Ponzi scheme
This article is from Wikipedia and felt compelling to reprduce here,in the times, where your e- mail is filled up with various stock schemes, offers and telemarketing calls.
The scheme named after the notorious Pioneer Charles Ponzi is still effective for those lazy ones to make a quick buck . Pls read and stay away from such offers..
Overview
A Ponzi scheme usually
offers abnormally high short-term returns in order to entice new investors. The high returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises (and pays) require an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep the scheme going.
The system is doomed to collapse because there are little or no underlying earnings from the money received by the promoter. However, the scheme is often interrupted by legal authorities before it collapses, because a Ponzi scheme is suspected and/or because the promoter is selling unregistered securities. (As more and more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities will continue to increase.)
The scheme is named after Charles Ponzi, who became notorious for using the technique after emigrating from Italy to the United States in 1903. Ponzi was not the first to invent such a scheme, but his operation took in such a large amount of money that it was the first to become known throughout the United States. Today’s schemes are often considerably more sophisticated than Ponzi’s, although the underlying formula is quite similar and the principle behind every Ponzi scheme is to exploit lapses in judgment arising out of greed.
Hypothetical example
An advertisement is placed promising extraordinary returns on an investment – for example 20% for a 30 day contract. The precise mechanism for this incredible return can be attributed to anything that sounds good but is not specific: “global currency arbitrage”, “hedge futures trading”, “high yield investment programs”, or similar.
A mugshot of Charles Ponzi
With no proven track record for the investors, only a few investors are tempted, usually for smaller sums (say $5,000). Sure enough, 30 days later, the investor receives $6,000 – the original capital plus the 20% return ($1,000). At this point, greed starts to overcome reason: the investor will put in more money, and, as word begins to spread, other investors grab the “opportunity” to participate. More and more people invest, and see their investments return the promised large returns.
The reality of the scheme is that the “return” to the initial investors is being paid out of the new, incoming investment money, not out of profits. There is no “global currency arbitrage”, “hedge futures trading”, or “high yield investment programs” actually taking place. Instead, when Investor D puts in money, that money becomes available to pay out “profits” to investors A, B, and C. When investors X, Y, and Z put in money, that money is available to pay “profits” to investors A through W.
One reason that the scheme works so well is that early investors – those who actually got paid the large returns – quite commonly reinvest (keep) their money in the scheme (it does, after all, pay out much better than any alternative investment). Thus those running the scheme don’t actually have to pay out very much (net) – they simply have to send statements to investors that show how much the investors have earned by keeping the money in what looks like a great place to get a high return.
The catch is that at some point one of three things will happen: (a) the promoters will vanish, taking all the investment money (less payouts) with them; (b) the scheme will collapse of its own weight, as investment slows and the promoters start having problems paying out the promised returns (and when they start having problems, the word spreads, and more people start asking for their money); or (c) the scheme is exposed, because when legal authorities begin examining accounting records of the so-called enterprise, they find that much of the “assets” that should exist, do not.
What is and is not a Ponzi scheme A pyramid scheme is a form of fraud similar in some ways to a Ponzi scheme, relying as it does on a disbelief in financial reality, including the hope of an extremely high rate of return. However, several characteristics distinguish pyramid schemes from Ponzi schemes:In a Ponzi scheme, the schemer acts as a “hub†for the victims, interacting with all of them directly. In a pyramid scheme, those who recruit additional participants benefit directly (in fact, failure to recruit typically means no investment return).
A Ponzi scheme relies on some esoteric investment approach, insider connections, etc., and often attracts well-to-do investors; pyramid schemes explicitly claim that new money will be the source of payout for the initial investments.
A pyramid scheme is bound to collapse a lot faster, simply because of the demand for exponential increases in participants to sustain it (Ponzi schemes can survive simply by getting most participants to “reinvest” their money, with a relatively small number of new participants).
