Stock and Bond Fraud, including Boiler Rooms / Pump and Dump Schemes, Mutual Fund & Hedge Fund Fraud, FOREX scams, plus Churning, Private Placements, Venture and Bridge Funding, IPOs, Viaticals Fraud, HYIP and Prime Bank scams, MTNs, Historical Notes, Recovery Schemes, etc. Includes the Jim Norman Project and the Michael Dotson Project and similar HYIP scams.
Tednewsom wrote:How about this: he aims the prospective customer to the right loan company and never bothers with loaning out a dime. He takes a small cut for all the business he's exclusively sending the guy, and everybody wins except the investor.
(If you wanted to buy one of their invisible ATMs, you had to go through their recommended loan guy. Yes, you could find somewhere else that'd give you better loan rates, but Mr. Gillis didn't want to go through the hassle of breaking in a new dealer. You want the can't lose machine? You play it our way. You don't? See you later.)
The bank account has some odd deposit amounts. I can't remember which court/receiver documents listed it but there's an accounting of investor funds received and they're really odd amounts. There's cents. On would think that the investor funds would have nice round figures, divisible by some combination of $12k and $19.8k. Dickwad Duo could have been self-financing - which would require less out-of-pocket expense and keep the cash flowing in. Well, if they made sure the loan payment was higher than what they'd normally pay the investor. Say 30% per annum payment minus the 20% guarantee plus accrued interest would make sure they'd have steady cash flow coming from the financed investor. And hey, the financed investor would only pay roughly $120 for like 40 months (more with interest) before they'd be swimming in free money.
There's also been no mention of an outside financing company (aside from a line of credit with one of NASI's servicers). There's also been no details on the financing option, either.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
Tednewsom wrote:How about this: he aims the prospective customer to the right loan company and never bothers with loaning out a dime. He takes a small cut for all the business he's exclusively sending the guy, and everybody wins except the investor.
(If you wanted to buy one of their invisible ATMs, you had to go through their recommended loan guy. Yes, you could find somewhere else that'd give you better loan rates, but Mr. Gillis didn't want to go through the hassle of breaking in a new dealer. You want the can't lose machine? You play it our way. You don't? See you later.)
You know that if the loan is never actually made, somehow, somewhere, someone else loses right?
If the loan is made and the investor makes payments to the loan company, who kicks back some or another fee to NASI, hell, that's not even illegal, you don't think the car dealer gets a fee for setting up your financing? ( car dealers though, unlike all other businesses are not subject to federal regulation by some agency that escapes my increasingly senile mind right now)
If the lender never makes the actual loan, but takes the payments monthly, great for him but Joel et al never get paid that way, and remember, they pretty much need a sizable chunk up front to keep the monthly nut paid.
That's not what happened, I think.
What iteration of the financing lets the lender get paid over time, NASI get paid the better part of the full amount and the investor getting screwed strictly on the loan?
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
I have no idea, Gregg. I do know NASI didn't take monthly payments, worked exclusively with their own finance guy, and balked to the point of calling off a deal if a sucker suggested some other guy who was cheaper. I expect 90% of the transactions were straight cash-or-check deals.
webhick: as for the weird entries-- could be Wishner was just making up arbitrary ledger entries to keep things from looking too pat, like the monthly payments varying a couple dollars each month in an attempt to make them look like they're fluctuating because of ATM use.
I had noticed the same thing about the amounts deposited from investors. Maybe Joel/Ed started adding 'sales tax', etc., just to pump up the total influx of cash a little...
I realized yesterday that, ideally, my family member could have listened to me from the very beginning and realized it was a ponzi and got out. Then, if I had thought to research it, I would have found out about the 7 year reach-back period. THEN, I would have been another SomeYuppie getting on here trying like hell to drown out people like myself, because every month that goes by is another month's worth of profit my family member would have got to keep... if only....
this is why a bunch of us engineers just can't get 'rich', we don't think deviously enough... well, I do sometimes, but it's always too late
If you have to "Believe" something, that means you can't prove that it's true... please, for your own sake, speak and act accordingly...
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that the Applications are
GRANTED
and the Motion
is
GRANTED
. The Court rules as follows:
(1) It is
ORDERED
that the Receiver's fees and costs for the First Application Period
are allowed and approved, on an interim basis, in the amounts of $185,125.00 and
$14,242.06, respectively.
