PatrickPretty.com

Category: The Economy

  • Plaintiffs Say BOA Dismissal Motion Should Be Denied, Ask Court To Note 80/20 Plan And SolidTrustPay Activity, Cite ASD Payoff Of Mortgage Held By AdViewGlobal Owners

    Andy Bowdoin
    Andy Bowdoin

    A federal judge should deny Bank of America’s motion to be dismissed as a defendant in a case that alleges it aided and abetted racketeers operating a massive Ponzi scheme from a former floral shop in Quincy, Fla., the plaintiffs argued yesterday.

    Bank of America is not named a RICO defendant in the case, which was filed by three members of AdSurfDaily. The plaintiffs seek class-action status and treble damages.

    The bank said in court filings that it has done nothing wrong, and argued that the plaintiffs had made vague assertions and not stated a proper claim.

    Attorneys for the plaintiffs disagreed, filing a lengthy response to the bank’s dismissal motion — a response that cites suspicious wire transactions ASD routed through SolidTrustPay, a payment processor based in Canada.

    Meanwhile, the plaintiffs said the bank ignored ASD President Andy Bowdoin’s felony criminal record, his ties to a previous securities scheme and his history of operating multiple failed businesses. The plaintiffs made a veiled reference to ASD’s efforts to promote an 80/20 program — something that is occurring now in the AdViewGlobal (AVG) autosurf, which has close ASD ties.

    At the same time, the plaintiffs referenced a December forfeiture complaint in which federal prosecutors alleged that ASD money was used to retire the home mortgage of George and Judy Harris. George Harris is the stepson of Andy Bowdoin and the son of Edna Faye Bowdoin, Andy Bowdoin’s wife. Judy Harris is the wife of George Harris.

    AVG, which previously had disclaimed any affiliation with ASD, now says it is owned by George and Judy Harris. Andy Bowdoin identified George Harris last summer as the head of ASD’s “real estate division.”

    Attorneys for the plaintiffs also referenced Andy Bowdoin’s own acknowledgments that ASD was operating illegally.

    “ASD was the brainchild of Thomas Bowdoin, a convicted felon with a history of securities fraud violations and failed business ventures,” the plaintiffs said. “Bowdoin admits that ASD operated [as] a Ponzi scheme.

    “ASD sold no products or services, held no intellectual property rights, and had no successful business professionals in management or on its Board,” the plaintiffs continued. “ASD had no colorable legitimate means to generate the massive profits (365% per year) Bowdoin and his co-conspirators promised investors nor the tens of millions of dollars a month flooding its tiny office — a former floral shop — in the small town of Quincy, Florida.”

    The bank missed key markers of a scam, the plaintiffs alleged.

    “Indeed, when Bowdoin began his relationship with Bank of America, the illegal ‘AutoSurf’ schemes which ASD emulated were well known among banks, regulators and law enforcement authorities,” the plaintiffs said.

    “It is no wonder that the two local banks in Quincy refused to even open an account for Bowdoin and ASD. Bank of America, on the other hand, welcomed Bowdoin with open arms, allowing him to open not one but ultimately 10 separate d/b/a accounts. In one month alone, $90 million dollars in cash, cashiers checks and Visa credit card charges were deposited in these accounts. Bank of America made it possible for victims throughout the country to deposit funds with the Ponzi scheme by simply completing a deposit slip and adding the ASD account number. Many of the deposit slips were even pre-printed with ASD’s account information.

    “Bank of America also enabled unsuspecting victims to wire transfer contributions to ASD from anywhere in the world,” the plaintiffs said. “Bank of America willingly allowed ASD to falsely legitimize its operations using the Bank’s good name. Bank of America never once questioned or asked ASD to remove its name from its website or written materials that prominently featured Bank of America.”

    Reference To Harris Mortgage

    On Page 15 of their answer to the bank’s dismissal motion, the plaintiffs referenced the government’s assertion that ASD money was used to pay off the home mortgage of George and Judy Harris and in other unusual ways.

    “By virtue of its active involvement in ASD’s business affairs, Bank of America was aware that funds flowed from the RICO Defendants’ accounts in a manner inconsistent with a legitimate business,” the plaintiffs asserted. “Bowdoin, in particular, used ASD business accounts at Bank of America with impunity to purchase personal luxury items, to pay off mortgages for family members, to buy property, and to otherwise dissipate business funds.”

    The plaintiffs then referenced what they described as red-flag-waving transactions ASD routed to Solid Trust Pay, a payment processor based in Canada.

    “ASD’s transfers of funds from Bank of America accounts also provided Bank of America with information about the suspicious nature of ASD’s operations,” the plaintiffs said.

    “In a two-week period, the RICO Defendants wired several million dollars from their Bank of America accounts to an internet-operated, Canada-based money transmitting and payment company. Such a transaction is not consistent with a legitimate business enterprise.

    “The RICO Defendants additionally used funds from the Bank of America accounts of one scheme, ASD, to seed the Bank of America accounts of another scheme operated by the RICO Defendants, Golden Panda. These transactions, too, were consistent with a fraudulent scheme, and inconsistent with legitimate business activity.”

    On Page 25 of their answer to Bank of America, the plaintiffs referenced ASD’s efforts to get members to participate in an 80/20 program. Such programs are designed to stem the outflow of cash from an autosurf.

    “The RICO Defendants counseled members on reinvesting rebates and commissions under the auspices of trying to help members maximize their financial gains,” the plaintiffs said.

    AVG, which announced that it was suspending payouts to members, advised members that participation in an 80/20 program would be mandatory should the surf resume payouts on a date uncertain.

    AVG’s name was mentioned in a previous filing by the plaintiffs, although the surf firm has not been named a RICO defendant.

