ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

[Tednewsom]

On the plus side, I am impressed with what the SEC came up with in just a short period of time from subpoena to TRO

I'm impressed at how carefully they read this thread.

[grimreaper]

On the plus side, I am impressed with what the SEC came up with in just a short period of time from subpoena to TRO

I'm impressed at how carefully they read this thread.

More importantly>>>

There are countless VICTIMS here...so *High fives* aren't called for. Ted has Cudos and we'll leave it there.>>OK??

[Jroger]

I am very concerned about how the vultures have started circling. I am a nobody and I have been contacted by attorneys.

[Tednewsom]

I am very concerned about how the vultures have started circling. I am a nobody and I have been contacted by attorneys.

"A nobody" is not accurate: an individual scammed by crooks, and that's not being a nobody.

It would be interesting to find out how they got your name to solicit their services. In any case, if the sheer number of victims is accurate -- 2500 individuals, give or take -- it would certainly make the SEC's life easier to deal with, say, a couple dozen attorneys each representing 30 or 40 clients, than send out 2500 separate notifications. But-- !

That IS the job of the SEC, and the only benefit I can see at this point is to the attorney, who will take a percentage of whatever is recovered, instead of each of the clients getting 100% of the whatever-they-end-up-with (however little that may be). Plus, even on a contingency basis, the clients will be responsible for filing fees, copying (which in this case may be into the thousands of pages) and assorted incidental costs... all of which, presumably, the SEC itself would take care of if left on their own.

I'd never suggest not consulting an attorney, particularly one familiar with this arcane investment/recovery stuff. Official websites with official iformation are promised, which ought to take care of half the worries-- just knowing what's going on and what is planned.

But "vultures".... yeah, I think you've got a point, Jroger.

[notorial dissent]

If this goes in to receivership, as it certainly appears to headed, there will be no point in individual victims, or groups of victims, having a lawyer represent them, since they are only going to get whatever it is the receiver determines, as approved by the court, they have coming. The only thing adding additional attorneys in to the mixture will accomplish is a lessening of what little will be available for eventual payment to the victims.

Now talking to a tax lawyer is a different issue, and there will be some investors who will need a lawyer because they will be subject to clawbacks by the SEC, but for the receivership per se, not so much.

[The Observer]

There are countless VICTIMS here...so *High fives* aren't called for. Ted has Cudos and we'll leave it there.>>OK??

I am going to point something out here. It was Ted who started this thread five years ago. It was Ted who took the initiative of laying out the details of what was going on and who the principals of NASI. It was Ted who said, "Something stinks." And it was Ted who got the brunt of criticism from people were, some who were claiming to be among those "countless victims", that defended their investments - as well as defending Joel and Ed. This went on for five years.

I am going to point something else out. The scam had been running for 13-14 years prior to that. No one, not the victims, not their relatives or friends, not anybody, ever stood up and said that something was wrong. No one ever said, "Wait a minute - how can Joel and Ed guarantee a 20%+ return for every investor." No ever said, "Why can't I go see where my machine is located? Why can't I confirm with the host that the machine is operating at their site?" Well, actually one investor did and got her investment back. But beyond that, no one said anything or did anything to get the slow wheels of justice moving against NASI. For 19 years none of these "countless victims" did anything - except cash their monthly checks.

One final thing I am going to point out to you, grimreaper: you have been here for less than 3 weeks as a poster. There are no posts from you before that. You claim to have relatives involved in this scam, but as far as I can tell you have done nothing to help or protect them prior to you showing up here. Maybe you have done something for your relatives outside of this venue. If so, that is is nice and commendable. But nothing that helped all of the "countless victims" over the last 19 years; if you had done so, this scheme might have unraveled sooner.

All you have done here is to be rude, arrogant, condescending and a pain in the neck. You have contributed nothing original at all to this discussion other than to cut and paste information from sources already available to the public. You were certainly not here for 5 years prior to that, contributing to the discussion here. From where I sit, you are nothing but a johnny-come-lately to this site, with no credentials, no cited experience and certainly no track record that would allow another regular member of this site to accept whatever you post at face value.

