IPro Sued by SEC as Alleged Pyramid Scheme

Back in July 2017, I had serious reservations about the amount of PR crap put out by IPro supporters, who claimed everything from ex-Shark Tank guy endorsements to the typical "we have a lawyer so it's not a scam" retorts.

Guess what: SEC says IPro is a 26 million dollar scam, and is suing its owner, not even two years later.

I know it's cliche, but...

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!

BREAKING: Washington State Attorney General Sues Lularoe, Allege "Pyramid Scheme"

On Friday, 25-JAN-2019, the Washington attorney general filed a lawsuit against LulaRoe, the clothing marketer, for operating as a pyramid scheme that defrauded the "fashion consultants" it employs.

Without going into too much detail, LuLaRoe is best known for selling leggings (and other stuff) on a lottery system. Each consultant is expected to buy $2000 to $9000 worth of stuff upon signing up. Yet they will not know what they will receive.  Since 2014, over 3500 Washington residents signed up, but less than 2000 remain active today. Between 2014 and 2017, LuLaRoe consultants receive bonuses based on how much inventory they and their recruits have PURCHASED (not sold) from the company.  It is obvious that the more the consultants recruited (and each recruit bought THOUSANDS of dollars of stuff), the more bonuses were paid out. The compensation plan was changed in 2017 to be only based on sales of the consultant alone.

There are PLENTY of other problems with the company's practices. The leggings have to be unpacked to be show to potential customers (including for eBay), yet LuLaRoe have refused to provide refund if the package was opened. There were frequent charges of "low quality". Multiple designers have charged LulaRoe of stealing their designs and patterns without their permission. After multiple complaints, LLR seems to have moved to taking vector art and remixing them, but again, many seems to have been used without the proper license.

MLMSkeptic had penned a commentary "Is LuLaRoe eating its own tail?" in 2017, when LuLaRoe attempted to serve a "discovery" on a blog critic who goes by MommyGyver, claiming she had disclosed company secrets.

Scam Psychology: Theory on Stupidity, Scam, ponzi, and pyramid schemes

Ever heard of Professor Cipolla's theory on stupidity? Neither have I until recently, but it explains quite clearly how the world works, esp. scams.

According to professor Cipolla, you can measure a person by 2 axis: benefit derived from their own actions... and benefit to others because of their own actions

It roughly goes like this:

Cipolla's theory on stupidity, summarized

Less than 1/4 of all pyramid scheme victims ever file a complaint, says FTC survey

Some recent surfing brought me to an interesting bit of information:

...consumers who had purchased a [membership in] pyramid scheme were the least likely to complain – less than one-quarter indicated that they had complained. -- FTC fraud survey (2004)

This is a fascinating statistic. The FTC definition of pyramid scheme specifically means "pyramid marketing schemes", as in MLMs that went over to the dark side.

Here it is important to note that FTC questions were actually 1) Did you purchase an opportunity to operate (your) own business  2) Were you lead to believe most of the money earned from this business would be from recruiting others to join the business, rather than sale of products and 3) Were you deceived by the offer of business opportunity with false income claims or false offers of assistance?  (Not exact wording, but you can find the questions in the linked PDF)

It is worth noting that in MLM...

A) Almost all MLM claim you are "owning your own business", follow by a derisive attitude toward a job ("just over broke" is often uttered).

B) You almost always get some lecture that you are NOT in a pyramid scheme, yet you are told to "build your team", which is just euphemism for recruiting.

C) Many questionable "leaders" of MLMs will resort to false income claims and false offers of assistance to get you to join, then blame you for your failure. "You must be doing it wrong", they'll point fingers, "because it worked for me."

But there is a hidden statistic that is not obvious until you read the fine print...

... In conducting this test it was necessary to drop the government jobs and business opportunities categories because there are too few consumers who experienced these types of frauds to meet the necessary statistical properties to conduct a Chi-square test.

The "government jobs" fraud is victim paid for false promises of government jobs. And business opportunities... needs no introduction.

But think about it. If there are so few reported incidents for them to even calculate the odds of underreporting...

Either there are so few instances of fraud in business opportunities...

Or there are so many instances of underreporting in business opportunities that it's like an iceberg...

Let's consider a real ponzi case... Zeek Rewards.

