3RD UPDATE 4:52 P.M. ET U.S.A. Paul Burks, the principal behind the $939 million Zeek Rewards Ponzi- and pyramid scheme broken up by the SEC and the U.S. Secret Service in August 2012, has been sentenced to 176 months in federal prison, the office of U.S. Attorney Jill Westmoreland Rose of the Western District of North Carolina said moments ago.
U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn Jr. presided over sentencing court for Burks, 70. Zeek was an MLM scam that created hundreds of thousands of victims globally.
“But anyone could have seen what was going to occur outside himself and his (marketing) cheerleaders,” the judge said in court, according to the Winston-Salem Journal.
When Burks was indicted in October 2014, the grand jury alleged that Burks and others offered a “bogus 125% return on investment” through a “sham internet-based penny auction company.”
Bell earlier alleged that some of the winners he sued were “serial” participants in Zeek-like schemes to defraud. Among the clawback defendants were Todd Disner, a figure from the AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme, and T. LeMont Silver, a promoter of multiple Ponzi schemes.
“Programs” such as Zeek and ASD often try to sanitize themselves by calling themselves revenue-sharing schemes.
Burks also was sentenced to make restitution in the amount of $244 million and to serve three years’ probation after his prison release. There are media accounts today that suggest Burks is in poor health.
Though 176 months is a lengthy term, there has been speculation that Burks would receive an even longer term, given the enormous size of Zeek and the number of victims.
Said Bell, the receiver, in a statement dated Feb. 13. “Judge Cogburn cited the need to balance the harm caused by Mr. Burks’ conduct against Mr. Burks’ extremely poor health and [the fact he is] 70 years of age.”
At sentencing, Judge Cogburn stated that for the defendant’s scheme to work would have required a miracle on the order of the “loaves and fishes.” Judge Cogburn stated that a significant sentence was necessary to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and also deter others considering committing fraud. Judge Cogburn further noted that the scheme was “almost breathtaking” and emphasized that the defendant had time to stop it.
Many people in the antiscam community applauded Kenneth D. Bell, the receiver for Zeek Rewards, when he sued more than 9,000 individuals more than two years ago for return of their gains from the scheme. Those gains — more than $200 million — came from Ponzi proceeds, Bell alleged.
And he pointed out that the money rightfully should go to the hundreds of thousands of Zeekers globally who were “affiliate victims.” Court filings later would show that Zeek gathered on the order of $940 million in less than two years. Only TelexFree, another MLM HYIP scheme that was disintegrating when Bell announced his lawsuit against the Zeek “winners” in March 2014, may be bigger.
Thanks to the willful blindness and serial disingenuousness brought to you by serial MLM HYIPers such as Todd Disner, T. LeMont Silver and “Ken Russo,” huge class-action cases in which “winning” promoters of MLM securities schemes are named defendants now are a reality.
Bell, unfairly maligned among some MLM HYIPers and even some apparent “sovereign citizens,” deserves a lot of credit for trying to bring a measure of financial justice to the hundreds of thousands of individuals ripped off by Zeek and for establishing a sort of blueprint for how Darr could proceed.
This blueprint also is there in case the Traffic Monsoon receiver needs it. Traffic Monsoon, an alleged $207 million scheme, was broken up by the SEC last month. There already is evidence that Traffic Monsoon had promoters in common with TelexFree.
It is true that the number of potential defendants across the HYIP sphere is staggering. But it is equally true that the number of victims of these cross-border schemes is even more staggering. This number is in the millions. The global losses are in the billions. Absent actions such as those brought by Bell and Darr, however, there would be virtually no financial accountability. Society would be saying that it’s OK to profit through the promotion of online Ponzi schemes.
For years, the PP Blog has raised questions about the national-security implications of cross-border HYIP schemes. The narratives surrounding such schemes typically are bizarre, with anonymous Ponzi-board pitchmen typically beginning with “I am not the admin” of the “program.” It all goes recklessly downhill from there.
To those who feel a chill every time one of these schemes gains a head of steam, it came as no surprise that the alleged Zeek “winners” are arguing they should get to keep their hauls. It is simply the natural progression of the HYIP narrative.
Bell, a former federal prosecutor, is having none of this. Indeed, his is the voice of common sense.
From his argument (italics/bolding added):
Defendants still act as if Zeek was a legitimate business and Defendants were “internet marketing specialists” entitled to be paid as employees rather than investors in the scheme, all of which is of course pure fiction.
