PDA

View Full Version : History Bits from TalkGold



shipdit
12-03-2014, 11:53 PM
I was doing some research tonight and ran across these related threads from four years ago.
If my observation that TG traffic is down very significantly over the last few years is valid,
I think I would point curious people to these two threads if they asked me why:

Cherry shares deleted posts (http://www.talkgold.com/forum/r311002-.html)
CHERRYSHARES ponzi scam (http://www.talkgold.com/forum/r311507-.html)

SD

.

Whip
12-04-2014, 08:37 AM
I see nothing wrong with the posts made in cherryshares thread. Was told those posts were removed because they had wikipedia links in them. Those links lead to the definition of HYIP.

lmao. yeah.....can't have people reading the truth.

Soapboxmom
12-04-2014, 09:22 AM
Talkgold:

Low Data

This site has relatively low traffic. While Compete can provide valuable insights about sites like these, data for this domain is currently only available to Compete PRO members.

Realscam:
8769

laidback
12-04-2014, 10:17 AM
I was doing some research tonight and ran across these related threads from four years ago.
If my observation that TG traffic is down very significantly over the last few years is valid,
I think I would point curious people to these two threads if they asked me why:

Cherry shares deleted posts (http://www.talkgold.com/forum/r311002-.html)
CHERRYSHARES ponzi scam (http://www.talkgold.com/forum/r311507-.html)

SD

.

Well, when you also consider that at that point in time they were going out of their way to ban the naysayers, since they were the nasty fellows spreading all that vicious truth....!

shipdit
12-04-2014, 10:51 AM
Well, when you also consider that at that point in time they were going out of their way to ban the naysayers, since they were the nasty fellows spreading all that vicious truth....!
That's what those two threads illustrate so starkly.

The exodus of debate and dialogue there has left nothing but the repetitious promises of huge wealth by the scammers mixed in with the river of tiny "paid instant!" reports from the "monitors".

Not much of a spectator sport!
It's kind of like listening to a radio station that plays one really bad song over and over all day long.

SD

.

shipdit
08-21-2017, 11:42 PM
.


"Sorry, the website www.talkgold.com cannot be found"

Wow. I wonder if that is permanent?

Tremendous repository of Ponzi SCAM history down the tubes, if that 's the case.

Been coming a long time, I guess.

20093

20094

20095

SD

.

EagleOne
08-22-2017, 01:25 AM
It's not just TalkGold. MMG (MoneyMakerGroup) is also gone with the same message.

laidback
08-22-2017, 06:43 AM
It's not just TalkGold. MMG (MoneyMakerGroup) is also gone with the same message.

Interesting? Looks like the TG Facebook page has been wiped also...!

littleroundman
08-22-2017, 07:13 AM
It gets curiouser and curiouser.

The domain information for both sites was changed within minutes of each other before they were both pulled offline.

http://imageshack.com/a/img922/7662/834TNv.png http://imageshack.com/a/img924/6717/GRe9zj.png

ProfHenryHiggins
08-22-2017, 12:04 PM
Ir.net is still up, and has the same owners from what I can tell.
What other websites did the twins control, legit or scammy?

EagleOne
08-22-2017, 01:33 PM
As I posted in the other thread Talk Gold Mods on a Banning Spree, my system was giving me all kinds of virus and malware warnings when I tried to access TG, and then on MMG, I kept getting warnings of a hazardous website from the HYIP Monitors posting on it. Makes me wonder if it had anything to do with this action, and they are just scrubbing the sites to get rid of all the viruses and malware on both. Okosh a few weeks ago said that the mods at TG had not posted in over a month, and it was a ghost town.

MMG was showing the site was up for sale, so maybe they sold it. It definitely was a surprise both were gone almost simultaneously. I also know that advertising revenue had fallen drastically at TG and was down at MMG. What is ironic is that they did this to themselves. They just didn't get it that us "haters, naysayers, trolls, negative posters, etc." were what was driving traffic to their sites. By banning us and/or giving us temp bans caused their traffic to decline.

Of course every time law enforcement shut down a major Ponzi that was pimped on both forums, they were mentioned in the press release and not in a positive light either. Law enforcement might have had a role in both of them shutting down.

Now it will be interesting to see if there is a new site that pops up to take their place, or at least tries. I have no doubt that the move to FB by the Pimps hurt them. They got fed up trying to get me and all the others exposing the Ponzi's banned at MMG. After their crying to them demanding we be banned, and they didn't, was when the exodus started to FB.

The one thing that I loved about both sites was they were a gold mine to keep up with all the Ponzi's that were being introduced in one location. So much easier to keep aware of who was pimping what, and to gage how big a Ponzi was getting. By going to FB, that common repository was lost. And of course on FB they can ban anyone and delete any comments they don't like, so they have total control they didn't have at MMG, and to a degree at TG. After all, it hurts recruiting.

EagleOne
08-22-2017, 02:47 PM
This abrupt closure of both sites almost simultaneously might be due to law enforcement after all. Interesting news article: Business brothers own Lee home raided by Homeland Security - NBC-2.com WBBH News for Fort Myers, Cape Coral & Naples, Florida (http://www.nbc-2.com/story/33161672/business-brothers-own-lee-home-raided-by-homeland-security).

Since this raid took place almost a year ago now, it is possible the Feds have made their case and are ready to charge them thus why the sites are gone. This is just speculation at this time because we don't know why there are gone. It is just a possible plausible explanation as to what happened. Maybe before too much longer we will find out what happened.

littleroundman
08-23-2017, 12:16 AM
Perhaps these will throw some light on what's happened.

http://imageshack.com/a/img922/316/VdyMDB.png

http://imageshack.com/a/img923/5340/4HjbGH.png

EagleOne
08-24-2017, 08:13 PM
I do remember that when checking MMG on Saturday evening the website was up for sale, which means law enforcement had nothing to do with their disappearance.

