Lyoness: a decisive issue in Austria's next elections?

Five years since the last general elections were held in Austria in 2008, on 29 September 2013, the people of Austria will elect their new parliament. For those unfamiliar with Austria's political structure, here's a brief summary:

----
Austria is a federation of states organised as a parliamentary democracy and headed by a president. The parliament constitutes the federal legislative authority and thus makes the federal laws, which are executed by the Austrian government and controlled by the Austrian judicial system. Due to the multitude of political parties active in Austria (caused by the principal of proportional representation), governments consist of coalitions of several political parties, that hold a majority of the 183 seats in the parliament. Thus, the Austrian government does not get directly chosen by the Austrian people, but is the result of negotiations based on the outcome of the legislative elections. 
----

Austria is currently governed by a coalition government of the two biggest political parties - the Social-Democrats (SPÖ) and the Liberals (ÖVP). According to the latest polls, this coalition hangs on to a very slim majority of 52% of the votes (SPÖ 27%; ÖVP 25%). Some earlier polls even contest that the coalition has a majority and rates both parties at an aggregate of 49-50%. While the Austrian media - so far - have chosen to profile the road towards the elections as a tight struggle between SPÖ and ÖVP to become the largest political party in Austria, the opposition parties may attempt to break down the coalition, in order to get a chance at becoming part of the government themselves.

According to the polls, the largest member of the opposition, the far-right FPÖ, has a stable support among the electorate of 18-19% of the votes. The Green party moves between 13 and 16 per cent, Team Stronach (founded by euro-skeptic Austrian-Canadian business man Frank Stronach) is expected to get up to 10% of the votes, with the rest of the votes divided up between several smaller political parties, including the BZÖ of Gerhard Huber and the late Jörg Haider.

[hide]Agency/Source	Date	SPÖ	ÖVP	FPÖ	Greens	Stronach	BZÖ	NEOS	Pirates	KPÖ	Others
Gallup/Ö24	2013-07-28	27%	25%	18%	15%	8%	2%	-	1%	-	4%
Karmasin/Heute	2013-07-26	27%	25%	19%	14%	9%	2%	2%	1%	1%	-
IMAS/Krone	2013-07-21	27%	25%	19%	13%	10%	2.5%	-	-	-	3.5%
Spectra/OÖN	2013-07-20	27%	24%	18%	14%	10%	2%	-	-	-	5%
Market/Standard	2013-07-19	25%	24%	19%	15%	9%	3%	-	-	-	5%
Karmasin/Profil	2013-07-13	28%	25%	18%	15%	7%	3%	-	-	-	4%
Gallup/Ö24	2013-07-13	27%	24%	18%	15%	8%	2%	-	2%	-	3%
OGM/Kurier	2013-07-07	27%	24%	19%	15%	8%	3%	-	-	-	4%
Market/Standard	2013-07-07	26%	24%	19%	16%	8%	2%	-	2%	1%	2%

While in the beginning of the 'Lyoness saga' it was SPÖ Member of Parliament (MP) Johann Maier who challenged the then-incumbent government (containing ÖVP and BZÖ) about the Lyoness racket; the roles have been reversed now and MP Gerhard Huber of BZÖ is one of the politicians giving the government a hard time about their lax attitude towards the global scam operated from within their borders.

Mr. Huber has received support from the Austrian Green party, which has also criticised the Austrian government and the authorities it's responsible for, for not putting a stop to Lyoness earlier and still allowing Hubert Freidl and his gang of racketeers to commit fraud all around the world.

Due to its small size, the BZÖ is unlikely to play a major role in the next Austrian elections. However, if the coalition of SPÖ and ÖVP gets broken up, the coalition possibilities slim down rapidly. It is unlikely that SPÖ will want to be part of the same coalition as FPÖ or BZÖ and reversely the ÖVP will not be very enthusiastic about governing with the Green party. Therefore, a three party coalition incorporating both SPÖ and ÖVP seems implausible.

