ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[Funkalicious]

Is there a geographic component to this? Do investors in Boston & LA get sold the $19.8K machines while those in Grand Rapids get sold the $12K machines?

[grimreaper]

I got into this whole thing because I was concerned for a friend, not because I necessarily wanted to do a favor for 2500 strangers. How much was stolen from her is all I'm concerned with.

I guess there's something I'm *missing* with your approach. Basically all those earlier investors who have PROFITED *took* money from those who have been left holding the bag. Yes...we may also have others who received *commissions* and insiders who may have siphoned off funds (*fuel saver debacle*). Trying to figure out the *inner workings* of possible *commissions* seems a futile effort to me. If the SEC can identify any such arrangements, then those will be forfeited. Having said this, I don't see this as a CENTRAL issue here.

[The Observer]

Makes little sense. The $12K figure is the one most often associated with the wealthier investors. The $19.8K figure, the opposite. Why not charge those who can better afford it the higher rate, the ones with less money the lower one?

Were the $12,000 prices and the 19.8K prices being charged at relatively the same time? Otherwise my thought is that NASI increased the contract price in order to cover their losses so they repay the earlier investors.

And I understand that you are looking at the fact that NASI's "salespersons" were collecting the difference between the two fees as a commission. But that seems to be a heck of a commission rate - nearly 40%.I can't imagine Joel parting with that much money up front.

[grimreaper]

Were the $12,000 prices and the 19.8K prices being charged at relatively the same time? Otherwise my thought is that NASI increased the contract price in order to cover their losses so they repay the earlier investors.

Possible, but keep in mind, the PAY OUTS on the larger contracts would also increase accordingly.
Again. I don't understand why this topic is of interest? Please enlighten me. If this is a Ponzi then THAT is what matters.

[snookered]

Whatever the outcome, I made this choice.

Never regret anything that has happened in your life. It cannot be changed, undone or forgotten. So take it as a lesson learned and move on. ~author unknown

[grimreaper]

Whatever the outcome, I made this choice

Understood and sorry for your loss. Life does go on.

What most people don't understand is how COMPELLING this ponzi scheme can be.
You have those recruiting family and friends and they are CONVINCED it's a *NO BRAINIER* since they themselves have made money for over 5-10 years. So the *sales pitch* is really GENUINE since it comes from a TRUSTED family member or friend. It's a POISON PILL that gets passed on OVER AND OVER.

[snookered]

Yep, Grimreaper... that is exactly how it has all gone down.

[Tednewsom]

Were the $12,000 prices and the 19.8K prices being charged at relatively the same time?

Yes, and that is the point of the question.

Other versions of this scam (in other locations, in the past) have had other prices entirely, as low as 5 or 7 thousand, and on the other hand, higher than the arbitrary $19,800 -- but the sale price remained constant. The $19.8K/12K dichotomy seems to have been part of this one for a good decade, and was apparently ongoing to the point of receivership.

And I understand that you are looking at the fact that NASI's "salespersons" were collecting the difference between the two fees as a commission.

That is what I am trying to determine.

But that seems to be a heck of a commission rate - nearly 40%. I can't imagine Joel parting with that much money up front.

Yes, it's obscene. Perhaps it even seems out of character for ol' Joltin' Joel -- although who knows what the hell he thinks or does. But even at that, NAS would still get their "free" ATM contract within the $12,000 remainder.

If someone points out one more time that this has nothing to do with how the scam functioned, I will post another animated smiley.

[grimreaper]

Go for it!

[Gregg]

Were the $12,000 prices and the 19.8K prices being charged at relatively the same time?

Yes, and that is the point of the question.

Other versions of this scam (in other locations, in the past) have had other prices entirely, as low as 5 or 7 thousand, and on the other hand, higher than the arbitrary $19,800 -- but the sale price remained constant. The $19.8K/12K dichotomy seems to have been part of this one for a good decade, and was apparently ongoing to the point of receivership.

And I understand that you are looking at the fact that NASI's "salespersons" were collecting the difference between the two fees as a commission.

That is what I am trying to determine.

But that seems to be a heck of a commission rate - nearly 40%. I can't imagine Joel parting with that much money up front.

Yes, it's obscene. Perhaps it even seems out of character for ol' Joltin' Joel -- although who knows what the hell he thinks or does. But even at that, NAS would still get their "free" ATM contract within the $12,000 remainder.

If someone points out one more time that this has nothing to do with how the scam functioned, I will post another animated smiley.

