ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[grimreaper]

If You Lie Down with Dogs, You Get Up with Fleas


http://www.ponziclawbacks.com/2013/08/0 ... ith-fleas/

So it seems that with every Ponzi schemer, there are some people whose trust persists long after reason makes belief irrational. There are others who “smell a rat” early and try to get out of an increasingly likely fraudulent investment. Whether an investor is duped until the end or weary near the beginning, Ponzi clawbacks are filed with great regularity against both net winners and losers in Ponzi schemes.

Franklin’s dog and flea observation seemingly is a fact of our lives. We can often look back and see that we put ourselves into a situation, knowingly or unknowingly, that had us lying down with dogs. Given certain circumstances, it is both painful and disconcerting to then have fleas. Ponzi victims often beat themselves up over this, but remember that hindsight is 20/20. So it is with life. We can focus on mistakes, wrongs and even death – or we can choose hope and life.

[Tednewsom]

It's human nature to trust friends-- the essence of a "confidence game," a con. I don't think anyone except the bastards at the center of this acted with evil intent. That's small consolation to all those who, in good faith, devastated everyone they hauled into it. Confidence. "My friend would never betray me." "My brother in law would never screw me." "My sorority sister is smart and would never do me wrong." Insert the word "intentionally" in there are each one is true.

By the way, when I said "this stinks," it does. This four-year statute of limitations gives a free ride to those lucky enough to get in on the ground floor of a scam, or at least early enough to profit by this four-year cut-off.

That does not make the early results of the con any less hurtful; the bogus "dividends" still came out of some innocent stranger's pocket. These early investors weren't "better" or "more innocent," they were simply "lucky enough" to receive money stolen from others -- or ironically with repeat customers, even later money stolen from themselves -- then happily turned back around by the crooks and paid back to them under the guise of "profits" -- and given a free pass by the clawback limitations of four years.

And it even stinks for these early customers. The miserable bastards at the core sucked up your money, too, charging you $12,000 -- or $19,800 -- for at most a $2000 machine, at worse for phantoms on a ledger sheet. And they used your money, tax free, to do whatever they wanted for five years without you making one dime. Invest it in T-bills in their kids' names, blow it in Las Vegas in cash, buy a yacht to impress further Newport Beach suckers. And with the statute of limitations, they get away scot-free with crimes.

Anyone who might think I'm blaming early investors for slogging through that pointless first five years, or condemning them for taking money they were assured was "profit" -- anyone who misinterprets what I wrote is a goddamned idiot.

[notorial dissent]

The official answer would be yes, the actual answer is, it depends; on the mood of the receiver, how much they got back, and a whole host of other considerations people outside the receivership will not be privy to.

My best guess is that there will be some clawbacks, but how many depends on too many variables to count.

Which is why I keep saying get ALL your documentation together and get it copied, you're going to need it at some point, sooner or later, but you'll need it. My best guess is that there are a number of people who will need a tax lawyer or CPA at some point, and may even need a lawyer to deal with the SEC when things settle out, but that is just speculation, and having worked around several of these over the years.

[Tednewsom]

It's been suggested to me privately that I've come off unduly harsh on those lucky people whose involvement with NASI predates the four-year examination cut-off for potentially having to return funds received over and above their initial investment.

I really am sorry for you for the inconvenience of having to worry about possible "clawback." It would be annoying for you to be audited for money you received in the past and undoubtedly already spent, invested or otherwise used. It's hypothetical at this point anyway; a "clawback" phase is probable, but as noted above, who knows how it will shake down.

But I have no doubt the idea of paying back money you received years ago worries and angers you-- in addition to probably losing everything NASI took for bogus ATMs in the first place, if you made further investments. It must seem like one more financial insult to you, to be asked to give back your "profits."

And to those whose "profit" payments predate the cutoff, congratulations on sliding, getting away with it. Good for you. I'm sure later investors envy you.

Now, before you get your panties in an uproar, realize the truth: you never received any "profits." NO ONE received "profits" except Wishner and Gillis.

There were no "profits," because there were no ATMs. Ever.

You received money stolen from other people-- in the same way your stolen money was passed around to the people one step ahead of you. You didn't buy an ATM and lease it back to that company-- you handed over thousands of dollars and bought air. You didn't receive a 50-cent per transaction profit, a guaranteed 20% return every year. You received money taken illegally by soulless crooks from your fellow victims, by lies, deceit-- and some happily deceived fellow victims.

[Lost Income]

From the above.....I'm having a hard time believing that some investors/victims would be allowed to keep profits just because its old money, while others could be forced to give back profits and principle to help create a balanced loss for current investors/victims.

We are retired and at this point have lost 30% of our investment principle (negative profit) and the income expected, so we're certainly not in a position to give up/lose any more money.

[Tednewsom]

Yes. Which is why I wrote, "It stinks."

[notorial dissent]

Lost Income, your unhappiness is understandable, and yes, it stinks, unfortunately, the law is pretty specific about what can and can't be done in situations like this, none of it comes out very pretty when you get down to it.

