertained.
Patrick
Ty: I do hope you come back and read this post because you are sadly mistaken about what is “offshore” and what is not subject to the SEC, state AG’s, the FBI, or the Secret Service for that matter. I don’t care what the management team of Ad View Global says or claims, nor what any of the promoter’s of Ad View Global say or claim in regard to the registration being offshore and not subject to U.S. laws. Just because they say it does not make it true.
There is this myth that if a company is registered outside of the United States, known as being an offshore company, they are not subject to the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) rules and regulations. This is only true under one situation. The company cannot sell any products to U.S. citizens, and they must state on their website all U.S. citizens are excluded from participating in their programs. Otherwise, they must be in compliance with the SEC rules and regulations if they expect to take money from U.S. citizens.
Here is what the SEC has to say about “offshore companies,” and whether or not they are subject to U.S. laws and the SEC rules and regulations, and I quote:
“The application of the U.S. securities laws depends on whether Internet offers, solicitations, or other communications are targeted to the United States. For example, those who implement measures that are reasonably designed to guard against sales or the provision of services to U.S. citizens would not be viewed as having targeted U.S. citizens through their Internet offers.
They give examples of such measures:
“(1) the website includes a prominent, meaningful disclaimer making it clear that the offer is directed only to countries other than the U.S.; (for example, the website could state that the securities or services are not being offered in the U.S. or to U.S. citizens, or could specify those jurisdictions (other than the U.S.) in which the offer is being made) and (2) the website offeror implements procedures that are reasonably designed to guard against sales to U.S. citizens in the offshore offering (for example, the offeror could ascertain the purchaser’s residence by obtaining such information as mailing addresses or telephone numbers (or area code) prior to the sale, which would allow the offeror to avoid sending or delivering securities, offering materials, services, or products to a person at a U.S. address or telephone number). These procedures are not exclusive, and other procedures may suffice. Regardless of the precautions adopted, however, the SEC would view solicitations that appear by their content to be targeted at U.S. citizens (e.g., offers that emphasize the ability to avoid U.S. income taxes) as made in the U.S.”
The US Securities and Exchange issued a legal interpretation in 1998 which makes it clear that investment offerings made via the internet by foreign issuers ARE subject to SEC regulations if they target or permit their offer to the extended to US citizens. There are also a number of other key statements in this interpretation which put these sites, their investors, their promoters, and related third parties at risk for SEC sanctions and civil and/or criminal charges. Offshore Paid Surfs/HYIP’s NOT Exempt from SEC Regulations. Re-read that last sentence again.
Here is paraphrase of the major points you need to be aware of:
1. If a foreign/offshore company offers investment opportunities via the internet without taking reasonable efforts to insure that U.S. citizens do NOT have access to their offering, they are NOT exempt from registering that offering in the U.S.. Thus, if the company is indeed to be found to be offering an unregistered security, they will be under the jurisdiction of the US SEC, regardless of their offshore status.
2. By ‘reasonable’ efforts, the SEC expects the site to take the following such measures, 1)a disclaimer on the site stating it prohibits US citizen participation, 2)requiring potential participants to provide proof of non-US citizenship before being allowed to invest, 3)putting into place technological measures that will prevent non-US surfers from viewing the website, etc.
3. Sites that blatantly market their offering as one that helps U.S. citizens avoid US regulations, taxes, etc. are NOT exempt from SEC regulations.
4. Sites that are committing any kind of investment fraud (i.e. operating a Ponzi in guise of an investment or business opportunity) are NOT exempt from SEC regulations.
5. If sites allow their offering to be marketed, advertised, or promoted by third party websites (monitoring sites, forums, promotional sites, etc.) that do not prohibit U.S. users, they are NOT exempt from SEC regulations.
6. Individuals and companies brokering (referring) U.S. citizens to or promoting such sites are subject to the same SEC sanctions as that of the company making the offering.
7. U.S.-based companies or individuals that offer foreign investment opportunities that are available to U.S. citizens could be seen as deliberately attempting to circumvent U.S. regulations and are held to even MORE strict regulations than companies that are physically located offshore.