(2) It is
ORDERED
that the Receiver is authorized and directed to pay himself
$148,100.00 in fees and $14,242.06 in costs from assets of the
receivership estate,
which amounts reflect an interim payment of 80% of the allowed
fees and 100% of
the allowed costs.
(3) It is
ORDERED
that Allen Matkins' fees and costs for the First Application Period are
allowed and approved, on an interim basis, in the amounts of $1
13,047.65 and
$9,080.51, respectively.
(4) It is
ORDERED
that the Receiver is authorized and directed to pay Allen Matkins
$90,438.12 in fees and $9,080.51 in costs from assets of the re
ceivership estate,
which amounts reflect an interim payment of 80% of the allowed
fees and 100% of
the allowed costs.
(5) The Receiver is authorized to pursue Clawback Claims as those claims are
described in the Motion
(6) The proposed procedures for pursuing and settling Clawback Claims
laid out in the
Motion are approved
Last edited by grimreaper on Wed May 06, 2015 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I have no idea, Gregg. I do know NASI didn't take monthly payments, worked exclusively with their own finance guy, and balked to the point of calling off a deal if a sucker suggested some other guy who was cheaper. I expect 90% of the transactions were straight cash-or-check deals.
The finance guy was almost surely an insider at least to the extent that he, unlike maybe a bank, wasn't going to dig too deep into what he was lending against, but the loans were at least semi-legitimate. Depending on the APY% he may have been the guy really making 20%.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Procedural Requirements:
If you oppose this Motion, you are required to
file your written opposition with the Office of the Clerk, United States District
Court, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 and serve the same
on the undersigned not later than
twenty-one (21) calendar days
prior to the hearing.
IF YOU FAIL TO FILE
AND SERVE A WRITTEN OPPOSITION by the
above date, the Court may grant
the requested relief without further notice. This
motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to
L.R. 7-3, which
took place on March 13, 2015.
I have no idea, Gregg. I do know NASI didn't take monthly payments, worked exclusively with their own finance guy, and balked to the point of calling off a deal if a sucker suggested some other guy who was cheaper. I expect 90% of the transactions were straight cash-or-check deals.
The finance guy was almost surely an insider at least to the extent that he, unlike maybe a bank, wasn't going to dig too deep into what he was lending against, but the loans were at least semi-legitimate. Depending on the APY% he may have been the guy really making 20%.
Looks like even the receiver is doing "best-guess" --
Although his forensic accounting is ongoing, the Receiver has done a preliminary analysis of the transfers to and from just 20 of the larger NASI investors and conservatively estimates that the profits paid to those investors alone during the last seven years exceed $17 million.
So I wonder how many "larger investors" there were?
Here's an early post by one of the most resolutely positive customers to defend the boys' honesty, from several years back:
I asked about NASI’s biggest investor, who then owned 1,000 ATMs -- let’s call him Ben -- who was also their longest investor and a good friend who knew them 30+ years since before they were in the ATM business. Joel freely gave me his phone number, I called him and we spoke at length, then some months later became better acquainted over lunch. I live in Beverly Hills and Ben lives not far from me and we have become friends. Adam, Ben and I are all certain that the NASI business model is no Ponzi scheme. In the same 18 months that I have increased my holdings to 250 ATMs, Ben has increased his to 1,500, for himself and his kids and grandchildren.
So, Mr. "Let's-Call-Him-Ben" owned 1500 machines. That's 1500 x the minimum yearly payment of +/-$3500, or $5,250,000 per year. Multiplied by the 7 years referred to above, that's $36,750,000 to Mr. "Let's Call Him Ben" alone.
I'm glad the receiver hedged his bet and used the phrase "conservatively estimates" for his total outlay of $17 million.
I suppose, if that story is true at all, that means, since 'Ben' bought 500 machines during a period between 3 and 5 years ago, but, from the sound of the story, owned 1000 (probably most before the 7 yr limit), then any profits that WOULD have been safe (older than 7 yrs), have been re-exposed by the distributions on the newer machines. This plays into grimreaper's optimistic scenarios. You have to wonder though, how much of all that money given to Joel wasn't borrowed from somewhere else? I could see people thinking "gee, why NOT borrow at 7-8% and get back 20% GUARANTEED, and keep the difference until the loan is paid off and then keep ALL 20%?!"... how many people (from 'Ben' on down) fall into that category? Especially in the refinance boom era, how many people gave in to the temptation to pull out equity and 'invest' in a 'sure thing'?.....Too many details and variables for a simple model,... After following this story for several years I know I really would like details....
