The Financial Education Services has been refused a preliminary injunction by the Federal Trade Commission.
The ruling jeopardizes the regulation of the accused $467 million pyramid scheme. According to the case docket, the preliminary injunction hearing for Financial Education Services was held on June 30.
“A Show Cause MomentEntry for proceedings before District Judge Bernard A. Friedman The hearing was held on June 30, 2022. The court will issue an order as a result.”
The order dismissing the FTC’s application for a preliminary injunction was issued on July 17. The FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction is refused for the reasons mentioned in the hearing transcript from June 30, 2022.
Unfortunately, we still have no idea what transpired during the June 30 hearing. The above case docket excerpt is the only information the court has made public regarding the June 30 hearing.
This means I may inform you that the preliminary injunction you asked for was denied, but I cannot explain why. It’s not a good look to keep consumers in the dark about why an injunction against an alleged $450 million pyramid scheme was denied.
On August 8, a transcript of the June 30 hearing is set to be made public. Then, we will hopefully receive some answers.
In the interim, The previously issued TRO for Financial Education Services has been lifted; the Temporary Receivership has been converted to a Monitor; and the Financial Education Services assets have been unfrozen.
With regard to funds, there are some caveat restrictions in place. The FES Defendants are not permitted to “dispose of any major assets outside of ordinary course sales and related transactions”; relocate assets worth less than $500,000 without notifying the Monitor; or transfer assets overseas without notifying the Monitor.
If the Monitor objects to any of the above-mentioned proposed asset dispositions, the monitored entities will not move through with such a disposition unless it is allowed by the Court.
Regarding the distinction between a receivership and a monitor, it is just as it sounds. The FES Monitor will “monitor and review” the following business activities: marketing (both written and active in-person events); training materials; policies and procedures; document retention and preservation policies (including financial records and transactions); and conducting interviews with FES staff and affiliated entities.
The FES Defendants are required to comply completely with the Monitor and refrain from interfering with court-appointed obligations. The FES will pay for the monitoring, which is advantageous for customers.
The corporate defendants must maintain a minimum balance of $500,000 in the corporate receivership account established by the Receiver under the TRO in order to pay any court-approved fees, costs, or other expenses.
As with receiverships, the monitor will provide the court with periodic reports. This is normally done on a quarterly basis, unless an emergency arises. The FES Defendants, seemingly encouraged by their victory against the FTC, filed a motion to dismiss the FTC’s complaint on July 25.
Regarding the FTC’s regulation of MLM enterprises, this is obviously an unknown area. My instant reaction was to applaud the Supreme Court once more for allowing customers to suffer pain and to add $467 million to the total amount of post-AMG consumer damage.
Nonetheless, as the case continues and the Temporary Receivership is changed into a Monitorship, I am uncertain as to how this will play out. I hope that the 30 June transcript clarifies the court’s reasoning for permitting a pyramid scheme to function.
The court accepted the FTC’s evidence and issued a temporary restraining order. This is not a ruling, but it is indicative of how the case will proceed.
We reported on a number of the devastating elements of the FTC’s FES case.
There is a Georgia fine for FES for operating a pyramid scam in 2021.
If FES ceases to operate a pyramid scheme, the company will cease to exist. The absence of a preliminary injunction and asset freeze is detrimental to consumers. FTC proceedings might take years to conclude.
Observe the disappearance of the funds when it becomes evident that FES is not a legally viable firm. Moreover, there is the Monitor. A receiver’s duties include examining the business to determine whether it can be run lawfully and financially.
This approach consistently fails pyramid schemes, leading receiverships to discontinue operations. It is in the pecuniary interests of the FES defendants to maintain the alleged pyramid scheme, so where does that leave the Monitor? Running away from the court every five minutes to disclose the same fraud as the FTC’s complaint? How will that function?
I believe the intention here is to give FES some breathing room while the FTC’s case plays out.
When your illicit enterprise is shut down and you don’t have access to claimed ill-gotten assets, it is much more difficult to mount a defense than when the situation is reversed. Problematically, when it comes to criminal behavior, especially with close to a half-billion dollars, these objectives do not translate to the real world.
