Eighteen TelexFree “victims” have won the right to “challenge the accuracy of TelexFree’s records”.
It’s a bit of an odd decision, seeing as the “victims” have had plenty of time to prove their claims.
The eighteen TelexFree investors (Appellant Participants) who have challenged TelexFree records are:
Abdeltif Bellagat
Abdelkhalak Toqi
Rachid Moukhtari
Joseph Nasr
Ruben Nieves
Merilio Rojas
Hazem Wehbe
Theresa St. Peter
Peter Said Rahhaoui
Marcio Costa
Saif Muhsen
Panagiotis Iatrou
Manal Hamadi
Hubert Lubin
Carlos DeAlvarenga
Rahima Boughalem
Earley Barbosa and
George Berube
Given the circumstances, these appear to be net-winners trying to game the system.
Many participants held multiple user accounts, each reflecting different transactions.
Some, like Appellant-Participant Panagiotis Iatrou, recalled having as many as thirty different user accounts.
User accounts varied in the amount and quality of personal information supplied.
Logic would suggest legitimate victims don’t hold thirty accounts in a Ponzi scheme. Scammers do.
In any event, the affiliates have challenged an algorithm put together by Timothy Martin of Huron Consulting Group.
The algorithm utilized the self-reported personal information associated with each user account to link user accounts to participants.
Martin’s algorithm has been
challenged by TelexFree net-winners
in the past. At a hearing held earlier this year, Judge Hoffman found the output of Martin’s algorithm was, as District Judge Woodlock puts it, “potentially unreliable”.
This is due to a number of technical shortcomings, which are attributed to Martin
never (haveing) dealt with the issue of “multiple user accounts and the need to link those accounts” in his experience as an accountant.
Specific shortcomings highlighted in District Judge’s order include:
it isn’t possible to group accounts “too dissimilar” in name;
the algorithm didn’t take into account false or misspelled names;
the data fed into Martin’s algorithm, sourced from TelexFree, was of “poor quality”;
In summary Martin assumed the data provided by scammers would be accurate. He wasn’t aware of the tricks scammers get up to in MLM Ponzi schemes.
To be fair, TelexFree bears some of the responsibility here too.
TelexFree structured its business practices to ensure that there would be little evidence of participant transactions.
Despite the observed technical shortcomings, Martin’s algorithm was approved for use in claim determination.
Where the eighteen affiliates challenging the findings failed, is in being able to claim they owned accounts and funds attached to them.
In many cases the supporting documentation was limited to a “TelexFree Participant Questionnaire.”
Some participants provided explanations for the lack of documentation, for example, that they paid cash and were not provided with a receipt or were locked out of the TelexFree database.
Others provided third-party affidavits supporting their proofs of
🤖 Quick Answer
What is the significance of the TelexFree records challenge by eighteen investors?Eighteen TelexFree investors obtained legal rights to challenge the accuracy of company records. The appellants, including names such as Abdeltif Bellagat and Theresa St. Peter, contested transaction documentation. The decision permits examination of multiple user accounts associated with individual participants, raising questions about record-keeping practices and transaction verification procedures within the scheme.
Who are the primary participants challenging TelexFree's documentation?
The eighteen appellant participants include Abdeltif Bellagat, Abdelkhalak Toqi, Rachid Moukhtari, Joseph Nasr, Ruben Nieves, Merilio Rojas, Hazem Wehbe, Theresa St. Peter, Peter Said Rahhaoui, Marcio Costa, Saif Muhsen,
🔗 Related Articles
- E&Y Report “conclusive”, TelexFree lawyers wrong again…
- OneCoin criminal indictment sentencing dates
- Gerry Nehra & i-Payout named in TelexFree class-action
- Steinkellers delay Italian OneCoin criminal proceedings
- Massive Liyeplimal securities fraud lawsuit filed in US