Maybe a new owner will bring them back. I was asked if I had thought about buying them. I said if I had, not one Ponzi admin and pimps would ever promote on the site. :RpS_lol: I'd go broke as no advertising revenue would be coming in.

shipdit
10-02-2017, 01:23 AM
.
Someone with a Pacer account is going to be fascinated going through this one, I'm sure:

20309

SD

.

laidback
10-02-2017, 05:52 AM
Interesting that if you do a PACER search, there are no cases listed for Brian or Edward Krassenstein...!

shipdit
10-02-2017, 10:55 PM
Interesting that if you do a PACER search, there are no cases listed for Brian or Edward Krassenstein...!

MoneyMakerGroup and TalkGold owners facing wire fraud charges (http://behindmlm.com/mlm/moneymakergroup-and-talkgold-owners-facing-wire-fraud-charges/)

SD

.

Gregg
10-03-2017, 08:00 AM
The possibilities of them giving evidence on pimps and promoters responsible for literally billions of dollars of fraud are staggering in its scope. Talk about know where the bodies are buried. Hell, they might flip enough people to get the government to let them have the house back.

Popcorn futures are gonna be way up on this news.

laidback
10-03-2017, 10:00 AM
The possibilities of them giving evidence on pimps and promoters responsible for literally billions of dollars of fraud are staggering in its scope. Talk about know where the bodies are buried. Hell, they might flip enough people to get the government to let them have the house back.

Popcorn futures are gonna be way up on this news.

Not to mention suitable liquid refreshments...!

EagleOne
10-03-2017, 04:33 PM
Sorry Gregg, but I have to share your comment from behindMLM with RS, and I quote:

"If you listen quietly, you can hear the sound of Ken Russo’s ass puckering up."

I am still laughing as it is so true. I bet there are thousands of Ponzi pimps about to crap their pants at what these two could reveal about all of them, and the potential legal problems they could be facing.

I have said all along if you go after the pimps and charge them equally with the perps running the Ponzi, it would kill the industry. I have been pushing this with Congress to change the law to make them equally responsible and charged with the perps.

okosh
10-03-2017, 08:14 PM
I'm guessing that Akmed Malakar was a made up name and no person actually existed....

Who is Akmed Malakar you ask??.....That's who Brian claims he sold the forum to back in 2008.....

An Interview with Brian Krassenstein, Talkgold forum manager (http://www.money-monitor.com/article/view/page/4/slug/an-interview-with-brian-krassenstein--talkgold-forum-manager#.WdRBz2iCzIU)

littleroundman
10-03-2017, 08:51 PM
I bet there are thousands of Ponzi pimps about to crap their pants at what these two could reveal about all of them, and the potential legal problems they could be facing.

Hopefully the DoJ will have seized the databases and server records, so the the Krassensteins' testimony will be superfluous.

littleroundman
10-03-2017, 09:26 PM
I'm guessing that Akmed Malakar was a made up name and no person actually existed....

Who is Akmed Malakar you ask??.....That's who Brian claims he sold the forum to back in 2008.....

An Interview with Brian Krassenstein, Talkgold forum manager (http://www.money-monitor.com/article/view/page/4/slug/an-interview-with-brian-krassenstein--talkgold-forum-manager#.WdRBz2iCzIU)

Unfortunately the HYIP monitor sites carrying the story are all being blocked by Malwarebytes, but here's a press release from the time in question:

http://imageshack.com/a/img922/5087/bXXbPf.png

sinip
10-04-2017, 05:06 AM
Hopefully the DoJ will have seized the databases and server records, so the the Krassensteins' testimony will be superfluous.

It will be interesting to watch what US DOJ can do against names possibly showing up in those records, who're outside of "the free world". :)

EdKra
10-04-2017, 08:02 AM
Hey Guys, this is Edward, (the Past owner of MMG and TG). The MLM article is false and misleading. We aren't facing any charges for anything at all and won't be in the future. The Pacer document in question doesn't mention any charges of any kind. There was a seizure because Homeland Security had probable cause to believe we had information on a group of scammers or that we were working directly with the group of scammers. After a 1 year investigation this was not found to be true and the government found that all we did was provide space for free speech (advertisements). The advertisers advertising on our site were no different than those paying Google and Facebook for the same ads. In fact, these same advertisers still advertise on Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc etc etc.

There was simply a very long investigation and assets were seized during that time. We are just now having our assets returned to us, and the Government has confirmed that they will not pursue any criminal charges what-so-ever. If you want more details, you can just ask. I wish the author of the article in question would have done so before running a slanderous story against us. Neither Brian or I have ever broken the law in our lives. Did we provide a platform for discussion and promotion of online investments (HYIPs)? Yes. So does Google, Facebook, and just about every other major website on the net.

The first amendment protects a publisher from facing criminal prosecution for the publishing of a 3rd party's speech. This is why Newspapers are able to sell classified ads without the worry of one of their advertisers ripping someone off and them then being held responsible. Any email we ever received from any user on our sites indicating that an ad was a scam, that ad would be removed. I agree that the hyip space is filled with scammers, but make no mistake about it, both MMG and Talkgold were more than just about HYIPs.

We decided to take these sites down on our own as we no longer wanted to risk the possibility of being sued and having to spend tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation in order to defend our rights. Having these sites down will unfortunately do more harm than good, as the real scammers will now all turn to Facebook and Google Adsense to lure in unsuspecting victims. Unlike TG and MMG, there is no back and forth conversation allowing users to warn others about such scams at these larger sites. We were providing an open discussion forum for people to learn and exchange ideas.