On the left side of the Austrian political spectrum, there is not really a possible coalition either, as SPÖ and the Greens in best case total around 44% of the votes. On the right flank, there are some more possibilities, as ÖVP could team up with parties like FPÖ, Team Stronach and BZÖ (which could total up to 57% of the votes). However, the euro-skepticism of Team Stronach and FPÖ may be a deal breaker for ÖVP, like ÖVP's positive attitude towards Europe may turn Team Stronach and FPÖ off of the idea of jointly governing. Nevertheless, if SPÖ and ÖVP do not reach a majority in parliament, the best chances for a coalition still lay on the right flank of the Austrian political spectrum. Thus, the only chance for BZÖ to play a decisive role in Austrian politics for the coming five years, is if SPÖ and ÖVP fail to form a coalition government, which in return will probably only happen if SPÖ and ÖVP do not reach a total of more than 50% of the votes. To a lesser extent (because they have a considerably higher vote share - and thus will be a larger force in opposition - and the coalition chances on the left are way slimmer), the same goes for the Green party.

While under the current economic conditions in Europe it should not be to difficult for opposition members such as BZÖ, FPÖ and the Greens to find some serious issues that can be blamed on the current government of ÖVP and SPÖ, this strategy has not rewarded these parties over the last five years, given the persisting likeliness of an ÖVP and SPÖ coalition. Most opposition parties will realise that the Austrian population is very well aware that this government has performed under tough economic conditions, and that it is highly doubtful that a different government would have performed any better.

Thus, details could make the difference. Such a detail is constituted by the Lyoness case. However, politically, Lyoness constitutes a complicated problem for the main political actors. With 470,000 members in Austria, Lyoness is connected to about 5.6% of the Austrian population, and to roughly 10% of the amount of voters that showed up to the ballots during the last legislative elections in 2008.

Granted, it is unlikely that all these 470,000 members are 'premium members', yet given the facts, it is very likely that a big share of them is. The votes of these people could go either way. If they are still convinced that Lyoness is the 'great opportunity' it claims to be, they are not likely to vote for a party that wants to demolish this 'great opportunity'. Then again, the growing number of dissatisfied Lyoness 'members' in Austria will be more enthused to vote for such parties.

It seems that most Lyoness members in Austria are still pretty much under the delusion imprinted in their minds by the Lyoness racketeers. Therefore, the coalition partners SPÖ and ÖVP will feel strategically forced to avoid this controversial topic during the election campaigns. In fact, given Lyoness' history, it is not in the slightest improbable that Lyoness has told these political parties that if they come down too hard on Lyoness, the members will take their votes elsewhere.

Although this may seem like a sensible political strategy to many, it should not be forgotten that in the unfortunate event that Lyoness' inevitable downfall will hit Austria during the election campaigns, ÖVP and SPÖ will be the blamed parties for not taking action earlier and may wind up with hundreds of thousands disgruntled Lyoness victims voting for other parties. With a slim majority of 52-53% of the votes at best, the ÖVP-SPÖ coalition could not recover from such a hit. Therefore, it is in the best interest of nearly every opposition party to challenge the current Austrian government on their lax attitude towards the Lyoness racket over the last decade and to speed up the crumbling process of the Lyoness scam.

The election campaigns will only really kick-off after the Austrian population and politicians are back from vacation and only then we will see whether the political advisers of the Austrian parties have figured the same angle as we have. We are hopeful and expect at least some fireworks the coming weeks.

Lyoness and its love-hate relationship with 'MLM'

A few days back, well-known 'MLM Watchdog' Troy Doole published a highly interesting document on his website. The document, reportedly written by a reputable, highly-regarded person from the 'MLM' world, details why Lyoness (America) is a fraud, and how Lyoness (America) violates a number of federal regulations and should therefore be forbidden and closed down in the United States. For obvious reasons (e.g. to protect his source), mr. Doole has decided not to disclose the identity of the author at this time.

The document is pretty self-explanatory. As reported for a while here, the whole 'business model' of Lyoness is a mere sham, designed to lure people into a web of lies designed to draw the last penny out of the pockets of its victims. Because of that, combined with the fact that key information has been withheld from the victims before they decided to invest, Lyoness is illegal under every national and international framework of legislation, due to its commited fraud, which is a form of theft. Additionally, the many complicating aspects of the Lyoness 'business model', meticulously set out by the referenced document, show how Lyoness has been violating a large number of US federal regulations on, for instance, pyramid and Ponzi schemes, much like it has done in all the other countries its active in.

Have a look at the document yourself.

