PatrickPretty.com

Tag: ASD

  • Prosecutors Ask Judge For Order To Disqualify INetGlobal Attorney, Saying They May Wish To Cross-Examine Him As Witness In Ponzi Case

    UPDATED 11:31 A.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to disqualify attorney Mark Kallenbach as counsel for INetGlobal and related companies, claiming that Kallenbach is attempting to be both a witness in the case and a lawyer for multiple clients involved in a Ponzi scheme, wire fraud and money-laundering probe.

    Kallenbach, prosecutors said, has made himself a subject of cross-examination because of an affidavit he filed last month. They added that wearing two hats in the same case might create a conflict with the Minnesota Rules of Professional Responsibility, a local rule of U.S. District Court in Minnesota and the “Court’s inherent supervisory authority over its bar.”

    “Should Mr. Kallenbach testify, he will be cross-examined,” prosecutors said. “The Court will have to decide whether Mr. Kallenbach’s voluntary assumption of the role of witness works as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege on cross-examination, or whether the government’s cross-examination of Mr. Kallenbach will be limited, in ways it might not be limited if the witness was not counsel to several parties, in order to preserve the privilege.”

    On April 2 — a week ago yesterday — prosecutors said INetGlobal had no attorney of record in the autosurf Ponzi scheme litigation. Kallenbach filed a notice of appearance for the firm and several related companies on Monday, three days after the prosecution’s filing.

    On Wednesday, Kallenbach filed a second affidavit (see subhead below) labeled a supplement to an affidavit he filed March 25.

    Prosecutors responded by saying Kallenbach’s second affidavit “heightens the government’s concern about Mr. Kallenbach attempting to serve as both lawyer and witness” and that he should be disqualified as an attorney for “any of the individuals or companies involved” in the case.

    “This motion is brought because Mr. Kallenbach has made himself a necessary witness in this case,” prosecutors argued. “This is a case in which Mr. Kallenbach conducted his own
    investigation and then voluntarily drew up a lengthy affidavit setting forth his observations.”

    Their claim is based on a 20-page affidavit and 12 additional pages of exhibits Kallenbach filed March 25 — before he entered his notice of appearance as INetGlobal’s attorney in court.

    In his March 25 affidavit, Kallenbach said he conducted an “investigation” and concluded that “Inter-Mark and its subsidiary iNetGlobal and its other subsidiaries are clean, legitimate and profitable businesses.”

    Kallenbach, in the March 25 affidavit, attacked an affidavit for a search warrant by the U.S. Secret Service and also challenged assertions the government made about V-Local, a company related to INetGlobal.

    Prosecutors argued that the affidavit and conclusions Kallenbach described as “true facts” make him a witness. Some of the information was woven into a memorandum of law filed March 25 by Jon Hopeman on behalf of INetGlobal owner Steve Renner, prosecutors said.

    The prosecution motion was filed by Assistant U.S. Attorney John Docherty, one of the prosecutors who handled the Ponzi case against Tom Petters. Petters was sentenced this week to 50 years in prison for operating a $3.65 billion fraud.

    U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones of the District of Minnesota approved the filing of the disqualification motion. The main page on Jones’ website lists three major Ponzi probes the office has undertaken in recent months, including the Petters’ case, the case involving Minnesota Ponzi scheme figures Trevor Cook and Pat Kiley, and the investigation into the business practices of Renner at INetGlobal.

    Minnesota’s Ponzi Plague

    Ponzi schemes have plagued Minnesota. The Cook/Kiley case involves at least $190 million and investor losses of at least $139 million, according to court filings.

    Another big case in Minnesota involved Gerard Cellette Jr. Cellette was implicated in a $53 million Ponzi scheme last year by Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman.

    Meanwhile, Charles “Chuck” E. Hays pleaded guilty last year to charges in a $20 million Ponzi-scheme case in which the government seized a $3 million yacht.

    Separately, three members of a Minneapolis family were indicted last year on Ponzi and fraud charges. The case became known as the Kalin Thanh Dao case. Dao’s parents also were indicted.

    Dao and her parents pleaded guilty. Prosecutors said money was siphoned from the scheme to pay for gambling in Las Vegas.

    “Investors were promised that their money would be placed in investment programs targeted within specific markets and industries,” prosecutors said. “Investors were also told that Kalin Dao had a ‘partner’ who held a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, had contacts in the emerging Asian markets who had ‘inside’ information, and was associated with various Las Vegas casinos.”

    The Kalin Thanh Dao probe uncovered a web of deceit in which Dao’s father claimed nearly $3 million in losses for businesses owned by his daughter to eliminate his personal tax liabilities, and Dao’s mother claimed to be “single,” the “head of [a] household” — and also claimed a tax exemption for Dao.

    Kalin Thanh Dao was 32 years old and operated at least four companies, prosecutors said.

    “Instead of investing the investors’ funds as promised, Kalin Dao diverted substantial amounts of the funds for her own purposes, including gambling, lulling payments and personal expenses,” prosecutors said. “She also admitted that the fraud was between $2.5 and $7 million.”

    Also on the Ponzi front, AdSurfDaily, a Florida-based company implicated in a massive autosurf Ponzi scheme by the Secret Service in 2008, was popular in Minnesota. Some Minnesota members of ASD were among the staunchest defenders of ASD President Andy Bowdoin.

    The Secret Service referenced the ASD case in filings in the INetGlobal case, saying an undercover agent was introduced to INetGlobal by an ASD member who described the operation as a wink-nod enterprise.

    A federal judge in the District of Columbia has issued three orders of forfeiture totaling more than $80 million in the ASD case. Bowdoin is appealing. His appeal brief cites two other cases filed under seal and suggests that prosecutors subpoenaed at least two attorneys involved in the defense of ASD’s assets to appear at a grand-jury proceeding.

    It is unclear if the attorneys attempted to invoke attorney-client privilege. What is clear is that a federal judge ordered the attorneys to appear and that the order is being challenged in a federal appeals court.

    Kallenbach’s Second Affidavit

    Kallenbach filed a second affidavit April 7. The affidavit asserts that a Renner entity known as V-Media Marketing LLC “borrowed” all of the money that was placed in a bank account at Premier Bank Minnesota in early March, about a week after the Secret Service raid at INetGlobal’s offices in Minneapolis.

    Prosecutors, describing the INetGlobal case as a “major fraud and money laundering investigation,” said $47,400 was deposited into the account.

    “IMC Desperately Needs Working Capital To Pay Its Creditors,” Kallenbach said.

    He also described a webcast he attended April 5 that was “sponsored by one of IMC’s marketing consultants.”

    “At the April 5th Meeting, I learned, amongst other things, that many of iNetGlobal’s new customers have demanded refunds,” Kallenbach said. “The number of customers seeking refunds and the amount of such refunds is unknown. What is known is that as each and every day passes, without iNetGlobal being in business as usual, more of iNetGlobal’s customers will seek refunds.”

    He also asserted that “iNetGlobal’s marketing consultants are clamoring for commission payments that are legitimately due and owing to them,” according to the affidavit. “iNetGlobal has been unable to pay the commissions.”

    Kallenbach’s filing also suggested that, through negotiations, a little more than $1 million has been returned to INetGlobal and that the sum was now considered “unrestricted” cash. The affidavit did not disclose specific details about the negotiations

    In the March 25 affidavit,  Kallenbach argued that INetGlobal had no cash to operate.

    “At the time I signed my March 25, 2010 Declaration, I believed it to be true that iNetGlobal had no unrestricted cash meaning cash available for working capital. I have since learned that as a result of negotiations in which I was involved, on March 22, 2010 iNetGlobal netted approximately $220,000 from the return of restricted cash. As of the time my March 25, 2010 Declaration was prepared, I was unaware that this money had been returned to iNetGlobal.

    “After my Declaration was signed, approximately $795,000 of restricted cash was made available to iNetGlobel for working capital after close of business on March 25, 2010,” Kallenbach said. “As of today [April 7], iNetGlobal’s unrestricted cash is approximately $1,015,000. I arrive at this sum by adding $220,000 and $795,000 to reach $1,015,000.”

    Prosecutors said that, because Kallenbach has become an “essential witness” subject to cross-examination by the prosecution and direct examination by the INetGlobal side, there is a question about “whether Mr. Kallenbach’s clients can be provided constitutionally effective assistance.”

    “The government did not bring this situation about,” prosecutors contended. “[T]he government has not subpoenaed Mr. Kallenbach, or raised questions about whether he, and only he, can testify as to certain facts.

