MINNEAPOLIS FEDERAL AGENTS HIT ALLEGED PONZI AD SURF COMPANY
IDEA CAME FROM ADSURF DAILY - BELOW?
Inter-Mark Corp - iNetGlobal
Editor's Opinion Note: The MLM Watchdog was the FIRST TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON ADSURF DAILY (below). Now we have an Ad Surfer that started his own deal. He targeted Chinese Canada. Why? Less complaints! Steve Renner, owner and promoter of iNetGlobal has not been charged.
24 Feb 2010 Agents with the Secret Service, IRS-Criminal Investigations, the FBI and the Minnesota Financial Crimes Task Force raided iNetGlobal offices at 250 2nd Av. S. about 10 a.m. yesterday, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. Employees were told to leave the offices. Federal agents began poring through iNetGlobal business files and company computers. The search took all day.
Agents kept wheeling out carts carrying boxes and computers out of the office. Per the Secret Service's special agent in charge in Minneapolis, the search was "part of the Secret Service's investigation of an alleged Ponzi scheme headquartered in Minneapolis and that is operating over the Internet."
Editor's Opinion Note: This reportedly was an AdSurf ponzi sheme similar to AdSurf Daily, except the joining cost was $2000. Reportedly, many Chinese people joined and the take was in the "millions!"
AD SURF DAILY VICTIMS ASSISTANCE
The Secret Service website (link below) contains information for persons who purchased "ad packages" from AdSurfDaily Inc. through one of the following web sites: www.adsurfdaily.com, www.asdcashgenerator.com, www.lafuentedinero.com, and www.goldenpandaadbuilder.com
The Whole Pyramid - Ponzi Ricco Suits ASD Others
read my header and scan down for bold paragraphs
WatchDog Ed. Note: Several out now Liberty League (2), Your Travel Biz (YTB 2) all pyramid ponzi based and using RICO Criminal laws againts the ponzi - pyramid schemes. This one is interesting because they are including Bank of America (because of deep pockets) in the class action suit! AdSurfDaily is getting hammered by a class action suit so if you lost money this may be your only chance to get any money back. It looks like kind of a hard run at Bank of America so even if you do join the class action suit will you get much? Don't know but we know the Lawyers will! Phone numbers of these lawyers (in different states) are at bottom of this page! See if there is one close to you!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
NATURES DISCOUNT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Civil Action No:
Plaintiff,
v. 
THOMAS ANDERSON BOWDOIN, JR.,
WALTER CLARENCE BUSBY JR.,
ROBERT GARNER, ADSURFDAILY, INC.,
and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Natures Discount, Inc., by and through its attorneys, files this Class Action Complaint against Thomas Anderson Bowdoin, Jr. (“Bowdoin”), Walter Clarence Busby Jr. (“Busby”), AdSurfDaily, Inc., Robert Garner (“Garner”), (collectively referred to herein as the “RICO Defendants”) and Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) on behalf of itself and other similarly situated individuals or businesses who paid money to fraudulent schemes operated by the RICO Defendants and aided and abetted by Bank of America, and were damaged thereby. Upon information and belief, as well as the investigation of counsel, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. The RICO Defendants devised, perpetrated and/or operated an illegal Internet-based marketing scheme that obtained tens of millions of dollars from Plaintiff and Class members throughout the United States who paid money to AdSurfDaily, AdSurfDaily Cash Generator, Golden Panda Ad Builder, and La Fuente Dinero (collectively referred to hereinafter as “ASD”) for so-called “ad packages” that conferred membership in ASD’s program. The RICO Defendants falsely promised Plaintiff and Class members an innovative Internet marketing opportunity that would promote and drive traffic to ASD members’ websites. The RICO Defendants also promised that ASD members could earn significant rebates and returns on fees paid to ASD by viewing Internet advertisements through ASD’s program.
2. According to lawsuits recently filed by Federal and State law enforcement authorities that have temporarily halted ASD’s operations, ASD is nothing more than an online pyramid scheme or multi-level marketing operation (commonly referred to as a “Ponzi” scheme) and not a legitimate business enterprise. The funds to pay the promised large returns to existing members are generated only through the addition of new members. It is estimated that over 100,000 individuals and businesses have been victimized by this illegal scheme. Although the scheme operates primarily over the Internet, significant money has been raised at ASD rallies in Miami, Chicago, Tampa, and at other locations throughout the United States where tens of millions of dollars were collected from thousands of rally attendees.
3. From ASD’s inception in November 2006, Defendant Bank of America played an integral role in ASD’s operations and success. While other financial institutions and payment processors refused to facilitate ASD’s fraud, Bank of America not only conducted business with ASD and the RICO Defendants, but it also substantially assisted the expansion of the ASD scheme. For example, Bank of America has:
(1) facilitated the deposit of millions of dollars of funds to ASD and the RICO Defendants;
(2) approved and enabled one or more of the RICO Defendants to maintain at least ten accounts at Bank of America where thousands of checks from ASD members, totaling millions of dollars, were deposited; (3) provided a wire transfer facility for funds to be deposited into one or more of the RICO Defendants’ Bank of America accounts from anywhere in the United States; (4) provided training to ASD employees regarding automated clearinghouse tasks; and (5) allowed ASD to utilize the imprimatur of its affiliation with Bank of America on ASD’s websites. These and other actions by Bank of America provided the ASD with an air of legitimacy that launched ASD and thereafter fueled the rapid growth of the RICO Defendants’ scheme to defraud.
4. An investigation by any disinterested financial institution would have set off alarm bells given: (1) the criminal history of both Bowdoin and Busby relating to investment fraud; (2) Bowdoin’s history of multiple failed and questionable business ventures; and (3) the lack of legitimate business operations capable of generating tens of millions of dollars that were deposited in the RICO Defendants’ Bank of America accounts in a relatively brief period of time. At least one other financial institution has closed an account held by Bowdoin or a family member after its investigation revealed that Bowdoin appeared to be operating a Ponzi scheme. Also, Visa has often refused its cardholders’ use of Visa cards to pay for ASD ad packages because Visa characterized these purchases as “suspicious.” Similarly, the popular PayPal system could not be used to purchase ad packages from ASD.
5. The RICO Defendants built the ASD scheme on misrepresentations and false statements to Plaintiff and Class members relating to the legitimacy of ASD as a bona fide Internet advertising program. These misrepresentations perpetrated a scheme to defraud and to obtain money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses. In connection with that scheme, the RICO Defendants have committed wire fraud and money laundering. The RICO Defendants’ conduct and conspiracy violates the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §1961, et seq. (“RICO”). The RICO Defendants have breached a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff and Class members.
6. Bank of America has aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty and fraud committed by the RICO Defendants.
7. Plaintiff brings this action seeking monetary damages for the injury to its and the Class members’ business or property caused by the RICO Defendants’ violation of RICO and breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory and injunctive relief to end the unlawful scheme and prevent further losses, and an accounting. Plaintiff also brings this action seeking monetary damages for the injury to Plaintiff and Class Members caused by Bank of America’s violations of common law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331-32 and 18 U.S.C. §1964. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1965(b) and (d). The aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and less than two-thirds of all Class members reside in Florida.
9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) and (b). Venue is also proper under 18 U.S.C. §1965(a) because all Defendants transact business in this District.
PLAINTIFF
10. Natures Discount, Inc. is a Florida corporation located at 15929 Biscayne Boulevard, Aventura, Florida 33160-4605. Natures Discount operates one store in Miami and has 15 locations throughout the Caribbean. In June and July of 2008, Natures Discount paid amounts totaling $7,500 to ASD for the purchase of purported advertising packages.
DEFENDANTS
11. Thomas Anderson (“Andy”) Bowdoin, Jr., dba AdSurfDaily and AdSurfDaily Cash Generator, is a “person,” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§1961(3) and 1962(c). Bowdoin controls and, with others, operates ASD. Bowdoin filed or caused to be filed papers to incorporate AdSurfDaily, Inc. in Nevada on December 14, 2006, and establish T. Andy Bowdoin, LLC in Nevada on December 15, 2006. At all times relevant hereto, Bowdoin has been the CEO and President of AdSurfDaily. Inc. From its inception until July 17, 2008, Bowdoin was and owner and President of Golden Panda Ad Builder, Inc., formerly incorporated in Georgia. Bowdoin is a resident of Quincy, Florida.
12. Walter Clarence Busby Jr. is a “person,” within the meaning of RICO. Busby is the Chief Executive Officer and most recent President of Golden Panda Ad Builder, Inc. Busby is a resident of Acworth, Georgia.
13. Robert Garner is a “person” within the meaning of RICO. Garner is an attorney licensed in North Carolina and identified in ASD materials as ASD’s outside counsel. Garner is a director of AdSurfDaily, Inc. and a manager of T. Andy Bowdoin, LLC. Garner is a resident of Greensboro, North Carolina.
14. AdSurfDaily, Inc. is a “person,” within the meaning of RICO. AdSurfDaily, Inc. is a Nevada corporation, incorporated December 14, 2006. T. Andy Bowdoin of Quincy, Florida and Robert F. Garner of Greensboro, North Carolina are officers of the corporation.
