« Why is there a Due Diligence Blog? | Main | Ripoff Report Update on Bioperformance »

The FTC and Due Diligence for Business Opportunities

FTC Logo.gif

The FTC has released its 2006 annual report. The Report was released at the ABA's Antitrust's section spring meeting.

It is worthwhile to review this document to see what the FTC thinks can be done to avoid business opportunities scams and frauds. (The complete document is available here.)

The report states:

"The FTC pursues a vigorous law enforcement program that combats a wide range of fraudulent and deceptive practices. From April 2005, through February 2006, the FTC filed 60 actions in federal district court and obtained 66 judgments ordering defendants to pay $590 million in redress to consumers. In many of these cases, the FTC worked with local, state, federal, and international law enforcement partners. " (my emphasis)

What is ironic about this statement, given that it is the FTC's job to "combat deceptive practices"?

Technorati Tags: ftc, deceptive practices, law enforcement program, international law enforcement, annual report, judgments, consumers, federal district court, state federal, report states, section spring, frauds, redress, combats, antitrust, vigorous, scams, aba

Judgments can be little more than pieces of paper. How much money was actually returned to consumers?

The annual report does not say. Here is one example worth considering:


"In January 2006, the FTC settled its action against Andris Pukke, the founder of defendants AmeriDebt and DebtWorks, and the other remaining defendants. The FTC settlements shut down the corporate defendants,
permanently banned Pukke from the credit counseling business, and imposed a $172 million suspended judgment. In addition, Pukke agreed to relinquish virtually all of his assets for consumer redress, a fund that could ultimately total $35 million. "

So between 18 and 20 cents on the dollar may be returned to consumers in the Debtworks scam. The ETS Payphones scam restitution was less than 5 cents on the dollar. How much money did the FTC actually return to consumers? If the FTC cannot collect on its judgments, should they contract out the execution phase of litigation? Shouldn't they at least tell the public clearly how much money didn't get returned?

Technorati Tags: ftc, deceptive practices, law enforcement program, international law enforcement, annual report, judgments, consumers, federal district court, state federal, report states, section spring, frauds, redress, combats, antitrust, vigorous, scams, aba

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.bizop.ca/mt/mt-tb.cgi/93

Google Advertisements

Why are there Adsense advertisements on Bizop.ca?

Bizop.ca is a law blog about misleading advertising regarding the sale of franchises, business opportunities and network marketing.

But the ads that are placed here are done by Google.

Google Adsense will run any ad that it thinks is appropriate based on syntax.

Some of the ads may be for dubious opportunities.

So if you think that an ad is misleading, tell us in the Discussion Forum.

Tell us why the ad is misleading.

Use your own words.

Help with Bizop.ca's mission of providing quality information by analyzing ads.

Help us help others.

Archives

How to Subscribe

Privacy Policy

Subscribing allows you to be updated with either email or RSS, automatically and without having to return to the site. You will never have concerns about privacy or spam.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

feed.jpg

Recommendations

These are ads for tools or programs, which I either use daily or are deserving public ads.

Even though I would recommend these tools or programs, I may receive compensation for doing so.

No compensation is received for the public ads.

Mediators Without Borders