Fraud and Dickens
This piece, from 2014, was in response to a writing class task about Dickens.
Fraud
In Martin Chuzzlewit, Dickens describes the
workings of the Anglo-Bengalee Disinterested Loan and Life Assurance Company.
It is a fraudulent organisation run by the con-man Montague Tiggs (or Tiggs
Montague); specifically it is a Ponzi scheme which attracts investors with
promises of high returns. However payouts come from the money given by the
victims rather than from any profits.
Ponzi
schemes (named after Charles Ponzi, who was not born until 1882, 38 years after
Chuzzlewit was published and 12 years after Dickens’ death) are nothing new.
The Roman Empire had insurance scams, fake investment schemes and real estate
bubbles. The interesting thing to me is the con, or confidence part of the
con-game. Montague Tiggs has connections throughout London society. He gives
lavish dinners and has very posh offices. Various people who, and it is
important to be clear on this, are definitely not employed by the company talk
up what a wonderful opportunity it is.
Charles
Ponzi was an Italian immigrant to the US and most of his clients were from the
Italian-American community. This kind of crime is known as affinity fraud, in
which the confidence in the con-man comes from them having something in common
with the victims. The con-man is seen as ‘one of us’ and uses the connections
in the community to promote his schemes.
In 2008
Bernie Madoff, a Wall Street investor, was arrested for securities fraud.
Investigators estimated that the size of his firm’s liabilities was in the
region of $57 billion, although they recovered $36 billion in assets, making it
the largest fraud in US history[1]. Up until his arrest Madoff was
prominent in the American Jewish community, who were amongst his biggest
investors. His offices and lifestyle were those of a successful Wall Street
investor. Although many financial firms were suspicious and did not deal with
him, he continued to attract new customers right up until his arrest.
Some people
have suggested that we need a new Dickens for the 21st Century. In
this, as in many other cases, perhaps we should start by paying attention to
the Dickens we already have.
Comments