ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[Burnaby49]

GrimReaper signed on Sunday the 21st and in the five days since he has made 45 posts, largely, it seems, with the goal of showing what an arrogant prick he is. Troll?

[Tednewsom]

Most have been straightforward and informative. Most everyone here is opinionated and right now, pretty emotional. I got in a three-post tussle with him, but I did not feel the need to call him an arrogant prick. Although... hmmm... now you got me thinking....

[Nationwideinvestor]

GrimReaper signed on Sunday the 21st and in the five days since he has made 45 posts, largely, it seems, with the goal of showing what an arrogant prick he is. Troll?

The information in this posting is accurate and thoughtful.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
As I understand it as it's been explained here, the SEC involvement is simply an investigation in which the government subpoenas information because it suspects wrongdoing. It does not interfere with the company doing business-- like gathering new sucker money, paying out "dividends," bouncing checks, destroying documents and wiping hard drives, booking flights to the Cayman Islands or paying the company officers an unexpected "nice guy" bonus. None of that. It can all continue just jim-dandy while the SEC pores over 10 years' worth of check stubs and tries to figure out IF they should take action....

Actually, having the SEC knocking on your door introduces the potential for Federal criminal charges for perjury. Lying to an investigator is a whole 'nother crime.

In the other hand, the request for involuntary bankruptcy (again, as I understand it here) basically jams a crowbar into the crooked machine and brings it to a halt, until someone (the court, the SEC or both.) places a neutral, acceptable custodian in charge instead of the grifters who own the enterprise. I beg your pardon. Alleged grifters.

The filing ("request") doesn't stop anything. It's business as usual for the time being (although their actions may be closely scrutinized at some point in the future), and if they have experienced counsel, it could be weeks of motion practice before an order for relief is actually granted.

[webhick]

A recent case we may want to watch for similarities is the case of a Virtual Concierge Machine Ponzi that the SEC busted back in April:

http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/De ... CbbxRZ0Y0U

Basically, it's the same as NASI, except NASI may may own a few ATMs, albeit only a fraction of what they sold.

I think this one tanked so fast because of the rates they charged and because they really put themselves out there online. NASI charged at least $12k for a $300/mo return. That's 40 months where the investor was receiving their own money and you could get more out of them. This other one charged only $3k for the same return - only 10 months. Additionally, instead of spreading like an affinity scam and having no internet presence until 2010, this one recruited via YouTube.

We should keep an eye on how this one turns out, as it resembles NASI closely enough.

[Tednewsom]

NASI charged at least $12k for a $300/mo return. That's 40 months where the investor was receiving their own money

Yup. I loved that part. "Wow, look! I got a check for $333! And I get one every month!"

"Yes, and it's your own money, you idiot."

[The Observer]

A recent case we may want to watch for similarities is the case of a Virtual Concierge Machine Ponzi that the SEC busted back in April:

Yes, especially to see how Joel and Ed emulated what the VCM scamsters did with all that money:

However, VCMs were not placed anywhere near the rate of those purchased by investors, who were never provided the locations of their VCM and could not track activity as promised.

The majority of investors stopped receiving their monthly payments in January 2014, yet Signore and Schumack continued to solicit new investors while fabricating excuses to placate irate investors no longer receiving their returns.

The scheme collapsed in typical Ponzi fashion once new investor funds dried up.

Signore used investor funds from accounts at JCS to divert approximately $2 million directly to himself and family members.

Money that won't be recovered.

Signore also routed investor money to unrelated business ventures he operates with his wife.

Have to wonder if these are legitimate "ventures" or just more Ponzi schemes. In any event, more money that can't be recovered.

Debit charges from JCS accounts indicate that approximately $56,000 in investor funds were spent at restaurants, merchandising stores, and a tanning salon as well as other credit card bills.

More money that disappeared and cannot be recovered.

Money from T.B.T.I’s accounts was similarly used for personal expenses. For example, Schumack’s wife signed a check for $500,000 made out to the IRS.