15. Bank of America, National Association is a subsidiary of Bank of America
Corporation, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Bank of America provides a diverse range of banking services in 32 states and the District of
Columbia. Bank of America has a branch at 1321 W Jefferson Street in Quincy, Florida.
FACTS
Internet Auto-Surf Ponzi Schemes
16. The Internet advertising auto-surf scheme is one digital variant of the classic Ponzi scheme and has become well known to law enforcement. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), these schemes operate in this way: “Auto-surfing” is a form of online advertising that purportedly generates advertising revenue for companies that want to increase traffic to their websites. The premise behind auto-surfing is that companies that advertise on the Internet are willing to pay to increase traffic to their web sites. These companies hire an auto-surf firm or “host,” which in turn pays individual web surfers to view certain websites on an automatically rotating basis. The more sites the individual visits, the more money he or she stands to earn.
ED. NOTE: NOT A BAD PAGE TO READ ABOUT INTERNET PYRAMID PONZI SCHEMES
17. The risk of such an “auto-surfing” scheme comes when the organizer, in this case ASD, requires members to pay to participate. As the SEC warns: While auto-surfing may sound easy and appealing — and risk-free — there can be a hitch. Some auto-surf programs require their surfers to pay to participate, although perhaps not initially. When you first sign up to auto-surf, the firm might assign a limited number of sites for you to visit and pay you accordingly. Once you’ve made a modest amount of money, the firm might encourage — or even require — you to purchase a “membership” so that you can maximize your earnings. The program will promise high — often double or triple digit — returns on your investment in the program, often within days or weeks of joining. The line you’ll hear is that the more you click, the more you collect. But the reality is that any scheme that requires you to pay to participate — and promises handsome rewards in no time at all for little to no effort on your part — bears many of the hallmarks of a “Ponzi” or pyramid scheme. SEC, http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/autosurf.htm.
The RICO Defendants’ Development of the ASD Auto-Surf Scheme
18. Bowdoin, Garner and other co-conspirators devised the ASD’s auto-surf scheme and incorporated AdSurfDaily, Inc. in a plan to develop the largest Internet auto-surf scheme. ASD has operated over the Internet at various sites, including www.adsurfdaily.com, www.asdcashgenerator.com, and www.lafuentedinero.com.
19. Initially from October 2006 through March 2007, ASD offered a scheme at the website www.adsurfdaily.com by which it agreed to repay 150% of the amount a member paid for purchasing an ad package, so long as the member would view several websites that ASD rotated through the member’s website browser. ASD agreed to pay members even more as a commission when members referred others to the ASD scheme. ASD also agreed to reserve 60% of the gross revenue it received from each day’s sales (additional member money and new member money) to pay member rebates. In 2007, after it temporarily shut down due to the inability to fund member rebates and commissions and due to performance issues with the ASD auto-surf program, ASD launched a new website, www.asdcashgenerator.com, using the same facilities, bank accounts at Bank of America, and other auto-surf mechanisms. This more recent iteration of the operation offers to repay members less: 125%, not 150%, of the membership fee. Further, ASD agrees to reserve only 50% of the gross revenue received from each day’s advertisement sales to pay member rebates. This new iteration maintains a referral commission structure. ASD also operates with similar terms La Fuente Dinero, a Spanish language version of its scheme, at www.lafuentedinero.com.
20. The RICO Defendants also sought to expand further their unlawful scheme by attracting new members and soliciting additional money from existing members through marketing an auto-surf program targeted for advertising in China. This venture, Golden Panda Ad Builder, Inc., has operated at www.goldenpandaadbuilder.com beginning on or about July 23, 2008, but it was conceived of and promoted by the RICO Defendants for months prior to its website’s premier.
21. ASD promotes that its program provides three ways for members to earn money: (1) earning rebates from ASD by auto-surfing advertisements served by ASD;
(2) earning commissions by referring other members to the ASD program; and (3) selling products or services from members’ own websites advertised on ASD. ASD represents that by participating in ASD, members can break out of the job market and earn more money than most people earn working 40 hours per week. The RICO Defendants knew that most, if not all, of any money realized by members comes from either rebates for viewing advertisements or referral commissions, and not selling products or services by legitimate advertising.
22. ASD promises that members will “enjoy daily rebates and earn far above-average earnings” merely by spending 7-15 minutes per day viewing 24 websites in the ASD program.
23. ASD members must purchase ad packages to be eligible for the rebates and referral commissions ASD promises. Each dollar in an ad package translates to one credit; the number of credits determines how many times ASD rotates a member’s website to other members for viewing. For example, a member’s website will be rotated for auto-surfing by other members one time per credit until all credits have been used. Therefore, the larger the ad package purchased, the more times ASD supposedly makes the website available for other members to view. ASD imposes a minimum ad package amount of $10. Over the course of its operations, ASD has steadily increased the maximum value of an ad package a member may purchase at any one time, with the amount ranging from $7,000 to $50,000.
24. ASD lists on its website www.adsurfdailybreakingnews.com the “sales” and “rebate percentages” for each day from March 2008 through June 2008. These rebate percentages range from .50% to 1.58%.
25. ASD promises rebates based on a percentage of the value of the ad package purchased, up to a maximum set percentage. ASD initially promised that members would earn up to 150% in rebates. ASD later reduced the maximum percentage to 125%. ASD states that when a member earns the maximum rebate percentage, the original ad package expires. In other words, ASD promises that a $5,000 ad package can earn a rebate of 1%, or $50, per day up to the maximum rebate percentage in effect at the time. Accordingly, when the maximum rebate is 125%, and assuming a constant daily rebate of 1%, the $5,000 ad package expires in 125 days. ASD advocates that members use the daily rebates to repurchase or upgrade ad packages, which would enable the members to continue purportedly to earn rebates on the unexpired portion of these additional ad packages purchased.
Membership Levels Select Membership Features
Select Membership Features Free Membership (Trainee) Cash-out allowed only on Mondays and 3% referral commission for 1st level. Must pay a 2% withdrawal fee to receive cash-out.
Cash-out allowed only on Mondays and 3% referral commission for 1st level. Must pay a 2% withdrawal fee to receive cash-out. $10/Month Fee (Executive) Cash-out allowed only on Mondays and 5% referral commission for 1st level and 3% referral commission for 2nd level.
Cash-out allowed only on Mondays and 5% referral commission for 1st level and 3% referral commission for 2nd level. $25/Month Fee (VIP) Cash-out allowed only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and 7% referral commissions for 1st level and 4% referral commission for 2nd level.
Cash-out allowed only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and 7% referral commissions for 1st level and 4% referral commission for 2nd level. $100/Month Fee (Executive VIP) Cash-out allowed daily and 10% referral commissions for 1st level and 5% referral commissions for 2nd level.
Cash-out allowed daily and 10% referral commissions for 1st level and 5% referral commissions for 2nd level. 26. ASD members can only earn rebates and commissions by purchasing ad packages and auto-surfing ASD websites as described below. ASD solicits members by highlighting that there are no membership fees; however, ASD restricts the ability of free members to earn commissions and cash out purported earnings. Thus, in order to even be eligible for the promised benefits of the program, members must upgrade to a paid membership. For example, at various times, ASD imposed the following membership levels:
27. Over time ASD has added additional membership levels as a means for collecting additional funds and to expand the structure of ASD’s pyramid. As shown in part in the previous paragraph, the categories of membership include various amounts of monthly dues, various commissions for referrals, various surfing requirements, and for some categories, reduction or elimination of processing fees when cashing-out rebate earnings. The convoluted and elaborate details of the scheme add an ever-growing list of limitations between ASD members and the returns the RICO Defendants promise.
28. By offering commissions for referrals, ASD encourages members to recruit new members. ASD claims to pay the source of a referral a percentage of each newly referred member’s ad package purchase. Such is a hallmark of a typical pyramid scheme. The amount of commission promised depends upon membership level of the referring member. The RICO Defendants claim that the ability to earn referral commissions is a very lucrative aspect of the program for ASD’s members.
The RICO Defendants’ Marketing, Solicitation and Training of Members
29. ASD has members across the country and around the world because it operates primarily over the Internet. Members obtain account information and track the purported value of their ASD account by signing on to ASD’s websites.
30. The RICO Defendants market ASD and solicit members to participate in ASD through grassroots campaigns on the Internet. The RICO Defendants transmit marketing materials on ASD’s Internet sites, promulgate marketing videos on sites such as You Tube, and host web conferences. The RICO Defendants infuse these various grassroots campaigns with misrepresentations to lure members into ASD’s fraudulent scheme.
31. The RICO Defendants have also used the Internet to advertise in-person ASD rallies conducted across the United States designed to attract additional members to ASD, and thus to increase the pyramid scheme. These rallies additionally provide forums for the RICO Defendants’ distorted misrepresentations about the nature of the ASD scheme.