Specifically, Defendants ask the Court to absolve the scheme’s net winners from their obligation to repay the victims’ money because of an alleged “limitation” on the timing of future claims included in the scheme’s website’s “Terms of Service” (or “TOS”), which in any event do not limit the Receiver’s claims against Defendants. The Court should resist Defendants’ invitation to create the dangerous loophole of allowing a fraudster to use the terms implementing a Ponzi scheme to limit the right of a subsequently appointed Receiver to recover funds paid to the winners of the fraudulent scheme. While such a rule would be a great recruiting tool for future Ponzi scheme operators, it is surely an unacceptable legal rule and public policy.
Also, Defendants urge the Court to rule that by purchasing bids, posting online advertisements (which Zeek boasted would take only three to five minutes a day), and recruiting thousands of victims to the scheme, they provided “reasonably equivalent value” to ZeekRewards such that they get to keep the victims’ money that they won in the scheme. In other words, Defendants claim that those Defendants who spent the most time successfully promoting the scheme and multiplying the number of its victims should be given the most credit against the Receiver’s claims to recover their fraudulently transferred winnings. In fact, in arguing that they were supposedly rightly paid for their “services,” Defendants stretch to compare themselves to the utility company, which among many other differences does not invest money in their customers’ businesses hoping to share in compounding profits of 125% every ninety days.
New filings by federal prosecutors in the criminal case against Zeek’s Paul Burks reveal that a grand-jury investigation was under way within days of the SEC’s Aug. 17, 2012, shutdown of the “program” and confirmation by the U.S. Secret Service that it also was investigating Zeek.
Burks was subpoenaed by the grand jury on Aug. 24, 2012, and testified before the panel less than a month later, on Sept. 20, 2012, according to prosecutors. He ultimately was indicted by the grand jury in October 2014, more than two years after the August 2012 subpoena and his subsequent appearance the following month.
Whether others within Zeek also had been subpoenaed or had knowledge of Burks’ appearance is unclear. What is known is that a group of Zeek members — during the same 2012 time period — embarked on a fundraising campaign while accusing the SEC of misleading a federal judge and admitting it had a weak case.
One of the members of the group was Todd Disner, a former winner in the AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme later identified as a major winner in the Zeek scheme. Zeek receiver Kenneth D. Bell has raised the issue of serial promoters moving from one fraud scheme to another.
Given that ASD operator Andy Bowdoin is in federal prison for running a Ponzi scheme and Zeek’s “program” was similar to ASD in key ways, events at ASD could be problematic for Burks. How did Disner, for example, end up at Zeek?
Despite knowing about ASD in 2011, Burks nevertheless moved forward with Zeek, prosecutors contend.
The government is arguing that the ASD fraud put Burks on notice of his own fraud and that evidence pertaining to ASD should be admissible.
Precisely what the government intends to introduce about ASD is unknown. But as part of his defense, Burks is asking U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. to exclude evidence about ASD.
“This case is about Paul Burks, Rex Venture Group, Zeekler.com, and ZeekRewards.com,” Burks advised Cogburn in a June 28 trial brief. “It is not a referendum on direct selling or multi-level marketing programs. The trial of this case is not the time, or the place, for a jury to render a verdict on these types of companies or programs, which are perfectly legal yet regularly criticized.
“It is also not about corporate malfeasance or wrongdoing by others, which is precisely what the Government seeks to convey to the jury by referencing ASD. Accordingly, the Government should be barred from any reference ASD, or any other entity whose conduct is completely irrelevant to the facts of this case. Even if there is some limited relevance to ASD (it is mentioned in government witness interviews), the Court should bar any mention of ASD since the limited probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, being grossly misleading, and inviting a trial-within-a-trial.”
Burks’ trial on charges of wire fraud, mail fraud, conspiracy to commit both and conspiracy to commit tax fraud is scheduled to get under way July 5.
We’re working on a story that will cover other elements of his defense.
In a development yesterday, the government contended Burks withheld “purported” handwritten notebooks from the grand jury during his September 2012 appearance and didn’t turn them over until April 2016.
Burks now wants to use the “unauthenticated” notebooks as a trial exhibit and as the basis for the opinions of expert witnesses he intends to call, prosecutors argued.
“Defendant’s failure to produce these documents in response to the Grand Jury testimony, his testimony that he had produced all responsive documents, and the production of these Handwritten Notebooks on the eve of trial, without explanation, all raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of the Handwritten Notebooks,” prosecutors argued to Cogburn.
Whether you’re an alleged Zeek “winner” or a “loser” hoping the court will force the return of tens of millions of dollars in gains, this is one to bookmark: http://www.zeeknetwinnerclass.com/index
It’s the website of J. Kevin Edmundson, the lawyer appointed by the court in essence to defend thousands of alleged Zeek Rewards winners sued by court-appointed receiver Kenneth D. Bell. In a Nov. 5 announcement on the receivership page, Bell himself pointed his litigation opponents to the site.
