Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 566 views

    People Vs Vicente Menil

    Uploaded by

    Marco Arpon
    Vicente Menil, Jr. and his wife operated a Ponzi scheme through their appliance business in Surigao City in 1989, soliciting investments from the public with promises of returns up to 10 times the initial investment within 15 days. As millions of pesos poured in from investors, payments began to be delayed and then stopped altogether in September 1989. The scheme relied on money from new investors to pay earlier investors, making it unsustainable. The accused were convicted of estafa for operating the illegal Ponzi scheme, but not of large-scale estafa since it was not shown to involve a syndicate of five or more people as defined in relevant law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Vicente Menil

    Uploaded by

    Marco Arpon
    566 views2 pages
    Vicente Menil, Jr. and his wife operated a Ponzi scheme through their appliance business in Surigao City in 1989, soliciting investments from the public with promises of returns up to 10 times the initial investment within 15 days. As millions of pesos poured in from investors, payments began to be delayed and then stopped altogether in September 1989. The scheme relied on money from new investors to pay earlier investors, making it unsustainable. The accused were convicted of estafa for operating the illegal Ponzi scheme, but not of large-scale estafa since it was not shown to involve a syndicate of five or more people as defined in relevant law.

    Original Description:

    law

    Original Title

    People vs Vicente Menil

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Vicente Menil, Jr. and his wife operated a Ponzi scheme through their appliance business in Surigao City in 1989, soliciting investments from the public with promises of returns up to 10 times the initial investment within 15 days. As millions of pesos poured in from investors, payments began to be delayed and then stopped altogether in September 1989. The scheme relied on money from new investors to pay earlier investors, making it unsustainable. The accused were convicted of estafa for operating the illegal Ponzi scheme, but not of large-scale estafa since it was not shown to involve a syndicate of five or more people as defined in relevant law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    566 views2 pages

    People Vs Vicente Menil

    Uploaded by

    Marco Arpon
    Vicente Menil, Jr. and his wife operated a Ponzi scheme through their appliance business in Surigao City in 1989, soliciting investments from the public with promises of returns up to 10 times the initial investment within 15 days. As millions of pesos poured in from investors, payments began to be delayed and then stopped altogether in September 1989. The scheme relied on money from new investors to pay earlier investors, making it unsustainable. The accused were convicted of estafa for operating the illegal Ponzi scheme, but not of large-scale estafa since it was not shown to involve a syndicate of five or more people as defined in relevant law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Vicente Menil, Jr.

    and his wife, Adrian, were the proprietors of ABM Appliance and
    Upholstery. In July 1989, they, through ushers and sales executives, began soliciting
    investments from the general public in Surigao City and its neighboring towns. They
    assured would-be investors that their money would be multiplied ten-fold after 15
    calendar days. Each investor may invest a maximum amount of P1,000 for which they
    were assured a return of P10,000. The ushers and sales executives were given a 10%
    commission from the total amounts remitted. Sometime in August 1989, the
    perpetrators incorporated ABM Development Center, Inc. (ABM), apparently to clothe
    their operations with legitimacy. At around the same time, the accused told his sales
    executives that all investments would only have returns of 1:7 which investors will
    receive after 15 working days. As such, if a person gave P100, his investment will receive
    only P700. As millions of pesos began pouring in, delays in the payments started, then by
    September 1989, payments eventually stopped. Cases were filed against the accused,
    who were arrested in Davao City.

    What the accused actually offered to the public was a Ponzi Scheme, an unsustainable
    investment program that offers extravagantly high returns and pays these returns to
    early investors out of the capital contributed by later investors. The Court described the
    workings of the Ponzi Scheme in an earlier case:

    Named after Charles Ponzi who promoted the scheme in the 1920s, the original
    scheme involved the issuance of bonds which offered 50% interest in 45 days or a 100%
    profit if held for 90 days. Basically, Ponzi used the money he received from later
    investors to pay extravagant rates of return to early investors, thereby inducing more
    investors to place their money with him in the false hope of realizing this same
    extravagant rate of return themselves. This was the very scheme practiced by
    the Panata Foundation.

    However, the Ponzi scheme works only as long as there is an ever-increasing number of
    new investors joining the scheme. To pay off the 50% bonds Ponzi had to come up with
    one-and-a-half times increase with each round. To pay 100% profit, he had to double the
    number of investors at each stage, and this is the reason why a Ponzi scheme is a
    scheme and not an investment strategy. The progression it depends upon is
    unsustainable. The pattern of increase in the number of participants in the system
    explains how it is able to succeed in the short run and, at the same time, why it must fail
    in the long run. This game is difficult to sustain over a long period of time because to
    continue paying the promised profits to early investors, the operator needs an ever
    larger pool of later investors. The idea behind this type of swindle is that the conman
    collects his money from his second or third round of investors and then absconds before
    anyone else shows up to collect. Necessarily, these schemes only last weeks, or months
    at most.

    As part of his defense, the accused argued that several investors were paid the
    corresponding returns on their investments. This is unmeritorious, according to the SC, as
    the payment of returns to early investors is an integral part of the illegal Ponzi scheme.
    The fact that early investors were paid the returns on their investments induced more
    people to participate in the illegal scheme with the hope of realizing the same
    extravagant rate of return. In fact, after word of these payments spread like wildfire, the
    amount of investments received by accused-appellant ballooned from thousands of
    pesos to several millions of pesos. The acccused were convicted for estafa (but not large
    scale estafa under PD 1869, as there was no showing that it was committed by a
    syndicate). A syndicate is defined in the same law as consisting of five or more persons
    formed with the intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction,
    enterprise or scheme.

    You might also like