ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[webhick]

the only thing that has has changed for investors regarding taxes is that NAS has stopped monthly pmts and buy back of machines.

From the what the SEC was saying about their finances, it sounds like that was going to happen whether the gov't got involved or not.

[Lost Income]

Yeah, and its very strange that NAS would run into financial problems funding their ponzi scheme at a time when the economy is doing well and stock mkt is high, especially considering that over the last 19years their ponzi scheme weathered several economy/mkt crashes. Maybe they moved all money out of NAS when first contacted by the SEC earlier this year?

[grimreaper]

Yeah, and its very strange that NAS would run into financial problems funding their ponzi scheme at a time when the economy is doing well and stock mkt is high, especially considering that over the last 19years their ponzi scheme weathered several economy/mkt crashes. Maybe they moved all money out of NAS when first contacted by the SEC earlier this year?

Well, as you may be aware, this Ponzi basically has to DOUBLE the # of contracts about every 5 years, so at some point it's going to start to fail, being unable to sustain the required exponential growth. Also, it was exactly 5 years ago that the stock market tanked and maybe they had a high # of buy backs at that time and/or decline in new investors. If that's the case, this effect would really hit 5 years later...this June. Just a *theory* of mine.

[notorial dissent]

OK, first point, the fact that NASI is in receivership is proof of the fraud, securities and otherwise. It will become official and permanent come Nov 11 after the Show Cause hearing, barring a major upset in the state of the universe. At which point those who really need to should be able to go to either an accountant or tax lawyer with familiarity with this sort of thing, and begin the ball rolling to dealing with tax issues, and YES, one of the things you need to ask is if they have familiarity with dealing with this sort of thing. Second point, YOU are going to most like need a CPA and/or tax lawyer who is familiar with this sort of stuff, not someone you pick at random from the telephone directory.

And, just to make your day a bit brighter, DO NOT assume that anything that NASI filed as far as taxes was accurate or correct. If they stayed true to form in these sorts of things they got sloppy and careless or didn't do anything at all.

[Lost Income]

Thanks. Sounds like after Nov 11 we should be able to get the confirmation needed for discussions with tax accountants.

[Arthur Rubin]

This was also a very information website: http://www.ustaxlawseminars.com/ponzi_presentation.pdf

I'm still not convinced that you can amend the returns except for years after you knew the "payor" was fraudulent, or the payor was actually not distributing funds for some reason.

PS: Can someone tell me where I can get NASI tax id? Thank you

If you've received a 1099 from them, it should be there. If not, it shouldn't matter to you.

[Lost Income]

Does anyone know if the bankruptcy court hearing will still be taking place on 11/6?

[Arthur Rubin]

This was also a very information website: http://www.ustaxlawseminars.com/ponzi_presentation.pdf

I'm still not convinced that you can amend the returns except for years after you knew the "payor" was fraudulent, or the payor was actually not distributing funds for some reason.

My colleagues agree. Amending returns for years before discovery of "theft" (fraud) is generally wrong, unless there is no "constructive receipt" of the "income". (This usually requires that you have no "right" to withdraw the income, or that your attempt fails (e.g., the check bounces).) Use of section 1341 for Ponzi losses is wrong (clarified in a 2011 revenue ruling). It may be the case that the taxpayer needs to choose between use of the "constructive receipt" doctrine to amend returns to disclaim 1099s for years before the fraud is discovered, and the "safe harbor" claim of a theft loss. And, in another presentation, they bring up the issue of clawbacks of principal; I tentatively agree that those would be theft losses not covered by the "safe harbor" provisions, although it doesn't seem equitable for clawbacks to exceed realized income (whether or not recognized).

[dawnth1]

I'm aware that If I had received a 1099, that tax ID would be listed there. But as I already mentioned, I did not get tax form, as this year was my first investment year.

It does matter to me as I have IRS forms that do allow for all the things I have mentioned, and the IRS form requests the tax ID if I know it. All one has to do is go to the IRS website and collect all the necessary forms and instructions and information once this thing is considered "Ponzi". It isn't a secret that the IRS will provide information to you directly.

PS: Can someone tell me where I can get NASI tax id? Thank you

If you've received a 1099 from them, it should be there. If not, it shouldn't matter to you.[/quote]

[grimreaper]

Does anyone know if the bankruptcy court hearing will still be taking place on 11/6?

The bankruptcy is over. The hearing on Nov 10 is to establish a Preliminary Injunction, which should be a *done deal*. NASI has to *SHOW CAUSE* why this should not be granted by the court.