Edward

EagleOne
10-04-2017, 03:16 PM
Welcome Edward. Since you have joined RS and have replied to the behindMLM article, I do have a question for you that you can clear up for me. Since TG was sold, how would you and your brother have the authority to take the website down?

EdKra
10-04-2017, 03:30 PM
Hi Eagle. Any reason why my reply is not showing here?

Talkgold was sold in 2008 or 2009. The buyer defaulted on payments after only 9-10 months and we took the site back.

EagleOne
10-04-2017, 04:13 PM
Hi Eagle. Any reason why my reply is not showing here?

Talkgold was sold in 2008 or 2009. The buyer defaulted on payments after only 9-10 months and we took the site back.

Your post is now viewable as you can see. Sometimes it takes a little while to get the post approved. Your first few posts have to be approved before they will be posted.

I do appreciate the clarification about TG site not being sold after all.

But above is a screen shot from Pacer that clearly shows a Warrant for Arrest being issued on 8/25/17 and being sent to the US Attorney for enforcement. You have to admit that this is rather odd since it is, as you have claimed, you and your brother are not going to be charged with anything.

EdKra
10-04-2017, 04:36 PM
Two things. Notice that the document on Pacer clearly states: "United States of America V. Assets Identified in Paragraph One of Verified Complaint"

This is a civil complaint against an asset we own, not a criminal complaint against us. In fact we have a letter clearly stating there will never be any criminal charges.

As for the 'Warrant for Arrest in Rem,' Google it. This is an arrest of the ASSET in question, not person or people.

Edward

ProfHenryHiggins
10-04-2017, 07:02 PM
Urm. In the other cases I have seen where the defendant is an asset rather than a person, they were directly connected to a criminal case in which that asset was created by or for the defendant from the proceeds of the activities they were being prosecuted for performing.

EdKra
10-04-2017, 07:38 PM
Unfortunately here in the US we have something called civil forfeiture where the government can seize assets before and without ever charging a person with a crime. The government after viewing the evidence saw that we did not "partner" with any HYIP scam. We simply sold ads without a commission structure for a flat rate. We had the option to fight them in the civil case or turn over a small portion of assets they linked to a specific group of individuals who advertised with us. The attorney and court fees, not to mention stress to our families would have likely eclipsed the settlement amount so we decided to settle.

Note that the document on Pacer was actually a complaint written before the government had all available evidence from us. When we agreed to the settlement they used this complaint text. Clearly they did not agree that there was any criminal wrongdoing on our part thus they never filed such charges and provided a written guarantee that such charges will never be brought.

EagleOne
10-04-2017, 09:13 PM
When I see the word "arrest," I think of a person or persons. When I see "frozen," "forfeiture," or "confiscation" I think of an asset or property. Kind of hard to "arrest" a property or asset in my thinking, thus my confusion.

Whip
10-04-2017, 09:36 PM
as per a quote on BehindMLM:


The First Amendment clearly protects Facebook as well as us.

uh, no, no it does not.

EagleOne
10-04-2017, 10:14 PM
Unfortunately here in the US we have something called civil forfeiture where the government can seize assets before and without ever charging a person with a crime. The government after viewing the evidence saw that we did not "partner" with any HYIP scam. We simply sold ads without a commission structure for a flat rate. We had the option to fight them in the civil case or turn over a small portion of assets they linked to a specific group of individuals who advertised with us. The attorney and court fees, not to mention stress to our families would have likely eclipsed the settlement amount so we decided to settle.

Note that the document on Pacer was actually a complaint written before the government had all available evidence from us. When we agreed to the settlement they used this complaint text. Clearly they did not agree that there was any criminal wrongdoing on our part thus they never filed such charges and provided a written guarantee that such charges will never be brought.

Feel free to post that written guarantee here.

littleroundman
10-04-2017, 10:17 PM
And none of this matters anyway.

* Giving the arena in which they've participated for so long, the chances of Edward or Brian Krassenstein telling the "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" are negligible, at best.

* Talkgold and MMG are gone and can't do any more harm.

* Whether the Krassensteins are "punished" is irrelevant, the naive and unwary upon whom they preyed are safe for now.

* The HYIP "industry" has taken a hit from which it will take years to recover.

IOW, only good has come from all this.

okosh
10-04-2017, 10:32 PM
I googled "can you arrest an asset in USA"...
Based on the hits I got I'm taking every word Edward wrote with a grain of salt...
If there was no crime then how can assets be forfeited??...and why not fight it if no crime was committed??...when you win you would be awarded costs right??...
The claim that it was cheaper and less stressful to agree to the forfeiture of 2 houses is too rediculous to be true...
I'm calling bullsheet!!!!

surfer
10-04-2017, 11:04 PM
Feel free to post that written guarantee here.

If what Oz posted over at BMLM is correct, looks like a lie/half-truth to me. What a shock.


The Organized Crime and Gang Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, agrees not to charge Brian Krassenstein with committing any federal offense known to the Criminal Division at the time of the execution of this agreement related to the alleged conspiracy to commit wire fraud and substantive wire fraud.

Please note that this agreement is limited to the Organized Crime and Gang Section fo the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, and cannot bind any other federal, state, or local prosecuting authorities, although this office will bring Brian Krassenstein’s cooperation, if any, to the attention of other prosecuting officer or others, if requested.

EdKra
10-05-2017, 01:34 AM
When I see the word "arrest," I think of a person or persons. When I see "frozen," "forfeiture," or "confiscation" I think of an asset or property. Kind of hard to "arrest" a property or asset in my thinking, thus my confusion.

