Thread: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville

Originally Posted by gk1034

Technically, he can't get a loan on the flat without permission from the receiver. She has jurisdiction over ALL of his assets.

Does that include assets in foreign countries that may now be half owned by his new "wife" ?

Originally Posted by ribshaw

I pulled the below from an article within the site linked. The actual article was a rare case where investors might have gotten 100% back and I didn't want to link that since some of these folks are pinning their hopes on anything.

He doesn't give a source for the quote but that is probably a good a target as any.



"it is estimated that the average investor recovery from a Ponzi scheme is less than 10%."
Ponzitracker - Ponzitracker


The reality being if most of these folks could make judicious decisions in general, they wouldn't be scams in the first place. Money spent on strippers, gambling, drugs, prostitutes, other stupid ventures, and swag is long gone.

If memory serves,(always a concern with an aged brain :-) in the case where a 100% refund was available, that was primarily due to a massive campaign by pimps to keep members from registering for the refund. They used all sorts of scare tactics, including the usual cospiracy rubbish about ' " the government only wants your details so they can track you down," etc. etc!

l guess it depends on the marital property laws wherever they live (not sure if that counts as Dubai, the UK, or Utah). If it's a jurisdiction where what you brought in stays "yours" than he can't shield it by giving it to her...if it's community property- well- you'd need an opinion from an attorney, I suppose.

Originally Posted by ribshaw

I have not seen a total, as in the infamous "numbers on the screen" haters are always droning about. My working hypothesis is the illusion of earnings is much higher than what is below.




Not since the day the first ad pack was sold. I had looked at this once before, and believe it's worse than originally thought.



$738,500,000 Ad Pack Sales = 14,770,000 ads pack sold
$3,000,000 product sales (this is the ONLY amount where true revenue could be shared)
---------------------------------
$741,500,000 Total sales
$73,850,000 (commissions paid on ad pack sales only)
---------------------------------
$667,650,000 left in Dubai Bank of Monsoon

14,770,000 * $50 = $738,850,000 (notice that even without the non guaranteed were just buying a service "rev share" Monsoon can't pay its bills)

In the RED from day one.


Taken from item 35.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/compl.../comp23604.pdf

================================================== ===

Item 37 from above tells us $618,000,000 was "shared" with members. This was "shared" at the rate of $55 per pack rounding up ($618M/55) means 11,236,394 packs were retired.

14,770,000
11,236,300
----------------

3,533,700 packs remaining * $50 = $176,685,000 owed


$667,650,000
$618,000,000
------------------------
$49,650,000 very best case I didn't buy the wife a flat, siphon cash or pay the guy running the script cash on hand.



Attachment 14836

and we do know some of these numbers are a bit off even the sec admits that as the business was still operating at the time of the data collection.
i find no problems in any of the numbers provided except when it comes to the amount owed to purchasing members

the total amount owed comes from the total of 207 million dollars spent not the 600 plus million in repurchases . the repurchases should not count as anything owed . unless the sec feels extra generous.

my account for instance 717 total adpacks have expired 95 pending and 22 active . im not actually out of pocket even on the second round of buying packs from payza in January.

so 207 total amount actually spent from outside processors minus the 3 million on other services =204 million

204 million can buy a maximum of 4,080,000 ad packs not 15 million .

in the case documents he was asked how many adpacks have reached their 55 or maximum earning potential . the response was that half of them have already expired or run their course.

if thats the case then there is 2 million adpacks in circulation that have not earned a full 55$ yet that are actually owed anything on . and the 5$ profit is not owed , guaranteed or expected unless the sec wishes to send that to the members.

out of that 2 million adpacks one then would have to know the numbers of the ones about to expire vs the ones that are brand new. these are the real numbers of whats owed .

charles had said that only 27 million was needed to pay members whats actually owed on members accounts . but we dont know if thats one days worth , 2 days worth of earnings or the total of actual out of pocket ad packs purchases..

these are the numbers that need to be dug up not the 600 plus million in repurchases.. but yet we dont see these numbers . i wonder why?