32. Through Internet advertisements, ASD solicits members by encouraging attendance at rally events and by promising that such attendance confers additional membership benefits, such as earning bonus credit. ASD offered several promotions for rally attendance, including a 50% discount on ad packages. In other words, members at a rally pay $1,000 to purchase a $2,000 ad package, and the ASD rebate program would purportedly allow earnings of 1% per day on $2,000.
33. In marketing materials conveyed over the Internet and at in-person rallies, ASD stresses the reputation and experience of founder Defendant Bowdoin. The RICO Defendants highlight Bowdoin’s alleged 45 years as a business owner and entrepreneur, claiming that he has developed and run several successful businesses and trained thousands of sales people across the United States. The RICO Defendants also strongly emphasize that ASD membership confers the opportunity to “lock arms” with Bowdoin and thus benefit from his impeccable reputation and business acumen.
34. The financial results of three recent ASD events indicate sales of over $29 million from a Tampa, Florida convention held June 12-14, 2008; $39 million at a rally in Miami, Florida held July 11-12, 2008; and $27 million from a Chicago, Illinois rally held July 19, 2008. The RICO Defendants boast on ASD’s websites of the success of these rallies as evidence of the growth and legitimacy of ASD.
35. The financial results of three recent rallies also reveal that ASD accepted sales by a variety of financial transactions: checks and money orders, personal checks, cash balance upgrades, direct deposits, and bank wire transfers. At a recent rally, members waited in lines for up to 45 minutes to have money accepted by one of approximately twenty ASD representatives collecting money. It is believed that these funds were deposited in bulk into the Bank of America accounts held by the RICO Defendants.
36. The RICO Defendants also represent on ASD’s websites and in Internet video presentations how ASD allocates the money collected from ASD ad purchases and other income sources. These representations feign the legitimacy and sustainability of the ASD programs. These Internet postings misrepresent the ability of ASD to sustain its programs without the continual influx of new members and upgrade purchases by existing members. In fact, in early 2007 ASD shut down temporarily. At that time, ASD’s auto-surf features, including mechanisms for members to earn rebates and obtain cash-outs, did not work as represented. For at least two separate periods in April and May of 2008, ASD’s auto-surf features were unavailable. Despite this, ASD claims that it offered its members a “global credit” for the days that the ASD website was unavailable.
37. ASD undertakes to train its members about the program through its website www.adsurfdailytraining.com. In addition, ASD, including Defendant Bowdoin, conducts weekly web conferences to communicate to members about ASD programs. In these promotional communications ASD offers information about ways that it assists members to develop their own websites to promote on ASD. ASD represents that it offers to its members marketing advice at its sister site www.attrackmarketingsystems.com, and it has marketing CDs available containing “sizzle” messages to assist members to attract referrals.
38. Busby, too, reaches out to members and potential members using conference calls. In such calls, Busby has touted his success as a businessman; promoted the connection between Golden Panda Ad Builder and ASD and Bowdoin; claimed that 50-100 individuals came to the Acworth, Georgia office of Golden Panda Ad Builder each day to deposit funds with the new operation; boasted that the operation was processing 300-400 checks per day and depositing those regularly; and represented that purchasing ad packages through Golden Panda Ad Builder will create wealth for participants. The RICO Defendants Fraudulently Claim that ASD Provides an Advertising Service and Pays Rebates for Viewing Internet Advertisements
39. Using ASD’s websites, video presentations posted on the Internet including on You Tube, weekly web conferences, and in-person rallies, the RICO Defendants consistently make false representations to members and the public as to the business viability and legitimacy of ASD. Defendants Bowdoin and Garner, in particular, appear on Internet videos promoting ASD. For example, the following are some of the misrepresentations and false statements made by the RICO Defendants: (1) ASD is going to sign up over one hundred Fortune 500 companies, such as Google, Coke, Pepsi, and others, to pay for advertising on the ASD network and generate revenues to pay members’ rebates; (2) ASD has a contract for the placement of three advertisements on its homepage that would generate at least $13 million per year; (3) ASD members receive timely rebate credits and cash-outs; (4) ASD is in partnership with an entity known as Ad Sales Daily and this partnership will provide an outside source of income to fund payment of member rebates; (5) ASD members will earn 125% rebate on ad packages purchased from ASD; and (6) ASD’s rebate program is a “loss leader” that enables ASD to grow its participation and pay members’ rebates with revenue from large commercial advertisers. Each of these statements is false.
40. The RICO Defendants construct a facade that ASD offers valuable, legitimate Internet advertising services. They represent that ASD members will receive increased traffic to their websites by purchasing ad packages from ASD.
41. The RICO Defendants also recognize that people will join ASD for purposes other than advertising their own business. On the ASD websites, the RICO Defendants makes suggestions for websites that can be “advertised”: “For those joining ASD who do not have a personal business to advertise, you may advertise either www.paydot.com . . . or www.mobillcash.com. . . .”
42. The RICO Defendants distort the value of the services ASD offers. For example, the RICO Defendants mislead by representing that ASD’s advertising services are comparable to Google advertising services.
43. This veneer of legitimacy is repeated over and over again in Internet video advertisements sponsored by the RICO Defendants and by ASD representatives at rallies. Specifically, in these advertisements, the RICO Defendants falsely claim that ASD is highly profitable, that ASD has signed up more than one hundred Fortune 500 companies as paid advertisers, and that ASD’s founder, Bowdoin, has a stellar, award-winning business career.
44. In fact, ASD does not have Fortune 500 companies as advertisers on ASD. Rather, its advertisers are members who pay ASD with the expectation that ASD will provide the rebates and commissions ASD promises. In other words, the revenue received from advertisers contributes to additional future obligations of ASD, in the form of a growing amount of rebates and commissions promised to ASD members.
45. The RICO Defendants have made false claims over the Internet that
ASD’s business model has an “innovative rebate structure that will enable [it] to continue
indefinitely.” It has claimed:
rebates are paid from ad purchase sales of the Cash Generator, the sale of banner ads on the Cash Generator, commissions from the sale of the Ad Placement Service at our sister site “Attract Marketing System” by Cash Generator members, sale of ebooks and any other products that ASD decides to market.
46. The RICO Defendants also represent on ASD’s websites that ASD’s sales figures “include new money coming into the company, as well as upgrades from cash balances used to purchase ad packages.”
47. As indicia of the fraudulent nature of the schemes operated by the RICO Defendants, even though the RICO Defendants proclaim that ASD offers Internet advertising services, ASD does not appear to sell any independent products or services sufficient to generate an income stream needed to support the rebates and commissions that it promises its members. Accordingly, ASD has no apparent means to generate these promised returns, other than through continued growth of its membership and continued growth of its members’ purchases.
48. ASD advertises on its website that it divides 50% of ASD’s daily profits among members who have active ad packages. ASD advertises that to receive a portion of the profit as a rebate, members must only view at least 24 webpages per day, and each webpage must be viewed for 15 seconds. The RICO Defendants also encourage members to use their daily rebates to purchase more ad packages on ASD.
49. On ASD’s websites, ASD refers to the amount in a member’s account as a “Cash Balance,” thus falsely representing that the account balance has the liquidity of cash. ASD represents that members may “cash out” account balances simply by following instructions. However, ASD also imposes disincentives for cashing out. The RICO Defendants induce members to leave earned rebates in ASD accounts as a cash balance by claiming that by doing so, members will significantly increase earnings. In this way, the RICO Defendants encourage ASD members to continue to contribute to ASD’s scheme. Furthermore, members do not learn that ASD cannot live up to its promises until members attempt to cash out. Members may watch their ASD accounts grow by delaying cashing out, but the only real growth is of ASD’s pyramid.
50. The RICO Defendants attempt preemptively to allay members’ concerns about the viability of the ASD scheme. They make representations to ASD members that ASD will put 5% of profits in a reserve account to be used to pay the rebate when new ad package sales are extremely low. However, by the very structure of the scheme, such reserve accounts, if they actually exist, cannot enable ASD to fulfill the promised rebates. Therefore, this representation is false and/or misleading.
51. The numbers the RICO Defendants provide do not add up to anything other than false promises. For example, in the month of June 2008, the RICO Defendants claim that ASD generated over $90 million in new money and member “upgrades.” To fulfill its promise to rebate 125% of that revenue, ASD would have to generate a total of
$112.5 million ($90 million plus $22.5 million to cover the 25% return) in new revenue. Absent the recruitment and participation of new members, the RICO Defendants have no legitimate source to generate these funds.
52. The RICO Defendants make claims on ASD websites in an attempt to avoid liability to members:
All payments made to ASD are considered advertising purchases, not investments or deposits of any kind. All sales are final. ASD does not guarantee any earnings or profits. Any commissions paid to Members are for the service of viewing other Member web sites and for referring Members to AdSurfDaily. All advertising purchases are non-refundable.
ASD’s Founders Have A History of Questionable Business Practices
53. Defendant Bowdoin is a central figure in the ASD schemes. Bowdoin controls and, with others, operates ASD. The RICO Defendants gain members’ trust and confidence by purposefully stressing Bowdoin’s alleged business acumen and long-standing reputation as a business owner and entrepreneur. These representations are, in fact, untrue.
