“Auto-Surfing”: What You Need to Know

From the SEC website:

“Auto-Surfing”: What You Need to Know

In the world of marketing, people often get compensated — with cash or free products and services— for doing fairly easy things, like sampling new ice-cream flavors, filling out surveys, or allowing a firm to monitor the television shows you watch or the websites you visit.  While some “money for nothing” opportunities may be perfectly legitimate, others can turn out to be frauds.

“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.

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.  These schemes look deceptively legitimate because the fraudsters behind them typically use money coming in from new recruits to pay off early stage investors.  But eventually the pyramid will collapse when it gets too big.  It’s simply not possible to “rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul” forever.

The SEC warns investors to be wary of any sort of “get rich scheme quick” scheme — and to be especially leery of opportunities that require you to pay to play.  Before you pay a dime to make extra cash in your spare time, be sure to do a little due diligence:

  • If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Compare promised yields with current returns on well-known stock indexes.  Any investment opportunity that claims you’ll get substantially more could be highly risky — and that means you might lose money.

  • Check out the company before you invest. Contact the secretary of state where the company is incorporated to find out whether the company is a corporation in good standing.  Also call your state securities regulator to see whether the company, its officers, or the promoters of the opportunity have a history of complaints or fraud.  If a supposedly upright business lists only a P.O. box, you’ll want to do a lot of work before sending your money!

  • Steer Clear of Testimonials. Watch out if the company’s promotional materials, contain “testimonials” from supposedly satisfied customers, especially if all the “testimonials” are full of praise.

  • “Guaranteed returns” aren’t. Every investment carries some degree of risk, and the level of risk typically correlates with the return you can expect to receive.  Low risk generally means low yields, and high yields typically involve high risk.  If your money is perfectly safe, you’ll most likely get a low return.  High returns represent potential rewards for folks who are willing to take big risks.  Most fraudsters spend a lot of time trying to convince investors that extremely high returns are “guaranteed” or “can’t miss.”  Don’t believe it.

For more information on investing wisely and avoiding costly mistakes, please visit the Investor Information section of the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov/investor.shtml.

http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/autosurf.htm

Click here to view the original article along with the SEC’s disclaimer

Defendants Settle with FTC in Surplus Goods Business Opportunity Scam

7/14/2009 FTC press release:

Scammers who duped consumers into paying a total of more than $30 million for bogus business opportunities have settled Federal Trade Commission charges that their deceptive claims violated federal law. The settlements prohibit future violations by the defendants, who promised consumers that they would receive access to overstocked merchandise, expert training in the surplus goods industry, and substantial income.

The FTC sued the defendants in February 2005 as part of “Project Biz Opp Flop,” a crackdown on deceptive business opportunity and work-at-home schemes. The settlements entered last April ban the defendants from the business opportunity and franchise industries and prohibit them from misrepresenting any goods or services. The settlement orders also bar the defendants from selling or otherwise benefitting from personal information about customers who paid them before the orders were entered. In addition, the orders impose a $30.7 million judgment, which is suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay. The full judgment will be imposed if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The settlements also contain standard record-keeping and reporting provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance.

The defendants are Sheldon and Judith Takala Fidler and nine companies they controlled: World Traders Association, Inc., United Traders Association, Inc., International Merchandise Group, Inc., Trans-Global Connections, Inc., Musketeer Partners, Inc., Fulfillment Options, Inc., International Associates Worldwide, Inc., Magna Delta, LLC, and Office Options, LLC. The Commission vote authorizing the filing of the stipulated judgments and orders for permanent injunction was 4-0. The orders were entered by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. Four other defendants previously settled FTC charges related to this scheme.

In March 2007, in a related criminal proceeding instituted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, Sheldon Fidler pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud and received a 60-month prison sentence; he is currently in jail. Judith Fidler pleaded guilty to one count of criminal contempt and received two years of probation.

NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed by the judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Frank Dorman,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2674
STAFF CONTACT:
Arturo DeCastro,
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-2747

(FTC File No. X050021)
(World Traders)

SEC v MoneyTalks

6/12/2009 SEC v MoneyTalks

Securities and Exchange Commission v. John S. Morgan, Marian I. Morgan, Morgan European Holdings ApS a/k/a Money Talks, Inc., ApS, Stephen E. Bowman, Bowman Marketing Group, Inc., and Thomas D. Woodcock, Jr., Case 8:09-CV-01093-RAL-EAJ

SEC OBTAINS EMERGENCY RELIEF AGAINST ALLEGED PERPETRATORS OF PRIME BANK SCHEME

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, on June 11, 2009, it filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Morgan European Holdings ApS, a/k/a Money Talks, Inc. ApS (“MEH”), John Morgan, Marian Morgan, Bowman Marketing Group, Inc. (“BMG”), Stephen E. Bowman, and Thomas D. Woodcock, Jr., for allegedly soliciting investments in fictitious prime bank trading programs. MEH is based in Denmark and in Sarasota, Florida, where John Morgan and Marian Morgan also reside. BMG is located in Omaha, Nebraska, where Bowman resides. Woodcock is a resident of Rockwall, Texas.

The Complaint alleges that, during 2006 and 2007, the defendants raised millions of dollars from investors to participate in a fictitious investment program involving the trading of financial instruments among top financial institutions. The defendants told investors that their principal was guaranteed or never placed at risk. However, according to the Complaint, the defendants used investor funds for various undisclosed purposes, including Bowman’s gambling expenses, mortgage payments by the Morgans, and Ponzi payments to some investors. The SEC claims that John Morgan, Marian Morgan, and Stephen Bowman have continued to lull investors into remaining complacent by promising the imminent payment of their principal and returns. None of the relevant offerings was registered with the Commission, nor were any of the defendants registered as a broker-dealer or associated with a registered broker-dealer.

The Complaint claims that, based on this conduct, all of the defendants violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Complaint also claims that John Morgan, Marian Morgan, Bowman, and Woodcock violated Exchange Act Section 15(a). On the Commission’s motion, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, Asset Freeze and Other Equitable Relief (“Order”) on June 11, 2009. Among other things, the Court’s Order froze the assets of defendants John Morgan, Marian Morgan, MEH, Bowman, and BMG, wherever located, which are derived from, or reasonably traceable to, any investor funds. A hearing for a preliminary injunction has been set for June 25, 2009.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr21082.htm