ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[webhick]

So, webhick, am I to assume from the CA court filing that the Receiver has finally taken control of the Oasis entities as well?

I believe they took control when they took over NASI. The problem appears to be collecting the paperwork on the finances and determining the assets. What doesn't help is that Kellera and Perillo wrongfully shifted Oasis trailers into other companies (Fiji and Studio Maui, I think). They also seem to be really uncooperative. Latest report states that the receiver filed a complaint on July 12th. I'll have to find it.

Plus, it seems that the Dickwad Duo were behind on NASI's taxes...but I'm not sure if it's because of the receiver fixing prior tax return or because they were behind to begin with. I'll have to look into it further and see if the tax liability from amended returns makes more sense than simply being behind.

The saga of the net winners has been interesting. I'm still compiling figures to see percentage settled vs owed, for shits and giggles. But that's not necessarily the interesting part. One couple dodged service then filed bankruptcy in Nevada (I'm loosely following but not publicizing the bankruptcy case). Another got the receiver's demand letter, then shifted assets into trust and tried to make a claim for hardship. Another tried to claim hardship but had more than enough assets to pay. The receiver accidentally went after the wrong guy because of name confusion. John and Jon are are not typos, but father and son respectively. One was a net winner (son) and one was not (father).

[notorial dissent]

I don't know why, but I was under the, perhaps mistaken, impression that Oasis was a separate non-affiliate entity even though a lot of money had been funneled in to it, kind of in the realm of Fuel Doctor. I knew that whoever was running it was being difficult, probably for very good reasons, but I wasn't sure they would be able to take it over with the Receivership, not that I didn't think they should have, but.... I would bet the accounting for Oasis makes NASI look like a picnic however. Surprised I'm not that the taxes are a mess, I'm still impressed that they managed to hang on as long as they did without coming under IRS scrutiny. I would bet the tax filings are entertaining in the extreme. I'm sure the net winner/loser saga will continue to be one, this sort of thing just lends itself to that. Look forward to seeing your breakdowns.

[worried]

There are new fee applications on the nasi-receivership.com site.

In the receiver's fee app he mentions the possibility of CNB settling through mediation in "August or September". Hopefully that really happens soon and they're able to get a significant amount to help out the hardest hit victims.

In another fee app there is a detailed report of a particular net winner successfully claiming bankruptcy and having to pay only ~$53k out of $1.9M winnings... There are quite a few winners reported to be still actively hiding out from the receiver (avoiding service)...

[Dead Man Walking]

Not surprised if the bank settles this to by september. They have nothing to gain by dragging this issue out.
They will definitely looooose!

[webhick]

In another fee app there is a detailed report of a particular net winner successfully claiming bankruptcy and having to pay only ~$53k out of $1.9M winnings...

If that's the same net winner I'm thinking of, they actively dodged service then fled to Nevada to claim bankruptcy.

[notorial dissent]

Unless I have misread the material, the Receiver has the bank by the short and curlies on this one, and justifiably so if what they are alleging is even remotely true, and I am inclined to believe it having seen similar time and time again. The bank certainly doesn't want the public exposure and but wouldn't I love to see what the legal and supervisory exposure is going to be. The Comptroller and Treasury don't look kindly on things like this. This is about the best new possible for the victims of the scam. As to the winner filing bankruptcy, if there is actually enough estate there, bankruptcies have been canceled before because of fraud or intent to escape a debt. It just depends on whether it is worth going after them or not.

[Tednewsom]

To all those seriously, genuinely intelligent investment & scam experts here who, all along, have said the Ponzi victims might as well write it all off, because the best you'll ever get is a penny on the dollar...

Fairy ta-a-a-ales...

Can come tru-u-u-ue...

It can happen to you-u-u-u...

When you sue the ban-n-n-k...

[The Observer]

Given the fact that the issue of a major bank as being a possible source of recovery is a only a relatively recent development, it is a bit ungracious for you to be chalumping around on this as though you saw it coming all the time. The fact is that you never saw this as a possibility either over the last 6-7 years. You have been betting on vast millions squirreled away by Joel/Ed and shadowy unnamed organized crime figures.

This situation is right out of left field. No one expected this since a Ponzi scammer avoids getting involved with regulated banks or investment houses; the less scrutiny the better. NAS just happened to find a person within the banking system that apparently wanted to get in on the ground level and walk away with some easy bucks. If what the receiver is alleging is true, then apparently he abused his authority as an officer of the bank to ensure the NAS scam paid off for him.

