BREAKING NEWS: Government Seized $65.8 Million From Bowdoin Accounts, $14 Million From Busby Accounts

UPDATED 5:13 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Federal prosecutors have filed papers that formalize the official total of deposits seized from Bank of America accounts held by AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin and Golden Panda President Clarence Busby.

The amounts appear to be significantly higher than believed initially and take into account “credits, and net of offsets that occurred,” prosecutors said.  The amount cited in the August forfeiture complaint was approximately $53 million.

After reconciliation, the actual amount seized totaled more than $79.88 million. Prosecutors said the money was being held in a U.S. Customs Suspense account.

It was not immediately clear if the total takes into account cashier’s checks seized as part of the investigation into allegations of wire fraud, money-laundering, engaging in the sale of unregistered securities and operating a Ponzi scheme.

After the Department of Justice announced the figure of approximately $53 million last year, the U.S. Secret Service announced that it ultimately found more than $93.5 million, which led to speculation that the cashier’s checks had totaled approximately $40 million.

Bowdoin’s 10 accounts — all of which were in his name as a sole proprietor doing business as AdSurfDaily — contained $65,838,999.70 in total, prosecutors said. The largest Bowdoin account contained more than $31.6 million. Another Bowdoin account contained more than $23.7 million. A third Bowdoin account contained more than $4.99 million. (An additional $107 would have made it an even $5 million.)

Three Bowdoin accounts contained the exact same amount: $1,000,338.91. Three other accounts contained smaller amounts, and one additional account contained more than $1.088 million.

Bowdoin’s smallest account contained $13,286, prosecutors said.

Busby’s five Golden Panda accounts — some of which also included the name of his daughter, Dawn Stowers — contained $14,045,598.07 in total, prosecutors said. The largest account contained exactly $6 million. Another Busby account contained more than $3.007 million. A third Busby account contained more than $2.282 million. A fourth Busby account contained more than $1.642 million. Busby’s smallest account contained more than $1.112 million.

Seizure Totals

Here are the seizure totals listed by prosecutors today:

Andy Bowdoin

(a) $1,088,246.48 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name of
Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
(b) $31,674,039.13 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name of
Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
(c) $937,470.18 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name of
Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
(d) $13,286.89 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name of
Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
(e) $403,791.04 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name of
Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
(f) $4,999,893.00 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name of
Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
(g) $23,721,256.25 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name of
Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
(h) $1,000,338.91 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name
of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
(i) $1,000,338.91 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name
of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
(j) $1,000,338.91 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name
of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;

Clarence Busby/Golden Panda

(k) $2,282,999.72 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name of
Clarence Busby Jr. and Dawn Stowers, DBA Golden Panda Ad Builder Deposit
Account;
(l) $1,112,978.42 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name of
Clarence Busby Jr. and Dawn Stowers, DBA Golden Panda Ad Builder Operating
Account;
(m) $1,642,039.08 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name of
Clarence Busby Jr. and Dawn Stowers, DBA Golden Panda Ad Builder Cashout
Account;
(n) $6,000,000.00 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name
of Golden Panda Ad Builder; and
(o) $3,007,580.85 from account #[deleted by this Blog] at Bank of America, in the name
of Golden Panda Ad Builder.

About the Author

13 Responses to “BREAKING NEWS: Government Seized $65.8 Million From Bowdoin Accounts, $14 Million From Busby Accounts”

  1. Patrick,

    The US Customs Suspense Account is a holding account used by the Treasury durng the active civil and criminal prosecution of relevant cases (money laundering, investment fraud, drug deals, smuggling, etc.). Once the case is closed, the assets are turned over to the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. In reading several of the annual reports on the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, it looks like the TFF does not provide much in the way of victims’ restitution. For example, in fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2007, $1.3 MM and $4.9 MM were allocated as funds for victim restitution, while the TFF itself took in $285 MM in FY 2006 and $387 in FY 2007. I wonder if this is what Gregg Evans has previously referred to when he has suggested that there will be no court-appointed receiver in the ASD case and that the government may well decide to not fully reimburse the victims.

      (Quote)

  2. Hi Entertained,

    Entertained: I wonder if this is what Gregg Evans has previously referred to when he has suggested that there will be no court-appointed receiver in the ASD case and that the government may well decide to not fully reimburse the victims.

    Yes, I believe this is Gregg’s theory. In general, the theory also holds that the government is trying to seek the level of pain it’s going to take to keep people away from autosurfs.

    As you know, the government has proposed a barrier. Potential refund recipients will have to certify they are crime victims and file some papers.

    In this case, however, I believe refunds will total more than, say, a typical seizure case. My reasoning is that there is a high number of senior citizens involved and, as things stand, the economy is suffering.

    Perhaps we’ll learn later if the total above includes the cashier’s checks. If it doesn’t include the cashier’s checks, then more paperwork will follow.

    If it does include the cashier’s checks, it might mean that more than $13.6 million could be at risk of clawback (the difference between $79.88 million in the Customs account and the $93.5 million figure cited by the Secret Service last year). The clawback amount might be the unrealized value of checks returned to participants by unauthorized parties.

    People whose money was returned could be in for a surprise one day.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  3. Patrick,

    I wonder what penalties will be imposed on those unauthorized parties returning the money? That could prove interesting, as well.

      (Quote)

  4. If the cash was deposited into Andy’s personal accounts will that make him liable for taxes on the 65.8 million ?

      (Quote)

  5. My recollection of events after the GP accounts were blocked but before Clarence relinquished his claim to those accounts was that many GP members went down to the Georgia offices and recuperated unbanked cheques from Clarence Busby. Bobbie G was only one of many, but after he heard that others were doing it, he joined in and, of course, demanded fanfares and flowers for it. lol.

    At some point during this period Cowden is believed to have paid a visit to GP (although this may be unfounded rumour) Once Busby relinquished his claim to the property claimed in the forfeiture, the returns stopped – although I am not sure of the precise timing of this last part. I am sure a GP member can fill in the gaps.

      (Quote)

  6. Yep……although it is unlikely at this point that he’ll wind up with significant tax evasion charges……

    Bill: If the cash was deposited into Andy’s personal accounts will that make him liable for taxes on the 65.8 million ?

      (Quote)

  7. Not only is Andy going to be getting a tax bill for the money deposited into the accounts in his own name, but he cannot offset that income with corporate expenses. No matter what else happens, he’ll be owing the IRS something to the tune of $35 million give or take, based on the numbers I’ve seen posted. Not that I have ever thought he was as smart as a sack of hammers (or convicted felon Bob Guenther for that matter)but putting the bank accounts in his own name was a pretty dumb move.

      (Quote)

  8. Gregg,

    You are right of course that the IRS also has Andy in its sight. I’d guess that at best though, it is a backup position for the government from a criminal liability perspective if by some longshot Andy is able to get Pont, McIntyre, and the rest as his jury. I’d also guess they’ll stick it to his family members who have shared in the wealth who may not be criminally charged. If I recall correctly, Bowdoin transferred assets and “ad packs” to his family, the amounts of which were well above the gift limit for taxation. Best case (for me) is that the family members are subject to the clawbacks AND the tax liability on Andy’s gifts……

    gregg evans: Not only is Andy going to be getting a tax bill for the money deposited into the accounts in his own name, but he cannot offset that income with corporate expenses. No matter what else happens, he’ll be owing the IRS something to the tune of $35 million give or take, based on the numbers I’ve seen posted. Not that I have ever thought he was as smart as a sack of hammers (or convicted felon Bob Guenther for that matter)but putting the bank accounts in his own name was a pretty dumb move.

      (Quote)

  9. Entertained: Gregg,You are right of course that the IRS also has Andy in its sight.I’d guess that at best though, it is a backup position for the government from a criminal liability perspective if by some longshot Andy is able to get Pont, McIntyre, and the rest as his jury.I’d also guess they’ll stick it to his family members who have shared in the wealth who may not be criminally charged.If I recall correctly, Bowdoin transferred assets and “ad packs” to his family, the amounts of which were well above the gift limit for taxation.Best case (for me) is that the family members are subject to the clawbacks AND the tax liability on Andy’s gifts……

    gregg evans: Not only is Andy going to be getting a tax bill for the money deposited into the accounts in his own name, but he cannot offset that income with corporate expenses. No matter what else happens, he’ll be owing the IRS something to the tune of $35 million give or take, based on the numbers I’ve seen posted. Not that I have ever thought he was as smart as a sack of hammers (or convicted felon Bob Guenther for that matter)but putting the bank accounts in his own name was a pretty dumb move.

    Hey Entertained,

    If the assets and ad packs are considered “*true gifts” in the IRS domain, then the recipients have no tax liability on these gifts and don’t report the income on their return as their is no income tax on gifts. There is however something called a Gift Tax which only applies to a donor that exceeds the lifetime limits for gifting.

    *You can’t avoid paying income tax by calling something a gift when it isn’t. For example, a “gift” you receive in exchange for services or some other consideration isn’t a gift.

    If you give more than the annual exclusion amount ($12,000 in 2008) to one person in a single year you’ll have to file a gift tax return. There is an unlimited exclusion for gifts to your spouse. (An annual limit applies if your spouse is not a U.S. citizen.) And there’s an unlimited exclusion for the payment of medical expenses or educational costs, provided you make these payments directly to the service provider or educational institution.

    But the donor still won’t have to pay gift tax unless they gave given a very large amount. The rules let the donor give a substantial amount during their lifetime without ever paying a gift tax. As of 2008 the amount is $1,000,000. Any amount used out of the lifetime gift tax exclusion counts against the estate tax exclusion, which is $2,000,000 as of 2008 and $3,500,000 as of 2009. This means that if you use $250,000 of the limit by making gifts during your lifetime, you have reduced by $250,000 the amount that can pass through your estate free of the estate tax.

      (Quote)

  10. Thx Joe,

    You’re right……the donor is responsible…..another thought: If Bowdoin gave the gifts to his family, and is thus responsible for the tax but can’t pay it, can the IRS claw back the gifts?????

    Joe:

    Entertained: Gregg,You are right of course that the IRS also has Andy in its sight.I’d guess that at best though, it is a backup position for the government from a criminal liability perspective if by some longshot Andy is able to get Pont, McIntyre, and the rest as his jury.I’d also guess they’ll stick it to his family members who have shared in the wealth who may not be criminally charged.If I recall correctly, Bowdoin transferred assets and “ad packs” to his family, the amounts of which were well above the gift limit for taxation.Best case (for me) is that the family members are subject to the clawbacks AND the tax liability on Andy’s gifts……

    gregg evans: Not only is Andy going to be getting a tax bill for the money deposited into the accounts in his own name, but he cannot offset that income with corporate expenses. No matter what else happens, he’ll be owing the IRS something to the tune of $35 million give or take, based on the numbers I’ve seen posted. Not that I have ever thought he was as smart as a sack of hammers (or convicted felon Bob Guenther for that matter)but putting the bank accounts in his own name was a pretty dumb move.

    Hey Entertained,If the assets and ad packs are considered “*true gifts” in the IRS domain, then the recipients have no tax liability on these gifts and don’t report the income on their return as their is no income tax on gifts. There is however something called a Gift Tax which only applies to a donor that exceeds the lifetime limits for gifting. *You can’t avoid paying income tax by calling something a gift when it isn’t. For example, a “gift” you receive in exchange for services or some other consideration isn’t a gift.If you give more than the annual exclusion amount ($12,000 in 2008) to one person in a single year you’ll have to file a gift tax return. There is an unlimited exclusion for gifts to your spouse. (An annual limit applies if your spouse is not a U.S. citizen.) And there’s an unlimited exclusion for the payment of medical expenses or educational costs, provided you make these payments directly to the service provider or educational institution.But the donor still won’t have to pay gift tax unless they gave given a very large amount. The rules let the donor give a substantial amount during their lifetime without ever paying a gift tax. As of 2008 the amount is $1,000,000. Any amount used out of the lifetime gift tax exclusion counts against the estate tax exclusion, which is $2,000,000 as of 2008 and $3,500,000 as of 2009. This means that if you use $250,000 of the limit by making gifts during your lifetime, you have reduced by $250,000 the amount that can pass through your estate free of the estate tax.

      (Quote)

  11. Entertained: Thx Joe,You’re right……the donor is responsible…..another thought:If Bowdoin gave the gifts to his family, and is thus responsible for the tax but can’t pay it, can the IRS claw back the gifts?????

    As far as being “responsible for the tax but can’t pay it” that would only come into play if he exceeded the $1,000,000 in lifetime exclusion for gifts.

    I would think the consideration of an this as an illegal enterprise would supercede in this case and the assumption (big assumption) that the IRS would deem these as “true gifts” would be a mute point.

      (Quote)

  12. I imagine the IRS would also take into account that the recipients of the “gifts” were also aware that they were purchased with the receipts from an illegal enterprise, which they also participated in.

    One would hope so anyway

      (Quote)

  13. Joe,

    I was referring to the tax owed on the original Bowdoin income. He couldn’t give away his (illegal) income and avoid the taxes on that income, but….you’re right, highly likely to be moot.

    Joe:

    Entertained: Thx Joe,You’re right……the donor is responsible…..another thought:If Bowdoin gave the gifts to his family, and is thus responsible for the tax but can’t pay it, can the IRS claw back the gifts?????

    As far as being “responsible for the tax but can’t pay it” that would only come into play if he exceeded the $1,000,000 in lifetime exclusion for gifts.I would think the consideration of an this as an illegal enterprise would supercede in this case and the assumption (big assumption) that the IRS would deem these as “true gifts” would be a mute point.

      (Quote)

Leave a Reply