It doesn't have to be fraud against the consumers, does it? If consumers were equally complicit, that just means it wasn't the consumers who were being defrauded. It's conspiracy to commit fraud against whoever they were making misrepresentations to.
I'm not sure it's really fair to say that consumers were equally complicit, though - the people being paid to understand this stuff probably had more intent.
Point one is really good. I like your way of thinking.
I've got to say that the problem for me comes down to one of competence versus theivery. I don't think that the guys I worked with were outright thieves. I do think they were not especially competent in recommending investments.
These guys are salesmen. They could be selling you printers, but they're selling investments instead. They really are not paid to understand the stuff...they are paid to move product.
When I say that the consumers are equally complicit, what I really mean is that in many cases they just listened to a sales pitch and accepted it as truth.
Not to say that there weren't defrauded consumers or evil salesmen. I'm sure there are individual cases of fraud. I just think it's a really complex system with overlapping spheres of incompetence that defies easy characterization as "fraud" or "not fraud."
> When I say that the consumers are equally complicit, what I really mean is that in many cases they just listened to a sales pitch and accepted it as truth.
If you tell me something that you know or should know to be false, I act on what you told me, and you benefit from my action, then by definition I have been defrauded.
It's hard to speculate in a vacuum and obviously we don't want details in this medium, but here's a sales pitch:
Salesman: "By a MagicSuperAwesomeLotto ticket! There's no chance to win 50 million if you don't buy one. It's definitely a very risky investment. But it's an extremely small loss and the payout could make you generationally rich. We sell them in increments of $1, $5, and $50 if you want 50x chance to win, and we accept wire transfers."
Client: "So do I have to match all the picks in a row to get a payout?"
Salesman: "I'm not sure. It's a new product. We'll have to check."
Client: "Oh don't bother. I'll take $5,000 of them."
I'm not sure it's really fair to say that consumers were equally complicit, though - the people being paid to understand this stuff probably had more intent.