International Law

Success Vending Salesmen Sentenced For Fraud

Image by beckysmurf via Flickr

Fox News, from Las Vegas, reports on the Success Vending Biz Op scam:

"All four defendants, who were charged in 2006, had pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in connection with Success.

According to documents filed in the case, Success and National defrauded 673 people from throughout the U.S. of $7.4 million from 2003 through 2005.

Success purported to sell candy vending machines, along with assistance in establishing, maintaining and operating a vending machine business.

The defendants enticed consumers to buy the candy vending machine business opportunities by providing baseless profit projections;

by falsely claiming that excellent locations for the machines were available in the consumer's area;

by encouraging potential customers to call fake "references" who pretended to be satisfied Success customers; and by exaggerating the company's longevity."

I have been investigating why biz op scammers succeed, despite over thirty years of prosecution of essentially the very same crime.

It is an impressive testimony to the way our minds our built that there can be 30 years of publicity on essentially a very simply fraud - and it makes absolutely no difference to the public.

You can go to any franchise portal and find vending "franchises" being advertised which will have the same method of operation as Success Vending.

From a regulator's point of view, these schemes must drive them crazy.  They are so obviously wrong, so transparently a fraud, and yet nothing the regulator does stops them - they pop up again and again.

Now contrast this situation -in which the fraud is clear- to what securities regulators face.  The frauds are far more complicate, morph every 2 or 3 years, and can involve some individuals who just slipped down the fraud hill.

We cannot even solve or prevent the recurrence biz op frauds - jeez, no wonder why economic recessions are mystery to regulators!

Full post as published by Misleading Advertising Law on July 31, 2008 (boomark / email).