MLM Basics: Why do so many MLM noobs don't understand "referral sales" is illegal?

It seems an MLM noob is very fond of her comp plan, which she described as

... I can find 3 people who also want sustainable <item> my order is then FREE

She doesn't realize that this is ILLEGAL. Yes, I said it. It is ILLEGAL.

This is called "referral sales", and it can be described as

1. Seller offer to prospective buyer a consideration (discount / rebate / commission, etc.) 
2. for a sale (or lease) of item from seller to buyer
3. the buyer must provide sellers list of potential customers
4. the consideration (see 1) is contingent on seller be able to make additional sales/lease to one or more of the potential customers (see 3)

And all four elements are in the quote found earlier. Let's check it again, with the elements highlighted.

... I can find 3 people (3) who also want sustainable <item>(4) my order (2) is then FREE (1)

And yes, this is ILLEGAL. In all 50 states of the US, and in all European countries, and Australia, and so on and so forth.

And you'd be surprised how many companies engage in this ILLEGAL behavior, and its affiliates are completely unaware they are being defrauded.

Critical Analysis of a R+F consultants denial that R+F is a pyramid scheme

Recently my news feed came across an R+F consultant (that's Rodan and Fields, an MLM cosmetics brand) denying that R+F is a pyramid scheme. Does her denial make sense?

She started out by casting a wide net, basically stating "I hear that from time to time... (some people) believe RF is a scheme... (but) RF isn't like that"

Then she immediately went into defensive dilemma, which means "if you say it to my face, I will assume that 1) you don't know me and I don't know you, or 2) you don't know what you're talking about"

But does the author know what she's talking about?

She never explained what a pyramid scheme is, or how R+F is not like that. She simply claimed that R+F is a legitimate company. But that's interesting are the two factors she cited in her denial.

We are different: really?

According to the author, "If you’re looking at a company’s payroll by levels of income, it’s probably going to resemble a pyramid. The owner is at the top and earns the highest salary, everyone else trickles down.  Right out of the gate, we are different."

Basically, the author is saying that R+F is NOT like a traditional company where the owner is NOT earning the highest salary, isn't it?

Unfortunately, it seems the author is merely half-right. Because R+F is run by Chairman Amnon Rodan (Dr. Katie Rodan's husband) and President/CEO Diane Dietz. Drs. Rodan and Fields own most of R+F. They pocket most of the profit, just not a direct salary.

R+F press release says they achived 626.9 million revenue in 2015, and maybe a billion in 2016. You can be sure all the top execs took home MILLIONS in salaries or other compensations.

It's definitely NOT as different as the author implied.

Bad Propaganda: "Alternative Facts" about MLM

Recently the Trump camp used "alternative facts" when attempting to "defend" some numbers that are obviously bogus... with even MORE bogus factoids. It is interesting to note that this has been used by MLM for decades, with little success.

So what are some of the "alternative facts" that had been used by MLM supporters?

• If I can succeed you can too...  just like "any lotto ticket can be the big winner"
  
• Success requires hard work... and a whole lot of luck, and other stuff conveniently not mentioned
  
• Thousands of people around the world found MLM works for them...  out of 100 million, as estimated by DSA
  
• Avon is nothing compared to the bigger network marketing companies...  despite Avon is almost same size as Amway, about 10 billion annual revenue larger than any other MLM company.

MLM Basics: Why is MLM so... addicting?

Many people who are NOT in MLM wonder WHY MLM seems to be so addicting to its participants, and even as members lose money month after month. After all, an "entrepreneur" is supposed to be making money, right?

MLMSkeptic has studied the issues, and it is clear that the participants are not merely valuing the economic benefits from MLM (for there is minimal evidence of such enrichment except for a few near the top), but actually SOCIAL and MENTAL benefits that came with the MLM participation. It is the social and mental benefits, not the financial, that keeps the members in despite their minimal economic gains.

Those social and mental benefits can be divided roughly into three types:

• Sense of belonging (family and group dynamic)
• Sense of being something greater than oneself
• Sense of accomplishment  (recognition)

Let's discuss each one.

Sense of belonging (family and group dynamic)

Many of the articles that tout the benefits of MLM emphasize the camaraderie of the group and team. There are even articles that tout "come for the opportunity; stay for the relationship".

