Monday, 6 January 2020

Traffic Monsoon - Official Claims Information

The Claims Portal is now live.

To submit a Proof of Claim electronically, please click on the “File a Claim” icon. 

You must file your claim by 11:59pm on April 10th, 2020.

Regardless of previous forms you may have filled in, this form MUST be completed or you will get NO money.

This is the receivers general information if you have any queries:

Peggy Hunt, Esq
Traffic Monsoon Receiver
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
111 S. Main Street, Suite 2100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2176

Traffic Monsoon Receivership Hotline
Toll-free in North America 888-522-8926
Outside of North America +1-503-520-4483


Summary of Case
On July 26, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against Traffic Monsoon, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, and Charles David Scoville (the “Defendants”). See SEC v. Traffic Monsoon, LLC et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00832-JNP (D. Utah). The SEC claims, among other things, that between October 2014 and July 26, 2016, the Defendants engaged in securities fraud and operated a Ponzi scheme. It is alleged that the Defendants took approximately $207 million from over 162,000 investors through the solicitation of a revenue sharing product known as an “AdPack”. The Court also entered a Temporary Restraining Order and Order Freezing Assets which was subsequently amended, and an Order Appointing Receiver, appointing Peggy Hunt of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, as the receiver for the assets of Traffic Monsoon and Mr. Scoville, pending a determination as to whether a preliminary injunction should be entered in this case. At that time, the Receiver promptly took control of known assets and commenced an investigation.
Mr. Scoville thereafter contested the entry of a preliminary injunction, and filed a Motion to Set Aside the Receivership. An evidentiary hearing on those matters was scheduled to commence on November 1, 2016 (the “Preliminary Injunction Hearing”). Prior to the Preliminary Injunction Hearing, the Receiver filed two Declarations summarizing her investigation as of October 2016 as follows: Declaration of Receiver Peggy Hunt (Communications) and Declaration of Peggy Hunt (Business Operations). At the preliminary injunction hearing, the Court received evidence from both the SEC and Mr. Scoville over a two-day period, and then heard several hours of legal argument.
On March 28, 2017, the Court entered a Preliminary Injunction, a Memorandum Decision and Order Granting a Preliminary Injunction and Denying the Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside the Receivership, and an Amended Order Appointing Receiver. You should review each of these documents. The Court held, among other things, that the SEC had made a showing that it was likely to prevail in establishing that Traffic Monsoon was operated as a Ponzi scheme. The Court has enjoined the Defendants from operating Traffic Monsoon or a business model substantially similar to Traffic Monsoon’s sale of AdPacks. The Court has also frozen all assets and stayed all litigation. Finally, the Court has rejected Mr. Scoville’s request to set aside the receivership, and has appointed Ms. Hunt to serve as Receiver for the purpose of marshalling and preserving all of Traffic Monsoon’s assets and all of Mr. Scoville’s assets that were obtained directly or indirectly from Traffic Monsoon.
Mr. Scoville appealed the District Court’s orders, and on January 24, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit filed its Opinion affirming the District Court in all respects. The Tenth Circuit held that (1) U.S. securities laws apply to offers to sell, and sales of, AdPacks to Traffic Monsoon members located outside of the United States, (2) AdPacks are securities, and (3) it is likely that the SEC can prove that Mr. Scoville’s and Traffic Monsoon’s conduct violated security law anti-fraud provisions –specifically, that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the SEC is likely to prove that Traffic Monsoon was operated as a Ponzi scheme.
After obtaining numerous extensions of time, Mr. Scoville filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on June 21, 2019. On November 4, 2019, Mr. Scoville’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was denied.

Saturday, 7 September 2019

Futurenet/FuturoCoin - Why Do Stephan Morgenstern and Roman Ziemian Have Diplomatic Gambian Passports?

*updated 20th September 2019

So why would Stephan Morgenstern and Roman Ziemian owners of FutureNet/FuturoCoin want a Diplomatic Gambian passport? Because if you have a Gambian Diplomatic Passport you have access to over 80 countries without the need for a visa. And it looks like Gambia have been issuing Diplomatic Passports like jellybeans in exchange for money - and Roman and Stephan certainly have plenty of that!

