RICO Lawsuit Against Bowdoin, Busby, Garner Makes Veiled Reference To ’80-20′ Rule; Signals That ‘Surf’ Promoters Run Risk Of Being Named Defendants In Racketeering Actions

A racketeering lawsuit against ASD President Andy Bowdoin, ASD attorney Robert Garner and Golden Panda Ad Builder President Clarence Busby makes a veiled reference to what autosurf participants refer to as the “80-20” rule.

The reference signals that both private litigants and the government are wise to methods autosurf promoters use to stem the outflow of cash and maintain the deception to encourage new money to flow into the system. Under the so-called 80-20 plans, participants remove 20 percent in cash and let 80 percent ride in the surf.

Another unstated advantage the “80-20” plans bring autosurfs is to keep cash-out amounts below daily electronic-transfer limitations imposed by banks and payment processors. By discouraging cash-outs, the surf firms can hide the limitations from participants, meaning their inability to honor all cash-out requests also is hidden.

Members of AdViewGlobal, a surf firm with close ties to ASD, have formed an “80-20 Club.” But the veiled reference in the RICO lawsuit, which was brought by ASD members, signals that such promotions ultimately may drag autosurf promoters in general into future racketeering litigation, with downline members hiring attorneys to file class-action lawsuits against both the surfs and upline sponsors under RICO statutes.

“The RICO Defendants induce members to leave earned rebates in ASD as a cash balance by claiming that by doing so, members will significantly increase earnings,” the plaintiffs in the ASD RICO case said.

“In this way, the RICO Defendants encourage members to continue to contribute to ASD’s scheme,” the plaintiffs said. “Furthermore, members do not learn that ASD cannot live up to its promises until members attempt to cash out. Members may watch their ASD accounts grow by delaying cash out, but the only real growth is of ASD’s pyramid.”

ASD employed another deception — calling the amount in a member’s account a “cash balance” — to keep money in the system, the plaintiffs said.

By referring to the amount as a “cash balance,” ASD “falsely represents that the account balance has the liquidity of cash.”