    “This is a case in which Mr. Kallenbach conducted his own investigation and then voluntarily drew up a lengthy affidavit setting forth his observations. Nor may Mr. Kallenbach, at this juncture, announce that he will henceforth act only as an advocate, because the choice to be a witness was made when the affidavit was filed.”

  • Government Scores Clean Sweep In ASD Forfeiture Litigation, But That May Not Be The Biggest News: Is A Separate Legal Drama Playing Out In Background?

    Andy Bowdoin

    UPDATED 11:57 A.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Federal prosecutors have won the second forfeiture case against assets tied to Florida-based AdSurfDaily, meaning the government now holds title to 100 percent of the money and assets seized in the autosurf Ponzi scheme, wire fraud and money-laundering investigation.

    U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer issued a final order of forfeiture March 30 in a case brought in December 2008. On Jan. 4, Collyer issued a final order of forfeiture in a case brought in August 2008. The government now has control over more than $80 million seized in the cases, along with real estate, cars, marine equipment, computers and other property.

    But that may not be the big news.

    Grand Jury Probe

    Indeed, the big news may be that a hidden legal drama is playing out behind the scenes. Appeal documents filed by attorneys for ASD President Andy Bowdoin in the August 2008 case reference two separate matters filed “under seal” and say that attorneys for unnamed “defendants” were called to testify before a grand jury.

    The filings suggest — but do not state plainly — that prosecutors subpoenaed at least two attorneys involved in the defense of ASD-related property to testify and that a federal judge ordered the attorneys to comply.

    Charles A. Murray, an attorney for ASD President Andy Bowdoin, referenced two sealed court cases when informing the appeals court about litigation “related” to ASD.

    “Only one case related to this matter is currently pending before this Court, an interlocutory appeal alleging that the court below erred in ordering the defendant’s attorneys to testify before a grand jury,” Murray wrote.

    Murray identified the case as “Grand Jury Subpoena, Case No. 09-3118 (Under Seal).”

    “This related appeal arose from an ongoing grand jury investigation, In re: Possible Violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1343, and 1349, Misc. No. 09-270 (Under Seal),” Murray wrote.

    The sections of federal law cited in Murray’s appeal brief pertain to mail-fraud, wire-fraud and conspiracy statutes. The attorneys are not named, and the brief does not identify the targets of the grand-jury probe.

    Details Unclear

    Why the attorneys were called to testify is unclear. Also unclear are the identities of the attorneys’ clients, the nature of the information the government sought from the attorneys, whether the attorneys sought to invoke attorney-client privilege and whether they actually testified before the interlocutory appeal filed under seal was brought.

    An interlocutory appeal is an appeal to a higher court of a ruling by a lower court that is made before the trial in the lower court has concluded.

    Such appeals, which higher courts are reluctant to entertain, may be filed when a party believes a lower court’s ruling is severely prejudicial and turns to an appeals court to stop it in its tracks, instead of following the customary procedure of waiting for the case to conclude before filing an appeal.

    Racketeering Case Cited

    Murray also identified as a “related” matter a racketeering lawsuit filed against Bowdoin and ASD attorney Robert Garner by three ASD members in January 2009. The racketeering lawsuit, which alleges ASD was a criminal enterprise as defined under federal statutes, has been placed on hold until issues in the federal case are resolved.

    In June 2009, attorneys for the parties suing Bowdoin and Garner referenced the AdViewGlobal (AVG) autosurf, an entity with close ties to ASD. In September 2009, federal prosecutors made a veiled reference to AVG in a filing that suggested that Bowdoin and family members initially planned to “move to another country and profit from a knock-off autosurf program that Bowdoin funded and helped to start.”

    The assets seized in the December 2008 forfeiture case identified Bowdoin family members as beneficiaries of ASD’s illegal conduct. Members of AVG later identified George and Judy Harris as AVG’s owners, with Bowdoin as a silent partner.

    George Harris is the son of Bowdoin’s wife, Edna Faye Bowdoin, who also was named in the December 2008 complaint as a beneficiary of ASD’s illegal conduct.

    AVG crashed and burned in June 2009, taking an unknown sum of money paid by members with it by exercising its version of a “rebates aren’t guaranteed” clause. There were reports that $2.7 million was stolen from AVG, which purportedly operated from Uruguay.

    Among AVG’s most noteworthy promoters were former ASD members, including some of the moderators of the now-defunct Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum. Surf’s Up suddenly went missing in the earliest days of 2010.

    Bowdoin, 75, has been portrayed by prosecutors as “delusional.” He pleaded guilty in Alabama during the 1990s to felony securities charges, according to court records. A decade later, he associated with Clarence Busby, the operator of Golden Panda Ad Builder, the so-called “Chinese” option for ASD members.

    Bowdoin and Busby, according to court filings by Busby, talked about forming Golden Panda in April 2008 while on a “relaxing fishing trip” to a Georgia lake.

    Busby, identified by the title “Rev.” at least 120 times in autosurf-related litigation, was implicated by the SEC in three prime-bank schemes in the 1990s, according to records. Golden Panda has ceded more than $14.6 million to the government in the ASD case, including $646,266.13 formally ordered forfeited by Collyer last week, and more than $14 million Collyer ordered forfeited in July 2009.

    In his court filings, Busby said he didn’t know Bowdoin “had prior run ins with the law” and had been arrested in Alabama for defrauding investors.

    Busby did not say if he told his fishing partner about his own run-ins with the law: The SEC said Busby defrauded investors in the 1990s “by offering and selling investment
    contracts in connection with three different prime bank schemes.”

    “Using misrepresentations and omissions in each of the three schemes, Busby raised money for purported programs in ‘prime bank’ notes by fraudulently representing to investors that the investments were risk-free and that the ventures would pay returns ranging from 750% to 10,000%. In total, Busby raised nearly $1 million from more than 70 investors. None of the investors earned the exorbitant returns promised by Busby,” the SEC said.

    Busby went on to operate an autosurf known as Biz Ad Splash, which also crashed and burned, reportedly taking members’ money with it. All of the notable autosurfs that dominated the stage in the aftermath of the ASD seizure — MegaLido, AdGateWorld, BAS, Ad-Ventures4U, Noobing and others — have now either died or are in a serious state of decay.

    Last month, the U.S. Secret Service, which conducted the probes into ASD, Golden Panda and LaFuenteDinero, asserted that INetGlobal, a company operated by Steve Renner, was operating an autosurf Ponzi scheme and targeting Chinese participants.

    The IRS is involved in both the ASD case and the INetGlobal case, according to court filings.

    Steve Renner was convicted of income-tax evasion in December 2009. Federal prosecutors described the INetGlobal case last week as a “major fraud and money laundering investigation.”

    Renner has denied the government’s allegations.

    Bowdoin now says he is appealing the forfeiture order issued by Collyer last week in the December 2008 case. If Bowdoin does appeal the order, it will be his second appeal. He also is appealing the forfeiture order in the August 2008 case.

  • REPORT: AdSurfDaily Mainstay ‘Professor’ Patrick Moriarty Sentenced To Year In Federal Prison In Tax Case; Claimed To Be Tax ‘Specialist’ Also Skilled In ‘Karma Restoration’

    “Professor” Patrick Moriarty, a mainstay in the AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme story, has been sentenced to a year in federal prison for filing a false tax return, according to KMOX.com.

    Details about the sentencing were not immediately available.

    Moriarty, 62, pleaded guilty in January to filing a false return for the year 2003. Prosecutors said he caused a tax loss of $135,697.

    He initially was charged with filing false returns for the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, but pleaded guilty to a single count. Prosecutors alleged that he claimed a false deduction of $30,000 for “legal fees” for the tax year 2003 and claimed a false amount of $23,533 withheld for the tax year 2004 and a false amount of $23,433 withheld for the tax year 2005.

    After the August 2008 federal seizure of tens of millions of dollars from the bank accounts of ASD President Andy Bowdoin amid wire-fraud and money-laundering allegations, Moriarty fashioned a theory that the government was interfering with commerce.

    Moriarty also espoused the legal theories of Curtis Richmond, another mainstay in the ASD story. Richmond, a pro se litigant in the ASD case, was a member of a sham Utah “Indian” tribe known for filing vexatious litigation, including litigation that resulted in a successful counter-suit brought by Utah public officials under federal racketeering statutes.

    The “tribe” derisively became known as the “Arby’s Indians” because it held a meeting in an Arby’s restaurant in Provo, Utah, in 2003. The “tribe” used the address of a Utah doughnut shop as the address of its “Supreme Court,” and once issued “bench warrants” for the arrests of sitting judges and litigation opponents in legitimate courts.