'There are legitimate questions here, if, in fact, those appointees are salaried, and on what terms and conditions of issuing diplomatic passports. Looking at the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations (1961), clearly, Jammeh has overstepped the process by issuing the country’s privilege papers in exchange for monetary favors. Not again, and Foreign Minister Darboe is on notice that Gambians are taking a closer look. For accountability purposes in view of a ‘Freedom of information bill’ soon to be introduced in parliament, pro-democracy groups aim to put in periodic requests of all persons issued with diplomatic passports, bar ‘REAL’ ambassadors.'

In March 2019, The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection in Poland warned people against joining Futurenet and charged Roman and Stephan with running a Ponzi scam. To my knowledge, this is yet to reach it's conclusion:

'The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection suspects that there are systems on FutureNet and FutureAdPro websites that can be pyramid type promotional systems. Consumers may lose their money. Therefore, we officially warn you: do not buy the packages offered, do not enter friends into the system . For risky investments, among others at FutureNet and FutureAdPro we've been drawing consumers' attention back in 2017.

Two companies manage websites: BCU Trading from Dubai and Futurenet Ukraine from Lviv. UOKiK initiated proceedings against them and charged them . Services are also interested in the District Prosecutor's Office in Wrocław, conducting the investigation under the reference number PO 2 Ds. 63.2016.

FutureNet and FutureAdPro promise "profits" for someone persuading other people to buy participation packages that cost from $ 10. up to even over 1 thousand dollars. - Both companies make benefits dependent on the fact that someone will recruit more participants. The system will stop working if other people do not join it. Usually, in this type of schemes money goes mainly to the originators of the pyramid - says Marek Niechciuk, president of UOKiK.

UOKiK's proceedings regarding violation of collective consumer interests may end with a decision imposing a financial penalty of up to 10%. company marketing. The Office may also order the company to discontinue adverse practices and remove their effects.

How do you know the pyramid?

The scheme of operation of the pyramid is as follows: you deposit money, then recommend other people for whose introduction you receive a salary. It comes from the contributions of people you have directly and indirectly recommended. This way you, your friends and acquaintances are financing the pyramid . However, after some time the system must collapse, because the money paid in is not invested in any assets and does not bring profits . They reach the organizers of the pyramid and people who occupy a higher position in the pyramid chain. The system works as long as more money is deposited than withdrawn. The condition is, however, that the number of people participating in the pyramid increases dramatically - such a steady, avalanche increase in customers is not possible. As a result, the pyramid falls down,your money is forfeited, and if you have introduced your friends or family also their money. Contact with the owners is broken. Pyramid systems are masked with the slogans "program", "investment", "making money online", "making money at home", "advertising platform". Report fraud to law enforcement agencies (police, prosecutor's office).

Consumer Warning

Pursuant to the Act on competition and consumer protection, UOKiK issues a consumer warning when it has reasonable suspicion that an entrepreneur is using an illegal practice that may expose a wide range of consumers to significant financial losses or adverse effects . Warnings are posted on the office's website .

The undertakings against which the President of UOKiK issued a warning are: BCU Trading with headquarters in Dubai (United Arab Emirates) and Futurenet Ukraine with headquarters in Lviv (Ukraine).'

Also of interest is this notice issued by Futurenet in August, in which they appear to have sold the Advertising Pack business:

'On August 10th 2019, the legal effects of the agreement on the transfer of rights to the FutureAdPro Platform formerly owned by the company BCU Trading LCC based in Dubai came into force. Therefore the new owner and administrator of the FuturenetAdPro Platform is FTO Box Information Technology Services, Office TBA , Building 1565, Road 1722, Diplomatic Area Manama 317 PO Box 20705 , Kingdom of Bahrain. As a result, FutureAdPro is no longer part of Futurenet.'

So it looks decidedly like Roman and Stephan are getting ready to this space.

