ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[Tednewsom]

EXCELLENT!

See, you naysayers? There was something in that clawback business after all!

So, lemme see.... 800,000 divided by 3000 investors.... hmmm...

[webhick]

EXCELLENT!

See, you naysayers? There was something in that clawback business after all!

So, lemme see.... 800,000 divided by 3000 investors.... hmmm...

I had this in my post and then edited it out somewhere along the way. The various filings from Joel's camp seem to indicate that 1,300 lost and 1,300 won. \I think the government either contented over 1,000 winners or losers, but I don't remember which. It seems...odd...that a ponzi would end up with a ratio of 1:1. But I did not see it say anything about a dollar figure on either end: just how much they clawed back so far. The losers to winners might be 1:1 but the actual losses to winnings could be dismally on point with other ponzis. In the end, is the dollar figure that matters. For sentencing, it seems that Joe's camp desperately wants to believe that a 1:1 ratio is favorable for him. This is the kind of logic my sister and brother-in-law have used. "I only robbed Peter to pay Paul. I could have robbed Peter and Phil to pay Paul, but I didn't. " You don't get a cookie for that.

A prior press release stated that the losses were over a $100 million. If that number is still true, they've only clawed back a little under 1% of the losses so far.

[Hyrion]

EXCELLENT!

See, you naysayers? There was something in that clawback business after all!

So, lemme see.... 800,000 divided by 3000 investors.... hmmm...

Result = 266.67 (rounded up) which raises the obvious question of "wasn't the minimal cost to invest in the thousands range?" - The thread started with a cost of $19,000 to invest in just 1 machine.

$266.67 vs $19,000 <- yup - they sure recovered a large percentage so far (1.4%)

The naysayers - as you call them/us - have only pointed out whatever is recovered will be insignificant compared with what people invested.

To refine the formula, I suspect the reality is more like:

• (800,000 - associating receivers costs ) / 3000

Which means what is actually paid out will be below the above (assuming it was settled/paid out today without any further recovery).

Webhick has confirmed the original number can not be currently confirmed - as a result, the above is simply to outline the context of the significance surrounding 800k recovered if such is currently recovered relative to what the investors put in.

[The Observer]

To be honest, the clawbacks go to the net losers, and certainly not all 3000 investors were net losers. So, let's go with the magical figure of 1:1 ratio of net winners to losers, and we can double that $266.67 to $533.33.

I know that figure is still going to look anemic to all of the optimists who kept bragging how recovery was going to be in the 50% plus range of recovery. So I guess the next idiocy will be to argue that that ratio of net winners to losers was more like 25-1.

[notorial dissent]

Well, not to throw to much cold water on an already sputtering ember, but $800k amounts to about .80%, by my calculations, less than 1% of total loss, big whoop time, and is about what a quarter's legal expenses have amounted to to date. As I see it right now it will about have covered what it theoretically cost to get it.

[worried]

This is disgustingly crazy...

Some 'net winners' apparently opted for the 'keep 30% of your profits' deal and ended up actually still having gotten a decent return on their money (except for the pain of having to actually cough up the clawback, really smart victim/investors would have known this was coming a long time ago and stopped giving money to Joel a long time ago hoping to be on the plus side of the 'reachback period').

Joel, and/or his lawyer, is, I guess, predictably trying to confuse everyone by confusing numbers of 'contracts' with numbers of 'people' involved. AND... except for those smart/lucky 'winners' who had cash on hand to take advantage of the 30% deal, all the OTHER 'winners' are just as much 'losers' as the real 'net losers' because they now face court action effectively trying to squeeze blood out of turnips. There are VERY FEW 'winners' in this. But, apparently Joel and Ed are among that number. They have timed their scheme perfectly if their health really is as bad as has been reported. I hope they're faking the health issues. I hope they spend 20+ years in jail thinking "... crap, I didn't know I was going to live this damn long!..."...

All this time and energy spent for almost nothing... it's REALLY a waste if nobody learns from it as well... Tednewsom mentioned a friend/acquaintance was videoing a documentary on this(?). I hope that video goes big and people are able to learn from this...

[grimreaper]

all the OTHER 'winners' are just as much 'losers' as the real 'net losers' because they now face court action effectively trying to squeeze blood out of turnips

In theory there are no net winners within the statue's reach (7 years), but in this case some have decided to take advantage of settling to salvage some gains (30% discount). BTW, the $800K not withstanding, demand letters have yet to be sent. Then we'll see how the bulk of *winners* respond. Turnips and all.

[Tednewsom]

Looks like a couple people missed the sarcasm.

As should be obvious, $800K is a comparative pittance compared to the total losses.