    Although not a lawyer, Richmond holds the unusual distinction of having been banned from the practice of law in Colorado. In the ASD case, he accused a federal judge of “TREASON” and of operating a “Kangaroo Court,” accused another federal judge of operating a “Kangaroo Court” — and accused federal prosecutors of theft.

    Moriarty, along with other ASD members and members of the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum, started a nonprofit entity dubbed ASD Members International (ASDMI). One of ASDMI’s claims was that it would litigate against the government in the ASD case — even if the government was acting lawfully.

    ASDMI, which was formed in 2008 and collected contributions from at least 167 ASD members, never brought any litigation and quickly dissolved.

    Moriarty and Surf’s Up later spearheaded an effort to get the U.S. Senate to investigate the ASD prosecutors. Moriarty and Surf’s Up members also participated in a certified-mail campaign in which — as Moriarty described it — more than 50 “individual and notarized DEMAND[S] FOR LEGAL EVIDENCE” were sent to two federal prosecutors and a U.S. Secret Service agent.

    In 2006, Moriarty formed a nonprofit for a Missouri man accused (now convicted) of breaking into a woman’s home and shooting her to death in cold blood. Moments earlier, the man had shot a police officer four times. Moments later, he shot another man eight times.

    The shootings occurred on June 2, 2006. Moriarty started the nonprofit on Oct. 2, four months to the day after the rampage.

    Moriarty also claimed to be a minister and “Tax Return Specialist” who also is skilled in “Karma Restoration.”

    Read the Moriarty story on KMOX.com.

  • BULLETIN: Autosurf Biz Takes Another Pounding; Federal Judge Adds Noobing As Receivership Defendant In Fraud Case Against Parent Company; 14 Other Subsidiaries Named

    UPDATED 6:05 P.M. EDT (U.S.A., Jan. 20, 2011.) In yet another case that portends disaster for the so-called “autosurf” industry, a federal judge has ordered the Noobing autosurf to be added as a receivership defendant in a fraud case brought against its parent company.

    The FTC and attorneys general from Minnesota, North Carolina and Kansas brought the case against Noobing’s parent — Affiliate Strategies Inc. (ASI) — in July 2009. Several other companies were named defendants in the case, which alleged the firms participated in a scheme that promised guaranteed government grants from economic-stimulus funds.

    Brett Blackman, ASI’s head, also was president of Noobing, members said. Noobing was not initially named a receivership defendant.

    U.S. District Judge Julie A. Robinson issued an asset freeze Sept. 1, along with stern orders to preserve evidence and repatriate to the United States all assets and documents held on foreign soil. She also broadened the powers of Larry Cook, the court-appointed receiver.

    Through his investigation, Cook determined that Noobing was operating under the umbrella of Apex Holdings International LLC, the same company under which ASI operated. Cook also determined that at least 14 other companies were operating under the Apex Holdings umbrella.

    Noobing, which was registered in the United States, also had an offshoot in Nevis, according to court filings. Noobing targeted people with hearing impairments.

    Cook asked Robinson last month to add Noobing and the other companies as receivership defendants after determining “each of the Subsidiaries used the same post office box as the [initial] Receivership Defendants.”

    Moroever, Cook advised Robinson that he had received “receive numerous inquiries from creditors, former independent contractors, and tax authorities for the Subsidiaries.” He further argued that “each of the Subsidiaries was entirely reliant upon the business operations of the [initial] Receivership Defendants.”

    Robinson, saying Cook had shown “good cause,” added Noobing and the others as defendants March 18.

    No party  — including the FTC, the state attorneys general, the initial set of defendants and the new defendants — objected, Robinson noted. In December, Illinois joined the FTC, Minnesota, North Carolina and Kansas in the action.

    On the previous day, March 17, FBI Director Robert Mueller III, without naming names, testified before Congress. Mueller said that “shell corporations” are emerging as a threat to the U.S. banking system because owners were using them “to facilitate the concealing of criminal proceeds” and engage in money-laundering.

    Neither Noobing not its corporate parent has been accused of a crime.

    In February, the U.S. Secret Service alleged in a civil forfeiture complaint that INetGlobal, a company that operates an autosurf, was engaged in money-laundering and wire fraud while operating a Ponzi scheme.

    INetGlobal is operated by Steve Renner, under his “umbrella corporation, InterMark,” the Secret Service alleged. The agency identified what it described as “subsidiaries,” specifically referencing “Virtual Payment Systems [LLC of Wisconsin/Brackets Denoting the LLC Designation added Jan. 20, 2011], V-Media, Cash Cards International, and V-Local,” as well as a company named “INet Global Productions.”

    NOTE IN BOLD ADDED JAN. 20, 2011: An Indianapolis-based company known as Virtual Payment Systems Inc. has contacted the PP Blog to let it know it is not affiliated with the Renner company Virtual Payment Systems LLC of Wisconsin, which is referenced in the paragraph above.

    “The commission by Renner of the federal crimes of wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 1343, and money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 1957, is essential to the operation of this Ponzi scheme,” the Secret Service alleged.

    In August 2008, the Secret Service said AdSurfDaily, a Florida-based autosurf company, also was engaging in wire fraud and money-laundering while operating a Ponzi scheme.

    U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer — on Jan. 4, 2010 — ordered the forfeiture of more than $65.8 million in the personal bank accounts of ASD President Andy Bowdoin. A little more than a month later, on Feb. 23, the Secret Service moved against INetGlobal.

    Records show that ASD’s Bowdoin operated several corporations over the years. In September 2009, the state of Florida revoked the corporate registrations of AdSurfDaily and Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises Inc.

    The revocations occurred just four days after Bowdoin told members he had exciting plans for ASD’s future. Despite his claim, Bowdoin never bothered to submit the paperwork to keep the firm’s registration intact, despite having been given a five-month window to do so.

    In his remarks to members, Bowdoin said the government had seized the assets of ASD members. In his own sworn court filings, however, Bowdoin said the seized assets belonged to him and his company.

    The Secret Service transcribed Bowdoin’s remarks, and presented them to Collyer Sept. 28. Federal prosecutors said Bowdoin’s remarks were evidence that “this con man cannot manage to keep his stories straight.”

    Collyer ordered the ASD asset forfeiture a little more than three months later. In the INetGlobal case, the Secret Service said one of its undercover agents was on the receiving end of a sales pitch from an ASD member who was trying to recruit the agent into INetGlobal.

    Renner’s autosurf  “began operating just weeks after ASD was put out of business by the Secret Service, and this new entity uses the same terminology and business model as ASD,” the agency said in an affidavit for a search warrant.

    At least one of the undercover agents working the INetGlobal case also worked the ASD case, according to court filings. The Secret Service searched the Web for an INetGlobal affiliate site, and the INetGlobal affiliate who pitched the undercover agent also had been an ASD member, according to the affidavit.

    “The member asked if [the undercover agent] was a network marketer,” the Secret Service said. “The member said he had previously been a member of ASD . . . and said, ‘We know what happened there.’

    “The member said he was reluctant to join iNetGlobal due to it being similar to ASD,” the agency continued in the affidavit. “The member said, ‘we all know what this program is.’” The member said his daughter and wife surfed the websites and the member did not care about the services provided. The member said he just wanted to put his money in and get it out. The member said you convert your earnings to V-cash and then receive payouts by check or through an ATM card you can sign up for.”

    Less than a month later, FBI Director Mueller told Congress that “shell corporations” and “stored value” debit devices and “reloadable debit cards” increasingly were being used “to move criminal proceeds.”

    “This has created a ‘shadow’ banking system, allowing criminals to exploit existing vulnerabilities in the reporting requirements that are imposed on financial institutions and international travelers,” Mueller said.

    Mueller did not name any companies in his Congressional testimony.

  • ANALYSIS: Another Troubled Autosurf, Another Bizarre PR Approach; Some INetGlobal Supporters Attack The Messenger

    Steve Renner

    If you follow news about the so-called autosurf “industry,” the mind-boggling PR approach by some supporters of Steve Renner’s INetGlobal is apt to remind you of the bizarre approach employed by Florida-based AdSurfDaily and some members of the now-defunct Surf’s Up forum.

    If you’re new to the ongoing saga of AdSurfDaily (ASD), the developing story about INetGlobal and the autosurf “industry” in general, ASD’s case is instructive. Although ASD claimed to be a professional advertising and communications firm, one of its first efforts to counter the federal government’s allegations was to compare prosecutors and the U.S. Secret Service to “Satan” and the 9/11 terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people in New York.

