Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: So, it's hard to see how it could be structured as a Ponzi scheme. >> > > How would you know? > > Yes. It's possible that early investors haven't been paid off . . .
If the early investors are paid off, they would be criminally liable, along with the company. Any wealthy person or financial adviser would know that. It is against the law to take investment money out of a start-up company the way you describe. In the Madoff swindle, the investors thought they were making money, and it is not against the law to take money out of an investment fund. So the ones who withdrew more than they invested were not criminally liable, unless it can shown they knew it was a swindle. Even though they are not up for criminal charges, I believe the government and other victims are suing some of them in civil court to get back the money. Some of the scenarios you are describing are very far-fetched, in my opinion. I have seen many inept over-unity ventures and cold fusion ventures such as Patterson. Steorn is an extreme example but not so different from the others that I find it unbelievable. These other ventures were not criminal Ponzi schemes or anything like that. The people running them were not playing sophisticated mind games. They were just what they appeared to be: fools wasting money and time. I see no reason to suppose Steorn is any different. - Jed