“As instructed by the Court, Mr. Edmundson will be communicating with the Net Winner Class primarily through a website and collective emails,” Bell wrote.
Bell alleges the winnings are Ponzi proceeds and thus must be returned. Any number of Zeekers hope to keep the alleged gains.
The case is known as Bell v. Disner. Disner is Todd Disner, an alleged pitchman for both Zeek and the AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme in 2008. The winner’s site includes an FAQ’s section, copies of court filings and more.
“Class counsel has established this website as the primary means of communicating with members of the class,” Edmundson notes on the site. “Please check back frequently for updates as new information becomes available.”
What once was only theoretical in the context of MLM HYIP schemes — that a receiver appointed by a court could simultaneously sue thousands of “winners” from disparate locations for return of funds received from an alleged Ponzi or pyramid scheme — is now a reality.
This reality was cemented [March 17] by the posting of a “Notice of Certification of Defendant Class Action” by Zeek Rewards receiver Kenneth D. Bell. The four-page document is posted on the receivership website.
Bell is suing more than 9,000 individuals in the United States alleged to have received more than $1,000 from the “program.”
BULLETIN: Class-action attorney Robert J. Bonsignore has asked a federal judge for permission to file a third amended consolidated complaint that effectively would sue at least 20,000 “net winners” in the TelexFree scheme shut down by the SEC last year.
The proposal would name alleged TelexFree promoter Daniil Shoyfer the lead class-action defendant, effectively making him the Todd Disner of TelexFree-related court actions. Disner is a Zeek Rewards figure sued by Zeek receiver Kenneth D. Bell in clawback actions aimed at more than 9,000 alleged winners in the Zeek scheme shuttered by the SEC in 2012.
Disner also promoted the AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme broken up by the U.S. Secret Service in 2008.
The PP Blog reported in June 2015 that Shoyfer also was promoting a scheme known as MyAdvertisingPays — or MAPS, for short.
If the judge approves the proposal by Bonsignore, it would appear to mark the first time alleged TelexFree winners have been targeted en masse for the return of their alleged winnings from a scheme the SEC has described as a massive pyramid- and Ponzi fraud. Up to $1.8 billion flowed through TelexFree, now in the hands of a court-appointed trustee who has called it a pyramid scheme.
Web records showed that Shoyfer also was promoting MAPS alongside MAPS colleagues such as U.K. hucksters Simon Stepsys and Shaun Smith.
Bonsignore’s proposed amended complaint on the TelexFree front may lead to similar questions. At a minimum, the development highlights the dangers of fraud schemes that spread at least in part though the Internet to involve hundreds of thousands of participants. Victims can pile up in extraordinary numbers, and a fraction of participants who emerge as winners can end up confronting lawsuits and expensive, emotionally draining litigation.
MAPS, a purported advertising scheme similar to AdSurfDaily, continues to operate.
BULLETIN: Florida resident Robert Craddock, a figure in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi-scheme story, has been indicted in a separate scheme involving the alleged theft of more than $135,000 from a compensation fund set up to assist businesses affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010.
The office of U.S. Attorney A. Lee Bentley III of the Middle District of Florida announced Friday that Craddock, 54, of Port Orange, had been charged with wire fraud. The U.S. Secret Service conducted the probe.
According to the indictment, following the April 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig (which was being leased by BP, formerly known as British Petroleum), Craddock submitted a claim to BP and the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (“GCCF”), an independent facility established by BP to compensate qualified claimants, for lost earnings purportedly related to the impact of the oil spill on his businesses.
Though uncharged in the Zeek case, Craddock has been described by the SEC as an obstructionist who encouraged victims of the $897 million Zeek scheme not to cooperate with Kenneth D. Bell, the court-appointed receiver.
Separately, the Daytona Beach News-Journal is reporting that local property records showed that Craddock, a pilot, recently “bought a home complete with aircraft hangar that backs up to a runway in Spruce Creek Fly-In.”
In 2012, Craddock was involved in a fundraising venture purportedly to assist Zeek participants to mount a challenge against the SEC for bringing the Zeek Ponzi case. This occurred through a Craddock venture known as Fun Club USA, later described by litigants suing Craddock for alleged trademark infringement as a shell company engaged in a “shake-down” bid against affiliates of at least three MLM networks: Zeek, OfferHubb and BTG180.
Precisely how much Craddock collected in the Zeek-related fundraising effort is unclear. Also unclear is precisely how the money was used.
