UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

In re: KISMA WILLIAMS REEFE

aka KISHMA VONETTA REEFE, Chapter 7

Bankr. No. 21-13961-PDR

Debtor.

__________________________________________/

NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Judge Peter D. Russin

Plaintiff, Adversary No. 

v.

KISMA WILLIAMS REEFE

aka KISHMA VONETTA REEFE

aka KISHMA REEFE

aka WQ,

Defendant.

/

COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT

COMES NOW, Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. (“Nationwide”), the Plaintiff and a 

creditor in the above styled action, by and through counsel, and pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(19) 

and (a)(2)(A) files this Complaint to Determine Dischargeability of Debt against Defendant Kisma 

Williams Reefer aka Kishma Vonetta Reefe aka Kishma Reefe aka WQ (the “Defendant”) and shows 

this Court as follows:

Jurisdiction

1. This adversary proceeding is brought in connection with the Defendant’s case under 

Chapter 7, Title 11, Bankruptcy Case Number 21-13961 now pending in this Court. This Court has 

jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157. This is a core proceeding.

2. In accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7008, Nationwide consents to the entry of final 

orders and judgments by this Court. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1409. 

3. Nationwide is a creditor of the Debtor.

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 1 Filed 08/01/21 Page 1 of 12
Overview

4. The relief requested arises out of a Final Judgment entered on August 14, 2017 in Bell 

v. Disner, Case 3:14-cv-00091-GCM (W.D.N.C. 2017), referred to herein as the “Judgment.” A true 

and correct copy of the Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and is incorporated herein by 

reference.

5. Pursuant to the terms of the Final Judgment, post-judgment interest shall accrue at the 

rate specified under 28 U.S.C. 1961 from the date of entry until the judgment is paid in full.

6. The current balance of the Judgment is $77,461.28, which includes interest from the 

judgment date to the date the Debtor filed her bankruptcy petition.

Procedural Background of Judgment

7. On August 17, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an action titled 

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rex Venture Group, LLC d/b/a ZeekRewards.com and Paul 

Burks, Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-519 (the “SEC Action”), to shut down a Ponzi and pyramid scheme 

operated by Rex Venture Group, LLC d/b/a www.ZeekRewards.com in which more than 700,000 

participants lost over $700 million dollars. 

8. As a result of the SEC Action and ZeekRewards’ violation of federal securities law, 

on August 17, 2012, the Court appointed Kenneth D. Bell as Receiver of the estate of Rex Venture 

Group, LLC, d/b/a www.ZeekRewards.com, and authorized him to initiate legal proceedings seeking 

the avoidance of fraudulent transfers, disgorgement of profits, and any other legal and equitable relief 

that the Receiver deems necessary to recover RVG’s assets for the benefit of the Receivership estate. 

Matthew E. Orso succeeded Kenneth D. Bell as the Receiver. 

9. The Debtor herein was a Net Winner Class Member in the Ponzi and pyramid scheme 

operated by Rex Venture Group, LLC d/b/a www.ZeekRewards.com.

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 1 Filed 08/01/21 Page 2 of 12
10. As a Net Winner Class Member, Debtor received net winnings of $55,149.26 from her

participation and recruitment efforts. A true and correct copy of the statement showing the Debtor’s 

payments into the Ponzi scheme and her winnings is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and is 

incorporated herein by reference.

11. As a result of the SEC Action, the Receiver filed a clawback action under Bell v. 

Disner, Case 3:14-cv-00091-GCM (W.D.N.C. 2017) to recapture the money paid to the scheme’s 

winners so that it can be returned to the victims. The Complaint asserts claims for violation of the 

North Carolina Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Common Law Fraudulent Transfer and 

Constructive Trust as a result of the Ponzi scheme that operated in violation of federal securities law. 

12. On June 30, 2016, the Receiver moved for Summary Judgment Against Remaining 

Named Defendants and Partial Summary Judgment Against the Net Winner Class. 

13. On November 29, 2016, the Court granted the Receiver’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment Against Remaining Named Defendants and Partial Summary Judgment Against the Net 

Winner Class. A true and correct copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”

14. In the Order granting the Receiver’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against 

Remaining Named Defendants and Partial Summary Judgment Against the Net Winner Class, the 

Court found that ZeekRewards operated as a Ponzi scheme in violation of federal securities law and 

that the Defendants’ transfers in furtherance of the Ponzi scheme were fraudulent as violations of 

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39-23.4(a)(1), the North Carolina Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“NCUFTA”). 

