The
Zeek Rewards, Payza and VictoriaBank dispute
has been running for some time now.

At the center of the dispute is $13 million dollars in stolen Ponzi funds, currently frozen in a Bank of New York Mellon account.

The Zeek Receiver wants these funds returned to Rex Venture Group, in order for them to be distributed to victims of the
Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme
.

VictoriaBank insist the money is rightfully theirs. VictoriaBank are largely relying on the premise that they aren’t a US bank and should thus be permitted to keep the funds.

Back in February the Zeek Receiver filed a motion seeking to hold VictoriaBank, Payza and PaymentWorld to turn over the $13 million or be held in contempt.

VictoriaBank has since filed an opposition to the motion, which the Receiver has now replied to.

It ain’t pretty…

The specific amount VictoriaBank wants to keep is $13,174,015.48.

According to the Zeek Receiver;

Victoriabank’s attempts to distance itself from the ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme are disingenuous.

From at least May through August 2012, during the height of the ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme, Victoriabank played a significant role in facilitating the flow of victims’ funds.

Zeek affiliates paid money into the scheme via e-wallet company Payza; Payza used a payment processor—PaymentWorld—to process these transactions; and PaymentWorld used its account at Victoriabank in Moldova to process the RVG funds for Payza.

Each of the parties played a material role in the processing of victims’ funds.

Ultimately when
Zeek was shut down by the SEC
, the funds were in the possession of VictoriaBank, in an account belonging to PaymentWorld (who Payza used to accept funds from Zeek Rewards investors).

Now Victoriabank attempts to avoid liability for its illegal conduct in connection with its participation in the ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme by claiming that it is not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction.

In other words, it can facilitate an illegal scheme, victimizing countless affiliates in the United States and elsewhere, and avoid any consequences of its illegal conduct.

The Court must not allow such blatant disregard of the laws of the United States, its Court orders, and international comity.

VictoriaBank have also claimed that the asset freeze is enforcement of the 2012 Freeze Order injunction, prohibiting funds tied to Zeek Rewards from being transferred.

The Receiver clarifies that this is not the case.

The subject funds are merely restrained until the Court resolves the Receiver’s pending Motion on the merits.

Thus, no jurisdictional determination is necessary for the funds to remain restrained pending resolution of the Receiver’s Motion.

I think it’s pretty clear that if VictoriaBank didn’t have funds in the US (at Bank of Mellon New York or elsewhere), they’d have continued to ignore litigation against them.

Only now that the Receiver has secured a freeze on the disputed amount has VictoriaBank come to the negotiation table.

None of the cases upo

🤖 Quick Answer

What is the central dispute between the Zeek Receiver and VictoriaBank?
The dispute concerns $13 million in frozen Ponzi funds held in a Bank of New York Mellon account. The Zeek Receiver seeks to return these stolen funds to Rex Venture Group for distribution to victims of the Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme, while VictoriaBank claims rightful ownership, arguing their non-US status exempts them from returning the assets.

Why does VictoriaBank believe it should retain the disputed funds?
VictoriaBank's primary argument relies on its status as a non-US financial institution. The bank maintains that because it operates outside United States jurisdiction, it should be permitted to keep the $13 million currently frozen in the Bank of New York Mellon account.

**What legal action has the Zeek Receiver taken against VictoriaBank?

🔗 Related Articles

- iX Global arrest warrants issued by Indian authorities
- Pop Max Review: Dubai MLM crypto “staking” Ponzi
- Leonardo Cositorto claims “no scam”, more Gen Zoe arrests
- NxPay to return $3.5 million to Zeek Ponzi victims
- Pedro Fort defaults in SEC’s Fort Ad Pays fraud case