Corporate Corruption Case Study: Rust Rare Coin & Its Impact on Defrauded Investors

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction: The $3.2 Million Profit from a House of Cards
2. Inside the Allegations: A Silver Pool Built on Lies
3. The Anatomy of a Ponzi Scheme: How Rust Rare Coin Operated
4. Profit-Maximization: Chasing Returns in a Fraudulent System
5. The Economic Fallout: Winners, Losers, and Clawbacks
6. Community Impact: Trust Eroded, Fortunes Lost
7. Corporate Accountability Fails the Public: Legal Battles and Partial Justice
8. Pathways for Reform: Preventing Future Financial Ruin
9. This Is the System Working as Intended
10. Conclusion
11. Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit? Assessing the Claims

---

1. Introduction: The $3.2 Million Profit from a House of Cards

The allure of secure, high returns can be blinding, particularly in an economic landscape often characterized by volatility. For Les and Gretchen Howell, the promise offered by Gaylen Rust’s “Silver Pool,” operated through his business Rust Rare Coin, seemed like a golden opportunity. Lured by representations of an exclusive investment built on a sophisticated silver-trading algorithm, they invested substantial sums. The reality, however, was far darker. The Silver Pool was not a legitimate investment vehicle but a classic Ponzi scheme – a fraudulent enterprise generating fake returns by paying earlier investors with money taken from newer ones.  

While many were left devastated when the scheme collapsed, Les Howell emerged as a significant “winner,” extracting approximately $3.2 million in profits beyond his initial $1.2 million investment over roughly ten years. His wife, Gretchen, fared poorly, losing about $75,000 of her principal. This stunning disparity, born from the same fraudulent operation, highlights the arbitrary and devastating nature of such schemes. The subsequent legal battles, spearheaded by a court-appointed receiver, seek to claw back these illicit gains, exposing not just individual misconduct but broader systemic failures that allow such financial predation to thrive. This case serves as a potent example of how profit-maximization, operating under the guise of legitimate enterprise, can mask deep-seated fraud, leaving a trail of financial ruin and shattered trust.  

2. Inside the Allegations: A Silver Pool Built on Lies

The core of the case revolves around the fraudulent nature of the Silver Pool. Gaylen Rust, the owner and operator of Rust Rare Coin, falsely claimed he had developed a unique algorithm enabling profitable silver trading regardless of market fluctuations. To bolster confidence, he asserted that half the investors’ silver was securely stored at a Brink’s facility while the other half was actively traded. These claims were entirely fabricated. Investigations revealed that Rust never traded or stored silver as promised. The “returns” paid out were not generated from any legitimate business activity but were simply funds taken from new investors to pay earlier ones – the defining characteristic of a Ponzi scheme.  

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the State of Utah initiated legal action against Rust in November 2018, alleging investor fraud. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted Gaylen Rust, who later pleaded guilty, formally admitting the Silver Pool was a fraudulent scheme. The court appointed Jonathan O. Hafen as receiver, tasked with recovering assets fraudulently transferred out of the scheme to compensate victims. The receiver’s ancillary action against the Howells specifically targets the $3.2 million in profits Les Howell received, labeling these funds as fraudulent transfers under Utah’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA).  

3. The Anatomy of a Ponzi Scheme: How Rust Rare Coin Operated

Ponzi schemes rely on a continuous inflow of new capital to maintain the illusion of profitability. Rust Rare Coin, through its Silver Pool, exemplified this destructive model. By promising substantial and consistent returns, Rust attracted investors like the Howells. The money from later investors, like potentially Gretchen Howell and others who joined after Les, was used to pay fictitious “profits” to earlier investors like Les Howell. This creates a dangerous cycle: the scheme needs ever-increasing amounts of new money to sustain payouts and prevent collapse.  

The legal proceedings established the Silver Pool’s insolvency and lack of genuine revenue generation. The court recognized the “Ponzi presumption,” a legal principle where, once a scheme is proven to be a Ponzi, all transfers made by the operator are presumed to be fraudulent. This presumption shifts the burden to recipients like Les Howell to prove they received the funds in good faith and for reasonably equivalent value. While the return of principal investment can be considered reasonably equivalent value, the “profits” – money exceeding the initial investment – are generally considered fraudulent transfers because they stem directly from the fraud itself, paid out of other victims’ pockets. Les Howell’s $3.2 million gain falls squarely into this category.  