15. In granting the Receiver’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against Remaining Named 

Defendants and Partial Summary Judgment Against the Net Winner Class, the Court found that the 

intent to defraud can be presumed when transfers are in furtherance of a Ponzi scheme. The “Ponzi 

scheme presumption” has been long settled in a number of jurisdictions and under an analogous 

section of the Bankruptcy Code.

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 1 Filed 08/01/21 Page 3 of 12
16. On June 27, 2017, the Receiver filed a Motion to Enter Final Judgments Against Net 

Winner Class Members, which was granted by the Court on August 14, 2017. 

17. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Final Judgment entered on August 

14, 2017, along with page 65 in the index of Judgments and Amounts. See number 3978 for the 

specific judgment against the Defendant. 

18. On December 17, 2019, Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. was assigned the full 

portfolio of judgments obtained against more than 6,700 Net Winners who participated and profited 

from ZeekRewards. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Assignment of Judgment. 

COUNT 1: Relief Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19)

19. Nationwide incorporates paragraphs 1 – 18 herein.

20. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19) provides that a Chapter 7 discharge does not discharge a

debt that is

(A) is for—

(i) the violation of any of the Federal securities laws (as that term is defined in

section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), any of the State securities

laws, or any regulation or order issued under such Federal or State securities laws; or

(ii) common law fraud, deceit, or manipulation in connection with the purchase or

sale of any security; and

(B) results, before, on, or after the date on which the petition was filed, from—

(i) any judgment, order, consent order, or decree entered in any Federal or State

judicial or administrative proceeding;

(ii) any settlement agreement entered into by the debtor; or

(iii) any court or administrative order for any damages, fine, penalty, citation,

restitutionary payment, disgorgement payment, attorney fee, cost, or other payment

owed by the debtor.

21. Thus, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19) precludes dischargeability of a debt if two conditions are 

met. It must be proven that (1) the debt is for the violation of securities law OR for common law 

fraud, deceit or manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of any security, AND (2) the 

debt must be memorialized in a judicial or administrative order or settlement agreement.

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 1 Filed 08/01/21 Page 4 of 12
22. As part of her active participation in the ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme, the Defendant 

received a number of fraudulent transfers that resulted in net winnings of $55,149.26 and being 

designated as a member of the Net Winner Class. 

23. The Order Granting the Receiver’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against 

Remaining Named Defendants and Partial Summary Judgment Against the Net Winner Class, 

attached hereto as Exhibit “C,” found the transfers that occurred as a result of the scheme were 

fraudulent.

24. The SEC Action that shut down the ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme as violation of 

federal securities law resulted in the clawback action initiated by the Receiver to recover the 

fraudulent transfers made as a result of the Net Winners’ participation in the scheme.

25. The SEC Action, which gave the Receiver the authority to file the clawback lawsuit, 

is based upon violations by RVG of federal securities statutes. The District Court had jurisdiction 

over the clawback lawsuit because it was directly related to the SEC Action. 

26. The Final Judgment against the Defendant Debtor, entered in Bell v. Disner on August 

14, 2017 and attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” is a debt owed by the Defendant Debtor for the fraudulent 

transfers she received as a result of her participation in the ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme.

27. Nationwide is entitled to a judgment against the Debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

§ 523(a)(19) finding the Final Judgment to be non-dischargeable and authorizing Nationwide to

pursue collection of same.

28. In the instant case, it is clear that the judgment held by Nationwide Judgment 

Recovery, Inc. was a result of the Defendant’s fraudulent conduct by her active and knowing 

participation in a Ponzi scheme that violated federal securities law and precipitated Defendant’s

bankruptcy filing. 

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 1 Filed 08/01/21 Page 5 of 12
29. The Defendant cannot re-litigate the amounts of the judgment in bankruptcy court. 

Prior to the entry of the final judgments in Bell v. Disner, there was a dispute period that allowed 

participants to adjust their balances, object to the settlement and judgments, and negotiate settlements 

with the Receiver. While she could have challenged the proposed amounts of the judgment at that 

time, Defendant chose to remain silent.

30. It is evident in this matter that both requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19) have 

been met. The Judgment the Defendant Debtor is attempting to discharge through her bankruptcy 

clearly resulted from the violation of federal securities law and common law fraud, deceit or 

manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. Moreover, this debt is 

memorialized in the Final Judgment issued against the Debtor in Bell v. Disner, attached hereto as 

Exhibit “A.” Therefore, the Judgment should be excepted from discharge. 