    ASD President Andy Bowdoin later asked for an evidentiary hearing in the civil-forfeiture case against the company’s assets  — the same sort of case INetGlobal is facing — but Bowdoin then took the 5th Amendment, as did his chief executive officer.

    In a comment that will live for the ages, one ASD supporter explained that Bowdoin, who was running the company with 10 bank accounts in his personal name and let it slip that ASD had $1 million in an account under a different name on the Caribbean island nation of Antigua, was “too honest” to testify.

    One of the issues in the ASD case was the Ponzi issue — specifically, whether ASD had sufficient revenue to pay members “rebates” without resorting to taking money from new members to pay old ones. ASD’s evidentiary hearing lasted two days. The company did not submit an audited and certified balance sheet to refute the government’s Ponzi claims.

    Instead, after the hearing — while ASD was awaiting a decision by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer on whether it was operating lawfully and had demonstrated it was not a Ponzi scheme at the hearing  — the company issued a news release.

    The news release claimed ASD was expecting a revenue infusion of $200 million from a penny stock company. Performing no due diligence at all, some ASD members immediately raced to forums and websites to announce the company had a business deal worth one-fifth of a billion dollars.

    Other ASD members sought to substantiate the company’s announcement and insisted that ASD prove its $200 million claim. The company then deleted the news release.

    Meanwhile, ASD also claimed that Ponzi allegations brought against it by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum had been dropped. Once again, ASD members who did no checking at all raced to forums and websites to announce the good news.

    In response, McCollum’s office issued a statement that, not only had Ponzi allegations not been dropped, they’d never been filed to begin with. ASD was accused by McCollum of operating a pyramid scheme.

    Earlier, some ASD supporters were part of a bizarre campaign to have McCollum charged with Deceptive Trade Practices for holding the view the company had broken the law. They also wanted to charge a Florida TV station with the same offense, apparently for broadcasting a story they deemed unflattering to ASD.

    Like ASD’s Andy Bowdoin, Steve Renner — now ordered by a federal judge to wear a GPS tracking device as he awaits sentencing on federal tax-evasion charges and plans his defense for the civil Ponzi allegations against INetGlobal — is being portrayed as a victim of a corrupt government bent on destroying small business.

    The approach is absurd. It did not work for Bowdoin, and it won’t work for Renner.

    Renner, of course, is entitled to have supporters. Regardless, his supporters will be hard-pressed to persuade — let alone convince — the Ponzi-hating public that government evil is driving events at INetGlobal when the Secret Service already has produced an affidavit that says a bank closed down Renner-connected accounts prior to the raid because it suspected money-laundering.

    Moreover, federal records show that one of Renner’s companies — a money-services business known as Cash Cards International (CCI) — previously had provided services for a Ponzi scheme that resulted in lengthy prison sentences for four people associated with the scheme.

    When the receiver in the Ponzi case asked Renner to convert electronic credits to cash to fund the estate for Ponzi victims, Renner could not do it because he had spent the money as though it were his own, according to court filings.

    As was the case with ASD, some INetGlobal members are attacking the media, amid claims there has been a rush to judgment.

    Blaming Renner’s predicament on the media or suggesting the media have rushed to judgment also won’t work. The media did not invent the allegations; it simply reported them, as it would do in any other case.

    Some INetGlobal members are pointing to an opinion piece on The Independent Business News Network (IBNN) website that the Star-Tribune newspaper of Minneapolis/St. Paul was guilty of “bias” in its coverage of the Secret Service raid on INetGlobal.

    The IBNN piece, however, did not disclose that Don Allen, the author of the IBNN editorial, also worked as a spokesman for a Renner company. In short, while Allen was opining the Star-Tribune was guilty of bias, he did not make it clear that his own impartiality could be questioned.

    IBNN’s Twitter site later reported that the Secret Service was “leaking” information to the PP Blog.  It simply did not happen. The Secret Service leaked no information to the Blog.

    While bashing the media in this context may provide some red meat for INetGlobal’s supporters, it does nothing to address the compelling reality that the allegations against Renner and his company are serious:

    Ponzi scheme. Wire fraud. Co-mingling. Suspicious withdrawals. Accounts closed by a bank that suspected criminal activity. Money-laundering.

    It’s the Minneapolis version of the ASD case. As was the case with ASD, INetGlobal is entitled to its day in court. It is entitled to argue passionately in its defense, and it is entitled to poke holes in the prosecution’s case. If the government does not have the goods, INetGlobal is entitled to win the forfeiture case and any future litigation that evolves.

    At the same time, INetGlobal members who support the company are entitled to argue their point of view passionately. They are not entitled, however, to be taken seriously if they spin events in ridiculous ways that cannot pass the giggle test.

    One difference between the INetGlobal forfeiture case and the ASD forfeiture case is that ASD did not appear to have gained traction in China. INetGlobal, though, does appear to have a substantial base of members in China. One of the issues in the INetGlobal case is language barriers: Can members who speak Chinese and have limited or no facility in English understand the business they joined and the complex litigation now engulfing the Renner companies?

    Neither bashing the government nor bashing the media does anything to address those concerns. Such an approach leads to questions about whether INetGlobal’s members who have limited facility in English are being ill-served by the efforts of English-speaking members to spin the story in ways that avoid the unpleasant realities and cloud the critical issues, which can be confusing even if a member has perfect understanding of English.

    On March 16, the PP Blog was provided a copy of an email some INetGlobal members received from their upline.

    “[T]he first court appearance which took place yesterday [March 15] went in favor of iNetGlobal,” the email claimed. It did not mention that a federal judge ordered Renner to wear the GPS tracking device as he awaits sentencing on four felony counts of income-tax evasion.

    Renner was convicted of the tax charges in December, more than two months prior to the Secret Service raid.

    Among the other claims in the email was that “[t]he judge in the case ordered the ‘Feds’ to release iNetGlobal payroll monies back to the company.”

    No such order appears to have been issued. Federal forfeiture law puts property that has been “arrested” — money in a bank account that has been seized, for example — in a state of limbo.

    Judges may entertain motions to have seized money released, but may be reluctant to release it out of concern the money will be “lost” prior to the conclusion of a forfeiture case.

    In general, the law seeks to avoid an inequitable result — for example, a decision to free money to pay employees could lead to a result in which less money would be available to compensate people who invested in a scheme and lost money.

    In the ASD case, the company asked for $2 million to be released. Collyer said no after hearing live testimony, weighing briefs submitted by attorneys from both sides and deliberating on the issues for several weeks.

    “The $2 million that ASD seeks to utilize are funds that were paid to ASD by advertisers and members,” Collyer ruled. “ASD has not demonstrated sufficiently that ASD is a legitimate business. Thus, the Court cannot release the funds to be used by the Company in its current form. And, if the plan to revamp ASD’s business proves unsuccessful, the citizens who paid that money will receive no advertising benefits and no return on their advertisement purchases. Quite simply, the money will be ‘lost’ forever.

    “Despite the obvious hardships endured by the employees of ASD and a great number of its members,” Collyer continued, “the Court cannot ignore its oath to uphold the law, nor can it rightly take the hardships of some and transfer them unto others.”

    Some of the same legal issues may come into play in the INetGlobal case, although the fact sets are not precisely the same. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank is hearing the case, and the prosecution already has filed papers that reference ASD and a ruling by Collyer that ordered the forfeiture of more than $65 million to the government.

    Another section of the email was worded in a vague way that implied Donovan had arrived at the conclusion that INetGlobal might have the upper hand in the case.

    “Also indicated by the judge that inetGlobal should petition the court to have other funds released,” the email said.

    The mere act of petitioning a court for a result does not mean the court will rule favorably. That’s already been demonstrated in the INetGlobal case.

    Prosecutors sought to jail Renner, arguing he did not abide by the law while awaiting sentencing for his December tax conviction. Instead of jailing Renner, the judge ordered GPS tracking, enabling him to remain free.

    In the ASD case, members routinely spread misinformation after Collyer issued orders. When Collyer ordered ASD to file papers by a certain date, some ASD sponsors told downline members the prosecution had been ordered to prove ASD was a Ponzi scheme by the same date or lose the case.

    When Collyer ordered the government to file motions in response to Bowdoin’s pleadings by a certain date, ASD sponsors told downline members that the prosecution was in a panic because it could not prove ASD was a Ponzi scheme and was trying to find a way to save face.

    For at least a year,  the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum spread a rumor based on “inside information” that the prosecution had admitted behind closed doors that ASD was not a Ponzi scheme. The rumor persisted, despite the fact that the government filed a second forfeiture complaint against ASD-connected assets after the rumor started.