9th September 2019

Press Release
Gambia Government Makes Significant Progress in Diplomatic Passport Investigations
Banjul, The Gambia—Following intense investigations into allegations of fraudulent procurement and acquisition of Gambian Diplomatic Passports, The Gambia Government working with our international partners, is pleased to report the arrest of several people in Germany who are currently providing pivotal information to the authorities. Similar arrests of culprits in The Gambia have also, yielded significant leads into this vast and sophisticated criminal network that risks damaging the good reputation of our peaceful and law-abiding country.
Ever since news of the Diplomatic Passports emerged, Government quickly established a Task Force comprising officials of The Gambia Police Force, Immigration Department and the State Intelligence Services(SIS) to adequately probe the matter and prosecute all those found complicit in the sale, procurement, manufacture and illegal acquisition of The Gambia’s Diplomatic Passports. The Task Force will also, conduct a complete inventory of all Diplomatic Passports issued since 2016 with verifications of all their holders’ profiles.
Thus far, over a dozen citizens and non-citizens have been apprehended and as the investigations widen, numerous more suspects may either be arrested or be called in for questioning to help the Task Force shatter this criminal cabal and restore sanity in the entire process. Members of the public are urged to fully cooperate with investigators and where possible, to provide crucial information that may be helpful to the Task Force.
Under Gambian law, the issuing of Diplomatic Passports rests exclusively with the Presidency and those that acquired their passports legitimately by using the established procedural channels are not the subject of this criminal inquiry. The probe targets those who knowingly acted illegally by falsifying documents, aiding and abetting in the sale, procurement and acquisition of this precious national document for all the wrong reasons.
President Adama Barrow as the singular Approving Authority of Diplomatic Passports has instructed a full, swift and comprehensive investigation to break the neck of the criminal cabal bent on tarnishing the good image of The Gambia. Mr Barrow has made it categorically clear that “there will be no sacred cows; no one will be spared in these investigations regardless of ones position and all those found wanting, will face the full extent of the law”.
Therefore, conscious of the gravity of the situation and its potential ramifications vis-a-vis The Gambia’s international obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), will soon convene a meeting with members of the Diplomatic and Consular Corps to immediately address this and similar pressing issues.
Ebrima G. Sankareh

The Gambia Government Spokesperson

Sunday, 1 September 2019

Charles Scoville - Still Denying All Knowledge of The Sale of His Manchester Flat

(*updated 7th September 2019)
Charles Scoville brought a flat in Manchester, England (27, The Quays, Salford Manchester M50 3BB) on 14th August 2015 and the flat was sold on 28th November 2017:

But Charles denies all knowledge of having sold the flat and insists that somebody has forged his signature and stolen the £280,000.

Charles Scoville and his company Traffic Monsoon have been charged with running a ponzi scheme by the Securities and Exchange Commission. All their assets have been frozen and are currently in receivership. So the proceeds from the sale of the flat should have all gone to the receivers.

Charles has had two court judgements against him already - both ruling that Traffic Monsoon was a ponzi scam. But Charles has recently applied for a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court and a ruling is expected in the next few weeks.

The UK Transfer of Sale documents all have a signature saying 'Charles Scoville'  and have been witnessed by Kuddus Qureshi  2a, Heigham Road London E6 2JG

Kuddus Qureshi  ran a taxi service called RM Vehicle Hire Ltd that was registered at: 
2A Heigham Road and was dissolved on 26th September 2017 

Charles Scoville registered a company called Traffic Monsoon Global Ltd
whose registered Office is 2, Heigham Road, East Ham, London E6 2JG:

Imperial Offices is a large building in Heigham Road that rents out Office space;

And if you check the postcode on the Postcode Finder Website is clearly states that 2A is part of this address:

Charles says he can prove that he was in the USA on the date the Transfer was signed. And I can only assume that his passport date stamps will confirm this.   So there are obviously questions to answer in relation to the identity and whereabouts of Kuddus Qureshi who seems to reside in an office used by Traffic Monsoon and has witnessed the signature of somebody who was apparently on a different continent at the time the signature was given.

Charles is trying to help the receiver recover the missing money since Premier Property Lawyers are refusing to release all the documentation relating to the sale:

But since his attorneys can't even get the witnesses house number correct on the Court documents, his help might be more of a hindrance:

 7th September 2019

The Receivers request to the Hague Convention has been granted, which means Premier Property Lawyers in the UK have to provide full documentation to the US Courts.…/traffic-monsoon-receiver-granted-f…/

It shouldn't be long before all of Charles lies are exposed.

Watch this space...