Zeek figures Todd Disner and T. LeMont Silver — alleged winners of millions of dollars from Zeek — helped champion the fundraising venture. Disner also was a figure in the AdSurfDaily Ponzi-scheme story, something Zeek receiver Kenneth D. Bell pointed out to a federal judge.
Bell has raised concerns that MLMers or network marketers are moving from fraud scheme to fraud scheme to fraud scheme.
Craddock has been a lightning rod for MLM controversy. In November 2012, for example, he bizarrely planted the seed that MLM attorney Kevin Thompson was practicing law without a license. Thompson described Craddock as a liar.
But if there is a signature Craddock moment, it occurred in July 2012, when Craddock sought to disable a HubPage critical of Zeek by alleging author K. Chang had engaged in libel, trademark infringement and copyright infringement. It was all a fantastic crock, and K. Chang eventually prevailed.
Less than a month after Craddock moved against K. Chang, the SEC and the U.S. Secret Service moved against Zeek.
Court records from the ASD Ponzi case show that ASD also tried to chill reporters with threats about lawsuits in the weeks prior to a government raid on ASD headquarters in August 2008.
In 2014, Craddock was listed as a copyright enforcer on the website of an entity known as Changes Worldwide LLC. The SEC has accused TelexFree figure Faith Sloan of violating the asset freeze in the TelexFree case by sending thousands of dollars to Changes Worldwide. Sloan also was a Zeek affiliate.
Craddock later reportedly authored a book whose sales copy included a claim that the U.S. government should have modeled a “stimulus program” after Zeek, which prosecutors have described as a Ponzi- and pyramid scheme that had gathered $897 million and affected hundreds of thousands of people globally.
BULLETIN: (Updated 11:11 p.m. ET U.S.A.) Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen has certified a class of more than 9,000 alleged “winners” of more than $1,000 in the Zeek Rewards scheme.
Receiver Kenneth D. Bell sued more than 10 named “winners” in February 2014 in a case styled “Kenneth D. Bell v. Todd Disner, et al.” The suit included class claims against about 9,400 winners of smaller sums.
The ruling by Mullen effectively means the winners of the smaller sums are now defendants who will be represented by the same lawyers representing the larger winners. Bell “proposed that one or more of the following named Defendants serve as Class Representatives: Trudy Gilmond and Trudy Gilmond, LLC; Jerry Napier; Darren Miller; Rhonda Gates; Innovation Marketing, LLC; Aaron Andrews; Shara Andrews; Global Internet Formula, Inc.; T. LeMont Silver; Karen Silver; and Durant Brockett,” Mullen wrote.
Disner is facing a default judgment of more than $2 million, but is trying to get it reversed.
Bell asked for the class certification in July 2014, explaining that he “asked that the Court appoint one or more of the largest net winners sued by name as class representatives because they will, by virtue of their own defense to the same claims, be adequate and appropriate representatives for the rest of the Net Winner Class.”
Mullen agreed today with that logic.
“If the Receiver herein was forced to file separate actions against the 9,400 Defendants, he would certainly be risking inconsistent and varying adjudications,” Mullen wrote. “If one court found that a fraudulent transfer occurred, but another court did not, then those inconsistent decisions would place the Receiver in a stalemated or conflicted position. If the Receiver attempted to enforce a valid judgment against a particular Defendant, that Defendant might refuse to pay because other Defendants similarly situated were not held to be liable for the same underlying conduct related to ZeekRewards. An additional layer of inconsistency would arise if the Receiver attempts to settle a lawsuit, but the Net Winner Defendant is not willing to compromise since that Defendant is already aware of the inconsistent adjudication based on the same set of facts. These anomalous results would leave the Receiver in an untenable position and circumstances such as these are precisely why class actions exist.”
Mullen specifically found that, with 9,400 defendants, Bell had satisfied the “numerosity requirement” to make a class-action reasonable and efficient. He also found that Bell had established a “commonality factor” in that the smaller winners had things in common with the larger ones.
These included questions about “whether ZeeksRewards’ operation was a Ponzi and/or pyramid scheme,” Mullen wrote.
And, he noted, “[a]ll class members had or controlled usernames and accounts with ZeekRewards through which they received funds from [Zeek operator Rex Venture Group]. Further, each class member received more money from RVG than they paid into RVG (their ‘net winnings’) during the course of their participation as affiliates in the ZeekRewards program. There is also a common question of law, that is: whether the payments from ZeekRewards to class members are fraudulent transfers that must be disgorged and repaid.”
Bell also satisfied a “typicality” requirement that examines whether “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class,” Mullen ruled.
At the same time, the judge ruled, Bell had shown that the class of 9,400 would receive “fair and adequate representation.”