    Andy Bowdoin, a RICO defendant along with ASD attorney Robert Garner, has not responded to the complaint, which was filed in January and amended in April. Garner answered the complaint, saying U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia did not have jurisdiction over him.

    Read the plaintiffs’ answer to BOA.

  • AdViewGlobal’s June 1 News Release Had Typo That Directed Traffic Away From Website Firm Was Showcasing

    Typoz happen. (See?)

    But a typo in a June 1 news release by AdViewGlobal (AVG) directed traffic away from a new website the firm was showcasing and caused it to land on a site registered in Europe.

    The domain — adveiwglobal.com, in which the “e” and “i” are transposed — is registered in the Czech Republic. The Czech site, which appears to redirect to Los Angeles, is a search portal with advertisements for making money at home. It was registered in March.

    None of the content on the site appears to be related to AVG, which defines itself as a professional advertising and communications firm based in Uruguay.

    AVG’s news release was issued through PR Newswire. The correct URL for AVG appears near the top of the release, but the transposed URL appears at the bottom. Some media outlets republished the news release and provided clickable links.

    Any person who reads the news release from top to bottom and clicks on the link at the bottom is taken to the Czech site.

    Here is an example of a site from which viewers who click on the bottom link are taken to the  Czech site.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4PRN/is_2009_June_1/ai_n31912229/

    Some sites that republished the AVG news release did not provide clickable links — either in the top position or the bottom. Had visitors copied and pasted the URL near the top of the news release into their browser window, they would have arrived at the site AVG was showcasing. Visitors who copied and pasted the lower URL would have arrived at the Czech site.

    It sometimes is a strategy to misspell words in web-based content to gain a search-engine advantage, although deliberately misspelling a URL and directing traffic away from a website launch promotion would not seem prudent. It is unclear if the typo that appeared in the June 1 news release was a deliberate mistake on AVG’s part or just a plain, old-fashioned typo.

    It is possible that the Czech site hopes to gain visits from people who misspell the adviewglobal domain name. The practice is controversial — and potentially brings trademark issues into play — because it enables a site that may have no connection to a brand to leach traffic from the brand by registering a domain name that approximates the branded domain.

    Whether adviewglobal.com is aware of adveiwglobal.com is unclear.

    What is clear is that the Czech site could have benefited from the typo, whether it was deliberate or accidental. Visitors who landed on the page expecting to see a dynamic web portal of the sort AVG described in the news release could have been confused. Such visitors would have to take additional steps — such as returning to the news release and looking for the appropriate link or discovering for themselves that a typo had occurred, and then typing the correct URL into their browser windows — in order to visit the AVG site.

  • Plaintiffs: North Carolina Attorney Robert Garner Was ‘One Of The Architects’ Of AdSurfDaily Ponzi Scheme

    Robert GarnerAdSurfDaily attorney Robert Garner “was one of the architects of the ASD Ponzi scheme,” plaintiffs suing Garner for racketeering said yesterday.

    Garner was “a director of ASD and outside counsel for ASD,” the plaintiffs said. “He appeared on various Internet videos where he attested to the bona fides of the ASD, among other numerous false statements, in an effort to fabricate a veil of legitimacy for ASD.”

    In addition, the plaintiffs alleged, Garner “not only was involved in the development of the ASD program, serving as a director of AdSurfDaily, Inc., but he also held himself out in a position of trust, confidence and superior knowledge by issuing a statement regarding ASD’s legality.”

    Garner is representing himself in court. The plaintiffs’ claims came in response to a motion by Garner to be dismissed as a RICO defendant because U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had no jurisdiction over him.

    “Not so,” the plaintiffs said. “[O]ne of the named Plaintiffs ensnared in the ASD scheme, Frank Greene, is a resident of the District of Columbia.”

    And, they added, “[O]ne of the special agents who investigated the related forfeiture proceedings opened an ‘upgraded member’ account with ASD from a location in the District of Columbia via the Internet, and made a direct deposit into ASD’s account with defendant Bank of America by delivering a check to the Bank of America branch at 700 13th Street, NW, Washington, DC.”

    Garner, the plaintiffs said, was “identified in ASD materials as outside counsel, and he is a
    director of AdsurfDaily, Inc., and a manager of T. Andy Bowdoin, LLC.”

    Claim: ASD Rose From The Ashes Of 12DailyPro, PhoenixSurf

    “Mr. Garner was present at the creation of the ASD Ponzi scheme,” the plaintiffs alleged. “The concept for ASD was borne out of the collapse in early- to mid-2006 of two other confirmed Ponzi schemes – 12Daily Pro and Phoenix Surf – which were targets of investigations and subsequent litigation by the Securities [and] Exchange Commission.

    Garner and Bowdoin were aided in their racketeering scheme by “other co-conspirators,” the plaintiffs said. They are seeking treble damages in the case.

    The RICO defendants and co-conspirators “sought to improve upon the core Ponzi business model with the goal of developing the largest Internet auto-surf program in operation,” the plaintiffs said.

    Wordplay was part of the conspiracy, the plaintiffs said.

    “In customizing their Ponzi scheme, the RICO Defendants coined new (or slightly revised) terms for old concepts and made a few adjustments to the model and its operation not in an effort to create a legal business, but rather to ‘fix’ areas that contributed to the collapse of the prior schemes and to shield the Ponzi scheme from increased scrutiny by regulators or law enforcement personnel.”

    The plaintiffs also said Bowdoin, Garner and co-conspirators banned the use of certain words in a bid to stay under the radar.

    They “implemented some adjustments to the program such as forbidding the use of the term ‘investment’ in connection with the sale of ad packages to ASD members and instituting an open-ended time period for earning the ‘promised’ maximum rebate on purchased ad packages.”

