PatrickPretty.com

Tag: Zeekler

URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: Zeek Receiver Moves For Summary Judgment Against Class-Action Clawback Defendants; Kenneth Bell Says Defense Expert Witness Has Found No Evidence That ‘Disproves That The Business As A Whole Operated As A Ponzi Scheme’

Berkeley Research Group, an expert working for the defense in Zeek clawback litigation, has not been able to disprove the presence of a Ponzi scheme. Source: Screen shot of a Berkeley report to Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen Jr. The report is dated May 26, 2016.

URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: (3RD UPDATE 6:11 P.M. EDT U.S.A.) On virtually the eve of the criminal trial of Paul Burks, receiver Kenneth D. Bell has asked the court presiding over a huge class-action lawsuit against 9,400 alleged Zeek “winners” for a finding the MLM program was a Ponzi scheme.

Such a finding would mandate winners to return nearly $300 million. Bell contended that “[o]f the over $900 million that was paid in to Zeek, only approximately $10 million (1.1%) came from actual retail purchases.”

Retail sales are crucial to the determination of whether an MLM program is legitimate. Bell contends Zeek, which offered a penny auction, was both a Ponzi scheme and a pyramid scheme. Zeek affiliates allegedly believed enormously profitable auctions made Zeek sustainable.

“Two of the primary creators and operators of the ZeekRewards scheme have already admitted it was a Ponzi scheme and pleaded guilty to criminal conduct in connection with the scheme,” Bell argued to Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen in a June 30 motion. “In sum, the evidence that ZeekRewards was a Ponzi scheme is overwhelming. Even the Defendant class’ expert has acknowledged finding no evidence that ‘disproves that the business as a whole operated as a Ponzi scheme.’

“Because Zeek’s net winners ‘won’ (the victims’) money in an unlawful Ponzi scheme, under long settled law those winners are not permitted to keep their winnings and must return the fraudulently transferred funds back to the Receiver for distribution to Zeek’s victims,” Bell argued.

At stake in the civil clawback case is more than $282 million allegedly paid to winners by Zeek. Berkeley Research Group is the expert for the defense. Bell used FTI Consulting Inc. as his expert.

Burks’ criminal trial is scheduled to begin Tuesday (July 5).

What kind of financial environment did Zeek create?

According to FTI, only about 8 percent (75,000 usernames) were winners, while 90 percent (841,000 usernames) were losers. Meanwhile, only 0.3 percent (2,778 usernames) were net neutral, with only 1.6 percent (14,500 usernames) classified as auction bidders only.

Bell sued 9,400 alleged winners who’d received more than $1,000 each. FTI asserted that the net losers lost more than $822 million and the net winners hauled away more than $282 million. The small number of auction bidders suggests that Zeekers by and large joined for the purported money-making venture.

But Zeek, Bell alleged, was insolvent even while paying out large sums of money.

Cocaine Allegation Made By Alleged Insider

During a deposition conducted in April 2016 by an attorney for the receivership, alleged Zeek insider Darryle Douglas made a claim that former Zeek COO Dawn Wright-Olivares was a user of “crack cocaine” who was “asked to leave” Free Store Club, a Zeek predecessor, according to a partial transcript included in Bell’s June 30 motion.

Wright-Olivares also is an alleged Zeek insider and one of two Zeek figures to plead guilty to Ponzi-related criminal charges. (The other is Daniel Olivares, her stepson.) Wright-Olivares and Olivares both are expected to testify against Burks at his criminal trial.

Whether Burks intended to use the cocaine allegation against Wright-Olivares to impeach her credibility as a witness was not immediately clear. But Wright-Olivares and Olivares both lived with Douglas at one time in Lexington, N.C., according to the transcript.

Zeek, as part of Rex Venture Group, was based in Lexington.

While living in Lexington, a “separation” developed between Douglas and Wright-Olivares and a once-strong business relationship between Douglas and Burks became “fractured,” according to the transcript.

“And that’s where our separation began,” Douglas said, according to the transcript. “Dawn was a crack cocaine user . . . Dawn used cocaine and was asked to leave the company eventually . . . This was FreeStore Club. She left but came back with the idea for a penny auction, which no one had ever heard of. Because we had a fractured relationship, we created MyBidShack, they created Zeekler. Eventually Paul decided to get rid of MyBidShack and that the company would only go under Zeekler, which made our rift expand. It set up a war that we — that’s when I was no longer allowed to have access codes or key information from accessing the system . . .”

The receiver’s motion, memo and exhibits are available at the receivership website.

Also see “ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE RECEIVER – July, 1, 2016” at the receivership site.

Jul 3, 2016
Some Zeek Claimants From Outside The United States Unable To Deposit Distribution Checks; Receiver Provides Guidance

Kenneth D. Bell, the Zeek Rewards receiver, published an announcement last night that certain Zeek claimants from outside the United States who received a distribution check were unable to deposit it. Here is the announcement, dated Oct. 30, 2014 (italics/bolding added).

ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE RECEIVER – October 30, 2014

Various foreign claimants have reported that their banks have refused to deposit the distribution checks I have sent to you. It is likely that these banks are mistakenly seeking to deposit the checks in the local currency instead of in United States dollars. ALL checks issued by the Receivership are issued in United States dollars. Please inform your bank when you are depositing your check that it is in United States dollars. I am unable to issue checks in any currency other than United States dollars.

Visit the receivership website.