Ty, pay really close attention to this next statement:
The basic thing to be aware of with this interpretation is that paid surf and HYIP programs promoting themselves as being exempt from U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission regulations due to the fact that they are located or have incorporated offshore, are not telling you the full truth. Something to ponder: Not only are they at risk for SEC shutdown, but if you are promoting these sites and collecting referral commissions, you could be personally at risk for those same sanctions.
Now do you still believe by AVG claiming since they are licensed offshore, but are selling to U.S. Citizens they are not subject to U.S. Laws?
Great postings with good info !
I’ve heard about “AVG” and signed up as a “Free” member, all to just observe what is going on here, how g o o d can it be with it’s skiddish legal standing, this once loyal to Andy footsoldier “Juan Hernandez” as “national sales manager” out of Uruguay ? Hmm ….. that and all the fancy “Account executive” bla bla bla rhetoric on their UNfinished website ! They must be in some hurry to get people signed up for 360 bucks per clip ! Anyone falling for this act is a twice-over had fool !
DON’T FALL FOR IT ! IT’S ANOTHER SCAM WRAPPED IN PRETTY PAPER !
The SEC is only involved in Investments.
They must first veiw Ad View Global as an “investment opportunty”
for AVD to fall under its jurisdiction
Hi Lyndell,
I appreciate your elaborate comment. I just find it interesting, in light of my earlier comments, that a country can apply to its citizens that which it is not willing to apply to itself, the Ponzi of all Ponzis.
Again, if a company on or offshore aims to avoid the red flags found in ASD & pull off that business model while maintaining complaince, I applaud it, and any of its honest, tax-paying participants.
Ty
I am just about fed up with hearing ‘Social Security is the biggest ponzi of all”. First, it is a fact that in a warehouse in West Virginia there are in fact treasury bonds that back up every penny of Social Security. Whether the government can continue to fund those bonds without serious adjustments is another debate, but the bonds are there, and audited every year, too. Another thing that shows how dim some of these scam supporters are, the bonds backing up Social Security pay something in the range of 2-4% a year, which is a little more realistic than 1% a day. Kids, when you show up spouting your belief in online ponzi scams you just let the world know how hopelessly inept you are about how the real world works.
Please start doing a little research before you start posting “facts” on the internet, this is how the really silly rumors get started, you know like “The AG admitted ASD isn’t a ponzi, he just didn’t put it in writing” and other nonsense.
Ty: I appreciate your reply, but I think you might be still missing the point. AVG claims because it is offshore, it is not subject to the SEC, FBI, FTC, Secret Service, state AG’s or any other U.S. Law Enforcement agency. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The only way they could be exempt from all these agencies and U.S. law is to not solicit or accept memberships from any U.S. Citizen. They must have a visible disclaimer that so states U.S. Citizens are not allowed to participate. Since AVG does none of these things, they are subject to the laws no matter what they say. Saying they are not is not telling the truth, and does not make it so.
Lynndell, I appreciate your reply, but perhaps you’re missing my point. I don’t think AVG (your example) is necessarily trying to evade the law.
The real question is how one can find hypocrisy defensible. No comment on how lopsided sanctioning LOTTO is, while nitpicking over a relatively lesser risk??? “Big Brother,” give the hurting public a Break!
Ty: So why register in Uruguay? If they are not trying to do anything illegal, they could register right here in the U.S. As I have shown, it makes no difference where they register because they are subject to U.S. laws if they have U.S. citizens participating.
Why claim because they are registered in Uruguay, the FBI, SEC, FTC, state AG’s cannot touch them, when they can?
At least you have been warned, and don’t be surprised when they end up like ASD. One of two things will happen: 1. They go bust on their own, or 2. They get raided like ASD. ASD was not this new, ingenious, and special advertising company as Andy tried to portray it. Andy was no astute business man, a man of integrity, nor a visionary. ASD was nothing more than another failed adsurf in a long list of such companies, which ended up like all the others. But when you have a bunch of gullible, naive people buying the story ASD was this unique and visionary business model, you end up with people claiming it is the government’s fault and ASD should not have been shut down, ASD was a legal company, et al. It was nothing more than a mediocre attempt at trying not to be a Ponzi.