[grimreaper]

Looks like lawyers are already soliciting clients on the web:

http://www.nationwideautomatedsystemsfraud.com/

[webhick]

The bankruptcy was officially dismissed on the 22nd, so there will be no hearing.

Per the order, NASI can't go after the creditors for legal expenses and the creditors legal expenses will be covered by the receivership (as a priority unsecured claim).

[Lost Income]

Looks like lawyers are already soliciting clients on the web:
http://www.nationwideautomatedsystemsfraud.com/

Per discussion with these lawyers, they say that they are planning to file a class action suit against anyone that the SEC is not allowed to go after, in an attempt to recover additional monies for investors of which they will receive a percentage. Currently they are not asking for anything directly from investors. Seems like the SEC would be allowed to recover money from everywhere possible, so not sure where this is going?

[LaVidaRoja]

I suspect the statute of limitations would block most recoveries that the SEC can/does not go after. Why do these attorneys believe that there would be any significant recovery from their efforts?

[grimreaper]

Looks like lawyers are already soliciting clients on the web:
http://www.nationwideautomatedsystemsfraud.com/

Per discussion with these lawyers, they say that they are planning to file a class action suit against anyone that the SEC is not allowed to go after, in an attempt to recover additional monies for investors of which they will receive a percentage. Currently they are not asking for anything directly from investors. Seems like the SEC would be allowed to recover money from everywhere possible, so not sure where this is going?

So you think they are more capable than SEC in retrieving recoverable assets? If SEC can't get them no one can. Different laws don't apply to SEC vs private investors. SEC will leave no stone unturned in recovering assets or phantom profits....there will be no *carcass* left for these lawyers to feed on.

[notorial dissent]

Twer it me, I'd be reading the fine print real careful and cautious like. Actually, I'm not sure what their game is, since the SEC will get first pick of the carcasses, any carcasses to be had, and unless I am misremembering the law, the receivership precludes any other kind of outside legal action, before, during, or after.

This sounds an awful lot like a scam that some of the former Zeeklers tried to get together after Zeek went in to receivership, didn't go very far then either.

[Lost Income]

I agree. Not sure where this law firm is headed (if they are even a law firm), because the SEC should be in the best position to turn over all rocks.

[notorial dissent]

One of the reasons for a receivership is that the law gives the SEC VERY broad powers and reach to deal with a securities fraud issue, and they can't do anything until they have convinced a court that they actually have a real issue, and then they are under constant supervision. There is just no way a private entity could do some of the things a receivership can do, so I just really don't think there is anything they can hope to come up with otherwise. I just don't see what their game here is. The other thing that will happen is that they will be working with the Federal Prosecutor, and I have a hard time believing that there won't be some prosecutions coming out of this at a later date. They are just now starting to come out with indictments in Zeek, and it has been in receivership for quite some time now. None of this is going to happen over night.

[The Observer]

I agree. Not sure where this law firm is headed (if they are even a law firm), because the SEC should be in the best position to turn over all rocks.

It appears to me that this firm is claiming that they would look to see if they could bring personal suit for damages against the principals and any "winners" out of the NASI scam. I am not a lawyer so I don't whether that would be possible or not with the TRO, receivership, clawbacks, statute of limitations, etc., but if it were possible, the interesting thing is that they are claiming their fees would be based on a contingency agreement. So this firm is going to be looking to see if anything can be recovered before they do anything for anybody. In my layman opinion, knowing what we know about this scam, that will boil down to zilch.

[notorial dissent]

Like I said before, "Twer it me, I'd be reading the fine print real careful and cautious like", and then I don't think I'd be comfortable.

Actually, at law, unless I have been badly misinformed by people who really should have known, the only ones they could possibly have recourse against would be the company(s) and principals, and I can pretty well guarantee that between the SEC and IRS, there isn't going to be anything left there once they're done. The net winners, unless you could prove they were complicit in the fraud are not liable for what the company did or for themselves being defrauded, and the receivership will probably take care of that in the final wash, so I don't see who else could be left that the SEC couldn't or wouldn't touch over the course of this. Actually, as I recall, the SEC action takes preeminence over ANY other civil action, so I really don't think there is any way they could possibly go further. Also, as I recall, part of the settlement process is that when the receivership is over with the claimants have to agree it is or they don't get paid. Now what I do know, is that if someone who has a valid claim against NASI doesn't sign on/register with the receivership, and/or goes with some other effort, they will irretrievably lose out on the ultimate settlement of the case.