Oct 31, 2014
BULLETIN: Receiver Sues Zeek ‘Winners’ In Canada

BULLETIN: New court filings today in the Western District of North Carolina show that the court-appointed receiver in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi- and pyramid-scheme case has sued 26 alleged “net winners” in Canada.

Each of the defendants allegedly received at least $50,000, according to filings by receiver Kenneth D. Bell.

More . . .

Oct 30, 2014
SEC Declines To Comment On New Claims Attributed To Zeek Figure Robert Craddock

UPDATED 8:30 P.M. EDT U.S.A. The SEC this afternoon declined to comment on a confounding claim attributed to Zeek Rewards figure Robert Craddock that Zeek took in $1 billion in 12 months and that the U.S. government should have modeled a “stimulus program” after Zeek instead of shutting it down in 2012.

News that Craddock apparently had authored a book on Zeek and was making new claims first appeared on BehindMLM.com early today. In 2012, the SEC described Zeek as a massive Ponzi- and pyramid scheme and described Craddock as an obstructionist who was encouraging victims not to cooperate with Kenneth D. Bell, the court-appointed receiver in the agency’s civil case. Craddock has not been been charged with wrongdoing.

Titled “The Zeek Phenomenon: Zero to $1 Billion in 12 Months,” the book in which Craddock is listed as the author is advertised on Amazon.com as a paperback “Out of Print” and with “Limited Availability.” Sept. 29 of this year is the asserted publication date.

The office of U.S. Attorney Anne M. Tompkins of the Western District of North Carolina did not respond immediately to a request for comment on the claims. Tompkins’ office brought successful criminal prosecutions against Zeek figures Dawn Wright-Olivares (investment-fraud conspiracy and tax-fraud conspiracy) and Daniel Olivares (investment-fraud conspiracy) in late 2013.

Wright-Olivares, 45, and Olivares, 31, her stepson, pleaded guilty to the respective criminal charges against them in February 2014. Earlier, in December 2013, they settled SEC civil charges against them by agreeing to pay millions of dollars each, “the entirety of their ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest,” the SEC said at the time.

In July 2014, Bell said in court filings that Wright-Olivares, Olivares and alleged Zeek operator Paul Burks had agreed to a consent judgment of $600 million “to be satisfied with substantially all of their assets.”

Other court filings by Bell say a criminal investigation into Burks remains open. Bell also is special master in the criminal case.

The Confounding Claims

Craddock’s apparent claim that Zeek took in $1 billion in a year appears to be at odds with court filings by federal prosecutors in December 2013 that claim Zeek gathered a maximum sum of $897 million before collapsing in August 2012. If, as the claim suggests, Zeek took in $1 billion, there may exist a discrepancy of at least $103 million between the claim attributed to Craddock and the government’s account.

How Craddock apparently arrived at the $1 billion figure was not immediately clear. Such a discrepancy, though, potentially could cause both the SEC and federal prosecutors to revisit the Zeek numbers. The assertions attributed to Craddock suggest that Zeek’s haul could have been much larger and occurred in the narrower time frame of 12 months, not the nearly 20 months cited by the SEC.

In short, could an undisclosed, unrecovered pile of Zeek cash exist elsewhere?

According to marketing copy on Amazon.com for the book attributed to Craddock, the government messed up big time by taking down Zeek.

Here’s a snippet (italics added):

In 2012, if the present Administration wanted to build a successful stimulus program, it should have used Zeek Rewards as a guide. This pioneering venture went from zero to one billion dollars in just 12 months, paid over 400 million dollars to more than 20,000 people earning an average of $20,000, created 10 people who made over one million dollars, and caused several thousand people to earn incomes in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. This unparalleled example would have been a phenomenal feat for our US Government during a period when our very financial existence was threatened.

The words “Ponzi” and “pyramid” appear nowhere in the marketing copy on Amazon.com. Whether Zeek “paid” is immaterial in the context of Ponzi schemes. So is the issue of how much it paid. Bernard Madoff “paid.” All successful Ponzi schemes “pay.” Zeek launched after the collapse of Madoff’s epic fraud, leading to questions about whether Zeek, its insiders and key promoters simply divorced themselves from reality.

Moreover, Zeek launched after the collapse of AdSurfDaily, a Zeek-like scam that promoted a return of 1 percent a day. Zeek’s purported daily payout averaged 1.5 percent, a percentage grossly superior to Madoff and significantly better than ASD.

In 2012, less than a month prior to the SEC’s Zeek action, Craddock temporarily succeeded in taking down a HubPages site operated by Zeek critic “K. Chang” by accusing him of copyright and trademark infringement.

K. Chang ultimately prevailed, but the site experienced downtime.

As the PP Blog reported at the time, Zeek appeared not to own the trademarks Craddock complained about, purportedly with the authority of North Carolina-based Zeek operator Rex Venture Group. Rather, the trademarks were listed in the name of Ebon Research Systems LLC, a Florida business.

A business known as Ebon Research Systems Publishing LLC is listed as Craddock’s publisher for the new book on Zeek, according to the Amazon.com listing.

Florida records suggest that Ebon Research Systems Publishing is managed by Dr. Florence Alexander, the same person behind Ebon Research Systems LLC when the HubPages flap played out more than two years ago.

The PP Blog spoke with Alexander in 2012. She said she “certainly” knew of Zeek, but said she had “no knowledge” of any trademark or copyright complaint filed at HubPages against K. Chang.

