SEC vs Traffic Monsoon – An Objective Preliminary Assessment

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


On July 26, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a case in US Federal Court against Traffic Monsoon and its owner Charles Scoville. Thus far, only the SEC’s side of the story is documented. As of the date of the recording on July 27, 2016, a hearing of the parties was scheduled for August 5, at which time more complete information will have been presented to the court and otherwise made available. The August 5 hearing has been delayed now, and we recommend you stay updated.



Traffic Monsoon
Charles Scoville
Securities and Exchange Commission


Random Gaming says:

Do scotville can end in prison if SEC wins? I hope so. I dont know in USA but many of his "clients" are from europe and many other countries where TM is not registered or paying tax. Also SEC should know and probably does know that Scamville had at least 10 ponzi in the past where all got shutdown and ppl got scammed.?

Benaissa Rachid says:

It was extremely useful. thanks Mr James?

TM-Trafficmonsoon says:

trafficmonsoon blocked paypal @ support not help

Charles Ian Allen says:

Charles Scoville is an idiot.?

Nitesh Rochani says:

the result is tm goes with big money of the people……….can anybody (also sec)answer that why only case against traffic monsoon site & not clixsense, neobux, grandbux working from years???????

Hanif Mohammadi says:

How can I get in contact with you??

Jon L says:

There are lots of people out there still in denial . If the receiver takes over , it is likely to take about a year to process the elligible claims ie refund seed money and will likely to be delivered in stages depending on the pool of money available. Based on previous similar cases, there could be a class action against the main net winners and anyone who has earned over $1000 from TM. In the case of Zeekrewards, it took 3 years for members to get 60% of their investment refunded and still waiting for the rest.?

Jon L says:

As it stands TM has delivered 10% of the ad credits promised with the adpacks. The SEC could take the view that TM members were still buying adpacks in great numbers over a period of time while getting only 10% of the credits without being too bothered about it.Which suggest that advertising was just a smokescreen and everyone was in it for the "return" on the AP hence investment.?

William G Bryant says:

It's funny that someone who can claim to be well-versed in such litigations could fall for such a poorly put together complaint. The SEC's whole case hinges on one single claim stated in No.5: "selling a security in a Ponzi scheme". That is the only legal argument against TM in that complaint. But the complaint does not prove its claim. The complaint attempts to obscure the fact that it never proves TM as a Ponzi, never proves the legal definition of Ponzi, which is simply a business operating in the red by paying old members with new members money. TM has profits margins way beyond what is owed out across all accounts, but the complaint takes great pains to not reveal that in the complaint. Instead it obscures the complaint with irrelevant details which try to micromanage TM instead of showing that TM has a deficit. The right lawyer will eat that complaint up for breakfast on just in a hearing for the asset freeze.?

John Hopkins says:

Quite correct about Charles and Traffic Monsoon.
Would be great though if it didn't come from one who's involved with several other internet scams.?

The FullTimeFather says:

Hi James, your past expertise has given us insights that are very helpful.?

Video Marketing says:

Hi James,
Thank you very much for uploading this video giving your expert opinion and I understand how Charles Scoville's actions have taken Traffic Monsoon to the position it is in now. every CEO has to make tough decisions at some point.some work out fine and some will cause pain.

But. we all know that a mistake does not become a mistake until a man refuses to correct it.

However, one thing that is bothering me, is the revenue share module, and the fact that you say that if revenue comes from ad packs only, it will be seen as a Ponzi scheme.

Now, let's say for instance, I own a car store, and all I do is sell BMWs, would that qualify my customers as investors? And my business as a Ponzi, since my revenue comes from selling cars to new customers, using the revenue generated by sales from old customers?

Here's the revenue share I have started now:

Sanane Be says:

Thank you for sharing ur thoughts, based upon ur personal experience. I find ur videos in general quite beneficial!?

Jennifer Quamina says:

What are your views on My Advertising Pays?

Naeem K says:

That 20 page document is a tip of the iceberg!!

Try going through the SEC court documents with the attached 200+ page exhibits!

Charles will go to prison no doubt?

Write a comment