So for you to sit here and tell anyone else that "high fives" are not in order and that we can award only "...cudos" [sic] is out of line and indicative of your arrogance. It also seems to indicate that you have some jealousy or envy that Ted might be the center of attention rather than you. You, of all the posters, have no right to sit here and try tell anyone else what Ted is entitled to in forms of recognition. You are not running the show here. You are simply someone who wandered in the front door of this party and have been tolerated here so far out of courtesy that we extend to all visitors.

If you go out of your way to be rude to our posters again or try to dictate how the conversation flows on the threads here, I would recommend that you think carefully about you are ready to post.

So in answer to your question:

OK??

Not OK. High fives to Ted, for sticking it out for the last five years and doing something positive and assertive for a friend who got victimized.

[The Observer]

I am very concerned about how the vultures have started circling. I am a nobody and I have been contacted by attorneys.

Please be very careful about any contact by anyone who is promising to intervene for you in this matter. Do not sign anything, do not give them any money, do not give them any vital financial or identity information about you until you can verify that they are legitimate.

Even if they are an attorney with a good reputation, as Notorial Dissent has pointed out, they most likely cannot do anything for you now that a receiver has been appointed. All victims in this scam are going to be considered together in this scam and there is really nothing that can be done to accelerate any reparations or to increase the amount you receive in relation to what other victims are awarded.

[JamesVincent]

Not OK. High fives to Ted, for sticking it out for the last five years and doing something positive and assertive for a friend who got victimized.

I agree with Observer 100%. It was Ted who brought this whole, sorry mess to our doorstep and gave us our first rundown on the issue. Anything any of us regulars have done since was 100% because of Ted, including those of us who did contact the SEC or give a venue for others to vent their frustrations for the way they felt about NAS. As Obs said it was Ted who bore the brunt of the criticisms made by drive by posters and "supporters" of NAS, including be made fun of, by name, by several posters. And through it all he stuck with it, and us, even though for years there was no thanks for it, or any real progress made. Without Ted it was very unlikely we would even have heard of NAS. Also without Ted, pure speculation but with merit, NAS may very well have continued operating into the future. You see, people read Quatloos. I'm not talking about the regulars or those who pop in to look at something, people read Quatloos. Law enforcement, accountants, people who work in government, IRS, etc. How do we know this? Several regulars are regulars now that they have retired from those agencies, but they were reading and contributing on a semi-regular basis while they were still employed by those agencies. As far as we know someone will retire from the SEC in a few years and tell us then they saw the story on Quatloos.

Even without someone coming on here from an agency the fact that so many people have looked at this thread, seen the advice we have given, and not been taken in by the deceit could very well have driven NAS to a point where it could not meet it's obligations and caused the SEC intervention. I remember at least one poster who said s/he walked away from NAS because of this thread. I'm sure there are many others. The past year or so this thread has been averaging 1k or so hits per month. The past month or so I have seen it 500 or so A DAY. People look to us for help when they need it and we try to help as best as we can. Again, all because of Ted asking a question, we have a thread with somewhere around 110k hits and we top over NAS own websites the last time I checked Google. All because of one question. The regulars posting here may have provided answers and help but we only answered a question.

[The Observer]

Which comes out to about $79,000 annual income apiece over 19 years... scarcely enough enticement to risk ten years in prison. No-o-o-o, no, I'd guess they took a healthier slice of the pie.

Which is the point I was trying to convey. I am sure that most people are fixating on the $123 million that Joel and Ed were able to con people into turning over since 2013 and thinking that there must be oodles of money sitting around somewhere. But the SEC docs are quite clear that most of that money went to the "guaranteed return" payments.

The reality is that before this scam heated up on them last year, Joel and Ed had pulled in twice that amount for the previous 18 years and would have had ample opportunity to slide that particular slice of pie elsewhere. The problem is that the earlier that slice of pie was put away makes it that much harder to identify and locate.