Earlier, the Complaint Centre has reported that Lyoness has somewhat of a 'love-hate relationship' with the concept termed 'multi level marketing' (abbreviated as 'MLM'). While in most countries where Lyoness promoters are trying to recruit new members, the amazing powers of 'MLM' to make everyone achieve 'financial freedom' are thrown around at some point, in the United States, one of the largest 'lifelines' within Lyoness has been instructing and convincing its members that Lyoness has nothing to do with 'MLM', but is in fact 'way better'. Like goes for almost all other lies told by Lyoness and its promoters, this lie is adapted to the circumstances. In a hostile environment towards 'MLM', the Lyoness promoters will argue that Lyoness has nothing to do with 'MLM'. In situations where it gets accused of organising a 'pyramid scheme', particularly in national settings in which 'MLM' is deemed legal, the Lyoness promoters will argue that Lyoness is not an 'illegal pyramid scheme', but a 'legal MLM company'.

The other way around, 'MLM' promoters are usually known for sticking up for each other and each other's companies, in order to protect their common interests. While this has been seen in a few cases for Lyoness too, the sympathy of 'MLM' promoters towards Lyoness seems to have reached an ultimate low point now, with quite many well-known 'MLM watchdogs', such as Troy Doole (as well as his anonymous source) and Ted Nuyten openly criticising the 'company' and calling it a fraud. Whether this is caused by a genuine interest to protect the world population from being scammed, or whether it is rather driven by the understanding that the support for such an obvious racket, may lead to severe damage to certain reputations when the whole scam (inevitably) falls to pieces. Who's to say?

In any case, once again, the Complaint Centre would like to stress: a fraud is a fraud, no matter what you call it.

Update: David Brear on Lyoness

English author David Brear’s [unchallenged], copyrighted study of [Lyoness] concludes that: 'Lyoness is an unoriginal, blame-the-victim, cultic racket comprising a dissimulated closed-market swindle and various, related, advance fee frauds’ (Wikipedia).

---

"Probably the best way to explain what indicates the operation of a closed-market swindle, is to imagine a smooth-talking bunch of charlatans (e.g. Hubert Freidl and his schills) persuading 10 000 excited persons each to place $3000 on a table - by assuring them them that a magic, but very complicated, system has been discovered by which each contributor can get back more money than he/she started with. The only proof which the charlatans produce to confirm this attractive fairy story, is their own apparent prosperity.

Obviously, no matter what incomprehensible hocus-pocus is wheeled out, the resulting $30 millions cannot be divided up so that each and every contributor gets a profit, but this revenue can be divided up so that the minority of smooth-talking charlatans who control its division will win massively whilst the powerless majority will lose. 

The fiendish trick which has been pulled by all 'income opportunity' racketeers, has been to silence most of their victims by further convincing them only people who believe 100% that will succeed, do succeed, and that, consequently, persons who fail to make any money, only have themselves to blame.

David Brear (copyright 2013)"

---

Austrian Ministers refuse to identify what lurks behind the 'Lyoness' lie (July 2013)


'Scientology, Lyoness, Herbalife, Nutrilite, Amway,' the same lie, but with different authors and titles (June 2013)


The 'Lyoness' people's business lie, is an adaptation of another big lie (June 2013)


The 'Lyoness' racket is still hiding in plain view (June 2013)


'Lyoness' core-adherents believe they are part of a Master Race (June 2013)


Deluded Giulia is certain Warren Buffett believes in 'Lyoness' (May 2013)


Victims of the Lyoness lie - contact 'Quality Austria'! (May 2013)


The absurd 'Lyoness' propaganda is strangely familiar (December 2012)


'Lyoness' racketeers foolishly attempt to silence 'MLM The American Dream Made Nightmare' (November 2012)


No matter how much you believe in the 'Lyoness' Utopia, you can never achieve it (October 2012)


Hubert Freidl and Jimmy Savile, criminals hidden behind philanthropy (October 2012)


The 'Lyoness' lie is an 'Amway' copycat, complete with its own Lady Haw-Haw (October 2012)


'Lyoness' has exhibited the universal identifying characteristics of a cult (September 2012)


'Lyoness' is a lie and Hubert Freidl is its author (September 2012)

Lyoness: the rescuer of (small) enterprises?

Much like the people currently lured into the FlexKom racket, which are enticed to believe that they are visionaries that are going to save the local 'high-street' and, therewith, the world economy - the promoters of Lyoness have tried for years to convince consumers/'private investors' that their participation in Lyoness will save local small and medium-sized enterprises, the world economy (through its business model that provides everyone with a guarantee of future financial freedom), the world population (through the Lyoness Child and Family Foundation) and the future existence of the world (through the Greenfinity Foundation).

