PatrickPretty.com

Tag: U.S. District Judge Jill N. Parrish

  • In Atmosphere Of Murkiness, Are Violations Of The Traffic Monsoon Asset Freeze Taking Place?

    EDITOR’S NOTE: Traffic Monsoon is a Utah company. The firm also has purported business operations in the United Kingdom and Dubai. Details about the offshore operations are murky.

    A claim from an apparent Traffic Monsoon affiliate appeared Monday (April 3) on Facebook that “Allied Wallet is making refunds of [Traffic Monsoon]  purchases made by credit cards or debit cards. Many people are getting this [sic] refunds.”

    In the same thread on the TrafficMonsoonupdates Facebook site, a poster claimed, “I received this in my bank today . . . 10.04% of my initial deposit to TM.” The apparent partial refund was marked “AW*TRAFFICM.”

    In July, U.S. District Judge Jill N. Parrish ordered all assets of Traffic Monsoon and operator Charles Scoville frozen. An October report by court-appointed receiver Peggy Hunt said that Allied Wallet had claimed it had approximately $7 million in Traffic Monsoon funds on deposit when the SEC filed its Ponzi action against the “program.”

    The asset freeze imposed by Parrish was further reinforced last week when she issued a preliminary injunction at the request of the SEC.

    From the preliminary injunction, which names Allied Wallet and other Traffic Monsoon vendors, including PayPal, Payza, Solid Trust Pay and JPMorgan Chase Bank (italics added):

    Each of the financial or brokerage institutions, debtors, and bailees, or any other person or entity holding Defendants’ Assets shall hold or retain within their control and prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, or other disposal of any such assets, funds, or other properties.

    Why, then, are Traffic Monsoon members claiming Allied Wallet is issuing at least partial refunds? And if the refunds are taking place, are they in violation of the asset freeze?

    Allied Wallet did not respond to a request for comment Monday. Neither did the SEC or Hunt.

    But the docket of the SEC’s case against Traffic Monsoon now shows that Hunt filed a notice of a subpoena naming Allied Wallet on Tuesday. How things would proceed was not immediately clear.

    Hunt previously informed the court about a statement Scoville allegedly made about how Traffic Monsoon hooked up with Allied Wallet prior to the SEC action via a company that purportedly was given to him.

    From the statement, as contained in a transcript filed by Hunt last year (italics added):

    Well, the thing is is Traffic Monsoon in the UK was kind of formed in a way because, when we were in Dubai, that’s when we got set up with someone who knew people inside of Allied Wallet to help us get an Allied Wallet account set up. And when we were setting up Allied Wallet, Allied Wallet required us to have a registration in the UK.

    Scoville went on to say, “We had somebody who was there with us who said, I’ve got a UK company. We can change it to the Traffic Monsoon, and then we could use that registration so you can use Allied Wallet. So that’s Taheer and Amir, both of them are on that business registration, but technically they don’t own any of the company.”

    And, according to the transcript, Scoville said, “they were just giving me a company that they had already registered as a speedy process of just making sure that we have a business registration in the UK. But they put me on as the owner.”

    Scoville, according to the transcript, grew to have doubts about the U.K. operation because he could not confirm that staff or security personnel for which he was paying 6,000 pounds per month actually were working at the U.K. office of his own company.

    From the transcript (italics added):

    I went over there, and apparently, the person at the front desk didn’t know who I was, who asked to see the people that were working for Traffic Monsoon, and they said that there’s nobody there. So I don’t know all of the ins and outs of what’s going on there. I may have been scammed. I don’t know.

    Parrish has found that Traffic Monsoon operated as a Ponzi scheme, according to court documents. Scoville has said he will file an appeal.




  • ‘Traffic Hurricane’ Members Beware: Preliminary Injunction Prohibits Traffic Monsoon, Scoville From Benefiting From ‘AdPack’ Businesses

    2ND UPDATE 6:58 P.M. EDT U.S.A. Here’s a news flash for individuals who joined a “program” called Traffic Hurricane with the belief they somehow were helping the defense of Charles Scoville and Traffic Monsoon: Both Scoville and Traffic Monsoon  are “prohibited from soliciting, accepting, or depositing any monies obtained from actual or prospective investors, individuals, customers, companies, and/or entities, through the Internet or other electronic means for Traffic Monsoon or a business model substantially similar to Traffic Monsoon’s sale of AdPacks.” (Bold emphasis added.)