    Using video was a key part of the plan, the plaintiffs alleged.

    “One of the key innovations that Bowdoin and Garner contributed in an effort to improve
    the core Ponzi business model was to create a cloak of legitimacy about it, through video
    presentations posted on the Internet promoting ASD,” the plaintiffs said.

    Among false claims that appeared online about ASD, the plaintiffs said, were claims that “ASD would sign up over one hundred Fortune 500 companies; that ASD has a contract for the placement of three advertisements on its homepage that would generate at least $13 million per year; that ASD’s rebate program is a ‘loss leader’ that enables ASD to grow its member participation and pay members’ rebates with revenue from large commercial advertisers,” the plaintiffs said.

  • GUEST COLUMN: Payment Processors That Give Refunds Unilaterally Help Surf ‘Industry’ Live To See Another Day

    Editor’s Note: This is a guest column by Gregg Evans.

    Online Payment Processors, Enablers of Scams

    By Greggory B. Evans, PhD

    Recently it came to light that online payment processor Solid Trust Pay had decided unilaterally to refund some participants in the besieged autosurf ASD Cash Generator. In doing so, it appears STP may have violated Canadian abandoned accounts regulations, but even if by some quirk of lightly regulated Canadian processors, this policy is ripe for abuse and almost assuredly resulted in inequitable treatment.

    ASD accepted payments from any number of methods, including direct deposits into bank accounts, as well as other online payment processors. In giving refunds based solely upon their own records, STP has no way of knowing if they are refunding people who are in fact otherwise in profit and made withdrawals from other processors.

    If these funds had been in the United States, where ASD assets were seized last August, this money would have been pooled into a consolidated estate and, according to statements from the Justice Department, been available for refunds to losers in the scam, refunds based upon the complete records of ASD, from all sources.

    Another apparent problem with STP’s refund policy is it flies in the face of traditional practice, where merchants who have funds that belong to customers who have no activity have absolute rights to their property for periods that range from 7 years in most U.S. States, up to the Canadian Policy that abandoned accounts in excess of $1,000 of 10 years at the merchant, and an additional period of up to 90 years, or indefinitely.

    Accounts of more than $100 but less than $1000 are retained by merchants in Canada for 10 years, and then turned over to the Canadian Central Bank, where they are held for 30 more years.

    The stated policy of Solid Trust Pay is to consider accounts “inactive” after 180 days, at which point they have in at least this case refunded some, but apparently not all, of the remaining funds in an account to the accounts from which it arrived.  Their method of determining how much each participant receives is not known, and from personal knowledge of mine, some participants receive no refund at all.  The reasons for this, the formula for determining refunds, and any fees STP retains for their trouble is not clear.

    It’s also not exactly clear that Canada, or Ontario where STP is located, place any limit on the fees a payment processor can charge, and in fact it may be perfectly legal for them to keep the biggest share of the funds and claim it as fees. Well, except for the unclaimed funds laws, which apparently they were unaware of.

    A poster here who identified herself as a representative of STP claimed that their refund policy had the approval of their attorney. I find that hard to believe, it sounds more to me like they didn’t realize that all merchants have to comply with laws that most people not versed in business practices don’t even know exist.  It seems to me that a lot of what the processors do is much like the Ponzi schemes they support, made up as they go along. In the same post, the STP representative said that they try to screen their customers for legitimate businesses.  This is a claim I find laughable at best.

    STP and other online payment processors exist in, support, and largely make possible the easy-money Ponzi scheme culture of HYIP and autosurf programs. Without them, the “industry” could not exist. Scammers, crooks and money-launderers need a transfer system that provides irreversible payments, and they also provide some measure of invisibility for the “Admins” of online money scams.

    Regulations in Canada have tightened up the invisible part, but these processors are still providing one-stop shopping for Ponzi schemes and autosurfs — and, to be sure, any number of criminals who at least have the sense to keep their activities a bit more low key.  But I digress.

    Let’s look at some of the customers STP has had in the past, these pillars of business who they were very careful to check and make sure they were legitimate businesses.  Aside from ASD, some of their more notable clients are P2P, or Pathway to Prosperity, an Internet HYIP Ponzi whose leader is currently wanted in Canada and is a fugitive from Justice.  Megalido was also an STP customer, this program popped up right around the time ASD was raided, and played to the ASD crowd as a way to recoup their losses.

    Mrs. VIP/Global Marketing Solutions was another STP-supported program; they suspended payments when they said they got new owners in December, the payments were supposed to begin again in 6-8 weeks, it’s been 7 months and no sign yet of them resuming payments.

    Another one I’m researching is DR Fund, a program heavily promoted by Jake Amedee and friends over at ASA Monitor, which is itself a clearing house for fraud and Ponzi schemes. I could name dozens more of these “legitimate” businesses, which I’m sure STP knows have stolen tens of millions of dollars from the public, much of it money from people who were told they were investing in real businesses, and of course, with their assurance that they screen their customers, STP is at least partly responsible for those losses.  At least more so than Bank of America, named in a lawsuit lawsuit brought by some ASD victims.

    Meanwhile, in a reply to a post I made asking questions about their business practices, the STP spokesperson whined about customers complaining about their policies on refunds. A quick look in the forums where Ponzi scams are promoted will reveal that when a program suspends payments for a short period of time, people begin discussing where and how they can get the payment processors to consider refunds.

    Unilateral Refunds Institutionalize The Abuse

    Payment processors should never give refunds directly to the people who play these scams. Legally, until a court of competent jurisdiction says otherwise, the money still belongs to the person who owns the account. Any unilateral action by the processors short-circuits the legal rights of whomever the money rightfully belongs to, whether that is the scammer, or if the authorities so determine, the victims of the scam.