Similarly, it has attempted to convince numerous small and medium-sized enterprises worldwide that their companies will considerably benefit from their participation in Lyoness through a guaranteed increase of customers and turnover - and can save them from the trouble they may encounter under the current global economic conditions - as well as that that is the reason major corporations worldwide are extremely anxious to become a partner of Lyoness; a Lyoness 'Loyalty Merchant'.

Everyone who is familiar with the content of this Blog has been able to see with their very own eyes that these claims are very questionable at best. First of all, there are not so many multi-national corporations that have actually consented to being a 'Lyoness partner'. Similarly, no evidence can be produced that Lyoness increases the amount of customers coming to the 'Loyalty Merchants', as well as their turnover. In fact, all quantifiable evidence that is currently available points in exactly the opposite direction. With only 10% of the Lyoness members actually using the Lyoness discount systems, and for a very low amount of purchases, and 99.7% of the Lyoness turnover deriving from investments into the pyramid schemes and Ponzi schemes lurking behind the facade of a cross-sectoral, international 'shopping community', the benefit for participating 'Loyalty Merchants' is yet to be found. More and more, it becomes clear that much like the consumers/'private investors' that were enticed to sign up for the Lyoness racket, the 'Loyalty Merchants' were just brought in to 'benefit' from the numerous scams which the Lyoness instigators were meticulously hiding behind their corporate exterior.

Recently, Plattform Lyoness has reported that bauMax, a major chain of hardware stores, particularly big in Eastern Europe, and one of the major Lyoness 'partners' which was paraded around to prove the legality and legitimacy of the Lyoness racket, has filed for bankruptcy.

"The German construction business giant Baumax' long struggle to survive has ended yesterday, Thursday, in a bankruptcy. Persistent losses led to severe liquidity restraints; various suppliers no longer accepted the delayed payments and stopped the stream of supplies to Baumax.

An attempt to gather 40 million euros in the very last moment failed. Therefore, the chain store subsequently reported the opening of insolvency proceedings in Hamburg. 18,000 jobs are on the line."

Apparently, their 'partnership' with Lyoness did not bring in enough extra customers and turnover to turn the tide - and it is very unlikely it will do that for any other company, too.

FlexKom: the new Lyoness?

As more and more of our readers understand and accept that Lyoness is a pernicious lie, designed to scam millions of consumers and small and medium sized enterprises out of billions of euros, we are asked with an increased frequency what we think of other 'companies', operating similar 'business models'.

From the very start of the Complaint Centre, we have decided that our focus lays primarily on Lyoness. Whilst acknowledging that there is a long list of similar frauds operated at this time (usually with a differing disguise), we also acknowledge that others, with more experience and more knowledge on the subject, are better suited to provide a comprehensive overview of this type of scam. Therefore, for a full overview of the phenomenon of income opportunity racketeering, we would like to refer our readers to the excellent Blog of Mr David Brear.

However, every now and then a scam pops up and catches our attention, because it is just so darn similar to Lyoness. FlexKom is such a scam.

We have reported earlier that we expect the racketeers behind Lyoness to come up with a new front for their never-ending scam, much in the way like they have dealt with the problems faced earlier by GTS and Galvagin, which eventually produced Lyoness. From that perspective, we are inclined to investigate and report about scams that operate in a freakishly similar manner as Lyoness, with a near-identical disguise to cover up the fraud.

More and more readers have recently brought FlexKom to our attention, and have directed us to on-going debates on various internet fora (2, 3, etc), as well as social media, about FlexKom. For the readers who are unfamiliar with this name, we will provide a brief introduction of the 'company' below.

FlexKom is a 'company' founded, allegedly, in 2010, by either Cengiz Ehliz and/or Asker Sakinmaz, which are both presented as current CEO of the 'company', most probably because they are supposed to represent different divisions of the 'company'. It claims to be some sort of a franchise provider, supplying its partners (which pay about 1500 euros for a 'gold package') with the right to enrol shops into the network, sell them the special FlexKom machines (for about 400 euros), which functions as a reader for the FlexKom cards. The enrolled shops then have the right to issue FlexKom cards to their customers, with the promise that the cardholders will get discounts on their purchases at FlexKom-affiliated shops, and the shops are promised a percentage in commission over the purchases made by the cardholders at every FlexKom-affiliated company. Naturally, the earnings exponentially increase as soon as new partners and shops are brought in.

