ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[grimreaper]

Will state statute of limitations apply for any clawbacks?
Read this ruling:

http://openjurist.org/991/f2d/1486/secu ... ion-v-rind

This interlocutory appeal raises an important issue of first impression: what, if any, statute of limitations applies to a civil enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission). We must also decide whether the right to a jury trial guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment attaches where the Commission sues for disgorgement of illegal profits. The district court held that the Commission was not bound by a statute of limitations and that Rind did not have a right to a jury trial. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 77v(a), 78u(e), and 78aa. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). We affirm.


State limitations periods do not bind the United States when it sues to vindicate a public right or interest, absent a clear showing of congressional intent to the contrary. See United States v. Summerlin


"The entire purpose and thrust of a [Commission] enforcement action is to expeditiously safeguard the public interest by enjoining securities violations. The claims asserted in such an action stem from, and are colored by, the intense public interest in [Commission] enforcement of these laws." SEC v. Asset Management Corp., 456 F.Supp. 998, 1000 (S.D.Ind.1978). Focusing on this public interest, a number of district courts have refused to hold the Commission to a statute of limitations.


Disgorgement plays a central role in the enforcement of the securities laws. "The effective enforcement of the federal securities laws requires that the [Commission] be able to make violations unprofitable. The deterrent effect of [a Commission] enforcement action would be greatly undermined if securities law violators were not required to disgorge illicit profits." Manor Nursing, 458 F.2d at 1104. By deterring violations of the securities laws, disgorgement actions further the Commission's public policy mission of protecting investors and safeguarding the integrity of the markets. Although the Commission at times may use the disgorged proceeds to compensate injured victims, this does not detract from the public nature of Commission enforcement actions: "the touchstone remains the fact that public policies are served and the public interest is advanced by the litigation

Imposing a state or any other statute of limitations on Commission civil enforcement actions would also conflict with the underlying policies of the securities laws; this conclusion strongly negates any inference that Congress intended a limitations period to apply.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Will state statute of limitations apply for any clawbacks?
Read this ruling:

http://openjurist.org/991/f2d/1486/secu ... ion-v-rind
...

I would caution readers to not jump to any conclusions about the applicability of the above. It is a ruling in an interlocutory appeal that may or may not apply to the extant matter - and it is over 20 years old. It really only addresses two very specific issues and "clawbacks" is not one of them.

[Nationwideinvestor]

Finally you have an opportunity to contact the SEC receiver. At the official web site you will find a letter from the receiver with additional documents. Please visit: http://www.nasi-nationwideatm.com/ and you should provide your contact information. Kindly rely on updates and comments from the official site not the comments on this site.

[webhick]

Finally you have an opportunity to contact the SEC receiver. At the official web site you will find a letter from the receiver with additional documents. Please visit: http://www.nasi-nationwideatm.com/ and you should provide your contact information.

There has been an opportunity to contact the receiver for over a week now, so this is not news. But the open letter and the subsequent survey is very new. It wasn't there earlier today when I checked.

[notorial dissent]

I'm not sure who Doug Cornelius is, and truth be told I really don't care, but his grasp of the subject is tenuous at best, and his assumptions and pronouncements wrong.

The SEC got involved in this precisely because it was an investment, which comes exactly under their statutory purview. It was touted as an investment and it was set up to look like an investment, that NASI was fronting. Duck analogy. Any way you want to slice it, they were selling unregistered securities, specifically the atm's as a method of getting the promised ROI. They were doing it under a contract and promising the suckers "investors" a guaranteed ROI, which in my book/experience is evidence of it being fraud right there, that they were offering an ROI based on usage fees was evidence of it being an investment and also ultimately fraud, and in this case a security since it was NASI that offering this. That it was a scam is borne out by the facts that only a negligible amount of profit was ever generated on only a handful of machines instead of the thousands claimed, and that the "investors" were being paid back out of funds being invested with NASI. Again Duck analogy, and SEC responsibility. NASI was not only fraud in the purest sense, but securities fraud in the final analysis.