And this is a miracle for the victims of the scam, in that they get a chance at getting a bigger piece of the recovery pie. I am very pleased that this development has happened. But please don't try to imply that somehow you were right all along about this. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

[Gregg]

Given the fact that the issue of a major bank as being a possible source of recovery is a only a relatively recent development, it is a bit ungracious for you to be chalumping around on this as though you saw it coming all the time. The fact is that you never saw this as a possibility either over the last 6-7 years. You have been betting on vast millions squirreled away by Joel/Ed and shadowy unnamed organized crime figures.

This situation is right out of left field. No one expected this since a Ponzi scammer avoids getting involved with regulated banks or investment houses; the less scrutiny the better. NAS just happened to find a person within the banking system that apparently wanted to get in on the ground level and walk away with some easy bucks. If what the receiver is alleging is true, then apparently he abused his authority as an officer of the bank to ensure the NAS scam paid off for him.

And this is a miracle for the victims of the scam, in that they get a chance at getting a bigger piece of the recovery pie. I am very pleased that this development has happened. But please don't try to imply that somehow you were right all along about this. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

And not a little ironic being almost at the same time found that $1.9 million in a judgement becomes $53K at the drop of a hat....and they haven't even gotten the $53k yet.

$53K is 2.7% of $1.9 million just saying

[worried]

To be fair to Ted, I think you're referring to me when you talk about somebody suspecting/imagining ways that Joel/Ed (and now the banker) could have hidden money... I don't see anything wrong with using imagination to try and solve a problem (Einstein is popularly credited with the saying "imagination is more important than knowledge"), the trick is to not jump into thinking/declaring that some particular conjecture is "truth" and worth defending at all costs.... I take seriously, and have no reason to doubt, the assertions of all you "quatloos elders" that in your experience (of observation/research), Ponzi schemes usually end up with little return to victims, and there have been no reported cases of organized crime involvement....

One of the questions I had before the banker's involvement came to light was "why was Joel so hell-bent on making payments even after the scam was busted?" This question came from my effort to make sense of the whole story, what were the motivations (and where did the money go)? I noted the large percentage of single-ATM-owner "winners" in the excerpted winner list and started to imagine if that was a way to hide money. Well, now that we know the banker was desperately sucking money out of the Ponzi (due to his own financial/legal issues), I think THAT answers the original question... it wasn't JOEL who was hell-bent to keep making payments, it was the BANKER... So, just because I'm a no-life conspiracy theorist, didn't mean there wasn't actually a conspiracy.... I'm still curious about the large percentage of single-ATM winners, I never really thought that many people who would fall for a Ponzi would have the discipline to not fall further, but it may very well be true and they're all legitimate (and lucky) people. But, does it hurt to at least IMAGINE where to look for the money? Just because some people may go too far and BELIEVE their own conspiracy theories, doesn't mean that it's a bad thing to be able to imagine them yourself. Again, the trick is separating PROVABLE facts from theories, but a lot of facts started out as theories...

So, the banker wasn't just an innocent college-educated waif who suddenly was bitten with the Ponzi bug as soon as he got wind of this scam. He and his wife and sis-in-law were all already dirty... how dirty?... who else do they know?... where was the money going that flowed from NASI to him? Maybe nowhere except dinners, cars, clothes, I don't know, i'm not a detective (and I don't have the time/skills to be one), but I CAN ask questions....

I think the story of this scam may very well wind down to a close after a presumed CNB settlement, I haven't read any indication in the Receiver's reports that he's looking any further than the Oasis entities and CNB (and the last 60(!)-odd winners that he's still chasing). He's achieved what every one here seems to agree are some remarkable returns already, but surely after the CNB settlement, he'll probably be ramping down the expenditures on chasing the last winners (he THOUGHT he was getting $1.9M from one particular winner but he had to settle for $53k).

I would just LOVE for Joel/Ed, and even the banker, to open up and talk CANDIDLY to all of us. Why did they start? Did they intend to start a scam from the beginning (it sure looks like it)? WHO'S idea was it originally (Wishner? Gillis? Fitzwilliam??)? Why did the Fuel Doctor get involved? Who's idea was that (remember that Joel had to funnel money to Mark Soffa the same way he did to Fitzwilliam, without even pretending it was "payments")? .... see, there I go again, remembering all the pieces of this story that don't fit together in a satisfying way. Can you blame somebody for at least WONDERING if there are some other people involved who have their hooks into one or more of these characters that are now either in jail or are soon going to be (how the hell does Mark Soffa get off scot-free from all this?)? I don't see how you can criticize me, or anyone else, for at least having the imagination. If I lose the intellectual integrity to REMEMBER it's ONLY a theory, THEN I deserve criticism.