    Regardless, that’s not a decision the money-handlers should or even could make with any fairness. A few situations like that and it’s likely the participants will begin as a practice of making all deposits with the processor most liberal in refund history, and all withdrawals from another account. So what.  Tell your customers you cannot refund their payments, the whole point of your business is irreversible payments.

    Granted, your customers are for the most part people who play scams for whatever reasons, most of them have no regard for the people who lose in order for them to make profits. They engage in illegal money frauds, and now they want the protection that “real” businesses afford them.  Too bad.  They’re in a lousy industry for fairness or ethical business practices. The same goes for STP and the other payment processors who cater to HYIPs, autosurfs and unregistered online investing.  You built your business on being the pseudo legal link in criminal enterprises.

    You might, and I stress the word “might,” be following the letter of the law. Or you may be trying to stay on the legal side of the law and due to your own ignorance be falling a little short, as I suspect your refund policy does.  But let me ask, if your grandmother asked about your business, and wanted the full unadulterated truth about the things you do, would you feel good telling her?

    Would you be proud explaining at the family reunion how you make your money? And not the best face you can put on it, you have to imagine telling granny about every single program you accommodated that turned out to be a cheap Ponzi scheme, how many millions of dollars were lost be people who risked more than they could afford to lose, how many marriages fell apart, homes were lost, children missed meals, and how you make it possible for this industry to thrive?  I suspect not.

    Further, if you really can with a straight face tell me you’re actually proud of the misery you help cause, I suspect you might be a sociopath, and you might have sold your granny out for a few fees.

    I’m calling you out, Solid Trust Pay.  I double dog dare you to tell the crooks who utilize your services to hit the road.  Hire a compliance auditor who knows how to do a little due diligence, and by that I don’t mean checking at ASA Monitor to see how many “I got paid” posts there are, but someone who knows enough about accounting, law, business and investing to look at what a company is doing and what it’s just claiming to do.  I ask, no, let me rephrase that, I DEMAND you make your refund policy transparent and I’ll be checking with the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee to find out what the exact law is on your policy and asking them to give your practices a look as well.

    I also feel very strongly that you should disclose the fees you took on the refunds not only from ASD, but also MegaLido and any other funds you decided to return. Court records indicate that ASD moved several million dollars to you days before they were raided, but I see only a pittance in refunds. Granted, not every participant posts their refunds, but surely if you returned a few millions we’d see an aggregate of more than a few thousand dollars in discussions.

    You enable an entire industry of crime.  Eventually, the regulations will catch up to you.

  • U.S. Secret Service Partners With European Agencies To Form Electronic Crimes Task Force Headquartered In Rome

    In what is bad news for cyber criminals and online financial hucksters, the U.S. Secret Service has announced a partnership with European law-enforcement agencies to form the first European Electronic Crimes Task Force.

    Officials signed a “memorandum of understanding,” with the Secret Service, Italian Police and the Italian Postal Service taking the lead roles. The Task Force will be based in Rome, and the principal Italian officials are Antonio Manganelli, chief of Italian Police, and  Massimo Sarmi, chief executive officer of the Italian Postal Service.

    The goals are to “provide a forum through which U.S. and European law enforcement agencies, the private sector and academia can collaborate to investigate, suppress and prevent computer- related crimes” and to “share relevant insight, expertise and resources between the international law enforcement community to combat the transnational cyber crimes which threaten the financial security of businesses and individuals worldwide,” the Secret Service said.

    “Cybercrime knows no borders,” said Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan. “We believe
    that partnerships at the international level are essential in combating the ever-changing
    landscape of cybercrimes.”

    The Task Force will combine European and U.S. expertise in investigating network intrusions, hacking cases, identity theft and other computer related crimes affecting financial and other critical infrastructures, the Secret Service said.

  • EDITORIAL: AdViewGlobal Blames Subcontractor For Problems

    UPDATED 3:30 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) It was utterly predictable: The AdViewGlobal (AVG) autosurf has blamed subcontractor Syndicate Digital for problems plaguing the firm, implying it might sue the Canada-based company.

    In recent weeks, AVG has threatened to sue media outlets and even its own members, up to and including contacting their Internet Service Providers in a pathetic bid to mute criticism.

    AVG’s record of blaming participants in the enterprise for its problems and accepting no accountability is rivaled only by AdSurfDaily. Syndicate Digital accepted work from AVG at great risk — and not simply a legal one: One of the biggest risks was that AVG would find a way to blame it for problems AVG itself created.

    That’s what Bowdoin/Harris enterprises do: If Bowdoin-led ASD gets in a pickle and can’t pay out as advertised, he blames Russian “hackers” and script problems and changes the website’s name so he can fleece a new crop of victims — all while he is using a fraudulent address to donate money to the National Republican Congressional Committee in ASD’s name while telling members ASD has no money.

    If the enterprise comes under fire by the government, he blames the government. When the enterprise gets stifled in bids to fight the government, he blames his paid attorneys and declares them incompetent. He then accepts advice from one or more felons and starts filing pro se pleadings, and when a federal judge tells him that a corporate entity can’t proceed pro se, he goes out and finds another paid attorney.

    When Bowdoin got sued and nearly jailed in Alabama a decade ago for another securities scheme, it was somebody else’s fault.

    AVG does the same thing. The surf announced in March that its bank account had been suspended. In the very first sentence of its announcement, it blamed members, saying they had wired too many transactions in excess of $9,500.

    In May, after it announced it had secured a new wire facility and published wiring instructions and account numbers, a company AVG identified as a facilitator in the transfers issued a denial that it had any business relationship with AVG. The company issuing the denial explained that it had discussed business with a Florida-based firm, and announced that it believed it had been targeted in a scam.