    Like the first complaint, the second complaint alleged the company was operating a Ponzi scheme. Not even the filing of the second complaint stopped the rumor, which was being repeated as though the court filings that disproved it simply did not exist.

  • Death Cycle For BizAdSplash Complete; Site Resolves To Blank Page On U.S. Server; Members’ Losses Unclear

    It entered the autosurf world in January 2009 with the stern bang of a drum in a promotional video. The message was dire: “The World Is In Crisis,” it warned. “Turn On The News, And You’ll See. The Stock Market Is At A Record Low. Foreclosures Are At An All-Time High. Thousand’s (sic) Are Losing Their Jobs. Banks Are Closing. There Has To Be A Solution!”

    The dire bang of the drum faded, replaced by a riff from an organ. The riff grew frantic, building toward a crescendo. The video never said the tones were from a 1999 work by Fatboy Slim: “Right Here, Right Now.”

    Messages flashed in front of viewers’ eyes for more than a minute before the video announced the company’s name — BizAdSplash — and positioned the surf as the cure for all the economic misery in the world.

    “Biz Ad Splash Has The Answer,” it said. “The Plan Is Simple. Advertise Your Business, A Product Or Service, Introduce Others To The Value Of Advertising. View A Few Ads For A Few Minutes A Day. Earn Profits. It’s That Simple!”

    Except it wasn’t, of course.

    BizAdSplash, whose “chief consultant” Clarence Busby was implicated by the U.S. Secret Service in the AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme probe as the operator of Golden Panda Ad Builder, was in the throes of death out of the gate. The company started out by promoting its offshore location; its servers resolved to Panama.

    Payments slowed, then vanished. The site appeared, then disappeared, then reappeared. Even as BizAdSpash was in the throes of death, Busby talked about how “excited” he was — and how “excited” members who were not getting paid should be.

    The site disappeared again over 2009’s Christmas holiday and into the new year. It then reappeared. In late January, members said they received a platitude-filled note from Busby that BizAdSplash had tanked.

    “Now what about the future?” the email said. “No matter what, there is a future. There are many things on the Internet that will help you in this future, so don’t give up. Make the effort and success is just right around the corner. May your life be full of faith, hope and love. This is where you will find your best rewards. May God bless you all!”

    Busby’s name appeared at the bottom of the email, which carried a business address of Acworth, Ga. The surf came to life in the wake of the seizure of tens of millions of dollars from AdSurfDaily Inc. and Golden Panda Ad Builder. Busby is the former president of Golden Panda, which ceded more than $14 million to the government in the ASD/Golden Panda case.

    Known for syrupy communications, Busby described the BAS staff as “sad,” according to the January email.

    “Our staff has been sad, not just because of losing a job, but because they have developed friendships with many of you and are very sad to ‘break up the party,’” the email said. “With anything that has had life, it is very sad to have that life taken away.”

    Busby was identified in the email as the owner of BAS. In earlier communications, he was identified as “chief consultant.” It was not immediately clear how he purportedly had ascended from consulting work to ownership.

    The site remained online. It now has vanished, however, and has been resolving to a blank page for at least three days. (It might have disappeared earlier.) The site’s server signature is in the United States.

    Now, it seems, the death dance is complete — offshore to onshore, and a fade to nothing but white.

    But the Biz Ad Splash video, the dire beat of the drum and Fatboy Slim’s pulsating tones remain on YouTube: It’s just that there no longer is anything to sell.

    Busby’s simple cure for the world’s economic ills — clicking on ads and introducing others to click on ads — did not work. The extent of Biz Ad Splash member losses is unclear.

    Busby, who used the title “Rev.” at least 120 times in a court filing involving Golden Panda last year, was implicated by the SEC in three prime-bank schemes in the 1990s, according to records.

  • AdSurfDaily’s Bowdoin Says He’s Appealing Forfeiture Order Issued By Federal Judge; Notice Filed 6 Days After INetGlobal Raid; Riddle Of Bowdoin’s Competing Affidavit Claims Unsolved

    Andy Bowdoin

    The president of a Florida-based autosurf company implicated in a Ponzi scheme by the U.S. Secret Service says he is appealing a forfeiture order that gave the government title to more than $65 million seized from his personal bank accounts in 2008.

    Notice of the appeal by Andy Bowdoin of AdSurfDaily was filed by his attorneys March 1, about six days after federal agents — citing the Jan. 4 forfeiture order by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer of the District of Columbia — raided the Minneapolis offices of INetGlobal.

    In an affidavit for a search warrant last month, the Secret Service said INetGlobal, a company operated by Steve Renner, was operating a similar autosurf Ponzi scheme and also engaging in wire fraud and money laundering.

    The INetGlobal affidavit asserts, among other things, that a member of ASD attempted to recruit an undercover Secret Service agent into INetGlobal despite the member’s own reservations about ASD.

    INetGlobal was described by the ASD member as a wink-nod enterprise, according to the Secret Service affidavit. The company “uses the same terminology and business model as ASD,” the agency said.

    In court filings prior to the INetGlobal raid, Bowdoin’s attorneys laid the groundwork for an appeal of Collyer’s Jan. 4 forfeiture order on the grounds of judicial error, arguing that Bowdoin had not received proper notice about orders Collyer issued last year and did not react to them because of computer glitches at the office of one of his attorneys, Charles A. Murray.

    “I experienced as yet unidentified computer/server issues, wherein multiple email messages apparently never loaded to the firm’s Inbox,” Murray said in court filings on Feb. 17.

    The glitches occurred between Nov. 10 and “early January” of this year, Murray said.

    Paperwork for Bowdoin’s appeal shows a “minute order” issued by Collyer Feb. 21, denying earlier motions by Bowdoin.

    A “minute order” is a document that encapsulates legal issues before a judge. Minute orders sometimes are used when paperwork among the parties in a case is flying and a judge memorializes rulings by addressing them in a short entry, as opposed to issuing lengthy orders for each issue.

    “The Court’s Order of November 10, 2009 . . . was not a final, appealable order,” according to Collyer’s minute order. “Nor has Mr. Bowdoin shown that the Court erred in entering . . . the November 20, 2009, Order to Show Cause. The order granting default judgment and final order of forfeiture . . . is the final order in this case.”

    On Nov. 10, Collyer ruled that Bowdoin no longer had standing in the case after he had battled for 10 months to reenter the case. Bowdoin submitted to the forfeiture in January 2009 — and then changed his mind, first acting as his own attorney and later acting with Murray’s help because Bowdoin had fired his previous paid counsel.

    On Nov. 20, Collyer issued an order that gave potential claimants in the case 30 days to come forward. No claimant emerged. On Dec. 17, however, Bowdoin filed a motion to disqualify Collyer, saying she was biased. Collyer denied the motion Dec. 18. She issued the forfeiture order Jan. 4.

    In February, Bowdoin, 75, flatly claimed in a sworn affidavit that he was told by a former defense attorney that, if he submitted to the forfeiture in January 2009 of tens of millions of dollars, he would face no jail time if criminal charges were filed in the ASD Ponzi scheme case.

    He did not name the attorney in the February filing, referring to him obliquely as “prior counsel.” In an earlier filing, Bowdoin identified his counsel as Stephen Dobson.

    “I was assured by my prior counsel that, if I released my claims in this [civil-forfeiture] action, I would not be facing any incarceration,” Bowdoin claimed last month. “My January 2009 motion to withdraw my claim . . . was solely based upon prior counsel’s unilateral mistaken belief that my release of claims would unequivocally assure that any subsequent criminal sentence entered would not include any prison time.”

    Last month’s filing was witnessed by Florida notary public Joe B. Cox of Lee County.

    But in a sworn affidavit Bowdoin signed Sept. 15 before a different notary public — Patricia C. Sanson of Lee County — Bowdoin repeatedly said Dobson had said only that there was a possibility Bowdoin would not be sentenced to prison if criminal charges emerged.

    In the Sept. 15 affidavit, Bowdoin repeatedly swore that Dobson had not promised him no jail time.

    These are among the phrases Bowdoin swore to in the Sept. 15 affidavit (emphasis added):

    • Dobson represented to me that I could possibly avoid prison or get a reduced sentence if I agreed to disclose details concerning ASD and releasing the assets.
    • I also signed a document stating that I would release my claims in the abovecaptioned civil in rem forfeiture proceeding, again thinking that necessary for a possible avoidance of a prison term.
    • I did all of this on the understanding that by cooperating I could possibly avoid a prison sentence.
    • I agreed not to exercise my rights in the civil forfeiture proceeding, anticipating from representations made by Dobson that this could possibly keep me out of prison.
      Dobson lead [sic] me to believe that if I cooperated there was a possibility that I would not be incarcerated or imprisoned.
    • I believed that my cooperation would still result in a criminal sentence that could possibly not include imprisonment or incarceration.
    • I slowly came to understand what I understood from Dobson not to be the case: that my agreement to cooperate provided me no benefit in the criminal matter except the possibility of a reduced sentence if the judge desired which would still be a life sentence.