Although Craddock claimed to be a Zeek “consultant” while filing the claim against K. Chang prior to the SEC action in 2012, Zeek itself did not list him as one after the action, according to court records maintained by the ASD Updates Blog. (See Zeek filing from September 2012 here.)

Oct 7, 2014
BULLETIN: Zeek Receiver Issues More Than 90,000 Checks

BULLETIN: Kenneth D. Bell, the court-appointed receiver in the Zeek Rewards pyramid- and Ponzi-scheme case, says he has issued and mailed 90,297 checks “to Affiliates that hold Allowed Claims as their first interim, partial distribution.”

The SEC has decribed Zeek as a fraud scheme that gathered hundreds of millions of dollars.

The first round of checks are described as an “interim, partial distribution,” and total about $134.2 million, Bell said in a statement dated today on the receivership website.

About $23 million of the $134.2 million is required by law to be withheld for tax purposes, Bell said.

From the receiver’s statement (italics/bolding added by PP Blog):

This first interim, partial distribution represents, with certain limited exceptions, an amount equal to 40% of the Allowed Claims of all Affiliates holding Allowed Claims as of August 15, 2014, using the “rising tide” method of calculation previously approved by the Court.

Affiliates that are being mailed checks on account of the first interim, partial distribution have each filed a claim, had such claim determined by the Receivership Team, accepted that claim determination, and provided the required release and OFAC Certification to the Receivership team. These items are all required by the Court in order to have an Allowed Claim. If you met these criteria as of August 15, 2014, and your first interim, partial distribution is in excess of $100, you will receive a distribution check via mail.

If, as of August 15, 2014, you had not received a claim determination, had not accepted a claim determination, or had not provided the required release and OFAC Certification to the Receivership team, you did not hold an Allowed Claim on August 15, 2014, and were not eligible to receive a first interim, partial distribution. Additionally, if you held an Allowed Claim, but you would have received a distribution of less than $100, no first interim, partial distribution will be paid to you. You will be paid on account of your Allowed Claim in the future.

Additionally, approximately 70,000 Affiliates hold claims that will be allowed against the Receivership Estate if and when any of those Affiliates provide the required release and OFAC Certification to the Receivership team. All of these 70,000 Affiliates (or any additional Affiliates that receive and accept their claim determination prior to December 31, 2014) will be issued their first interim, partial distribution on January 30, 2015 if that Affiliate provides the required release and OFAC Certification to the Receivership Team by December 31, 2014. Affiliates whose claims become Allowed Claims after December 31, 2014 will receive their first interim, partial distribution on a subsequent distribution date.

We have 7,000 more claims to review. If you have not received your claim determination, please be patient; it is coming shortly. If you have already received a claim determination, or when you do, I encourage you to respond as soon as you are able and provide all the required information so that we can mail you your first interim, partial distribution on the next distribution date on which you are eligible.

If you have questions regarding whether your claim determination has been issued, the general status of your claim or to provide the required release and OFAC certification, please log into the following website: https://cert.gardencitygroup.com/zrwdet/fs/home.

Sep 30, 2014
Zeek Receiver Seeks Nearly $2.1 Million From Alleged Winner And Former AdSurfDaily Ponzi Pitchman Todd Disner; Records Show Zeek Paid Him More Than $7,000 On Same Day He Sued United States For Alleged Misdeeds In ASD Case

Summary of Todd Disner’s alleged Zeek winnings. Source: Exhibit by court-appointed receiver.

Zeek Rewards “winner” Todd Disner owes the receivership estate $2,079,757.88, according to a motion asking the court clerk to enter a default judgment.

Receiver Kenneth D. Bell filed for the judgment July 9 in federal court for the Western District of North Carolina, seeking not only Disner’s alleged Zeek haul of $1,800,037.06, but also interest of $279,720.82.

Zeek’s records show that Disner paid $11,810.49 into the “program,” beginning with an initial outlay of $480 on March 4, 2011, shortly after Zeek started business.

From that initial outlay and others, $1,811,847.55 flowed back to him, the receiver advised Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen and the court clerk. The lion’s share of Disner’s outlay — $10,000 — was paid to Zeek on July 6, 2012. Zeek collapsed six weeks later, on Aug. 17, 2012.

Disner’s last Zeek withdrawal totaled $102,617.73 and occurred on July 30, 2012, less than three weeks prior to the SEC action that spelled doom for the “program.” His largest withdrawal, according to the receiver’s filing, was for $177,026.27 on July 9, 2012.

A former AdSurfDaily Ponzi pitchman who once sued the United States for alleged misdeeds in the ASD case, Disner regularly withdrew tens of thousands of dollars at a time from Zeek, according to the receiver’s filing.

Zeek operated as part of Rex Venture Group.

Bell also filed today for clerk’s default judgment against alleged winners David Sorrells and Michael Van Leeuwen. The receiver is seeking $1,197,241.12 from Sorrells, including $157,672.63 in interest. Meanwhile, he is seeking $1,617,444.99 from Van Leeuwen, including $213,012.07 in interest.

Disner’s unsuccessful lawsuit against the United States for allegedly violating his right to privacy in the ASD case was docketed on Nov. 7, 2011.

Bell’s filing shows that Zeek paid Disner $7,199.49 on the same day.

A federal judge tossed Disner’s ASD-related lawsuit on Aug. 29, 2012, the same day ASD operator Andy Bowdoin was sentenced to federal prison after admitting ASD was a Ponzi scheme. Only 12 days earlier, the SEC sued Zeek, alleging a massive Ponzi- and pyramid scheme.