Wednesday, 14 August 2019

Lyoness Public Prosecution - German Victims Urged to Claim

The German CEO of Lyoness is to face a Public Prosecution in Cologne and German victims of Lyoness are being urged to come forward with complaints:

'We advise all German Lyoness victims to directly contact the Public Prosecution’s Office Cologne under the file number 115 Js 424/19 and to lodge possible claims against Lyoness in a well-documented way.'

The post below has been reproduced with kind permission from Ben Ecker, the lawyer currently handling thousands of refund claims against Lyoness. 
Ben has so far managed to obtain refunds from Lyoness totaling well over a quarter of a million dollars with many more waiting to be settled. Lyoness has settled all of these claims without any court cases - make of that what you will.

14. August 2019/

With a letter of 12 July 2019, the initially closed proceedings (file nr. 115 Js 915/16) were have been resumed and preliminary proceedings due to infringement of § 16 UWG (Unfair Competition Act) were initiated (file nr. 115 Js 424/19).

Writing the prosecutor’s office translated:

“Preliminary proceedings against Mr. Guido Josef van Rüth a. o.

Alleged crime: Fraud

Dear Mr. Ecker,

I hereby inform you, that in accordance with your letter from 13 May 2019, new proceedings against the accused von Rüth because of an infringement of § 16 UWG (so-called snowball system) in connection with Lyconet’s Terms and Conditions of 2014 were initiated and are being worked on under the file number 115 Js 424/19. In regard to your further complaint, I submitted the file to Prosecutor-General of Cologne.

With best regards


With his letter of 13 May 2019, Bernhard Ecker lodged a 17-page complaint against the closing of the proceedings. Within this complaint, indications and facts concerning Lyoness, that obviously have not been further investigated before, were highlighted and reasoned in detail.

In particular, attention was drawn to the fact, that Lyoness has not – as alleged to the Public Prosecution – stopped to apply certain business practises. Nothing could be further from halting this business practises. They only were redrafted even more opaque and confusing.

Under item 8 of the claim of 13 May 2019 it is, inter alia, explained:

The business practices under examination have not been stopped but are being pursued with a construct that is even more opaque.

Compared to the previous “advance payment system” de facto nothing has changed but, in principle, only the wording was changed. Until November 2014, Lyoness named their investments “Advance payments on vouchers”, with which members basically only could obtain considerable profits if they recruited new investors. Later, when the WKStA (Public Prosecutor’s Office against Corruption) investigated against Lyoness because of the forbidden snowball system according to § 168a StGB (Criminal Code) as well as because of serious commercial fraud, and the first judgement of Civil Courts obligated them to make repayments, Lyoness drafted new Terms and Conditions and renamed its distribution from Lyoness to Lyconet, since the name Lyoness – especially in the media – already had become very negatively attributed. The conversion to the new Terms and Conditions was forced since members could only log in to their online member account if they had accepted the Terms and Conditions. Meanwhile, also Lyconet has fallen into disrepute so that the term “Cashbackworld” was chosen.

We welcome the well implemented and renewed measures of investigation as well as the transmission of further critical issues to the General Public Prosecution of Cologne.

We advise all German Lyoness victims to directly contact the Public Prosecution’s Office Cologne under the file number 115 Js 424/19 and to lodge possible claims against Lyoness in a well-documented way.'

Tuesday, 11 June 2019

Lyoness Refunds Now Available From (VKI) Austria

(updated 30th June 2019)

There's now another way to obtain a refund from Lyoness, and this refund method also gives you back interest on your Lyoness losses.

Affiliates have until January 31st 2020 to claim their refund.
Please contact the Austrian Association for Consumer Information (VKI) 

Association for Consumer Information (VKI)
Linke Wienzeile 18
A - 1060 Vienna
Phone: 01/588 770
Fax Consulting: 01/588 77-71
Fax Management: 01/588 77-73

Agreement between VKI and Lyoness - consumers get money back

Until 31.01.2020, other victims can contact the VKI

The Association for Consumer Information (VKI) has represented numerous consumers against Lyoness since the summer of 2017. The basis for the fundraising campaign was a procedure won by the Supreme Court (OGH) on behalf of the Ministry of Social Affairs, which went against clauses in the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) of the years 2007 to 2012 to the? Extended membership benefits? taught. Now a settlement solution could be reached together with Lyoness. Lyoness reimburses the participants the amounts paid plus interest less any membership benefits. Affected persons who have not yet participated in the collection campaign can contact the VKI until 31.01.2020. The mere participation in the shopping community is not affected by the collection campaign.