    Bowdoin’s filing last month led to questions about whether he deliberately chose to appear before a different notary to swear to the affidavit. At the same time, it led to questions about whether Bowdoin somehow was unaware that Collyer already had cited Bowdoin’s Sept. 15 sworn affidavit in a major ruling that Bowdoin no longer had standing in the case.

    On Nov. 10, Collyer noted Bowdoin’s repeated use of the words “possibly,” “possible” and “possibility” in the Sept. 15 affidavit when referring to the advice Dobson had given him on the matter of jail and finding that Dobson had behaved responsibly while representing Bowdoin.

    “Such an approach from counsel could be seen as the norm when the Government’s evidence is strong,” Collyer said. “What Mr. Bowdoin hoped to gain from his release of claims/early acceptance of responsibility and his debriefing with the Government was a promise of no jail time. When that was not forthcoming from the Assistant United States Attorney, Mr. Bowdoin balked and tried to back up, as if he had not already released his claims and talked to the Government.”

    There may be other news associated with Bowdoin’s appeal: The filings suggest that William Cowden, who spearheaded the forfeiture case for the Department of Justice as an assistant U.S. Attorney and then accepted a job in the private sector, may be returning as a special prosecutor while maintaining his job in the private sector.

    Cowden was derided by Bowdoin supporters as “Gomer Pyle,” but piloted the case through an evidentiary hearing that resulted in a ruling from Collyer in November 2008 that ASD had not demonstrated it was a legal business and not a Ponzi scheme.

    With the Secret Service leading the investigation, Cowden then filed a second forfeiture complaint against assets linked to ASD. The second complaint was filed in December 2008 and named members of Bowdoin’s family as beneficiaries of ASD’s illegal scheme.

  • Timeline Suggests INetGlobal Was Pounding Clickbank Vendors With Traffic From China In Months Proceeding Raid While Sucking Bandwidth And Destroying Conversion Stats

    EDITOR’S NOTE: Untargeted, unfocused traffic and participants who did not have websites to advertise are two of the issues in the AdSurfDaily autosurf Ponzi scheme case. They also are issues in the INetGlobal case.

    UPDATED 8:20 A.M. ET (March 10, U.S.A.) Public records and other information suggest INetGlobal was becoming largely dependent on cash from Mainland China and was routing unwanted traffic that did not convert into sales to the sites of Clickbank vendors — while passing along the bandwidth costs to the vendors and grossly distorting  their conversion statistics.

    In an affidavit for a search warrant, the U.S. Secret Service, citing an analysis of INetGlobal’s money stream by an unnamed employee, said “at least 87% of the company’s revenue was generated from sale of memberships to members residing in China.”

    The affidavit also describes an INetGlobal function in Flushing, N.Y., on Jan. 23 that was attended by at least two undercover agents.

    About 400 people attended the function, the Secret Service said. The “majority” were Chinese. Attendees to whom an undercover agent spoke “had either little or no facility in English.” The agent noted that that “conference registration took a long time because nobody at the registration desk spoke Chinese, and many of the conference attendees could not make themselves understood in English.”

    Moreover, the agent said, when INetGlobal owner Steve Renner “asked, through an interpreter, how many people in attendance had their own business . . . only two raised their hands.”

    One attendee — an existing INetGlobal member — was asked by the second undercover agent if she had a website to advertise in INetGlobal’s rotator.

    The INetGlobal member — a woman Renner had identified as a “New Jersey resident making $6,000 per day, or $180,000 per month” — said she had no site to advertise in the rotator because having a website “was not required,” the Secret Service said.

    A second INetGlobal member approached by the same undercover agent was asked if he had a website to advertise in the rotator. This member — a man described as telling the agent he made $3,000 a month in INetGlobal — explained that he had a website, but did not post it because “it was ten years old,” the Secret Service said.

    Renner was observed telling different stories, the Secret Service said. One version had INetGlobal posting $25 million in revenue in December; another version “a short time later” pegged the figure at $20 million. Renner also said “iNetGlobal’s search engine, Access, would soon rival Google’s.

    “Renner did not explain to the crowd that Access was simply a link to another search engine, and that an Access web search was just the same as a web search on this other search engine,” the Secret Service said.

    Despite the claim that INetGlobal’s search engine would rival Google’s, the Secret Service said, internal company emails discussed “the possibility of the other search engine cutting the link and thus taking down Access.”

    A Public Tip-Off From Renner Himself That INetGlobal Was Up To No Good?

    Meanwhile, web records suggest that INetGlobal — at least for a time — either took it upon itself to add the sites of Clickbank vendors to its advertising rotator or instructed members who did not own businesses to add Clickbank links, an act that resulted in a surge of traffic from China that led to few if any sales. The apparent lack of sales suggests that Chinese members viewing the ads either did not understand what they were viewing or were viewing the ads simply to get paid.

    At the same time, web records suggest that INetGlobal was relying on the websites of individuals and companies that had no tie to the firm to provide surfers something to see in the firm’s advertising rotator — at the bandwidth expense of the unaffiliated companies and individuals, at least some of whom were Clickbank vendors.

    One of the Clickbank vendors — writing on the Digital Point Forum Sept. 26 — reported that he was studying his Clickbank affiliate stats and discovered something “REALLY messed up.”

    The vendor reported on Digital Point that the ID “inetgbal’ suddenly was sending  junk traffic that “appears to be coming from China.”

    The vendor published screen shots to support his claim and noted, “If you do a ‘surfin demo’ on the iNetGlobal website, you’ll see it takes you to random CPA offers and Clickbank products.”

    On Sept. 27, the vendor reported on Digital Point that he considered the traffic problematic and was considering a means of blocking it at the server level with the use of an .htaccess file.

    Working with .htaccess files, which can be used to block traffic from an IP or IP range, is not for the faint of heart. It is not uncommon for inexperienced webmasters to bring down their own servers or create an endless loop of error messages when attempting to tweak server behavior with an .htaccess file.

    Recognizing the dilemma, the Clickbank vendor put out a call for “good coders” to walk him through a fix for a problem he believed INetGlobal was causing for him.  Other posters inquired about the possibility of asking Clickbank to block the unwanted affiliate link.

    The discussion on the forum suggests INetGlobal was creating a situation in which Clickbank affiliates might have to incur an expense simply to block unwanted traffic — while creating the additional burden of polluting conversion statistics, potentially making the products less attractive to affiliates.

    If, say, a product ordinarily made one sale per each 100 views of an affiliate link — and if INetGlobal suddenly sent through 1,000 page views from China (er elsewhere) that did not convert because the traffic was untargeted or people simply were surfing to get paid — a vendor’s conversion rate could drop from one in 100 to one in 1,100.

    On Nov. 6, 2009, a person posting as Steve Renner — the “Director” of INetGlobal — appeared at Digital Point. A little more than a month later, Renner was convicted of income-tax evasion in a case brought in September 2008.

    Less than three months after Renner’s tax conviction, the Secret Service asserted that INetGlobal was part of an international Ponzi scheme that had engaged in wire fraud and money-laundering.

    “The problem was we had no Daily Budget in place and so traffic was running rampant,” the Digital Point poster purporting to be Renner explained on Nov. 6.

    The Clickbank vendor did not mince words in his response to the Nov. 6 post. Others were equally unhappy.

    Visit the intriguing thread on Digital Point.

  • Website Of Spokesman For Renner Entity Claims Government ‘Leaking’ Info To PP Blog About INetGlobal Ponzi Probe; ‘Didn’t Happen — Ever,’ Blog Says; Meanwhile, A Bogus ‘Apology’ Claim

    UPDATED 2:20 P.M. ET (U.S.A.) Did people associated with a company implicated by the U.S. Secret Service in a Ponzi scheme, wire-fraud and money-laundering case participate in a misinformation campaign?

    A Twitter website with a tie to the Inter-Mark companies operated by Steve Renner claims that federal officials are “leaking” information to the PP Blog.

    “Didn’t happen — ever,” the PP Blog said today. “The information we published was not leaked to the Blog. The Blog obtained the information from a public source, through the normal course of its reporting, and the information was available to reporters and the public before the Blog even published its first story based on the information.”