Apologies if this has been posted before but he's a little cracker, isn't he? What used to be called a "barrack-room lawyer"

TM 167 Aug 16.jpg TM 168 Aug 16.jpg

And Chazza is now in talks "with the right people" - glad to hear it!

Originally Posted by stacy532

and we do know some of these numbers are a bit off even the sec admits that as the business was still operating at the time of the data collection.
i find no problems in any of the numbers provided except when it comes to the amount owed to purchasing members

the total amount owed comes from the total of 207 million dollars spent not the 600 plus million in repurchases . the repurchases should not count as anything owed . unless the sec feels extra generous.

my account for instance 717 total adpacks have expired 95 pending and 22 active . im not actually out of pocket even on the second round of buying packs from payza in January.

so 207 total amount actually spent from outside processors minus the 3 million on other services =204 million

204 million can buy a maximum of 4,080,000 ad packs not 15 million .

in the case documents he was asked how many adpacks have reached their 55 or maximum earning potential . the response was that half of them have already expired or run their course.

if thats the case then there is 2 million adpacks in circulation that have not earned a full 55$ yet that are actually owed anything on . and the 5$ profit is not owed , guaranteed or expected unless the sec wishes to send that to the members.

out of that 2 million adpacks one then would have to know the numbers of the ones about to expire vs the ones that are brand new. these are the real numbers of whats owed .

charles had said that only 27 million was needed to pay members whats actually owed on members accounts . but we dont know if thats one days worth , 2 days worth of earnings or the total of actual out of pocket ad packs purchases..

these are the numbers that need to be dug up not the 600 plus million in repurchases.. but yet we dont see these numbers . i wonder why?

Stacy is making this way too complicated. For every AdPack sold for $50 the investor was promised $55. If only .4% (4/10 of a percent) of the company assets was money generated from advertising revenue there is literally almost no money to pay what is owed. The business isn't generating income and the money is only really coming in from AdPacks being peddled fraudulently. And, with Chucky skimming money and other business expenses this deal is in the hole and there is no way it can pay the promised returns. The only way to keep a fraud like this going is to pay the early entrants with money coming in from later entrants. That is why ponzis such as this collapse. It is a very simple math question that obviously Stacy will never be able to understand. The education in the United States obviously needs emergency attention!

Originally Posted by ribshaw

...

Not since the day the first ad pack was sold...

A small correction, TM could no longer pay its obligation once first $55 was withdrawn.
By obligation I mean even if TM wanted to refund everyone their $50 initial principals, they would not be able to, right from the moment of first withdrawal over $50.

So, if, as the pimps and Chuckles now want you to believe, there was no investment or guarantee of profits, why in the world would they put money in? In that case it is merely a scenario of Charles having you send him money for adpacks that are only seen by others sending him money! Without outside sales, there is no profit! It is the standard MLM downfall, if product is not purchased by discreet customers, it is just one big circle jerk!!!

Charles_Scoville.jpg
Charles_Scoville_001.jpg

There's no reason for Charles to be confused:

"Unregistered investments. Ponzi schemes typically involve investments that have not been registered with the SEC or with state regulators. Registration is important because it provides investors with access to key information about the company's management, products, services, and finances.

Unlicensed sellers. Federal and state securities laws require investment professionals and their firms to be licensed or registered. Most Ponzi schemes involve unlicensed individuals or unregistered firms."


https://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm

Originally Posted by stacy532

....
these are the numbers that need to be dug up not the 600 plus million in repurchases.. but yet we dont see these numbers . i wonder why?

Be patient, Once the receiver does adequate accounting the picture will be more clear.
We have not seen all the bank accounts Scoville and family syphoned the money to, we have not seen Payza and STP stats yet, for now only Paypal cooperated and from their data it is clearly seen as a ponzi, forget those repurchases for a moment - see item 45: since the begining TM received $134m in , $61m was paid out to investors , $60m frozen by paypal - so where did $13m disapeared ? Scoville lifestyle ?

