Tag Archives: fraud

How Prevalent Are Ponzi Schemes?

Ponzi schemes are difficult to unravel, not unlike a billion-piece puzzle.

Ponzi schemes have been in the news recently, but not for bad reasons.  Specifically, proposed and confirmed settlements of three big ponzi schemers have been reached with some of their victims.  The victims of Earl Jones, a convicted Québécois schemer who swindled an estimated $40 million from 150 people, have settled in a class action suit with his bank for about $18 million.  The late Kenneth Wayne McLeod, whose Capital Analysts Inc. group stole $34 million mostly from federal agents and policemen, has proposed settlement for an undisclosed amount with 140 investors (though not without some suspicion, as noted in that article).  And perhaps biggest of all, though not Madoff-big, is Scott Rothstein, the big-mouthed Florida lawyer whose Charlie-Sheen-esque ramblings during a deposition were something of a pop culture phenomenon last year.  He made off with $1.2 billion of investors’ money, with his bank recently settling for $170 million for its part in the scheme.

While reading this, I became curious as to how prevalent these Ponzi schemes are.  Presumably after Bernie Madoff made headlines with his $65 billion scheme, duping even high-profile celebrities and financial leaders, people would be more aware of what they were doing with their money.  However, Ponzi schemers are just as active as ever.  This list on Wikipedia shows 32 caught Ponzi schemers in the last decade alone — some with schemes going back ten years or more.  Just think about how many are perpetrating a fraud right now.

Read on to learn about common investment fraud tactics after the jump.

Continue reading

Goldline to Pay $4.5 Million to Victims of Gold Bullion Bait-and-Switch

Gold

ABC News reports that Goldline, a dealer of precious metals, is to pay $4.5 million to settle a case with its defrauded customers and avoid criminal prosecution.  The company was accused of a “bait-and-switch”, advertising the sale of gold bullion and instead selling its customers much less valuable “collectible” gold coins.  California consumer protection attorneys alleged predatory business practices and 19 counts of criminal fraud in the company’s practice of convincing its customers that the government could confiscate gold bullion but not gold coins.  The company would then use this misinformation to justify an enormous markup for the coins.  One customer reports that he had lost half of the $5,000 he spent purchasing the coins due to the discrepancy between Goldline’s markup and the market-set value of the gold itself.  Most customers paid a markup 55% higher than the gold’s actual value.

More interesting than the settlement is the company’s attempt to spin the news.  As part of the settlement, the City of Santa Monica agreed to drop all criminal charges against Goldline.  In a press release issued by the company, they stress this fact first and foremost, making no mention of the $4.5 million to be paid to their victims.  Instead, Goldline identifies the suit as an investigation of “dissatisfied customers” and only  mentions they “continue to set [the] standard for customer disclosures”.  Take this as a lesson to read a company’s press releases with a grain of salt, or in this case, a heaping mound.  Also, if you’re in the market for gold bullion, don’t buy it from a company that advertises on conservation radio talk shows.

Apple Reaches $375 Million Preliminary Settlement in iPhone 4 Antenna Dispute

Smart phone

In 2010, Apple release its much-hyped iPhone 4, the latest in the succession of popular smart phones.  Early users soon found that the phone suffered poor reception when held normally due to the ill-chosen placement of the phone’s internal antenna.  When notified of the flaw, Apple offered the stale solution of “holding the phone in a different way”.  Users scoffed at the lame response, as reception was only lost when holding the phone in the usual manner, which has been the norm of cell phone usage for decades.  Incensed users brought the company to a class action lawsuit, alleging consumer fraud in that the company misrepresented the device’s ability to function in order to increase sales.

The terms of this settlement apply to any purchaser of the iPhone 4, which early numbers indicate may be 25 million people.  If you are eligible to benefit from this refund, Apple is obligated to contact you via email by April 30th, 2012.  After that, purchasers have 120 days to claim their refund.  If you have not been contacted by April 30th and think you are still eligible, contact Apple’s customer service.