One such leader asked the question:

Have Your “Why” Established. This is very important. This is your major driving force, your reason WHY you decided to make a move and become a network marketer. It could be family, financial freedom or even time freedom.  

It's not an accident that the author talk about family being a driving force, but have you ever wondered which family did he mean?

He probably doesn't mean YOUR family. Not your wife/husband/partner, not your father/mother, not your children.

He probably means your SALES/NETWORK family: your upline, your downlines, your lateral marketing folks.

But doublespeak is a standard tactic in unethical network marketing.

So how do you know if your specific network marketing is ethical or not? You don't.

There were plenty of examples where families have been torn apart because half of the partnership saw and recognized the hidden dangers, but the other half was already in too deep to see the forest for the trees. It will take a huge jolt for someone to recognize the threat to one's family from cultish-MLMs and some just sank deeper and deeper.

One example was when a wife, who's in MLM was talking with her MLM female friends, and the topic drifted to the husband, who was not in MLM.  One of the so-called female friends suddenly suggested that the husband is such a loser for not joining the MLM and the wife should leave that loser of a husband. Clearly, the husband is what's holding the wife back from true success. Wife was shocked into silence. WHICH does she value more... her family (husband and children)... or her personal success for a few dollars? And what sort of people are around her that would suggest NOT placing her family first?

Scam Psychology: The "Hard Work" Narrative vs. the Luck Factor

The words "hard work" often appears in the MLM supporter's arguments or narrative trying to discredit their "opponents". Any one who failed can be explained away as "they didn't work hard enough".

The problem is technology has shrunk the required competence in skills that makes a difference. It has "leveled the playing field", so luck now plays a much larger factor than any one realizes.

This is total anathema to network marketing / MLM, whichever name they choose to go by. Indeed, luck and success are almost opposites in the MLM mindset. Those who are successful and "self-made" never want to talk about luck, or even want to HEAR about luck.  This is a cognitive bias known as luck blindness. And MLM feeds into the self-made narrative directly. Most MLM pitches involves "entrepreneurial spirit" "be your own boss" "get away from the J.O.B. (just over broke)" and so on. These people are taught that any success they had is due to their "hard work" and the brilliance of the system (despite the same system, in another breath, claimed "anyone can do it")

This sort of mentality leads to some truly amazing (in a slow train wreck sort of way) claims. One of such claim is how some net winners in the ZeekRewards ponzi scheme are claiming they provided "value" to the business, and thus they are entitled to their ill-gotten gains and thus not have to hand them back to the receiver to be redistributed to the victims.

Let's forget for a moment that ZeekRewards ponzi scheme head Paul Burks was just judged guilty on all four counts in July 2016. How did these ZeekRewards Ponzi net winners claim they are working hard and thus entitled to be compensated, according to their brief, worth $50K to 80K a year? They are pasting 10 short text ads per day on anywhere they can get away with it (i.e. "spamming"). For the record, while they are required to copy the URL where they posted the ads back to ZeekRewards for "verification", no such verification was ever done. In other words, they don't even have to be done. Their work were worthless. It can be done in minutes. For this simple work, they they claim such to be worth 50-80K a year...

Right, and pigs can fly.

Cognitive Bias: Sunk Cost Fallacy

Answer this following question to yourself, truthfully please. Remember, it's for you and you alone. Only you would know the answer.

Q: Do you make rational decisions based on the best-estimate future value of objects, investments, and experience? 

Your answer to yourself is probably going to be: Yes, of course.

You are wrong. In reality, your decisions are based on your EMOTIONAL investment you already made and accumulated, and the more you invest, the less likely you can let it go. 

This is a cognitive bias known as "sunk cost fallacy".  In short, you are basing your decision on what has been invested, rather than what it's worth NOW (or in the future).

And it's very simple to make you feel you've invested time and effort... by making you do trivial tasks that amounts of zero importance. Zookeepers (and pet owners) know this principle well... it's called "contra-freeloading".

Contrafreeloading is a term coined in 1963 by animal psychologist Glen Jensen, who created an experiment where 200 albino rats were given a choice: unlimited food pellets in little bowl, or a mechanism where they have to learn to press a lever to release a food pellet. Logically, rats should simply gorge on the effortless food and never touch the lever. However, the opposite happened... rats actually prefer the food source where they had to press a lever, by a large margin. This was since repeated in gerbils, mice, birds, fish, monkeys, chimps... and more. (The only exception is the domestic cat). In short, animals prefer doing a little work (but not too much) for their food, rather than just take a handout.