How he intended to pay pending packs whose obligations are in hundreds of millions ? Do you hope he has those hundreds of millions in Payza or STP ? But in his own words he kept most in Paypal. And in his own words he described the scheme as a ponzi , voluntary to the SEC officers.

Originally Posted by NikSam

Be patient, Once the receiver does adequate accounting the picture will be more clear.
We have not seen all the bank accounts Scoville and family syphoned the money to, we have not seen Payza and STP stats yet, for now only Paypal cooperated and from their data it is clearly seen as a ponzi, forget those repurchases for a moment - see item 45: since the begining TM received $134m in , $61m was paid out to investors , $60m frozen by paypal - so where did $13m disapeared ? Scoville lifestyle ?

How he intended to pay pending packs whose obligations are in hundreds of millions ? Do you hope he has those hundreds of millions in Payza or STP ? But in his own words he kept most in Paypal. And in his own words he described the scheme as a ponzi , voluntary to the SEC officers.

How can it possibly be a ponzi when charles ahs the words "this is not an investment" on his website. :D

Im thinking tonight, I grab some girl off the street, force myself onto her and gently whisper "its not rape, its surprise sex" and in Chuckies world, thats fine

Calabro Jr thanking the Ponzi Pimps who helped him learn how to scam others to the tune of a little over 1 million dollars in 2.4 years...

https://www.facebook.com/frankiecala...24823714215983

Originally Posted by NikSam

Be patient, Once the receiver does adequate accounting the picture will be more clear.
We have not seen all the bank accounts Scoville and family syphoned the money to, we have not seen Payza and STP stats yet, for now only Paypal cooperated and from their data it is clearly seen as a ponzi, forget those repurchases for a moment - see item 45: since the begining TM received $134m in , $61m was paid out to investors , $60m frozen by paypal - so where did $13m disapeared ? Scoville lifestyle ?

How he intended to pay pending packs whose obligations are in hundreds of millions ? Do you hope he has those hundreds of millions in Payza or STP ? But in his own words he kept most in Paypal. And in his own words he described the scheme as a ponzi , voluntary to the SEC officers.

So your in agreement with the 134 million in to paypal? And 61 million paid out that covered half the adpacks? And paid out all the referral comissions.. Scott frost and charles spoke and said half the adpacks have run their course.. So your saying the 60 million thats left cant pay whats owed on the other half of the adpacks eventhough 61 million did ? The 13 million actually is admin cost and whats left in there as repurchases..

Originally Posted by NikSam

A small correction, TM could no longer pay its obligation once first $55 was withdrawn.
By obligation I mean even if TM wanted to refund everyone their $50 initial principals, they would not be able to, right from the moment of first withdrawal over $50.

As soon as a $50 pack is sold, $5 commission is wired to the pimp that sold it. This leaves $45 in the coffers, by the time $55 is magically shared the hole is deep.

Originally Posted by stacy532

So your in agreement with the 134 million in to paypal? And 61 million paid out that covered half the adpacks? And paid out all the referral comissions.. Scott frost and charles spoke and said half the adpacks have run their course.. So your saying the 60 million thats left cant pay whats owed on the other half of the adpacks eventhough 61 million did ? The 13 million actually is admin cost and whats left in there as repurchases..

No absolutely not in agreement of anything "half" , it is what it is: 134 in , 61 out, 60 busted. and no money at all to cover thousands of millions which are due. The numbers on the screen is just the numbers on the screen and they do not matter in a global picture. There is not enough money to even return principals to victims, let alone all the virtual repurchases and profits.

Some withdrawn, some reinvested, most will never see a penny. Yes, Charles shared his loot with pimps and players who knew they had to withdraw systematically - thats just that.

Originally Posted by ribshaw

As soon as a $50 pack is sold, $5 commission is wired to the pimp that sold it. This leaves $45 in the coffers, by the time $55 is magically shared the hole is deep.

Those are still just numbers on the screen, not cashed out, once more than $50 first withdrawn , the scheme technically goes in red.