FlexKom, founded by people with a seemingly Turkish background, chose Turkey as its 'test-market', to see whether the system would function the way it was expected to. According to FlexKom, it did (which is why a long list of countries have now been 'opened' by FlexKom; i.e. FlexKom partners can now be signed up there). According to the Turkish partners, media and authorities, it did not.

We found it quite interesting to see that so much vagueness exists about this 'company', which self-reports to be an extremely reliable business partner. For instance, we have seen claims that this 'company' operated an MLM-system, as well as fanatical debates where FlexKom denies to have anything to do with MLM. The company appears to be Turkish, but is most often claimed to be from Germany - yet is registered in Switzerland. Also, many of the national divisions, presented as if they were incorporated and registered at the local chambers of commerce, are not findable in the company registers of these local chambers of commerce.

Both Cengiz Ehliz and Asker Sakinmaz are not officially attached to the Swiss corporation registered under the name 'FlexKom International Holding AG'. Instead, the two names currently attached to this holding (as managers and founders) are Hasan Süslu and Guido Gmür. About Süslu, nothing much is publicly available. About Gmür, however, one can find a little bit more. According to Moneyhouse, Gmür has worked for about 13 companies, amongst which is First Tax AG, registered on the same address as the FlexKom headquarters. Observant readers may remember that this is the company of which Lyoness co-founder and tax and bankruptcy expert Iwan J. Ackermann is the co-founder and CEO.

As we have argued earlier, the people behind Lyoness have previously been responsible for organising GTS (Erin Trade) and Galvagin - at least - and apparently managed to get away with running those scams by setting up shell corporations in various countries and moving assets around until they were no longer traceable for anyone looking for them. As it seems, this is the way they have managed to found Lyoness without anyone frowning upon the intentions of the Lyoness founders.

We understand that we should be cautious in what we write here, as the exact details and sequence of events are difficult to mimic, mainly due to the lack of information publicly available. However, it does look an awful lot like the same people that managed to transfer Galvagin into Lyoness, and continue their scam under a different name, are now in the process of doing the same for FlexKom. It definitely looks like FlexKom being the long-awaited successor of Lyoness, through which the people behind Lyoness can continue to the scam the world. If not, FlexKom is an extremely similar copy (again, there is 'cash back', the higher ranked adherents become first 'leaders' and then member of the 'President's Team', etc.) of the Lyoness racket and the people interested in running the FlexKom scam at least appear to have hired the same people to cover up their fraud.

Austria denies responsibility for its ignorant complicity

What was supposed to be D-day for anyone interested in the Lyoness story, turned into a bitter disappointment. On the day on which the Austrian Ministers of Finance and Justice were legally required to answer to the parliamentary inquiries filed by Gerhard Huber, member of the Austrian parliament for the BZÖ, it became clear that the Austrian government could not care less about the racket developing under their very noses for almost a decade, scamming 3 million people out of billions of euros worldwide.

The answers provided by both Ministers, which they waited to provide for 2 months, until the last day before the statutory deadline, were outrageously short and of an abominable quality, to say the very least. Beatrix Karl, Austrian Minister of Justice, came to the conclusion that the Austrian authorities have dealt with the Lyoness racket satisfactory, and crushed the dreams of millions of victims that they could count on government support in their strive for the retribution they deserve, as well as of millions of Austrian citizens believing they live in a country where justice is served.

Next to referring to her own answers to earlier questions, which contain little more than summed-up, irrelevant facts, Karl is of the opinion that anyone deliberately scammed out of his or her life savings by these racketeers, with the apparent approval of the Austrian government, has to take action him or herself to redeem the money. The Austrian authorities occupied with the investigation of Lyoness, which have been working on this case for quite a while now, will need a lot more time to conclude their investigation - and can therefore not be counted on by the victims of the Lyoness racket.

Beatrix Karl:

"To the number 14535/J-NR/2013:

Member of parliament Gerhard Huber, and his colleagues filed a written request with the subject "the growing number of victims of Lyoness".

I answer these question as follows:

To questions 1, 2, 11, 12, 15 and 16:

First, I refer to the reply to the earlier answers to questions filed by Gerhard Huber and his colleagues, concerning "the Lyoness system", with the number 11785/J-NR/2012 and concerning "allegations and confusion about Lyoness", with the number 13277/J-NR/2012.

The public prosecutor for economic and corruption has not yet finished its investigation. I ask for your understanding I cannot answer questions about the results of an ongoing investigation, as that could jeopardise the rights of the injured parties and the future success of unfinished investigations. Speaking of whether criminal investigations are conducted against certain persons would also violate data protection regulations.

To questions 3, 13 and 14:

In the area of ​​civil law legislature the justice department cannot take action for the benefit of victims. Civil claims are the responsibility of the injured themselves, and they should pursue their own interests in individual cases in front of independent courts.

To questions 4 to 10:

For the requested statistics, I refer to the answer to the questions of parliament member Johann Maier and his colleagues, with the subject "Judicial proceedings pursuant to § 168a of the Criminal Code", with the numbers 4128/J-NR/2006, 557/J-NR/2007, 93727/J-NR/2008, 1153/J-NR/2009, 5050/JNR/2010, 8200/J-NR/2011, 12054 / J -NR/2012 and 14230/J-NR/2013."

http://www.plattform-lyoness.at/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=972

The Minister of Finance, Maria Theresia Fekter, has not got any better news for the victims and unconsciously admits that she has not fully understood the Lyoness racket - comparing the Lyoness membership with a 'hobby' and generally describing the fraudulent 'advance payments' as a way to acquire a 'future customer base'. Perhaps Fekter should have a look around and study the subject a bit more intensively.

Maria Theresia Fekter:

To the written parliamentary questions filed under number 14534 / J of 25 April 2013, filed by parliament member Gerhard Huber and his colleagues:

To the questions 1, 4 to 6, and 7:

Due to the tax law confidentiality rules, in accordance with § 48a of the Federal Fiscal Code (BAO), no information may be shared about the implementation of the specific methods of delivery or fiscal court proceedings.

Additionally it should be noted that to ensure a stable revenue in times of budget cutbacks, the protection of taxpayers' money and a high tax morale are essential. As part of an effective and efficient detection and prosecution of tax evasion and fraud in any form, intensive cooperation between authorities at both national and international levels are required.

To question 5:

Concrete facts about ongoing investigations cannot be provided to the parliament. In the following text, the tax treatment of payments for the acquisition of market share or a customer base in general are described:

Basically, it is assumed that the consideration of advance payments for the acquisition of market share in future commission income, will render potential future customers. A contribution to a customer base is thus made, yet the details of the payment date are not yet known. The exact amount of the deposit of the member has no direct influence on the future customers, the resulting influent commissions are unknown and can not be influenced by the member.

With the deposit therefore a future customer base is acquired. Its acquisition is, however, only at the time prior to the first commission from this customer base actually accrue. According to the Income Tax Regulations 2000, Rz 523 expenses for the acquisition of a customer base are a capitalisation of a portion of the representing business or goodwill. Therefore, the payments for the acquisition of a market share (customer) are not tax-deductible immediately, but according to §8, paragraph 3, of the Income Tax Act of 1988 mandatory tax should be considered as distributed over 15 years. However, the depreciation begins
to run when the first commission from the acquired market shares in the position (settlement) lands on the account. If a taxpayer claims losses, in any case it will have to be examined whether a hobby was responsible for these losses."

This is all quite funny if one considers that Lyoness has been hiding in plain view for a decade now, and was spotted by - and brought to the attention of the Austrian government and authorities in 2004 (!!!). For almost a decade, less than nothing was undertaken to stop or forbid the racket and prevent millions of people worldwide from being scammed out of their money, and now, when the fairy tale falls to pieces, the Austrian government waives all responsibility and leaves its tax-paying, legitimacy-providing citizens (of which more than 470,000 were enticed to hand over their money to the Lyoness racketeers), which are legally their only source of power and whom they are supposed to represent and protect, standing in the cold.

Victims seeking financial retribution for their damages might have a better shot using the civil courts for suing the Austrian state, which is largely responsible for the harm done to them, than to sue the effectively bankrupt Lyoness racket, which will make sure it has not got a single traceable dime to repay its deceived 'members'. It may also be more effective than desperately trying to peddle their valueless positions for a strongly discounted price on eBay.

P.S. Did anyone else notice the familiar hand gesture of both Ministers?