“Here, the proposed Class Representatives’ interests are not antagonistic to, but rather aligned with, the interests of the unnamed class members because they share the common objective to defend against having to return funds received from ZeekRewards as demanded by the Receiver. Thus, there is no conflict which would defeat adequacy of representation.”
Mullen rejected contentions that the defendants did not have enough in common for the matter to proceed as a class action.
He also rejected contentions that the largest winners “simply cannot afford to represent the Net Winner Class, noting that “their protestations of poverty ring hollow in light of the fact that together they won over $11 million in profits from ZeekRewards.”
Regardless, Mullen observed, the “Court has repeatedly made it clear that the Receiver will be required to help fund the defense of the class.”
A footnote in the ruling reads (italics added):
That Court is mindful that despite the large winnings of the Named Defendants, it is possible that much of the net winnings has been dissipated. As stated at the last status conference in this matter, the Court fully expects that the Named Defendants will provide the Receiver with any and all evidence of their financial status and the location of all net winnings received from ZeekRewards, including deposition testimony as to the same. Such financial transparency will not only aid the Court in its determination as to what extent the Receiver shall be required to fund the defense of the class, but will also undoubtedly aid in any settlement discussions.
Disner, who pitched both the AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme and Zeek, is now listed as a “Black Diamond” member on the website of an MLM program known as Lumaxa.
Lumaxa sells Nyloxin, a pain-relief product made from cobra-venom. Longtime MLM huckster Phil Piccolo has been linked to the Nyloxin program once sold through MyNyloxin.com and may be a Zeek winner. Another business with a Piccolo tie was known as Text Cash Network or TCN. It operated from the area of Boca Raton, Fla.
An entity known as “TCN CUSTOMER SERVICE INC” of Boca Raton is listed as a Zeek winner.
Lumaxa, the company to which the MyNyloxin domain now rotates, may be facing some challenges, a source with knowledge of the “program” told the PP Blog.
“The company is sounding desperate to have people keep their money invested, and in fact giving more, higher rates of interest to cancel their withdrawals and earn more,” the source said.
Florida “Expat” and Zeek Rewards Ponzi-scheme figure T. LeMont Silver yuks it up earlier this year in the Dominican Republic. Source: YouTube.
MLM, witness your latest PR train wreck — as voiced by alleged Zeek “winner” and purported “revenue sharing” consultant/trainer and Florida “Expat” T. LeMont Silver. (Video below.)
In a consolidated motion in response to motions by various alleged Zeek “winners” to dismiss the clawback lawsuits against them, the court-appointed receiver in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi- and pyramid case has asked the court to take “judicial notice” of two YouTube videos featuring Silver, a veteran HYIP huckster.
In typical HYIP fashion that marries the merely imponderable to the truly bizarre, one of them painfully is titled, “(T. Le Mont Silver, Sr.), (7 Figure Producer) shares about Plan B part #2.” (Bold emphasis added by PP Blog.)
The HYIP sphere, the staging waters for boat sharks who throw purported rescue jackets to victims bloodied in the water from earlier scams and desperately struggling to stay afloat, is infamous for Plans B.
Although the “program” isn’t identified in the video, Silver’s Plan B appears to be the ill-fated JubiRev/JubiMax. (See June 18, 2013, BehindMLM.com story.)
MLM may have a problem with “serial participants” in Zeek-like schemes to defraud, Zeek receiver Kenneth D. Bell suggests in the motion asking the court to take judicial notice of the Silver videos.
The language chosen by the receiver is similar to language the SEC used in 2013 to describe MLM HYIP huckster Matthew John Gagnon. Gagnon, the SEC said at the time, was a “serial fraudster.”
The context of the SEC’s Gagnon prosecution may be important. Indeed, one of the “programs” he was accused of promoting was the infamous Legisi scheme, a semi-offshore debacle the SEC took down in 2008. Like Zeek, the Legisi case started with asset freezes and the appointment of a receiver.
Time slowly marched on. But in 2009, the receiver sued Gagnon. In 2010, the SEC filed civil charges against him. He was charged criminally in 2011.
Legisi, the SEC said, operated a “classic pooled investment vehicle.” In one of the Silver videos cited by the receiver, Silver describes his “Plan B” program as the operator of a “pot.”
Women between the ages of 30 and 55 were the financial targets of the “opportunity,” according to one of the videos referenced by Bell.
The video tends to suggest that Silver understood how Zeek got caught by using highly questionable “bids” as its “product” and that the MLM’s trade’s serial fraud wing immediately sought more clever disguises — hiding an HYIP scam behind the purported sale of ostensibly legitimate products such as cosmetics and diet shakes, for instance.
Silver has appeared in “many” online videos and has promoted “several ‘revenue sharing’ schemes in addition to Zeek,” receiver Kenneth D. Bell advised Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen.