A great example of contra-freeloading in a scam is ZeekRewards ponzi scheme (as accused by SEC and USSS), an $850 million scheme will soon go to trial. In ZeekRewards, one supposedly buy bids in the Zeekler penny auction, give away the bids to random strangers as promotion, and gets rewarded with certain amount of daily profit based on the bids purchased for the next 90 days. One also needs to post ads to random places on the Internet, and then post the URL on the ZeekRewards website as "verification" to be rewarded. In reality the vast majority of the bids were never used (i.e. the participants simply put money into the system) and expect daily "profit share" of up to 1.8% of the money they put in. The daily posting of ads were never tracked and verified, and indeed some people started a blog just to post ads... that nobody will ever read or see. It's rather obvious, in hindsight, that the "posting the ad" must be contrafreeloading... to make the participant feel they "worked" for and "earned" their share of "profit" amounting to as high as 1.8% DAILY, when the trivial task can literally be done in a few minutes, and be outsourced to some kids for pennies a day.

Yet when all these facts were pointed out to the ZeekRewards affiliates, their answers often are "you work for a competitor", "you work for the 1% to oppress us", "why don't you want us to succeed", and so on. After Zeek was shut down, several members even outright claimed "there were no victims until the government came along."

Curt Miller, on FB, soon after Zeek was closed by USSS and SEC, claiming that
"there were no victims (in ZeekRewards) until the government came along". 

They are so emotionally (and financially) invested into ZeekRewards, they can longer think rationally and see reason, even when there is NO REASON to continue to behave irrationally.

It is illogical to continue to support an alleged scam AFTER the owner made a plea deal with the government. However, hundreds of people donated money to a organization that promised to put the money toward "defending" ZeekRewards from the SEC. The owner of such organization was later jailed for defrauding the US government in an unrelated matter. The so-called defense ended up being an attorney who attended the receivership meetings, and filed several motions that was denied. He accomplished nothing useful except delay the process for the rest of the victims, and it was widely rumored (but never confirmed) that the rest of the money went to the organizer's private plane's upkeep.

They are the embodiment of sunk cost fallacy.

OPINION: With HLF consenting to reforms, and Burks of ZeekRewards Guilty, justice prevailed, but work is never done

July 2016 has been a busy month.

On July 15, 2016, news was released that Herbalife has reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission where HLF agreed to a LONG list of reforms and pay a $200 million fine / reimbursement to the victims.

Then on July 22, 2016 Federal Court in North Carolina passed down the verdict... a Federal jury has convicted Paul Burks of ZeekRewards of all four counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.

MLMSkeptic has long criticized both schemes, both here on the blog, and on BehindMLM.com.

MLMSkeptic had analyzed the various comments, retorts, criticisms, and cheers of Ackman's epic short of Herbalife at end of 2012 and the subsequent PR war, and pointed out problems with such arguments.  Most of the critics of Ackman then believed that HLF was "too big to fail", or perhaps "not egregious enough to die, maybe fined".

So it is with much amusement and facepalming when "journalists" loudly proclaimed "FTC says Herbalife not a pyramid", when FTC said no such thing.

How did CNNMoney got it so wrong?
FTC never said HLF is not a pyramid scheme... 

You are welcome to search the actual FTC complaint and stipulation agreed to by HLF. "Pyramid scheme" was nowhere in the documents. Furthermore, when questioned by the press at the news conference, FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez was asked at least FOUR SEPARATE TIMES whether HLF is a pyramid scheme, and Ramirez repeatedly dodged the question (probably as a part of the settlement).

Q: I know that you’re not going to put any labels on this, but it seems to me if we look at the BurnLounge case, that while this complaint does not use the words “pyramid scheme”, would you agree that a prima facie case of a pyramid scheme is alleged with the allegations within the complaint?

A:  Again, I will leave it up to you to draw that conclusion. Our focus in this complaint was in addressing the core issues

When asked outright about HLF's own announcement... That FTC have determined HLF to be NOT a pyramid scheme...