54. A dramatic discrepancy exists between the RICO Defendants’ representations of Bowdoin’s past and his business acumen, as compared to the facts revealed by Bowdoin’s criminal history and record of involvement in defunct corporations. The RICO Defendants present Bowdoin as an astute businessman who has received a Medal of Distinction from the President of the United States for his success as a businessman. In fact, Bowdoin has not received such an honor and he has a history of arrests for fraud and securities violations, business failures, and has pled guilty to sale of unregistered securities.
55. According to a verified Complaint filed by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Bowdoin was arrested in Alabama for one or more felony violations related to Fraud in Connection with the Offer and Sale of Securities by an Unregistered Agent. In that case Bowdoin and several co-defendants were accused of having been promoters of a company called “Mobile International, Inc.” that developed a mobile telephone system that was a cheaper alternative to the then-current cellular systems. That venture collapsed and Bowdoin and his co-defendants were charged with having sold unregistered securities to investors and while failing to state material facts to the investors that would have impacted the victims’ decisions to invest. In particular, Alabama officials asserted that Bowdoin instigated a scheme by which he took money from some victims to pay off prior investors. Bowdoin resolved this criminal matter by agreeing to enter Pre-Trial Diversion with three years of supervised probation and pay restitution of $15,000. Bowdoin completed his Pre-Trial requirements and the charges were dismissed. Furthermore, on January 1, 1999, in Wilcox County, Alabama, Bowdoin pleaded guilty to one count of sale of unregistered securities and was sentenced to 1 year in prison. In this matter, Bowdoin’s sentence was suspended and he was placed on 3 years supervised probation and ordered to pay restitution of $75,000.
56. A public search on the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations’ website of registered corporations revealed that from November 14, 1983, to September 14, 2007, Bowdoin served as a Registered Agent (“RA”), President, Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) or Director of several defunct and questionable corporations:
(1) RA for ReTube-Lite International, Inc., incorporated from 9/14/83 to 11/21/84 (involuntary dissolved); (2) RA for Crosby Enterprises of Lakeland, incorporated from 2/23/84 to 11/1/85 (involuntary dissolved); (3) RA for KDJ Enterprises, Inc., incorporated from 2/23/84 to 11/1/85 (involuntary dissolved); (4) RA for South Polk Investors, Inc., incorporated from 4/2/84 to 11/1/85 (involuntary dissolved); (5) RA for Ridge-Tec, Inc., incorporated from 4/2/84 to 11/1/85 (involuntary dissolved); (6) RA for MI-Com, Inc., incorporated from 4/2/84 to 11/1/85 (administratively dissolved); (7) President of Creative Retailing Services, Inc., incorporated from 3/5/98 to 9/19/03 (administratively dissolved); (8) CEO of Global Tech Marketing, Inc., incorporated from 6/26/00 to 9/13/00 (administratively dissolved); (9) Director of GPS Tech, Inc., incorporated from 3/26/04 to 9/15/06 (administratively dissolved); (10) RA for GPS Development & Manufacturing, incorporated from 11/12/04 to 9/16/05 (administratively dissolved); (11) Director of EADNetwork, Inc., incorporated from 12/1/06 to 9/14/07 (administratively dissolved); and (12) Director of World Payment Systems, Inc., incorporated from 12/1/06 to 9/14/07 (administratively dissolved).
57. Bowdoin does not appear to have earned any significant income from lawful employment in the twenty years prior to his commencement of ASD’s operation. Despite this, ASD’s promoters tell prospective recruits that Bowdoin’s business genius distinguishes ASD from similar Internet-based schemes. In addition, no information about Bowdoin’s record of business failures and fraud accusations is contained on ASD’s website. Nor was Bowdoin’s true past mentioned to prospective members during the ASD rally at which he spoke or during conference calls that he, or others promoting ASD on his behalf, participated in during ASD’s operations. Instead, the RICO Defendants fraudulently maintain that Bowdoin operates legitimate businesses.
58. Defendant Busby is another operator of the ASD scheme. Busby was the Chief Executive Officer and President of Golden Panda Ad Builder, Inc. until its recent dissolution. Busby was accused by the SEC in 1997 of violating antifraud provisions of the securities laws by offering and selling investment contracts in connection with three different prime bank schemes. The SEC alleged that using misrepresentations and omissions in each of the three schemes, Busby raised money for purported trading programs in “prime bank” notes by fraudulently representing to investors that the investments were risk-free and that the ventures would pay returns ranging from 750% to 10,000%. In total, Busby raised nearly $1 million from more than 70 investors. None of the investors earned the exorbitant returns promised by Busby. Busby consented to judgment in the matter and was enjoined from future violations of various securities laws. The RICO Defendants, when promoting Busby’s involvement in ASD’s schemes, do not disclose such information about Busby’s past involvement in fraudulent schemes.
59. Defendant Garner is an integral operator in the ASD scheme. He purports to provide legitimate legal advice to ASD members about the legality of ASD’s business. In so doing, he makes false statements about ASD and its legality. Garner affirmatively represents in a video presentation accessible on the www.asdcashgenerator.com website that ASD’s program is not a Ponzi scheme. Garner also claims that ASD’s continuing operation does not depend on expanding membership. Garner does not, however, identify any other sources of income other than members’ fees that ASD can use to fund the promised rebates and commissions. In addition, Garner takes actions consistent with knowledge that he directs the operations of the scheme. Garner not only was involved in the development of the ASD program, serving as a director of AdSurfDaily, Inc., but he also holds himself out in a position of trust, confidence and superior knowledge by issuing a statement regarding ASD’s legality. ASD and Garner make this “legality statement” available on the www.asdcashgenerator.com website.
The RICO Defendants’ Relationship with Bank of America Has Been Critical to the Growth and Success of the ASD Scheme
60. Historically, Ponzi schemes have not had the benefit of an affiliation with a credible and recognizable financial institution such as Bank of America. For a time, ASD was similar to those schemes in that way. In its prior incarnation, ASD websites accepted payments via e-Gold and Virtual Money, online digital currency payment systems.
61. E-Gold has been recognized by law enforcement as a highly-favored method of payment by operators of investment scams, including pyramids, Ponzis, high yield investment programs, and other “get rich quick” schemes because of its relative anonymity and refusal to engage in chargebacks (where payment to a vendor is disallowed or reversed). The operators of the e-Gold system were indicted in April 2007, by a Grand Jury sitting in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for money-laundering and for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, and in July 2008, e-Gold operators pled guilty to various criminal charges (for some, including money laundering) in the District of Columbia.
62. ASD discontinued using e-Gold as a means for receiving ASD members’ funds shortly after publicity about the government’s investigation into that operation.
63. ASD’s instructions to members regarding financial transactions refer extensively to ASD’s relationship with Bank of America, offering an illusion that the financial transactions of the ASD scheme are legitimate and secure.
64. The Bank of America branch in Quincy, Florida is the primary branch through which the RICO Defendants funnel the cash-flow from ASD. Although ASD directs members to make deposits through any Bank of America branch, it also specifically provides the address of the Quincy, Florida branch of Bank of America.
65. Commencing in or before November 2006, ASD and Bank of America provided ASD members the ability to deposit funds in ASD’s accounts from any Bank of America branch in the United States. The affiliation between Bank of America and the ASD scheme as reflected on deposit forms provided by ASD greatly increased the apparent legitimacy of ASD to prospective members. Members have made deposits at Bank of America using a pre-printed form from ASD that Bank of America accepted. Members have identified this affiliation between Bank of America and ASD as a factor in deciding to make payments to ASD.
66. Bank of America provides a worldwide network of branches and wire transfer facilities for the RICO Defendants to obtain funds from ASD members anywhere at any time. The RICO Defendants have taken full advantage of this relationship with Bank of America and provide specific instructions on ASD websites for wiring money for ASD ad packages to various bank accounts at Bank of America. The ASD website lists the Account Name as AdSurfDaily, the account number, routing number, “Swift number for international wires,” and the bank address as 1321 West Jefferson Street in Quincy, Florida. The ASD website also instructs that those wiring money should inform the bank of certain information to include on the “Final Credit,” including: “1. Your Full Name; 2. Participant Account number for ASD Cash Generator and/or La Fuente Dinero accounts, whichever you are wanting to purchase Ad Packages from, . . . and 3. The dollar amount you are wiring. . . .” Separate account numbers are given on the ASD website for La Fuente Dinero and AdSurfDaily.
67. The Golden Panda Ad Builder website also identifies a Bank of America account as a depository account. The Golden Panda website states that funds can be wired to this Bank of America account to order ad packages.
68. The RICO Defendants’ relationship with Bank of America has also enabled them to manage the tremendous flow of funds received from ASD members through rallies and other fundraising activities. Bank of America has handled daily deposits totaling tens of millions of dollars from ASD rallies.
69. The RICO Defendants have used Bank of America accounts to conduct financial transactions for ASD, including deposits made by or on the behalf of members for the purpose of purchasing ad packages, and withdrawals to pay to members rebates and/or commissions.