Worldcom and other financial frauds. Worldcom did not pay out high returns (that is, high dividends). Worldcom was a publicly traded company which used expectations from the internet/dotcom boom and various fraudulent accounting schemes to inflate publicly reported profits to keep its stock high. Investors were free to sell at any time; when they did, the company wasn’t the one paying the investor — it was the person buying the stock who paid, and took the risk at that point. A bubble. A bubble relies on suspension of disbelief and an expectation of large profits, but it is not the same as a Ponzi scheme. A bubble involves ever-rising (and unsustainable) prices in an open market (be that shares of a stock, housing prices, the price of tulip bulbs, or anything else). As long as buyers are willing to pay ever-increasing prices, sellers can get out with a profit. And there doesn’t need to be a schemer behind a bubble. (In fact, a bubble can arise without any fraud at all – for example, housing prices in a local market that rise sharply but eventually drop sharply because of overbuilding.) Robbing Peter to pay Paul. When debts are due and the money to pay them is lacking, whether because of bad luck or deliberate theft, debtors often make their payments by borrowing or stealing from other monies they have. It does follow that this is a Ponzi scheme. From the basic facts set out, it is not, because there is no indication that the lenders were promised unrealistically high rates of return via claims of unusual financial investments. Nor (from these basic facts) is there any indication that the borrower (banker) is progressively increasing the amount of borrowing (“investing”) to cover payments to initial investors (as, again, Ponzi was not the first to do.)
Notable Ponzi schemes
Highest dollar schemes
The eponymous scheme was orchestrated by Charles Ponzi, who went from anonymity to being a well-known Boston millionaire in six months using such a scheme in 1920. Profits were supposed to come from exchanging international postal reply coupons. He promised 50% interest (return) on investments in forty five days or “double your money†in ninety days. About 40,000 people invested about $15 million all together (roughly $150 million in 2006 dollars); in the end, only a third of that money was returned to them.
Besides the Ponzi scheme other similar historic schemes include:
- Prior to Ponzi, in 1899 William “520 Percent” Miller opened for business as the “Franklin Syndicate” in Brooklyn, New York. Miller promised 10 percent a week interest, and exploited some of the main themes of Ponzi schemes such as customers reinvesting the interest they made. He defrauded buyers of $1 million and was sentenced to jail for ten years. When he was pardoned he opened a grocery store on Long Island. During the Ponzi investigation, Miller was interviewed by the Boston Post to compare his scheme to Ponzi’s– the interviewer found them remarkably similar, but Ponzi’s became more famous for taking in seven times as much money.[1]
- Between 1970 and 1984 in Portugal, a woman known as Dona Branca maintained a scheme that paid ten percent monthly interest. In 1988 she was sentenced to 10 years in prison. She always claimed that she was only trying to help the poor, but in her trial it was proven that she had received 85 million EUR.[2][3]
- In the fall of 1994, the European Kings Club collapsed, causing a damage of about $1.1 billion. This scam was led by Damara Bertges and Hans GГјnther Spachtholz. In the Swiss cantons Uri and Glarus about every tenth adult invested into the EKC. The scam involved buying “letters” valued at 1400 francs which entitled to receive twelve monthly payments of 200 francs. The organisation was based in Gelnhausen, Germany.[4] In May 1995, Pennsylvania’s attorney general moved to freeze the assets of the Foundation for New Era Philanthropy and its chairman, John G. Bennett, Jr. The organization had raised over $500 million from 1,100 donors. Participants, including the Red Cross, had believed they were participating in a matching-gifts program through New Era, but in fact it was simply a Ponzi scheme; losses amounted to $135 million. In early 1996, the SEC filed a civil action against Bennett Funding Group, its chief financial officer, Patrick R. Bennett, and other companies Bennett controlled, in connection with a massive Ponzi scheme. The companies fraudulently raised hundreds of millions of dollars, purportedly to purchase assignments of equipment leases and promissory notes. [1] In 1997 the government of Albania officially endorsed a series of pyramid investment funds. When the inevitable end came, the people of Albania, who had lost $1.2 billion, took their protest to the streets in a revolt that toppled the government. In 2000, a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Scientology minister Reed Slatkin came unravelled when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regulators became aware that Slatkin was not a licensed investment advisor. Slatkin had raised some $600 million from over 500 wealthy investors, mostly Hollywood celebrities. In December 2005, in Los Angeles, California, Larry Toshio Osaki, who ran a gigantic Ponzi scheme and continued to offer bogus investments in accounts receivable “factoring†after being ordered to stop by a federal judge, was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. In addition to the prison term, Judge Stephen V. Wilson ordered Osaki to pay more than $145 million in restitution to victims.
