ScamTelegraph reports that tax attorney Howard Kaplan is contesting a legal negligence lawsuit filed by the Zeek Rewards Receivership, stemming from his involvement with the $850 million Ponzi scheme. Kaplan argues for immunity and lack of responsibility, despite the Receivership's allegations of providing inadequate tax advice.
Kaplan's motion argued he had no knowledge of the scheme's fraudulent nature and therefore could not be held responsible. This defense aligns with a historical pattern where attorneys in the multi-level marketing industry have often presumed immunity from liability, particularly before the Zeek Rewards Receivership began targeting legal insiders. Kaplan also contended his actions were effectively immune because a court-appointed Receiver cannot bring claims against him.
The Zeek Rewards Receivership, led by Kenneth Bell, directly challenged Kaplan's assertions in its response. The Receivership stated that Kaplan, hired by RVG to provide accurate tax advice, instead delivered "bad legal advice" and "actively participated in promoting a Ponzi and pyramid scheme" that caused significant harm to the company. This critique highlighted a perceived lack of professional conduct.
Among Kaplan's defenses was the legal principle of "in pari delicto," a Latin term meaning "in equal fault." This doctrine typically applies when both parties in a civil action are found to be equally culpable for wrongdoing, leading courts to deny relief to either side. Kaplan essentially argued that any fault attributed to him was equally matched by Zeek Rewards itself, thus precluding a lawsuit against him for the scheme's alleged crimes.
The Receivership countered this argument, asserting that Kaplan's "in pari delicto" defense does not prevent a federal equity Receiver from bringing claims on behalf of the company. This firm stance reflects the Receivership's consistent approach to litigation in the complex $850 million Ponzi case.
Who is Howard Kaplan and what legal issues does he face?
Howard Kaplan is a tax attorney currently facing a legal negligence lawsuit from the Zeek Rewards Receivership. He is accused of providing inadequate tax advice and participating in the $850 million Ponzi scheme, despite claiming immunity and lack of knowledge.
What primary defenses did Kaplan present in his Motion in Opposition?
Kaplan argued he had no knowledge of the scheme's fraudulent nature and therefore no responsibility. He also contended that the court-appointed Receiver lacked the authority to bring claims against him, and invoked the "in pari delicto" principle.
How did the Zeek Rewards Receivership respond to Kaplan's arguments?
The Receivership countered that Kaplan provided "bad legal advice" and actively participated in promoting the Ponzi scheme. It explicitly rejected his "in pari delicto" defense, stating it does not bar a federal equity Receiver from asserting claims on behalf of the company.