At any rate, it is pointless to speculate about what is going to happen until the show cause hearing later this month, at which point the current receiver will most likely be confirmed, the TRO made permanent, and the receivership actually commenced. At which point they will begin officially contacting the claimants. Until then, get your papers together and be patient. They aren't going to say or do anything until it becomes official except try to conserve the corpus.

[The Observer]

Kindly rely on updates and comments from the official site not the comments on this site.

Translation: "Here is hoping that no one notices that I was challenged about a statement I made and was asked to prove it was true."

So the question is back to you again, NWI:

The FBI does in fact have the plaintiffs under surveillance for flight risk as reported to investors who volunteered such discussions.

If it is indeed a fact, as you claim, then please provide proof of that. Otherwise, people are going to have the impression that you are making this stuff up. And when people make stuff up, it means that they are up to no good.

[Nationwideinvestor]

Kindly rely on updates and comments from the official site not the comments on this site.

Translation: "Here is hoping that no one notices that I was challenged about a statement I made and was asked to prove it was true."

So the question is back to you again, NWI:

The FBI does in fact have the plaintiffs under surveillance for flight risk as reported to investors who volunteered such discussions.

If it is indeed a fact, as you claim, then please provide proof of that. Otherwise, people are going to have the impression that you are making this stuff up. And when people make stuff up, it means that they are up to no good.

Two independent sources had the same conversation with the FBI agent regarding flight risk. I would ask all to tone down the speculation and kindly help and direct individuals to the receiver for an orderly and calm process. Thank you.

[grimreaper]

Two independent sources had the same conversation with the FBI agent regarding flight risk. I would ask all to tone down the speculation and kindly help and direct individuals to the receiver for an orderly and calm process. Thank you.

You haven't indicated your source for this claim.

[notorial dissent]

Two independent sources had the same conversation with the FBI agent regarding flight risk. I would ask all to tone down the speculation and kindly help and direct individuals to the receiver for an orderly and calm process. Thank you.

And this has precisely what to do with anything??? You were asked a question and have yet to provide an answer, see previous posting.

Secondly, I am curious as to just what in my earlier posting got your knickers in such a twist, since the only thing I was posting is what the progression of this little tango was going to be. I'm curious now as to just what disturbed you so. I have my own suspicions, but I'd far rather see you make your own excuses.

[Tednewsom]

Skepticism is healthy. Gillis and Wishner have made a living on lies and deception for twenty years. A little more skepticism and critical thinking and they might not have gotten away with it so long.

I should think insults and implication of devious intent, on the other hand, is uncalled-for. Nationwideintevstor is cagey about revealing to whom he talked about a confidential matter. He may or may not be making things up. I personally would not be one bit surprised if the two principals were under surveillance, considering their flight risk and the fact that this is now a Federal matter, which would mean surveillance by the FBI. But the fact that he's not "naming names" is hardly some Mark of Cain.

Anonymity? Quatloos is filled with it, for a lot of valid reasons. I think there are exactly two people on this 55 page thread who actually sign their own name. (Hiya, James! )

[Lost Income]

I couldn't agree more with the above. While all the speculation from knowledgeable individuals here is helpful for investors to consider what if scenarios, what is even more helpful is verification of information.

[The Observer]

I should think insults and implication of devious intent, on the other hand, is uncalled-for. Nationwideintevstor is cagey about revealing to whom he talked about a confidential matter. He may or may not be making things up.

What you haven't seen is the extent of NWI's "caginess" behind the scenes. webhick's post above gives you an idea of some of what we the moderators and admins have had to deal with since he first joined. His continued behavior has our skepticism levels up to DEFCON 4. And that is a good thing, because this site has attracted a number of people who have tried to interfere on a number of levels with its operation from day one. So you are just going to have to accept the fact the Quatloos staff is going to challenge that behavior. It's our site - not NWI's.

I personally would not be one bit surprised if the two principals were under surveillance, considering their flight risk and the fact that this is now a Federal matter, which would mean surveillance by the FBI.