70. Bank of America receives significant fees from the financial transactions conducted in connection with the ASD scheme and fees charged in transactions with ASD members.
71. ASD informs its members that Bank of America will deduct $12 from the amount of wire transfers as a bank charge.
72. ASD represents that when members transfer currency from Canada, Bank of America will deduct a 5% bank charge from the amount of deposit.
73. ASD represents on ASD’s websites that a member may receive “cashouts” through a Bank of America direct deposit to the ASD member’s account.
74. Solid Trust Pay is a Canada-based money transmitting and payment company that operates over the Internet.
75. In a two-week period in or around August 2008, the RICO Defendants, singularly or jointly, wired several million dollars to Solid Trust Pay from Bank of America accounts.
76. Because Bank of America accounts funnel money for the RICO Defendants, the other payment systems used by ASD have passed through these accounts.
77. According to a verified Complaint filed by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, another bank determined through investigation that Bowdoin appeared to be operating a Ponzi scheme and for this reason that bank closed an account controlled by Bowdoin or members of his family.
78. At several ASD rallies, prospective members attempted to purchase ad packages through the use of Visa cards. Lines were delayed for hours because Visa rejected these attempted charges as suspicious activity.
79. Numerous ASD members have attempted to pay for ad packages using
PayPal, but PayPal would not accept transactions relating to ASD. PayPal’s written rules disallow transactions relating to “pyramid or ponzi schemes” and “certain multi-level marketing programs”.
80. Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. §§5311-5330, require Bank of America to file reports with federal law enforcement officials and the Department of the Treasury for suspicious activities and large currency transactions. Specifically, a Suspicious Activity Report must be filed regarding bank transactions or attempted transactions involving at least $5,000 that the financial institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect the money was derived from illegal activities. Also, it must report large cash transactions of $10,000 or more. Bank of America should have filed reports for the tens of millions of dollars that flowed through the Bank of America accounts from November of 2006 through July of 2008.
81. Bank of America has continued to aid and abet the ASD scheme despite several indicators of fraud in ASD’s operations, including: (1) Bowdoin’s and Busby’s involvement in other illegal investment schemes; (2) the well-known existence and prosecutions of online Ponzi schemes and warnings from regulators to financial institutions; (3) funneling of money by the RICO Defendants from and to online payment systems favored by fraudulent schemes; (4) transfers of money from certain of the RICO Defendants’ Bank of America accounts to seed others of the RICO Defendants’ Bank of America accounts; (5) use of ASD business accounts to pay for personal items for Bowdoin; (6) deposit slips created by ASD that members used to deposit money into one or more of the RICO Defendants’ Bank of America accounts; and (7) the flow of tens of millions of dollars and thousands of deposits to a small branch in Quincy, Florida to one or more of the RICO Defendants’ Bank of America accounts.
82. Bank accounts at Bank of America used in connection with ASD’s activities have been seized/frozen pursuant to warrants issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. According to government allegations, at the time of the seizure/freeze these Bank of America accounts contained, in aggregate, approximately $53 million.
83. Certain Bank of America accounts are under the control and ownership of the sole proprietor Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., D/B/A ADSURFDAILY, 13 S. Calhoun Street, Quincy, Florida 32351.
84. At least four business check cards in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., have been linked to accounts at Bank of America held by one or more of the RICO Defendants.
85. Bowdoin not only uses Bank of America accounts held by one of more of the RICO Defendants to run ASD, but also to pay his personal expenses and to launder fraud proceeds.
86. Numerous transactions posted to accounts held at Bank of America by one or more of the RICO Defendants have been alleged to be purchases of personal items for the benefit of Bowdoin, including a purchase of $51,000 in jewelry on a single day. These purchases came from ASD’s business accounts at Bank of America.
87. Bowdoin generates no substantial income except that which he pays himself from his operation of ASD. Bowdoin has purchased properties in Florida and South Carolina using funds he removed from the same Bank of America accounts that he used to collect the proceeds of ASD.
88. Until recently, Golden Panda Ad Builder, Inc. was under Bowdoin’s and Busby’s control. The majority of the funds deposited into the Bank of America accounts used by Golden Panda Ad Builder, Inc. originated from one or more of the RICO Defendants’ other accounts at Bank of America.
89. The Bank of America accounts used by Golden Panda Ad Builder, Inc. are under the control and ownership of Busby and/or Busby’s daughter, Dawn Stowers of Acworth, Georgia. The five accounts are a D/B/A Golden Panda Ad Builder Deposit Account, a Golden Panda Ad Builder Operating Account, a Golden Panda Ad Builder Cashout Account, and two CD accounts. Busby has affirmed he opened certain of the Bank of America accounts and that the funds in these accounts are owned by him and Golden Panda Ad Builder.
90. Funds have been regularly transferred back and forth between the Bank of America accounts held by one or more of the RICO Defendants.
91. The Bank of America accounts held by one or more of the RICO Defendants and central to the ASD Enterprise referred to in this Complaint are described as follows:
(a) Account #005483933650 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
Account #005483933650 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY; (b) Account #005483933016 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
Account #005483933016 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY; (c) Account #005483933553 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
Account #005483933553 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY; (d) Account #005483933605 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
Account #005483933605 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY; (e) Account #005483933634 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A.
Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
(f) Account #005562565949 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
Account #005562565949 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY; (g) Account #005562566896 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
Account #005562566896 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY; (h) Account #91000116796961 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas
Account #91000116796961 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
(i) Account #91000116797038 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas
Account #91000116797038 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
(j) Account #91000116797070 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas
Account #91000116797070 at Bank of America, in the name of Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., Sole Proprietor, DBA ADSURFDAILY;
(k) Account #334011130192 at Bank of America, in the name of Clarence Busby Jr. and Dawn Stowers, DBA Golden Panda Ad Builder Deposit Account;
Account #334011130192 at Bank of America, in the name of Clarence Busby Jr. and Dawn Stowers, DBA Golden Panda Ad Builder Deposit Account; (1) Account #334011130200 at Bank of America, in the name of Clarence Busby Jr. and Dawn Stowers, DBA Golden Panda Ad Builder Operating Account;
Account #334011130200 at Bank of America, in the name of Clarence Busby Jr. and Dawn Stowers, DBA Golden Panda Ad Builder Operating Account; (m) Account #334015765704 at Bank of America, in the name of Clarence Busby Jr. and Dawn Stowers, DBA Golden Panda Ad Builder Cashout Account;
Account #334015765704 at Bank of America, in the name of Clarence Busby Jr. and Dawn Stowers, DBA Golden Panda Ad Builder Cashout Account; (n) Account #91000113401039 at Bank of America, in the name of Golden Panda Ad Builder; and
Account #91000113401039 at Bank of America, in the name of Golden Panda Ad Builder; and (o) Account #91000113404188 at Bank of America, in the name of Golden Panda Ad Builder.
Account #91000113404188 at Bank of America, in the name of Golden Panda Ad Builder. Seizure and Forfeiture Proceedings
92. The Bank of America accounts listed above and held by one or more of the RICO Defendants have been/will be seized/frozen pursuant to warrants issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on the basis of facts also underlying this action.
93. The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia has filed a Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on August 5, 2008, Case No: 1:08-CV-01345 (“Forfeiture Complaint”) related to the funds in the above-named Bank of America accounts. The allegations in this Forfeiture Complaint were verified under oath by Secret Service Special Agent Roy Dotson.
94. As a part of a federal investigation, federal agents joined ASD and conducted a variety of transactions as ASD members, successfully using the services of Bank of America as specifically advised by instructions offered on ASD websites:
• On or about July 14, 2008, a federal agent opened an “upgraded member” account with ASD. ASD directs new members either to mail a money order or cashier’s check to its Florida office, or to deposit a certified check, money order or cash at “your nearest branch of Bank of America,” directly into ASD’s Bank of America account and, thereafter, to fax a copy of the deposit receipt along with their membership number to ASD. On its website, ASD provides its Bank of America account number as 0000005483933016. Another federal agent made a direct deposit to ASD’S Bank of America account by delivering a check to a Bank of America branch in downtown Orlando, Florida. Thereafter, a federal agent faxed a copy of the deposit receipt via facsimile to ASD’s headquarters in Quincy, Florida.
On or about July 14, 2008, a federal agent opened an “upgraded member” account with ASD. ASD directs new members either to mail a money order or cashier’s check to its Florida office, or to deposit a certified check, money order or cash at “your nearest branch of Bank of America,” directly into ASD’s Bank of America account and, thereafter, to fax a copy of the deposit receipt along with their membership number to ASD. On its website, ASD provides its Bank of America account number as 0000005483933016. Another federal agent made a direct deposit to ASD’S Bank of America account by delivering a check to a Bank of America branch in downtown Orlando, Florida. Thereafter, a federal agent faxed a copy of the deposit receipt via facsimile to ASD’s headquarters in Quincy, Florida. • On or about July 20, 2008, a federal agent opened another “upgraded member” account with ASD from a location in the District of Columbia, also via the Internet. The next day, a federal agent made a direct deposit into ASD’s Bank of America account, this time by delivering a check to the Bank of America branch at 700 13th Street, NW, Washington, DC. Thereafter, a federal agent faxed a copy of the deposit receipt from the District of Columbia to ASD’s office in Florida.