Originally Posted by stacy532

and we do know some of these numbers are a bit off even the sec admits that as the business was still operating at the time of the data collection.
i find no problems in any of the numbers provided except when it comes to the amount owed to purchasing members

the total amount owed comes from the total of 207 million dollars spent not the 600 plus million in repurchases . the repurchases should not count as anything owed . unless the sec feels extra generous.

my account for instance 717 total adpacks have expired 95 pending and 22 active . im not actually out of pocket even on the second round of buying packs from payza in January.

so 207 total amount actually spent from outside processors minus the 3 million on other services =204 million

204 million can buy a maximum of 4,080,000 ad packs not 15 million .

in the case documents he was asked how many adpacks have reached their 55 or maximum earning potential . the response was that half of them have already expired or run their course.

if thats the case then there is 2 million adpacks in circulation that have not earned a full 55$ yet that are actually owed anything on . and the 5$ profit is not owed , guaranteed or expected unless the sec wishes to send that to the members.

out of that 2 million adpacks one then would have to know the numbers of the ones about to expire vs the ones that are brand new. these are the real numbers of whats owed .

charles had said that only 27 million was needed to pay members whats actually owed on members accounts . but we dont know if thats one days worth , 2 days worth of earnings or the total of actual out of pocket ad packs purchases..

these are the numbers that need to be dug up not the 600 plus million in repurchases.. but yet we dont see these numbers . i wonder why?

word salad.JPG

Absent better information people can use my back of the envelope numbers or whatever all that was all supposed to mean.

http://www.realscam.com/f8/traffic-m...tml#post104336
http://www.realscam.com/f8/traffic-m...tml#post103744

Up to them.

Originally Posted by stacy532

204 million can buy a maximum of 4,080,000 ad packs not 15 million .

Yet somehow according to items 43 and 61 respectively...

"As of May 16, 2016, Traffic Monsoon had sold 15,225,689 AdPacks"

"Traffic Monsoon reports that it has sold approximately 14 million AdPacks to
about 162,000 investors."

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/compl.../comp23604.pdf

Stepped in It.JPG

Originally Posted by stacy532

charles had said that only 27 million was needed to pay members whats actually owed on members accounts these are the numbers that need to be dug up not the 600 plus million in repurchases.. but yet we dont see these numbers . i wonder why?

Item 37 says " Of its revenue since inception, Traffic Monsoon has shared approximately $618 million with AdPack purchasers." If a bunch of "sharing" was meaningless repurchases, folks can divide my numbers by 3 or 4 or 10 the day isn't suddenly saved. In fact you drew attention to Scoville showing people account balances he couldn't possibly pay in this and any future lifetimes.

ehhh, stupid me , when I said multiple times "thousands of millions", I meant "hundreds of millions".

Just a clarification, before people start calling me a liar or bad in math :)

LOL, dontcha just love it when these backwater guys that can barely add two plus two and get a consistent answer try to claim that forensic accountants are wrong?

The numbers are also in the same court papers yet you guys only post the 600 and 700 million repurchase numbers .. Yet they also mention total spends or 207 million 204 after 3 million spent on other services . 134 million spent in paypal .. 61 million withdrawn from half the adpacks .. 60 million left to withdraw to the other half of the adpacks ..the information is there and still only selective reading and writing.. I guess its to be expected..

Originally Posted by stacy532

The numbers are also in the same court papers yet you guys only post the 600 and 700 million repurchase numbers .. Yet they also mention total spends or 207 million 204 after 3 million spent on other services . 134 million spent in paypal .. 61 million withdrawn from half the adpacks .. 60 million left to withdraw to the other half of the adpacks ..the information is there and still only selective reading and writing.. I guess its to be expected..

Stacy, you are quite slow on the take here. Repurchases as you call them mean in English that folks didn't take out money they were owed, but reinvested it in this scam. That still means they are owed for all the packs they purchased whether through their original payment or reinvesting in this investment scam. Sheesh!

Except the SEC DOES understand the business model...

Charles_Scoville.jpg

Mark Lloyd is still running his mouth and clueless....

Mark_Lloyd.jpg

I think the best thing is for stacy to explain where the profit comes from, that might give some clue as to his train of thought.