Well, that's understandable but these are the weird ways the court words things. Just do a simple Google search of 'In Rem,' as the Pacer document states and you will clearly see that it was referring to a civil matter (property) not a person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction


If there was no crime then how can assets be forfeited??...and why not fight it if no crime was committed??...when you win you would be awarded costs right??...

Welcome to US Civil forfeiture law. Considering that you are Aussie (I believe), I wouldn't expect you to know this, but civil forfeiture is a hotly debated topic here in the US. And NO, the government is NOT responsible for compensating the innocent unless jail time is served.


The claim that it was cheaper and less stressful to agree to the forfeiture of 2 houses is too rediculous to be true.

You are right, it wouldn't have been cheaper to forfeit two home. The forfeiture was not even for one house, much less 2. It was for a portion of the proceeds from the sale of one rental property.



If what Oz posted over at BMLM is correct, looks like a lie/half-truth to me. What a shock.

Nope, the letter I shared was one from the enforcement agency which was investigating the matter and found no criminal liability. Could the drug enforcement agency or the Environmental Protection Agency be investigating us for something? Sure, Just as much so as they could be investigating anyone else.

ribshaw
10-05-2017, 07:48 AM
If there was no crime then how can assets be forfeited??...and why not fight it if no crime was committed??...when you win you would be awarded costs right??...

You might find the below link interesting.

Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/?utm_term=.c3d7cfcaf97c

Anecdotally most white collar crime if pursued at all in the US ends with this type of settlement as opposed to prison time or complete wipe out of ill gotten gains. Steal $10M pay $2M in fines without admitting guilt, rinse and repeat.
I consider it to be a very big problem with our system, but that is for another time.




The claim that it was cheaper and less stressful to agree to the forfeiture of 2 houses is too rediculous to be true...



It's hard to know what the truth is with respect to this matter. Prosecutors to use the term loosely have a lot of power/discretion in these matters.


Why U.S. Criminal Courts Are So Dependent on Plea Bargaining
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/plea-bargaining-courts-prosecutors/524112/



Pretty good deal...



The forfeiture was not even for one house, much less 2. It was for a portion of the proceeds from the sale of one rental property.

NikSam
10-05-2017, 10:57 AM
So , Ed , I did not get it, did the feds seize mysql databases and other records ? what would come out of it ?

surfer
10-05-2017, 04:29 PM
Nope, the letter I shared was one from the enforcement agency which was investigating the matter and found no criminal liability. Could the drug enforcement agency or the Environmental Protection Agency be investigating us for something? Sure, Just as much so as they could be investigating anyone else.

It's unlikely we'll ever get the entire story, but I haven't seen anywhere where they say they found no criminal liability. Maybe I missed it.

The Organized Crime and Gang Section is just one section of the DOJ. There is still the Fraud Section, for instance, that could take action.

And why does that notice only mention one of you guys? That seems odd.

okosh
10-05-2017, 06:23 PM
It's unlikely we'll ever get the entire story, but I haven't seen anywhere where they say they found no criminal liability. Maybe I missed it.

The Organized Crime and Gang Section is just one section of the DOJ. There is still the Fraud Section, for instance, that could take action.

And why does that notice only mention one of you guys? That seems odd.

It's kinda obvious that we don't have the whole story...
Looks like there is lots that Edward is not telling but no doubt we will find out the WHOLE truth eventually..

okosh
10-05-2017, 06:33 PM
You are right, it wouldn't have been cheaper to forfeit two home. The forfeiture was not even for one house, much less 2. It was for a portion of the proceeds from the sale of one rental property.


How much did the % of the sale translate into??...how much did you settle for??..100k??...500k??
And yes I'm an Aussie which is why I googled 'arrest an asset' and found no mention of that term being used...

EdKra
10-05-2017, 07:02 PM
It's unlikely we'll ever get the entire story, but I haven't seen anywhere where they say they found no criminal liability. Maybe I missed it.
And why does that notice only mention one of you guys? That seems odd.

I have no reason not to give you the whole story. BehindMLM's Oz has the document showing such, which reads ""This is to confirm that the Organized Crime and Gang Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division agrees not to charge Brian with committing any federal offense known to the Criminal Division at the time of the execution of this agreement.....". Both Myself and Brian got the same letter as well as verbal confirmation.


It's kinda obvious that we don't have the whole story...
Looks like there is lots that Edward is not telling but no doubt we will find out the WHOLE truth eventually..

Why is that? While you do have the truth from me, you obviously don't have the whole story because that would probably take a 200 page book to convey. There was a 1 year investigation and no criminal wrongdoing was found. That's what's important. Everything else is irrelevant in relation to us.


And yes I'm an Aussie which is why I googled 'arrest an asset' and found no mention of that term being used...

Okosh, like I said before. Do a Google search for 'Arrest in Rem'. That's exactly what the document states. 'In Rem' means referring to an asset. For some reason Florida courts use the terminology. Please look up asset forfeiture in the US. Here are a few links.
https://www.scribd.com/document/64014379/USA-v-htmlcomics-com-Warrant-of-Arrest-in-Rem-Playboymonthly-com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction

In essence, in a civil asset forfeiture case, the government makes a claim on assets alleging that those assets were involved in criminal activity. This happens a lot with vehicles used to transport drugs or illegal goods. For example, if John borrows Tom's car to deliver drugs to Susan, Tom's car can be seized and later "arrested in REM" by the government since it was used in the crime, even though Tom had no idea that the crime was taking place or that it ever did take place. In turn, Tom needs to go to court and fight a lengthy legal battle which would be titled something along the lines of "US Government Vs. Tom's Car" to prove against a preponderance of evidence that he was unbeknownst to the fact the car was going to be used in a crime. Tom isn't accused of a crime, but his assets are essentially accused as being part of the crime. The August 21st asset forfeiture case is against a small portion of our assets, as it says in the header of the claim. It doesn't say "DOJ Vs. OUR NAMES" but rather "US Government vs. certain assets".