Hi Gregg,
As you know, the “Social Security Ponzi” argument gets trotted out in virtually all autosurf debates as alleged proof of a double standard.
In the earliest days of the Madoff case, I read forum and website comments from people who dragged Social Security into the discussion of an alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme.
I’ve always seen it as an argument of convenience, one that fails simply because it’s a red herring and a bid to change the subject, almost like saying people should be permitted to print money because the government owns a printing press and licenses only itself to print currency.
Earlier today, in a separate post, I mentioned that ASD once bragged about Andy Bowdoin’s donation of $100,000 in “ad packs” to a nonprofit. But if the recipient of those “ad packs” was getting paid 1 percent a day, it was only making ASD more of a Ponzi. The company created a $265,000 (at a minimum) “profit” hole over the course of a year with that donation, and relied on members to fund that gap. The nonprofit would have been “earning” $7,260 an hour with Bowdoin’s gift of “ad packs,” and the pay-out money had to come from somewhere.
So, members can argue until they’re blue in the face about a Social Security double standard. Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that each $100,000 in ASD “ad packs” creates a minimum “profit” liability of $265,000 and a principal liability of $100,000 over the course of a year.
I now eagerly await the “rebates weren’t guaranteed” deflection, in this battle of constantly shifting arguments of convenience.
Thanks for your note, Gregg.
Patrick
Opinions are endless. I stand by aforementioned examples. When we get in too deep, see if we’re all shut down or bailed out. I leave you in peace. LOL
Hey Gregg,
You said: “I am just about fed up with hearing ‘Social Security is the biggest ponzi of allâ€. First, it is a fact that in a warehouse in West Virginia there are in fact treasury bonds that back up every penny of Social Security.”
I am interested to know where you are getting your factual information about Social Security from. Can you point me towards your source?
With Gratitude
Bob
Best I can see, you didn’t actually have anything taken from you — Andy did and Andy agrees.
Would appear we did have our money snatched, but by Andy not the government.
Ty,
While I am still waiting for a response to my question (re: Do you know that the $93MM is Andy’s, not the ASD members?), are you also aware that the so-called Social Security Ponzi is actually showing a net positive balance of >$2.2 trillion at year-end 2007? Hmmmmmm, thought so…… Perhaps instead, you could point out the dozen or so Social Security “insiders, players, and founders” who have become millionaires at the expense of the poor schmucks who are being duped into paying the Social Security payroll tax? Hmmmmm, thought so…… Maybe, just maybe, Social Security isn’t a Ponzi after all (although it does have some easily correctable funding issues once politicians grow a bipartisan backbone. Current 75 year shortfall is projected at ~$3 trillion, which — sadly — seems manageable in light of $750 Billion bailouts….maybe this is the right political climate to fix SS and Medicare.)
Entertained,
Yes, in Judge Collyer’s Nov. 19 ruling on the issues in the evidentiary hearing, she made it quite clear that the money belonged to Andy Bowdoin, not the members — or, for that matter, perhaps not even to ASD.
The Social Security Ponzi argument is a simple — through disingenuous — talking point. Folks who use hope it sanitizes the autosurf business model. After all, if the government can run a Ponzi, it follows that people should be able to run one, too.
Whether Social Security is a Ponzi or not is immaterial. If this Ponzi defense somehow became a “winner,” autosurfs would proliferate at breakneck speed, sucking perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars out of participants’ hands.
If the “rebates weren’t guaranteed” defense won the day, it would, in effect, legalize Ponzi schemes. Any person could open an autosurf, collect a set amount, and run off with the cash because “rebates weren’t guaranteed.” The social consequences would be enormous.
This is neither Web. 2.0 nor an exciting, new advertising model, no matter what autosurf enthusiasts would have the public believe. It’s a money grab by the Ponzi operator, a dangerous business model that can generate huge sums of money quickly.
Regards,
Patrick
It seems AVG has hit some “snags” and the lauch has been ‘delayed’ until February, or so is being claimed now. They are asking the faithful to be faithful and patient with these delays. They are trying to portray these delays as “normal,” what ever that is supposed to mean, and were anticipated.