The U.S. Secret Service has been involved in both the ASD and Zeek probes.

Jul 10, 2014
URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: Zeek Receiver Sues MLM Attorney Kevin Grimes For Sum In Excess Of $100 Million

URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: (11th Update 9:43 p.m. EDT U.S.A.) The court-appointed receiver in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi- and pyramid case has sued MLM attorney Kevin Grimes and the Grimes & Reese law firm, alleging malpractice, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

In the Grimes action, the receiver is seeking “an amount in excess of $100 million.”

In another action concerning a professional who worked for Zeek or was associated with purported “opportunity,” the receiver has sued attorney and tax consultant Howard N. Kaplan. Zeek operated an MLM “program” tied to a purported penny auction.

As is the case in the Grimes action, the receiver is seeking a sum of more than $100 million against Kaplan for alleged damages.

Both Kaplan and Grimes should have known better, but nevertheless helped Zeek thrive while helping Zeek gain unwarranted credibility by lending their professional reputations to a fraud scheme that gathered hundreds of millions of dollars, receiver Kenneth D. Bell alleged.

“By virtue of his knowledge of [Zeek operator Rex Venture Group] and ZeekRewards and his legal expertise, Grimes knew or should have known that RVG was perpetrating an unlawful scheme which involved a pyramid scheme, an unregistered investment contract and/or a Ponzi scheme. Despite this knowledge, Grimes actively encouraged investors to participate in the scheme by creating a so-called ‘compliance’ program that provided a false façade of legality and legitimacy and knowingly allowed his name to be used to promote the scheme,” Bell said in the complaint against Grimes.

Bell accused Grimes of turning a “blind eye” to markers of fraud at Zeek such as unusually consistent payout percentages.

“This fake consistency should have, at a minimum, caused reasonably diligent legal counsel to inquire further about the validity of the alleged profits,” Bell alleged. “Indeed, the program publicly advertised historical average returns of 1.4% per day, which no legitimate investment could accomplish. But, Grimes deliberately turned a blind eye to these incredible claims and chose not to seek further information.”

And Kaplan, Bell alleged, “knew or should have known that insufficient income from the penny auction business was being made to pay the daily ‘profit share’ promised by ZeekRewards.

“Kaplan knew or should have known that the money used to fund ZeekRewards’ distributions to Affiliates came almost entirely from new participants rather than income from the Zeekler penny auctions,” Bell continued. “Further, Kaplan knew or should have known that the alleged ‘profit percentage’ was nothing more than a number made up by [Zeek operator Paul R.] Burks or one of the other Insiders. Rather than reflecting the typical variances that might be expected in a company’s profits, the alleged profits paid in ZeekRewards were remarkably consistent, falling nearly always between 1% and 2% on Monday through Thursday and between .5% and 1% on the weekends, Friday through Sunday.”

From Bell’s complaint against Kaplan (italics added):

Instead of properly informing Affiliates of the different tax implications they would face if their Zeek payments were properly characterized as coming from an ‘investment’ rather than a ‘trade or business,’ Kaplan failed to inform Affiliates, either on the calls or in his FAQs, of the material fact that payments to Affiliates should be characterized as investment income for tax reporting purposes.

For example, in the FAQs that he drafted and allowed ZeekRewards to post to its website, Kaplan advised that Affiliates should use IRS Schedule C (“Profit or Loss from Business”) to record their income, making no mention of the fact that they should use IRS Schedule D (“Capital Gains and Losses”) . . . If Kaplan had candidly disclosed the material fact that Affiliate income would be properly characterized by the IRS as capital gains, the obvious negative tax implications would have caused many Zeek Affiliates to remove their cash earnings from the program rather than reinvesting them, short-circuiting the scheme much earlier. Since he did not, Affiliates were placated in their misguided belief that ZeekRewards was a lawful program.

It has been a remarkably awkward time for MLM attorneys. Gerald Nehra, Richard Waak and their law firm have been accused by plaintiffs in TelexFree-related litigation with racketeering and violations of the federal securities laws. TelexFree plaintiffs have asserted Nehra also counseled Zeek.

From the Zeek receiver’s complaint against Grimes and Grimes & Reese (italics added):

Defendants played an indispensable role in the scheme. Because of the lucrative, seemingly ‘too good to be true’ claims being made by RVG and ZeekRewards, many potential investors were skeptical of whether the scheme was legal and legitimate. So, RVG enlisted the aid of Grimes and other legal counsel to assist in promoting and legitimizing the scheme.

Grimes helped in several ways. First, despite his knowledge that ZeekRewards was a fundamentally flawed and unlawful pyramid and/or Ponzi scheme and was selling unregistered securities, Grimes offered to create and did create a so-called
‘compliance course’ specifically designed to encourage investors and potential investors to believe that if they satisfied the course then it would be a lawful enterprise.

Thus, Grimes knowingly allowed Zeek to portray a false appearance of legality through his bogus ‘compliance’ course.

Grimes profited personally from the compliance courses while allowing ZeekRewards yet another source of investor money. Upon information and belief, Grimes received payments from ZeekRewards not only for his legal counsel, but also for sales of his compliance course to Affiliates. Upon information and belief, Grimes provided the compliance course to ZeekRewards for $5 per affiliate, while allowing ZeekRewards to charge affiliates $30 each for the course, personally profiting from it and allowing RVG yet another means of extracting money from unsuspecting Affiliates.

