Mary Ann Kettner, identified by the Zeek Receiver as a top profiteer in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme, withdrew $465,866 from fellow affiliates' investments. Court documents show her initial investment was $1,495, yielding a 31,161% return. The Receiver recently named Kettner for refusing to return these funds to victims.

Kettner dismissed the Receiver's action, stating "What a laugh" on a private Facebook group. She presented herself as a victimized business owner. She wrote that being listed as a net winner happened "not because of the amount but because i stuck out my neck to defend what we were doing as a business and got a big old target on my back."

Kettner claimed she "didn't even earn half a million in the year and a half" of the penny auction business. She stated she paid taxes, including "state, federal, and employee type taxes," which she said amounted to "just over 50 % of what my company earned." Expenses, business costs, and team travel also reduced her remaining funds, with "a lot of that went to lawyers when Zeek went down."

The Receiver's filing lists Kettner as a top Zeek winner based solely on the amount she gained through the scheme. Her receipt of over $400,000 places her significantly above most Zeek Rewards affiliates. A substantial portion of other affiliates' money ended up in Kettner's bank account.

The Receiver's office noted Kettner's claims about taxes. Her tax payments would likely have been considered had she approached the Receivership to negotiate. Kettner, however, refused to negotiate and chose to retain her profits.

Kettner also raised concerns about her lawyer fees. In late 2012, she filed a lawsuit seeking an "Examiner" to protect the interests of Zeek's top profiteers. Kettner argued that the Receiver's demands for repayment from net losers demonstrated that her best interests were not being represented. She felt an "Examiner"—identified as their personal lawyer—should represent the interests of Kettner and other winners in keeping their Ponzi profits.

In February 2013, Judge Mullen denied Kettner's motion. He remarked that such an examiner "would be unable represent the interests of both the net winner and net loser affiliates, two groups with inherently adverse interests." Mullen concluded that appointing an examiner would cause "unnecessary and signifi".

Judge Mullen's order highlighted the inherent conflict between those who profited and those who lost money in the Zeek Rewards scheme.