Whip
10-05-2017, 07:21 PM
lol. they don't just seize property with no criminal wrongdoing.

EagleOne
10-05-2017, 07:51 PM
lol. they don't just seize property with no criminal wrongdoing.

Actually they can and do. I had a dear friend who wanted to own a fishing boat and do charters. The day came when he could buy his boat. What he didn't know was that the Feds had been monitoring the owner of this boat believing he was smuggling drugs into the US from Mexico. So when my friend took his boat out with his chartered fisherman they went into Mexican waters to fish. They ended up going ashore in Mexico for some food and then back to fishing and returning to home port. As soon as the fisherman left his boat, the Feds swooped in and confiscated his boat and his personal catch he was going to sell to a local restaurant. They kept his boat for six months without ever charging him with any crime. He then had to pay storage fees for this six month period of time, and of course they never took his catch off the boat so you can imagine the stench. It took him about 10 days before he got rid of the stench and could charter his boat again. He lost a lot of money and almost lost his house and boat because of it. Not one dime was paid to him for the seizure and loss of income. All they had to do was show "suspicion" of an illegal act being committed. He paid for the "suspicions" of the previous owner through no fault of his own.

This happened over 5 years ago and he still wonders each time he goes out if it is going to happen again. He is convinced that under cover agents go on his charters just to make sure fishing is all he does. Whether or not they do I don't know, but he believes they do and that's all that matters to him. He won't let anyone take his boat out, even if they are his best friends and just want to go to Catalina. He won't take the risk.

As for Brian and Edward's case, we only know what we know. But asset forfeiture is used wrongly in many cases, and there needs to be a better way of asset seizure, especially if someone has no prior history of criminal activity, associations with criminals, or suspicious activities.

Whip
10-05-2017, 08:14 PM
there's a huge difference in getting the asset back and agreeing to the seizure being kept. only way the government gets to keep it and not give it back is if a crime did indeed happen.

okosh
10-05-2017, 10:07 PM
I have no reason not to give you the whole story. BehindMLM's Oz has the document showing such, which reads ""This is to confirm that the Organized Crime and Gang Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division agrees not to charge Brian with committing any federal offense known to the Criminal Division at the time of the execution of this agreement.....". Both Myself and Brian got the same letter as well as verbal confirmation.



Why is that? While you do have the truth from me, you obviously don't have the whole story because that would probably take a 200 page book to convey. There was a 1 year investigation and no criminal wrongdoing was found. That's what's important. Everything else is irrelevant in relation to us.



Okosh, like I said before. Do a Google search for 'Arrest in Rem'. That's exactly what the document states. 'In Rem' means referring to an asset. For some reason Florida courts use the terminology. Please look up asset forfeiture in the US. Here are a few links.
https://www.scribd.com/document/64014379/USA-v-htmlcomics-com-Warrant-of-Arrest-in-Rem-Playboymonthly-com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction

In essence, in a civil asset forfeiture case, the government makes a claim on assets alleging that those assets were involved in criminal activity. This happens a lot with vehicles used to transport drugs or illegal goods. For example, if John borrows Tom's car to deliver drugs to Susan, Tom's car can be seized and later "arrested in REM" by the government since it was used in the crime, even though Tom had no idea that the crime was taking place or that it ever did take place. In turn, Tom needs to go to court and fight a lengthy legal battle which would be titled something along the lines of "US Government Vs. Tom's Car" to prove against a preponderance of evidence that he was unbeknownst to the fact the car was going to be used in a crime. Tom isn't accused of a crime, but his assets are essentially accused as being part of the crime. The August 21st asset forfeiture case is against a small portion of our assets, as it says in the header of the claim. It doesn't say "DOJ Vs. OUR NAMES" but rather "US Government vs. certain assets".
You are still not telling us the whole story...
You would only agree to lose the money if you had committed a crime ...
We have basically the same laws here...it's called 'proceeds of crime'...just yesturday they seized a whole jewellery and diamond business and they took his lamborgini... (lol)..

I'm still calling bullsheet! !...

okosh
10-05-2017, 10:09 PM
Edward why did you ignore the question of how much you settled for??...
(Not like the reason isn't obvious)....lol

NikSam
10-06-2017, 12:31 AM
Edward why did you ignore the question of how much you settled for??...
(Not like the reason isn't obvious)....lol

My question if the feds got their hands on the database was ignored too (i gueess),
I do not care if the brothers get in trouble or not, you see, there were not only pimps and players, but serial HYIP admins, lots from US , that is what would be the bomb.

littleroundman
10-06-2017, 02:13 AM
I do not care if the brothers get in trouble or not, you see, there were not only pimps and players, but serial HYIP admins, lots from US , that is what would be the bomb.

I agree with you.

If people want to play ponzis, that's their business.

It's their money to do with as they wish.

If they want to break the law doing it, that's on them too.

However, that only applies IF they KNOW they are playing ponzis and not investing in some fraudulent scheme made up to look like a business "opportunity"

Vague disclaimers and advice to "only invest what you can afford to lose" don't cut it, in my book.

The likes of Scoville, Stepsys, Deese, Burks, Bowdoin and Ignatova, et al are just criminal fraudsters, plain and simple

sinip
10-06-2017, 03:36 AM
Edward why did you ignore the question of how much you settled for??...
(Not like the reason isn't obvious)....lol
Why would he disclose that information? To satisfy your curiosity?

surfer
10-06-2017, 06:50 AM
I have no reason not to give you the whole story.
We'll just agree to disagree on that. :RpS_wink:


Why is that? While you do have the truth from me, you obviously don't have the whole story because that would probably take a 200 page book to convey. There was a 1 year investigation and no criminal wrongdoing was found. That's what's important. Everything else is irrelevant in relation to us.
Agreeing not to bring charges in exchange for some assets and who knows what else is not the same as not finding any criminal wrongdoing.