    The Florida-based firm was owned by an AVG insider. The clear implication was that AVG, which purports to be headquartered in Uruguay, had attempted to create a back-door route to funnel money to itself by using the banking connections of the Florida firm.

    AVG ignored the denial by the company.  Instead AVG blamed a breakdown in negotiations for the sudden removal of a wire facility it had just advertised and for which it had just provided detailed usage instructions.

    Now AVG is saying negotiations with Syndicate Digital have broken down, implying it might sue for nonperformace.

    “Negotiations between the owners of AVGA and Syndicate Digital broke down Thursday afternoon,” AVG told members.

    “Syndicate Digital was a sub contractor hired to do a specific job and there is some dispute as to whether or not they have completed their contract with AVGA,” the company said.

    Good grief.

    Syndicate Digital entered the lion’s den when it accepted AVG business. Lions within the den now are circling to devour a subcontractor who used poor judgment and did not ask the right questions, and it just so happens the Lions-In-Chief are George and Judy Harris, members of the Bowdoin family and one-half of the Bowdoin/Harris brand.

    This is a new low, perhaps an all-time new low. Donna Rougeau of Syndicate Digital should not have accepted work for AVG, and she should not have permitted her brand to become associated with AVG. Syndicate Digital and AVG became almost indistinguishable, and Rougeau was serving up the GIGO slop.

    But Rougeau did not cause the core rot that is AVG and now is being served up as the fall guy by people who call themselves Christians. It was, sadly, utterly predictable.

    Perhaps equally predictable was that AVG’s Syndicate Digital announcement would go missing — and it has, according to a reader.

  • Is Anybody Home At AdViewGlobal?

    We are beginning to receive reports that AdViewGlobal (AVG) has not posted daily paper profits since July 3 for members who surfed.

    Some AVG members seem not to know whether they even are supposed to surf. The external shell of the site loaded quickly today, which may indicate a lighter server load because fewer people are surfing.

    “Support tickets are not being answered,” one member said.

    The member said that AVG awarded her a paper profit of a penny for surfing a few days ago and a total of 35 cents over a two-week period. For its part, AVG said last week that it expected to become a Fortune 500 company.

    “[W]e have received nothing in monetary, or any other, terms since July 3, 2009,” the member said, adding that there was “a growing anxiety and frustration with the new leadership: George and Judi Harris.”

    George Harris is the stepson of AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin. Judy Harris is the wife of George Harris. The Harrises are named in a federal forfeiture complaint filed in December as the beneficiaries of illegal conduct by ASD.

    Only recently has AVG disclosed that George and Judy Harris owned the firm, which purports to be a professional advertising and communications company based in Uruguay.

    AVG issued a news release last month with a dateline of Tallahassee, Fla. A home owned by the Harrises in Tallahassee was seized in the December forfeiture complaint. Prosecutors said George Harris, whom ASD President Andy Bowdoin identified last year as the head of ASD’s real-estate division, used $157,000 in illegal ASD proceeds to pay off the mortgage on the home.

    In other news, eWalletPlus, a money-services firm associated with AVG, is back online — though apparently not fully functional. The site had disappeared last week, but then came back online. It did not fully load at a point over the weekend, but appears to be loading now. New registrations, however, are marked disabled.

    eWalletPlus is listed as being owned by TMS Association. TMS Association is listed in Arizona records as a business that conducts merchant services. Like AVG, the servers for eWalletPlus resolve to Panama.

  • What Happened To ASD’s Money In Canada?

    UPDATED 12:42 P.M. EDT U.S.A (SEE BOTTOM OF POST FOR STATEMENT FROM SOLID TRUST PAY)

    Over the weekend, some AdSurfDaily members reported they had received what amounts to partial refunds for money they spent in ASD. The members said they received the payment notifications in an email marked as a “final” refund through SolidTrustPay, a payment processor based in Canada.

    The email did not disclose the authority by which STP was sending the refunds. It was not immediately clear if recipients were charged a fee for accepting the refund, and no accounting was provided.

    Recipients, for example, were not told the size of the STP refund pool. One recipient, however, said he was told that the refund consisted of a pro rata share of the money ASD had on deposit in STP and that ASD had removed 63 percent of the money it once had on deposit on a date or dates uncertain.

    If that is true, what happened to the 63 percent ASD removed? And when did ASD remove the money and who benefited from the removal?

    ASD suspended operations Aug. 1, 2008, the date it was notified that its U.S. bank accounts were being seized. The U.S. Secret Service and federal prosecutors said in court documents that ASD had moved “several million” dollars into STP about two weeks prior to the seizure.

    “Several million” implies at least $3 million. If that is the case — and if ASD removed 63 percent of the money in STP prior to STP freezing its account — then $1.89 million may be unaccounted for. If “several million” means $5 million, then $3.15 million may be unaccounted for. At a minimum, there has been no public accounting of the money by ASD.

    What happened to that money?

    It is not known if ASD had more than one STP account or if ASD executives and insiders used their personal STP accounts to store ASD money. It is possible that ASD, for example, had “unofficial” accounts — accounts that did not bear the names of ASD or ASD President Andy Bowdoin, but accounts into which ASD could funnel money with no transparent tie to the firm.

    Here is what prosecutors said last August:

    “Within the past two weeks, ASD has wired several million dollars to Solid Trust Pay from its BOA Accounts. A TFA also learned that earlier in July 2008, a bank other than BOA closed the last account that was controlled by Bowdoin or family members after that bank determined, and explained to them, that an investigation by the bank determined that Bowdoin appeared to be operating a Ponzi scheme. Bowdoin indicated that he purchased, or was seeking to purchase, a home in another country.”