Zeek collapsed in August 2012. The SEC and federal prosecutors now say the “program” gathered on the order of $850 million in less than two years. Two months after the collapse, two members of Zeek sent Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen a copy of the “compliance” certification allegedly provided by Grimes (pictured below):

Both Grimes and Kaplan were aware that the Zeek “program” raised issues about the sale of unregistered securities, but nevertheless marched forward, Bell alleged.

In February 2012, Bell said, Grimes emailed a Zeek adviser, saying, “I am still in the process of getting my arms around its program, but I have some SERIOUS concerns that it very likely meets the definition of an ‘investment contract.’ It may have other issues as well, but I’m still reviewing their documents.”

By June 2012, according to Bell, a Zeek participant contacted Grimes, saying, “I have completed your compliance course with Zeek and really loved it. I am a great advocate of Zeek and have signed up 31 people whom I feel responsible for. . . . One of my downline is asking questions . . . there is a tremendous amount of income going into Zeek and he is concerned the profit share is coming from the new affiliates – which would make it a ponzi scheme. Can you direct me as to what is the best way to confirm this is not a ponzi scheme[?]”

In response, Grimes emailed Zeek executive Dawn Wright-Olivares, stating, “Do you want me to forward these types of communications to you or anyone else, or would you prefer that I simply discard them? I get several of these each week.”

Grimes, Bell alleged, appeared to have “no concern” about the affiliate’s email.

The MLM lawyer “took advantage of the situation, creating and marketing a compliance training course as window dressing for this illegitimate scheme, allowing the course to be sold to the Affiliates for his own profit,” Bell alleged.

NOTE: Our thanks to the ASD Updates Blog.

Jun 25, 2014
BULLETIN: $30 Million Claim Filed By Zeek Affiliate Who Appears To Have Invested Only $10, Receiver Says

BULLETIN: (5th Update 9:20 p.m. EDT U.S.A.) How absurd and abusive is HYIP Ponzi Land?

The court-appointed receiver in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi- and pyramid case says a Zeek affiliate who appears to have invested only $10 has filed a claim seeking $30 million.

Receiver Kenneth D. Bell asserted in a court filing today that the $30 million claim is the highest encountered in the case. Precise details about the claim, whose denial is pending, were not immediately available.

Viewed another way, a Zeek member who invested $10 appears to believe he or she is entitled to tens of millions of dollars that otherwise would go to thousands of Zeek victims.

A separate claim for $14.9 million filed by an asserted Zeek vendor known as Plastic Cash International LLC (PCI) may have a gall factor nearly as high, court filings by Bell today suggest.

The $14.9 million claim by PCI was the second-highest in the Zeek case, exceeded only by the affiliate seeking $30 million on an apparent $10 investment, Bell said.

PCI “was a trade creditor of the Receivership Defendant that processed credit card payments from Affiliates for the Receivership Defendant,” Bell said in court filings. “The processed payments were deposited into an account to be held for the benefit of the Receivership Defendant. PCI contends that it should be permitted to ‘retain’ funds that it collected for the Receivership Defendant in its role as a trade creditor.”

Bell said in court filings today that PCI had a “role in perpetuating the ZeekRewards Ponzi Scheme,” but now was behaving disingenuously — in part by asserting in had no knowledge of the asset freeze ordered by a federal judge in 2012.

The proposition that PCI did not know about the freeze was “absurd,” Bell said.

From Bell’s filings (italics/carriage returns added):

As disclosed in the PCI Claim, PCI acted as a credit card processor for the Receivership Defendant for the two-month period from June 2012 to the appointment of the Receiver. The PCI Claim further asserts that PCI either held a security interest in the funds that it held for the benefit of the Receivership Defendant or, in the alternative, PCI owned all of the amounts that it had collected for the Receivership Defendant pursuant to its contracts with the Receivership Defendant.

No disclosure regarding the amounts collected by PCI during the time it acted as a credit card processor for the Receivership Defendant was made in the PCI Claim.

Prior to the filing of the PCI Claim, the Receivership Team did not know that PCI had been involved in perpetrating the ZeekRewards Ponzi Scheme, nor did the Receivership Team know that PCI held Receivership Assets generated by the ZeekRewards Ponzi Scheme. The filing of the PCI Claim caused a preliminary investigation into the assertions made in the PCI Claim.

This initial review of the records of the Receivership Defendant did not show any significant economic relationship between PCI and the Receivership Defendant because no payments were made by PCI to the Receivership Defendant in the two-month period in which PCI was operating for the Receivership Defendant.

Moreover, the Receiver never received any funds from PCI or accounts held by PCI upon entry of the Freeze Order.

Subsequent investigation unearthed a relationship between SecureNet and PCI, leading to a bank account at Eagle Bank that, even though it was held in SecureNet’s name, held approximately $812,433.96 (the “Eagle Bank Account”) in Receivership Assets. Upon its discovery, the United States Secret Service sought and obtained a seizure warrant to recover those funds. The United States Secret Service thereafter seized all of the funds contained in the Eagle Bank Account.

At that time, PCI did not identify any additional accounts that were involved in the RVG transactions that PCI processed, and it represented that it did not hold any additional Receivership Assets. When the Receivership Team subsequently interviewed PCI’s counsel, the Receivership Team specifically asked about any additional accounts that held RVG [Rex Venture Group] funds or through which RVG funds flowed. PCI failed to identify any additional accounts.

