Zeek Rewards Legal Update: SEC Files News Cases Why? Additional Info On eWallets & Cashiers Checks

Why would the Washington D.C. office of the Securities and Exchange Commission being filing addtional cases in what seems like every major district of the Federal Court System? Well, after receiving the first information on this from Don Ryan over at ASD Updates, I started digging a little deeper to learn more about what is happening. Especially when rumors have been flying from some online sites that the SEC might be soon admitting their mistake for closing down Zeek Rewards.

First things first… you can review all the Documents in the SEC vs Rex Venture Group, LLC case by clicking here!

Now for a specific look at the Cases we found today you can review below.

SEC .vs Rex Venture Group LLC. – Arizona 

SEC .vs Rex Venture Group LLC – Arkansas

SEC vs Rex Venture Group – Washington

SEC vs Rex Venture Group – Wisconsin

SEC vs Rex Venture Group – Idaho 

SEC vs Rex Venture Group – Maine

SEC vs Rex Venture Group – Missouri

SEC vs Rex Venture Group – Florida

SEC vs Rex Venture Group – Texas

SEC vs Rex Venture Group – Vemont

SEC vs Rex Venture Group – Wyoming 

Now in talking to some of the attorneys who are nationally recognized as experts in Ponzi & Pyramid cases, I have learned that the filing of additional cases in each district of the Federal Court System is pretty standard with a case of this size and where the regulators have located additional assets.

Now, I would guess in this case the additional assets are the winnings of the “net winners” some or all of the 1200 who received the “voluntary subpoena packets” last month!

I asked one attorney if the above cases were classified new cases, and he explained it this way…

“These are not ‘new’ cases, but are simply an essential placeholder required to give the Receiver the jurisdiction over property in other federal districts. Standard protocol when there is property or people the Receiver is seeking or suing that is located in that district.

Let me give you a quick example.  As Receiver, I discover that Joe Schmoe used money that was proceeds of the scheme to purchase a Boat in Georgia.  Because I am the Receiver in Florida, I do not have jurisdiction over that property.  Thus, I would file a copy of the SEC Complaint and the Order Appointing Receiver in the federal district in Georgia where the property was located (either Northern or Southern District).  Then, I could file an action in Florida for possession of that property.

Another example for the people part.  I discover that Billy Bob received $500,000 more than he invested in the scheme.  Billy Bob lives in Los Angeles, California.  In order to file the clawback lawsuit in the Florida district where I am appointed Receiver, I would need to file the SEC Complaint and Order Appointing Receiver in the district where Billy Bob lives in California.

I also asked why the Washington office was listened on some of the cases and he responded…

“The Washington office is the SEC regional office that has been prosecuting this case likely for the simple reason that the amount of money at stake is very large.”

Now, I also did some researching on the question that keeps coming up on why the Receiver, has or is trying to cash undeposited funds?

First we need to review what the Receiver has written on this issue specifically. 

Question: I purchased a cashier’s check payable to ZeekRewards that has not yet been cashed. Can I stop payment on the cashier’s check? Why doesn’t the Receiver just destroy the cashier’s check or let me stop payment?

Answer: No. When you purchase a cashier’s check, the bank immediately debits the money from your account, and the cashier’s check represents the bank’s obligation to pay the amount of the check. A bank issuing a cashier’s check is deemed to have accepted the check upon its issuance.

The Uniform Commercial Code provides that a customer purchasing a cashier’s or teller’s check has no right to stop payment (see Section 4-403, cmt. 4). If a bank refuses to pay a cashier’s check or teller’s check presented by the Receiver, it may be required to pay for the Receiver’s expenses and loss of interest resulting from the nonpayment, as well as consequential damages (see Section 3-411).

All cashier’s checks and teller’s checks issued to ZeekRewards constitute assets of the Receivership Estate. Claims for monies invested in ZeekRewards through cashier’s checks will be administered together with other claims on the Receivership Estate.

The court’s order and the Uniform Commercial Code establish that cashier’s checks in the Receiver’s possession are Receivership Assets. The Receiver is required to present these cashier’s checks for payment and has no discretion not to.

Question” Can I submit a valid declaration of loss to my bank for the cashier’s check I sent to ZeekRewards?

Answer: No. Declarations of loss cannot be submitted for checks that you sent to ZeekRewards, because you did not actually lose the check. Cashier’s checks are assets of the Receivership Estate. If you obtain payment from your bank using a declaration of loss of a cashier’s check that you sent to ZeekRewards, and your bank denies payment on that cashier’s check when it is deposited by the Receiver, the Receiver may bring legal action against you to recover the amount of the cashier’s check and additional damages.

Question: I sent a personal check to ZeekRewards that has not yet been cashed. Can I stop payment on the check?

Answer: Yes, so long as the check has not yet been cashed and you give your bank sufficient notice (see Section 4-403).

Question: I sent a money order to ZeekRewards that has not yet been cashed. Can I stop payment on the money order?

Answer: It depends. If your money order is a bank money order signed by your bank, it is treated as the equivalent of a teller’s check, and your bank cannot stop payment on the money order. If your money order is a personal money order signed by you and not by the bank, it is treated as the equivalent of a personal check, and payment on the check may be stopped so long as the check has not yet been cashed and you give your bank sufficient notice (see Section 3-104, cmt. 4).

Now for those who want to fully understand or at least review what UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) is all about, I have included links below to additional info and specifically to the N.C. UCC Statutes.

North Carolina General Statutes Governing UCC Statutes

Cordell University Law School – Uniform Commercial Code

Duke University Law School – Uniform Commercial Code

Now as for the eWallets, there has been a boatload of speculation flying and so far very little evidence of any action. However, here is what we can learn from researching the issue for the last several months.

1. Without a doubt there could be upwards of 800,000 “victim’s” eWallets which were caught up in the freeze. This was based on the fact, the Court Order froze anything attached to Rex Venture Group, LLC.

Very quickly the majority of RVG assets was uncovered and the courts were notified. (See Zeek Court Documents)

Four Oaks Ask For Addtional Time

Four Oaks Certified Statement

NXSystems Certified Statement of Assets

Cash & Property of Rex Venture Group LLC

However, in order to make sure each eWallet and Bank was not in violation of the Court Order, their accounting departments and outside accounting firms began to do detailed research to make sure they did not in some way mislead the court.

2. Most of the accounting has been completed from email communication we have received from a various sources. And it seems, that the eWallets owned by “victims” or “net losers” should soon be released.

3. However, this does NOT mean that those who are classified “net winners” are going to see their eWallets released. As a matter of fact it would not surprise me, based on the Court Judgement, if the funds in these accounts stay frozen and are deemed assets of Rex Venture Group. (See Court Judgement)

Well, I hope this helps provide additional information on what is taking place in the SEC .vs Rex Venture Group LLC case and help all former Zeek Rewards Affiliates get to the facts in their specific situations.

Living An Epic Adventure,

Troy Dooly+

Spread The News!

2 thoughts on “Zeek Rewards Legal Update: SEC Files News Cases Why? Additional Info On eWallets & Cashiers Checks”

  1. @Julia,

    The Receiver represents the former Affiliates of Zeek Rewards. No where in any of the Court Ducuments does it state only US affiliates. Which mat be why the Canadian regulators were also part of the investigation.

    And at NO time has the Receiver ever Gauranteed 100% of the money back. But he has said he will do everything in his power to get it back.

    And if you take the time to review the court documents you will see there is a fee based for Receivers and other professnals. In the case of the Receiver he has discounted his fees 15% and given other concessions. Not sure if you have followed all of our reporting but we have covered this in the last couple of days.

    I can understand yr concern, but it might be less if you took the time to review the court documents and get a better understanding of how things work.

    Hypotheticals are great school, but when it comes to law the rules are pretty clear.

  2. How is it that the Receiver (representing U.S. “victims”) can guarantee the net loosers 100% of their monies back, when a large portion of the monies that Rex received came from overseas sources? Also, the Receiver and affiliated attorneys are not working this case pro bono. So if they are able collect $700 million, for example, and even if they agreed to only take 30% out in legal fees, the net balance would be around $490 million to disburse back to the net loosers. So who covers the difference of $210 million to make all net loosers 100% whole? I tell you, this thing is getting worst and worst by the minute. Personally, no one wins in this opportunity, as many of the net loosers had hoped that the Zeek opportunity would have represented their retirement; and the net winners, many of whom worked very hard to build what they believed was a legitimate business model — even putting their professional reputations on the line to defend it — have to somehow now give back perhaps more than what they actually earned, which will put many of them in worst debt than they may’ve had prior to the Zeek debacle. I won’t be surprised if in some extreme cases, suicides are reported after this mess! ~ Julia

Leave a Comment