    Complicating matters is that ASD argued in court last year for emergency release of $2 million held by the U.S. government with court oversight, saying it needed the money to operate. Prosecutors pointed out that ASD had at least $1 million on deposit in Antigua, saying the firm’s “emergency” pleading was overblown.

    ASD eventually acknowledged the Antigua money, saying it would repatriate it to the United States, along with an unspecified amount “currently being held with Solid Trust Pay in Canada,” as part of an oversight plan. On Sept. 16, ASD told U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer that Andy Bowdoin would step down from ASD, if necessary, as part of an oversight plan tied to the emergency petition for the release of money held by the government.

    “Unless otherwise agreed to by the Monitor, Andy Bowdoin will not be an employee, officer or director of the Company,” ASD said in September. “He will act as a consultant to the Company on terms acceptable to the Monitor and will agree to follow the Code of Conduct developed as part of the Future Business Operations Plan.”

    About two weeks later — on Sept. 30 and Oct. 1 — Collyer held an evidentiary hearing at ASD’s request to consider the oversight plan and the release of government-held funds with oversight. On Nov. 19, Collyer ruled that ASD had not demonstrated it was a legal business and not a Ponzi scheme, and denied the request to release the money and to implement an oversight plan.

    It does not appear as if any ASD money in Antigua or Canada was repatriated. If 63 percent of the money ASD had in STP was removed on dates uncertain and no longer is available to become part of a restitution pool envisioned by the government, it leads to troubling questions about what happened to the money.

    AdViewGlobal (AVG), a surf firm with close family, management and promotional ties to ASD, began a prelaunch phase in December, less than a month after Collyer’s ruling. ASD gave its official endorsement to the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum, and some of the Surf’s Up forum Mods and members went on to start a forum for AVG. That forum now has gone dark, as has a company-run AVG forum. AVG also uses STP.

    AVG formally launched in February, and now has suspended cash-outs, made an 80/20 program mandatory if cash-outs resume, and exercised its version of a “rebates aren’t guaranteed” clause that permits it to keep all the money it collects from customers.

    Prosecutors revealed in April that Andy Bowdoin had signed a proffer letter in the ASD case, an act that may signal he was willing to help the government untangle the ASD mess. In January, Bowdoin submitted to the forfeiture of tens of millions of dollars seized in August.

    In February, though, Bowdoin changed his mind about submitting to the forfeiture, firing his attorneys without notifying them and proceeding as a pro se litigant to repopen his claim to the seized proceeds. At the same time, AVG transitioned into a “private association” that says it is based in Uruguay.

    Read ASD’s September oversight plan that mentions money in Antigua and money held in SolidTrustPay.

    Read the December forfeiture complaint that identifies George and Judy Harris — now identified as the owners of AVG — as beneficiaries of ASD’s illegal conduct.

    Statement From Solid Trust Pay

    SolidTrust Pay would like to make an official statement on the recent refunds received.

    COMMENT: Vice President of SolidTrust, Stella Hiemstra, is responsible issuing any refunds from dormant merchant accounts. The funds did NOT come from Oceanna Music Publishing (a company also owned/operated by Ms. Hiemstra). The “oceannamusic” email was simply the email attached to the account, and Ms. Hiemstra uses that address in order to keep notifications emanating from it separate from other solidtrustpay based emails. The username and registered account was SolidTrust Group – the main merchant account of STPay. There was no hack, no scam, no conspiracy, no other company, no funneling of funds, no haircuts…it was just a plain refund process.

    COMMENT: The ASD account in SolidTrust has now been dormant for over 6 months. It has actually been dormant for 11 months and, as is our policy, dormant merchant accounts with remaining funds are refunded back to the original senders of the funds. SolidTrust has never been contacted by any legitimate US or Canadian authority regarding the ASD situation. The funds in SolidTrust were never considered part of the total liability, and there was a relatively small balance remaining in the ASD account.

    COMMENT – 2 million dollars was wired into SolidTrust early last summer, and these funds were immediately used for payments to ASD members who were SolidTrust Pay clients. This is perfectly normal activity for merchants who pay commissions/bonuses to their clients. They obviously have to fund their accounts at periodic intervals in order to honour their commitments.

    COMMENT: due to the length of time and dormant state of the account, SolidTrust was acting on its own policies to return funds to clients. There was no interaction in these refunds by any ASD individual or Andy Bowdoin. SolidTrust has done many such refunds in the past. SolidTrust has developed its own software that calculates the value of funds sent, deducts any transfers received, and creates a resulting refund amount.

    COMMENT: the wording on the refund was “final refund for AdsSurf Daily from STPay” which is exactly what it was – a final refund for that program, and coming from STPay.

    CONCLUSION: SolidTrust prides itself on vigilantly monitoring all account activity and acting on its own policies fairly and equitably for all. It is shocked at the above comments, statements and accusations. There was not one single phone call or support ticket asking the questions posted in this blog, and the blog owner has not contacted us to find out the real, very simple, answers.

    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. We welcome our members comments on our refund policies – you can submit your opinions to: priority@solidtrustpay.com

  • Is An ASD ‘Final Refund’ Scam Under Way?

    UPDATED 3:18 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Some AdSurfDaily members have reported that they’ve received surprise, partial refunds through SolidTrustPay, the Canada-based payment processor, for money they spent in ASD.

    A poster at the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum was first to report the news yesterday. She described the transaction as being labeled the “final refund” from ASD, and said she wasn’t sure about withdrawing it because the “final refund” represented only a fraction of what she had spent.

    A short time later, a Surf’s Up poster advised her to withdraw it.