    Meanwhile, another website with a tie to a Renner’s Inter-Mark Corp. is making the claim that a Blogger Inter-Mark is targeting in a lawsuit for calling INetGlobal a “scam” issued an “apology.”

    The apology claim appears on a domain titled CheapClix.net, whose domain registration lists V-WEBS.COM as its nameserver. A Renner company dubbed V-Webs LLC appears to be an inactive Minnesota corporation that used the same Minneapolis street address as InetGlobal and other Renner companies, according to public records.

    A CheapClix.net post headlined “HOSPITALERA.COM APOLOGIZES TO iNetGlobal” and dated Feb. 4 claims that the Hospitalera Blog issued an apology to INetGlobal on a date uncertain and implies that Hospitalera now even endorses INetGlobal.

    “We are deeply saddened by the actions taken by this blog to defame iNetGlobal,” the CheapClix.net site says, apparently quoting from the purported apology. “iNetGlobal is one of the top Internet Marketing firms in the United States. We reach out to them with a sincere apology in hopes that we too can use the iNetGlobal products and services.

    “After careful review of iNetGlobal’s services and products, we find the company is real and the services are true to what iNetGlobal represents. Again, we apologize.”

    The apology claim is dubious because Sybille Yates, who operates the Hospitalera Blog from the Czech Republic, told the PP Blog last week that she was not even aware that Renner’s company was suing her until Feb. 25 — three weeks after the date of her purported apology.

    Yates did not immediately return an email from the PP Blog today seeking comment on the apology claim and whether she had, in fact, apologized. A Feb. 16 post  from Yates on the Hospitalera Blog, however, describes the news release that announced the apology as “faked.”

    Whether the apology claim somehow sprouted from some fantastic reshaping of facts by an INetGlobal supporter or was just an outright lie that was part of a misinformation campaign was not immediately clear.

    It has been common in the so-called autosurf “industry” for lies, misstatements, misrepresentations, misinformation and claims not based on facts to spread virally on the Internet as though they were truth.

    In the AdSurfDaily case, for instance, claims were made that the prosecution admitted ASD was not a Ponzi scheme, that ASD President Andy Bowdoin had received an award from the President of the United States for business acumen, that Google and ASD were partners and that ASD had the backing of huge corporations with huge advertising budgets.

    All of the claims were untrue.

    The CheapClix.net claim about the purported apology adds another strange twist to the INetGlobal story. If Yates never issued such an apology — and Yates’ Blog says no such apology was issued — it leads to questions about why someone would claim such an apology had been issued and even go so far as to issue a news release to announce an apology that had not been made.

    The introduction to Hospitalera’s purported apology as reported by CheapClix net begins, “We appreciate this step taken by the people at the hospitalera web-site to make amends for their erroneous publications.”

    The CheapClix.net post from Feb. 4 includes a link to what appears to have been a news release issued by an unknown party to herald Hospitalera’s purported apology. The news release link to PRLog.org resolves to an error page. PRLog.org is a free news-release distribution service.

    Yates’ Blog says she contacted PRLog to have the fake news release removed, and that PRLog took down the bogus release “in a heart beat.”

    UPDATE 2:20 P.M. Yates has confirmed she never issued an apology.

    “I never issued said apology, nor did I ever authorize anybody to do so in my name,” Yates said.

    “I never issued or published a press release on prlog.org. As I came across the forged and false press release, I contacted prlog.org immediately and they took it down. I have no information who published/submitted said press release to prlog.org.”

    A second link in the CheapClix.net post that heralded the purported apology resolves to TweetMeme.com, a site that aggregates Twitter links. A small icon that reads “V News Network” appears below a headline of “iNetGlobal Scam: Hospitalera Blog apologizes to iNetGlobal.”

    Records suggest that “V News Network” may be yet another Renner entity.

    A headline heralding a purported apology from the Hospitalera Blog for calling INetGlobal a scam appears on a website known as CheapClix.net. The Hospitalera Blog says the apology was "faked."

    ‘Leaking’ Claim

    Why the Twitter site, which is tied to IBBN.org, made the claim of that the government was “leaking” to the PP Blog is unclear. The Twitter post is dated Feb. 28. IBNN, which stands for The Independent Business News Network, is registered in Renner’s name. The site is operated by Donald W.R. Allen II, IBNN’s editor-in-chief and the the vice president and director of public relations for V-Newswire — a company in Renner’s INetGlobal family.

    Renner is listed as the IBNN domain registrant.

    Allen did not comment Friday when the PP Blog advised him that the government leaked no information to the Blog. The Twitter site does not list a source for its claim that federal officials “leaked” information to the Blog, but asserts that such an event was possible “Only in America!” The Twitter site continues to make the claim.

    The site also claims “iNetGlobal not a Ponzi.” No source is listed for the denial. It is unclear if IBNN has access to audited and certified balance sheets and financial statements of the Renner enterprise that could destroy the government’s Ponzi assertions.

    IBNN previously skewered the Star-Tribune newspaper of Minneapolis/St. Paul, asserting that the paper, which covered the INetGlobal raid, was displaying  “defamatory contempt [for the Renner entities] prior to a full investigation and a Grand Jury inquiry.”

    Allen, who signed the IBNN opinion piece, did not disclose his tie to the Renner companies when the piece was published. The piece went missing after the PP Blog published a story in IBNN’s tie to Renner, but since has been restored — with a few lines added.

    The U.S. Secret Service, which raided Renner’s operations in Minneapolis last month, asserted that INetGlobal and other Renner companies were part of an international Ponzi scheme that was engaging in wire fraud and money-laundering.

    The PP Blog cited as its source a Secret Service affidavit for a search warrant. The affidavit was published openly on a government website.

    At various times in its history, the PP Blog has been accused by participants in alleged Ponzi schemes of being part of a government operation. The Blog has reported on paranoia that often accompanies Ponzi scheme participants, some of whom become preoccupied with thoughts about government “plants.”

    Such claims about the PP Blog have been made from one Ponzi scheme case to the next, but they simply are not true. Ponzi promoters have accused the Blog of idiocy, occasionally resorting to name-calling or posting under multiple identities in a bid to create the appearance that a particular company caught up in Ponzi allegations the Blog was covering had more supporters than it actually had.

    As was the case with AdSurfDaily, a Florida company implicated in an autosurf  Ponzi scheme by the Secret Service in 2008, the Secret Service used undercover agents as part of the investigation into INetGlobal, according to a court affidavit. At least one of the undercover agents also was involved in the ASD investigation, according to court filings.

    Other court filings reviewed by the PP Blog have described various investigative techniques the agency uses, including surveillance from automobiles of subjects under investigation at places such as residences, parking lots and post offices — and even trash Dumpsters.

    At least two Secret Service agents were in the room to observe an INetGlobal function in New York, according to court filings. Agents also observed an ASD function in Miami in 2008, according to court filings.

    An agent involved in the ASD case listened to an INetGlobal sales pitch by an ASD member, according to the affidavit in the case.  It is plain from multiple public filings that the Secret Service is well aware of the so-called autosurf “industry” — and also the so-called “matrix” industry.

    It was publicly known that Renner had been under federal indictment for income-tax evasion since September 2008, a month after the ASD raid. There also is a considerable, public paper trail consisting of court filings, news releases and other information that links Renner to a Ponzi scheme known as Learn Waterhouse, elements of which were prosecuted by both the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice.

    The public paperwork in the Learn Waterhouse case dates back to 2004. A Renner entity known as CCI provided payment-processing services for the Learn Waterhouse Ponzi scheme.

    Visit the Hospitalera site.

    Read about the purported apology on CheapClix.net.

  • SECRET SERVICE: INetGlobal Forced Members To Keep Money In The Company With ‘Automatic Repurchasing’ Scheme; Undercover Agent Sent Email To Support, Which Verified Repurchase Was Mandatory

    UPDATED 11:07 A.M. ET (U.S.A.) One of the undercover Secret Service agents who joined INetGlobal discovered that the company had implemented an “automatic repurchasing” program by default and that the program could not be switched off, thus distancing participants — many of whom may not have understood English — from their money.

    Although it is unclear when the automatic-repurchasing program began, it was in operation in the weeks after INetGlobal owner Steve Renner was convicted on Dec. 8, 2009, of four felony counts of income-tax evasion, according to court filings.

    Other filings show that another Renner company — Cash Cards International (CCI), a money-transmission business  — was upside down by more than $2.5 million when a court-appointed receiver in a Ponzi scheme case sought to convert electronic credits to cash to compensate victims of the scheme.

