{"id":59464,"date":"2015-07-21T16:19:55","date_gmt":"2015-07-21T16:19:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/?guid=14079b967fafe479958ade31791eef24"},"modified":"2015-07-21T16:19:55","modified_gmt":"2015-07-21T16:19:55","slug":"press-release-pyramid-scheme-organisers-ordered-to-pay-over-500000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/?p=59464","title":{"rendered":"Press release: Pyramid scheme organisers ordered to pay over \u00a3500,000"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Confiscation orders totaling \u00a3333,138 and prosecution costs of \u00a3182,172 were made against Laura Fox, Carol Chalmers, Jennifer Smith Hayes, Susan Crane, Mary Nash and Hazel Cameron at Bristol Crown Court by His Honour Judge Horton between 20 and 21 July. <\/p>\n

The Chair of the committee, described by Judge Horton as the \u201cdriving force behind the scheme\u201d, Laura Fox, and 2 other committee members, Carol Chalmers and Jennifer Smith Hayes, were sentenced in February 2013, to 9 months\u2019 imprisonment for \u2018promoting\u2019 and \u2018operating\u2019 a pyramid promotional scheme contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the Regulations<\/abbr>).<\/p>\n

After pleading guilty, Susan Crane, Mary Nash and Hazel Cameron were sentenced in October 2014 to 6 months\u2019 imprisonment for \u2018promoting\u2019 and \u2018operating\u2019 a pyramid promotional scheme contrary to the Regulations<\/abbr>. In the case of Hazel Cameron, her sentence was suspended for 2 years.<\/p>\n

All defendants have a maximum of 3 months to make the payments ordered by the court. <\/p>\n

In addition, Laura Fox, Carol Chalmers, Jennifer Smith Hayes, Susan Crane, Mary Nash and Hazel Cameron were each ordered to pay a contribution to prosecution costs of \u00a330,362 for a total of \u00a3182,172.<\/p>\n

Stephen Blake, Competition and Markets Authority (CMA<\/abbr>) Senior Director responsible for criminal enforcement, said: <\/p>\n

\n

These orders demonstrate our commitment to ensuring to the fullest extent possible that those who are convicted of offences in breach of consumer law do not benefit from their criminality. This is in addition to the sentences that have already been imposed and the loss of reputation. These defendants operated a sophisticated pyramid promotional scheme with the aim of making money at the expense of others. The public should remain vigilant in respect of such pyramid promotional schemes. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Defendant<\/th>\nConfiscation order<\/th>\nCosts order<\/th>\nTotal<\/th>\nSentence in default<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Laura Fox<\/td>\n\u00a3125,638<\/td>\n\u00a330,362<\/td>\n\u00a3156,000<\/td>\n24 months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Jennifer Smith-Hayes<\/td>\n\u00a381,550<\/td>\n\u00a330,362<\/td>\n\u00a3111,912<\/td>\n18 months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Susan Crane<\/td>\n\u00a350,800<\/td>\n\u00a330,362<\/td>\n\u00a381,162<\/td>\n15 months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Hazel Cameron<\/td>\n\u00a334,650<\/td>\n\u00a330,362<\/td>\n\u00a365,012<\/td>\n11 months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mary Nash<\/td>\n\u00a323,000<\/td>\n\u00a330,362<\/td>\n\u00a353,362<\/td>\n9 months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Carol Chalmers<\/td>\n\u00a317,500<\/td>\n\u00a330,362<\/td>\n\u00a347,862<\/td>\n8 months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
TOTALS<\/td>\n\u00a3333,138<\/td>\n\u00a3182,172<\/td>\n\u00a3515,310<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Notes for editors<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. The CMA<\/abbr> is the UK\u2019s primary competition and consumer authority. It is an independent non-ministerial government department with responsibility for carrying out investigations into mergers, markets and the regulated industries and enforcing competition and consumer law. From 1 April 2014 it took over the functions of the Competition Commission and the competition and certain consumer functions of the Office of Fair Trading, as amended by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.<\/li>\n
  2. Pyramid promotional schemes are those where the \u2018compensation\u2019 (that is, money or \u2018winnings\u2019) for participants is derived primarily from introducing others, rather than from the sale of a product or service. Such schemes are automatically unfair commercial practices under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. They are distinct from promotional arrangements under which compensation payments are derived from the sale of a product or service. Unlawful pyramid promotional schemes may involve products or services, but these will generally be overpriced or have no real resale value, the primary source of the compensation for participants being derived from introducing others to the scheme, such as through large joining fees.<\/li>\n
  3. In September 2014, the CMA<\/abbr> announced that it had secured nine convictions<\/a> in relation to \u2018promoting\u2019 and \u2018operating\u2019 a pyramid promotional scheme under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.<\/li>\n
  4. Three women were found guilty after trial in July 2012 of \u2018promoting\u2019 and \u2018operating\u2019 a pyramid promotional scheme under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Each was sentenced to 9 months\u2019 imprisonment in February 2013. These sentences have been served. They were:\n