In July 2017, the OGH declared numerous clauses on so-called "extended membership benefits" to be intransparent and ineffective in the collective action brought by the VKI with the support of the Ministry of Social Affairs. According to OGH, the terms and conditions and the additional terms and conditions (ZAGB) from the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2012 were formulated unnecessarily difficult to understand. The voucher payment system also classified the OGH as intransparent.

According to VKI's legal opinion, this decision also removed the legal basis for consumer payments to Lyoness.

As a result, the VKI started a collection campaign so that the affected Lyoness customers could get their cash back. After extensive negotiations, a settlement could now be agreed. Lyoness will reimburse consumers with contracts based on the 2007 to 2012 terms and conditions. Any membership benefits received (eg the Friendship Bonus) will be deducted. From the balance, consumers will receive an additional four percent interest per annum for three years.

The VKI welcomes the agreement: "For many affected consumers, this comparison is a sensible way, which saves them from having to go to court," says Mag. Ulrike Wolf, Head of the Collection Department, Legal Division. The agreement is also viewed positively by Lyoness: "We have always been and continue to strive to find solutions in the interests of our customers."

Anyone who has missed the deadline to register for the collection campaign, can later by 31.01.2020 at the VKI under the service e-mail report. "We are pleased to enable other consumers to come up with a settlement solution," explains Wolf.

Change of the terms and conditions
Already in 2014, the contractual basis of Lyoness was changed. These new agreements (for Lyoness members on the one hand and for entrepreneurial Lyconet Marketer on the other) were not the subject of the OGH decision. The cross-industry and cross-border cashback and customer loyalty program is also unaffected.

The current settlement solution also applies to those consumers who have only switched to the terms and conditions for Lyoness members in the 2014 version. No agreement could be reached for those Lyoness members who have accepted the so-called Lyconet Agreement for independent Lyconet Marketers. For them, the comparison described does not apply. In individual cases, however, according to the VKI, there could also be individual solutions here.'

A message from Ben Ecker regarding the current refunds from Lyoness:

Dear Lyoness members & all parties concerned,

We have compiled a number of questions that have been put to us in respect to matters pertaining to Lyoness, respective court judgments and the processes in which we are able to successfully lodge and execute claims for Lyoness victims in Australia and elsewhere throughout the world.

We trust that the information in this email will be instrumental in helping you and further parties understand part of the legal process in which we are reclaiming money back for Lyoness victims.

In the final paragraphs we make reference to comments made by Lyoness employees Chris Thomson (U.K) & Jeff Rowlison (AUS) which I have lodged formal complaints to the U.K Fraud Police and the Australian Consumer Competition Commission (ACCC) in respect to serious fraud allegations.

I am very pleased to announce that more Australian settlements are being paid each week as we proceed and we will continue to support the members in the successful lodgement and settlement of further claims until such time that all members claims have been lodged and settled.

Please find the questions and answers below.

1/ My understanding is that you are lodging claims on behalf of Australian victims under the Austrian (Commercial Court of Vienna) Court judgement relating to '61 clauses of the Lyoness T&C's 'Null & Void' in favour of all victims across the world, including Australia.
Does this judgement only relate to the T&C's for 2007 to 2012, or all periods 2007 to 2017?

Yes, the Austrian Supreme Court’s ruling on the Terms and Conditions only refers to the Terms and Conditions of 2007–2012.
The sixty-one invalid points in the Terms and Conditions are only part of my legal reasoning; the many rulings and classifications as a pyramid scheme in Austria and Switzerland, the ban in Norway, a court case seeking a ban in Italy and related assessments also played a role. The “Schlüssel zum Erfolg”/“key to success” cession is generally included in the claims case.
I have been uncovering fake business alliances and collaborations claimed by Lyoness and widely publishing my findings for years, which has earned me a certain reputation at Lyoness. Unearthing and publishing Lyoness’ fake MasterCard Partnership has left its mark on Lyoness up to the present. The court has been dealing with a lawsuit against me in this regard for three years, and has become a source of hilarity for the lawyers as Lyoness has been delaying a ruling on its own suit with all sorts of excuses – they cannot win as that would mean proving that they aren’t a pyramid scheme.