If you did not agree to forfeit the property, you would have been forced to go to court.


In essence, in a civil asset forfeiture case, the government makes a claim on assets alleging that those assets were involved in criminal activity. This happens a lot with vehicles used to transport drugs or illegal goods. For example, if John borrows Tom's car to deliver drugs to Susan, Tom's car can be seized and later "arrested in REM" by the government since it was used in the crime, even though Tom had no idea that the crime was taking place or that it ever did take place. In turn, Tom needs to go to court and fight a lengthy legal battle which would be titled something along the lines of "US Government Vs. Tom's Car" to prove against a preponderance of evidence that he was unbeknownst to the fact the car was going to be used in a crime. Tom isn't accused of a crime, but his assets are essentially accused as being part of the crime. The August 21st asset forfeiture case is against a small portion of our assets, as it says in the header of the claim. It doesn't say "DOJ Vs. OUR NAMES" but rather "US Government vs. certain assets".

In order to make your analogy relevant, please tell us what crime your rental property was allegedly used to commit.

According to your claim, if the DOJ determined and admitted that Tom was innocent they would still keep his car. Maybe if John bought Tom the car with drug money.

If the DOJ determined that you were innocent, they would have released all of your assets.

Instead, they were willing to go to court to prove that the asset seizure was justified.

In order to avoid court and a potential loss there that would have opened you up to so many more possible issues down the road, all you guys had to do was give up an asset(and maybe some info) that was purchased with money made via your fraud forums or whatever other kind of seedy **** you guys may have been into.

A pretty easy and proper decision for you.

EdKra
10-06-2017, 06:54 AM
You would only agree to lose the money if you had committed a crime ...

I don't want to go into details about amounts and such for personal privacy reasons, but answer me this one question.

If for example the government was seizing $125k and your attorneys stated that if you take those assets to Trial, which you'd likely win, but there was a possibility you could lose and they could take even more (civil trial is only won by a preponderance of evidence, 51% chance of the assets being guilty of criminal involvement vs 99.9% of guilt in criminal trials), and that fighting in court would likely cost between $100k and $150k, while taking up to 2 years, What would you choose? Also note that both our wives were pregnant at the time and the amount of time we would have required to spend accounting for every penny we made since 2003, in order to defend ourselves, would have taken literally thousands of hours. To us the decision was an easy one. One we hated to make, because we realized people may view it as an admission of guilt. But in the long run it was the best possible move for us.

Okosh, I respect your opinion, but you are judging me without knowing anywhere close to all of the facts. This is much larger than a simple investigation of us. In the whole scheme of things we are like the microscopic organisms walking on the backs of elephants, when the investigation is centered on a crime committed by the Universe.


If you did not agree to forfeit the property, you would have been forced to go to court.
Yes we would have been, but not on Criminal charges. We would have had to go to federal civil court.

surfer
10-06-2017, 08:25 AM
They kept his boat for six months without ever charging him with any crime.
Major bummer for your friend, Eagle. Sorry he went through that.

Let's try to relate that to the story we're being fed by EdKra here.

During that 6 months, was your friend spending thousands in legal fees to win the boat back or did he just bite the bullet and let the investigation play out?

After the feds determined that he was innocent of all wrongdoing, did he have to forfeit any other assets in order for them to agree not to pursue charges? Or did they just release his boat back to him and sorry, our bad.

According to EdKra's big steaming pile of BS, even if they determine and admit that you did nothing wrong, you still have to pay up or they'll take you to court.


As for Brian and Edward's case, we only know what we know. But asset forfeiture is used wrongly in many cases, and there needs to be a better way of asset seizure, especially if someone has no prior history of criminal activity, associations with criminals, or suspicious activities.

Yep, so many flaws in the system. Sounds like they definitely got it wrong in the story you related, but they probably had it right in the case this thread pertains to.

Whip
10-06-2017, 08:28 AM
My question if the feds got their hands on the database was ignored too (i gueess),



I would think that is going to take alot of time to weed through.

EdKra
10-06-2017, 08:55 AM
This will likely be my last post here. I came just to clear up an article that was incorrectly written about us. These are the Facts. The Government did NOT charge us with a crime, therefore they do not view us as criminals in any way. We made a financial decision based off of a very similar situation as the one I described here:

If for example the government was seizing $125k and your attorneys stated that if you take those assets to Trial, which you'd likely win, but there was a possibility you could lose and they could take even more (civil trial is only won by a preponderance of evidence, 51% chance of the assets being guilty of criminal involvement vs 99.9% of guilt in criminal trials), and that fighting in court would likely cost between $100k and $150k, while taking up to 2 years, What would you choose? Also note that both our wives were pregnant at the time and the amount of time we would have required to spend accounting for every penny we made since 2003, in order to defend ourselves, would have taken literally thousands of hours. We could instead use that time, like we have, to make up the amount lost in under 6 months. To us the decision was an easy one. One we hated to make, because we realized people may view it as an admission of guilt. But in the long run it was the best possible move for us.

That's all I really have left to say. You guys can twist and turn things as you wish and claim the opposite of reality is true. It doesn't really matter. In the end, this was a much larger animal then simply a website selling advertising space. We were merely a stepping stone of sorts for information that may lead to others. If you think the Government is wasting time on that when there are criminals out there stealing millions or even billions of dollars, you need to wake up.