As the Receivership Team investigated further and obtained documents from PCI, the Receivership Team determined that PCI had collected approximately an additional $8.9 million over the two-month period in which they acted for the Receivership Defendant. This $8.9 million was held and/or distributed from Los Angeles Firemen’s Credit Union n/k/a Firefighters First Credit Union (the “Firemen’s Account”).

PCI never paid any of the approximately $9.8 million in Receivership Assets it collected to the Receivership Defendant or the Receiver. Only $812, 433.96 of the $9.8 million in Receivership Assets has been recovered, and those assets were recovered solely through a seizure by the United States Secret Service.

Moreover, PCI never informed the Receiver that it held such Receivership Assets. Instead, after the entry of the Freeze Order, PCI remained silent regarding the funds it held and i) withdrew or otherwise expended approximately $4.5 million of the Receivership Assets in the Firemen’s Account to allegedly pay certain processing fees, alleged fines, alleged chargebacks, and “commissions” to its insiders; and ii) converted the remaining approximately $4.5 million for its own uses (this $4.5 million was removed from the Firemen’s Account by PCI and has never been accounted for) on the alleged theory that such withdrawals were covered by the governing contracts, which the Receiver disputes, and their contractual rights are somehow superior to the express terms of the Freeze Order.

And, Bell advised Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen:

“It is disingenuous for PCI to assert that it did not have notice of the Freeze Order or that it was not somehow constrained from dissipating the Receivership Assets in its care. It is beyond reason that PCI would not inquire as to why thousands of credit card transactions that it was processing and generated revenue of in excess of $4.5 million per month would suddenly cease. Moreover, the Receiver caused a notice reflecting the entry of the Freeze Order to be published across the United States. Finally, significant transfers from the account that held Receivership Assets just prior to and after the freeze order suggests that PCI was on notice of the freeze and was seeking to avoid the constraint to its revenue stream. Any assertion that PCI did not know of the pendency of the Freeze Order is absurd.”

Bell further contended today that efforts by PCI to inject itself into the distribution plan proposed to the court in which distributions to victims would begin Sept. 30 should be short-circuited by Mullen.

Bell said the receivership already has denied PCI’s claim.

NOTE: Our thanks to the ASD Updates Blog.

Jun 23, 2014
Zeek Receiver Proposes Date For First Interim Distribution

Zeek receiver Kenneth D. Bell.

Kenneth D. Bell, the receiver in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi- and pyramid case, has asked a federal judge to set Sept. 30 as the date of the first interim distribution to victims. Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen of the Western District of North Carolina must approve the proposal and other scheduling logistics proposed by Bell. Victims with allowed claims would be paid by check.

Bell, according to the proposal, believes that approximately $320 million held by the receivership estate is enough to provide victims “a total recovery in regard to their investment into the ZeekRewards Scheme of at least 40%” when the initial distribution occurs.

Some money must remain in reserve, however, to continue to fund the receivership as it pursues recoveries from alleged insiders, “winners” and “others who benefited from or improperly facilitated the ZeekRewards Scheme.” Other distributions would occur over time, as more money flows to the receivership.

If Mullen approves the proposal, some money could be in the hands of tens of thousands of Zeek victims by early fall.

About 175,000 claims have been filed, and “approximately 150,000 Claim Determinations have been issued by the Receivership Team,” Bell advised the judge, noting that about 25,000 claims remain under review.

NOTE: Thanks to the ASD Updates Blog. Read Bell’s proposal for the first interim distribution here.

May 29, 2014
URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: Zeek Receiver Sues Alleged Insiders, Winners; Emails, Skype Chats Helped Expose Fraud; ‘We’ve Already Attracted A Great Many Big Fishes,’ Wright-Olivares ‘Excitedly’ Told Paul Burks Early In Scheme, Kenneth D. Bell Alleges

Dawn Wright-Olivares

URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: (8th Update 2:40 p.m. ET March 4, U.S.A.) The court-appointed receiver in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi- and pyramid-scheme case has sued alleged insiders and net winners, including members of the 2008 AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme.

Parts of the complaint read like a re-living of the ASD scheme, with Zeek Receiver Kenneth D. Bell alleging Zeek’s penny-auction arm (Zeekler) was in trouble early on and that Zeek operator Paul Burks borrowed money from another insider to keep things going. The fraud later expanded massively, Bell alleged.

At one point, according to Bell, former Zeek COO Dawn Wright-Olivares “excitedly” told Burks, “I think we can blow this OUT together — we’ve already attracted a great many big fishes.”

But the insiders “were aware that the payouts to Affiliates would be funded by new participants rather than retail profits from the penny auctions,” Bell alleged.

Named defendant “insiders” were Burks of Lexington, N.C.; Wright-Olivares of Clarksville, Ark.; Daniel Olivares of Clarksville, Ark.; the estate of the late Roger Anthony Plyler of Charlotte; Alexandre “Alex” de Brantes, the husband of Wright-Olivares and a resident of Clarksville, Ark.; and Darryle Douglas of Orange, Calif.

Burks, the receiver alleged, received “in excess” of $10 million from Zeek; Wright-Olivares received more than $7.8 million; Daniel Olivares received more than $3.1 million; Plyler, who once lent money to Burks, received more than $2.3 million; Douglas received more than $1.975 million. An amount was not listed for de Brantes.

