I noticed on here you state that the Asset Protection Group (APG) is a scam and that one should run quickly in the other direction.

I also noticed you just as they are listed with the BBB.

How is it that a company that is such a huge scam has been listed with the BBB since 1995 with only two customer complaints that were resolved?

Also, this same company is listed with the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce in good standing!

The company has also has Robert Wagner (Hart to Hart) endorcing their product!

How and what can you point to as FACT that they are scam/con artists?

Just because you got some clients that got shafted from another shister, I don't think you can make unsubstanciated accusations.

In one post you ask about providing documents that they are reputable.

I challenge you to provide documentation that they are not!

I am trying to be educated on this whole asset protection business. However, everyone seems to have a propensity to claim that the other promoter is laying in wait to take your money and run.

How exactly does one evaluate the differences to both of these companies, if on the face they both appear to be legitimate with no filed complaints or pending law suits?

Please read this excerpt from an earlier newsletter.

NEVADA CORPORATIONS

Nevada Corporations are fine for people who live in Nevada. They
are NOT a good vehicle for asset protection. Simple as that.

Promoters of Nevada Corporations use "bearer shares" to
obfuscate ownership. They say no creditor can tell that you
really own the assets in the corporation. They also boast
that the Nevada Corporation is tax free. This is pure BULL.

First, somebody owns the stock. If the "front man" they put
in place to hold the stock actually owns the stock then
Mr. Frontman can take the assets of the corporation. This is black
letter law, the holder of "bearer Stock" is the owner.... unless the "front man" is acting on your behalf. In this case the front
man is your agent. This is simple to discover in a debtor's exam.
Remember, this exam is under penalty of perjury (again, you either
tell the truth or become Bubba's Roommate). So to preserve the asset
protection you need to lie. If you tell the truth, the creditor gets
the assets. If you lie and get caught, its stock up on the Vaseline
and pay Bubba a visit. Neither are attractive alternatives.

Second, Who pays the tax and the tax preparation. Don't forget, this
is discoverable. If it's an S corporation, then the trail leads to
you. If not, then Mister Strawman holding your stock is in control
of the corporation and can pocket the assets and leave you holding
nothing but an empty lawsuit against a person who certainly did
NOT use Nevada Corporations as an asset protection vehicle.

Third, don't forget the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US
Constitution. Nevada is REQUIRED to recognize and ENFORCE
judgments in all of the other 49 states, without question.

Fourth, the promoters of Nevada Corporations push the tax
free nature of these entities. B-U-L-L. They forget the Unitary Tax
rules. If the assets in the Nevada Corporation are really
a Burger King in California; believe me, California will get
its fair share of tax.

Finally, people who do this Nevada Corporation Scam and then
come to me for real asset protection once the judgments are
starting to crowd them are always too late. They are the
owners of the assets put into the Nevada Corporation and
any transfer of these assets into a truly protected environment
is NOTHING BUT a FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE.

Please, don't get suckered by this TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE SCAM.

Lastly, most of the folks who use Nevada Corporations also
advocate the use of offshore IBC's (really, just offshore
corporations which normally cannot do business in the
Country which incorporates them). An IBC (Offshore Business
Corporation) is NOTHING but a regular C corporation under the
Internal Revenue Code and is subject to section 367. This is
bad news for the SCAMMERS, which they never share with the
customers, because Section 367 TAXES all contributions of
appreciated assets to offshore corporations just as if the
assets were sold. As a result, there is often a HUGE
capital gains tax due when high value/low basis assets are
transferred to an IBC. This is the promoter's dirty little
secret which will eventually bring them down; but, not
until it has destroyed the financial security of many of
their clients

AVOID OFFSHORE IBC'S as an asset protection vehicle. They do
not make sense. A new asset protection rule: If somebody
promotes Nevada Corporations or Offshore IBC's as effective
asset protection entities RUN: You are being sold a bill of
goods. Nothing but fraud.

Most people going to the purveyors of Nevada Corporations or
offshore IBC's are looking for affordable asset protection.
Instead of getting asset protection they get a pile of bad
advice which can ruin them.

Rob Lambert

I think it is important to remember that there are several types and levels of both asset protection, and privacy. They are all effective in their own way depending upon each individuals needs.

Asset Protection Corp sells Nevada Corps and Offshore IBC (Bahamas in particular). For individuals who are reluctant to form a forever irrevocable trust, and there are many out there, Neveda Corps can offer a good way in which to protect assets at a pretty reasonable price.

There has been mention of this method being dependant upon prgery if questioned during an asset discovery or court procedure. I do not beleive this to be true. Because of the bearer shares that are allowable with a Nevada Corp, one simply needs to hand them off to someone they trust and instruct that person to hand them off to someone they deeply trust without informing the originator of who that might be. When questioned, this allows one to truthfully say that they do not own this corporation, nor do they have any idea who does.

The Neveda Corp also does allow for the privacy necessary to discourage a greedy individual and/or their attorney from pursuing a frivilous lawsuit on a contigency basis.

