Hacker Attack: Thank you for your support! 

As you may already know, bankruptcy has been declared for Lyoness Europe AG and Lyoness International AG. We intended to release this information two days before Lyoness’ own announcement, and immediately our website was hacked. It was a costly, professional, and a massive hacker attack, as determined by the police. 

At its peak, we faced attacks on the website from 116 countries and between 500 and 750 million accesses within 24 hours.

We know that the attacks originated from Europe; a specialist was able to isolate several dozen relevant IP addresses and hand them over to the police. 

My special thanks, however, go to you, our fantastic customers, who have shown understanding and amazing reactions.

Many of you saw the final conclusive proof in the hacker attack that what we report about Hubert Freidl and his pyramid schemes must indeed be true, given the effort made to block our website. 

The presumption of innocence prevails until it is proven that Hubert Freidl and/or his associates are behind the hacker attack.

However, many signs point in that direction. 

Due to multiple criminal complaints filed with the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office for White‐Collar Crime and Corruption, investigations into serious commercial fraud and fraudulent practices are already ongoing against Hubert Freidl.

Criminal insolvency essentially refers to the fraudulent or grossly negligent causing of insolvency by a debtor. 

Now, there is also a case of delaying bankruptcy proceedings since 2021, which has also been reported.

Consequently, Freidl becomes personally liable for the debts caused by him for Lyoness Europe AG. 

We will not budge! 

Lyoness bankruptcy – What’s behind it (Part 2)

The real difference between cloud and share holders, with bankruptcy and going public: consolidation at the expense of members might be the magic word here! Or, how do you turn short-term into long-term liabilities as quickly as possible.

It is emphasised in the press release from Lyoness that it only affects Lyoness Europe AG and Lyoness International AG and that it would have no effect on the other active companies. On the companies maybe not, but on the members, depending on where they stand.

But what does this mean for the marketers who have accepted the mSP switch and those who continue to stick to their cloud. Is a split in marketers imminent and what is Freidl’s intended line.

The cloud owners, who hope for the so-called “passive income” and have no interest in an IPO, are constantly being urged to agree to a conversion to mSP. It is the right of the cloud owners to insist on the fulfilment of the agreement, even if the payment dates have always been postponed and financial surcharges have constantly been demanded. If you follow the various chat groups and see how they deal with requests from cloud owners who dare to ask for remuneration/payment, then you can speak of a two-class membership. Top leader Markus Käfer in particular is characterised by the fact that he does not respond to the questions of cloud owners, but condemns their “tone” and threatens to kick them out of the group.

But is the mSP holder (internally called shareholder) better off than the cloud holder? Not really! The one just has a little less of hardly anything than the other!

There will not be an IPO anyway, as Freidl himself said. The shares are to be understood as an incentive and there are no guarantees with shares anyway. He would be right about that, but when the members switched to shares, something else was advertised to them. We remember, at first the stock market experts from Deloitte allegedly agreed that myWorld would be worth several billions in a few years, as Freidl full-bodiedly communicated in a video. The charts produced and published by Lyoness itself year after year, where the chart curve is constantly going steeply upwards and should show the unbelievable increase in customers and cooperating companies, can now only be seen as a mockery of the members.

What is left for the myWorld shareholder:

MyWorld International AG would first have to make a profit, which is not really to be expected at the moment. First of all, the shareholder should be aware that what he calls his own as a share is not freely tradable. He needs the approval of MyWorld and a countervalue is neither recognisable nor rudimentary on the balance sheets to the extent required. Any comparison with shares on the free market is out of the question, because there is no official trading platform for the myWorld share on this planet. Thus, these share certificates will only be able to be offered internally at myWorld International AG or the non-official subsidiary “Blocktrade” will concoct something and call it a “trading platform”, which must also be classified as worthless. Because so far they have not come up with anything more than self-paid image articles in trade journals.

What happens next:

Do you get rid of the unloved cloud members with bankruptcy, who simply don’t want to pay more money into the bottomless pit, because you certainly won’t pay out a “passive income”.

It would not be surprising if the cloud owners were now being put in bankruptcy and the numerous different general terms and conditions and agreements were cited as the reason. One should not forget that Lyoness Europe AG and Lyoness International AG were registered as shareholders in many companies.  Cloud owners are inconvenient for Freidl because they no longer invest any money in the system, so what could be more obvious than to deceive themselves with legal sleight of hand.

“Lyoness Europe AG & Lyoness International AG in Bankruptcy – What’s Behind It?! (PART 1) 

Marketers were quite surprised when Richard Meixner, CEO of Lyoness Italia, announced the bankruptcy of Lyoness Europe AG and Lyoness International AG through a press release on October 24th, 2023. Apparently, various top leaders were also surprised or reacted highly nervously and irrationally.