LOL. Definitely not getting that money back.

T.B.T.I. also has transferred approximately $4 million from its investor account to an unrelated account from which Schumack and others executed more than 100 cash withdrawals totaling around $4.8 million, which was 91 percent of the account balance.

Wow. Cash withdrawals of nearly 5 million. What do you suppose they did with that money? And where is it now? Kiss it goodbye.

Another $23,000 of investor money was used by Schumack for personal expenses including restaurants, merchandising stores, and a nutrient therapy center.

Chump change by this point. But still gone, gone, gone,

Well, one positive thing for sure: These VCI scamsters had a great sense of humor and/or chutzpah:

...yet Signore and Schumack continued to solicit new investors while fabricating excuses to placate irate investors no longer receiving their returns. JCS went so far as to issue a press release claiming that TBTI had defrauded JCS and it was “investigating the matter.”

"See, we were victims as well!"

[grimreaper]

GrimReaper signed on Sunday the 21st and in the five days since he has made 45 posts, largely, it seems, with the goal of showing what an arrogant prick he is. Troll?

Not trolling. I have family members who are victims. Some are retired. I figured I pissed some people off here, but I'm going to challenge what is posted if it's erroneous. If they want to *speculate* then make that clear. Same goes for me..I welcome any criticism if it's well founded and not simply a personal attack. This isn't a popularity contest for me, so think whatever. I assume if I'm out line on anything, then the moderator will let me know.

[Burnaby49]

GrimReaper signed on Sunday the 21st and in the five days since he has made 45 posts, largely, it seems, with the goal of showing what an arrogant prick he is. Troll?

Not trolling. I have family members who are victims. Some are retired. I figured I pissed some people off here, but I'm going to challenge what is posted if it's erroneous. If they want to *speculate* then make that clear. Same goes for me..I welcome any criticism if it's well founded and not simply a personal attack. This isn't a popularity contest for me, so think whatever. I assume if I'm out line on anything, then the moderator will let me know.

Feel free to challenge but my point was that you are being deliberately offensive about it in a situation where the posters you are attacking (while possibly wrong in some statements) are acting in good faith. Messages like this;

You don't KNOW if there were clawbacks in this case. Perhaps he didn't qualify?? Also, there may have not been ANY investors with profits which would be subject to clawbacks.
In any event you>>Can't compare this case with NASI Ponzi. If NASI is deemed to be a PONZI (I say slam dunk), then there are those who 1) Will qualify for a clawback and 2) There WILL be those subject to a clawback. More false reasoning being peddled here.

add nothing and, in my opinion, just reflect badly on you and your message.

[Tednewsom]

Matter of opinion, Burnaby. Harsh and straightforward, yes. Even frustrated at what he sees as baseless supposition (hypotheticals made prior to all the facts, the sort of conclusions Sherlock Holmes warned about.) But not obnoxious from over here.

At this point no one has a whole boatload of specifics, so approximating what is or is not recoverable, what someone will or won't end up receiving or having to pay back, how many ATMs really exist and how many yachts with Liberian registry Ed Wisher has docked in Newport Beach is all guesswork.

[grimreaper]

Post deleted due to double post

[grimreaper]

Feel free to challenge but my point was that you are being deliberately offensive about it in a situation where the posters you are attacking (while possibly wrong in some statements) are acting in good faith. Messages like this;

You don't KNOW if there were clawbacks in this case. Perhaps he didn't qualify?? Also, there may have not been ANY investors with profits which would be subject to clawbacks.
In any event you>>Can't compare this case with NASI Ponzi. If NASI is deemed to be a PONZI (I say slam dunk), then there are those who 1) Will qualify for a clawback and 2) There WILL be those subject to a clawback. More false reasoning being peddled here.

I'm taking issue with those conclusions for the reason's stated.

add nothing and, in my opinion, just reflect badly on you and your message.