Bell supplied the court links to the videos.
In the HYIP sphere, the term “revenue sharing” is used to make schemes appear to be innocuous.
As noted above, the HYIP sphere is infamous for purported Plans B, which typically are cosmetically tweaked reload schemes designed to fleece an initial group of marks for a second time.
Here, it’s appropriate to revisit HYIP history for a second time. If you believe AdSurfDaily Ponzi schemer Andy Bowdoin caused an almost inconceivable amount of PR damage to the MLM trade by comparing the U.S. Secret Service to “Satan” and the 9/11 terrorists, wait until you get a load of what T. LeMont Silver does in one of his videos cited by the receiver. (Video appears at bottom of this column.)
By way of background, the HYIP sphere is infamous for dropping the names of famous entities and people, even if they have no ties whatsoever to the “opportunity” being presented.
Although Silver apparently isn’t selling Avon or Amway or Mary Kay or Herbalife or ViSalus in the video, he drops the names of all of them (and more). Along the way he drops in a veiled reference to Zeek, describing it as a penny auction “program” in which affiliates would “make large purchases of . . . let’s say ‘bids’,” with Zeek’s product creating a “big issue” with regulators.
Silver notes that he’ll provide “training” for the upstart “program,” positioning it as a way for average MLMers to make money without having to recruit or to orchestrate “dog and pony” presentations. Regardless, Silver assures the audience that he’s a master of the MLM dog and pony. He further suggests that, because Zeek’s “bids” had caught the attention of regulators, the trade’s braintrust now is turning toward “more traditional MLM-type products and services.”
Putting lipstick on brand-new HYIP pigs or evolving ones is part and parcel to the HYIP sphere. Silver’s video suggests that the HYIP trade has learned that sketchy products such as Zeek’s bids might not fly and now was concentrating on attracting women between the ages of 30 and 55 by wrapping cosmetics, weight-loss shakes, home products and travel into a purported “revenue sharing” model in which participants who bought in would receive “pro rata” shares from a giant revenue pot.
After suggesting he has inside information about the new HYIP regime, Silver curiously observes that he is “very, very key on genealogical integrity.” We interpret this to mean that he’d be exceptionally pleased if people with existing MLM organizations within traditional companies would port them into his next scam.
Even though he’s apparently not selling Amway in the video, he bizarrely also prompts viewers not to dare “call Amway Scamway.” Equally bizarrely, Silver congratulates the company for “legitimizing this industry” back in the 1970s by purportedly “kick[ing] the backside” of the U.S. government and the government’s “[p]atootie.”
“My goodness,” he says. “Thank you, Amway.”
Yes. T. LeMont Silver has now publicly thanked Amway for kicking the government’s ass 35 years ago and, under his interpretation of In the Matter of Amway Corporation, Inc., et al., paving the way for people to send tremendous sums of money to companies with presumptively better disguises than Zeek.
Amway is a lot of things — good and bad — to a lot of people. Unlike Zeek, however, it is not an HYIP that offered “passive” investors who sent in $10,000 or smaller sums a laugh-out-loud, average daily return of 1.5 percent, basically in perpetuity.
Gawd!
Our take on Silver’s take of the 1979 non-HYIP Amway decision is that it somehow made preposterous “revenue sharing programs” as seen in the HYIP sphere lawful or that all HYIP schemes are lawful if they have product such as those offered by Avon, Amway, Herbalife and the others. But the pyramid analysis, of course, does not exclusively hinge on whether a company has a “product.” If it did, Zeek (“bids”) and BurnLounge (“music”) would still be in business. Moreover, there would be no Bill Ackman/Herbalife dichotomy, no question about whether Herbalife was Jurassic Park or Disneyland. In short, MLM heaven on earth would not be a rumor, it would be a reality.
“Plan B,” meanwhile, is a virtual calling card of HYIP swindles, with prospects typically given instructions to join at least two “programs” in case one of them fails or to quickly join another “program” when a favored one collapses or encounters regulatory scrutiny.
Silver is a longtime pusher of “Plan B” MLM HYIPs, which, as noted above, typically call themselves “revenue sharing programs.” He’s hardly alone. Zeek figure and purported MLM expert Keith Laggos pushed the Lyoness “program” to Zeekers as a “Plan B” just prior to the Aug. 17, 2012, collapse of Zeek. (See Aug. 12, 2012, PP Blog editorial: “Karl Wallenda Wouldn’t Do Zeek.”)
Lyoness, among other things, dropped the name of Nelson Mandela in sales promos.
