Vemma's Compliance Watchdog Was Asleep at the Wheel

Vemma promised its affiliates would earn substantial income. The company's own financial records from 2013 and 2014 told a different story. Now the court-appointed receiver has exposed just how badly Vemma failed to police itself.

The receiver dug into Vemma's legal operations and field compliance procedures. What he found was damning: the company didn't just fail to monitor its affiliates properly. It actively violated the anti-pyramid rules it claimed to follow and demanded its own distributors obey.

The problem wasn't incompetence. The receiver interviewed Vemma's Vice President of Legal Affairs and Manager of Field Compliance. Both were qualified professionals with substantial experience. These weren't rank amateurs Vemma could later blame for cutting corners. They knew what they were doing. The failures came from how the company actually operated, not from ignorance about what the rules required.

Vemma's compliance system was theater. On paper, the company monitored affiliates through Momentum Factor, a third-party social media watchdog. It also enforced what it called "the 70% rule"—supposedly ensuring affiliates sold at least 70 percent of what they bought rather than just hoarding inventory.

Here's how the 70% rule actually worked: Each month, Vemma's IT department printed out a list of 100 randomly selected affiliates who had made purchases. Field compliance then called exactly 15 of those affiliates. Once they reached 15 calls, they stopped. The company never called the remaining 85.

Those 15 affiliates were simply asked: "Are you consuming or retailing at least 70 percent of your purchases?" They gave an answer. Vemma wrote down their response and sent a letter confirming the conversation. Then the company moved on. No verification. No follow-up. No accountability.

The receiver searched for evidence that Vemma had ever disciplined an affiliate for violating the 70% rule. He found nothing.

Think about that. In Vemma's entire history, not a single affiliate apparently answered "no" to the question and faced consequences. Not one. The receiver, a trained investigator examining company records, couldn't locate a single instance of discipline. That's not because the affiliates were unusually honest. It's because the system was rigged to never catch anyone.

A compliance program that amounts to asking people if they're following the rules, accepting their word without question, and never punishing violations isn't a compliance program. It's a facade. And both the qualified legal professionals running it and the company leadership demanding it knew exactly what they were doing.

Vemma's own financial data showed most affiliates made little to nothing. Yet the company represented to recruits that they would earn substantial income. The receiver's investigation into marketing practices, consumer complaints, and marketing materials confirmed what many suspected: Vemma didn't just fail to enforce anti-pyramid rules. It operated in direct violation of them while pretending to comply.

The qualified people in charge understood the rules. They just chose not to enforce them.

🤖 Quick Answer

What compliance failures did the court-appointed receiver identify at Vemma?

The receiver discovered that Vemma failed to properly monitor its affiliates despite promising substantial earnings. Financial records from 2013-2014 contradicted income claims. The company actively violated anti-pyramid scheme regulations it publicly endorsed, revealing systemic compliance failures in field operations despite qualified legal and compliance personnel overseeing these functions.

How did Vemma's compliance structure fail despite qualified personnel?

Despite employing experienced professionals as Vice President of Legal Affairs and Manager of Field Compliance, Vemma's compliance watchdog proved ineffective. The receiver's investigation demonstrated that qualified personnel alone could not ensure proper affiliate monitoring and adherence to regulatory requirements, suggesting institutional failures beyond individual competence.

What did Vemma's financial records reveal about affiliate earnings?

Financial documents from 2013 and 2014 contradicted Vem

🔗 Related Articles

- Lyoness under police investigation in Sweden
- iGenius fraud charges filed against Gamechangers Polska
- PM International sues TV2 over pyramid & “sugar powder” claims
- Norwegian regulator seeks permission to attend OneCoin event
- Norwegian regulator receives “no reply” from OneCoin