[grimreaper]

Looks like a couple people missed the sarcasm.

As should be obvious, $800K is a comparative pittance compared to the total losses.

Indeed..but that's for starters... peremptory (Voluntary) if you will...no demand letters issued yet. I would think the vast majority of those who profited are holding back????

[Tednewsom]

Yes, for whatever reasons. Delay until they get sick and die like Gillis, perhaps... hoping it will all go away, or that their names will somehow slip off the list... thinking that the SEC et al will get tired and call it all off before they reach their name... assuming they can convince a bill collector they can settle... obstinately convinced they don't owe a dime.

I find the 0.08% (or whatever) interesting from the reverse POV. Did they pay out of duty to their fellow man? Were they that alarmed? Do they have so much money it didn't hurt at all? Is there something else they've got going they'd rather not have the IRS, the SEC, the trustee et al ask about, so they turned "Friendly Witness" quickly?

"People! All going-- somewhere! E-e-e-e-each with their own thoughts... their own per-son-alities...!" -- Bela Lugosi in GLEN OR GLENDA? (1952)

[The Observer]

Yes, for whatever reasons.

Some may have just wanted to avoid having to deal with any sort of future litigation. I recall a time when I had to submit a claim in court against the plaintiff (totally unrelated to his suit), and one of the defendants sitting next to me in the courtroom started chatting me up about the claim I filed. Next thing I know, the plaintiff's attorney is approaching me, stating that my claim is going to be honored since they reached a settlement to drop my chatty defendant from the suit in return for him paying off my claim. Easiest claim I ever had to work.

I suspect others may have just decided that the handwriting on the wall was too obvious and that the 30% offer was too good of a deal to pass up.

And grimmie comes back, after promising us he was going to stop posting here.

[worried]

I went and looked at the receiver website and found these interesting bits in the receiver 3rd fee application:

on page 33 of 52:
Research and review recent Ponzi scheme cases against banks for aiding
and abetting to support claims against CNB (1.5)..... Teleconference D. Wallace and potential law firm for claim against CNB

City National Bank is mentioned quite a few times after that, so I think CNB=City National Bank (although I saw Citibank mentioned one time too, that could have been a mistake or just a separate account?)

on page 49 of 52:
Prepare Schedule of Investor 1099 totals for years 2006-2014 for use in clawback proceedings
for (33) Early/ Late Net Winner Investors and their families.

This is what I was afraid of: " and their families"

[The Observer]

This is what I was afraid of: " and their families."

I would have thought that it might signify hope that the pool of available money to be clawed back is not just limited to the net winners. It seems to suggest that the receiver has found some evidence that the clawback funds went to other relatives, directly or indirectly, and that he feels he can make an argument to the court for recovering from these sources as well.

But I do find it interesting that up to this point only 33 net winners have been identified. According to those proponents of the 1:1 ratio of winners to losers, only 33 people got taken by Ed and Joel. I guess all of the other investors broke even.

[worried]

Yes, from the standpoint of net losers, it sounds good that family members or other associates of net winners who received money from that net winner will have to give up money. That's what I expected. It's just that many of those family members/associates may very well have been completely innocent and ignorant of the situation and may end up in a tough situation, although I'm sure they'll try to claim some kind of hardship. Reading the fee applications is actually not as dry as it sounds like it would be, there is some hints of how ugly it's getting trying to get some people to cooperate.

I think I see what Gillis and Wishner's lawyers are doing, they're trying to confuse the issue of calculating losses by claiming that any 'reinvestments' aren't actual losses. If they can sell that, then they get to point to the ORIGINAL investment as the only loss, and that investment might have happened prior to the reachback period. But, I doubt the government will fall for that. If a victim receives their original principal back after 5 years of monthly payments, then THAT is not a loss. The new reinvestment of that original principal, however, IS a new loss. But, I think they're also trying to say that some 'reinvestment' money was actually reinvested 'profit' from earlier payments beyond the original principal payback. But what if those 'profits' were realized BEFORE the start of the reachback period? That's a bummer for Gillis and Wishner I think, and they're trying to reduce the counted losses due to that situation. Hopefully the gov doesn't allow them credit for that.

I'm disappointed in the delays in sentencing, as I'm sure many are, but I'm sure the gov just wants to make sure that G&W don't have any good causes for appeals and further delays.

I sincerely hope the reports of bad health for G&W are exaggerated and hope G&W live a nice long time in jail.

[Hyrion]

According to those proponents of the 1:1 ratio of winners to losers, only 33 people got taken by Ed and Joel. I guess all of the other investors broke even.