Among the tips Laggos provided to listeners of a Lyoness conference call was this: “Don’t put no more than 70 percent back in [Zeek]. Take out 20 or 30 percent [on] a daily basis. [Unintelligible.] This would be a good place. But, by the same token, if you put $10,000 in Zeekler, if nothing happens over the next year, you’ll probably make $30,000 or $40,000, if that’s all you do without building the front end, the matrix . . . The same amount of money in Lyoness, you’re looking . . . and not doing anything else, without single sponsoring . . . you can probably make a quarter-million dollars.”
One of the problems with HYIP schemes is that they cause polluted money to flow between and among scams, in part because the scams have serial promoters in common. The inevitable result is that payment vendors become warehouses for fraud proceeds, prompting the government to apply for asset freezes and account seizures to stop the flow of tainted cash.
Receiver Cites Second Silver Video
The second video featuring Silver — an alleged winner of more than $1.71 million in Zeek — is titled “Internet Entreprenuer Family Chooses Cabrera [Dominican Republic] For Their New Expat Lifestyle.” It shows Silver and his wife — another alleged Zeek winner — lounging in the Dominican Republic after the collapse of the Zeek scheme.
Prior to relocating to the Dominican Republic, Silver told his downline in a failed MLM “program” known as GoFunPlaces to take advantage of “low-hanging fruit” (other disaffected GoFunPlaces members) and become recruiters for a “program” known as Jubimax. The “programs” ultimately accused each other of fraud.
Silver also promoted “OneX,” which federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia described as an AdSurfDaily-like, money-circulating scheme. ASD operator Andy Bowdoin, now jailed after the collapse of the ASD fraud in 2008, also promoted OneX, explaining to prospects that they’d earn $99,000 very quickly and that he’d use the money he’d earned to pay for his criminal defense in the ASD case.
Bowdoin asserted OneX was great for college students. Silver asserted that positions being given away were worth $5,000.
Prosecutors also linked Bowdoin to AdViewGlobal, an ASD reload scam that operated as a “Plan B.” AdViewGlobal, which purported to operate offshore but actually was operating from Florida and Arizona, mysteriously vanished in the summer of 2009.
Zeek receiver Bell, who connected alleged Zeek winner Todd Disner to the ASD Ponzi scheme in court filings this week, now says in court filings that certain Zeek clawback defendants “may well be serial participants in these types of schemes.”
One of the things that makes Zeek-related litigation unique in the history of actions flowing from HYIP schemes is that Bell is not limiting his lawsuits to a relatively small universe of alleged major winners such as Silver. In a proposed class action, he’s also pursuing more than 9,000 alleged winners of smaller sums (more than $1,000 but less than $900,000), something that could have a long-needed chilling effect on serial promoters who may enter an HYIP Ponzi knowingly but less publicly.
Some early HYIP Ponzi entrants may recruit heavily at first and be satisfied with smaller sums, because the larger plan is to get out quickly on the theory smaller winners won’t be pursued.
Regulators have warned for years about the online phenomenon of “riding the Ponzi.”
BULLETIN: (UPDATED 4:29 P.M. EDT U.S.A.) Zeek Rewards receiver Kenneth D. Bell — for the first time — has referenced the AdSurfDaily Ponzi case in a federal court filing. Zeek, believed to have gathered on the order of $850 million, is known to have had participants in common with ASD, a $119 million fraud.
Some MLM HYIP promoters proceed from fraud scheme to fraud scheme, racking up windfalls along the way.
Bell’s specific reference to ASD is in the context of alleged Zeek “winner” Todd Disner, already the subject of a clerk’s entry of default in a Zeek receivership lawsuit against Disner and other alleged winners.
Disner was defaulted for not entering a defense.
After not defending against the receiver’s claims, Disner then sought to file pro se to set aside the default. Bell is seeking more than $2 million from Disner, including more than $1.8 million in alleged Zeek winnings, plus interest.
Bell said today in court filings that the default entry should stand. Meanwhile, the receiver strongly suggested that Disner, after earlier having played games in ASD-related litigation, now was trying to do the same thing with Zeek.
“Mr. Disner is no stranger to litigation,” Bell said. “For instance, as a promoter of the Ad Surf Daily Ponzi Scheme, Disner earned significant funds and filed a twenty-nine page pro se Complaint for Declaratory Relief against the federal government in late 2011 claiming wrongful seizure of his Ad Surf Daily Ponzi scheme winnings . . . ”
Disner eventually lost the case he filed against the government in the Southern District of Florida — this after he earlier lost a pro se bid to intervene in the ASD case in the District of Columbia.