On or about July 20, 2008, a federal agent opened another “upgraded member” account with ASD from a location in the District of Columbia, also via the Internet. The next day, a federal agent made a direct deposit into ASD’s Bank of America account, this time by delivering a check to the Bank of America branch at 700 13th Street, NW, Washington, DC. Thereafter, a federal agent faxed a copy of the deposit receipt from the District of Columbia to ASD’s office in Florida. 95. The Forfeiture Complaint alleges that the property in the Bank of America accounts listed above constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to, among other offenses, any offense, or conspiracy to commit such offense, that is a “specified unlawful activity” of the federal anti-money laundering statutes, including wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343). In addition, that property was alleged to be involved in a money laundering offense (18 U.S.C. §§1956 or 1957). These same offenses provide the predicate offenses for the current action.
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (“RICO”) ALLEGATIONS
ASD Enterprise
96. Based on Plaintiff’s current knowledge, the following persons associated in fact as an “enterprise” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1961(4) to operate fraudulent Internet schemes including AdSurfDaily, AdSurfDaily Cash Generator, Golden Panda Ad Builder, and La Fuente Dinero: (a) Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., (b) Walter Clarence Busby Jr., (c) AdSurfDaily, Inc., (d) T. Andy Bowdoin, LLC, and (e) Robert Garner. Plaintiff refers to this group of persons as the “ASD Enterprise.”
97. The ASD Enterprise is an organization which engages in, and whose activities affect, interstate commerce. The ASD Enterprise solicited, accepted, and paid funds nationwide and transferred money between states.
98. The ASD Enterprise operated from at least October 2006, up until at least August 2008, and threatened to continue longer but for the intervening government actions.
99. While the RICO Defendants participate in and are members and part of the ASD Enterprise, they also have an existence separate and distinct from the ASD Enterprise.
100. The ASD Enterprise provides the RICO Defendants and other unnamed co-conspirators with a system by which to operate fraudulent schemes such as ASD, to hide the fraudulent nature of the schemes, and to profit from such schemes. The ASD Enterprise and the RICO Defendants’ control of and participation in it are necessary for the successful operation of their scheme.
101. The RICO Defendants and others control and operate the ASD Enterprise by:
(a) advertising and marketing AdSurfDaily, AdSurfDaily Cash Generator, Golden Panda Ad Builder, La Fuente Dinero, and other schemes over the Internet and through in-person events;
advertising and marketing AdSurfDaily, AdSurfDaily Cash Generator, Golden Panda Ad Builder, La Fuente Dinero, and other schemes over the Internet and through in-person events; (b) soliciting members to the schemes by making material misrepresentations;
soliciting members to the schemes by making material misrepresentations; (c) making false promises to reasonably influence members to part with money;
making false promises to reasonably influence members to part with money; (d) providing a mechanism by which members join the scheme, i.e., making a deposit to a Bank of America account by wire transfer or deposit at a physical branch of Bank America;
(e) collecting funds at rallies and depositing the funds collected into bank accounts held by one or more of the RICO Defendants;
collecting funds at rallies and depositing the funds collected into bank accounts held by one or more of the RICO Defendants; (f) accepting funds from victims of the scheme;
accepting funds from victims of the scheme; (g) transferring funds between various Bank of America accounts held by the RICO Defendants to seed schemes; and
transferring funds between various Bank of America accounts held by the RICO Defendants to seed schemes; and (h) accepting money from, and depositing money to, various online digital currency payment systems.
accepting money from, and depositing money to, various online digital currency payment systems. 102. Each RICO Defendant knowingly agreed to perform services of a kind which facilitated the operation of the ASD Enterprise and facilitated the RICO Defendants and others in the operation of various fraudulent schemes, including ASD.
103. As set forth above, the ASD Enterprise has an ascertainable structure separate and apart from the pattern of racketeering activity in which the RICO Defendants engage.
Predicate Acts - Violations of 18 USC §§1343, 1956 and 1957
104. Section 1961(1)(B) of RICO provides that “racketeering activity” includes any act indictable under 18 U.S.C. §1343 (relating to wire fraud) and 18 U.S.C. §§1956 and 1957 (relating to money laundering). As set forth below, the ASD Enterprise has and continues to engage in conduct violating each of these laws to effectuate its scheme.
Wire Fraud
105. The entities involved in the ASD Enterprise have: (1) formed a scheme or artifice to defraud, (2) used the United States wires or caused the use of the United States wires in furtherance of the scheme, and (3) had specific intent to deceive or defraud.
106. For the purpose of executing and/or attempting to execute the above-described scheme to defraud or obtain money by means of false pretenses, representations or promises, the RICO Defendants and other ASD Enterprise entities, also in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343, transmitted and received by wire, matter and things.
107. The matter and things the RICO Defendants and other ASD Enterprise entities sent or received via wire or other interstate electronic media include, but are not limited to, interalia:
(a) material misrepresentations about the nature of ASD, including,
material misrepresentations about the nature of ASD, including, but not limited to, the benefits of membership in ASD, the business acumen of the operators of ASD, and the legality of the scheme; (b) deposits made by ASD members into bank accounts controlled by
deposits made by ASD members into bank accounts controlled by the RICO Defendants; (c) receipts issued to members for deposits made into bank accounts
receipts issued to members for deposits made into bank accounts controlled by the RICO Defendants; (d) transfers of funds between various accounts and payment systems
transfers of funds between various accounts and payment systems controlled by the RICO Defendants; (e) membership information and membership upgrade requests from
membership information and membership upgrade requests from ASD members; and (f) requests for cash-outs from ASD members.
requests for cash-outs from ASD members. 108. Many of the precise dates of the ASD Enterprise’s fraudulent uses of wire facilities and money laundering activities have been deliberately hidden and cannot be alleged without discovery. Indeed, the success of the ASD Enterprise’s scheme depends upon secrecy, and the ASD Enterprise has withheld details of its scheme from Plaintiff and Class members.
109. In addition, pursuant to and as a part of the scheme to defraud, the RICO Defendants and others in the ASD Enterprise intended to and did receive payments from Plaintiff and other Class members that were transmitted or cleared through the use of interstate wires in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343.
110. The RICO Defendants’ misrepresentations, acts of concealment, and failures to disclose were knowing and intentional, and were made for the purpose of deceiving Plaintiff and Class members and obtaining property for the RICO Defendants’ gain.
111. The RICO Defendants either knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the misrepresentations and omissions described above and incorporated herein were material, and Plaintiff and Class members relied on the misrepresentations and omissions as set forth above.
Money Laundering
112. The RICO Defendants conducted or attempted to conduct financial transactions knowing that the property involved in the financial transactions represent the proceeds of some unlawful activity, and the property was, in fact, derived from an unlawful activity. The RICO Defendants conducted such financial transactions with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; with knowledge that the transaction was designed to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of proceeds of the specified unlawful activity; and/or with knowledge that the transaction was designed to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law, an indictable money laundering offense under 18 U.S.C. §1956.
113. The RICO Defendants knowingly conducted a monetary transaction in criminally derived property in an amount greater than $10,000, which is in fact proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, an indictable money laundering offense under 18 U.S.C. §1957.
Pattern of Racketeering Activity
114. The RICO Defendants have engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. §1961(5), by committing or aiding and abetting in the commission of at least two acts of racketeering activity, i.e., indictable violations of 18 U.S.C. §§1343,1956 and 1957 as described above, within the past ten years. In fact, the RICO Defendants have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of countless acts of racketeering activity. Each racketeering act was related, had a similar purpose, involved the same or similar members and method of commission, had similar results, and impacted similar victims, including the Plaintiff and other members of the Class.
115. The multiple acts of racketeering activity that the RICO Defendants committed and/or conspired to commit, were related to each other and amount to and pose a threat of continued racketeering activity, and therefore constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity” as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1961(5).
RICO Violations 18 U.S.C. §1962(c)
116. Section 1962(c) of RICO provides that it “shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. . . .”
EDITORS NOTE: THIS IS BECOMING POPULAR WITH CLASS ACTION LAWYERS WE HAVE SEEN PYRAMID PONZI RICO
ACTIONS FILED ON LIBERTY LEAGUE AND YTB (YOUR TRAVEL BUSINESS)
117. Through the patterns of racketeering activities above, each RICO Defendant has conducted and participated in the affairs of the ASD Enterprise.
18 U.S.C. §1962(d)
118. Section 1962(d) of RICO makes it unlawful “for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.”
119. The RICO Defendants’ conspiracy to secure money due Plaintiff and Class members, for their own use through the fraudulent and extortionate scheme above, violates 18 U.S.C. §1962(d).
120. Each RICO Defendant agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in conduct of the affairs of the ASD Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity comprised of numerous acts of wire fraud and money laundering, and each RICO Defendant so participated in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c).