All that happens is that consumers get screwed. This is the result of the Supreme Court prioritizing the interests of con artists over those of customers.
The next case docket review is planned for August 8th.
Meta Utopia- Crook Review
A few days ago, we put out its review of Meta Utopia.
“Metaverse” MLM crypto Ponzi scheme that isn’t very interesting on its own.
As part of our research, we found a link between Nicholas Coppola and the man who started the Ponzi scheme.
Or rather, he did it through an Instagram story that has since been deleted:
Coppola wasn’t happy about being linked to Meta Utopia in public, it turns out. He only wants to hide the fact that he is a crypto-bro Ponzi scammer.
Today, Nicholas Coppola joins the DMCA Wall of Shame.
Over the past 24 hours, “Dincer Odabasi” from “Copyright Support” has sent us two emails. Nicholas Coppola’s emails were sent on his behalf.
Copyright Support says on its poorly made website that it will
Negative or damaging news that can be found on the Internet and in Google search results should be taken down for good.
In his first email, Odabasi tries to pull the old “right to be forgotten” scam.
Because of the right to be forgotten and because of the privacy clause, we want the content to be blocked.
We tried to get in touch with the website that posted the content, but we didn’t hear back. So, we give you the content and ask you to turn it off.
As everyone knows, according to the first paragraph of Article 9 of Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Broadcasts Made on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed Through These Broadcasts, if they can’t get to it, they can send a warning to the hosting provider and ask that the content be taken down.
Again, the second paragraph of the same article says that “the content and/or hosting provider must respond to requests from people who say their personal rights have been violated by the content of an online broadcast within twenty-four hours at the latest.”
We want the case that was filed on our behalf to be taken care of. Because of the European right to be forgotten and the privacy of private life, we have the right to limit access to content.
Please note that we’re asking you to take down the content because we’ve tried to reach the owner but haven’t heard back. That’s why we want and need you to take it down.”
This is a form letter that con artists send out. I know that because Odabasi put the same notice to Amazon from another email about a different website and client (ruhroh GDPR fail) into the body of the email he sent me.
In any case, the “Right to be Forgotten” law in Europe is used by scammers to hide their pasts, no matter how good the lawmakers’ intentions may have been at first.
The Right to be Forgotten is not part of EU law, so we don’t recognise it. Also, it takes four days from the date of publication until a right-to-be-forgotten takedown notice is sent.
Odabasi went on to say that Turkish law had something to do with the US, which was not true.
Due to the Right to be Forgotten and the USA Legal Content Removal Request Pursuant to Law No. 5651, we can’t take down the content we told you about because it’s in the Constitution.
“The Right to be Forgotten and the USA Legal Content Removal Request” is not a thing, even if that sentence makes no sense. It’s not true at all.
Turkey passed Law No. 5651 in the year 2020. It only happens in Turkey and has nothing to do with the United States.
Odabasi sent another email a few hours after the first one. This time, he threatened to take action because of copyright issues.
“We want you to remove any content that reveals personal information about our representative.
If you don’t get rid of the news content, we will file a copyright claim with your hosting company, Google.
I’d like you to put the story away, please.
TEAM OF SUPPORT FOR COPYRIGHT”
As our Policy says, we often use “third-party logos and images,” which is allowed by US copyright law through “fair use.”
We don’t need permission from the people who own the rights to the images we use in our MLM news and reviews. Period.
The DMCA takedown process is being abused when fair use isn’t taken into account and a fake DMCA is filed. Not only will it not work, but the person who submitted it is lying.
Even though it’s clear that Copyright Support doesn’t care about the law, it’s still important to point out their hypocrisy.
Scam businesses like Copyright Support depend on the fact that the publisher or service provider they are after doesn’t know what they are doing.
Nicholas Coppola has publicly linked himself to Meta Utopia and is involved enough to be close to the Ponzi scheme’s founder, who has not yet been named.