    The quoted passage is from the very first paragraph of a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Jill N. Parrish March 28 against Traffic Monsoon and Scoville. The order effectively bars Scoville from being an owner, silent partner or beneficiary of an adpack business.

    Though the passage doesn’t specifically reference Traffic Hurricane, it is known that Traffic Hurricane operates over the Internet and surfaced after the SEC brought Ponzi charges against Traffic Monsoon in July 2016 and that Traffic Hurricane traded on a theme of assisting Scoville and Traffic Monsoon with defense costs.

    In August 2016, the PP Blog reported that Traffic Hurricane was a reload scheme targeting Traffic Monsoon participants.

    Huyugadal!!

    Ernie Ganz, a onetime associate of Scoville’s, reportedly is the operator of Traffic Hurricane. Earlier this month BehindMLM reported on a falling out between Ganz and Scoville.

    Peggy Hunt, the court-appointed receiver for Traffic Monsoon, once subpoenaed Ganz, according to BehindMLM.

    Hunt today published the March 28 preliminary injunction that includes the adpack ban.

    Because the prohibition appeared in the very first paragraph of the preliminary injunction, it appears as though the judge, the receiver and the SEC are aware of reload schemes aimed at members of Traffic Monsoon.

    The receivership website today announced that Parrish had “found that Traffic Monsoon, LLC operated as a Ponzi scheme.”

    Some supporters of Traffic Monsoon and Scoville have claimed on Facebook that that never happened.

    This document on the receivership website today says that it did happen, and Hunt urged Traffic Monsoon members to review the March 28 court rulings against Traffic Monoon and Scoville “in their entirety.”




    Buy Plavix
    Buy Tadalafil online
    Amoxicillin no prescription
    buy Zovirax online

  • URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: Judge Maintains Traffic Monsoon Receivership And Asset Freeze, Grants SEC’s Request For Preliminary Injunction

    URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: A federal judge in Utah has denied the request of Charles Scoville and Traffic Monsoon to set aside the Traffic Monsoon receivership and has granted the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction that continues an asset freeze ordered in July 2016.

    “The evidence clearly points to the fact that Traffic Monsoon’s explosive growth was driven by members purchasing and repurchasing AdPacks in order to obtain the incredible returns on their investment, not by intense demand for Traffic Monsoon’s services,” U.S. District Judge Jill N. Parrish ruled. “Indeed, many AdPack purchasers had no interest in the website visits Traffic Monsoon offered, and Traffic Monsoon only ever delivered a fraction of the clicks it promised to deliver. In short, the economic reality of the AdPack purchases is that they were investments.”

    From a footnote in the judge’s ruling (italics added/light editing performed):

    One of the unique aspects of Traffic Monsoon that differentiates it from other Ponzi schemes is that members had to continually reinvest in the scheme by rolling over the profit from fully matured AdPacks into the purchase of new AdPacks. This amounted to a shell game in which an initial investment of a sum of money would continually cycle among the members’ accounts.

    A large portion of an initial investment would be distributed to other members as either revenue sharing or a commission. Then the members that received the revenue sharing payments or commissions would reinvest it by rolling it over into new AdP[a]ck purchases. Under this system, the same dollar could be distributed to member accounts as revenue sharing or a commission many times, until either Traffic Monsoon withdrew it as profit or a member withdrew it from his or her account.

    This explains why the members had a relatively small amount in their accounts when the court entered the TRO—$34.2 million—while the number of outstanding AdPacks, if allowed to mature, would amount to $243.9 million. So long as the members, encouraged by a continual flow of money into their accounts, reinvested most of their money rather than withdrawing it, a relatively small amount of money continually redistributed among the members through revenue sharing could fuel much greater expectations as to the near-future value of the AdPacks.

    But once the money ceased to continually recycle among the member accounts, as happened when the court entered the TRO, there wasn’t enough money to pay what experience had led the members to believe their AdPack investment would be worth after a short 55-day wait. That is why Traffic Monsoon had only about $60 million in assets to cover outstanding AdPacks that would be worth $243.9 million if they had matured, even though member account balances amounted to only $34.2 million.

    More . . .