    Other posters then reported they, too, had received money from SolidTrustPay labeled a “final refund” for ASD. The money originated with this email address:

    oceannamusic@xplornet.com

    It is not an address associated with ASD in records, which leads to questions about whether the money is being refunded by an ASD downline group or whether ASD actually had money in SolidTrustPay under the name of a different company or a user other than Andy Bowdoin.

    Questions were raised anew about whether accepting the money would void other consumer remedies that could result in even higher refunds. The poster who advised the original poster to withdraw the money then seemed to hint that accepting the money would inure to ASD’s benefit because people could not pursue the company for higher amounts.

    This could be a back-door attempt to force a contract on the recipients of the partial refunds. In other words, ASD or an upline group later could argue that, since the refund amounts were marked “final,” any person who accepted the sum no longer had a claim against the firm or an individual sponsor for a higher amount.

    Some members of ASD also are members of a subculture that practices back-door legal approaches designed to force recipients of correspondence into contracts by default. Some ASD members, for example, sent certified letters to the prosecutors involved in the case, demanding that they take specific actions within a limited time frame.

    Failing to take the actions or ignoring the demands then was cast as a contract “default.” The theory was advanced by some of the litigants who filed pro se pleadings in the August forfeiture case against ASD’s assets.

    The ASD case still is in litigation. The U.S. government said it intends to implement a restitution program. The program’s final form likely won’t be determined until the litigation comes to an end, and one of the reasons it is still in the courts is the pro se filings by ASD members and Andy Bowdoin.

    It might be a good idea for ASD members who receive refunds from SolidTrustPay marked “final” from ASD to consult with an attorney and weigh their options carefully.

    The sudden appearance of the partial refunds — and the fact they are marked “final” — could be a back-door bid to minimize ASD’s final liabilities by duping members into a contract by default.

    One obvious question is, “How big is the purported refund pool that is originating from the SolidTrustPay account?” A second question is, “Has the refunder — who is not using an email address associated with ASD — skimmed money for himself/herself prior to sending the “final” refunds, all of which so far have been described by ASD members as partial refunds?”

    A final note: One of the issues in the ASD case is offshore money that never was repatriated. Why not repatriate the money for “final” refunds to the United States and make it part of a restitution pool for victims, instead of doling it out behind closed doors in Canada?

  • ROLLER-COASTER: AVG Forum Closes, Reopens, Closes

    UPDATED 2:03 A.M. EDT (July 4, U.S.A.) In the past few days, the AdViewGlobal (AVG) forum has closed, reopened, and closed again. The actions occurred in the wake of complaints from members who have been pleading with the company to provide understandable explanations and to stop blaming participants for AVG’s seeming inability to explain itself.

    In a bizarre communication, AVG advised members that the initial forum closure had occurred because posts by some members were contributing to the confusion of other members. Nearly 50 posts were deleted, members said.

    The forum later reopened briefly, with a disclaimer that suggested the company would ban members who misbehaved and contact their Internet Service Providers to report them. The act led to questions about whether AVG was trying to chill legitimate criticism and manage the operation by instilling fear within the rank-and-file, which never has been provided an audited financial statement by the firm and yet was told the company was healthy even as it was suspending payouts. The forum closed again a short time later, amid an announcement that Donna Rougeau, who defined herself as an AVG subcontractor and had emerged as the face of the company, had left the beleaguered surf firm.

    Previously, AVG had threatened media outlets with copyright-infringement lawsuits if they published information that originated inside the confines of the AVG “private association.” By implication, the threat also extended to members who shared information outside association walls, putting members in the strange position of not being able to share news — good or bad — unless they were willing to risk getting sued.

    Some members viewed the threats as a strong-arm tactic. AVG’s name recently appeared in a racketeering lawsuit filed against AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin, although the company has not been named a defendant in the case.

    AVG, which earlier had announced a new payout plan and then withdrew it when members said it left more questions unanswered than answered, advised members that it would re-release the plan in bite-sized chunks over an unspecified time period.

    Members immediately complained that the company had implied they were too stupid to understand a plan that was published all at one time, suggesting that the company’s real problem was that it had sent one mixed message after another.

    Mixing Politics And Business

    AVG purports to be a professional advertising and communications firm that, although based in Uruguay, derives its authority from the U.S. Constitution and the Florida Constitution. The AVG “Articles of Association” reads like a political document, not a business document.  AVG, for instance, appoints an association “Protector.”

    Among other things, AVG declares, “We proclaim the freedom to choose and perform for ourselves the types of advertising and marketing enterprises.” (Sic.)

    One interpretation of the document is that AVG has declared its own American subcountry and will pick and choose the laws it intends to follow.

    Such incongruities are part and parcel to AVG’s corner of the autosurfing universe. The firm has close ties to AdSurfDaily, whose own universe is dominated by equally inexplicable behavior.

    At least one member of ASD declared himself a “sovereign” in court documents not related to the ASD case, purporting that he enjoyed diplomatic immunity and answered only to Jesus Christ.

    The ASD member, Curtis Richmond, has a history that includes being charged and convicted of contempt of court for threatening federal judges. Richmond also has been ordered to pay damages to victims in a RICO case in which several individuals declared themselves members of a sovereign “Indian” tribe and filed claims for astronomical damages against public officials in the performance of their duties.

    Members of the tribe placed financial judgments — one in excess of $200 million — against the public officials. The officials successfully sued the tribe members under racketeering and mail-fraud statutes, and a federal judge ruled that the tribe was a “complete sham.”

    When Richmond began to file pro se pleadings in the ASD case, an AVG forum operated by some of the Mods and members of the Pro-AdSurfDaily Surf’s Up forum declared him a “hero.” Federal prosecutors, however, argued that Richmond’s pleadings — and others that streamed in using a Richmond litigation blueprint — were delaying refunds for victims of Andy Bowdoin and ASD.