The original poster I was answering stated this about the article:

Note that he lost everything. There were no cash accounts, no assets, no clawbacks. He got nothing back out of a $100 million Ponzi scheme

Please keep this story (and others in mind) when other people keep telling you that you are going to recover monies. Or that you can initiate actions and/or spend more money that will improve your recovery chances. It simply isn't true.

Now, how do you make those conclusions about our NASI Ponzi from that article? There is nothing in that article to support his conclusions. It just tells you his about HIS tale of woe, but nothing else. He then infers from the article that the chances of recovering money are slim to none as evidenced by the story. I was trying to point out that this fallacious reasoning if you're USING THIS ARTICLE to support that argument.
Victims in NASI Ponzi are VERY WELL positioned to recover a PORTION of their losses. Why? Because there are those *in the money* without a shadow of doubt (I know them) and it will very easy to identify them for a clawback. How much to be recouped is in question, but (Speculation here) there should be some restitution for net losers.

[Burnaby49]

I don't wish to belabor this so I'll stop after this posting. I was not criticizing you for being wrong and other posters right. I have no idea who is right or wrong in their comments on this situation, not my area.

My comments were directed to what I thought was your unnecessary belligerence to other posters when someone said something you didn't like. This thread has been going for almost four years and it identified the scheme as a Ponzi right from the start. You've stepped in in the last week and seem to want to squabble with anyone who disagrees with you.

As Snookered said, in relation to an argument between you and Gregg;

All you guys do is argue amongst yourselves about who knows more about whatever subject. It really looks silly from the outside. Just saying.

I sense a lot of "feather puffing" here, of who knows more here on this Blog/Forum than the other guy. For those of us seeking real answers and advice, its confusing.

[Tednewsom]

My comments were directed to what I thought was your unnecessary belligerence to other posters when someone said something you didn't like.

Wellllllll... yeah.... okay, there is that ...

But we're all going to be mutually helpful and pleasant from now on. I started this thing with the comment that I was in awe of the smarts on Quatloos. The posts on this thread have not changed my mind. Let's spritz the vitriol in the right direction.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... Let's spritz the vitriol in the right direction.

I would suggest less verbal/textual spritzing and more tactical (and private) planning on what you will do when and if the various possible scenarios come about.

[grimreaper]

Wellllllll... yeah.... okay, there is that ...

But we're all going to be mutually helpful and pleasant from now on. I started this thing with the comment that I was in awe of the smarts on Quatloos. The posts on this thread have not changed my mind. Let's spritz the vitriol in the right direction.

[Tednewsom]

One thought, 'way in advance of when it might be useful (or, heck, maybe not). It might be worth the expense to hire an investigator-- an asset finder -- either once the dust has settled, or perhaps even before a certain couple of snakes can play another round of 3-Card Monte.

I used to work for an investigative agency, and two of the guys there specialized in locating assets which, for one reason or other, the targets of investigation might not want known. That was not my specialty, I just watched them work their magic, and mostly right on the phone.

The lovely thing about an official investigation like an AG case or an SEC one is that you've got the weight of authority, plus subpoena power. The drawback is, you have to play by the rules, and good crooks know the rules as well as you do so they can plan countermeasures to avoid discovery.

Simple phone gags getting "secure" information right from a bank, dumpster diving to find out stuff the target thinks is secret, etc., etc. Nothing illegal is necessary, but SOP is usually more imaginative than an official investigation. Good investigators know the games, and know how to think like crooks.

[snookered]

Oh Man, Does this sound familiar!

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2009/oc ... nzi_100209

[Lost Income]

We victims need help verifying info and making sure we are actually on the SEC, FBI and Bankruptcy Court contact list for when things start to happen. Any suggestions for how we can know that some of the posts here and the yahoo victims group info are not from Joel/ED and Crew?

[Tednewsom]

The contact info a couple pages back seems quite legitimate. I'm sure any number of people will be in the front row when the court date comes up.

It doesn't look like there are a whole lot of Joel-boosters left here (or anywhere). I don't see much benefit for them to post confusing or conflicting information.