It is also known that Lyoness has been facing financial difficulties since 2021, with 5,016,197.75 and 941,867.55 million Swiss francs in tax debt, and a law firm from Oslo is collecting 72,647.55 Swiss francs through a collection agency. However, bankruptcy proceedings are still pending, as the Lyoness that filed for bankruptcy has generously provided loans to its subsidiaries, thereby disadvantaging its creditors. A criminal complaint has been filed in this regard. 

A few days ago, Hubert Freidl also sold his penthouse in Graz, as reported by a real estate agency. An investigating prosecutor should now consider this as a risk of obscuring evidence. 

It has also been revealed that an actual IPO by Hubert Freidl has been ruled out. As reported from internal sources, there will be no IPO. Freidl justifies this by claiming that he needs to protect his shareholders from takeovers by large companies like Amazon and Alibaba. Is it humor or delusion? The issued shares have no real value, cannot be sold without consent, and there is no marketplace for them to be traded. They can perhaps be bought from each other (but only with consent). What kind of stock is that? 

Translation Excerpt from 


“An investigation has been initiated against HUBERT FREIDL for the suspicion of the crime of systematic aggravated fraud according to §§ 146, 147 para 3, 148, 2nd case of the Austrian Criminal Code (StGB), and the crime of fraudulent krida according to § 156 para 1 and 2 of the Austrian Criminal Code (StGB).” 

The accused is hereby given the opportunity to provide a written statement regarding the allegations within 2 months to ensure due process. In particular, please respond to the numerous court decisions in the case file, which, among other things, state the following: 

  1. The defendant promised the plaintiff a profit or “passive income” in the event of an investment. 
  1. The defendant portrayed the investment in a “cloud” in a way that led the plaintiff to believe they would recover the invested capital after a certain period and receive monthly payments. 
  1. The defendant gave the impression that the invested money would work and multiply for the plaintiff. 
  1. The defendant presented its business model as risk-free. 
  1. The defendant intentionally formulated the written contract terms in a confusing and untransparent manner to obscure the actual content of the contract to the plaintiff. 
  1. The defendant deceived the plaintiff about the nature and extent of the investment made with fraudulent intent. 
  1. No valuable consideration from the defendant is discernible. 

Please also respond to the following findings of the Liezen Regional Court, AZ 2 C 637/20w: 

“The defendant’s system is designed for a continuous influx of capital, with little to no substantial compensation provided to the so-called members or distributors in exchange for their payments. Through incomprehensible terms such as ‘friendship bonus,’ ‘Lyoness loyalty program,’ ‘balance program,’ or ‘career program,’ an attempt is made to create the impression that the business model makes economic sense for prospective members and Lyconet marketers. Based on the agreements and conditions underlying the contracts as a whole, it can be concluded that the shopping community serves only to channel capital from new members or marketers to those at the top of this system without significant compensation. The clauses in the general terms and conditions (AGB), such as those concerning the so-called ‘independent Lyconet marketers,’ only serve to worsen the legal position of the defendant’s contractual partners by falsely portraying them as independent entrepreneurs. The mention of the ‘marketer’ engaging in a commercial activity, like most of the clauses in the present set of clauses, is devoid of substance and ultimately leads to the customer being informed that the payments made by them as a ‘marketer’ will not be refunded by the defendant. 

The same applies to the purchase of ‘discount vouchers,’ the function and content of which remain completely unclear even after a careful study of the terms and conditions.” 

Furthermore, please respond to the following judgment of the Neulengbach Regional Court, AZ 2 C 749/20x: 

“In reality, the defendant’s contracts are structured in a way that makes it almost impossible for individual ‘marketers’ to engage in profitable activities. The use of appealing graphics and examples (see Lyconet Compensation Plan) suggests that significant earnings could be generated.” 

“As a result, it is evident that the plaintiff’s payments could not lead to economically relevant payouts. The acquisition of a discount voucher cannot generate any profits. Attracted customers would need to achieve absurdly high sales at partner companies each month for the marketer to earn a moderately reasonable monthly income. Whether a ‘cloud’ can lead to significant payouts is also highly questionable. 

All these circumstances are supplemented by the fact that to remain eligible, an additional EUR 50 (50 shopping points) must be paid each month. The defendant’s contract is, in reality, designed to encourage marketers to make payments with promises of profits and to recruit additional members so that the defendant can extract substantial profits.” 

Regarding the bankruptcy and its intentions, we will provide a well-founded and documented report in the second part. 

We do not know if Hubert Freidl was a diligent student in school, but he should improve upon the tasks assigned to him by the WKStA (Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office for White-Collar Crime and Corruption).