Ponzi scheme tycoon Tom Petters was just convicted here in Minneapolis. Along with guys like Bernie Madoff, he stole billions of dollars. What I always wonder, and you may also, is:

How do these guys get other normal people to give them so much money? I have a hard time just getting my friends to buy me coffee!

As a criminal defense lawyer, I’ve represented con men over the years although not as big as these guys. I’ve talked to and cross-examined the victims and think there are three reasons con men can wiggle dollars out of tight places.

1. Trust The fundamental factor to start everything. The personalitites of con men are attractive and trustworthy anyway. They purposely sell the sense of trust right from the start. Remember, these guys don’t go door to door asking for money. After a few great scores (that may be legitimate) the clients rave about how good the con man is at making money for them. They refer to their friends and business people.

2. Exclusivity Any of us can call an 800 number to Fidelity or T Rowe Price and make an investment. (these are both good companies, by the way!) Imagine how flattered you’d feel if you were referred to someone who could do better by far, than the investments the “public” had to limit themselves to? This idea of an exclusive deal that only a few select people get access to–and there is usually a limited time to take advantage of the great opportunity–is very attractive to most of us. To be a member of the group that gets the “inside” track on investing is powerful and the con man knows that. There’s a little bit of arrogance here, on the part of the investor. The idea that the investor doesn’t have to swim with the masses; they have a superior opportunity.

3. Greed This is the ultimate hook the con man pulls on. Underlying the two previous reasons is the human factor of greed. The chance, the hope, the long shot that you can make a killing–combined with the trust established and the small group of “lucky” people chosen to get in on the great deal–pushes most people over into the con man’s grasp. When you see the results from the first few who introduced you, your eyes began to water.

I guess that leads to an interesting follow-up idea: if the investor is partly to blame, should that be taken into account during a trial of a con man or during the sentencing? After all, the con man couldn’t have committed the crime without a “willing” victim. What do you think?

The post How Did Madoff and Petters Do It? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Although I don’t know Mr. Petters, I’ve worked as a criminal defense lawyer for over 30 years and have represented/defended a few criminals like Petters but never anyone stealing such big. amounts. Unlike other criminals types, these guys have a unique personality type that’s fascinating. In addition, I had an uncle (long dead) who operated several scams and Ponzi schemes in the Twin City area before he was chased out of town. I remember him well.

SKILLS; Most of these types are very attractive–physically and personally. You can’t help but like them. They’re wonderful salesmen with all the skills of the best. Charming and persuasive, they could lie big–without even a tug from their conscience. Almost all were smart even if they weren’t well educated.

ATTITUDE: My uncle and others I’ve represented, shared an attitude that combined arrogance with ambition–not unusal in many people. The difference was the con men couldn’t wait for their ambiitons. They couldn’t take the time and effort necessary to build a legitimate business. Instead, they deserved immediate success. Most thought they were smarter than others, therefore they didn’t have to wait like the rest of us to grow their businesses.

Many came from poorer backgrounds and I suspect they harbored a deep suspicion that since things were stacked against them anyway, they may as well steal to get what they deserved. Each sucker or victim they conned represented a score against the “system” the con men were trying to beat–like a game. Another skill was the ability to lie convincingly to anyone. The more intimidating the challenge, the greater the “game” was to the con man.

SECURITY: Obviously, they coudn’t invest the money they stole so they spent it lavishly. Security was irrelevant to them–they didn’t have any except for their brains and guts to pull off the next con. I can’t think of many friends who could live peacefully without some security. Imagine the type of person who has only their ability to score another con for tomorrow’s food.

Surprisingly, the defendants I’ve represented readily admit their crime when confronted but have always had an excuse or a lie about how things happened to avoid the penalty.

Do you know anyone like this? What’s their story? Tell me about the personalities.

Go to my web site at www.colintnelson.com

The post What Made Tom Petters Run? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.