I get the impression that Joel and Ed didn't realize until too late that the pyramiding of all those return payments had gotten out of control. Like any other Ponzi scheme, at some point, you run out of people with money - one way or the other. Getting "satisfied" customers to invest even more helps put off the day of reckoning but not by much. The mathematics of the situation just turns it into a run-away rollercoaster with short hairpin turns.

Still no newspaper reports on this, even after the SEC filings and TRO. Have we gotten so jaundiced and blase about Ponzi schemes that a $300 million scam can't even make the local papers in the LA area?

Interesting things show up when you do a internet search for "NASI" and "Ponzi". One is the fact that Madoff had a former employee by the last name of NASI who testified at Madoff's trial.

And then there is this site: http://orthonomics.blogspot.com/2011/11 ... worse.html. At first glance you think they are talking about NASI, but it appears it was the online name of some guy who was running a matchmaker program for an Orthodox Jewish organization. Anyways it appears that he took some money for this and now the members are screaming "Ponzi scheme" when it didn't pan out.

The moral of all this: Don't get near anything with the name "NASI" associated with it.

[JamesVincent]

I am very concerned about how the vultures have started circling. I am a nobody and I have been contacted by attorneys.

Please, people, pay attention to this. An attorney, right now, beyond providing (free) advice for what happens after you receive monies from NAS, can do nothing for you. It is all up to the receiver now. As ND, Obs and others have said, do not throw more money away by paying for anything related to NAS. You will not even have a clue of what to do to your taxes for those years until this issue has been cleaned up. And an attorney, no matter how good, will not get anything moving any faster. If you are an investor then you should, by all means, send an email to the receiver's email making sure they know you are an investor. When it is time to start cleaning up they will be in contact. They have years of files and thousands of investors to sort through and who knows how many trails to follow concerning the money. They are up to their eyeballs in paperwork. Jiggling their elbow won't make it go any faster. I know it's hard but you're going to have to learn patience. We will keep anything we come across posted in case you feel you missed something. If you have anything you feel should be posted on here message one of us and we will help you with it.

[webhick]

I suspect that the newspapers won't report until the SEC issues a release.

[notorial dissent]

To reinforce what Observer has just said. This is now, and will remain, in all probability, an SEC receivership, which means the gov't and the court get to make the rules here, and one of the rules is that the investors/victims are ALL treated individually/equally/and all exactly the same. The investors/creditors will be contacted individually by the receiver, assigned a case number and dealt with exactly as everyone else will be. In other words NO favoritism or special considerations, so a lawyer isn't going to be of any use until it gets around to settlement time and you have a dispute about the final payout or payback, then you will need a lawyer, and your documents, and even then it is problematical.

I really can't guess as to how complicated this one is going to be, a lot will depend on the state of the records NASI had, and what the forensic accountants have to say when they get done exhuming all Ed and Joel's carefully of not so carefully buried financial bodies.

My suspicion, FWIW, is that the few machines(903?) that the company actually holds will be sold to some other network for whatever they can get for them as used items, my suspicion also is that they were NEVER worth anywhere near what the "boys" claimed they were, so not a lot of recovery there. According to all reports the bank accounts are dry or nearly so, the actual income is minimal at best, so no real joy there. So that basically leaves the Oasis triplets, whatever other "investments" the "boys" lost/sunk money in to/invested in that haven't yet come to light, which may be equally or more grim. Their financial acumen doesn't strike me as great so I'm not holding my breath for any meaningful recovery here. That basically leaves whatever "the boys" themselves actually have in the bank, and probably eventually their real estate and personal property, which again could be just chump change when all is said and done, at least in comparison to the figures I was seeing in the filings.

If anyone doubts what I am saying, I would suggest looking at the Zeek saga for how receiverships play out, but not as an example of for the money part since there has to be some to come back, and right now it isn't looking promising at NASI.

[grimreaper]

If this goes in to receivership, as it certainly appears to headed, there will be no point in individual victims, or groups of victims, having a lawyer represent them, since they are only going to get whatever it is the receiver determines, as approved by the court, they have coming. The only thing adding additional attorneys in to the mixture will accomplish is a lessening of what little will be available for eventual payment to the victims.