This structure thrives in environments where regulatory oversight may be lacking or easily circumvented. The complexity often presented by scheme operators, like Rust’s fictional algorithm, can deter scrutiny. Neoliberal ideologies emphasizing deregulation can inadvertently create fertile ground for such schemes, prioritizing perceived market freedom over robust investor protection.  

4. Profit-Maximization: Chasing Returns in a Fraudulent System

While Gaylen Rust was the architect of the fraud, the case also implicitly touches upon the powerful incentive of profit maximization that drives investor behavior within capitalist systems. Les Howell invested nearly all his assets into Rust Rare Coin over a decade, drawn by the promise of significant returns. These returns, amounting to $3.2 million beyond his investment, enabled him to retire early and fund the construction of a substantial property.  

The legal framework acknowledges that investors receiving funds back up to their principal investment amount did provide “reasonably equivalent value”. However, the pursuit and retention of profits derived solely from the fraudulent activities of the scheme operator—profits paid using other victims’ funds—reflects a system where the maximization of personal gain can, even unwittingly, perpetuate harm. The court’s application of the UVTA to claw back these profits underscores a legal attempt to counteract this, asserting that gains generated through fraud are illegitimate and must be returned to the pool of assets available for distribution to victims.  

In a neoliberal context, the relentless pursuit of high returns is often normalized and encouraged. Financial systems frequently incentivize risk-taking, sometimes blurring the lines between legitimate investment and speculative ventures. When oversight is weak, this profit motive can be exploited by fraudulent actors like Rust, drawing in capital based on false promises. The victims are not just those who lose their principal, but also the integrity of the financial system itself.  

5. The Economic Fallout: Winners, Losers, and Clawbacks

The collapse of the Rust Rare Coin Ponzi scheme created a clear divide between “net winners” and “net losers.” Les Howell stands as a primary example of a net winner, extracting $3.2 million in fictitious profits. Gretchen Howell represents the net losers, ending up $74,450 short of her initial investment. This disparity highlights the zero-sum nature of Ponzi schemes: one investor’s gain is directly funded by another’s loss.  

The primary economic consequence addressed in this specific legal action is the receiver’s effort to recover the fraudulent transfers, specifically Les Howell’s $3.2 million profit. These “clawback” actions are essential for attempting to achieve some measure of equity among victims by redistributing illicitly obtained funds. The legal battle involves determining liability for these funds, including tracing assets purchased with the profits, such as the Kingman, Arizona property Les Howell acquired and subsequently shared title with Gretchen. The court ultimately held Les liable for the full $3.2 million profit and, after clarification, held Gretchen liable for $1.5 million, representing half the estimated amount Les invested in the Kingman property using scheme proceeds. However, the appellate court found insufficient evidence for the specific $1.5 million judgment against Gretchen, requiring recalculation based on the property’s value at the time of transfer. The awarding of prejudgment interest to the receiver further aims to compensate the receivership estate for the time value of the money wrongfully held by the Howells.  

The economic fallout extends beyond the direct participants. Such schemes erode trust in financial markets and institutions. The resources expended on litigation and receivership represent a significant deadweight loss to the economy, diverting funds that could otherwise be used productively. Furthermore, the financial distress experienced by net losers can have ripple effects on families and communities.

6. Community Impact: Trust Eroded, Fortunes Lost

While the provided legal document (at the bottom of this article) focuses narrowly on the financial transactions and legal liabilities between the receiver and the Howells, the existence of a large-scale Ponzi scheme like Rust Rare Coin invariably impacts the broader community. Gaylen Rust operated his business, Rust Rare Coin, implying a physical presence and likely drawing investors from the local community and potentially beyond. The lure of secure, high returns offered by a seemingly reputable local business figure can be particularly persuasive.  

The scheme’s collapse represents a significant betrayal of trust. Investors who placed their faith—and often substantial portions of their life savings —in Rust were defrauded. The legal process, while necessary for recovery, can be lengthy and stressful for victims awaiting potential restitution from the receivership estate. The case details Les Howell using his illicit gains to buy land and build a house in Kingman, Arizona, where he and Gretchen reside. While a direct consequence for Les, this relocation funded by fraudulent proceeds represents a tangible outcome built on the losses of others. The court’s action to recover funds aims to mitigate the damage, but the erosion of community trust and the financial hardship inflicted on numerous unnamed victims constitute significant, though less quantifiable, impacts.  

