Comments on: What Happened To ASD’s Money In Canada?

By: alasycia

alasycia — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:21:39 +0000

There is nothing in the Sold Trust Pay statement that explains why they have returned funds in such an arbitrary fashion – some people with 37% and others with less.

Equally, their reference to “merchant paying commission”, as Tony H has already pointed out, is a strange way to refer to the account of a client who they KNOW is the subject of a US forfeiture prosecution on the grounds of illegal operations, wire fraud and money laundering.

I was not aware that their terms and conditions permitted clients with illegal or fraudulent activities – they are very broad and all encompassing and seem to give STP an enormous amount of protection against nearly everything, but the return of monies that belonged to a company under a major civil and possible criminal investigation sounds commercially, morally, if nmaybe legally reprehensible.

By: Tony H

Tony H — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:55:37 +0000

This is perfectly normal activity for merchants who pay commissions/bonuses to their clients.

Is that how STP views/viewed ASD? As a “merchant paying commission”? Was any sort of due diligence done on the “merchant” – otherwise known as “know your customer”?

How about any of the other “merchants” that use STP as a payment processor? Are any of these checked to see if they are HYIP/AutoSurf or other sort of ponzi scheme?

In light of this situation, SolidTrust may have to rethink its refund policy if any attempt by STPay to return funds to legitimate users is going to be construed as a suspicious act of some kind.

So you may not return funds just because of some comments on a small insignificant blog? Surely, you should be more concerned with your business operating within the law. I’m not sure which laws in Canada apply to money laundering activity, but this is what EGold was charged with. And they were a favourite payment processor for HYIP/AutoSurf ponzi schemes.

By: Lynndel Edgington

Lynndel Edgington — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:43:37 +0000

One more thing to add to the mix, and confuse the issue even more. Canada enacted tougher rules for money exchangers based in Canada starting January 1, 2009. All money exchangers operating in Canada must now comply with the FISA requirements. The FISA rules does set maximum fees that a money exchanger can charge for their services. One has to wonder if this change in the rules might not have also played a role in STP’s refund of these monies.

By: Leo Smith

Leo Smith — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:38:16 +0000

Sometimes, it’s hard to tell which scammer is scamming which scammer. Can’t tell the players without a scorecard, or an audit.

By: admin

admin — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:16:13 +0000

Story has been updated above to include links to ASD’s September oversight plan that mentions ASD money in Antigua and in Canada’s SolidTrustPay, to the December forfeiture complaint that names George and Judy Harris — now identified as the owners of AdViewGlobal — as the beneficiaries of illegal conduct by ASD, and to include a statement from SolidTrustPay on its refund procedures.

Patrick

By: Whip

Whip — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:59:55 +0000

Well, it would seem STP has the scammers over a barrel anyway as who is going to contest it? That would mean admitting the crime by the scammers.

By: admin

admin — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:53:26 +0000

Hi Gregg,

I removed the reference to 37 percent prior to reading your note — probably while you were working on it.

This story is based on these words received from an ASD member:

“The balance that was frozen in asd’s stp account has been refunded at 37 cents in the dollar, the other 63% of funds had been removed along the way by asd prior to their stp account being frozen.”

His assertion was that ASD had removed 63 percent of the funds.

If true, some of it — or even all of it — could have gone to pay ASD members.

This story, essentially, poses the question, “What if it didn’t?”

In any event, the money appears to be unaccounted for. With ASD suddenly moving “several million” into Canada just prior to the seizure, I think it’s fair to ask what happened to that money.

Regards,

Patrick

By: Gregg Evans

Gregg Evans — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:35:48 +0000

I think Patrick you’re a little confused. For STP to refund pro rata @ 37% does not really need to mean that ASD withdrew 67%. STp, in theory is refunding what is left in the account, and at the rate they say is left, but that doesn’t mean that any money was removed. Participant could have been able to deposit through STP for several months before then, and withdraw during that time as well, so the amounts are not tied to the August 1st date as far as I can tell. Of course, STP, if they are the ones refunding the money, are also not disclosing what amount they are charging in fees to handle the transactions, and there is no law I am aware of that limits that. They could be holding $3 million, and decide to do refunds in order to be in the position of saying that they no longer hod any tainted funds, but there’s nothing to keep them from claiming 90% of that money as fees, refunding $300,000 among the members and still being able to claim with a straight face that they have refunded all ASD money they held. Neat trick. Unless and until Canada refines their regulation of online money transmitter businesses, processors in Canada are making it up as they go along and STP has in the past unilaterally declared other scams accounts with them to be abandoned funds and issued refunds according to their own whim and with no accounting to the public, a policy ripe for abuse by almost everyone.