In the alternative, the ratio comparison so far is:

The speculation:

• 1 : 1

vs the reality:

• 90.9 : 1

[grimreaper]

I went and looked at the receiver website and found these interesting bits in the receiver 3rd fee application:


on page 49 of 52:
Prepare Schedule of Investor 1099 totals for years 2006-2014 for use in clawback proceedings
for (33) Early/ Late Net Winner Investors and their families.

This is what I was afraid of: " and their families"

Read this page carefully..Page 49
http://www.nasi-receivership.com/wp-con ... -18-15.pdf

There is a TOTAL of 155 investors (winners) they billed for...... of which 33 of them will have their families investigated as well. I assume those are the biggest net winners and may be suspect of funneling money to family members as well.

for 1099 totals for years 2006-2014 for use in clawback proceedings
for (23) Net Winner Investors.
06/23/15 R. McCoubrey Paralegal 1.8 $150.00 $270.00 Prepare Schedule of Investor 1099 totals for years 2006-2014 for use in clawback proceedings
for (13) Net Winner Investors.
06/24/15 R. McCoubrey Paralegal 4.5 $150.00 $675.00 Prepare Schedule of Investor 1099 totals for years 2006-2014 for use in clawback proceedings
for (23) Net Winner Investors.
06/25/15 R. McCoubrey Paralegal 3.8 $150.00 $570.00 Prepare Schedule of Investor 1099 totals for years 2006-2014 for use in clawback proceedings
for (35) Net Winner Investors.
06/26/15 R. McCoubrey Paralegal 2.2 $150.00 $330.00 Prepare Schedule of Investor 1099 totals for years 2006-2014 for use in clawback proceedings
for (20) Net Winner Investors.
06/29/15 R. McCoubrey Paralegal 2.0 $150.00 $300.00 Prepare Schedule of Investor 1099 totals for years 2006-2014 for use in clawback proceedings
for (8) Early/ Late Net Winner Investors.
06/30/15 R. McCoubrey Paralegal 0.2 $150.00 $30.00 Phone call with A. Kudla regarding Investor of Summary 1099 spreadsheets for Early/late
investors.
06/30/15 R. McCoubrey Paralegal 0.7 $150.00 $105.00 Prepare digital copies of bank statements gathered from Oasis Rentals office for delivery to FBI.
06/30/15 R. McCoubrey Paralegal 4.5 $150.00 $675.00 Prepare Schedule of Investor 1099 totals for years 2006-2014 for use in clawback proceedings
for (33) Early/ Late Net Winner Investors and their families

[grimreaper]

Page 35 indicates they were investigating at least 660 investors in clawback proceedings. At least that's how I interpret this.

http://www.nasi-receivership.com/wp-con ... -18-15.pdf

[Hyrion]

There is a TOTAL of 155 investors (winners)

Assuming all unique (in other words, those billing points didn't include the same person twice), the new comparisons:

• 1 : 1 predicted

vs

• 18.4 : 1 current actual

And my previous math was bad, it really should have been 89.9 : 1 not 90.9 : 1

I noticed I forgot to subtract the winners from the total sum before dividing for the ratio.

[grimreaper]

Keep in mind that 155 is probably only a partial list, since it covers billing through June 2015. They probably went after the biggest winners first? I assume we will see additional winners investigated as time passes.

[worried]

This is on the 2nd or 3rd page of this discussion thread:

I know Joel Gillis personally, as well as his partner, Ed Wishner, as I have since 2004 when I was referred to NASI by a friend ..... That situation continued until the end of 2011, by which time I had long since recouped my original investment and was well into profit. I was then in a position to purchase substantially more ATMs. During the course of the next 18 months, I increased my position to 250 ATMs.

Before doing so, however, I did significant due diligence in 2011 on Joel and Ed and NASI. I saw these blogs (the ones that were written before then, at least) but I observed that they were nothing more than vague suspicions and innuendos based on no firsthand knowledge whatsoever. Nevertheless, they gave me the jitters. Are these cynical bloggers the sophisticated ones and am I the goat?.... Thus endeth the lesson.

I added the emphasis of course. I hope BHM learned his lesson.... and those same cynical bloggers BHM referred to have been on here in the last year and a half cautioning continuously about clinging to false hope that there will be a lot of money available to pay 'losers' back.

So far the receiver has clawed back a little over $1M, out of what is probably a $400-500M dollar scam (31000+ contracts at $12k or $18k apiece, we don't know the breakdown). And those were the easy clawbacks, that's 1 out of 500, that's 0.2%, that's not even one penny on the dollar yet. And much if not most of that money is going to the receiver and lawyer so far.

And, note that BeverlyHillsMan (if he is real), is a 'net LOSER', so... no clawback from him...