It is not against any US law to publish this information with proof attached.
Update, July 2, 2022: Dincer Odabasi is now committing twice as much DMCA fraud as he was before.
Odabasi sent Google a “court order” on June 28 that says the same thing: “It’s against the law to search for scammers!” Stupid, but it also says this:
Based on the privacy clause of private life and the court document we will send you, we want the content to be taken down from publication and blocked from access.”
Odabasi is saying that a Turkish law is a “court document” that keeps scammers from telling the rest of the world. Oh dear.
Laetitude- Crook Review
Investors such as Laetitutde and Swapoo are circumspect on issues affecting investor wallets and active investments.
According to a Latitude News report dated August 13th, You have gotten one or two emails from Swapoo in the past several days, which also affects our Laetitude members.
Due to the continued strong relationship between Swapoo and Laetitude, we can guarantee that these changes will not affect your Laetitude accounts. Latitude will continue to operate as usual.
The alterations made by Swapoo will have an effect on the wallet and the bots. However, we are aware that wherever there are obstacles and closed doors, new doors will emerge to provide opportunities for greater success.
Swapoo is merely adjusting to the ever-changing regulatory environment and market situations.
The details of the e-mails sent are kept confidential. I have not encountered any examples in nature.
Regarding “evolving regulatory landscapes,” Laetitude is a Ponzi scheme operated by Swapoo.
David El Dib operates Laetitude from Dubai, the center of MLM fraud. Swapoo is run by Dave Martin, who is from the Philippines.El Dib and Martin have both established themselves on the BitClub Network.
The investigation by the Department of Justice found BitClub Network to be a $722 million Ponzi scheme. The founders of BitClub Network were arrested in 2019.
El Dib and Martin commit securities fraud and operate their own Ponzi scheme through Laetitude and Swapoo. The regulation of securities is not novel. For decades, every nation with a financial market has regulated securities fraud.
The Ponzi fraud announced a remedy for lost Swapoo wallets in a follow-up “Laetitude News” post dated August 26;
As you are likely aware, Laetitude no longer utilizes Swapoo for secure wallet services. As a result, we have recently implemented the ability to fund, purchase, and withdraw directly within Laetitude.
In light of this, we would like to encourage you to login and withdraw your balance as soon as possible, and to continue withdrawing your balance as your compensation earnings increase.
Laetitude lacks the two-factor authentication security offered by Swapoo, so it is essential that you protect your account with a formidable password. Again, what is occurring behind the scenes is kept secret.
The only clue I could locate was a query posted two weeks ago on Swapoo’s most recent Instagram post.
Swapoo has not published any new social media updates since July 30. This date also marked the last Facebook update posted by Laetitude.
The lack of visitors to both Laetitude and Swapoo suggests that the Ponzi scheme is running out of money to pay investment withdrawals.
The Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission is one of the most active securities regulators worldwide.
It is unclear whether they have anything to do with Swapoo’s issues.
Whatever else is occurring, it is rare for wallets to be abruptly shut off and placed up as unsecured in-house assets.
Keep up to date on any future developments.
GSPartners- Crook Review
GSPartners has dropped its claim of harassment against Chris Saunders. Saunders is the owner and operator of the YouTube channel Grit Grind Gold, which he uses to critique and report on the GSPartners Ponzi scheme.
In late January 2021, Saunders was sued for harassment by owner Josip Heit and promoters Michael Dalcoe and Antonio (Tony) Euclides Menesis De Gouveia.
Heit and the GSPartners Plaintiffs alleged that Sunders’ videos about the Ponzi scheme were defamatory.
Additionally, Heit took offense when Saunders pointed out his position in Karatbars International’s collapsed KBC Ponzi scheme.
GSB Gold Standard Corporation AG, Josip Heit, Michael Dalcoe, and Tony De Gouveia submitted a dismissal stipulation on July 29.
Christopher Saunders, the defendant, executed a declaration in connection with the aforementioned case on July 29, 2022.
