It has been driving me nuts....

[Accountant]

It's making me a little crazy to see the people over at the CEP forum putting so much hope into the report that Swiss Cash was investigated by the SEC and came away with flying colors, or some form thereof.....

In fact, the company was not Swiss Cash, it was Swiss Trade and Commerce Trust, Ltd., and while the US did not get the files that were physically located in Belize, (and this was in 1994, by the way) they did eventually win. The case in Belize was not about whether the company was a scam or not (in fact it was) but only about whether the US Government was entitled to the records. The court found not, and the SEC went after them with other files that were located in the US. It just took a little longer, but the company ended up being shut down. This scam started in 1992 and ended in 1994, making it one of the very first HYIPs, albeit before that catchy title was invented. Funny thing, HYIP was itself a term invented by scammers to make their ponzi schemes more legitmate sounding, although the term is now known to be code for Ponzi Scheme. Interesting Trivia....for several years after Charles Ponzi was arrested, many scammers advertised their fraudulent investment schemes as "Ponzi Plans" before that term, like HYIP now, became known among the general public as illegal scams.

Anyhow, here is how the SEC investigation of Swiss Trade and Commerce Trust ended up...

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr15689.txt

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.

Litigation Release No. 15689 / March 30, 1998

SEC v. Banner Fund International, Civil Action No. 94-342
(EGS) ( D.D.C.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that
on March 26, 1998, The Honorable Emmet Sullivan, United
States District Judge for the District of Columbia, granted
the Commission's motion for summary judgment against
defendants Lloyd R.Winburn, Swiss Trade & Commerce Trust
Ltd., and Eddie R. Blackwell. The Court enjoined the
defendants from violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of the
Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, and Section 7(d) of the Investment Company Act.
Finding that defendants had knowingly and intentionally
misrepresented the purpose of the investment they had
promoted and the use to which investors' funds would be put,
the Court ordered defendants to disgorge, jointly and
severally, $6.5 million they had raised through their false
and misleading statements, and to pay $2.69 million in
prejudgment interest. The Court previously had entered a
default judgment against defendant Banner Fund International
on the same claims.

From late 1992 through 1994, defendants Winburn and
Blackwell, both United States citizens operating first out
of Aruba and later from Belize, offered and sold investments
in the Banner Fund International Offshore Arbitrage
Leveraging Program, which they advertised as an opportunity
for the "little guy" to take advantage of "phenomenal"
opportunities in the financial markets. Through the vehicle
of Banner Fund, under the management of Swiss Trade, Winburn
and Blackwell claimed that investors' funds would be
leveraged into large profits with little or no room for
loss. In fact, after raising at least $6.5 million from
mailings targeted primarily at unsophisticated investors
with small amounts of capital to invest, defendants failed
to engage in any leverage or arbitrage activity, but instead
spent the money on real estate and a shrimp farm in Belize,
and on various trusts in the United States engaged in
lending money to defendants' relatives and friends.

In addition to rendering judgment for the Commission, the
Court denied Blackwell's motion for summary judgment, which
was based primarily on the contention that, because
defendants were located in Belize, the Court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the action. To the contrary, the
Court found, defendants' perpetration of a fraud against
United States investors through the use of the United States
mails indisputably established subject matter jurisdiction
under the federal securities laws.

For further information, see Litigation Release No. 15311.



Someone please inform the people aver at the CEP forum, false hope does no one any good...

[Webwatch]

As CEP is quite literally constipated at the moment I can understand how this confusion could occur and how members would cling on by their eybrows to any hope even as in this case it tuns out to be false.

The latest hope comes from a coastin88 newsletter.
http://www.coastin88.com/news.php?type=1#83
Hi, Everyone! :-)

It seems there has been some confusion based on support tickets and e-mails we have been receiving over the last few days. Some members have been asking why the daily % is now lower than it was before and why it dropped in the first place a few weeks ago, and we had not yet made it very clear. I apologize that we had not made it clear before. We have been doing much work behind the scenes, and we had forgotten to keep all of you posted with all the excitement we have been going through recently on the administrative end.

We do want to address a few things, however, so that there is no longer any confusion with how our program works. The daily percent is dependent on how much revenue we bring in via advertising, as noted on the How it Works page of our website and in our Terms of Service. Regardless of the amount that comes in, 88% of it is given in direct commissions for all of those who have viewed and rated 15 advertiser websites during the day. This is our way of saying thank you because our advertising would not be effective without you, who view and provide feedback for the websites being advertised through our services. The better our business is, the more revenue we have to share with those viewing the sites advertisers are paying for, the higher the more money there is for each of our viewers that day. This is represented in the form of a daily %.