Q: Did you review the language in their (Herbalife’s) press-release that sort of affirmatively said that they were not declared to be a pyramid scheme? Because they’re sort of having that as an outright headline.

A: I do not agree with that statement. The word “pyramid” does not appear in our complaint that is true, but um again the core facts that we’ve alleged, that we consider to be problematic with their compensation structure, are set forth in detail in our complaint. And again, I will leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions. But that they were determined to not be a pyramid… that would be inaccurate.

And indeed, checking the HLF website no longer shows any sort of language that claimed "FTC determined HLF not pyramid scheme"...

So you know which way the CNNMoney article was written... They were written from HLF's press release, not the FTC press release. It is... biased.  Shame, CNN. Shame on you for lazy reporting.

I am not listing all the changes that FTC managed to squeeze out of HLF. You can read the documents linked above yourself. It is a LONG list of reforms, and it will likely become a new standard much as Amway's settlement with FTC created the modern MLM back in 1979.  And that pretty much tells you the fact: HLF was a scam that required reforms so it is no longer operating as a scam. Any one who argues otherwise is simply denying reality.

I may do my own analysis later on these changes, but HLF is no longer the same company. They believe they can continue to thrive (or else they would not agreed to these changes), but we shall see.

Then we come to Zeek Rewards, and Paul Burks.

Cognitive Bias: Choice Supportive Bias (aka Post-hoc Rationalization)

Previously we have often talked about cognitive dissoance, which is basically when a person is faced with two sets of "truths", and they conflict, therefore one set of which must be false.

For example, let's say the person has joined a suspect scheme, and is withdrawing money bi-weekly, but not yet achieved breakeven. Then he's exposed to a source that explained that the scheme is a scam with trustworthy sources.

So, how does one resolve this conflict between two sets of facts... a) the scheme works, I am getting paid  and b) the scheme is a scam ?

One way the conflict can be resolved is through "choice supportive bias", also known as post-hoc rationalization. As the person is already in the scheme, the person is likely to choose to continue in the scheme and therefore decide that the trustworthy sources (that explain the scheme is a scam) are NOT acceptable.

Basically, the person wants the answer to be "scheme is fine" and thus chose that outcome, and came up with reasons to discount the trustworthy sources post-hoc (after the fact). Normal logic is  check all the sources, then arrive at the conclusion. This is the reverse... The person know the conclusion s/he wants, then come up with the reasons later.   It's motivated thinking.

As you can probably guess, motivated thinking means more often than not the person will reach the WRONG conclusion, since the conclusion was NOT deduced from logic, but emotion.

Let's look at some examples...

Bad Argument: MLM Strawman Arguments Labelled as Mythbusting

A lot of so-called MLM "coaches" write articles to drum up business and recruit downlines, and they have to deal with, what they perceive as "undue criticism" of MLM. However, what they often ended up doing is defeat strawman arguments.

Recently I came across a certain article titled "6 Biggest Myths about MLM -- A Must Read" by Nathan Sloan posted on Network Marketing HQ dot co dot uk.  (Interesting, the URL says 7, so he seem to have lost one in the edit), and it served as a prime example of how MLMers argue... broad insinuations, strawman, this guy used them all.

His myth #1: Pyramid structures are bad

Pyramid SCHEMES are bad. Pyramid structure or pyramid-shaped organizations are not necessarily bad. If a MLMer, even a noob, can't explain the difference between a pyramid structure and a pyramid SCHEME, s/he is uneducated in the MLM fundamentals and his/her upline should be ashamed.

However, instead of explaining this fundamental difference, Mr. Sloan instead pointed out that pyramid structures surrounds us. Basically, he failed to identify the real problem, and instead, went to equivocation fallacy instead. Indeed, this is a common "MLM defense" tactic, present a strawman equivocation with "safe" structures.

Verdict: strawman myth

Solution: Mr. Sloan should concentrate on differentiating pyramid SCHEME vs. pyramid organization. Pyramid scheme is fraud. Pyramid organization is just a shape.

His myth #2: MLM is a Scam

Is MLM a scam? Sloan's explanation is that pyramid schemes are illegal, MLM is not. However, instead of explaining the difference between MLM and pyramid scheme, he simply quoted an OUTDATED definition he copied from "Ultimate Guide to Network Marketing" without attribution. And yes, I have this book on my bookshelf. That's how I recognized it. It was published more than 10 years ago (2005).