Now talking to a tax lawyer is a different issue, and there will be some investors who will need a lawyer because they will be subject to clawbacks by the SEC, but for the receivership per se, not so much.

Agree 100%

[Arthur Rubin]

You will not even have a clue of what to do to your taxes for those years until this issue has been cleaned up.

Not quite correct. If the assumptions of Rev. Proc. 2009-20 are in effect, which is

(1) The lead figure (or one of the lead figures, if more than one) was charged by indictment or information (not withdrawn or dismissed) under state or federal law with the commission of fraud, embezzlement or a similar crime that, if proven, would meet the definition of theft for purposes of § 165 of the Internal Revenue Code and § 1.165-8(d) of the Income Tax Regulations, under the law of the jurisdiction in which the theft occurred; or

(2) The lead figure was the subject of a state or federal criminal complaint (not withdrawn or dismissed) alleging the commission of a crime described in section 4.02(1) of this revenue procedure, and either—

(a) The complaint alleged an admission by the lead figure, or the execution of an affidavit by that person admitting the crime; or

(b) A receiver or trustee was appointed with respect to the arrangement or assets of the arrangement were frozen.

If that's the case, that would be a clue as to how to report the loss.

[webhick]

My suspicion, FWIW, is that the few machines(903?) that the company actually holds will be sold to some other network for whatever they can get for them as used items, my suspicion also is that they were NEVER worth anywhere near what the "boys" claimed they were, so not a lot of recovery there.

I was looking at the TRO minutes and I don't think the number is anywhere near that high:

But the settlement reports from third-party ATM services identify only about 235 ATMs services for NASI. (Compl. ¶ 36.) Internal records claim ownership of about 673 ATMs at various Casey's Convenience Mart locations - an ATM at one store was sold to five different NASI investors - but in fact, every actual Casey's Convenience Mart ATM is owned by an unrelated company, MobileMoney, Inc.

Sounds like only 235 ATMs owned by NASI. The 673 are vapor.

[webhick]

Ugh. I'm not liking this Yahoo group thing. Not public enough and people are randomly unable to see files. People are also not so chatty, which makes the conversation portion of the group pointless. Will be switching to a Wordpress blog sometime today, as I got a promotion at work and need to write up some notes for training for work tomorrow.

I already reserved nasivictims.wordpress.com, 'cause you snooze you lose.

[notorial dissent]

webhick, you're probably right on the numbers, I was just looking at a best case scenario, and could well have misread/misinterpreted the numbers. In the scheme of things, it don't much matter one way or t'other, whether it's 200 or 2,000, the income is minimal, and I'm betting the used actual value of the machines isn't much either. With the number of possible victims here we're talking pennies one way or another, always assumign they can be sold.

[grimreaper]

... what's hilarious is how, as Tednewsom pointed out several times, that registration clearly stated many things that were exactly opposite of what people were reading in their NASI 'contracts'...

You nailed it. Thanks for creating this thread.

For those who think I don't appreciate what TED has done>>>> maybe they didn't see my previous post above? He is to be commended, no question about it.

[The Observer]

Sounds like only 235 ATMs owned by NASI. The 673 are vapor.

I noticed the difference in numbers as well, but thought it may have represent the machines that NASI was leasing rather than outright owning. I am probably wrong and they may very well be vapor at this point.

[grimreaper]

webhick, you're probably right on the numbers, I was just looking at a best case scenario, and could well have misread/misinterpreted the numbers. In the scheme of things, it don't much matter one way or t'other, whether it's 200 or 2,000, the income is minimal, and I'm betting the used actual value of the machines isn't much either. With the number of possible victims here we're talking pennies one way or another, always assumign they can be sold.

Total real *losses* (net losers) are probably in excess of 150 MILLION, given that he showed 123 Million in NEW deposits for period 1/2013 to 6/2014 ALONE! 95% ? of that represents net loser deposits (albeit they received some distributions in that period) as well as many others who invested several years prior. I would venture to say the 1000 ATMs aren't worth more than 2-3 million. I would be surprised if THAT sum along with all other assets (Corp and personal) exceeds more than 10 million MAX, which is peanuts compared to net LOSER claims.