31. As such, the debt in question should be found nondischargeable pursuant to 11 

U.S.C. § 523(a)(19).

32. Therefore, the Defendant Debtor’s Judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” should 

be found nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19).

COUNT II: Relief Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A)

33. Nationwide incorporates paragraphs 1 – 32 herein.

34. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) provides that a discharge does not discharge an individual 

debtor from any debt that is

(2) for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of 

credit, to the extent obtained by –

(A) false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than 

a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition (emphasis 

supplied).

35. Therefore, for a debt to be nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), it 

needs to be for money obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 1 Filed 08/01/21 Page 6 of 12
36. The Bankruptcy Code does not clarify whether fraudulent transfer judgments are 

included in the definition of “false pretenses,” “false representation” or “actual fraud.” 

37. The Supreme Court recently explained that fraudulent transfers made with wrongful 

intent constitute “actual fraud,” thereby prohibiting discharge in bankruptcy. Husky Int’l 

Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, 136 S. Ct. 1581, 1586 (2016). 

38. In Husky, the Supreme Court was faced with a Circuit split regarding the issue of 

whether the term “actual fraud” as used in § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Code included fraudulent transfers. 

Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. at 1585. Writing for the majority, Justice Sotomayor 

explained that the term “actual fraud” encompasses “anything that counts as ‘fraud’ and is done 

with wrongful intent....” Id. at 1586. 

39. The Court further held that “[t]he term ‘actual fraud’ in § 523(a)(2)(A) encompasses 

forms of fraud, like fraudulent conveyance schemes, that can be effected without a false 

representation.” Id. (emphasis added). 

40. The Supreme Court extended its findings to the recipient of a fraudulent transfer who 

also commits fraud and obtains money or assets by mere participation in the fraud. If the recipient 

of a fraudulent transfer later files for bankruptcy, any debts that can be traced to the fraudulent 

conveyance will be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). Husky International Electronics, Inc.,

136 S. Ct. at 1589. 

41. By receipt of the fraudulent transfers that resulted in the Final Judgment entered on 

August 14, 2017 in Bell v. Disner, Case 3:14-cv-00091-GCM (W.D.N.C. 2017) in the amount of 

$74,062.74, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Defendant Debtor herein committed actual fraud. 

42. Because direct proof of intent (i.e., the debtor’s state of mind) is nearly impossible to 

obtain, the creditor may present evidence of the surrounding circumstances from which intent may 

be inferred. 

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 1 Filed 08/01/21 Page 7 of 12
43. The Defendant was aware that she was committing a fraudulent act by her active 

participation in the ZeekRewards scheme. She invested a total of $4,790.87 in the Ponzi scheme 

and “won” $59,940.13, resulting in net winnings of $55,149.26. See Exhibit B, attached hereto. 

44. Defendant’s winnings caused her to be designated as a Net Winner, who was sued by 

the Receiver in a clawback action, and ordered to return her winnings. 

45. The North Carolina Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“NCUFTA”), under which the 

judgment against the Defendant arises, permits a receiver to avoid a transfer made “with the intent 

to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor” within four years after the transfer was 

made. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 39-23.4(a)(1) (fraudulent transfers); 39-23.1 (definitions); 39-23.9 

(statute of limitations). 

46. Many courts have held that the intent to defraud can be presumed when transfers are 

in furtherance of a Ponzi scheme. 

47. As stated by the court in granting summary judgment in favor of the Receiver -

A majority of federal courts have held that proof of operation of a Ponzi scheme 

is sufficient to establish actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors to 

permit avoidance of a fraudulent transfer under section 548(a)(1)(A). See, e.g., 

Gold v. First Tenn. Bank, N.A. (In re: Taneja), No. 10-1225, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 

3554, *13-14 (E.D. Va. Jul. 30, 2012). Transfers in furtherance of a Ponzi 

scheme “have achieved a special status in fraudulent transfer law” from which 

intent of actual fraud may be inferred. In re Cohen, 199 B.R. 709, 717 (9th Cir. 

BAP 1996).

See Bell v. Disner, 2016 WL 7007522, at *11; see also In re Agric. Research and Technology 

Group, Inc., 916 F.2d 528, 536 (9th Cir. 1990)(“[T]he mere existence of a Ponzi scheme, which 

could be established by circumstantial evidence, has been found to fulfill the requirement of actual 

intent on the part of the debtor.”); In re Taubman, 160 B.R. 964, 983 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1993)(“It is 

appropriate to find actual intent from the Debtor’s active participation in a Ponzi scheme.”).