And this is where your statement is acceptable. It is obvious that you are speculating and that you are not presenting this as a fact. If you had done so, and I challenged you on it, I am pretty sure you would have stepped back and agreed it was speculative or otherwise withdrew the statement because you were not in a position to validate it. That isn't what NWI has done. He or she has dropped this statement out there and instead of backing up or putting up, has tried to divert the conversation and avoid taking responsibility. That is not intellectually honest behavior.

But the fact that he's not "naming names" is hardly some Mark of Cain.

Combined with the other antics that he/she has foisted upon this site, I have strong reasons to believe that NWI does not have the NASI victims' best interest at heart. That is the Mark of Cain that I am concerned with.

Anonymity? Quatloos is filled with it, for a lot of valid reasons.

And it is a double-edged sword, when you have anonymous Greeks coming out of nowhere bearing gifts and trying to solicit names and information from victims here for no apparent reason.

[Tednewsom]

Goodness gracious, my stars & garters. I stand corrected.

But, see, I really do like to see the best in people. Heck, I still think beverlyhillsguy and SomeYuppie are probably okay. A little broker now, perhaps, maybe even a bit embarrassed at their own colossal gullibility, but not evil guys.

[Lost Income]

Tax Opinions Anyone??

The 20% min return promised was considered income that we paid taxes on and the atm machines we supposedly owned were real property that was being deprecated, per common tax laws. Some investors actually received income, later sold their machines back to NAS for full price they paid per the contract, and since machines had been fully deprecated had to pay tax on that buy back money they received back from NAS.

Given the above....

Is it likely that monthly income received will remain taxed income, and so the total initial investment in atms (less previous deprecation allowed) is a tax deductible loss due to disappearance of atms/nas.

or

If SEC confirms this a ponzi situation, is likely that monthly income up to the amount paid for atms will be considered payback of initial investment/not taxable, and so the only loss that is deductible would be the amount not paid back by monthly income?

[grimreaper]

The only tax relief you'll get is based on the ACTUAL MONEY CLAWED BACK FROM YOU. If and when you have actually PAID THIS, you'll be able to write off 95% (as I recall) of that against current income and carry forward any excess you may have to future income. As I recall, the max amount you can carry forward is 3K per year. THIS IS ALL MY HUMBLE OPINION...SO MAKE SURE YOU GET A PROFESSIONAL TO ADVISE!

[snookered]

Here is some information about the Receiver, William Hoffman.

www.trigild.com/team/bill-hoffman/

[Lost Income]

Thanks for the tax opinion. Since we actually have a loss, I'm personally not expecting any clawback. If the SEC confirms a ponzi scheme, then monthly pmts are really just a return of ones own money invested, any monies not returned are a loss, and monies received over the amount invested is someone elses money subject to clawback.

[grimreaper]

Thanks for the tax opinion. Since we actually have a loss, I'm personally not expecting any clawback. If the SEC confirms a ponzi scheme, then monthly pmts are really just a return of ones own money invested, any monies not returned are a loss, and monies received over the amount invested is someone elses money subject to clawback.

I guess I assumed wrong...lol. Yes, you had a loss on your investment, but you'll need to wait for any compensation you may receive to determine what that amount will ultimately be. Not sure how the loss will be treated (short term or long term?), but probably the same as stock losses. Since you were taking depreciation, that will effect the results as well. Again, you'll need a professional here!

[Lost Income]

Thanks, I agree that the "tax clean up" will need to consider prior deprecation, prior taxes paid on income pmts, and any recovery monies help via the SEC. I've been told by a tax accountant, that if the SEC still considers the investment to be real property (as it was when purchased), and this real property has disappeared, the loss could be considered "theft" allowing it to be deductible in a given year. So appears we will all have to wait for the SEC to evaluate and classify, in order to provide a tax accountant with accurate information.

[ATM'd]

Please note: the receiver's website http://www.nasi-nationwideatm.com/ has just posted new communications you should read, as well as a questionnaire you should all fill out