Advertisement

Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 67–89 | Cite as

Twisting trust: social networks, due diligence, and loss of capital in a Ponzi scheme

  • Rebecca Nash
  • Martin Bouchard
  • Aili Malm
Article

Abstract

This paper examines a pre-planned fraud which ran undetected for more than five years and deceived 2285 investors for $240 million. We seek to uncover the effects of trust in social ties and conducting due diligence on 1) an investor’s initial amount of investment and 2) their overall loss of capital. Using data from a survey of 559 victims, we conduct two linear regression models to test for effects on investors’ amount of initial investments and their total net loss. By using two dependent variables, we examine effects of social ties and performing due diligence at the beginning stage and end stage of a Ponzi scheme. Performing due diligence and relying on information provided by industry professionals increased initial investments, while having performed due diligence also increased investors’ loss of capital at the end of the fraud, suggesting both social ties and due diligence contributed to fraud victimization. The findings are interpreted within the context of a particularly sophisticated fraud where document falsification was almost impossible to detect, contributing to a false sense of security among victims.

References

  1. 1.
    Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (2004). Social networks and loss of capital. Social Networks, 26, 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buskens, V. (2002). Social networks and trust. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    DiMaggio, P., & Louch, H. (1998). Socially embedded consumer transactions: for what kinds of purchases do people most often use networks? American Sociological Review, 63, 619–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (2003). Diffusion of fraud: intermediate economic crime and investor dynamics. Criminology, 41, 1601–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stolowy, H., Baker, R., Jeanjean, T., & Messner, M. (2011). Information and trust in financial decision making: insights from the Madoff case. Séminaire de recherche, Université de Manchester.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pressman, S. (1998). On financial frauds and their causes: investor overconfidence. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 57(4), 405–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosen, A., & Rosen, M. (2010). Swindlers: cons and cheats and how to protect your investments from them. Toronto: Madison Press Books.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pack, H. (2002). Due diligence. In G. Picot (Ed.), Handbook of international mergers and acquisitions. New York: Pallgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burt, R. S., & Knez, M. (1995). Kinds of third-party effects on trust. Rationality and Society, 7, 255–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Comet, C. (2011). Anatomy of a fraud: trust and social networks. Bulletin of Methodological Sociology, 110, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure, 1840 – 1920. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 53–111.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arrow, K. (1970). Political and economic evaluation of social effects and externalities. In J. Margolis (Ed.), The analysis of public output (pp. 1–30). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benson, M. L., & Simpson, S. S. (2009). White collar crime: an opportunity perspective. NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guiso, L. (2009). A trust-driven financial crisis. Implications for the future of financial markets. European University Institute: EIEF & CEPR. Retrieved from http://www.eief.it/files/2012/09/wp-06-a-trust-driven-financial-crisis-implications-for-the-future-of-financial-markets.pdf.
  17. 17.
    Kramer, R. M. (2009). Rethinking trust. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ae800865-56d1-485b-b2c7-8f8950bb15f5%40sessionmgr14&vid=2&hid=14.
  18. 18.
    Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shapiro, S. P. (1990). Collaring the crime, not the criminal: reconsidering the concept of white-collar crime. American Sociological Review, 55(3), 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nash, R., Bouchard, M., & Malm, M. (2013). Investing in people: the role of social networks in the diffusion of a large-scale fraud. Social Networks, 35(4), 686–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hill, C. A., & O’Hara, E. A. (2006). A cognitive theory of trust. Washington University Law Review, 84, 1717–1796.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: an introduction to social capital. UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (2001). Socio-cognitive theory of trust. National Research Council. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.199.259&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  24. 24.
    Coleman, J. (1990). The foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Titus, R. M., Heinzelman, F., & Boyle, J. M. (1995). Victimization of persons by fraud. Crime and Delinquency, 41(1), 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Couch, L., Adams, J., & Jones, W. (1996). The assessment of trust orientation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67(2), 305–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grebey, J. (2012). Operations due diligence: an M&a guide for investors and business. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baranick, D., & Quraishi, S. (1999). Performing financial due diligence associated with commercial mortgage securitizations. In F. Fabozzi & D. Jacob (Eds.), Commercial mortgage-backed securities (pp. 397–415). New Hope: Wiley Publication.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van de Bunt, H. (2010). Walls of secrecy and silence: the Madoff case and cartel in the construction industry. Criminology and Public Policy, 9(3), 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eron Mortgage Corporation et al. (1999). (Re). LNBCSC 91. Retrieved from http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/Enforcement/Decisions/ERON_MORTGAGE_CORPORATION,_et__al___Decision_/. Accessed 2 Sept 2017.
  31. 31.
    CBC News. (2005). Eron mortgage VP pleads guilty to fraud, theft charges. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2005/04/05/eron-050405.html.
  32. 32.
    Eron Mortgage Corporation et al. (1997) (Re). SCBC A972569. Retrieved from http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/Enforcement/Decisions/ERON_MORTGAGE_CORPORATION,_et__al___Decision_(2)/. Accessed 2 Sept 2017.
  33. 33.
    Boyd, N., Joy, N., Malm, A., Kinney, B., & McAllister Opinion Research. (2005). Eron mortgage study. Vancouver: British Columbia Security Commission Retrieved from http://www.investright.org/uploadedFiles/resources/studies_about_investors/Eron_Research_Study_with_content_page_links.pdf.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Deevy, M., & Beals, M. (2013). The scope of the problem: an overview of fraud prevalence measurement. Financial fraud research center. Retrieved from http://longevity3.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Scope-of-the-Problem-FINAL.pdf.
  35. 35.
    Deevy, M., Lucich, S., & Beals, M. (2012). Scams, schemes & swindles: a review of consumer financial fraud Research Retrieved from http://fraudresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Scams-Schemes-Swindles-FINAL_11.20.121.pdf.
  36. 36.
    Stolowy, H., Messner, M., Jeanjean, T., & Baker, R. (2014). Construction of a trustworthy investment opportunity: insights from the Madoff fraud. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31(2), 354–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schoepfer, A., & Piquero, N. (2009). Studying correlates of fraud victimization and reporting. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2), 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M., & Pratt, T. (2008). Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud victimization. Criminology, 189–220.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Wyk, J., & Benson, M. (1997). Fraud victimization: risky business or just bad luck. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dulebohn, J. (2002). An investigation of the determinants of investment risk behavior in employer-sponsored retirement plans. Journal of Management, 28(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Graham, J. W. (2012). Missing data: analysis and design. Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4018-5_2.
  43. 43.
    Langkamp, D. L., Lehman, A., & Lemeshow, S. (2010). Techniques for handling missing data in secondary analyses of large surveys. Academic Pediatrics, 10, 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pigott, T. D. (2001). A review of methods for missing data. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(4), 353–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Scheffer, J. (2002). Dealing with missing data. Research Letters in the Information and Mathematical Sciences, 3, 153–160.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Roberts, J. (2009). No one is perfect: the limits of transparency and an ethic for ‘intelligent’ accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(8), 957–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA
  2. 2.School of CriminologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations