The amounts shown by the Receiver are ACH withdrawals from CEPT. Simon, as you say, they represent the principle and the interest (profit) paid flowing through the CEP programs.
Let's face it, at the 15% profit that CEP was offering, the bulk of the transactions listed by the Receiver represent principle, not profit for those people.
It might be legal for the Receiver to try to seize those funds, but by no means is it moral, and I don't think the role of the Receiver in such cases is to be punitive, so I would think those people have a good chance to legally contest the against liability of the "principle" part of their investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon
I have little sympathy with those who put money in, and are now faced with a large loss. In the long run, it should stop people from playing with fire again and again (as many are prone to do) - they have to learn to stand on their own 2 feet, and take responsibility for their actions.
|
Oh my, Simon..you are taking a hard line! I know you speak from firsthand experience of lessons learned, but let's face it, many of those people were conned or duped by Trevor's smooth talk and truly believed in the legitimacy of the CEP companies. Not all, but many were "believers", and therefore, I'd say, victims.
By the way, in case anyone missed it, below is a link to an article about CEP. There is a photo supposedly of Trevor's lawyer, but it is actually of Trevor himself. Click on it to get a larger view. Last time I saw his picture he had long Jesus-style hair, so I didn't recognize him until someone pointed out to me that that was actually Trevor.
Online site's take pegged at $16M - Pittsburgh Business Times
HeyJude