Neoliberal economic structures often emphasize individual responsibility, but cases like this demonstrate the profound collective harm caused by unchecked corporate misconduct. Communities rely on a baseline level of trust in local businesses and financial dealings. When that trust is violated on such a scale, it can foster cynicism and economic insecurity, potentially impacting local investment and social cohesion long after the legal battles conclude.

7. Corporate Accountability Fails the Public: Legal Battles and Partial Justice

The legal proceedings against the Howells represent an attempt to achieve accountability and recover funds for the victims of the Rust Rare Coin scheme. The court granted summary judgment against Les and Gretchen Howell on the fraudulent transfer claims, establishing their liability for the profits Les received. The judgment against Les totaled $3,218,103.96 (his net profits less Gretchen’s net loss), plus prejudgment interest. Gretchen was initially held liable for $1.5 million of this total, linked to her joint ownership of the Kingman property funded by the scheme’s proceeds.  

However, the process highlights limitations in achieving full accountability. The dispute over the amount of Gretchen’s liability, leading to the appellate court’s reversal and remand for recalculation, shows the complexities and potential for protracted litigation even when the underlying fraud is clear. Gaylen Rust, the scheme’s operator, pleaded guilty to criminal charges, but the civil action focuses on recovering funds from those who benefited, like Les Howell, rather than solely punishing the perpetrator. While clawing back profits is crucial for victim compensation, it often falls short of making victims whole, especially considering the time and legal costs involved. The judgment against the Howells represents a significant recovery effort, but it’s a partial remedy applied after the harm occurred.  

The concept of “limited liability,” central to corporate structures under capitalism, often shields individuals from the full consequences of corporate actions. While Rust faced criminal charges, the civil case targets the recipients of fraudulent funds. Furthermore, settlements or judgments in such cases rarely involve admissions of wrongdoing beyond the established legal findings. This reflects a systemic tendency where financial penalties, even substantial ones, may be treated as a cost of doing business rather than a fundamental reckoning with ethical failures. The focus often remains on recovering money rather than systemic reform to prevent future occurrences.

8. Pathways for Reform: Preventing Future Financial Ruin

While the legal document details the aftermath of the Rust Rare Coin fraud, it implicitly points towards areas needing reform to prevent similar schemes. The case hinges on Rust’s misrepresentations about his trading strategy and asset storage. This suggests a need for:  

1. Enhanced Due Diligence and Transparency: Investors need better tools and access to verified information. Regulatory bodies could mandate more rigorous, independent verification of claims made by investment operators regarding assets, strategies, and returns, especially for private or exclusive offerings like the “Silver Pool”.  
2. Stronger Regulatory Oversight: The fact that the scheme operated for around a decade before being shut down points to potential gaps in regulatory surveillance or enforcement capacity. Increased funding and authority for agencies like the CFTC could enable earlier detection and intervention.  
3. Investor Education: While Rust’s victims were lured by sophisticated lies, greater public awareness about the red flags of Ponzi schemes (e.g., promises of consistently high returns with little risk, complex or secretive strategies) could empower potential investors to be more critical.  
4. Robust Clawback Mechanisms: The receiver’s use of the UVTA is crucial. Ensuring these laws remain strong and efficiently enforceable allows for the recovery of funds needed to compensate victims. Streamlining the process for tracing and recovering assets transferred, even across state lines or into real estate, is vital.  

Systemic reform must go beyond punishing individual bad actors. Neoliberal policies often favor deregulation, assuming market self-correction. This case demonstrates the failure of that assumption. Meaningful reform requires acknowledging that profit motives, if unchecked by robust regulation and ethical guardrails, can predictably lead to widespread harm. Strengthening consumer and investor protection laws, ensuring adequate enforcement, and fostering a culture of corporate ethics that prioritizes well-being over pure profit are essential steps.

9. This Is the System Working as Intended

Viewing the Rust Rare Coin case solely as an aberration, a failure of an otherwise sound system, misses a crucial point. From a critical perspective, this case can be seen as an outcome produced by a system – late-stage neoliberal capitalism – that structurally prioritizes profit maximization and often tolerates environments where such fraud can flourish.