For the record, MLM in its current form was created in 1979 when Amway settled with American Federal Trade Commission to institute several reforms (today known as the "Amway Safeguard Rules") in order to keep on operating. The short of it is, the difference between MLM and pyramid scheme is MLM NEVER pays on recruitment (but there are ways to disguise the payment). This is what Sloan failed to address.

However, Sloan then went on to knock down another strawman. He claimed that any one who said MLM is a scam are lying to cover up their laziness and failure. This is in clear contrast of several pyramid schemes that presented themselves as MLM that were shut down. FHTM (shut down 2013) and Vemma (shut down 2015) are just some recent examples. By ignoring a prime example where a scam MLM did operate, Sloan is guilty of lying by omission AND a strawman, not to mention victim-blaming.

Verdict: strawman fallacy, lying by omission (or ignorance), plagiarism, unsupported argument (did not explain difference between pyramid scheme and MLM)

Solution: Sloan should acknowledge that many MLMs are done fraudulently, and attempt to explain the real LEGAL differences why MLM is not a pyramid scheme. Simply quoting a definition is not defense without explaining how that applies to your defense.

MLM Basics: Why a MLM Comp Plan is MORE important than the product, not less

One of the biggest mistakes a MLM "noobs" makes is put all the emphasis on the product, without analyzing the business model itself, i.e. the compensation plan, or in jargon, "comp plan".  (Or perhaps there's only a cursory glance). They are all enthusiastic about the product. OMG, it totally works. I (blah blah blah blah),  product is (blah blah blah blah). You have to try it! It's totally legit! I didn't believe at first but now I do! (blah blah blah blah)

When critics / concerned friends/family told them the company is likely a pyramid because of X, Y, and Z, the first thing out of their mouth is "it can't possibly be a scam, the product works".

They are suffering from the "blind men and an elephant" problem... They cannot understand that what they experienced  may be true for them, but is NOT the WHOLE truth.

Here's a very simple analogy... Take a look at this car:

Those of you who know cars should be able to tell, by the GT-R badge on the hood, that this is an older generation, Nissan Skyline R34 GT-R (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), which is a two-door coupe.

Except this is not a coupe. It's a station wagon. A five-door station wagon Nissan GT-R, and no, it's NOT photoshop(ed).

The point is if you ONLY look at the nose of the car, you'd have assumed it's a GT-R. But it's not. You have to see the entire body to realize this is NOT a coupe but a station wagon.

Similarly if you ONLY look at the products of a MLM, you could not have gotten "the whole picture", on whether the company may be a scam or not.

That's why the compensation plan, i.e. what you need to do to get paid by a MLM, is FAR MORE important than the product... It is the PRIMARY indicator on whether the company is a pyramid scheme... or a real MLM.

So how do you determine which is which?

Charity MLM? What a joke, and here's proof

Here's a simple and logical premise: MLM and Charity does NOT mix.

Think about it. MLM is a MONEY MAKING enterprise, both for the company itself, and for the individual affiliates. Charity is.. altruism. The two goals are mutually conflicting.

That doesn't stop a bunch of lame MLMs from trying to cash in on the charity angle, some by claiming it is helping kids where you "donate" your money to them, and they will deliver the food to kids in some third world country. Another claim that by participating in their penny auction your bids will be partially donated toward a worthy cause. There are many other variations, but they all include a supposedly non-profit charity making profit AND income for participants.

And in 2016, it turns out that leader of one of these so-called charity MLM is the largest tax cheat in the state of Oregon.

A gentleman by the name of Randall "Randy" Jeffers.

Do You Know Where Your Money Went If You Invested in a Suspect Scheme?

According to court documents made public recently, ZeekRewards ponzi scheme victims may have a longer wait if any money can be recovered, for millions of their money held by payment processor for Zeek being a high risk client, may have been in several Eastern European Banks that have been shut down for fraud, and chances for recovery is remote.

