Identifying and classifying factors affecting Ponzi companies and the impact of Ponzi companies on investor behavior

salehi, mahdi; bagherpor valashani, mohammad ali; homayoun, saeid; salehi vaziri, seed mohsen

[Home ] [Archive]

[ فارسی ]

journal of Value & Behavioral Accounting

Main Menu

Home

Journal Information

Editorial Board

Articles archive

Publication Ethics

For Authors

Peer Review Process

Registration

Site Facilities

Contact us

Search in website

Receive site information

Back to the articles list

Back to browse issues page

Identifying and classifying factors affecting Ponzi companies and the impact of Ponzi companies on investor behavior

Mahdi Salehi ^*¹

, Mohammad ali Bagherpor valashani²

, Saeid Homayoun³

, Seed mohsen Salehi vaziri⁴

1- Professor of Accounting ,faculty of economics and administrative sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran. (Corresponding Author) , mehdi.salehi@um.ac.ir
2- Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. bagherpour@sbu.ac.ir
3- Associate Professor Department of Economic and Business Studies, University of Gavle, Gavle, Sweden. saeid.homayoun@hig.se
4- Ph.D. Student in Accounting,faculty of economics and administrative sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran, seyedmohsen.salehivaziri@mail.um.ac.ir

Abstract: (131 Views)

Financial crimes or financial fraud affect individuals as well as the economy. Due to its nature and the fact that sufficient data on financial fraud is rarely available, it is very difficult to accurately estimate the impact of financial fraud. One example of financial fraud is the fraud known as Ponzi scheme. Ponzi companies are known not only as a financial threat, but also as an effective factor in changing investor behavior. These schemes can lead investors to make incorrect decisions, lack accurate risk analysis, and even discourage them from legal markets. Continuous awareness and education of investors, along with strengthening legal supervision, are among the solutions that can prevent the negative effects of these frauds and maintain public confidence in financial markets. In this regard, in this research, we seek to identify and prioritize the factors affecting such companies that are involved in Ponzi schemes.
In this study, through exploratory interviews and a review of the research literature, we identify the factors affecting companies involved in Ponzi schemes, and we prioritize the factors through the best-worst (BWM) techniques, the TOPSIS method, and the SAW method, and we select the best criteria by comparing the results. The research findings show that the dividend payout criterion has the highest priority and indicates the special importance of this criterion in influencing Ponzi companies. In the next priority, the financial crisis and economic problems are a factor and motivation for companies that resort to such schemes and cover their financial crisis and lack of financial resources in this way and through investors' capital in an incorrect way. In the next priorities, factors such as institutional shareholders, concentration of ownership, and family ownership are also raised as important factors, which, due to the concentration of ownership and the limitation of decision-making to a few people, can be a factor and motivation for greater profitability without considering the interests of investors and resorting to such schemes. In the next priorities, factors related to the company's board of directors and company costs are also involved. The subject of the present study can be a new topic for research and study. Given that this scheme can involve a variety of investors such as investors in financial institutions, investors in digital currencies and smart contracts, presenting and identifying influential factors can be attractive and useful for investors and prevent the loss of their capital. Also, using different decision-making techniques and comparing their results to achieve the main research criteria, which has not been considered in previous research, can be considered as a research innovation. In Iran, no research has been conducted on companies involved in Ponzi schemes, describing the characteristics of such companies and their relationship with accounting; therefore, the subject of the present study can be a new topic for research and study.

Keywords: Ponzi companies, best-worst technique, TOPSIS method, SAW method

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2025/08/5 | Accepted: 2026/09/22

References

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.‌

2. Baltacı, A. and A ،Vural. 2025, "Anatomy of herd behavior in Ponzi schemes within the scope of marketing mix", Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Vol. 17 No. 2: 275-291. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-09-2023-0218

3. Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. The quarterly journal of economics, 116(1), 261-292.‌

4. Baumeister, R. F. 2002, “Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior”. Journal of consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 4:670-676. https://doi.org/10.1086/338209

5. Benson, M. L. and S. S ،Simpson. 2014, “Understanding white-collar crime: An opportunity perspective”, Second Edition, Routledge, New York, NY.

6. Bernard, C. and P ،Boyle. 2009, “Mr. Madoff's amazing returns: An analysis of the split-strike conversion strategy”. Journal of Derivatives, Vol. 17 No. 1: 62.

7. Bikhchandani, S., & Sharma, S. (2000). Herd behavior in financial markets. IMF Staff papers, 47(3), 279-310

8. Biondi, Y. (2025). US Federal Reserve Losses: An Income Statement Perspective. Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium

9. Butler, A. W., Cornaggia, J., & Gurun, U. G. (2017). Do local capital market conditions affect consumers’ borrowing decisions?. Management Science, 63(12), 4175-4187.

10. Carey, C., & Webb, J. K. (2017). Ponzi schemes and the roles of trust creation and maintenance. Journal of Financial Crime, 24(4), 589-600.

11. Choi, S. W., Lee, J. and, S. H Lee. 2024, “Cryptocurrency Ponzi schemes and their modus operandi in South Korea”. Security Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-024-00417-5

12. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 55(1), 591-621.‌

13. Dalkey, N. C. 1969, “The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion”. RAND Corporation, California, United States

14. Deason, S., , S، Rajgopal., , G. B ،Waymire. and, R. M ،White . 2021, “The role of accounting in Ponzi schemes”. Accounting Horizons, Vol. 35 No. 1: 29-46. https://doi.org/10.2308/HORIZONS-19-016

15. Deliema, M., , D Shadel and, K Pak ،. 2020, “Profiling victims of investment fraud: Mindsets and risky behaviors”. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 46 No. 5: 904-914. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz020

16. Dutta, S. and, A، Sarkar2019, “Do social networks facilitate the spread of Ponzi schemes? Evidence from a primary survey”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37: 26-37.