As you know, the daily % has been lower recently. There are a few reasons for this. There were some regulatory issues at another business we own, and many people became concerned that those regulatory issues affected our other businesses, which they do not. The business that is being investigated by the SEC is 100% unrelated to Coastin88, and the other business is being investigated because there was some missing paperwork regarding registration with the US SEC. We are addressing that issue separately, as it is unrelated to Coastin88. I have been made aware that there is discussion in the forums relating to this, and these threads are not related to Coastin88. I would ask that the members discussing this in the Coastin88 forum please go to the proper website forum and discuss it there. It is has no relation to Coastin88 and has confused many other members. Coastin88 is not under the jurisdiction of the SEC, as it is not in any way a security. Due to this confusion and concern, however, many advertisers stopped or slowed their purchasing of advertising packages at Coastin88. Because purchases were lower, the amount that we have to share is less. That it why the percent was affected in the way that it was.

We do have some outside sources of income for Coastin88, and we use these resources when our advertising has slowed to keep the commission % up for our viewers. We can only safely use so much, however, without endangering the longevity of the business. Some have asked us why we have not jumped the percent back to where it was to encourage more participation. The reason is simple: that is not a good long term decision, as it would cost a great deal of our outside resources, and it could risk depleting those resources. This is why we have chosen to help in a bit of an extended fashion at a much lower rate. Truly, the daily % is and should be dependent on our advertisers. If we made it dependent on us, then the business could become unstable and eventually crumble. It is much better to earn at a much lower rate and still be earning rather than lose everything entirely. We function in this way so that we can continue to pay our viewers rather than simply closing up shop when advertising slows down. That is the true strength to our business model: long-lasting stability.

This said, we will not continue to assist the daily % forever with our outside resources, lest the business become unstable and go bankrupt. We are not in danger of doing so at this time, and we are unwilling to risk getting close to that point. The daily % rests on the shoulders of our advertisers. We will continue to manage the way we do, and we have been all over the country on multiple business trips within the last several weeks seeking more outside income streams to bolster times when advertising purchases are slower. We are doing our part working with all of these resources, but we need you, our advertisers, to continue to purchase more advertising if you want the daily % to be higher and to be maintained at a higher rate. Coastin88 is built for stability, and it has the full potential to have a higher daily % than any other business we have worked with, but that potential relies on more than our outside income streams. It relies on you. Together, we can make this program successful again. :-) Thank you very much for your continued support and patience as we work through this slow time. We WILL get through it. ;-) That is truly not a question in my mind. Take care until next time! :-)

Trevor
Trevor of course would plant this little titbit for members of CEP to pick up on, Interesting how he couldn't name CEP directly and this 'Missing Paperwork' could be one of the biggest understatements possible.

By missing does Trevor mean the SEC have lost it or it was never been filed with them in the first place (probably the latter).
Can Trevor now just belatedly file this paperwork which presumably sets out how investments are made to acheive 2% day returns.

[Accountant]

Well, no. As anyone familiar with SEC procedures knows, not filing the paperwork is a a big mistake, claiming to the public you didn't need to file the paperwork is another big no no (and the SEC can and does bar people for life for doing this) and is also a criminal offense for which the FTC and the FBI will come looking for you (it is in fact securities fraud, the specification being making untrue statements about an investment to the public, or to public investors, Felony II, 5-10 years PER COUNT, Federal Level, Bank Fraud under Kentucky Law, hell it's more than likely even illegal in Belize) By deliberately telling investors he was not required to file SEC paperwork, the SEC will almost certainly ban him from ever being able to get anything he applies for approved, and the consent decree will specify that he is permamently enjoined from violating XXXX etc etc....Trevor is going to go to jail for this one, he can tell the CEP people he just missed a box on a form all he wants, but he willfully violated the Securities acts and then bragged about it on his website. They frown on that, even if he wasn't running a ponzi scheme.

[concerned]

As CEP is quite literally constipated at the moment I can understand how this confusion could occur and how members would cling on by their eybrows to any hope even as in this case it tuns out to be false.

Well, that's one way to put it. NICE