Zeek Rewards was a Ponzi scheme in North Carolina that ensnared MILLIONS of victims in the US and beyond by promising massive profit sharing from the alleged penny auction business if they "purchase" bids to be given away as promotional items and in return gets a profit share based on amount of bids purchased for the next 90 days at daily rate of up to 1.8%. The scheme collapsed in 2012 when facilities was raided by SEC and Secret Service agents and entire operation closed down. Since that time, a receiver has attempted to recover tens of millions of dollars held by third-parties, who were supposed to obey court orders not to move the money, and to be eventually returned. Yet it is clear now this order was not obeyed on many occasions, and tens of millions have gone missing.

Before the collapse of Zeek in 2012 Zeek consultant "Keith Laggos", MLM Expert, boasted that he helped Zeek management to move payment operations abroad. People then didn't ask why. The reason can only be that US financial institutions no longer want to touch Zeek. Now, millions of dollars are out of the US, and potentially out of the reach of the victims, all thanks to efforts of Zeek to continue operating its criminal enterprise by moving money overseas. If this all sounds confusing as heck, let's start from the beginning.

What should you look forward to MLM and Direct Selling in 2016?

It is now 2016, and as usual, positive thinkers are already out hating my blog posts already.

First reader comment of 2016 starts with:

You loser ...obviously couldn't make it in any MLM's - most likely your attitude and shallow thinking.

Hahahahaha.  This is the sort of typical potty mouth positive thinker type comment, though in this instance he was reacting to my comparison of "MLM Cult vs. ISIS".

The fact that he somehow thinks that "MLM Cult" refers to his chosen profession is rather amusing, isn't it?

But really, let's throw around some REAL numbers, compiled by Direct Selling Association (DSA.org) and the World Federation of DSA (sort of global DSA), the industry lobby group.  It's too early for 2015 numbers, but here's the 2014 factsheet, as published by DSA (US).

DSA factsheet 2014, http://www.dsa.org/docs/default-source/research/research2014factsheet.pdf

The key figures... 34.47 billion USD in 2014 US Retail Sales... by 18.2 million people "involved".

That's less than $1900 sold per "involved" person PER YEAR. ($1894 if you want to be exact)

And since people are joining faster than actual retail growth sales (8.3% vs. 5.5%), average retail per person per year is GOING DOWN. This is despite the PR spin, i.e. "more individuals generated more revenue in 2014 than any year previously".

And remember, that's retail sales, NOT PROFIT.  Actual profit will be FAR LESS. Even if you estimate a margin of 20% AFTER expenses, that is $379 per year.

Scam Psychology: Victim Mindset is all about asset recovery, not justice

JusticeAlwaysLate, a FB blogger in Malaysia who primarily blogs in Chinese / Cantonese, recently relayed a little anecdote which I thought was rather... illustrative of the victim mindset. The scam name is not important, but it's a pretty big one in China that resulted in arrests earlier this year called Nanning (南寧) any way, it goes like this:

有个南宁受害者来找哦，丈夫倾家荡产相信兄弟，投资了下去。先是云数贸， 然后圆梦都亏大本，兄弟建议他用南宁回本，有事他包。
A certain victim of Nanning scam came to tell a sob story. Husband is about to go bankrupt, believing in a buddy, invested everything, against and again, first it was YSM (a scam fronted by a Chinese guy), then YC and lost big in both. Buddy told him he can make it back with Nanning, and the buddy claims he'll cover the losses if it happens.  

这个丈夫就把所有钱丢进去了南宁骗局，留下老婆和父母，家里一直缺钱用。他问我怎么办。
Thus, this husband threw everything that's left into the Nanning scam, leaving wife and parents with nothing. She asked me, what should she do? Family needs money now to live.  

我说：我叫她报警捉人。。
I said, go to the cops, have the perps arrested.  

她又说：不能，这样会拿不回钱，兄弟答应丈夫在等一段日子就会把钱还给丈夫。。请问现在该怎么办？
She said, no way, can't get the money back that way. Buddy promised that he'll make up the money later. What should she do now?  

我说：那么给我他们的资料与细节，我炸到他们出门都没得躲，
I said, give me their information and background. I'll reveal them so they can't hide anywhere.  

她又说：这样就更没有办法还钱给我们了。请问现在该怎么办？
She said again, no way they'll return the money if you do that. Now what?  

我就说：现在是他欠你们钱，为什么你要替老千着想？
I said, why are you thinking for these crooks? THEY owe YOU money!  