I follow you, you are thinking that Francis, the lady who earlier posted in this thread, was charging the higher price at the same time someone could have met Joel on a golf course and by buying direct, gotten the lower price. Your concern is did the saleswoman just arbitrarily come up with a new price, tack it on, and add it to what in my house we call the "hookers and blow" fund.
Could well be. In the 90s there was a pretty famous ponzi case involving "miracle cars" where 2 teenage boys sold non-existent cars from a fictional estate to members of their church. (really, its a very interesting story itself). Well, it got rolling from one church through a loose network of ministers and in a matter of a few months had become nationwide. In the beginning, the list of cars was a few, I think maybe 15 cars that the dearly assumed room temperature fictional gentleman wanted to go to good christians. In the end, and they kept this up for a few years, they had sold thousands of cars that didn't exist, and had believers holding out that the cars did exist, and then, those who bought early thought their cars really did exist because they got in before they started scamming people, and then, well, google it, a very good book and a TV documentery about it. "God wants you to roll" I think is the title.

Anyway, in the cars scam, somewhere, in Missouri, (scam started in East LA) one of their "distributors", without asking anyone for permission, just figured she'd add $2500 to the price as a processing fee or something like....and then her downline made the fee $5000 and kpet half herself, (these were nearly new cars that the "price" was a pittince, even with these fees they were a steal, or would have been). Anyhow, the boys running the scam, who were (like Joel) always happy and ready to give you a full refund, which kept the scam going longer. It wasn't until they got requests for the refund for this fee that they even found out about it.

[Gregg]

I'm sorry you took offense.

Not a problem, I was a bit cranky last night, sorry I got so wound up over it.

[webhick]

I think it ran as so:

If Joel determined that someone wouldn't be good for much repeat business, and they didn't know someone with the sweet $12k rate, they got the $19k rate. If they were freaking loaded and didn't know anyone with the $19k rate, they got the $12k rate. Repeatedly.

At some point or at least for some investors, Joel likely lost track of the web of referrals - especially as the scam got bigger and bigger, and that's when some investors may have seen people they knew paying different rates.

[Tednewsom]

Well... I doubt that Frances came up with the higher figure on her own. I think Gillis mentions it in the Australian interview. And truly, she's at heart an honest person, as far as I've ever known her. Perhaps a bit naive, but honest. I really doubt she'd pull a fast one like that without Gillis's knowledge, or more likely it was his idea and she thought it sounded lovely. But the two figures were used simultaneously. I think maybe webhick might be onto something, especially a point near the end where confusion reigned.

[Lost Income]

Regarding us investors/victims living in states other than Cal. What is the potential that we would have to spend/loose more money, having to travel to Cal to deal with bankruptcy court, sec, or fbi issues while striving to get some of our lost money back?

[JamesVincent]

Regarding us investors/victims living in states other than Cal. What is the potential that we would have to spend/loose more money, having to travel to Cal to deal with bankruptcy court, sec, or fbi issues while striving to get some of our lost money back?

When a receiver is appointed and the process started it doesn't matter where you live, they will be in contact. The whole point of the receiver is that the victims have one person working for their ends so that they don't have to be there in person. Kinda like a class action lawsuit with a single attorney, not every plaintiff needs to be there in court.

[Lost Income]

Thanks, that makes good sense, and one point of contact will simplify things for us.

[The Observer]

Again. I don't understand why this topic is of interest? Please enlighten me. If this is a Ponzi then THAT is what matters.

The issue, and question, would be if the difference in contract prices were a result of NASI providing a bonus or commission to others for bringing in new customers. That would be key evidence for determining if clawbacks were to be instituted against those people, other than Joel and Ed, who profited from this Ponzi scheme.

So this not an instance of people losing sight of the fact that this is a Ponzi scheme, but rather asking how many tenatacles there were and how far they stretched.

[notorial dissent]

This is a ponzi, or securities fraud depending on how you look at it where the victims "investors" got taken at seriously different levels for the same thing. It looks to me, as was pointed out earlier, that the principals took their victims "investors" for different amounts depending on what they thought they could get out of them, and then it appears we have a sales commission component that I wasn't aware of from the beginning were other parties brought in victims "investors" for a cut of whatever they got taken for, and so jacked up the premium even further.

So, when this ultimately gets settled out there will be different levels or classes of victim who will be considered at different reimbursement rates. In this case, all parties are not created equal.

That is, always assuming there is going to be anything to reimburse them with, which in things like this is always a possibility .

[Gregg]

Sadly, I don't think there's going to be much to return to the victims, the checks were bouncing....and when that happens I've gotten used to seeing people getting nothing or next to nothing back.

[Lost Income]

I agree. We can only hope that the SEC has already locked up all assets for future sale, and will run the biz for a while, to generate as much cash as possible.