Disner’s co-plaintiff in the Southern Florida case was former AdSurfDaily pitchman Dwight Owen Schweitzer, potentially a Bell Zeek target along with Disner. Schweitzer, a former attorney whose license to practice law was suspended in Connecticut, is listed as a “winner” of more than $1,000 on the Zeek receivership website.
“Mr. Disner also has a history of dilatory action in litigation,” Bell said. “In the [ASD-related] case he filed against the United States, the government filed a motion to dismiss on May 18, 2012. However, Disner failed to provide any response to the motion to dismiss. As a result, the court was forced to order Disner to file a response . . .
“In light of his history, Mr. Disner was aware of the severe consequences of a failure to plead or defend [in the action against Zeek winners],” Bell said. “Despite this clear knowledge, he nonetheless failed to raise a hand until after default had been entered in this matter. For this reason as well, the motion should be denied.”
Bell also moved today to certify a class of more than 9,000 net-winner defendants from Zeek, all of whom allegedly won more than $1,000. Schweitzer potentially could be a member of this class, given the appearance of his name in a document on the receivership website maintained by Bell.
Summary of Todd Disner’s alleged Zeek winnings. Source: Exhibit by court-appointed receiver.
Zeek Rewards “winner” Todd Disner owes the receivership estate $2,079,757.88, according to a motion asking the court clerk to enter a default judgment.
Receiver Kenneth D. Bell filed for the judgment July 9 in federal court for the Western District of North Carolina, seeking not only Disner’s alleged Zeek haul of $1,800,037.06, but also interest of $279,720.82.
Zeek’s records show that Disner paid $11,810.49 into the “program,” beginning with an initial outlay of $480 on March 4, 2011, shortly after Zeek started business.
From that initial outlay and others, $1,811,847.55 flowed back to him, the receiver advised Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen and the court clerk. The lion’s share of Disner’s outlay — $10,000 — was paid to Zeek on July 6, 2012. Zeek collapsed six weeks later, on Aug. 17, 2012.
Disner’s last Zeek withdrawal totaled $102,617.73 and occurred on July 30, 2012, less than three weeks prior to the SEC action that spelled doom for the “program.” His largest withdrawal, according to the receiver’s filing, was for $177,026.27 on July 9, 2012.
A former AdSurfDaily Ponzi pitchman who once sued the United States for alleged misdeeds in the ASD case, Disner regularly withdrew tens of thousands of dollars at a time from Zeek, according to the receiver’s filing.
Zeek operated as part of Rex Venture Group.
Bell also filed today for clerk’s default judgment against alleged winners David Sorrells and Michael Van Leeuwen. The receiver is seeking $1,197,241.12 from Sorrells, including $157,672.63 in interest. Meanwhile, he is seeking $1,617,444.99 from Van Leeuwen, including $213,012.07 in interest.
Disner’s unsuccessful lawsuit against the United States for allegedly violating his right to privacy in the ASD case was docketed on Nov. 7, 2011.
Bell’s filing shows that Zeek paid Disner $7,199.49 on the same day.
BULLETIN: (UPDATED 9:55 A.M. EDT, JULY 3, U.S.A.) The court-appointed receiver in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi- and pyramid case has moved for default against alleged Zeek winner Todd Disner. Disner, of Miami, also was a pitchman for the 2008 AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme, a $119 million fraud that put ASD operator Andy Bowdoin in federal prison.
Disner received more than $1.875 million through Zeek, receiver Kenneth D. Bell alleged. Zeek launched after the U.S. Secret Service exposed the ASD Ponzi scheme. ASD was a 1-percent-a-day scam. Zeek, according to court filings, sucked in participants with claims payouts averaged more than 1.4 percent a day over the course of a week.
Bell said in court filings today that Disner was among a number of Zeek winners who have failed to plead or otherwise defend against the clawback lawsuits filed against them in February. June 30 was the deadline for filing responsive pleadings.
The receiver also is seeking default against alleged Zeek winner and clawback defendant Michael Van Leeuwen, also known as “Coach Van,” of Fayetteville, N.C., and David Sorrells of Scottsdale, Az. Van Leeuwen allegedly received more than $1.4 million through Zeek, and Sorrells allegedly received more than $1 million.
Meanwhile, Bell also is seeking default against alleged Zeek insider Darryle Douglas of Orange, Calif.
Douglas received more than $1.975 million from Zeek, Bell said in court filings in February.
3RD UPDATE 4:52 P.M. ET U.S.A. Paul Burks, the principal behind the $939 million Zeek Rewards Ponzi- and pyramid scheme broken up by the SEC and the U.S. Secret Service in August 2012, has been sentenced to 176 months in federal prison, the office of U.S. Attorney Jill Westmoreland Rose of the Western District of North Carolina said moments ago.