[Lost Income]

If our government causes us to loose more money than we already have thru clawback of our principal, while they let others keep profits, they'll need to help us retirees find jobs. Sorry guys, but this does not pass the test of reason.

[notorial dissent]

I'm not sure if you have misunderstood or are misstating. If there is a clawback it will on people who have already gotten their principal back. Based on the preliminary figures I've seen is that it would take at least five years to recover the principal, possibly more depending on what you paid to start.

[Judge Roy Bean]

From the above.....I'm having a hard time believing that some investors/victims would be allowed to keep profits just because its old money, while others could be forced to give back profits and principle to help create a balanced loss for current investors/victims.

We are retired and at this point have lost 30% of our investment principle (negative profit) and the income expected, so we're certainly not in a position to give up/lose any more money.

Yet another reason to get professional (and private) advice. Consider what happened down here in Texas in the Alan Stanford debacle. Stanford and his employees made significant contributions to politicians of both parties as well as PACs. When word got out about the scheme, some of the recipients gave their "tainted money" to charitable causes. The receiver didn't care where the money eventually wound up - only where Standford sent it. For some it was too galling to ask for the money back from the charities, but they paid the receiver and thus wound up taking a double-hit. Some balked and were sued by the receiver and lost plus had to pay the plaintiff attorney's fees. I haven't followed any of the cases since but I remember there were even appeals.

It ain't pretty.

[The Observer]

All of this speculation (and yes, this is exactly what it is, speculation) about clawbacks is not constructive or helpful to the victims of the NASI scam. One person so far has pegged it exactly correct about the clawbacks in this situation:

With all due respect, you are asking for a legal opinion from a qualified practitioner who specializes in Ponzi scheme clawbacks. This is a public discussion board for parties interested in illegal schemes. Anyone here who was truly qualified to answer your question definitively, would not do so.

There are law firms that have a specialty in these matters. Search for them on Google. Call some, vet them and pay them. Try wading through the document I've pasted above. Maybe your answer is there. But you need to do your own research - just as we have.

Everything else that has been brought up about clawbacks in this thread is by people who have no experience, knowledge or training in this area of the law. If you have some deep concern about being exposed to a clawback, then please pay attention to MarvinGardnen's advice and seek experienced and reputable counsel from an attorney trained in this matter. Sitting here and listening to anonymous people spout off on what is based on their interpretation of the law, as little of it as they have read or seen, is only going to cause you unnecessary worry and anguish about the unknown. As Notorial Dissent has said many times, gather your records and receipts. You want to be able to discuss this completely and intelligently with an expert that you find and feel comfortable with after vetting them and verifying their references. Please don't imagine that an attorney is going to be able to prevent a clawback against you if you are considered liable under the law - but at this point your goal is to find out if you are liable or not. Take it one step at time, but make them positive and assertive steps. Sitting in a corner and doing nothing will only make things worse.

[The Observer]

It's been suggested to me privately that I've come off unduly harsh on those lucky people whose involvement with NASI predates the four-year examination cut-off for potentially having to return funds received over and above their initial investment.

The truth is always harsh, in particular to the people who suddenly get exposed to all of it. But that doesn't mean that the truth should be supressed. The fact that you had to explain the the real nature of their "investments" and "profits" is just an indicator that some people are still not getting the whole picture of what happened and how they played an unhappy role in this scam, even though they may be ignorant as to what that role was. The only way they are going to learn anything from this sordid episode is to be exposed to the ugly truth.

And hopefully, the deniers out there are going to learn enough to not fall for this type of scam again. I know that it sounds implausible, but I assure you there are people out there that will give money to another Ponzi scheme the next time they get an opportunity to do so. Their greed factor outweighs their experience of loss, so they continue to set themselves up again and again for the next con man to drift into town.

[Lost Income]

I agree. After we all see how the SEC sorts this out (which could take a long time), we will then know how clawbacks will work for this situation. It's only logical that our gov would to try to help not further hurt, those investors/victims having lost money. It's also logical that every investor is a victim, because if they knew it was a ponzi scheme they would not have invested.

[notorial dissent]

Sitting in a corner and doing nothing will only make things worse.

Actually sitting in a corner doing nothing might just be a better undertaking that what some people are doing at the moment. Until the receiver is done with the audit, and gone through all the records, and then taken it to court, there really isn't much that can be done other than getting your records together and copied(and yes I will keep saying and emphasizing that since it is the one really positive and useful thing that can be done til then).

I will say this since it seems to be a point of aggravation to some people. You should know how much you gave to NASI, you should also know to within a few dollars, what you got back from them. Remember me saying get your documentation together???? Here's why. Now take what you gave to NASI and subtract what you've gotten back from them over the life of the investment. Now, IANAL, and this is just me throwing things out, and what do I know???? But.... If what you've gotten back is more than what you paid NASI, then you maybe might kind of maybe should want to go talk to this lawyer/cpa/accountant I've been talking about. I'm not saying there aren't going to be any clawbacks, and I'm not saying there are, there are just too many variables to to guess, but if A - B = something greater than A, you do the math, better to be prepared and disappointed when it doesn't happen than shocked and unprepared when it does.