Named winners were former AdSurfDaily member Todd Disner of Miami (more than $1.875 million); former ASD member Jerry Napier of Owosso, Mich. (more than $1.745 million); Trudy Gilmond of St. Albans, Vt. (more than $1.75 million); Durant Brockett of Las Vegas (more than $1.72 million); Darren Miller of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho (more than $1.635 million); Rhonda Gates of Nashville (more than $1.425 million); Michael Van Leeuwen, also known as “Coach Van” of Fayetteville, N.C. (more than $1.4 million); David Sorrells of Scottsdale, Az. (more than $1 million); T. Le Mont Silver Sr. of Orlando, Fla. (more than $773,000 under at least two user names, and more than $943,000 through a Florida shell entity known as Global Internet Formula Inc. with one or more Zeek user names).

One of Silver’s usernames was “mentor,” Bell alleged.

Also named winners were Karen Silver, Silver’s wife (more than $600,000); veteran HYIP pitch team Aaron and Shara Andrews of Lake Worth, Fla. (more than $1 million through a Florida shell entity known as Innovation Marketing); David and Mary Kettner of Peoria, Az. (more than $930,000 via one or more user names and shell companies known as Desert Oasis International Marketing LLC and Kettner & Associates LLC); Lori Jean Weber of Land O’Lakes, Fla. (more than $1.94 million through a shell company known as P.A.W.S. Capital Management LLC).

Bell also sued a “Net Winner Class” of as many as 9,000 U.S. residents or entities who allegedly harvested illicit gains of $1,000 or more from Zeek. Lawsuits against international winners will come later, Bell said.

In December 2013, Wright-Olivares and Olivares were charged criminally. They pleaded guilty last month for their roles in the scheme and are liable for more than $11.4 million in restitution and penalties, the SEC said.

As the SEC previously alleged, Zeek relied on a so-called “80/20” program to sustain the Ponzi deception. Bell today built on that theme. From the complaint against insiders (italics added/spacing modified):

Dawn Wright-Olivares explained and promoted the plan in a Skype chat as follows:

Here’s a scenario here where you could be receiving $3,000 per month RESIDUALLY. Let’s use a 1% daily cash-back figure in this example (Please note: This is only an example and the actual amount will vary day to day).

When you reach 50,000 points in your account, then you could start doing an 80/20 cash-out plan. Pay close attention? When you hit 50,000 points in your account, if the daily cash-back percentage is 1%, ZeekRewards will be awarding you with $500.00 each day. First of all, did you catch that? … you’re making $500 per day … it’s your money! Ok, the 80/20 plan works like this, take 80% of that $500 (or $400) and purchase more VIP bids to give away to new customers as samples to continue growing your points balance.

Then, keep doing what you’ve been doing every day, which primarily consists of giving free bids away as samples and placing one free ad per day for Zeekler.com’s penny auctions and submitting into your ZeekRewards back office. Then, pull out 20% of the $500 (or $100) and request a check weekly. That’s $700 per week, or about $3,000 per month in residual income! And keep in mind, these amounts can continue to grow day after day and month after month.

HYIP schemes, including ASD and Zeek, often implement deceptions such as 80/20 programs as part of a bid to reduce cashout amounts to let the scheme continue to live. Insiders and veteran Ponzi pushers typically know they’re a crock.

Daniel Olivares, Bell said, has a Zeek user name of “dcolive.”

On June 14, 2012, about two months prior to the collapse of Zeek, RealScam.com moderator and PP Blog poster “Glim Dropper” posted a link on the PP Blog that established a tie between Zeek promoters and ASD promoters. ASD was a $119 million Ponzi scheme operated by now-jailed operator Andy Bowdoin.

RealScam.com is an antiscam forum.

The link “Glim Dropper” posted was at a URL styled “dcolive.com.”

From “Glim Dropper’s” observations at the time (italics added):

I’d draw your attention to about five minutes into the call when Dawn recalls a conversation with Jerry Napier. Jerry was quoted as loving ZR and never wanting to have to build another organization with another program and mentioned a previous program and the litigation it was still facing and he mentioned “similarities” between ZR and that previous program.

It is common in the HYIP sphere for promoters to move from one fraud scheme to another.

Napier’s exposure to ASD is unknown. But the Zeek receiver now says Napier received illicit gains of more than $1.745 million. The alleged illicit Zeek gains of former fellow ASD member Todd Disner are even higher: $1.875 million.

Precisely how many ASD members went on to join Zeek is unclear. What is clear is that both firms used similar business models and sweetened the deal for certain members.

Bell alleged today that Zeek had a “Sweet 16” deal in which participants paid $999 to mine even more “passive” gains.

“The Sweet 16 was another means by which [Rex Venture Group] made payments on a passive investment,” Bell alleged. “It did not involve the sale of a product, nor did it require a member to recruit other participants into the program.”

Zeek operated through Rex Venture.

To read the lawsuits, visit the ASD Updates Blog.

Disner once filed suit against the United States, alleging its ASD Ponzi case was a “tissue of lies” and a “house of cards.” A federal judge tossed the lawsuit, after Bowdoin pleaded guilty to wire fraud and admitted ASD was a Ponzi scheme.

Visit the receiver’s website.

Mar 3, 2014
Why California’s WCM777 Action May Spell Trouble For HYIP Promoters On You Tube

As a reporter interviews a Peruvian official at the scene of a police raid against a WCM777 outlet in Lima, an image of American pitchman Harold Zapata (left) flashes on the screen. Source: YouTube.