Whip
10-06-2017, 09:03 AM
'examples' don't mean ****. the government is not going to seize and keep an asset if there really is no criminal activity involved in it's procurement. you would be free and clear to keep it.

EdKra
10-06-2017, 09:44 AM
Oh, one final thing.... These are all the PAID Adwords ads I was able to find on Google alone in the last 6 months for 'HYIPs". Enjoy!! TG/MMg made up 10% of our total business. I have run and still run literally dozens of sites across all industries, and sell ads indiscriminately just like everyone else on the net. Also note that we extensively used Adsense on Both TG and MMG. Yes, Google was feeding HYIP Ads like these directly to our sites. In fact, a large portion of ads on our site were actually placed there by Google. We had no control over removal of specific Google ads, therefore the direct ad sale model was best for protecting members, as we'd remove any ads that were deemed scams. In fact over this period we pinpointed 15 confirmed non-paying HYIPs and submitted complaints to Google and not one was removed in a timely fashion

20336
20337
20338
20339

Whip
10-06-2017, 09:47 AM
we kinda know how google ads work. it's the first talking point of any scammer that gets called out. strawman much?

EagleOne
10-06-2017, 05:21 PM
Major bummer for your friend, Eagle. Sorry he went through that.

Let's try to relate that to the story we're being fed by EdKra here.

During that 6 months, was your friend spending thousands in legal fees to win the boat back or did he just bite the bullet and let the investigation play out?

After the feds determined that he was innocent of all wrongdoing, did he have to forfeit any other assets in order for them to agree not to pursue charges? Or did they just release his boat back to him and sorry, our bad.

According to EdKra's big steaming pile of BS, even if they determine and admit that you did nothing wrong, you still have to pay up or they'll take you to court.



Yep, so many flaws in the system. Sounds like they definitely got it wrong in the story you related, but they probably had it right in the case this thread pertains to.

Actually he did spend over $100,000 in legal fees to get his boat back, and the government was fighting him getting his boat back. I didn't include it in the post because I was merely pointing out how the government can act under the asset seizure laws. And yes, while this case is similar to Ed and Brian, they are distinct on their own merits and totally different in so many ways.

EagleOne
10-24-2017, 04:10 PM
Just because the government has stated at this time that Brian and Edward are not going to be charged criminally, does not mean that they can't change their minds in the future should new evidence come to light that would warrant charges.

The real money for Brian and Edward is in the databases for MMG and TG. What a gold mine they would be for someone wanting to start a Ponzi. Also makes me wonder if they had to give them up to the Feds to avoid criminal charges.

radovann
05-23-2018, 12:17 PM
Maybe time for an update :

Yesterday the Krassenstein released their version of shut down of their Talkgold and MMG sites :

Our Civil Asset Forfeiture Nightmare - By Brian Krassenstein & Edward Krassenstein - IR.net (http://ir.net/news/politics/128264/ed-krassenstein-brian-krassenstein/)

According to them these "investment" websites were marginal among the 80 websites they managed, and were used to warn user of potential scams : without the forums scammers would have had just to buy Google ads.

Of course it sounds ridiculous, but 5 years from now who will still know of Talkgold and MMG ?

laidback
05-23-2018, 02:14 PM
Maybe time for an update :

Yesterday the Krassenstein released their version of shut down of their Talkgold and MMG sites :

Our Civil Asset Forfeiture Nightmare - By Brian Krassenstein & Edward Krassenstein - IR.net (http://ir.net/news/politics/128264/ed-krassenstein-brian-krassenstein/)

According to them these "investment" websites were marginal among the 80 websites they managed, and were used to warn user of potential scams : without the forums scammers would have had just to buy Google ads.

Of course it sounds ridiculous, but 5 years from now who will still know of Talkgold and MMG ?The problem with that story is that they kept banning the "naysayers" that WERE actually warning about the scams!

EagleOne
06-05-2018, 04:32 AM
The problem with Brian and Edward was they tried to walk the tightrope between the Ponzi programs and their pimps and us trolls, naysayers, haters, or whatever name that was conjured up to call us because we were exposing their Ponzi's. The Ponzi programs were paying good money to advertise on TG and MMG. They didn't like it that they would not ban us that were exposing their Ponzi's. So they had warnings issued to placate the advertisers somewhat, would block some of us for a week or two, or when the heat got too much we were banned. Brian and Ed were between a rock and a hard place. While they needed the advertising dollars from the Ponzi Programs, they knew we were driving traffic to their site which allowed them to charge more for their advertising.

The other problem they had was their mods at TG. The vast majority of the mods were in the programs that they were supposed to be moderating that particular thread. And of course if we started getting into their pocketbook by them losing money from the Ponzi, then the banning and warnings intensified. In short you had Stalin, Hitler and Mao running the show while trying to claim they were neutral. They deleted posts they didn't like or moved the post to the war zone never to be heard or seen again; and then tried to claim they didn't delete posts or move posts. They would get caught in their own lie and then lie that they didn't lie. Too funny.

You can trace the decline of TG to two specific events: The major one was banning Okosh and littleroundman. The other one was the witch hunt they did after banning me and banning people because they thought they were part of Eagle. What was ironic is that not one of the people they banned were part of Eagle, but we had members of our team posting there and they never found them.

You can go back and see their traffic plummet when these two events happened. Even though they later rescinded many of the banned posters they thought were part of Eagle, it was too late and many never went back. I have to admit that of the two forums, MMG was a lot more tolerant and receptive of all posters unlike TG.

Gregg
07-05-2018, 04:53 PM
Have you seen this self serving story they wrote for an online news service.
It details how they were victimized by the big bad evil government and they didn’t even know what they could have done that was wrong.