If you have to "Believe" something, that means you can't prove that it's true... please, for your own sake, speak and act accordingly...
Tednewsom wrote:webhick: as for the weird entries-- could be Wishner was just making up arbitrary ledger entries to keep things from looking too pat, like the monthly payments varying a couple dollars each month in an attempt to make them look like they're fluctuating because of ATM use.
These were real funds that the receiver determined were from investors. In theory, they should just be the ATM contracts and the receiver stated that most contracts were sold for $12k and some for $19.8k. The only plausible explanation I have is that they were loan payments, but you're saying that Joel worked exclusively with his own finance guy. Do you know if the finance guy was in-house or worked for a different company? If for another company, do you know the name? I'm interested to see if Dickwad Duo had their hands in that, too.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
No lender in his right mind would finance a loan based on>>>ZERO confirmation.
If loans were in the mix, the INVESTOR did that on his own to leverage ...using borrowed funds. This very well could have been the case with many investors....causing serious damage to those who did so.
As far as
as for the weird entries-- could be Wishner was just making up arbitrary ledger entries to keep things from looking too pat, like the monthly payments varying a couple dollars each month in an attempt to make them look like they're fluctuating because of ATM use
I actually SAW the monthly statements with 20 ATMS...and yes, they were *BOILER PLATE*..with very little variation in $$ amounts from one ATM to another>>>>RED FLAG BABY!
webhick wrote:The weird amounts I was talking about were real funds coming from the investors, not going to them.
OK...thanks. The ACTUAL amounts per investor should be known to receiver? Each contract was generated as funds came in and a copy was sent to the investor. Are these a matter of record?
webhick-- I'll check with the people I know were suckered. Actually, I think I first heard about the lender angle here, in the first ten pages, from someone who either invested or was about to, then wised up.
webhick wrote:The weird amounts I was talking about were real funds coming from the investors, not going to them.
OK...thanks. The ACTUAL amounts per investor should be known to receiver? Each contract was generated as funds came in and a copy was sent to the investor. Are these a matter of record?
I went back and hunted down the document which outlined the strange figures. It was from the criminal complaint against Gillis & Wishner. Under the Overt Acts section on page 9 which I'm paraphrasing since I can't copy and paste from the document:
#1 - 01/13/2010 - deposited seven checks from seven victim-investors for a total deposit of $246,300. No multiple of 8 will get you 30, so there's no combination of $12k and $19.8k that will get you that deposit amount.
#2 - 12/01/2010 - deposited nineteen checks from nineteen victim-investors for a total deposit of $1,039,836. Six dollars? SIX DOLLARS.
#12 - 02/01/2013 - deposited 41 checks from 33 victim-investors for a total deposit of $1,329,124. Four dollars.
#16 - 01/12/2010 - deposited 27 checks from 24 victim-investors for a total deposit of $1,746,200. 8 does not go evenly into 20.
There are other deposits listed, but there's nothing that immediately disqualifies them from being divisible by some combination of the two ATM investment amounts.
And along the lines of net-losers vs net winner, overt act #11 states that in January 2013 a guy gave a check for $1.2 million to purchase 100 ATMs for his wife. There's no mention of him earlier in the document. If he hadn't invested much or at all before this, he's looking at net loss of $900k.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
#1 - 01/13/2010 - deposited seven checks from seven victim-investors for a total deposit of $246,300. No multiple of 8 will get you 30, so there's no combination of $12k and $19.8k that will get you that deposit amount.
#2 - 12/01/2010 - deposited nineteen checks from nineteen victim-investors for a total deposit of $1,039,836. Six dollars? SIX DOLLARS.
#12 - 02/01/2013 - deposited 41 checks from 33 victim-investors for a total deposit of $1,329,124. Four dollars.
#16 - 01/12/2010 - deposited 27 checks from 24 victim-investors for a total deposit of $1,746,200. 8 does not go evenly into 20.
This is a comment strictly issolated to the math.
#1 "No multiple of 8 will get you 30". The focus should actually be on the 3 and the statement is otherwise correct.
#16 "8 does not go evenly into 20" - totally true, but 8 does go into 32. So you can have an $800 amount go evenly into $3,200 (x4) or $1,331,200 (x1664). $19,800 actually goes straight into $1,746,200 88 times. That can reasonably indicate 88 units sold at $19,800 across 24 distinct sales.
The only way the other numbers make any sense is with partial payments of some type - in which case all bets are off on easily getting the math to add up without proper documentation.