Other notable schemes
Other notable (but lesser dollar) Ponzi schemes include:
- Sarah Howe, who in 1880 opened up a “Ladies Deposit” in Boston promising eight percent interest, although she had no method of making profits. This unique scheme was billed as “for women only”. Howe disappeared with the money from her scam.[1] The novel Chance by Joseph Conrad depicted a Ponzi scheme in 1914 before Ponzi himself had hit the scene. Conrad’s scammer “de Barral” offered ten percent interest on deposits in his operation “without system, plan, foresight, or judgement”. On March 22, 2000, four people were indicted in the Northern District of Ohio, on charges including conspiracy to commit and committing mail and wire fraud. A company with which the defendants were affiliated allegedly collected more than $26 million from “investors” without selling any product or service, and paid older investors with the proceeds of the money collected from the newer investors. [2] In late 2003, a scheme by Bill Hickman, Sr., and his son, Bill Jr., was shut down. He had been selling unregistered securities that promised yields of up to 20 percent; more than $8 million was defrauded from dozens of residents of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma, along with investors from as far away as California. [3] Hickman was sentenced to 160 years in state prison. In December 2004, Mark Drucker pleaded guilty to a Ponzi scheme in which he told investors that he would use their funds to buy and sell securities through a brokerage account. He claimed that he was making significant profits on his day trades and that he had opportunities to invest in select IPOs that were likely to turn a substantial profit in a short period of time. He promised guaranteed returns of up to fifty (50%) percent in 90 days or less. In less than two years of trading, Drucker actually lost more than $850,000 in day trading and had no special access to IPOs. He paid out more than $3.6 million to investors while taking in $6.3 million. [4] [5] In June 2005, in Los Angeles, California, John C. Jeffers was sentenced to 168 months (14 years) in federal prison and ordered to pay $26 million in restitution to more than 80 victims. Jeffers and his confederate John Minderhout ran what they said was a high-yield investment program they called the “Short Term Financing Transaction.†The funds were collected from investors around the world from 1996 through 2000. Some investors were told that proceeds would be used to finance humanitarian projects around the globe, such as low-cost housing for the poor in developing nations. Jeffers sent letters to some victims that falsely claimed the program had been licensed by the Federal Reserve and the program had a relationship with the International Monetary Fund and the United States Treasury. Jeffers and Minderhout promised investors profits of up to 4,000 percent. Most of the money collected in the scheme went to Jeffers to pay commissions to salespeople, to make payments to investors to keep the scheme going, and to pay his own personal expenses. [6] In February 2006, Edmundo Rubi pleaded guilty to bilking hundreds of middle and low-income investors out of more than $24 million between 1999 and 2001, when he fled the U.S. after becoming aware that he was under suspicion. The investors in the scheme, called “Knight Expressâ€, were told that their funds would be used to purchase and resell Federal Reserve notes, and were promised a six percent monthly return. Most of those bilked were part of the Filipino community in San Diego. [7] On May 10, 2006, Spanish police arrested 9 people associated with Forum Filatelico and Afinsa Bienes Tangibles in an apparent Ponzi scheme that affected 250,000 investors from 1998 to 2001. Investors were promised huge returns from investments in a stamp fund. [8] 12DailyPro was a version of what is commonly known as a “paid autosurf” program where “investors” deposited money and received an extremely high profit (44%) within a short period (12 days). Charis Johnson created what authorities considered one of the largest modern day versions of the Ponzi scheme. She accumulated a total of over US$1.9 million from the program. More than 300,000 people joined over the course of 8 months, spending over $500 million[9]. When a federal investigation of 12DailyPro took place, its main payment processor, Stormpay, froze all funds related to it. Stormpay has since refused to return any of these funds. On February 24, 2006, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ordered 12DailyPro and its parent company to cease and desist all operations. On February 28, a Los Angeles judge ordered all company assets and records to be turned over to an appointed receiver for investigation. Charis F. Johnson now faces criminal and civil suits from both local and federal agencies.