They still believe that by registering ‘offshore’ they are exempt from U.S. laws in spite of all the rulings to the contrary. But I suspect the real reason for the “delay” is pre-launch enrollments are not going well. I think the collapse of Megalido, which was an offshore registered company, and its being touted as a successful adsurf has got the natives restless. Also note that AD Gate World has gone quiet, as has Clarence’s adsurf. Hmmmm, now I wonder why magically all of these new ASD clones are having problems, and have gone silent? Inquiring minds want to know.
Happy New Year to all.
Hi Lynn,
Happy New Year to you, too. :-)
Maybe — and I stress MAYBE — autosurfs are beginning to fall into disfavor or at least have to work a lot harder to capture an audience.
The Madoff case and accompanying widespread use of the word “Ponzi” haven’t done autosurfs any favors. Neither did the well-publicized legal troubles of AdSurfDaily.
What I found most striking in the aftermath of ASD was the “offshore” and “safe” sales pitch of up-and-coming autosurfs. AdGateWorld, in particular, played the offshore angle heavily, and also traded on presumed antigovernment fervor. Heck, I saw one ad from an AdGateWorld promoter who said the firm protected participants from the SEC, the IRS and state attorneys general. As it were, the AdGateWorld message was corrupted out of the gate. The serial promoters sell these things reflexively, so they’re inclined to pile on the hype and mention anything to gain a sale.
Autosurf operators, of course, don’t have a prayer of controlling the message, and the task gets even bigger as the organization grows.
Take care, Lynn.
Patrick
Wall Street, Lehmans Bros. Fannie and Freddy Mac are all Freaking Scams…Whats the big idea…The Government only bails-out giant scams…lol!
The US Gov…Is just full of sh**,,,Can’t even win a war they fabricated with lies…It was all for OIL!
Actually, the new website AVG is not open in South America, but is open in Tallahassee, Florida which is located about 30 minutes from the origianl office of Ad Surf Daily! Now how did a company that was stopped by the government able to re-open another company in the same way and be working legally??? Not only that, but to throw it in their face and open in in Florida’s capitol! Where’s Florida’s attorney’s at now? Figured I would let you know and that “Gary” guy is head of the office in Tallahassee.
This would be a very interesting site if it was based on any facts. Very ugly indeed.
Where do you come up with this info, clown?
SSa is a ponzi. there is a deficit there. our facts are wrong.
MOST in autosurfs know the deal. who needs govt protection from ourselves?
you clowns keep saying that you are out to protect the little people since they think they are involved in a REAL investment opportunity. MOST who are in these programs are in it out of free will be it due to greed or whatever.
so why is it your business? get a life. you clowns run around like little children calling the sec and the attorney general.
what is the end result from all of your work? idiots, people still lose because of YOU.
mind your own business and get a life. stay out of my life. i spend my money how i damn well please.
but no no no. you think you have accomplished something because you are so full of yourself with your sick control issues.
we do not need you. we never needed you. leave us alone. i never dropped a dime and asked for your help.
hypocrite and stupid intelligent all consuming people you are.
get a real cause.
here is one. help the poverty-stricken.
or another one. stop the wide chasm between the have and the have nots.
those who went with maddox are not dumb stupid people. they were simply people with money who knew darn well that maddox was not betting on a down market and didn’t care how he was growing their money as long as it was growing.
just like with asd. the people could care less about advertising but just wanted to make cash from the deal.
but you scream. it is off the back of those who get in at the end. guess what, martyrs? the one who get in at the end have the same motive too. they know the risk. 5 out of 10,000 probably are clueless. so they learn. the others do it out of need or greed and are willing to make decisions on their own. who the heck are you to be their knight in shining armor with a dull blade?
go away and do something constructive with your weak feeble pathetic lives.
Bravo! Bravo!
“who the heck are you to be their knight in shining armor with a dull blade?”
Wow! Somebody said it right!
Bravo! Finally!
I spent less for ads with ASD than I did with Google. This is also true for the other folks that I know personally.
Hmm…. is juan (as CEO) checking videos:
http://www.viddler.com/explore/tjmarrs/videos/16/
This is a dam good point…I freaking AGREE! This Government is screwed-up royal. lol!