Lyconet: Why Upline is still liable!
Hubert Freidl’s bad news at the beginning of the year about the precarious financial situation of Lyconet is still fresh in the minds of many marketers. Fear for the invested capital is growing, especially among those who once entered the system full of hope. But while many are still worried about their losses, critical voices are getting louder – and they come not only from disappointed marketers, but also from former top earners of the system. More and more top marketers are confirming the dramatic situation. It is questionable whether Lyconet will turn things around this time. But one pattern remains unchanged: The downline is often transferred to the next system – a deliberately applied trick to continue profiting.
Broken promises and shattered dreams
For years, Lyconet has been promising new projects, but none of them has ever really worked. Worthless shares, failed IPOs, missing funds, non-transparent structures, dubious business practices and endless delays have permanently destroyed trust. As previously reported, the entire network is on the brink of collapse.
This development has not gone unnoticed by those who once profited from the system. Many top leaders are withdrawing – not only because the system is failing, but also to avoid possible legal responsibility. The protective claim here is often: ‘I’m just a victim myself, I only mediated.’ But it’s not that simple.
Relocation abroad: a familiar pattern
Several familiar names from the Lyconet upline keep cropping up in this context. For some of these people, the central registry no longer shows a current main residence in Europe – a pattern familiar from collapsing pyramid schemes.
Names such as Gerald Seebacher, Mario Oreggia, Markus Käfer, Alfred Karl Taucher, Bernd Bernsteiner, Andreas Landgraf, Ralph Schmidts, Christoph Wurzer, Willibald Köck, John Paul Schoor and Uwe Steinkeller are conspicuous in this context. The question arises: Why do key players in the system disappear from the European legal area?
New legal restrictions: Ponz schemes more closely targeted
In November 2024, the draft of a third law amending the Law against Unfair Competition (UWG) was published, which serves to implement EU Directive 2024/825. This directive is intended to better protect consumers from misleading business practices.
A central innovation concerns § 5 paragraph 1 UWG, which in the future explicitly states:
‘Any person who engages in misleading commercial activity that is likely to cause a consumer or other market participant to make a business decision that they would not otherwise have made, acts unfairly.’
The EU has recognised that pyramid schemes pose a growing threat. While § 16 para. 2 UWG already prohibits pyramid schemes, such fraudulent structures often disguise themselves as harmless ‘referral programmes’ or ‘network marketing opportunities’. Particularly in economically uncertain times, they attract people who hope to earn a lucrative extra income – a fallacy that is now to be more vigorously prosecuted.
Legal situation: Liability regardless of professional status
A common misconception among marketers is that they are not liable as long as they are not officially employed by the company. However, this assumption is wrong.
The EU Directive 2005/29/EC prohibits unfair commercial practices in principle – regardless of whether a person acts as an agent full-time or part-time. Anyone who actively recruits participants and makes false promises can be held accountable.
Consequences under criminal and civil law
The legal consequences for brokers are often more drastic than assumed:
✅ Criminal liability: In Germany, for example, and in most other countries, brokers of pyramid schemes can be prosecuted under criminal law.
✅ Civil liability: Those who lure others into a fraudulent system can be sued for damages. Victims have the right to reclaim their lost money.
✅ Ignorance is no excuse: Even if an agent claims not to have known that the system was illegal, they can still be held liable if it can be proven that they actively advertised it.
Legal consequences: No escape for those responsible
Many of these top marketers were not just passive brokers, but active profiteers of a system based on recruitment rather than real value creation. Over the years, they have:
- recruited new members with exaggerated promises
- downplayed the fact that success depended almost entirely on recruiting more participants
- Earned high commissions at the expense of others, while the majority of investors lost
- Deliberately lured people into an unsustainable system, thereby causing significant financial damage
- Repeatedly made false promises of profit without pointing out the high risk
All these aspects point to possible criminal and civil consequences. Some may now think that such cases are already time-barred – but it’s not that simple. Legislation has now been created that gives victims significantly more rights and claims than they may be aware of.
Civil law consequences: claims for damages against brokers
In addition to criminal liability, there is also the threat of civil lawsuits. Anyone who knowingly or negligently promoted a fraudulent scheme must expect claims for damages. Particularly relevant: Even part-time brokers or private recruiters who have lured others into the scheme can be prosecuted.
In short: Those who have profited for years from an unsustainable system cannot simply shirk their responsibility – the legal consequences will catch up with them.
Shirking responsibility is not a solution!
It cannot be accepted that the masterminds behind Lyconet quietly and secretly withdraw from the affair while thousands of investors lose their money. Those responsible must be held accountable.
Note: And as always, those affected are welcome to comment on this, or if someone has more or different information, they are welcome to share it with us. We are not interested in making false claims and our primary goal remains the provision of complete documentation.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!