In the last few years dozens of Ponzi schemes have appeared all over the internet and have used attractive website interfaces to milk millions of dollars out of unwary investors. The Ponzi “Freeland Opps†appeared in early 2004 and grew to a membership of over 10,000 before disappearing by the year’s end.
- Sarah Howe, who in 1880 opened up a “Ladies Deposit” in Boston promising eight percent interest, although she had no method of making profits. This unique scheme was billed as “for women only”. Howe disappeared with the money from her scam.[1] The novel Chance by Joseph Conrad depicted a Ponzi scheme in 1914 before Ponzi himself had hit the scene. Conrad’s scammer “de Barral” offered ten percent interest on deposits in his operation “without system, plan, foresight, or judgement”. On March 22, 2000, four people were indicted in the Northern District of Ohio, on charges including conspiracy to commit and committing mail and wire fraud. A company with which the defendants were affiliated allegedly collected more than $26 million from “investors” without selling any product or service, and paid older investors with the proceeds of the money collected from the newer investors. [2] In late 2003, a scheme by Bill Hickman, Sr., and his son, Bill Jr., was shut down. He had been selling unregistered securities that promised yields of up to 20 percent; more than $8 million was defrauded from dozens of residents of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma, along with investors from as far away as California. [3] Hickman was sentenced to 160 years in state prison. In December 2004, Mark Drucker pleaded guilty to a Ponzi scheme in which he told investors that he would use their funds to buy and sell securities through a brokerage account. He claimed that he was making significant profits on his day trades and that he had opportunities to invest in select IPOs that were likely to turn a substantial profit in a short period of time. He promised guaranteed returns of up to fifty (50%) percent in 90 days or less. In less than two years of trading, Drucker actually lost more than $850,000 in day trading and had no special access to IPOs. He paid out more than $3.6 million to investors while taking in $6.3 million. [4] [5] In June 2005, in Los Angeles, California, John C. Jeffers was sentenced to 168 months (14 years) in federal prison and ordered to pay $26 million in restitution to more than 80 victims. Jeffers and his confederate John Minderhout ran what they said was a high-yield investment program they called the “Short Term Financing Transaction.†The funds were collected from investors around the world from 1996 through 2000. Some investors were told that proceeds would be used to finance humanitarian projects around the globe, such as low-cost housing for the poor in developing nations. Jeffers sent letters to some victims that falsely claimed the program had been licensed by the Federal Reserve and the program had a relationship with the International Monetary Fund and the United States Treasury. Jeffers and Minderhout promised investors profits of up to 4,000 percent. Most of the money collected in the scheme went to Jeffers to pay commissions to salespeople, to make payments to investors to keep the scheme going, and to pay his own personal expenses. [6] In February 2006, Edmundo Rubi pleaded guilty to bilking hundreds of middle and low-income investors out of more than $24 million between 1999 and 2001, when he fled the U.S. after becoming aware that he was under suspicion. The investors in the scheme, called “Knight Expressâ€, were told that their funds would be used to purchase and resell Federal Reserve notes, and were promised a six percent monthly return. Most of those bilked were part of the Filipino community in San Diego. [7] On May 10, 2006, Spanish police arrested 9 people associated with Forum Filatelico and Afinsa Bienes Tangibles in an apparent Ponzi scheme that affected 250,000 investors from 1998 to 2001. Investors were promised huge returns from investments in a stamp fund. [8] 12DailyPro was a version of what is commonly known as a “paid autosurf” program where “investors” deposited money and received an extremely high profit (44%) within a short period (12 days). Charis Johnson created what authorities considered one of the largest modern day versions of the Ponzi scheme. She accumulated a total of over US$1.9 million from the program. More than 300,000 people joined over the course of 8 months, spending over $500 million[9]. When a federal investigation of 12DailyPro took place, its main payment processor, Stormpay, froze all funds related to it. Stormpay has since refused to return any of these funds. On February 24, 2006, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ordered 12DailyPro and its parent company to cease and desist all operations. On February 28, a Los Angeles judge ordered all company assets and records to be turned over to an appointed receiver for investigation. Charis F. Johnson now faces criminal and civil suits from both local and federal agencies.