So, are you "quatloos elders" maybe a little too sensitive? What I saw in Ted's last posting of a nicely paraphrased Disney tune was some humor and light-hearted retaliation for being what I see as (for reasons explained above) maybe a little too critical of someone who is just coming up with ideas. Neither Ted, nor I, have ever INSISTED that our theories MUST be true and all naysayers are infidels to be dispatched. To the contrary, Ted has always expressed admiration and respect for the experience and wisdom recorded in these forums (starting with his very first post). And I feel the same way. The humor in these pages is an added perk.

Eventually we'll all forget about this story... and even though many of us may have learned a thing or two, it seems it's far too little, there are uncountable scams and victims out there right now...

Someone whose job is to investigate and report on scams contacted me recently after reading this forum. I had a nice conversation with person (I checked him out and he was legitimate... and fun and interesting to talk to). He asked me "why do people fall for these scams?"... How many times, through the ages, have people asked that question? Can it be answered simply by saying our human nature is used against us? I don't think that's too simplistic of an answer because of the complexity embedded in "human nature" (the ego, the desire to trust, to do good for others, etc.)... Where I work we have security people who are always harping on us about how, despite all the multi-layered technology and procedures, it's always the human who is always the weakest link and the easiest to exploit in order to gain access to protected information.... the human is always the easiest to exploit... no matter how smart they are....

[worried]

... NAS just happened to find a person within the banking system that apparently wanted to get in on the ground level and walk away with some easy bucks. ...

I think it's possibly the other way 'round. As you stated, most Ponzi scammers go to great pains to not be too obvious to the banker. They spread the money out, sometimes even have to just hoard cash to avoid putting in banks. But, not in this case. So, was it just carelessness on the part of Joel/Ed that made them put all their money in CNB where they could be discovered? Is that really a safe thing to do? Are the majority of bankers really just crooks who will just join a Ponzi scheme instead of turning them in?? REALLY??... Ed was the accountant, Joel, in 1996 at 50-something years old, already had a history as a scammer, I think both of them knew better... So, I think the question really is... "who found who" and whose idea was it in the first place? Was Fitzwilliam just really eagle-eyed and spotted the Ponzi despite any efforts to hide it AND just so happened to be a crook already? Possible (likely?). Or was this all pre-arranged? Who knew who before all this started? ... Honestly, I think just saying "the crooks were stupid, and some other crooks saw them and got in on it" may very well be TRUE, but that's not the only possible answer. And I don't see a lot of evidence that any of these guys were actually stupid. I just think we still don't know the whole story (and probably never will).

[Tednewsom]

Worried came closest, I think. I certainly meant no nose tweak. The Third Act bank plot twist is a fairy tale, a deus ex machina in this little drama. No one saw this coming, certainly not me. Who would have thought it?

And yet, it's perfectly logical and has a precedent. It's vaguely similar to my "Mob behind the scenes" theory, but there's no broken nose thugs named Guido, just a couple of crooks at a couple of banks.

[worried]

The Wells Fargo scandal seems kind of relevant here, and scary knowing what we know about what was going on with CNB...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/12/investi ... index.html

Warren, a longtime proponent of breaking up big banks, expressed skepticism that Wells Fargo management was unaware of the illegal activity. "Come on...this went on for years and they didn't smell anything in the air about fake accounts?" she said.
If Wells Fargo senior executives were truly in the dark, Warren said that means "this is simply a bank that is too big to manage."

Is that really the problem with banks? Is that how Fitzwilliam was able to get away with his shenanigans for so long, the banks are too big and too focused on squeezing all they can out of tight profit margins? What the hell else is going on out there that we don't know about? I know some people like to complain about too much regulation, but is this a symptom on not ENOUGH regulation, or just a lack of resources applied to enforce existing regulation?

[notorial dissent]

It is a condition in most if not all big companies. Someone in the right place can get away with an awful lot if they know how the system works and know how to work the system and are dishonest to start with. All businesses run on the presumption that their employees are for the most part honest and have integrity, and they makes plans to deal with the one who aren't. The problem comes when you have someone in the chain of operation of that plan that can short circuit it or misdirect it, or just flat out ignore it, as was the case at the bank here. The bank seems to have had good measures, for the most part, in place that were sidestepped by an upper management officer who could do so with impunity, a severe flaw. My personal opinion is that Risk Management was asleep at the switch and should have done some more looking when things they pointed out weren't really dealt with.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... All Most businesses run on the presumption that their employees are for the most part honest and have integrity, and they makes plans to deal with the one who aren't. ...

There, fixed it for you. There are any number of businesses that have proven to be owned, run by and staffed with people of questionable integrity. Fines and settlements for this kind of behavior obviously aren't enough of a deterrent, they're simply a cost of doing business.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... the banks are too big and too focused on squeezing all they can out of tight profit margins? ...

It's worse than you think:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/13/we ... ement.html

Impunity has its rewards.