48. The standard of proof for determining whether a debt is nondischargeable under 11 

U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(A) is by the preponderance of the evidence standard. Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 1 Filed 08/01/21 Page 8 of 12
279, 111 S. Ct. 654, 112 L. Ed. 755 (1991). The U.S. Supreme Court noted that it was “unlikely 

that Congress, in fashioning the standard of proof that governs the applicability of these provisions, 

would have favored the interest in giving perpetrators of fraud a fresh start over the interest in 

protecting victims of fraud.” Id., 111 S. Ct. at 659. 

49. A debtor should not expect to evade creditors through fraudulent transfers -

particularly if the purpose of the transfer was made with the intent to delay, hinder, or defraud 

creditors.

In [the fraudulent transfer] case, the fraudulent conduct is not in dishonestly inducing 

a creditor to extend a debt. It is in the acts of concealment and hindrance. In the 

fraudulent conveyance context, therefore, the opportunities for a false representation 

from the debtor to the creditor are limited. The debtor may have the opportunity to 

put forward a false representation if the creditor inquires into the whereabouts of the 

debtor’s assets, but that could hardly be considered a defining feature of this kind of 

fraud.

Husky, at 1587.

50. A Ponzi scheme is fraudulent by definition: “a fraudulent investment plan in which

the investments of later investors are used to pay earlier investors, giving the appearance that the

investments of the initial participants dramatically increase in value in a short amount of time.” See

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ponzi+Scheme. 

51. The Defendant Debtor’s receipt of fraudulent transfers as a result of her knowing and 

active participation in the ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme violated the North Carolina Uniform 

Fraudulent Transfer Act.

52. The Defendant Debtor received transfers as a result of her participation in the 

ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme with an intent to defraud.

53. The Defendant obtained money through her involvement in an illegal and fraudulent 

Ponzi scheme. By participating and receiving fraudulent transfers, she was found to have 

committed actual fraud. 

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 1 Filed 08/01/21 Page 9 of 12
54. Post-Husky, a misrepresentation is not required for a fraudulent transfer to rise to the 

level of “actual fraud.” “Because we must give the phrase ‘actual fraud’ in § 523(a)(2)(A) the 

meaning it has long held, we interpret ‘actual fraud’ to encompass fraudulent conveyance schemes, 

even when those schemes do not involve a false representation.” Id. at 1590.

Even though the transferor of a fraudulent conveyance does not obtain assets or debts 

through the fraudulent conveyance, the transferee - who, with the requisite intent, 

also commits fraud - does. At minimum, those debts would not be dischargeable 

under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Husky, at 1584. 

55. As such, the debt in question, obtained by actual fraud, should be found 

nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

56. Therefore, the Defendant Debtor’s Judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” should 

be found nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 1 Filed 08/01/21 Page 10 of 12
WHEREFORE, Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. prays as follows:

(a) That the debt represented by the Defendant’s Judgment be determined to be nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19); and 

(b) That the debt represented by the Defendant’s Judgment be determined to be 

nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A); and 

(c) For any other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1

st day of August, 2021.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Florida, and I am in compliance with the additional qualifications 

to practice in this Court set forth in Local Rule 2090-1(A).

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint to 

Determine Dischargeability of Debt was served by email and CM/ECF protocol this 1

st day of 

August, 2021 upon: Elias Leonard Dsouza, Esquire, 8751 W. Broward Blvd #301, Plantation, FL 

33324, and by CM/ECF protocol upon Sonya Salkin Slott, Chapter 7 Trustee, PO Box 15580, 

Plantation, FL 33318.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1

st day of August, 2021.

Respectfully submitted,

SANDLER & SANDLER

By M. L. Sandler, P.A.

3390 Mary Street

Suite 116

Miami, FL 33133

Tel: 305-379-6655

Email: martin@sandler-sandler.com

/s Martin L. Sandler

Martin L. Sandler, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 0070370 

Dated: July 31, 2021

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 1 Filed 08/01/21 Page 11 of 12
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Florida, and I am in compliance with the additional qualifications to 

practice in this Court set forth in Local Rule 2090-1(A).

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint to 

Determine Dischargeability of Debt was served by email and CM/ECF protocol this 1

st day of 

August, 2021 upon: Elias Leonard Dsouza, Esquire, 8751 W. Broward Blvd #301, Plantation, FL 

33324, and Sonya Salkin Slott, Chapter 7 Trustee, PO Box 15580, Plantation, FL 33318.

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 1 Filed 08/01/21 Page 12 of 12