Still using social-media sites to promote massive fraud schemes — even after the AdSurfDaily, Zeek Rewards and Profitable Sunrise debacles?

Thanks to his presence on social media, Harold Zapata, a WCM777 YouTube pitchman named a respondent in a Desist and Refrain order announced last month by California’s Department of Business Oversight, may be trapped between a rock and a hard place.

Zapata is a California resident. Not only does the state know about his YouTube presence — indeed, his promos are referenced in the D&R — so do authorities in Peru. Whether Zapata ever has ventured to Peru is unclear. What is clear is that Peruvian media have used snippets of his U.S.-based promo as a backdrop to video reports about a police raid against a local WCM777 outlet in Lima.

Whether he likes it or not, Zapata has become one of the American faces for WCM777. In one video, Zapata identified himself as a WCM777 “director . . . working directly with our founder, CEO, chairmans [sic], leaders in our WCM777 organization.”

WCM777 executives include Ming Xu and Zhi Liu, California said. Both men are named in the D&R. Zapata also is named.

California’s action against WCM777, its executives and Zapata may signal trouble for other YouTube pitchmen for highly questionable MLM “programs” or outright scams. For starters, YouTube commercials for HYIPs sometimes are copied and used by promoters of the same purported “opportunity,” thus saving fellow pitchmen the time and trouble of making their own videos. This can happen with or without permission, perhaps with an eager recruit using the video of another sponsor but inserting a URL to the recruit’s page in a companion text pitch below the actual video.

Beyond that, some fraud-scheme pitchmen openly share their YouTube promos with downline recruits as a means of driving more business to a scam. Such approaches typically are portrayed as the acts of a helpful sponsor who wants to see his or her recruits thrive by providing them the “tools” they need to succeed.

At least one YouTube pitchman for WCM777 appears to be using Zapata’s video to drive traffic to WCM777 and possibly other “opportunities.”

Zapata appears to have noticed this at least two months ago and placed warnings in Spanish and English on the YouTube site of the fellow WCM777 pitchman.

Here’s how the warnings read (italics added):

Por favor quite este video inmediatamente o me veo obligado a reportarte por infracción de copyright, de este video.

Please remove this video immediately or I will be forced to report this video for copyright infringement.

The video nevertheless remains. It shows Zapata pitching WCM777 in English, even after the California action and the raid in Peru. The title of the video on the fellow WCM777 pitchman’s site is “WCM777. FULL PRESENTATION IN ENGLISH.”

It is unclear from Zapata’s warnings whether he was upset that the video was being used without his permission or whether he was concerned that the fellow WCM777 pitchman was using the video to cherry-pick Zapata’s earnings.

Regardless of Zapata’s specific concerns, however, the continued appearance of the video shows the vulnerability of MLM pitchmen who promote “programs” on YouTube. Such promoters not only may lose control over their own content, they literally may lose control over their own faces.

Even if Zapata has stopped promoting WCM777, the video published by the fellow WCM777 pitchman makes it appear as though Zapata still is promoting the purported opportunity, which California publicly declared a scam last month. Last week, the state asked residents who invested in WCM777 to contact the DBO immediately.

At least 5,500 Californians plowed money into the WCM777 scam, the state said.

“The California Department of Business Oversight has seen a surge of high-yield investment schemes that take advantage of social networks to market illegal investments,” said Jan Lynn Owen, commissioner of the Department of Business Oversight. (Bolding added by PP Blog.)

In 2010, FINRA called the HYIP sphere a “bizarre substratum of the Internet” and issued a warning that such schemes were spreading on social-media sites such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Zapata’s experience demonstrates that some HYIP pitchmen either missed the warning or chose to ignore it.

BehindMLM.com is reporting that WCM777 — now operating as Kingdom777 — appears now to be engaging in ham-handed wordplay to continue its duping of the masses. The “program,” BehindMLM reports, now is using the word “members” and trying to steer clear of the word “investors.”

Such wordplay bids foreshadowed doom at both AdSurfDaily, a $120 million Ponzi scheme, and Zeek Rewards, which allegedly gathered at least $850 million.

As the PP Blog reported in June 2012, here is part of what the U.S. Secret Service said in a filing in the ASD Ponzi-scheme case in February 2009 (italics’bolding added):

[ASD operator Andy] Bowdoin and his sponsor knew that it was illegal to sell investment opportunities to thousands of individuals; thus, they were careful not to call participants “investors” but rather referred to them as “members.” Moreover, there were careful not to call payments to “members” “return on investments”; rather, they referred to the income program as a “rebate” program . . .

The document cited above is available at the top this PPBlog story about the then-active Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme: EDITORIAL: A Friday Evening In MLM Radio La-La Land. (Document courtesy of the ASD Updates Blog.)

For whatever reason, HYIPs and their pitchmen apparently continue to believe they can duck or circumvent securities regulations and laws against the sale of unregistered securities by calling an investment something else.

Prosecutors made short work of the Zeek and ASD wordplay, saying both “programs” engaged in linguistic games to describe an investment as something else.

WCM777 even may dialing up the HYIP wordplay madness. From BehindMLM.com (italics added):

A “dividend” [at WCM777/Kingdom777] is now a “bonus”… cuz well, a bonus could be anything… including an investment “return”, which is now also just a “bonus”.

Feb 16, 2014