The Norwegian Gaming Board put out a press-release today, advising that they have launched an investigation into Lyoness.
Tipped off by members of the Norwegian public, the Gaming Board plans ‘to assess whether (Lyoness) is an illegal pyramid‘.
Among other things, the Authority received information that it costs 20,000 dollars to join Lyoness. We also learned that members’ commissions mainly come from recruiting members and not from the sale of goods and services.
With Lyoness being free to join, it appears the Gaming Board are going to target the accounting unit investment scheme Lyoness run parallel to their cashback network.
Fourteen, fifteen, sixteen appeals rejected – I’ve lost count of the exact number of times TelexFree have had their various appeals dismissed, but I’m starting to think they found their lawyers in one of those 20 cent skill-based claw machines.
TelexFree’s latest appeal was filed in the Superior Court and appears to be an objection to a ruling in São Paulo.
Desertion occurs when the part does not collect or collects less judicial fees required for filing an appeal.
So as I understand it, an administrative decision was made in São Paulo against TelexFree for either not paying or not paying in full, fees incurred via the filing of appeal(s) there.
This latest appeal was an attempt to overturn that decision, which has also failed.
The Minister Joao Otavio de Noronha, stressed that the complaint, in accordance with understanding the STJ can only be made against the judgment of the state appellate class, not against monocratic court decision.
Moreover, according to him, the Administrator of Telexfree points to the existence of jurisprudential disagreement procedural matter, which can not be done through complaint.
The use of the complaint to resolve differences between classes and the state appellate case law from the Supreme Court is restricted to matters of substantive law.
This isn’t the first time TelexFree have had appeals rejected due to jurisdiction issues either, so what their legal team are basing their decision to file appeals on is a mystery (crapshoot?).
In what’s become a Thanksgiving season tradition, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, along with 10 foreign law enforcement agencies, seized more than 700 domain names it said were selling counterfeit or illegal merchandise in advance of the Cyber Monday online shopping blitz.“The 706 domain names seized were set up to dupe consumers into unknowingly buying counterfeit goods as part of the holiday shopping season,” the agency said.
ICE’s Project Cyber Monday IV program seized 297 domain names after undercover investigations conducted by its Homeland Security Investigations Unit, according to a press release distributed on Monday. Project Cyber Monday is an iteration of the agency’s In Our Sites initiative, which monitors and shuts down illegal websites.
Europol shut down an additional 393 websites and officials in Hong Kong seized 16 more, ICE said. Some of the shuttered sites may have been angling to steal consumers’ financial information in addition to selling them phony goods, the agency said.
This is the fourth year ICE has led a coordinated attack against illegal online sales on Cyber Monday. In 2012 the agency shuttered 132 sites.
“Working with our international partners on operations like this shows the true global impact of [intellectual property] crime,” ICE acting Director John Sandweg said in a statement. “Counterfeiters take advantage of the holiday season and sell cheap fakes to unsuspecting consumers everywhere. Consumers need to protect themselves, their families, and their personal financial information from the criminal networks operating these bogus sites.”
U.S. customs officials on Monday announced the seizure of more than 700 domain names of websites selling counterfeit goods, in the fourth year that federal officials have capitalized on the attention from online retailers’ Cyber Monday to point to rampant piracy.
The products being sold include DVDs, headphones, sports jerseys, toys, shoes, electronic accessories and personal care products.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations unit teams with 10 foreign law enforcement agencies to seize the domain names. In the U.S., 297 domain names were seized from undercover operations conducted by homeland security offices around the country. Europol seized another 393 domain names through its member countries, and Hong Kong customs officials seized 16 names hosted in Hong Kong.
This year’s seizures had a particular focus on variations of the NFL brand and team names. Among the names seized were nfl-go.com, redskins-online.com and nfl-web.com.
ICE coordinates federal agencies in pursuing the seizures via the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center in Washington.
The reasons participants in pyramid schemes come up with to justify their participation in one are just as numerous as the schemes themselves.
Here on BehindMLM we regularly bear witness to all sorts of logic-fails, ranging from the tired “everything is a pyramid scheme” to “why hasn’t X company been shutdown if it’s a pyramid scheme?”
Typically these excuses ignore an opportunities business model, and instead attempt to shift focus onto something else. Whatever “something else” turns out to be is then typically used to override the recruitment driven nature of the business model.
One such argument I’ve seen of late however does actually focus on an opportunity’s business model, asserting that the restriction of payout levels somehow negates the recruitment driven nature of the scheme.
On November 22, 2013, US District Judge Ronald B. Leighton signed the Final Order of Forfeiture regarding all items seized during an FBI Terrorism Task Force raid in November of 2011 on Kenneth “Keny” Wayne Leaming’s home in Spanaway, Washington. The list of items seized and forfeited include:
a. One (1) Norinco SKS 7.62x39mm semiautomatic rifle, bearing Serial No. 215590;
b. One (1) Astra model A-100 .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol, bearing Serial No. 0865B;
c. One (1) Ruger model Vaquero, .45 caliber revolver, bearing Serial No. 57-49390;
d. One (1) Remington model 870 Express 12 gauge shotgun, bearing Serial No. X298121M;
e. One (1) Winchester model 94 .30-.30 caliber lever-action rifle, bearing Serial No. 4793736;
f. One (1) Winchester model 94 .32 caliber lever-action rifle, bearing Serial No. 1238347;
g. All badges, credentials, law enforcement identification documents, and other law enforcement equipment, including but not limited to light bars, crime scene tape, vests, handcuffs, nightsticks, and other similar items;
h. All documents related to defendant’s performance of legal services for third parties, including “client” files, counterfeit instruments, and similar materials; and
i. All digital devices, including computers, external hard drives, and other storage media.
Leaming was subsequently convicted of the following:
2 Counts of Retaliating Against A Federal Judge or Law Enforcement Officer by a False Claim
1 Count of Concealing a Person from Arrest
1 Count of Felon in Possession of a Firearm
Leaming is serving his sentence in the Terre Haute Federal Corrections Institution and is scheduled for release on February 13, 2019. A Federal Felon conviction in 2005 was for Piloting an Aircraft Without a License and Piloting an Unregistered Aircraft, which made it illegal for him to possess any firearm.
As you may be aware, Payza members in certain U.S. states have had access to the funds in their Payza accounts restricted. We are working to resolve this issue.
Please note that this issue only directly affects a small percentage of our global member base. We are working with these members and the various State Regulators to provide them with a means to receive their funds.
Members in the affected states: There is further account-specific information available to you when you log into your Payza account, which you still have full access to, as well as contact information for your State Regulator.
We apologize for this inconvenience.
Payza is Here to Help
If you have any questions about this issue, our dedicated Customer Support team is available to assist you. You can contact Customer Support by phone, email, live chat or on Twitter:
Reports from Payza clients began to filter in yesterday about the payment processor having problems in some US states. In an announcement sent out to clients in the affected states, Payza advised
Regarding your funds
The funds you currently have in your account are secure and safeguarded under, and according to, the regulatory guidelines of your state.
We are unable to complete any requests to withdraw or transfer these funds at this time, as they are currently being withheld by Ultralight Financial Services, formerly known as Obopay Inc., a licensed U.S. money transmitter of which Payza was an agent.
In order to provide payment services to our U.S. clients in your state, Payza entered into an agreement with Obopay Inc., a long standing and highly reputable money transmitter.
However, following a change in management and in name, Obopay Inc., now known as Ultralight FS, is currently refusing to process any customer transaction requests from the Payza platform, and refusing to release your money to you.
We have tried repeatedly, and to no avail, to resolve this problem by contacting their management, their legal team and your state regulator.
We are pursuing legal action against Obopay Inc., Ultralight FS, their officers and the CEO of both entities, Carol Realini. This legal process, however, is lengthy and will take some time to resolve.
Your state regulator has told us they will not intervene unless they hear from you, the owner of your funds. Our only recourse is to ask you to demand action from both Ultralight FS,formerly known as Obopay Inc., and your state regulator.
Please use this message to send to your state regulatory:
Dear [State Regulator],
Payza has let me know that Ultralight FS, formerly known as Obopay Inc., is refusing to make my money available through my bank account or my Payza account.
I am writing to ask you to take immediate action to solve this problem.
[firstname] [last name]
We want to stress that your current funds are entirely secure and safeguarded by the Issuing Agency of your state. With your help we are confident this problem can be resolved quickly.
Please contact your state regulator to request that they intervene to allow us to transfer your funds to your bank account immediately.
I held off reporting on this initially as the problem appeared to be, at least according to Payza, between themselves and Ultralight FS (Obopay Inc.). Pending further information about Payza’s claimed legal action, or an announcement from Ultralight FS, there wasn’t much else to go on.