The legacy of Mr. Ponzi lives on as pyramid and Ponzi schemes continue to plague us and challenge the law enforcement community. Fortunately, in the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission is just one among many agencies that have the authority to file suit to stop this type of fraud. The Securities and Exchange Commission also pursues these schemes, obtaining injunctions against so-called "financial distribution networks" which in fact sell unregistered "securities." The U.S. Department of Justice, in collaboration with investigative agencies like the FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, prosecutes pyramid schemes criminally for mail fraud, securities fraud, tax fraud, and money laundering.
State officials independently file cases in state court, often under specific state laws that prohibit pyramids. California defines pyramids as "endless chains" and prohibits them under its laws against illegal lotteries. In a slightly different vein, Illinois classifies pyramid schemes as criminal acts of deception directed against property. Some states like Georgia prohibit pyramid schemes under a statutory framework that regulates business opportunities and multilevel marketing.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took its first comprehensive action against pyramid schemes in the 1970''s during a boom in home-based business and MLM or direct selling. One-on-one marketing became common for many consumer items -- from cosmetics to kitchenware, and Tupperware™ parties became an icon of the era. Unfortunately, the rise in legitimate multilevel marketing was accompanied by a surge in pyramid schemes. Those schemes played off the popularity of MLM or network sales but paid more attention to networking than to selling actual goods. Pyramid schemes became so notorious that then-Senator Walter Mondale sponsored a federal anti-pyramiding bill. It passed the United States Senate twice in the 1970''s, but never became law.
One of the FTC''s first cases was In re Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., which involved a company that offered the opportunity to become a "Beauty Advisor" and sell cosmetics. The company''s incentive structure really did not encourage retail sales. Instead, it encouraged people to pay $2000 for the title of "Supervisor" and purchase $5400 in Koscot cosmetics, and then to earn bonuses by recruiting others to make the same investments. The Commission found that Koscot operated an illegal "entrepreneurial chain" and articulated a definition of illegal pyramiding that the FTC and the federal courts continue to rely on today. The FTC found that pyramid schemes force participants to pay money in return for two things. First is "the right to sell a product", second is "the right to receive, in return for recruiting other participants into the program, rewards which are unrelated to sale of the product to ultimate users. The FTC explained that paying bonuses for recruiting:
. . . will encourage both a company and its distributors to pursue that side of the business, to the neglect or exclusion of retail selling. The short-term result may be high recruiting profits for the company and select distributors, but the ultimate outcome will be neglect of market development, earnings misrepresentations, and insufficient sales for the insupportably large number of distributors whose recruitment the system encourages."
In In re Amway Corp., another landmark decision from the 1970''s, the FTC distinguished an illegal pyramid from a legitimate multilevel marketing program. At the time, Amway manufactured and sold cleaning supplies and other household products. Under the Amway Plan, each distributor purchased household products at wholesale from the person who recruited or "sponsored" her. The top distributors purchased from Amway itself. A distributor earned money from retail sales by pocketing the difference between the wholesale price at which she purchased the product, and the retail price at which she sold it. She also received a monthly bonus based on the total amount of Amway products that she purchased for resale to both consumers and to her sponsored distributors.
Since distributors were compensated both for selling products to consumers and to newly-recruited distributors, there was some question as to whether this was a legitimate multilevel marketing program or an illegal pyramid scheme. The Commission held that, although Amway had made false and misleading earnings claims when recruiting new distributors, the company''s sales plan was not an illegal pyramid scheme. Amway differed in several ways from pyramid schemes that the Commission had challenged. It did not charge an up-front "head hunting" or large investment fee from new recruits, nor did it promote "inventory loading" by requiring distributors to buy large volumes of nonreturnable inventory.
Instead, Amway only required distributors to buy a relatively inexpensive sales kit. Moreover, Amway had three different policies to encourage distributors to actually sell the company''s soaps, cleaners, and household products to real end users. First, Amway required distributors to buy back any unused and marketable products from their recruits upon request. Second, Amway required each distributor to sell at wholesale or retail at least 70 percent of its purchased inventory each month -- a policy known as the 70% rule. Finally, Amway required each sponsoring distributor to make at least one retail sale to each of 10 different customers each month, known as the 10 customer rule.
The FTC found that these three policies prevented distributors from buying or forcing others to buy unneeded inventory just to earn bonuses. Thus, Amway did not fit the Koscot definition: Amway participants were not purchasing the right to earn profits unrelated to the sale of products to consumers "by recruiting other participants, who themselves are interested in recruitment fees rather than the sale of products."