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
121. The RICO Defendants’ unlawful Internet auto-surfing scheme, which has used promises of substantial rebates and commissions to entice Plaintiff and Class members to purchase ad packages and pay membership fees, will continue to cause Plaintiff and Class members economic loss.
122. A money judgment in this case will only compensate Plaintiff and Class members for past losses. It will not stop the RICO Defendants’ efforts to entice continued participation in the Internet auto-surf scheme for the benefit and profit of the RICO Defendants. Neither will it cause the RICO Defendants to discontinue their methods of confiscating the money promised to Plaintiff and Class members for rebates and commissions. Nor will it cause Bank of America to cease its aiding and abetting of the RICO Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
123. Neither the Plaintiff nor any individual Class member has a practical or adequate remedy, either administratively or at law, to recover these future losses. The costs of individually pursuing such claims far exceed the amount at issue.
124. Even a class action such as the one contemplated in this case is a monumental undertaking that cannot be mounted on a regular basis.
125. Where multiple lawsuits are required to redress repeated wrongs, there is no adequate remedy at law and irreparable harm exists.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
126. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this nationwide class action on behalf of itself and all other persons in the United States who within the applicable statute of limitations of the date of the commencement of this action have lost any money paid to ASD. This class seeks certification for claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and for damages caused by violations of RICO, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.
127. Excluded from the Class are all Defendants and the directors, officers, predecessors, successors, affiliates, agents, co-conspirators and employees of all Defendants, as well as the immediate family members of such persons.
128. All Class members have suffered injury to their property by reason of all Defendants’ unlawful course of conduct, in that they paid for advertising packages and membership fees in a fraudulent business.
129. The Class is reasonably estimated to be in the tens of thousands of members, even up to or exceeding 100,000 members, and is thus so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable. The precise number of Class members and their addresses are unknown to Plaintiff, but can be ascertained through appropriate discovery of all Defendants’ records. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by publication and/or other notice.
130. There is a well-defined community of interest in the relevant questions of law and fact affecting putative Class members. Common questions of law and fact predominate over any individual questions affecting Class members, including but not limited to whether: (1) the RICO Defendants misrepresented the nature of ASD’s business; (2) the RICO Defendants misrepresented the opportunity to receive rebates from membership in ASD; (3) the RICO Defendants misrepresented the services and/or products offered by ASD; (4) the RICO Defendants engaged in wire fraud; (5) the RICO Defendants engaged in money laundering; (6) the RICO Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; (7) the ASD Enterprise is an “enterprise” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1961(4); (8) the RICO Defendants conducted or participated in the affairs of the ASD Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c); (9) the RICO Defendants conspired with each other and other unnamed co¬conspirators to commit violations of the racketeering laws in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d); (10) the RICO Defendants owed Plaintiff and the Class any fiduciary duty; (11) the RICO Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to Plaintiff and the Class; (12) Bank of America aided and abetted the RICO Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty; (13) Bank of America aided and abetted the RICO Defendants’ fraud; and (14) Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to damages.
131. The claims of Plaintiff and other Class members have a common origin and share a common basis. The claims originate from the same illegal conduct alleged herein on the part of all Defendants and other unnamed co-conspirators and their acts in furtherance of the illegal conduct. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the absent Class members. If brought and prosecuted individually, the claims of each Class member would require proof of many of the same material and substantive facts, rely upon the same remedial theories, and seek the same relief.
132. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has no interests adverse to or that directly and irrevocably conflict with the interests of other Class members. Plaintiff is willing and prepared to serve the Court and the putative Class in a representative capacity with all of the obligations and duties material thereto. Plaintiff has retained the services of counsel, identified below on the signature page, who are experienced in complex class-action litigation and in particular actions involving consumer matters. Plaintiff’s counsel will adequately prosecute this action and will otherwise assert, protect, and fairly and adequately represent Plaintiff and all absent Class members.
Rule 23(b)(3)
133. The prosecution of separate action by individual Class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the class. Such incompatible standards of conduct and varying adjudications on the same essential facts, proof, and legal theories would also create and allow the existence of inconsistent and incompatible rights within the Class.
134. A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversies raised in this Complaint because: (1) individual claims by the Class members would be impracticable as the costs of pursuit would far exceed what any one Class member has at stake; (2) little individual litigation has been commenced over the controversies alleged in this Complaint, and individual Class members are unlikely to have an interest in separately prosecuting and controlling individual actions; (3) the concentration of litigation of these claims in one forum will achieve efficiency and promote judicial economy; and (4) the proposed class action is manageable.
Rule 23(b)(2)
135. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making final declaratory or injunctive relief appropriate.
COUNT ONE – VIOLATION OF RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (Bowdoin, Busby, Garner, and AdSurfDaily, Inc.)
136. Plaintiff and Class members reallege and incorporate all the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
137. At all relevant times, Plaintiff, Class members, and the RICO Defendants each were a “person” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§1961(3) and 1964(c).
138. At all relevant times, the RICO Defendants and others formed an association-in-fact for the purposes of defrauding the Plaintiff and the Class. This association-in-fact was an “enterprise” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
139. At all relevant times, this enterprise was engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce, within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962(c).
140. At all relevant times, the RICO Defendants and other conspirators associated with the ASD Enterprise conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through a “pattern of racketeering activity” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1961(5), in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962(c).
141. Specifically, at all relevant times, the RICO Defendants and other conspirators associated with the ASD Enterprise engaged in “racketeering activity” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1961(1) by engaging in the acts set forth above. The acts set forth above constitute a violation of one or more of the following statutes: 18
U.S.C. §1343 (wire fraud) and 18 U.S.C. §§1956 and 1957 (money laundering). The RICO Defendants and the other conspirators associated with the ASD Enterprise each committed and/or aided and abetted the commission of two or more of these acts of racketeering activity.
142. The acts of racketeering activity referred to in the previous paragraph constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1961(5). The acts alleged were related to each other by virtue of common participants, a common victim (the Plaintiff and Class members), a common method of commission, and the common purpose and common result of defrauding the Plaintiff and the Class and enriching the conspirators at the expense of the Plaintiff and Class members while concealing the conspirators’ fraudulent activities. The fraudulent scheme continued from approximately October 2006 until approximately August 2008 and threatened to continue longer but for the intervention of the government.
143. As a direct and proximate result of the RICO Defendants’ violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), Plaintiff and Class members have been injured in their business or property.
144. Specifically, Plaintiff and Class members have been injured in their business or property by loss of money paid to the RICO Defendants.
145. As a result of their misconduct, the RICO Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff and Class members for their losses in an amount to be determined at trial.
146. Pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to recover threefold its damages plus costs and attorneys’ fees from the RICO Defendants.
COUNT TWO -- VIOLATION OF RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), BY CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (Bowdoin, Busby, Garner and AdSurfDaily, Inc.)
147. Plaintiff and Class members reallege and incorporate all the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein
148. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the RICO Defendant each were a “person” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§1961(3) and 1964(c).
149. At all relevant times, the RICO Defendants and others formed an association-in-fact for the purposes of defrauding the Plaintiff. This association-in-fact was an “enterprise” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
150. At all relevant times, this enterprise was engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce, within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962(c).
151. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), the RICO Defendants have, as set forth above, conspire to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) by conducting, or participating directly or indirectly in the conduct of ASD enterprise’s affairs through a “pattern of racketeering activity” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1961(5).
152. As a direct and proximate result of the RICO Defendants’ violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), Plaintiff and Class members have been injured in their business or property.
153. Specifically, Plaintiff and Class members have been injured in their business or property by loss of money paid to the RICO Defendants.
154. As a result of the conspiracy associated with the ASD Enterprise, the RICO Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff and Class members for losses in an amount to be determined at trial.
155. Pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to recover threefold its damages, plus costs and attorneys’ fees from the RICO Defendants.
COUNT THREE – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (Bowdin, Busby, Garner and AdSurfDaily, Inc.)
156. Plaintiff and Class members reallege and incorporate all the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein
157. The RICO Defendants owe a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff and Class members. Each RICO Defendant gained the trust and confidence of Plaintiff and Class members by touting the reputation of Defendant Bowdoin and the assured legality and success of ASD’s program.
158. Each RICO Defendant breached the obligations and fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, reasonable inquiry, oversight, good faith and supervision. Each RICO Defendant made representations, among other things, about the business reputation of principals of ASD, the legality of the ASD program, the ability of ASD members to earn significant rebates and commissions, and the ability of ASD members to cash-out rebates and commissions for cash. Furthermore, each RICO Defendant touted ASD’s relationship with Bank of America to enhance the apparent legitimacy of the scheme and to promote the ease of financial transactions with ASD through Bank of America via wire transfers, special deposit slips to make deposits into ASD’s accounts, and direct deposits for ASD members ostensibly to receive cash outs. The RICO Defendants established a fiduciary duty by building a relation of confidence to influence ASD members, by assisting and educating ASD members on ways to participate in ASD’s program, and by inducing members to maintain cash balances rather than attempt to cash-out on earned rebates and commission. By so doing, the RICO Defendants undertook to provide financial advice to Plaintiff and Class members and to hold in trust ASD members’ cash balances. Each RICO Defendant breached the fiduciary duty to Plaintiff and class members by making unfounded promises of significant earnings in rebates and commissions, and by withholding from Plaintiff and Class members access to money
Plaintiff and Class members paid to ASD. Plaintiff and Class members thereby lost money that was paid to ASD.