她又说：不是不要报警不给你资料，等我们拿到钱了我们会去做的。
She said, It's not that she's not going to the cops, she had to get the money first, THEN she'll go to the cops.  

我说：那你找我干嘛？闲聊吗？
I said, so why are you here? Chitchat?  

她的最后回复是：好，当我看错你了。
Her final answer was, alright, guess I was mistaken about you. 

The victims have primary emphasis on recovery of money. They realize they had been deceived, but they don't want justice done. They want to be made whole first. This greed (what got them scammed in the first place) lead them to believe that they will get the money back, either someone promised them so, or they decided to lock their morals in the basement and went all out recruiting (i.e. turned judas goat) so they can get their money back.

They don't realize that the money is GONE, and they've just seeing excuses after excuses.

Scam Tactics: Sell the Hype and the Opportunity, Ignore or minimize the Reality and the Cost

Scams usually hook you by selling you the hype and how much money you can make (i.e. the opportunity), while minimize or ignore the reality (such as risk, market, etc.) and cost.

I'll just go over some recent examples and show you what sort of **** they had to spread to generate hype about their so-called "opportunity" while ignoring reality.


The "Internet TV" biz clones

In 2015, over half dozen "internet TV box" companies popped up advertising stuff like "watch your favorite TV for free, cut your cable TV bill, watch favorite sports"... etc. They want you to pay them about $300-500, and for every people you enroll (who also pay them $300-500) you earn money, possibly $100 or more per person. They go by names that includes words like "Box" "Stream" and so on.

That's a pyramid scheme, folks. I've covered what's a pyramid scheme before, so I won't repeat that here. Let's discuss the hype instead.

The matter of fact is you can buy TV boxes like these for about $50-75 on Amazon. They are all based on KODI (used to be XBMC) any way, and wholesale from China they cost even less. You can probably hire some kid to program it for you for another $10-25 if you don't to spend time on it. So where does the extra $200+ go? To the company and whoever recruited you, of course.

TL;DR = you got something for $300 (or more).that you can buy for $60 (WTF?!)

AND you can get better and more legal boxes for $100 (Roku, Amazon Fire Stick, Apple TV, etc.)

They all advertise (some more blatant than others) that they can get pay-per-view programs and subscription programs for free. They tell you people are already doing this, boxes "like" this are being marketed by Amazon and Roku and others (except those don't pirate and cost less than $100). They count on you having "heard" of such stuff, but having NO detailed understanding of such. it sounds "vaguely familiar".

What they don't tell you is getting stuff "for free" is actually piracy and that breaks so many laws that you'll be personally held responsible for such.  And it's no joke, there already has been a raid in UK on seller of such boxes. And let's not forget RIAA and MPAA and so on suing grandmas and so on for astronomical sums.

The schemes hyped up the benefits (OMG FREE EVERYTHING!) and potential upside (OMG MAKE MONEY WHILE HELP OTHERS 'SAVE' MONEY!) while minimizing and hiding reality (The boxes cost $60 on Amazon) and risks (it's illegal to pirate and you can get sued).

TL;DR version:

Hype / Opportunity: OMG Make money, save money, no more cable TV!

Reality / Cost: Overpaying by 3-600%, piracy is illegal

Coming next, "cryptocurrency biz"

Vemma update: Vemma / BK Boreyko / Tom Alkazin said it's ALL affiliate's fault

Vemma, BK Boreyko, and Tom Alkazin each had filed response to FTC's case. From here on, it's clear what their strategy is:

To all the YPR Vemma affiliates...

IT IS ALL YOUR FAULT! (you deserved to be scammed)

Why, you thought I was kidding? 

Excerpt from Vemma's official response:

...Consumers represented by the FTC knowingly and voluntarily, and possibly unreasonably, exposed themselves to any claimed losses with knowledge or appreciation of the risk involved...

BK Boreyko's response also contained this section. 

Tom Alkazin's response is slightly shorter, but said the same thing:

...Any consumers represented by the FTC knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of losses.

In other words, if you lost money, it's because you are stupid, not because they tricked you. 

But this attitude of victim blaming is hardly unique.  It is a frequent defense by scammers, who basically said "the victims deserved to be fleeced".