I agree that trusts, FLP's, LLC's, etc are highly effective asset protection vehicles. But you have to admit that they are not for everyone. Asset Protection Corp is a very good, ethical company offering what has proven to be effective solutions to their customers and at a reasonable price.

And I am in no way associated with the company and am just someone who has done a whole lot of educating myself and studying the pluses and minuses of all asset protection vehicles.

Thoughtful comment... you forgot only one thing. Either you do or don't own the stock and thereby the company. If you transfer bearer shares to somebody else either they are the new owner or they are your agent. PERIOD. If there is a "handshake" agreement that they will give the stock back when the problems are over then that person is your agent. You (and not that person) is the owner of the shares.

You are forced to lie in the debtors exam. This is why the technology is defective.

Best,

Rob Lambert

I agree with Rob Lambert.

Also, if you transfer the share at a time you have prospective litigation it is a fraudulent conveyance in most states. This technique is not solid asset protection it is a smoke screen and that is never a good replacement for solid planning.

Lastly, a good ethical company would not try to recruit folks to sell their product who are not trained and cannot offer a client any form of privilege to protect their privacy and confidences. Any company that asks a so called advisor (anyone off the street) to poney up $10,000 and then they'll reimburse them percentages of that bond as they bring in prospects; this should raise any reasonable persons eyebrow.

James Burns

Another problem with bearer shares is that potentially a gift tax (up to 55%) is incurred each time the shares change hands. Ouch! If you don't think that a creditor wouldn't copy a deposition transcript showing that the bearer shares switched hands and then send that transcript to the IRS just to cause you problems, you are living in La-La land.

Better ask the Colorado Bar Association if Mr. Reed is still in good standing and whether he has had any disciplinary actions against him, and let us know what you find.

The selling of "asset protection" franchises that allow any Tom-Dick-or-Harry to set themselves up as an "asset protection consultant" has been flatly called a scam by at least one non-profit scam fighting group, see http://www.quatloos.com/asset_protection_shysters.htm

Probably the warnings of others -- I suspect the Nevada Attorney General and maybe even the Federal Trade Commission -- are probably not too far behind.

I'm answering this five months after the last message but would like Rod Lambert's (or anyone else's) comments on the following re Asset Protection Group and the use of Nevada Corporations as asset protection vehicles. First, if instead of the corporation issueing Bearer Shares, it issues no shares, who owns the corporation? And does this solve the problems associated with agents, gift taxes, etc. Second, if Asset Protection group and Bill Reedare running a scam, how have they been able to stay in business for almost 15 years? Thanks.

Jim Ryan

If nobody owns the corporation, then why in the world would a court respect the corporate shell?

This sort of "unissued shares" planning, as with bearer share planning, is very unsophisticated, lowbrow planning that will come to grief about the first time that the person attempting it has to sit through a debtor's exam and answer questions under penalty of contempt and perjury.

As for the "15 years" claim, perhaps you could tell us how to reconcile that claim with the 1997 order by the Colorado Supreme Court that suspended him from the practice of law, and which recited that he had "engaged in misrepresentations and dishonesty" in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid two of his own creditors.

Wise man say: "Do not accept as your pilot the man who crashed his own airplane."

I will check out your claim about the Colorado Supreme Court and Mr. Reed. Apparently he was suspended but not disbarred. However, what does that have to do with whether or not he has been in business providing asset protection services for 15 years? He may have a skeleton in his closet, but that doesn't mean his current business isn't viable. In fact, if he has personal experience protecting his own assets, perhaps it better qualifies him than other practicioners. The leaders of many companies have skeletons in their closets too.

"I will check out your claim about the Colorado Supreme Court and Mr. Reed."

Start out at 942 P.2d 1204 (Colo. 1997) and let us know what you find.

"Apparently he was suspended but not disbarred."

He also was not reinstated.

"However, what does that have to do with whether or not he has been in business providing asset protection services for 15 years?"

Where is the proof that he has been, and where is the proof that he has been successful with it? Certainly not in his own case if you want to take it as the first example.

"He may have a skeleton in his closet, but that doesn't mean his current business isn't viable."

It doesn't mean that it is viable, either. I'll admit that it is viable to the extent that he is able to persuade suckers to buy into it.

"In fact, if he has personal experience protecting his own assets, perhaps it better qualifies him than other practicioners."

What if his personal experience was bad, and so bad in fact that it caused him to be suspended by the Colorado Supreme Court?

"The leaders of many companies have skeletons in their closets too."

But not all of them. The reputations of many asset protection planners, such as Gideon Rothschild of Moses & Singer in New York or Mario Mata of Cantey & Hanger in Austin, and many other planners is spotless and stellar. I'd be willing to bet that none of these other well-respected planners would recommend Reed.

Why hang your hat with somebody who had his professional head handed to him on a platter when his own asset protection planning failed, just because the guy spends ooodles on marketing?

If you want an MLM deal, go call Herbalife. Buying into a franchise that will entitle you to engage in the unlicensed practice of law is a bad deal at any price.