The “victims” of TelexFree have obtained the right to “question the correctness of TelexFree’s data” in a lawsuit. There has been plenty of time for the “victims” to demonstrate their allegations, so this decision is puzzling.
Investors (Appellant Participants) who have questioned TelexFree’s records include eighteen TelexFree investors.
Abdeltif Bellagat is the author. Abdelkhalak Toqi’s name Racing for a Cause Nasr, Joseph Ruben Nieves’ Merilio Rojas is the name of the actor. Hazem Wehbe Theresa Peter. According to Peter, Ramzio Costa is the person responsible for this. Ismail Saif Greek Panagiotis Iatrou She is known as Manal Hamadi. The name Hubert Lubin is commonly used. He is known as Carlos DeAlvarenga. Rahima Boughalem is the woman behind the name. George Berube and Earley Barbosa Considering the circumstances, it appears that these people are net gainers who are attempting to manipulate the system.
A large number of individuals had several user accounts, each indicating a separate set of purchases. Appellant-participant Panagiotis Iatrou, for example, recalled having thirty separate user accounts. Personal information provided by users varies widely. It stands to reason that victims of a Ponzi scheme would not have thirty different bank accounts.
Con artists do. In any case, Timothy Martin of Huron Consulting Group’s algorithm has been disputed by the affiliates. Data from each user’s account was used to create a link between them and the participants in the study. In the past, TelexFree net winners have contested Martin’s algorithm. At a hearing earlier this year, Judge Hoffman ruled that Martin’s algorithm’s output was “possibly unreliable.” This is because of a number of Martin’s alleged technological flaws.
He has never had to deal with the issue of “many user accounts and the necessity to link such accounts” in his career as an accountant. The District Judge’s order cites a number of issues, including: False or misspelled names aren’t taken into account by Martin’s algorithm because the data from TelexFree used to feed it was of “low quality.”
In other words, Martin expected the information provided by scammers to be accurate. He had no idea what MLM Ponzi scammers were up to. There’s no doubt that TelexFree bears some of the blame for this situation, as well. TelexFree’s business operations are organized in such a way that participant transactions are virtually undetectable.
Despite the obvious technological flaws, the use of Martin’s algorithm in claim determination was authorized. The eighteen affiliates who were disputing the findings were unable to prove that they possessed accounts and funds linked to those accounts. A “TelexFree Participant Questionnaire” was often the only piece of supporting documentation. For example, several participants stated that they paid in cash and did not receive a receipt, or that they were locked out of the TelexFree database.
Third-party affidavits, TelexFree agreement copies, or handwritten notes were some of the other evidence offered by others to back their claims. In their questionnaires, several respondents said that documentation may exist, but they did not provide any evidence of that. Some participants were able to provide bank statements and checks to support their assertions. Even if I’m simplifying a bit, the court basically ruled: no proof, no claim. In most cases, affiliates were categorized as net winners when they produced proof of success.
According to Mr. Martin’s findings, several of these claims lacked adequate evidence to back up the claimants’ assertions that they made payments to TelexFree. Some of the Appellant-Participants, like Appellant-Participant Carlos Dealvarenga, submitted proof of their payments to TelexFree, but Mr. Martin found other accounts in their names with positive balances that far surpassed any reported payments.
“Net winners,” according to Mr. Martin, are not entitled to compensation. Additional records were requested as a result of this. In the end, no information was given. Instead of affidavits, the affiliates gave affidavit templates. Appellant participants provided further evidence in support of their allegations in April 2020. For example, participants filled in their claim amount, stated they were “net losers,” and described their transactions with TelexFree to varying degrees in these boilerplate affidavits. Please put your faith in us, brother. In the affidavit in favor of the trustee disputing claims by the 18 affiliates, Martin noted that the contested allegations were stated Participants made undocumented changes to transactions or accounts.
In August 2020, the bankruptcy court approved the claim denials. The affiliates’ appeal was sparked by the denied claims. Full-scale legal proceedings to resolve issues over TelexFree’s ability to prove its claims of payment and record keeping. The trustee is in charge of keeping everything running smoothly. There is no need for an evidentiary hearing because the participants did not present the necessary evidence to support their assertions.
District Judge Woodlock stated that he would grant the motion for a hearing. There is a chance that even if the TelexFree database included the full and exact transaction history for each of the Appellant Participants, Mr. Martin’s algorithm may not have aggregated all of those accounts and linked them to the relevant Appellant-Participant.
An evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether the evidence presented by the trustee is sufficient to disprove the Appellant-Participants’ allegations. Because of recent concerns voiced by Judge Hoffman, the Appellant Participants must be given the opportunity to test the trustee’s aggregation procedure.
As far as I can tell, I don’t know how long this is going to take. Regardless of how long it takes, the evidentiary hearing will eventually have to deal with the “just trust us bro” issue. “Just trust us bro,” “Hi guys, I invested one hundred billion dollars over one hundred billion accounts,” and similar claims can be made by granting “just trust us bro” statements.
There is no evidence to support this claim. “Could I have some money, please?” was nonsense. In my opinion, there’s no way to get your money back if you’ve taken part in a Ponzi scheme. It’s on you if you can’t prove ownership of an account and provide relevant financial records. It’s not a flawless system, and it’s true that some people will end up losing money as a result of it. The “just trust us dude” standoff is a dead end, and I can’t see any way past it. I’ll be on the lookout for any further developments.