[Gregg]

Well, its the company's fault but its not criminal in that the company doesn't set out to cover up internal crooks, they just happen.
I am aware of a manager in a large motorcar company who for almost 10 years made it look like he was the most efficient manufacturing manager ever put on Bob's good earth. He ran gazongazillions worth of complex parts and assemblies and components with virtually no scrap, the man was amazing, he had hundreds of technicians under him who to a man didn't waste so much as a bolt for every million dollars worth of production he ran.

And then they changed the way that level of manager was audited. For years they were above reproach, and whatever numbers they sent in were gospel truth, not to be questioned in any way. Of course, one of our recent down cycles brought about changes and someone noticed in about a ream of reports a line where he was paying drayage on 17 trailors. The poor kid didn't know what drayage meant (its basically rental of the means of transportation< trailers) that were not ever in transit, they were just setting on a back lot. So a couple accountants who thought working for the motorcar company was all flashy offices and sexy metal desks got to go out and inventory the material in these trailers, oh, and don't tell XXX Manager you're coming, just show up, ask this guy (fill in name of security manager here) to take you to them, put guards on them and cut the locks off them, and count whats in them. Viola! Scrap, 8 figures worth of scrap! Accumulated over at least 18 months, and the route to his particular genius was discovered, cheat.

Turns out he wasn't such a good manager afterall, and of course he was promoted to somewhere where he could not do as much damage without getting noticed.

That last part is true, BTW.

[notorial dissent]

Entirely familiar, I've seen it happen altogether too many times.

My suspicion, based on experience, is that the bank's security practices were good, at least on paper, but were never designed to have an upper level manager short circuiting the watchdogs by going "yeah I'll look in to that" and then never doing anything, which is quite obviously, in hindsight what was happening here. What should have happened is that the manager who was notified should have had to look in to it and then return his findings within a certain time period to the officer who found it's upper supervisor to be reconciled. This obviously never happened. The thing is, the same alarm bells should have kept on going off, and that risk/security officer should have reported it to his superiors, and again obviously didn't. So, again my suspicion based on experience, there were/are some serious back office problems that need addressing, and unless they run differently than any other organization I ever watched, they are most likely still there for the most part.

[worried]

... the banks are too big and too focused on squeezing all they can out of tight profit margins? ...

It's worse than you think:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/13/we ... ement.html

Impunity has its rewards.

Yeah, I've been following this with some amusement. I am particularly amused at all the 'outrage' being expressed. The CEO of WF just got predictably canned: http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/12/investi ... index.html.

But, there have been other stories that the same thing was going on at other banks for a long time. Notorial dissent says that he/she has seen lots of lapses in oversight in banking... So, when I see senators like Elizabeth Warren so loudly and publicly expressing their outrage, I can't help but wonder who she(they) should be outraged at? If I were the bank president I would complain that a lack of government enforcement of regulations led to an environment which REQUIRED cheating to be competitive. That's what I see when I read these stories.

Now, I could also see this same complaint about the business climate in general could lead people like our favorite crooks Gillis & Wishner to feel justified in just saying 'screw it' and start an all-out scam, but that doesn't make what they did any less criminal or inhuman. And, really, when the bank was FIRING people (and screwing up some careers/work histories/resumes) for either 1) not filling unrealistic quotas, or 2) getting caught cheating filling those quotas, or 3) complaining about the ethics of it all, then that to me is just as bad and unjustified as just starting a ponzi scheme.

BUT... stillll... clearly in the banking case, some finger pointing can be done at the enforcement agencies and I think that buck stops at the political people who are yelling the loudest right now and they should have enough integrity to admit it (and maybe DO something about it?).... and the link to the NASI case is unmistakeable, NASI would not have been able to survive so long if there had been real banking oversight... Welll, I suppose Gillis/Wishner could have moved their business over to PACNET (if they didn't have a criminal banker holding them hostage). Ironic that, at the same time banks are being busted for breaking laws, businesses like PACNET are being started by ex-bank employees who see a market created by banks trying NOT to break laws... what a mess....

Still waiting to hear about that supposed CNB settlement...

[worried]

New receiver report is out... more of the same relatively good news on clawbacks, nearing 20 cents on the dollar (after taking out receiver's fees)...

As to the CNB suit, there is this statement:

Special Counsel has continued to work closely and coordinate
efforts with Class Counsel in the matters of Nairn v. City National Bank and
Madison v. City National Bank, and is in active negotiations with counsel for City
National Bank to conduct a global early mediation in November.

Anybody care to translate/speculate what that means in terms of getting more or less money out of CNB for victims?

Oh, and this is a little too late probably, but here in California we're voting on a proposition to let "non-violent" people out of jail earlier (prop 57). Joel and Ed are already going to get out too soon as far as I'm concerned.