17. Feng, X., , Q Shi ،., , X Li ،., , H Liu ،. and, L Wang ،. 2024, “IDPonzi: An interpretable detection model for identifying smart Ponzi schemes”. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 136 No. 1, A. 108868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2024.108868

18. Ferris, S. P., Jayaraman, N., & Sabherwal, S. (2013). CEO overconfidence and international merger and acquisition activity. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 48(1), 137–164.

19. Fontana, A. and, J. H Frey ،. 2000, “The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text”. Handbook of qualitative research, Vol. 2 No. 6: 645-672.

20. Francis, A. 2009, “Crime and development: The Jamaican experience”. Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies, Kingston, Jamaica

21. Hebb, T., Hawley, J. P., Hoepner, A. G., Neher, A. L., & Wood, D. (Eds.). (2016). The Routledge handbook of responsible investment (pp. 166-181). Abingdon: Routledge.‌

22. Hidajat, T 2018, “Retracted: Financial Literacy, Ponzi and Pyramid Scheme in Indonesia”. JDM (Jurnal Dinamika Manajemen), Vol. 9 No. 2: 198-205.

23. Holtfreter, K., M، Reisig. and, T. C ،Pratt. 2008, “Low self‐control, routine activities, and fraud victimization”. Criminology, Vol. 46 No. 1: 189-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00101.x

24. Hsu, C. C. and, B. A ،Sandford 2007, “The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus”. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, Vol. 12 No. 1:10. https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90

25. Hughes, C. and, D ،Hicks. 2024, “Financial Investigation and Financial Intelligence: A Critical Analysis”. Routledge. New York

26. Jain, J. and, P، Ohalehi ،. 2018, “Why people fall prey to Ponzi schemes: an analysis of attitudes, behaviours, demographics and motivations of victims in India”. Behaviours, Demographics and Motivations of Victims in India (September 20, 2018). Leicester, England. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3263995

27. Jarvis, C. 2000, “The rise and fall of the pyramid schemes in Albania”. IMF staff papers, Vol. 47 No. 1: 1-29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3867623

28. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

29. Karpoff, J. M., Lee, D. S., & Martin, G. S. (2008). The consequences to managers for financial misrepresentation. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(2), 193-215.‌

30. Lewis, M. K. 2012, “New dogs, old tricks. Why do Ponzi schemes succeed?”. In Accounting Forum, Vol. 36, No. 4: 294-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2011.11.002

31. Lewis, M. K. 2015, “Understanding Ponzi schemes: can better financial regulation prevent investors from being defrauded?”. In Understanding Ponzi Schemes. Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782549109

32. Li, J., , S ،Hsu, , Z ،Chen and, Y ،Chen. 2016, “Risks of p2p lending platforms in China: Modeling failure using a Cox hazard model”. The Chinese Economy, Vol. 49 No. 3: 161-172.

33. Lokanan, E. M. 2014, "The demographic profile of victims of investment fraud: A Canadian perspective", Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 21 No. 2: 226-242. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-02-2013-0004

34. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.

35. Obamuyi, T. M., , G. O، Iriobe ،., , T. S، Afolabi., , A. D، Akinbobola ،., , A. J ،Elumaro ،., , B. A، Faloye., and, A. O ،Oni ،. 2018, “Factors influencing Ponzi scheme participation in Nigeria”. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 5 No. 5: 429-444.

36. Onu, I. J., , A. E ،Omolara ،., , M.، Alawida ،, , O. I ،Abiodun ،. and, A ،Alabdultif ،. 2023, “Detection of Ponzi scheme on Ethereum using machine learning algorithms”. Scientific Reports, Vol. 13 No. 1: 18403. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45275-0

37. Peng, Z. and, P. P ،Boyle 2024, “Ponzi Schemes: A Review”. Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada. Available at SSRN 5019934.

38. Rafique, M. and, Q. U. A ،Zafar. 2012, “Impact of celebrity advertisement on customers’ brand perception and purchase intention”. Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 11: 53-67.

39. Rezaei, J. 2015, “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method”. Omega, Vol. 53 No. 1: 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009

40. Rezaei, M., , F Mansouri ،. and, M، Faghani ،. 2022, “Comparison of the effect of using corporate governance mechanisms on the performance of companies based on Ponzi trap (Case study: Tehran Capital Markets companies)”. International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications, Vol. 13 No. 1: 3281-3292. https://doi.org/10.22075/ijnaa.2021.23303.2625

41. Shiller, R. J. (2000). Irrational exuberance princeton. Prunceton University Paper.‌

42. Snyder, J. A. and, K. A ،Golladay ،. 2024, “It Happened Again: Differences Between Single and Repeat/Poly-Victimization Among Financial Fraud Victims”. Journal of White Collar and Corporate Crime, Vol. 5, No. 1: 46-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631309X231195801

43. Springer, M. 2020, “The politics of Ponzi schemes: history, theory and policy”. 1st Edition, Routledge. New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429462498

44. Tennant, D. 2011, “Why do people risk exposure to Ponzi schemes? Econometric evidence from Jamaica”. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Vol. 21 No. 3: 328-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2010.11.003

45. Worrell, J. L., , P. M، Di Gangi ،. and, A. A، Bush ،. 2013, “Exploring the use of the Delphi method in accounting information systems research”. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 3: 193-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2012.03.003

46. Zheng, Z., , W ،Chen., , Z، Zhong., , Z ،Chen ،. and, Y ،Lu ،. 2023, “Securing the Ethereum from smart Ponzi schemes: Identification using static features”. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, Vol. 32 No. 5: 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571847

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Back to the articles list

Back to browse issues page

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 36 queries by YEKTAWEB 4741