    Beginning on Feb. 1, the Secret Service agent — a woman — repeatedly tried to turn off INetGlobal’s automatic-repurchasing feature, but it “came back on” each time. The agent, who speaks and writes in English, attempted to disable the feature “several times on different days,” failing each and every time, according to an affidavit for a search warrant filed in the case.

    INetGlobal had a high concentration of Chinese members who did not speak English, according to the affidavit. How they even could understand the automatic-repurchasing scheme or fully comprehend INetGlobal’s operations and English-language website is far from clear, and has led to questions about whether the company deliberately was targeting members who could not understand what they were purchasing and would have both a language and a geographic disadvantage when seeking explanations or filing complaints with authorities.

    The company generated “at least” 87 percent of its revenue from the sale of memberships to members “residing in China,” according to an analysis referenced in the affidavit. The analysis was performed by an unnamed INetGlobal employee.

    On Feb. 17, the undercover agent sent an email to INetGlobal customer service, asking if the feature could be turned off.

    “Customer service replied in the negative,” the agent said, suggesting that the automatic-repurchasing feature was forcing participants to keep at least 40 percent of their money in the company.

    In the affidavit, the Secret Service said a “high level iNetGlobal member” from Nevada was becoming increasingly frustrated by an inability to withdraw funds. The member complained to management that “for over one week [in January] they had been unable to get a money order payment from the company for value they are owed.”

    “The victim contacted iNetGlobal’s customer service on several occasions only to get excuses,” the Secret Service said.

    Eventually, the victim spoke with former InetGlobal CEO Steven Keough.

    Keough, according to the Secret Service, told the victim on Jan. 11 to “cash out” of the system.

    “We can’t cash out,” the victim said. “[I]t is not possible, due to mandatory repurchasing built into the system.”

    On the very next day — Jan. 12 — Keough, an attorney and former naval officer, met with the Secret Service. He had contacted federal prosecutors Jan. 8 to express concerns about the company’s business practices. His first contact occurred only two months after he was appointed CEO on Nov. 7, 2009, according to the affidavit.

    Steve Renner’s Tax Convictions, Link To Previous Ponzi Scheme

    Renner was found guilty Dec. 8 of four felony counts of federal income-tax evasion.

    Prosecutors said he “diverted substantial funds” from CCI between 2002 and 2005 to pay his personal living expenses as well as to make personal investments in coins, oil wells, art, stamps, and vintage musical instruments.

    CCI, which once served as a money-transmitter for a California Ponzi scheme known as “Learn Waterhouse,” used the same office facility in Minneapolis as INetGlobal, the Secret Service said.

    When a court-appointed receiver in the Learn Waterhouse case attempted to get Renner to return money due Ponzi scheme victims, he explained that he could not do so because it had been “invested,” according to the affidavit.

    Thomas Lennon, the receiver in the Learn Waterhouse case, met with Renner, who “provided . . . financial statements indicating that the assets of Cash Cards and Renner are insufficient to cover all outstanding vcredit balances and obligations to other creditors.

    “Specifically, the statements show that Cash Cards and Renner have assets with an estimated value of $2,946,000 and an outstanding v-credit liability of $5,450,000,” Lennon said in court filings in 2007. “Renner has also informed the Receiver that he is currently being audited by federal and state taxing authorities which may result in large additional liabilities and liens on his property.”

    Lennon’s name is well-known among victims of financial crimes. He also was the court-appointed receiver in the 12DailyPro autosurf Ponzi scheme.

    Repurchasing programs, which autosurf operators employ to minimize the outflow of cash, are one of the oldest tricks in the Ponzi book. “Trainers” for Florida-based AdSurfDaily, implicated in a $100 million Ponzi scheme, routinely pushed a so-called “80-20” program whereby members would remove no more than 20 percent of money they were due and plow 80 percent back into the surf.

    In June 2009, AdViewGlobal, an autosurf with close family, management and promotional ties to ASD, announced it was ceasing payouts and making an 80/20 program mandatory should payouts ever resume. AdViewGlobal promptly crashed and burned.

    In January, according to the affidavit, Keough told investigators that he could not make sense out of what was going on inside INetGlobal and had observed instances in which Renner appeared to be gaming the payout system.

    “Keough said he was concerned that large amounts of money were flowing through bank accounts related to iNetGlobal and that unusual system manipulation was being conducted by . . . Renner,” the Secret Service said. “Keough had recently been fired by Renner. Keough believed he had been fired because he continually questioned iNetGlobal’s business practices.”

    On Jan. 20, according to the Secret Service, the agency received information that TCF National Bank was closing the accounts of a Renner entity known as Inter-Mark Corp. after an investigation by the bank led to “suspicions that the activity in the accounts might be money laundering,” according to the affidavit.

    “TCF Bank had given notice to Renner that the accounts were going to be closed,” the Secret Service said. It is unclear if Renner ever advised INetGlobal members that the bank had closed the accounts, citing suspicions they were being used to commit crimes.

    TCF prepared a cashier’s check for “for a little over $5 million,” presenting it to a Renner employee.

    Later that day, the check was deposited into Bremer Bank, which also held Renner-connected accounts, according to the Secret Service.

    Balances in Renner-connected accounts began “moving up sharply in August 2008,” the Secret Service said.

    August 2008 was the month in which the Secret Service raided the headquarters of ASD — and the month in which Renner’s autosurf was coming onto the stage. Golden Panda Ad Builder, a surf that is part of the ASD litigation, positioned itself as a company that sought to cater to Chinese members.

    Golden Panda’s operator — Clarence Busby — was implicated by the SEC in a prime-bank investment scheme in the 1990s, the same sort of scheme that engulfed Learn Waterhouse and later resulted in the determination that Renner’s CCI money-services business was impossibly upside down because he had used customers’ money to make personal purchases.

    INetGlobal issued a statement yesterday that acknowledged the Secret Service probe, but did not mention Renner’s tax conviction in December or the trouble he encountered when he could not fund a payment to the Learn Waterhouse receivership estate in the Ponzi case.

    “iNetGlobal offices will remain open to provide support to our 1,000’s of customers from around the world,” the company said. “iNetGlobal will continue to provide the level of quality service our customers have come to expect now and into the future.

    “We would like to thank all of our Members and Customers for their support and well wishes in this trying time,” the company said.

  • BULLETIN: Receiver In Affiliate Strategies Inc. (ASI) Case Asks Federal Judge To Add Noobing Autosurf To Receivership Probe After Inquiries By ‘Tax Authorities’

    The court-appointed receiver in the fraud case against the parent company of the Noobing autosurf has asked a federal judge for the authority to add Noobing to the receivership probe.

    Larry Cook, the receiver, said that Noobing and 14 other companies under the Affiliate Strategies Inc. (ASI) umbrella have become the subjects of “numerous inquiries” from “tax authorities,”  creditors and “former independent contractors.”

    Cook did not identify specific parties that made inquiries, but noted that “each of the Subsidiaries used the same post office box as the Receivership Defendants.”

    Noobing targeted people with hearing impairments in its promotions. It is known that some Noobing members have contacted the Federal Trade Commission, which is spearheading the ASI probe, along with the attorneys general of Kansas, Minnesota, North Carolina and Illinois.

    At least one deaf member of Noobing says she has contacted a sheriff’s department in California about the company.

    News that Cook is seeking judicial approval to add Noobing to his receivership probe came on the same day that the U.S. Secret Service said it was conducting an intense probe of INetGlobal, which operated a Minneapolis-based autosurf.

    In an application for a search warrant in a Ponzi case against INetGlobal, the Secret Service referenced the AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme case, saying a member of ASD had attempted to recruit an undercover Secret Service agent into the INetGlobal scheme.

    ASD members and members of a closely connected surf known as AdViewGlobal also promoted Noobing, as did INetGlobal members, according to web records.

    Steve Renner, the owner of INetGlobal, was convicted in December of four felony counts of income-tax evasion for his conduct with other companies earlier this decade.

    Autosurfs are notorious for keeping poor records or no records at all, and autosurf participants are notorious for engineering schemes to milk tax-free income.

    Cook said tax reporting is required, and is seeking an order that pertains to Noobing and 14 other ASI umbrella companies. Cook listed Noobing’s name at the top of the list.

    “In order to complete the tax reporting requirements and otherwise address the creditors’ and other claims, the Receiver seeks a clear order that he is the Receiver for the Subsidiaries,” Cook said.

    And, he added, “Counsel for the [FTC] has reviewed this Motion and concurs.”

    ASI and a number of companies were sued last year in a scheme involving government grants. Noobing went offline in the immediate aftermath of the FTC probe.