159. As a result of the RICO Defendants’ breach of their fiduciary duty, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered and continue to suffer economic and non-economic losses, all in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.
COUNT FOUR – AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (Bank of America)
160. Plaintiff and Class members reallege and incorporate all the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein
161. The RICO Defendants owe a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff and Class members. Each RICO Defendant gained the trust and confidence of Plaintiff and Class members by touting the reputation of Defendant Bowdoin and the assured legality and success of ASD’s program.
162. Each RICO Defendant breached the obligations and fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, reasonable inquiry, oversight, good faith and supervision. Each RICO Defendant made representations, among other things, about the business reputation of principals of ASD, the legality of the ASD program, the ability of ASD members to earn significant rebates and commissions, and the ability of ASD members to cash-out rebates and commissions for cash. Furthermore, each RICO Defendant touted ASD’s relationship with Bank of America to enhance the apparent legitimacy of the scheme and to promote the ease of financial transactions with ASD through Bank of America via wire transfers, special deposit slips to make deposits into ASD’s accounts, and direct deposits for ASD members ostensibly to receive cash outs. The RICO Defendants established a fiduciary duty by building a relation of confidence to influence ASD members, by assisting and educating ASD members on ways to participate in ASD’s program, and by inducing members to maintain cash balances rather than attempt to cash-out on earned rebates and commission. By so doing, the RICO Defendants undertook to provide financial advice to Plaintiff and Class members and to hold in trust ASD members’ cash balances. Each RICO Defendant breached the fiduciary duty to Plaintiff and class members by making unfounded promises of significant earnings in rebates and commissions, and by withholding from Plaintiff and Class members access to money Plaintiff and Class members paid to ASD. Plaintiff and Class members thereby lost money that was paid to ASD.
163. Bank of America aided and abetted, encouraged, and rendered substantial assistance to the RICO Defendants to accomplish the wrongful acts complained of herein. In aiding and abetting and substantially assisting the commission of the acts complained of, Bank of America acted with an awareness of the RICO Defendants’ wrongdoing and realized that Bank of America’s conduct would substantially assist the accomplishment of the wrongful conduct and scheme alleged herein.
164. Bank of America substantially assisted the RICO Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty by failing to properly investigate Defendants Bowdoin and Busby, which would have revealed prior illegal activities; by continuing to allow one or more of the RICO Defendants to maintain Bank of America accounts after Bank of America had substantial notice of the RICO Defendants’ illegal scheme; by allowing the RICO Defendants to market and solicit members using Bank of America’s name and reputation and thus providing apparent legitimacy to the RICO Defendants’ illegal scheme; by training the RICO Defendants’ employees in ways to perpetuate the unlawful scheme; and by providing specialized mechanisms that went outside of normal course of banking business for the deposit, receipt and withdrawal of money fraudulently obtained from Plaintiff and Class members.
165. As a result of the wrongful conduct of Bank of America, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered and continue to suffer economic and non-economic losses, all in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.
COUNT FIVE – AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD (Bank of America)
166. Plaintiff and Class members reallege and incorporate all the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
167. Each RICO Defendants knowingly misrepresented, omitted, and/or concealed from Plaintiff and Class Members material facts relating to the activities and legitimacy of the ASD Enterprise, as set forth herein, including but not limited to: (1) material misrepresentations about the nature of the ASD scheme, including, but not limited to, the benefits of “membership,” the business acumen of the operators of ASD, and the legality of the scheme; (2) material misrepresentations regarding the misappropriation of member funds by the RICO Defendants for their personal use; (3) material misrepresentations about the ability of Plaintiff and Class members to earn and receive in the form of cash significant rebates from auto-surfing and referral commissions; (4) material misrepresentations that members would receive timely rebate credits and cash-outs; (5) material misrepresentations that one or more of the RICO Defendants had a partnership with Ad Sales Daily that would provide an outside source of income to fund payment of member rebates; (6) material misrepresentations in advertisements that members could earn 125% on ad packages purchased; and (7) material misrepresentations that the rebate program was a “loss leader” which enabled the ASD scheme to grow and pay members’ rebates with revenue from large commercial advertisers.
168. Bank of America aided and abetted, encouraged, and rendered substantial assistance to each RICO Defendant to accomplish the wrongful acts complained of herein. In aiding and abetting and substantially assisting the commission of the acts complained of, Bank of America acted with an awareness of the RICO Defendants’ wrongdoing and realized that Bank of America’s conduct would substantially assist the accomplishment of the wrongful conduct and scheme alleged herein.
169. Bank of America substantially assisted the RICO Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty by failing to properly investigate Defendants Bowdoin and Busby, which would have revealed prior illegal activities; by continuing to allow one or more of the RICO Defendants to maintain Bank of America accounts after Bank of America had substantial notice of the RICO Defendants’ illegal scheme; by allowing the RICO Defendants to market and solicit members using Bank of America’s name and reputation and thus providing apparent legitimacy to the RICO Defendants’ illegal scheme; by training the RICO Defendants’ employees in ways to perpetuate the unlawful scheme; and by providing specialized mechanisms that went outside of normal course of banking business for the deposit, receipt and withdrawal of money fraudulently obtained from Plaintiff and Class members.
170. As a result of the wrongful conduct of Bank of America, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered and continue to suffer economic and non-economic losses, all in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.
COUNT SIX – DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELEIF (Bowdin, Busby, Garner, AdSurfDaily, Inc., and Bank of America)
171. Plaintiff and Class members reallege and incorporate all the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
172. This claim arises under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a), which authorizes district courts to enjoin violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, which authorizes declaratory relief in cases subject to the district court’s jurisdiction.
173. As set forth in Counts One through Five above, Defendants have engaged in unlawful conduct and will continue to do so in the future.
174. Enjoining Defendants from committing these violations in the future and/or declaring their invalidity is appropriate as Plaintiff and the Class have no adequate remedy at law, and will, as set forth above, suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the Court’s declaratory and injunctive relief.
COUNT SEVEN – EQUITABLE ACCOUNTING (Bowdin, Busby, Garner, and AdSurfDaily, Inc.)
175. Plaintiff and Class members reallege and incorporate all the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
176. The RICO Defendants are fiduciaries of Plaintiff and the Class. The RICO Defendants have established complicated and ever-changing procedures involving transactions with Plaintiff and Class members.
177. As set forth above, the RICO Defendants maintain several accounts with Bank of America. Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ money paid to purchase ad packages has been co-mingled, withdrawn, siphoned to undisclosed sources, and utilized for personal purchases by the RICO Defendants.
178. Plaintiff and the Class do not have an adequate remedy at law and demand an accounting by the RICO Defendants for all monies deposited and withdrawn in the Bank of America accounts held singly or jointly by any of the RICO Defendants, as well as any other accounts into which the RICO Defendants deposited money received from Plaintiff and Class members.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment in its favor:
1. For an order certifying the Class as defined herein;
2. For a temporary, preliminary and permanent order for injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from pursuing the practices complained of above;
3. For a temporary, preliminary and permanent order for injunctive relief requiring Defendants to undertake an immediate public information campaign to inform members of the general public as to its prior practices and notifying the members of the putative Class of the potential for restitutionary relief;
4. For judgment declaring the above practices to be violative of federal law;
5. For an order requiring disgorgement and restitution of Defendants’ ill-gotten gains and payment of restitution to Plaintiff and the Class all funds acquired by means of the fraudulent scheme complained of above;
6. For compensatory, special and general damages according to proof; Ed Note how to prosper from a pyramid - ponzi scheme
7. For treble damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1964(c); Ed Note WOW how to REALLY prosper from a pyramid - ponzi scheme
8. For an order authorizing Plaintiff and the Class an equitable accounting;
9. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of investigation and litigation under 18 U.S.C. §1964(c); Ed Note how to prosper from a pyramid - ponzi scheme
10. For prejudgment interest; and
11. For such other and further relief as the interests of law or equity may require.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right.
s/ William C. Wright_William C. Wright 319 Clematis Street, Suite 109 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 514-0904 Facsimile: (561) 514-0905
CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP Mark A. Chavez (To Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Steven N. Berk (To Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Lisa Fialco (To Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941-1904 Tel: (415) 381-5599 Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN
& BALINT, P.C. Andrew S. Friedman (To Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Francis J. Balint, Jr. (To Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Kimberly C. Page (To Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 2901 N. Central, Suite 1000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2730 Tel: (602) 776-5902 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP Todd M Schneider (To Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Garrett W. Wotkyns (To Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104-4207 Tel: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Attorneys for Plaintiff Nature’s Discount and the Proposed Class
KEYWORDS: PONZI - PRAMID - AUTO SURF - SCAM - SEC - PYRAMID SCHEME