Gaylen Rust exploited common desires for financial security and high returns. He operated for a decade, suggesting that the mechanisms for early detection or prevention were insufficient or circumvented. The system allowed him to present a facade of legitimacy (Rust Rare Coin, claims of algorithms and secure storage) that attracted significant investment.  

The legal framework, while providing tools for recovery like the UVTA and receivership, primarily activates after the harm is done. The focus is on clawing back funds, often through complex litigation, rather than on proactive prevention that might conflict with deregulatory impulses. The fact that Les Howell could amass $3.2 million in profits from the scheme, unknowingly or not, highlights how the system can reward participation in (even fraudulent) ventures promising high yields. The differential outcomes for Les (net winner) and Gretchen (net loser) further illustrate the often arbitrary distribution of gains and losses within such schemes, a feature exacerbated by a system prioritizing capital accumulation. This isn’t necessarily a system breaking; it’s arguably the system generating predictable consequences when oversight is weak and the pursuit of profit is paramount.  

10. Conclusion

The legal battle surrounding the collapse of Gaylen Rust’s Silver Pool is more than a dispute over dollars and cents; it’s a striking illustration of how easily trust can be weaponized for profit and the devastating human cost that follows. Lured by false promises of a secure and lucrative investment, individuals like Les and Gretchen Howell entrusted their funds to a scheme built entirely on deception. While the legal system, through the actions of the court-appointed receiver and the application of laws like the UVTA, attempts to rectify the financial imbalances by clawing back illicit profits, this process occurs only after significant harm has been inflicted.  

Les Howell’s $3.2 million gain, contrasted with his wife Gretchen’s loss, underscores the arbitrary cruelty of Ponzi schemes. The funds recovered through judgments against them represent a partial restitution for countless unnamed victims whose financial security was undermined. This case is a microcosm of broader systemic vulnerabilities. It highlights how deregulation, inadequate oversight, and a cultural emphasis on profit maximization above all else create environments where such predatory schemes can take root and devastate communities. The Rust Rare Coin saga serves as a painful reminder that protecting corporations or prioritizing market freedom without robust safeguards inevitably comes at the expense of public well-being and financial integrity.  

11. Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit? Assessing the Claims

The lawsuit brought by the receiver, Jonathan O. Hafen, against Les and Gretchen Howell is far from frivolous; it represents a legitimate and necessary legal action to recover assets for the victims of a confirmed large-scale fraud. The foundation of the suit rests on several key, undisputed points established in the legal record:  

1. Confirmed Ponzi Scheme: Gaylen Rust pleaded guilty to operating a fraudulent scheme, and the court explicitly recognized the Silver Pool as such.  
2. Illicit Profits: Les Howell received approximately $3.2 million in excess of his principal investment, funds that originated not from legitimate trading but from other defrauded investors.  
3. Fraudulent Transfers: Under Utah’s UVTA and the established Ponzi presumption, these excess profits are legally considered fraudulent transfers, voidable by the receiver acting on behalf of the creditors (the victims).  
4. Subsequent Transferee Liability: Gretchen Howell received an interest in property (the Kingman house) purchased with these illicit profits, making her a subsequent transferee liable for the value of the asset transferred to her, even though she was a net loser in her direct dealings with the scheme.  

The legal action is not an opportunistic claim but a direct application of established law designed to address the specific harm caused by Ponzi schemes. The receiver has a legal duty to marshal the assets of the fraudulent enterprise, and clawing back fictitious profits from “net winners” is a standard and essential part of that process. The disputes in the case centered on the application of legal principles (like the Ponzi presumption’s validity under UVTA, evidentiary admissibility, and interest calculations ) and the precise calculation of liability (particularly for Gretchen ), not on the fundamental legitimacy of seeking recovery of fraudulently obtained funds. Therefore, the lawsuit reflects a meaningful legal grievance aimed at achieving partial justice for the scheme’s victims.  

💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.

• 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
• 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
• 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
• 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
• 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.

You can read more about this scam on the Department of Justice’s website: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ut/pr/owner-rust-rare-coin-sentenced-19-years-prison-running-fraudulent-silver-trading-program