    Dissing The Doubters

    AVG’s loyalists long have compounded the company’s problems by dissing doubters on AVG’s forum and on a now-closed AVG forum once operated by some of the Mods and members of the ProAdSurfDaily Surf’s Up forum, casting doubters as simpletons, “plants” or turncoats. Members did not take kindly to scoldings from representatives of a company that was holding onto their money and not revealing the names of its “Management Team.”

    AVG now concedes it is owned by George and Judy Harris. The surf firm still has not identified managers. AVG purportedly has 30 founding members, and it is widely believed that most — if not all — of the founders came from AdSurfDaily, which is in trouble for wire fraud, money-laundering, selling unregistered securities and operating a Ponzi scheme.

    It is believed — though it has not been confirmed in public records — that the U.S. government has seized several bank accounts of AVG members who also belonged to ASD.

    At the same time, other AVG loyalists have taken the PR fight to Blogs and websites that raise questions about AVG, but only have managed to add to the company’s mounting PR problems.

    While AVG was announcing an apparent shift in business models as it apparently was holding onto vast sums of members’ cash collected under an earlier business model, one AVG advocate said a person who questioned the firm could benefit from “penis enlargement.”

    We used “apparently” above because AVG publishes no audited financials and expects members to accept its assertions as an article of faith. It’s the same thing that got ASD President Andy Bowdoin in trouble.

    Two days ago — in what we believe was an accidental forwarding by an AVG supporter who put our email address in a database after contacting us through our Contact form — this Blog was copied with an email message from an AVG member who reported to another member that he had posted here and called us “chickenshit.”

    The other member responded by calling us a “spineless coward” — and happens to be a promoter who once pitched Noobing, a surf program that had positioned itself as an excellent choice for people with hearing impairments.

    AVG’s message is impossibly tangled, and the resulting confusion is not exclusively about how the company is addressing Ponzi concerns. The core incongruity is that the company purports to be a professional advertising and communications firm, but butchers one message after another, re-plumbs the message after being criticized by members — and then butchers the re-plumbed message.

    AVG’s inability to settle on a message and explain its business model without ambiguity — as well as its awkward bids to maintain secrecy and suppress criticism — have angered some members and managed to keep the company in the news for weeks. Some of the messages simply cannot be reconciled because of the firm’s obvious ties to ASD.

    Why AVG’s Ties To ASD Matter

    AVG previously listed George and Judy Harris on the website as “Trustees” of the AVG offshore “private association,” but now says the Harrises own the company.

    George Harris is the stepson of AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin. George Harris is the son of Bowdoin’s wife, Edna Faye Bowdoin. Judy Harris is the wife of George Harris. George and Judy Harris, Andy Bowdoin and Edna Faye Bowdoin  are named in a federal forfeiture complaint filed in December as people who organized illegal conduct and benefited from it.

    Andy Bowdoin and Edna Faye Bowdoin also are named in a lawsuit in Florida as the parties responsible for operating a massive pyramid scheme that fleeced investors, including senior citizens. Andy Bowdoin also is named a defendant in a racketeering lawsuit filed by ASD members who seek class-action certification.

    Andy Bowdoin has not responded to the RICO complaint, which was filed in January. Earlier this week, the plaintiffs in the RICO case described AVG in court filings as a new iteration of ASD and autosurf schemes, listing employees and staff ASD and AVG had in common, including George Harris.

    Andy Bowdoin identified George Harris last year as head of ASD’s “real estate division” in front of an audience of hundreds of people.

    Federal prosecutors say Andy Bowdoin signed a proffer letter in the forfeiture case and acknowledged ASD was operating illegally when the U.S. Secret Service seized tens of millions of dollars from the company last year.

    Bowdoin initially contested the forfeiture. In November, a federal judge issued a devastating ruling, saying ASD had not demonstrated it was a legal business and not a Ponzi scheme at an evidentiary hearing in the early fall.

    ASD had specifically requested the hearing. The judge granted its petition to conduct the hearing in the interests of justice — of making absolutely certain that the ASD side of the Ponzi story would be told in court and considered on the merits — and federal prosecutors did not object.

    About a month after the judge’s ruling, prosecutors filed a second forfeiture complaint against assets tied to ASD. This complaint named George and Judy Harris as beneficiaries of ASD’s illegal conduct, alleging that George Harris and Edna Faye Bowdoin had opened a bank account and funded it with illegal proceeds from ASD, and that George Harris later used more than $157,000 of the opening deposit to pay off the mortgage on the Tallahassee home he shares with Judy Harris.

    Illegal proceeds from ASD also were used by George and Judy Harris to purchase an automobile, prosecutors said. The complaint also alleged that Andy Bowdoin had a history of collecting money through surfing schemes and that large sums of the money later would disappear.

    To explain ASD’s inability to pay, Bowdoin said that Russian “hackers” had stolen $1 million from ASD and that an unspecified amount of other money also had gone missing because of script problems, prosecutors said.

    But Bowdoin never reported the thefts because he did not want the scrutiny, prosecutors said. They added that he paid an employee of ASD to surf for Bowdoin’s son, so the son could benefit from ASD “rebates” while performing no actual work.

    Prosecutors alleged that Bowdoin started a new iteration of ASD, moving members’ holdings from one venture to the next, while paying off his obligations to his initial investors with money that came from new participants: a textbook Ponzi scheme.

    The same types of concerns now are being raised about AVG.

  • Unusual Circumstance Affects PP Publishing Operations

    Today the PatrickPretty.com Blog encountered an unusual circumstance that affected its ability to publish for several hours.

    This unusual circumstance resulted in the temporary loss of the Blog’s entire library of posts and its archives. The content now has been restored, and we are consulting with the appropriate experts to determine what happened.