[Lost Income]

I agree. It was pretty easy for me to create a spread sheet showing each month amt recieved from NAS per old bank statements on line, compared to the initial check/investment I gave to NAS. This is where I discovered that neither of the two 1099's received from Ed's accounting office matched the total amount actually received for the year. A 10 year old could have reliably added up 12 checks to determine an amount for a 1099, so if this is any reflection of Ed's/NAS's accounting documentation the SEC has their work cut for them.

[notorial dissent]

Which is why I keep saying it is important to get your documentation together. It is sounding to me like NASI was making their figures up as they went along to begin with, and that it may have gotten worse the closer to the end it got. I'm just naturally suspicious by nature, but I'm not sure how much I would trust any of their figures on either side of the books. When the settlement sheets come out I would definitely suggest going over them very carefully to make sure your figures and theirs match.

[worried]

The Fuel Doctor connection always bothered me and now, not only do I know why, but I realize it should have been an even BIGGER red flag to ALL of us (especially blowhard, "financial experts" like SomeYuppie):

Defendants also improperly transferred investor proceeds to Relief Defendants. (Compl. ¶ 41.)
NASI's April 2013 balance sheet reflects a $1,477,192 receivable due from Relief Defendants.
(Compl. ¶ 42.) Within eight months, NASI's balance sheet indicated this receivable had been
reduced to only $75,000, even though NASI's bank records reflect that only $28,250 in payments
had been made to NASI by Relief Defendants during that time. (Compl. ¶ 42.) Accordingly,
Defendants misappropriated and misused investor proceeds by loaning money to Relief
Defendants and later writing off the debt. (Compl. ¶ 43.)

The Fuel Doctor money is probably long gone, and the SEC/FBI may be looking for and finding other cash laundering... but... what gets me is how it never occurred to me (or the rest of us apparently) that JUST the fact that Nationwide (the company itself as well as Joel and Ed personally) was 'loaning' money to Fuel Doctor was ILLEGAL right there!! That's "misappropriated and misused investor proceeds"... why didn't any of us spot that?

[imnewhere]

speaking of Joel/Ed's reporting "expertise"...(I do not believe this was ever mentioned in all 47 pages)...
For anyone who owned multiple machines...there are no statistical coincidences in life.
If you are one of these people that have invested with multiple machines, simply check out how they all went up or all went down from month-to-month by values that were simply statistically IMPOSSIBLE to have happened. If you have been vocal on this website and never saw these monthly reports then you missed the biggest clue of all.
If you DO have these monthly reports and did not see this obvious pattern from all of your machines in locations from one state to another and another...I guess it's too late now, so sorry.
If you never invested then you never received these reports. but if you did invest then these reports were your best way to execute your due diligence. The pattern was a joke. I cannot believe Joel and Ed actually used this method of reporting. Simply unbelievable.

[grimreaper]

I'm not sure if you have misunderstood or are misstating. If there is a clawback it will on people who have already gotten their principal back. Based on the preliminary figures I've seen is that it would take at least five years to recover the principal, possibly more depending on what you paid to start.

Yes and there are those who have had *ATMS* for over 15 years and were still collecting as of the shut down recently. They will be liable for the distributions taken in the reachback period only (say 4 years). All distributions taken prior to 2009 are free and clear and they were dolling them out since 1997 or so..around 12 years of distributions that will be *out of the claws reach*.

[worried]

From the above.....I'm having a hard time believing that some investors/victims would be allowed to keep profits just because its old money, while others could be forced to give back profits and principle to help create a balanced loss for current investors/victims.

We are retired and at this point have lost 30% of our investment principle (negative profit) and the income expected, so we're certainly not in a position to give up/lose any more money.

Well... From everything I've heard and read, I'd bet that most (if not all) of the 'long-time' investors reinvested their 'profits' regularly... it's part of the 'belief affliction', why WOULDN'T you go ahead and reinvest? To NOT reinvest is an uncomfortable 'doubting' of the steadfast belief.

Somebody recently related this observation of why it's so easy to scam people:
"The fear of a missed opportunity is greater than the fear of that opportunity being a scam".

If there ARE any long-time investors who just sat back collecting pure profits for the last 10 years, I would consider that pretty suspicious just because it goes against the typical behaviour of a 'believer'... or to use the legal language: it doesn't suggest that investor was acting in 'good faith'... it looks like they knew it was a scam early on and figured, if properly managed (which this one was, by the way), it could easily last 20 years (really made it about 15-16 years). The legal docs that have been pointed to suggest to me that if the authorities think you KNEW it was a scam then there are different rules for you.

Anyway,... I was just hoping to give a little hope that all your money hasn't been sucked up by a bunch of savvy long-term investors, they most likely reinvested their own profits and will be in the same position you are.