The way I approach a Lyoness case depends on the amount at dispute and type of claim; I usually try to reach an out-of-court settlement first, but this is usually only possible for smaller amounts.

2) Are there new proceedings filed against Freidl in the Austrian Courts, after he paid a penalty, but no judgement yet?

Unfortunately not. Hubert Freidl moved to Monaco when the lawsuit against him for breach of prospectus liability was announced. He should not be the direct target, we have to dismantle his company bit by bit, uncover the company’s lies and bring the matter to the media.

3) Am I correct in saying that T&C's for the period 2014 to 2017 are not included under this judgement in 1) above and fall under other judgements in other Austrian Courts?
If this is the case, does these judgements allow injured members/ merchants to successfully claim refunds through you?

Yes, this is correct. Austrian courts have condemned the Terms and Conditions from 2012–2017 several times as intransparent and obscure.
Graz Regional Court for Civil Matters found for the applicant in Case No. 5 R 212/16g on 18 January 2017 as follows:
The appeal raised by Lyoness is inadmissible, as is a revision of the ruling according to the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) §502 para. 2. This judgement is final.

Extract from the reasons given in the ruling (Page 4):

“The system established by the defendant that takes substantial payments to redistribute, retain and distribute them again is impenetrable and obscure. The plethora of terminological definitions in the Terms and Conditions and Supplementary Terms and Conditions play a role in this, with meanings that are difficult or impossible for members to understand and could not be established on the basis of the documents. The applicant’s claim for repayment of the amount paid was based on the nullity of the legal transaction concluded between the parties according to of Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §879 para. 1 as the case involved an illegal pyramid scheme according to Austrian Commercial Code (UGB) §2 Annex Z 14. Moreover, the respondent based the contractual relationship solely on the respondent’s incomprehensible Terms and Conditions. These are void according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §864a as they include objectively unusual provisions that significantly differ from the expectations of the other contracting party, who should not be required to anticipate such provisions under the circumstances. The Terms and Conditions also include grossly discriminatory provisions that are null and void according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §879 and Austrian Consumer Protection Act (KSchG) §6 para. 3. The Terms and Conditions of 2014 did not become the basis for the contractual relationship according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §864a. Moreover, these Terms and Conditions are void as they violate moral standards and lack transparency. Further, the applicant declared acceptance of the Terms and Conditions of 2014 in error due to lack of disclosure or deception on the part of the respondent. The applicant also exercises the right to premature termination of the contract for cause, or in the alternative, to terminate the contract, thus justifying the claim for repayment.”

“Moreover, the court of first instance considered numerous clauses to be void on their own merit and collectively according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §879 para. 3 on the grounds that they limited the right of customer to a refund of down payments or part payments already made in an objectively obscure fashion and especially for reasons largely at the discretion of the respondent, which are not only obscure but also grossly discriminatory against the customer. Whether the new Terms and Conditions for Lyoness members issued in November 2014 and the Lyconet agreement in the version of November 2014 ever became part of the contract according to Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) §864a is moot. All provisions in the T&Cs limiting or excluding a customer’s right to a refund of down payments or part payments already made on termination of the contract were just as grossly discriminatory and intransparent as those in the previous versions of the Terms and Conditions.”

4) Is there a Court judgement enabling injured members to lodge successful claims under the T&C's for 2012 to 2014?

Yes, this is possible.
There have been some corresponding rulings depending on the investment in Lyoness (cloud, country packages etc.) It would be advisable to pursue this case in Australia and involve the respective authorities.

In response to the message from Chris Thomson:

What he writes is utterly irrelevant. If there is anything I’ve learned from Lyoness, it’s that nobody should ever enter into a written or verbal argument with them. They always twist and misrepresent everything afterwards. This message looks almost desperate, and clearly demonstrates that he isn’t one of the “fat cats” at Lyoness.

I certainly wouldn’t take the matter further as success always trumps any argument. How did this Chris Thomson actually get to contact you, and why do you feel the need to respond? This individual doesn’t contact me.

