Hypothetical: Is a fully disclosed pyramid scheme legal? I see that hypotheticals don't typically go over to well on this SE site but I'll give this a shot. EDIT: I originally posted as 'Ponzi' but I meant 'pyramid' Was talking with a friend tonight about a hypothetical situation and the implications of full-disclosure on law and was hoping some of you might be able to settle the debate. (This is for US law btw) Suppose I launched a company called Pyramid Scheme, inc. And we were 100% direct and transparent that this was a Pyramid scheme. We literally explained word for word that it is a Pyramid scheme: You can put money in and we pay you out based on the next people that put money in after you. If you are stuck on the bottom rung you will likely not see a return, THIS IS A Pyramid SCHEME. I know (I'm pretty sure) Pyramid schemes are illegal, but if you completely disclose it and are 100% open about it, is it still illegal? I'm not talking about the fine print either, I'm talking about very direct straight forward declarations, even to the point where the name of the company is 'Pyramid Scheme inc'.
You might get away with it under federal law. But there are potentially also state laws to worry about. Under Texas law 17.461: &quot;Pyramid promotional scheme&quot; means a plan or operation by which a person gives consideration for the opportunity to receive compensation that is derived primarily from a person's introduction of other persons to participate in the plan or operation rather than from the sale of a product by a person introduced into the plan or operation. A person commits an offense if the person contrives, prepares, establishes, operates, advertises, sells, or promotes a pyramid promotional scheme. An offense under this subsection is a state jail felony. As you can see, there's no requirement under this law that there be fraud involved.
In the worst case if they shut shop, then how might I go about getting my money back? It is unlikely that you can. A SAFE is not a loan (and for that matter isn't even a share in the company) and doesn't create an enforceable contractual right to get your money back. If you make an equity investment and the company loses money and goes out of business, you lose everything you invested. If the promoter made false representations that induced you to invest, or actively concealed material facts about the investment, you might be able to sue the promoter for securities fraud under federal regulation 10b-5, or under a state securities law, or under a common law fraud theory. You could also sue to issuer of the investment (i.e. the company) but that would usually be futile because the company is broke and hence judgment proof. State or federal securities regulators or a local district attorney or state attorney-general might pursue the case in lieu of a private civil action by you, but getting them to take action is often quite difficult. But, if your investment wasn't induced by fraud and instead the management of the company simply made bad decisions that caused the company to fail, you have no remedy. The investment was for a SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity). I have the signed SAFE with me. This is a very unusual way for a QoZ to be structured, which adds to the sense that this may have been a shady venture.
Depends on the purpose of the society and physical location of its members. A secret society aiming to coordinate bank robberies would be pretty much illegal anywhere. A secret society sharing photos of cats would be fine in most parts of the world. I'm not sure about the jurisdiction. All the places in which members live? Where the servers are located? The place of residence of the founder? All of that matters. Members, founder, servers are all subject to the laws of the land where they are. (That said, the fact that the members only interact online changes nothing.) For example, say there is a secret online society with some sort of political agenda and members all over the world. Whilst for members living in most of the English-centric world (UK/US/Canada/AU/NZ/Singapore etc.) such a membership would be perfectly legal, members living in Italy and Poland will be breaking the law.
You should probably get a lawyer, but my reading is this: The company whose SDK you use owns their SDK, owns their code, and is free to take any of your ideas how to improve their code without paying you. But they say that ideas are ten a penny, so this is mostly there to prevent pointless lawsuits. On the other hand, it says that everything you do with your product is yours. I might be completely wrong, that's why you should get a lawyer.
Its just free enterprise, right? Well ... except when there is a law that says its not allowed. I am unfamiliar with Indian law but the relevant law in Australia is the Trade Practices Act which deals with this under the category of Misuse of Market Power. In a nutshell: A business with a substantial degree of power in a market is not allowed to use this power for the purpose of eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor or to prevent a business from entering into a market. By preferring their products over a competitor's in their search engine they are "... eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor ...".
Generally no. Trading on the basis of non-public &quot;inside&quot; information is usually a crime in the US (and in many other places as well, although the details will vary.) Exactly what constitutes &quot;inside information&quot; and an unlawful trade based on it can be complex, but if the trade is or might well have been influenced by information not publicly available, it may well be illegal. Normally in such cases the company's legal counsel or compliance officer will issue a statement to relevant corporate officers that neither the company nor those officers who are &quot;insiders&quot; may trade in the company's stock until after the information becomes public and is know to the market in general. The exact terms will vary depending on the specific facts. If the person making the decision to do a buyback is not aware of the non-public information, and did not consult the CEO or anyone who did know, the trade might not be unlawful. But such trades are normally approved at the Board of Directors level, so the CEO would be aware of them.
Both of your question are creatures of contract. Their disclosures when you set up the account (or potentially amended disclosures or terms they've mailed to you subsequently) control both of these questions. They don't have to share the results of their internal investigation against you (they do have to give you proof that the deposit/transfer was fraudulent), but that does not give you access to their internal investigative process or its findings. They cannot shut down your account based on protected reasons (race, class, gender, religion, etc.), but the can certainly close an account pursuant to their operating procedures, their rules, terms and conditions or disclosures - all of which you agreed to (implicitly or explicitly) when opening the account. There is likely nothing you can do about either of these issues, unless the contract you formed with them by opening the account gives you that right, which would appear in their terms of service, disclosures, etc., and these almost always protect their right to do most anything when it comes to protecting the overall best interest of the corporate entity.
No, because leaking is also a form of insider trading if the person you leak to takes advantage of the information. Even if you leaked it in a public forum you still have to wait 6 months before it is considered truly public knowledge, and by that time you might have learned something else. If you think that Company X is going to be pulled down along with the rest of the market then your best bet is to short (or buy "put" options on) a representative basket of shares other than Company X. This has the advantage of being 100% legal without having to wait.