Years until liability – Why MLM and crypto trials take so long and the Lyoness case shows why time is no accident
And why waiting is rarely a strategic solution for victims.
Civil proceedings against internationally organized MLM and crypto networks are among the most complex and protracted disputes in commercial law, their duration significantly influenced by cross-border structures, difficult jurisdictional issues, and complex evidentiary processes. At the same time, experience shows that even with valid claims, their actual enforcement is often hampered by limited insolvency assets, shifted assets, and difficulties in proving liability. For aggrieved investors, the central question therefore arises: is waiting a sensible strategy, or does this create additional risks? The Lyoness/ Lyconet / myWorld case exemplifies how time can play a crucial role in such systems – particularly with regard to the statute of limitations, loss of evidence, and the long-term enforceability of claims.
Complex structures instead of clear responsibilities
A key reason for the lengthy duration of such proceedings lies in the international structure of the systems involved. Unlike traditional civil proceedings with clearly identifiable contracting parties, MLM and crypto networks are regularly spread across multiple jurisdictions.
Typically, the following are located:
- operating companies in offshore areas,
- Payment service providers in third countries,
- Marketing and sales structures in Europe.
Even determining jurisdiction can take months or years. Defendants regularly use procedural means to delay proceedings or challenge jurisdiction.
Proving one’s case under difficult conditions
Another time factor is the burden of proof. In traditional legal proceedings, contractual relationships, payment flows, and responsibilities are usually clearly documented.
However, in the case of international MLM and crypto structures:
- Contracts often exist only digitally or in a fragmented form.
- Platforms disappear after system crashes,
- Payment flows are processed via cryptocurrencies or multiple intermediaries.
The legal process therefore often requires:
- Reconstruction of money flows,
- Evaluation of internal communication,
- Analysis of marketing promises and disclaimers.
This effort is considerable – and time-consuming.
Liability of organs: The crucial, but difficult lever
Enforcing the personal liability of those responsible (corporate liability) is particularly complex. While corporations are generally only liable with their corporate assets, personal liability requires:
- specific breaches of duty,
- demonstrable decision-making authority,
- causal relationship to the damage.
Especially in MLM structures, this responsibility is often deliberately obscured. Official managing directors sometimes only act formally, while the actual decision-makers remain in the background.
The consequence: Proving actual control becomes the central – and often lengthy – point of contention.
Why “waiting” rarely leads to success
Against this backdrop, it seems logical to many victims to wait and see if other investors successfully assert their claims. In practice, however, this strategy is associated with considerable uncertainty.
Civil claims must always be examined individually; at the same time, there are risks associated with the statute of limitations, as claims must be asserted and their limitation period suspended within specific timeframes, which is frequently overlooked in practice. Errors are often made in calculating the respective limitation period because relevant criteria are not taken into account.
Furthermore, as time progresses, the evidence deteriorates and assets can be further shifted or depleted, making it even more difficult to enforce existing claims.
Special case: Lyoness / Lyconet / myWorld – When time becomes part of the system
How the structural factors described above can manifest themselves in practice is exemplified by a complex of cases that has been observed in the industry for years: the network around Lyoness, Lyconet and myWorld .
According to legal experts and based on available insolvency and investigation documents, it can be concluded that this system was able to develop and spread internationally over an exceptionally long period. One possible reason for this is that state control mechanisms in various jurisdictions either took effect late or were only partially effective due to the complex, cross-border structure.
Furthermore, external factors, particularly the pandemic, represented an additional disruption. While in previous years out-of-court settlements or settlement models using Lyconet structures were still possible in individual cases, the onset of pandemic-related restrictions led to significant delays and a virtual standstill in the enforcement of claims.
This period must be considered particularly relevant: legal proceedings were delayed, international coordination became more difficult, and individual enforcement measures partially came to a standstill. Simultaneously, structural changes were implemented within the corporate group during this phase, which ultimately resulted in several insolvency proceedings, presumably intentionally.
The consequences of this development are clearly evident in insolvency law practice. Claims are frequently disputed, often citing a lack of standing to be sued or unclear contractual relationships, while at the same time the available insolvency estate is limited and falls short of the actual amount of claims.
Another aspect that is regularly discussed in this context is the role of limitation periods. Legally, claims must be asserted within certain time limits; otherwise, they can be permanently barred. From a lawyer’s perspective, this means that in long-running, complex systems, these time-related factors are also taken into account, especially when proceedings are delayed for years.
For affected investors, this has a key consequence: While immediate action isn’t necessarily required, a conscious and informed examination of their own claim situation is crucial. Regardless of the outcome of individual proceedings, the statute of limitations can only be suspended through active legal action, and the individual circumstances vary considerably from case to case.
Against this background, many legal experts see the Lyoness/ Lyconet / myWorld complex not just as an isolated case, but as an example of how time itself can become a decisive factor – both on the part of the defendants and on the part of the injured parties.
Conclusion: Time is a factor – but not a neutral one.
Experience from international proceedings shows a consistent picture:
The duration of such processes is not an expression of inaction, but a consequence of structural complexity.
At the same time, time is not a neutral factor:
- It can open up opportunities (e.g., through new insights),
- but also increase risks (statute of limitations, loss of assets, problems of proof).
For affected investors, this means: The fastest action is not crucial – but rather an informed, strategic approach based on one’s own situation .
Notice:
This article presents a journalistic analysis. It is based on publicly available information, insolvency law documents, and general legal assessments in the field of international business and capital market law. It does not replace individual legal advice. Facts, assessments, and opinions are presented separately. Quotations are made in accordance with Section 51 of the Copyright Act (UrhG).
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!