Finally, I can assure you that I’ve already had enough of dealing with Lyoness. This Chris Thomson or Mr. Rowling are insignificant and not worth the bother. -

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / kind regards

B. Ecker

BE Conflict Management Inc.

Saturday, 1 June 2019

Ex Lyoness (Australian) MD Craig Wotton Gives Out Refund Information

Ex Lyoness MD Craig Wotton has recently contacted Lyoness Australian members with information on how to claim a refund from Lyoness.
The refunds are being obtained through Ben Ecker at BE Conflikt Management and apply
to everybody, world-wide, not just Australia.

Craig is particularly interested to hear from anybody who has obtained a refund and is willing to give testimonial, as Lyoness are still insisting these refunds aren't taking place.

Lyoness Claims: Updated Claim Forms, Settlements & Relevant Information
Dear Lyoness Members,

I would like to congratulate all of the parties that have received successful settlement payouts this last week, and it would be greatly appreciated if more members would be willing to record testimonial videos to send through to us once you have successfully received your settlement, it will certainly help more members make the decision to move forward to reclaim their money back via BE Conflikt Management in Austria.


Lyoness Claims: Former Lyoness Australian Managing Director Craig Wotton

Lyoness Claim Testimonials: Big John Pizza Owner (Sydney Australia)

Lyoness Claim Testimonials: Michael Azimos (Melbourne Australia)

BE Conflikt Management have moved into new offices in Vienna (Austria) in addition to opening brand new headquarters in Miami Florida to accommodate the increasing demand of injured parties in the United States and surrounding regions.

Please use the updated claim forms attached to this email for all future member claims if you or any other effected parties are completing your own claim forms and if you have contacts in the U.K, Europe or the U.S.A I will provide you with the relevant claim forms for these markets upon request.

For members needing assistance putting claims together I am more than willing to assist with any parties that need help so please feel free to pass on my contact details to further injured parties.


We have noticed that members that have agreed to new terms and conditions have had their invoices removed from their member back office reporting systems making it difficult to calculate what are the correct claimable sums, if you or any of your constituents are in this situation we will have no option other than to rely upon bank statement to prove money that has been paid to Lyoness as supportive evidence in respect of claims.

Please make sure that you have saved all of your invoices that you rely on for your claim in a folder on your computer or even print hard copies in the case that there is any dispute over the amounts claimed, we have been asked in some cases to produce supportive evidence in respect to certain members claims.

If your account has been terminated we are still able to lodge your claim, we do not acknowledge account terminations the money in your account is your money and is claimable.

Any network marketing companies that allegedly steal commissions and entitlements do not deserve the right to continue on benefiting from your downlines and I have always been of the view that such terminations would constitute beaches of the Australian Consumer Laws particularly those that relate to unconscionable conductunfair contract terms and in other instances anti-competitive behaviour.

I was contacted by a member that has had their account terminated and or blocked by Lyoness on 2 separate occasions, the member in question advised me that they lodged official complaints to the NSW Fair Trading office of which Lyoness quickly reopened there account, I note that this member has over $100,000.00 invested in there Lyoness account which is just outrageous that Lyoness would have the hide to allegedly attempt to defraud this member out of more than $100,000.00.

I have not seen conduct like this in the 28 years that I have been involved with the direct sales industry!

Last Monday night Derek Miller conducted another excellent webinar broadcast revealing further findings that is well worth watching, I have tremendous respect for Derek and his partner Carolyn Philips for the leadership that have shown to the network of people that have followed them for many years believing in Lyoness and are now helping their team realize the incontrovertible truths regarding Lyoness.

Last Monday night’s Star’s Mastery Webinar can be viewed publically on You Tube by following this link:
(I would suggest that you subscribe to Derek Miller’s Stars Mastery You Tube Channel to receive alerts each time new content is uploaded)

It is well worth following Ben Ecker’s media releases from the websites of BE Conflikt Management and Social Media pages by following these links:

I would again like to commend Ben Ecker on the work that he is doing for now thousands of claimants from many different countries around the world and we will be standing totally committed to each and every one of you until the very last member that wishes to has successfully lodged and settled their claims.

That is our commitment to you!

Kind regards.'

Documents related to claiming your refund are all available here: