Total scam. That should have been outlawed years ago.
Let's look closer at some of the things mentioned in that article:-
1. "term listed on the website stating that if net sales did not reach £2.5m, the winner would instead receive 50 percent of the net proceeds".
Key words here are "net sales" and "net proceeds". Because there is nothing to say what is deducted off the gross before we get to the net. Twice. That's not just the "£200,000 marketing costs"-that's going to be paying their staff, and their expected profit. Any comparable investment scheme has to set out what is deducted off the gross-which could easily be an extra £2.5 million
2. "faced difficulties processing visa payments".
Reason for that is going to be very simple. The bank pulled the plug, because either they were not being paid, or they felt this was effectively a Ponzi scheme
3. The article makes it sound like this all came as a surprise to this set of shysters. Whereas, in reality, the marketing no doubt carried on, and ticket sales continued, for many months after it was blindingly obvious that this scheme was bound to fail.
4. Think of who is actually running the risk here. The Company ensures its staff are paid. That its in-house marketers are paid. Suppose ticket sales were £200,000. £195,000 went straight into the pockets of the organisers. And they still had the nerve to market that there had been a "winner"
It is "omazing" that this sort of scam isn't brought under the Financial Services and/or Gambling authorities.
Comments
That's beyond ridiculous. Scammers, 100%.
Let's look closer at some of the things mentioned in that article:-
1. "term listed on the website stating that if net sales did not reach £2.5m, the winner would instead receive 50 percent of the net proceeds".
Key words here are "net sales" and "net proceeds". Because there is nothing to say what is deducted off the gross before we get to the net. Twice. That's not just the "£200,000 marketing costs"-that's going to be paying their staff, and their expected profit. Any comparable investment scheme has to set out what is deducted off the gross-which could easily be an extra £2.5 million
2. "faced difficulties processing visa payments".
Reason for that is going to be very simple. The bank pulled the plug, because either they were not being paid, or they felt this was effectively a Ponzi scheme
3. The article makes it sound like this all came as a surprise to this set of shysters. Whereas, in reality, the marketing no doubt carried on, and ticket sales continued, for many months after it was blindingly obvious that this scheme was bound to fail.
4. Think of who is actually running the risk here. The Company ensures its staff are paid. That its in-house marketers are paid. Suppose ticket sales were £200,000. £195,000 went straight into the pockets of the organisers. And they still had the nerve to market that there had been a "winner"
It is "omazing" that this sort of scam isn't brought under the Financial Services and/or Gambling authorities.
It was founded in Feb 2023. Sole Director is a 29-yr-old Ukrainian. No accounts. No filing history worthy of note.
Which rather begs the question-who owns the actual property?