The Simplest Scam In the World

As the UK descends into recession, `get rich quick' swindles will multiply. Here's how one reader nearly lost a fortune to the oldest trick in the book...
The grim reality of the UK's economic decline hit today, with an official announcement that the country has slipped into recession for the first time since 1991. One widely used definition of recession is when the economy shrinks for two quarters in a row. For the record, the UK economy contracted by 1.5% in the final quarter of 2008, on top of a 0.6% drop in the previous quarter.
Recessions breed rip-offs
As the economy continues to decline, desperate people resort to desperate measures in order to make ends meet. Indeed, crime tends to rise during economic downturns, particularly financial crimes such as fraud. For example, during the last recession, while working in the legal department of an insurance company, I witnessed a huge surge in the number of fraudulent insurance claims.
Today, there's no doubt that we have a few difficult years ahead of us. This leads me to believe that we will see an explosion in the number of `get rich quick' schemes being promoted. You know the kind of thing: "Become a Property Millionaire in a Week", "Make Your Fortune as a Trader" and so on. Hence, we all need to be ultra-cautious when presented with money-making opportunities that prove too good to be true.
Beware of the Ponzi
Today, I'm going to tell you how I saved a friend from losing half of his personal wealth in what turned out to be the oldest trick in the book: a Ponzi scheme. You've probably heard this word quite a lot in the news recently, thanks to the collapse of American fund manager Bernard Madoff's bogus hedge fund last month.
Madoff's fund may well have been legitimate in the beginning. Alas, over time, he started using new investors' contributions to keep up fake `returns' to existing investors. As stock markets collapsed around the world and investors withdrew their money, the game was up for Madoff (ironically, pronounced `made off'). He admitted to FBI agents that his secretive fund was nothing more than an old-fashioned Ponzi scheme which had lost investors a staggering sum: $50 billion.
Ponzi schemes are named after infamous fraudster Charles Ponzi, who carried out a massive fraud in the US in 1920 by promising fantastic returns to investors. However, they also fall into a category known simply as `advance-fee frauds'. In effect, these solicit money upfront from punters by offering them a generous return further down the line. In fact, they are pyramid schemes, with later entrants paying returns to earlier investors.
My Madoff moment
Five years ago, I had a terrible shock when I realised that a friend, whom I'll call `Dave', had fallen victim to a classic Ponzi scheme. He'd sold his house early in 2004, pocketing a tax-free profit of around £60,000. Dave planned to use this money to take a year off work and travel around the world.
One day, Dave quietly revealed to me that he was making a terrific return on half of this cash (£30,000) which he'd put into a secretive investment scheme. He claimed to be getting a return of £330 a month on this money. With compounding, this monthly return of 1.1% amounts to a handsome return of over 14% a year.
At the time, the Bank of England base rate was around 4% a year, so any investment earning 10% a year on top of the base rate must be extremely risky. In fact, 14% a year is considerably higher than the average yearly return earned by stock-market investors over the past century or so. Hence, I warned Dave that this scheme was an outright scam. What's more, without the protection from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, he was sure to lose every penny.
This bad news made Dave very angry and, in fact, he started avoiding me. However, in time, he came to his senses and realised that I was telling the truth. After a bit of arm-twisting, Dave managed to extract his entire £30,000 from the fraudster, who was living high on the hog on other people's money. Alas, one of Dave's relatives (a well-off, financially sophisticated executive) ended up losing -- brace yourself -- over £250,000 when this fraud eventually collapsed. Ouch!
My final warning
Please, please, please don't let greed and fear blind you to the obvious weaknesses of get-rich-quick schemes. Even wealthy, experienced investors are taken in by the smooth patter and mouth-watering returns promised by conmen. Always remember: If in doubt, never take your wallet out!
More: Find superior savings accounts | Six Steps To Avoid Financial Heartbreak | Get £300+ For Free
Most Recent
Comments
-
dhphoto, "A whole page of preamble then three or four lines on the subject. How abjectly dull this article is." Ha! Feel free to have a crack if you think that you can better, dear chap. The Fool Editor is Ed Bowsher, by the way, see: http://www.fool.co.uk/help/contacts.aspx I offer the same advice to JBStar, who remarked, " ...unless the standard of 'journalism' at TMF improves, I'm sticking with sounder advice from Money Week." No-one is forcing you to read Fool articles, JBStar. You are master of your own online destiny... Kind regards, Cliff ;0)
REPORT This comment has been reported. -
Staintunerider, I must thank you for being one of my most reliable readers. We may disagree on the housing market, but it is kind of you to read my articles and comment on them. All the best, Cliff D'Arcy
REPORT This comment has been reported. -
"Madoff’s fund may well have been legitimate in the beginning..." "Now Cliff's the sucker! Investigations suggest...." ^^^^^^^^^ Luniverse Lay off the guy man, it's kinda like using poetic license... Obviously Cliff is trying to stay on topic, hence he can say "MAY WELL have been legit" just as you say "investigations SUGGEST." I just don't understand this bandwagon that everybody jumps on to criticise the journalists of TMF; if they don't like it, why read it? I'm not saying that applies to you because you supplied some relevant information but there seem to be a lot of other people with far too much time on their hands!!
REPORT This comment has been reported.
Do you want to comment on this article? You need to be signed in for this feature
29 January 2009