Plaintiffs GSB Gold Standard Corporation AG, Josip Heit, Antonio Euclides Menesis De Gouveia, and Michael Dalcoe, by counsel and with the signature and agreement of counsel for Defendant Christopher Saunders, stipulate to the dismissal without prejudice of all claims in this matter pursuant to the Saunders’ Declaration.
The aforementioned stipulation from Saunders proves that he was granted permission.
Mr. Ovidu Toma in relation to the Plaintiffs’ assertions and declarations. Since January 2020, Mr. Ovidu Toma has provided me with evidence of Mr. Harald Seiz’s alleged involvement in Karatbars’ wrongful conduct.
“Ovidu Toma” refers to Ovidiu Toma, the former Chief Technology Officer of Karatbars International.
Today, Toma serves as the CEO of CryptoData. Romania-based CryptoData sells encryption hardware.
To return to Saunder’s assertion: I was aware, based on first-hand knowledge of facts and documents, that any alleged wrongdoing committed by Karatbars in relation to its Miami crypto bank and the issuance of KBC/KBC tokens was committed by Karatbars’ CEO, Mr. Harald Seiz, and that said wrongdoing was committed prior to any affiliation between Karatbars and GSB/Mr. Heit.
This is an odd concession to provide. Heit was the public face of Karatbars’ initial excursion into crypto-asset fraud. In an April 2019 interview, Seiz is referred to as a “major investor and board member” of Karatbars International. In Dubai, Karatbars was selling a “blockchain phone” at the time. When challenged about his remarks on the occasion, he responded, and I quote, ” You mentioned the KBC coin.
You stated that it is probable that it is one kilogram of gold. Is this truly a possibility? Heit reacted. Yes, of course it’s feasible. Nobody believes that many individuals perceive, at the appropriate moment, that they can join us.
We currently have a market valuation of approximately $300 million as of the previous week or two weeks. And now there are about a billion of us.
Is it not yet understood?
And when the mainnet is implemented, which will occur very soon, within a few months we will have a market capitalization of over $200 billion. After months of Heit and Seiz promoting Karatbars’ KBC, the KBC Ponzi coin dropped 62% following the hype event on July 4, 2019.
Heit, not Harald Seiz, was sent to address and explain the collapse to irate investors. KBC continued to leak throughout the subsequent months until it was eventually abandoned.
Heit had cashed out, left Karatbars, and launched his own Ponzi offshoot, GSPartners, before the end of 2019. The GSPartners Ponzi coins have performed no better than those of KBC.
G999 is supported by wash trading, which I believe is steadily depleting GSPartners’ second Ponzi scheme, LYS. G999 is being washed at approximately 0.002413. At $66.78, LYS continues to drain.
GEUR was launched earlier this month as a result of the continuous failure of G999 and LYS to take off. GSPartners and Heit symbolize the euro-pegged GEUR currency. It is thought that GEUR was developed because GSPartners investors no longer desired to hold G999 and LYS.
GEUR does not exist outside of GSPartners as of the publication date. GSPartners uses GEUR to support its most recent 300% ROI Ponzi scheme, metaverse certificates.
In the event that GSPartners and Saunders achieved a settlement, it has not been made public. Other than wrongly saying that Heit was not involved in the Karatbars KBC scam, Saunders has not recanted any of his GSPartners-related statements.
The court authorized the GSPartners plaintiff’s Stipulation of Dismissal on August 2nd. This concludes GSPartner’s harassment lawsuit against Saunders.
Uncategorized4 months ago
Meta Labs- Crook Review
Uncategorized7 months ago
Meta Bounty Hunters- Crook Review
Uncategorized9 months ago
AuLives: Crook Review
Uncategorized8 months ago
A new Ponzi token called HVT caused Hyperverse to fall apart
Uncategorized7 months ago
Full Velocity- Crook Review
Uncategorized7 months ago
Ormeus- Crook Review
Uncategorized7 months ago
VsafeCustody- Crook Review
Uncategorized8 months ago
As a result of a “Cyberattack”, the company’s attempt to withdraw was unsuccessful