Our Civil Asset Forfeiture Nightmare - By Brian Krassenstein & Edward Krassenstein - IR.net (http://ir.net/news/politics/128264/ed-krassenstein-brian-krassenstein/)

Char
07-05-2018, 07:10 PM
Loved the comment you wrote Gregg. Excellent!

littleroundman
07-05-2018, 07:36 PM
[/
Have you seen this self serving story they wrote for an online news service.
It details how they were victimized by the big bad evil government and they didn’t even know what they could have done that was wrong.

Our Civil Asset Forfeiture Nightmare - By Brian Krassenstein & Edward Krassenstein - IR.net (http://ir.net/news/politics/128264/ed-krassenstein-brian-krassenstein/)

The above mentioned article as it appeared on I.R.net (http://ir.net/news/politics/128264/ed-krassenstein-brian-krassenstein/)

https://imageshack.com/a/img921/319/ErQU1j.png

You can read the original article here at I.R.net (http://ir.net/news/politics/128264/ed-krassenstein-brian-krassenstein/)

shipdit
10-04-2018, 02:10 PM
I don't want to go into details about amounts and such for personal privacy reasons, but answer me this one question.

If for example the government was seizing $125k and your attorneys stated that if you take those assets to Trial, which you'd likely win, but there was a possibility you could lose and they could take even more (civil trial is only won by a preponderance of evidence, 51% chance of the assets being guilty of criminal involvement vs 99.9% of guilt in criminal trials), and that fighting in court would likely cost between $100k and $150k, while taking up to 2 years, What would you choose? ...<snip> ...

I just learned a lot I didn't know from this comprehensive article from the Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/feds-seized-a-fortune-from-resistance-icons-accused-of-boosting-online-ponzi-schemes):

"In a civil asset forfeiture complaint filed last August, Homeland Security Special Agent Michael Adams wrote that the brothers were paid huge sums by online scammers engaged in illegal activities"

'There is reasonable cause,' the threshold of proof for federal asset forfeiture claims, 'to believe that the Krassensteins would have known that these funds were criminally derived,' Adams claimed. 'There is also reasonable cause to believe that... Brian and Edward Krassenstein have conspired to commit wire fraud'."

“In reality,” he wrote, “the apparent community of HYIP sites was the product of a concerted effort by the Krassensteins, designed to ensure a continuous supply of new HYIP fraud victims and the continued enrichment of Brian Krassenstein, Edward Krassenstein, and their co-conspirators.”

"The government eventually seized $450,000 from them"

"Ed Krassenstein, the brother with the larger Twitter following, built up that following as a Justin Bieber fan account, before converting it to its current, eponymous iteration. One of the brothers took to a web forum in early 2017 to offer payment in bitcoin for Twitter accounts with more than 40,000 followers"

(my bold)

SD

.

shipdit
11-07-2018, 11:48 PM
.
One question I would be fascinated to know the answer to is:

Did Brian Krassenstein and Ed Krassenstein take down Talkgold.com and moneymakergroup.com because the feds either asked them to or ordered them to?

or

Did Brian Krassenstein and Ed Krassenstein take down Talkgold.com and moneymakergroup.com because Facebook had lured away most of the scammers and their ad revenue and the sites were no longer the money machines that made them millionaires?

or

Did Brian Krassenstein and Ed Krassenstein take down Talkgold.com and moneymakergroup.com because being identified as the sellers of advertising to the owners of fraudulent Ponzi SCAMS was incompatible with their new careers as anti-Trump Twitter stars with 1.4 million followers between them?

Whatever the reason, it appears that evidence of the original source of their success will be forever enshrined regardless. Twitter user @Fraude_1 compiled a concise and compelling synopsis of what Talkgold and Moneymakergroup were all about:

https://twitter.com/Fraude_1/status/997507206701514753

SD

.

okosh
11-14-2018, 03:07 AM
Brian is back to scamming again...(yea I know he never stopped)...
MMG now redirects to hyip dot com...
Brian owns the domain... (was a thread about it at tg when he tried to sell it for 10k...was in the folders only upgraded memvers could see...we all laughed at the price!!)...
Mods have a green light to scam it would seem...

https://hyip.com/threads/join-forum-team.139/

littleroundman
11-14-2018, 06:56 AM
Speaking of Brian Krassenstein, it appears he isn't prepared to leave the scene completely and is keeping his options open.

https://imageshack.com/a/img921/7903/omQJQ1.pnghttps://imageshack.com/a/img921/97/jWs7HK.png

littleroundman
11-14-2018, 06:58 AM
As for the supposed new "owner" of HYIP.com, what are the chances Alex Smirnof actually exists in reality ???

https://imageshack.com/a/img922/4397/9VQPtI.png

EagleOne
11-20-2018, 10:55 PM
Well, one thing is for sure. HYIP.com is no TalkGold. Not even close. I realize it is new, but they should have had more links and threads than they do. So far some of the most cheezy fake bitcoin trading companies going. If they want this to succeed they are going to have to up their game 1,000%.

nuk_1
11-22-2018, 08:48 AM
Pretty accurate timeline but the @Fraude_1 is wrong about the Krassenstein's owning MMG in 2003 along with TG. They didn't buy MMG until several years later and at one time they were indeed competing forums. EDIT: also, egold founders are not doing prison time, they got probation+community service.

Of the three scenarios of why they shut both down, "B" seems the most likely along with the some pressure from "A" causing the risk vs. reward to be highly skewed towards more money being lost/seized/fined away than profit to be made.

Now what the hell they are doing with laughably bad hyip.com is beyond me. Looks like they decided to give a domain to a bunch of Ukrainian scammers to play with.

NUK

Whip
11-22-2018, 10:07 AM
they are trying to inject themselves into politics now.