Tionly Fatukala wants the money she invested into the scheme back. Photo: Facebook / Open Justice
Tionly Fatukala invested roughly $18,000 into a scheme that promised a three-to-one return.
But instead of rolling in cash she is now in court fighting to get back the money she put into what turned out to be a pyramid scheme.
While she's had a partial victory the court refused to grant her the amount she believes she would have earned had the scheme's promises of financial return been legitimate.
Instead she'll have to settle for the total she actually invested, of which only $8000 has been paid back.
In a Disputes Tribual decision released this week Mele Hea was ordered to pay Tionly Fatukala back the remaining $10,000 she invested into the scheme last year.
But Fatukala hasn't seen a cent of it since the hearing in June.
"It's really disappointing ... I need the system to work for me," she told Open Justice.
Despite its ruling, the Disputes Tribunal doesn't actually have any power to enforce the judgments it makes and claimants have to go to the District Court instead.
And that's exactly where Fatukala is taking Hea in February in the hope of getting the money she's owed.
Fatukala said she invested roughly $18,000 into the scheme which promised a three-to-one return - essentially every dollar you put in you'd get three back.
Exactly how it would deliver such favourable returns was vague and just described as "gifting programme".
Fatukala's argument to the Disputes Tribunal was that the original promise should be honoured, but the Tribunal didn't agree.
"Due to the unfair nature of pyramid selling schemes and the fact that most people involved are likely to suffer loss, I consider that Tionly Fatukala's loss is limited to the amount she paid directly to Mela Hea rather than the amount she was expecting to receive from the scheme as a result," tribunal referee Johanna Perfect said in her decision.
"For the same reason I also do not consider it appropriate to award interest."
The Commerce Commission defines a pyramid scheme as a company that relies on its participants making money by recruiting other people, as opposed to actually selling goods or services.
Pyramid selling schemes may involve "gimmick" products that have little or no resale value and are not likely to be purchased again such as beauty products or health supplements with little to no scientific backing.
In April last year the Commission issued a warning to the Pacific Island community in Auckland after it noticed a marked increase in the number of pyramid schemes targeting them.
"We have other open investigations and are looking closely at other suspected pyramid schemes, some of which appear to be targeting the Tongan community," a spokesperson said at the time.
"Complaint information can be incomplete but Pacific communities are the most commonly mentioned group to be affected by pyramid schemes."
Hea told Open Justice she didn't know what she was doing was illegal.
"If I'd known it was a pyramid scheme I wouldn't have done it," she said.
"As soon as I found out I stopped it."
Hea says she's paid back Fatukala roughly $15,000 of the money she owes her and has appealed against the Disputes Tribunal ruling that she still owes closer to $10,000.
However, she also said that she couldn't afford to pay everyone who had demanded a refund.
"If I pay one person a refund, I have to pay all people a refund," she said.
The pair will appear in the Auckland District Court next year as Fatukala seeks an enforcement order to legally require Hea to pay her back her money.
* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.
