.
Feedback

Encinitas Man Sentenced to Five Years in 'Ponzi' Case

Scott Bottolfson, 56, defrauded investors out of $6.8 million, prosecutors said.

An Encinitas resident must serve five years in federal prison following his conviction on a wire fraud charge from what amounted to a "Ponzi" scheme that defrauded some 30 investors out of $6.8 million.

Scott Bottolfson, 56, received the sentence Friday in the downtown San Diego federal court of Jeffrey T. Miller.


During the sentencing hearing, Bottolfson read a brief written statement of apology and pledged to work to repay the money, but that did little to mollify investors in attendance. Several had asked the judge to sentence Bottolfson to the maximum 20-year term. One victim compared the five-year term to little more than a "sour lollipop" that would not deter other white collar criminals or suitably punish the defendant.

Defrauded investors ranged from the elderly living on fixed incomes to Bottolfson's close family and friends, prosecutors said.

Bottolfson admitted to one count of wire fraud in connection with the case on Nov. 30. Under sentencing guidelines, he will be eligible for parole after serving 51 months and must surrender to federal authorities within six weeks. Bottolfson remains free on $20,000 bond, Assistant United States Attorney Christopher Tenorio said.

Court records show that from September 2001 to July 2010, Bottolfson sought money from investors by promising guaranteed returns of 18 to 20 percent trading in commodities via Increase Investments Inc. According to one victim, Bottolfson promised investors their principal was safe.

The federal investigation found that Bottolfson used up to half of the money for such personal expenses as house and vehicle payments. Federal prosecutors say that because new investor funds were given to some previous investors and presented as investment returns, Bottolfson was in fact operating a "Ponzi" scheme.

While the judge ordered Bottolfson to repay the investors, they have little immediate hope of seeing much of the money. Bottolfson has no income and his Encinitas home is currently in foreclosure proceedings with little potential equity. Remaining stated assets include an account frozen by the National Futures Association valued at $230,000 and $149,000 in a trust account held by Bottolfson's attorney, Michael Lipman.

Bottolfson, described by his victims as a God-fearing, gregarious salesman before his scheme unraveled, read a statement in a monotone to the judge. Dressed in a black suit, he apologized to victims, family and friends  for the "pain and suffering I caused to so many people" and spoke of "constant feelings of regret and remorse."

He pledged to work the "rest of my life to repay" the lost money and said that he willingly accepts the consequences.

Tenorio, the federal prosecutor, said Bottolfson continued soliciting funds even as his little-understood investment strategy failed, exploiting relationships with his friends and family and encouraging some to cash out their pension and retirement savings to invest with him.

Many investors spoke of psychological damage based upon their loss of trust in people because of the fraud, Tenorio said, describing feelings of "foolishness, embarrassment, betrayal and devastation."

Jay Watson, a cancer survivor from Colorado, told the judge of experiencing a severe heart arrhythmia after learning of the fraud. Watson, Bottolfson's former business partner in a trucking firm, lost more than $3 million in the case, the largest amount of any of the victims.

In court, another victim, Jay Samuel, a photographer from Arizona, likened Bottolfson's acts to those of an arrogant alcoholic, convinced he can drive though he's had too much to drink.

"This time, after 30 people got in the car, it crashed," he said. He sought to publicize the case, hoping it would serve as a warning to others to be wary of investment promises, even if they are from friends.

Miller noted that such cases cause lingering psychological damage to the victims because of the trust issues, and that in some instances, the harm is greater than physical damage suffered by victims of violent crimes. While friends and family members wrote letters of support and appeared in court on Bottolfson's behalf, the judge said he found the defendant's behavior "aggravated, damaging and in some cases, fairly heinous."

Some of the goodwill generated by Bottolfson in fact was the fruit of "ill-gotten gain" over a 10-year period, he said, and the defendant was able to live a wealthy lifestyle because of it.

Kenneth Graziano February 12, 2011 at 09:00 pm
Sounds familiar. Our own Bernie Madoff who also made-off with other peoples' money. In my experience anything that sounds too good to be true, generally is.
Rhonda watson February 14, 2011 at 08:37 pm
I'm the wife of ray Watson, I am truely disgusted Scott did not get at least 2-4 years longher. The judge was too soft and for him to make restitution he would have to make 45,000 a month to pay the victims back.like that will ever happen.My husband ray bought the trucking company from Scott,they were not business partners, ray worked for Scott.Ray and his partner Dean Beherns bought spirit express. They were very successful, unfortunatally Dean died, the stress of that made Ray sell the company. I feel Scott was very envious and felt that the profits from the sale should have been his I truely believe he came after us for that reason. Know we have learned a very hard lesson, another question comes up in the last 18 month he never invested the money just paid himself how can someone spend 3million dollars where no records claim he has no money. Good question? Thanks for reading Rhonda watson
J March 3, 2011 at 09:23 pm
All I can say is WOW. I am a very close relative to Scott and I was floored that he did this to so many of my relatives... I'll come clean here I could have invested but had no money. Scott was like a brother to me. His mother could not have brought up someone that would do this! She did though and I am so sorrowful for more than just the money... I am sorry he took you guys for a ride too. I am trying to figure out who will hire him when he gets out of prison? None of this makes sense--unless he rolled over on someone else to get a lesser sentence. I told myself I would not comment, but I had to!
Jim hackbarth October 12, 2011 at 05:02 pm
I was Scotties next door neighbor. In Rhinelander Wi during the years after he sold the trucking company. I Saw another side of this Baby Huey, and his wife. If your in the area stop in. What a prime *** ****. THE EAGLE

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
The benefit garage and bake sale is this Saturday, June 22 from 7 a.m. to noon at 1463 Golden SunsetRead More Drive in San Marcos (San Elijo Hills). Here's the link to the event: http://encinitas.patch.com/groups/events/p/drake-center-garage-sale-to-benefit-autism-therapy-dog_3a2145e8
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
All donated items can be dropped off at The Drake Center, located at 195 N. El Camino Real inRead More Encinitas.
Mary E June 19, 2013 at 04:01 pm
do you get a donation receipt for tax purposes?
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you readRead More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 18, 2013 at 10:20 am
SAVE ENCINITAS FROM RANCID DEVELOPERS. VOTE YES ON PROP A!
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
Status Quo June 19, 2013 at 11:53 am
Looks very much like your Prop A will pass, though 'BA2's tactic seems to be part of the problemRead More also.
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.