Inventis Ventures did a pyramid scheme which stole $26.5M from 1,400 people.

According to an SEC complaint, Inventis Ventures, LLC and Inventis Ventures Holding, Inc., controlled by Linh Thuy Le and Trong Hoang Luu, ran a Ponzi-like investment scheme that raised at least $26.5 million from more than 1,400 people… primarily from Vietnamese and Latino normie retail investors across multiple states.

They promised “guaranteed” monthly returns of 15% and annual returns of 360% or more, claiming funds would be invested in “emerging projects,” real estate, or special bank programs.

Instead,that investor money was misappropriated: recycled to pay earlier investors, funneled into referral fees, and used for the couple’s personal benefit, until the scheme collapsed and many investors lost both promised returns and principal.

If you read on, you’ll see how one boutique “investment” operation became a textbook case of corporate greed under neoliberal capitalism and why its impact reaches far beyond a single office in Tustin, California.

Table of Contents

1. Background: Corporate Social Responsibility Meets a “Progressive Return” Mirage
2. Allegations of Corporate Corruption and Ponzi-Like Investment Fraud
   • Unrealistic Returns, Corporate Greed, and Manufactured Trust
   • Misuse of Investor Funds and Manufactured Wealth Disparity
   • Timeline of the Inventis Ventures Scheme
3. Human Cost and Economic Fallout for Vietnamese and Latino Communities
4. Corporate Accountability, Neoliberal Capitalism, and the Erosion of Public Trust
5. Why This Case Matters for Corporate Ethics and Public Health of Society

Background: Corporate Social Responsibility Meets a “Progressive Return” Mirage

On paper, Inventis Ventures, LLC and Inventis Ventures Holding, Inc. presented themselves as firms engaged in “strategic assisted investment planning with progressive repeatable return on investment.” In practice, the SEC alleges, these entities were vehicles for a large-scale offering fraud centered in Tustin, California.

Between March 2022 and November 2023, the operation raised at least $26.5 million from more than 1,400 investors, many of whom were unaccredited and drawn from Vietnamese and Latino working-class communities across at least 12 states. Investors were promised extraordinary “guaranteed” profits… returns of 15% per month or at least 360% per year, with their principal supposedly coming back after one year.

This is the capitalism that must needs be stopped: the warm language of “opportunity” and “portfolio” masking a simple transfer of wealth from the many to the few.

Allegations of Corporate Corruption and Ponzi-Like Investment Fraud

Unrealistic Returns, Corporate Greed, and Manufactured Trust

According to the SEC, Inventis pitched itself as a safe, almost charitable engine of prosperity. For a minimum investment of $5,000, investors were allegedly promised:

• 15% monthly returns or at least 360% after one year
• Return of their principal at the end of the term
• “Guaranteed,” “safe,” or even “insured” investments

Le and employees she trained told investors their money would be used for:

• Commercial and residential real estate
• Construction financing
• Health-insurance-related investments “with the government”
• Special arrangements with banks supposedly providing 40% returns, part of which would be shared with investors and referrers

These representations created the illusion of corporate social responsibility: a small firm using sophisticated financial channels to uplift ordinary people. Instead, the SEC describes classic corporate greed wrapped in friendly community marketing.

Misuse of Investor Funds and Manufactured Wealth Disparity

The SEC says the truth was very different:

• Investor funds were used to pay earlier investors “returns,” in classic Ponzi-like fashion.
• Approximately $16.5 million was distributed as supposed investment returns, and about $1.5 million went to referral fees, leaving at least $8.5 million in net investor funds.
• Bank records cited in the SEC’s legal complaint indicate that about $4.7 million went to entities controlled by Le and Luu, roughly $1 million went to their personal accounts, and more than $880,000 was used to purchase real estate and pay mortgages.

This is corporate corruption in minimalist form: no skyscrapers, no global boardroom strategy, just a corporate shell used to strip wealth from those with the least cushion.

When the scheme began to fail, many investors abruptly stopped receiving their monthly payments and, according to the SEC, never recovered their principal.

That’s how neoliberal capitalism often works in practice: losses are socialized downward onto working-class households; gains are privatized upward into trust accounts, property, and luxury travel.

Timeline of the Inventis Ventures Scheme

Key events, according to the SEC:

Human Cost and Economic Fallout for Vietnamese and Latino Communities

The SEC emphasizes that this alleged offering fraud fell primarily on Vietnamese and Latino communities, including many unaccredited investors.

These are precisely the communities neoliberal capitalism likes to describe as “underserved markets” while quietly treating them as extraction zones.

Economic fallout and wealth disparity:

• Investors were encouraged to treat the scheme as a path to stability. Shit like regular monthly cash, “safe” returns, and the possibility of rolling gains into new contracts.
• When payments stopped and principal was not returned, families were left with the downside risk they were told did not exist.
• Referral payments (3% or 5% monthly on new investments) turned community trust into an internal marketing machine, turning neighbors into unpaid sales agents for the company’s balance sheet.

In terms of corporate social responsibility, this is negative responsibility: instead of strengthening community wealth, the corporate structure amplified wealth disparity, concentrating gains in the hands of the insiders while dispersing losses across hundreds of working-class households.

The social damage goes beyond bank balances. Trust in community leaders, small businesses, and financial education is corroded. When a firm draped in corporate language betrays its own community, it reinforces the belief that finance is a rigged game and that regulation is just an after-the-fact headline.

Corporate Accountability, Neoliberal Capitalism, and the Erosion of Public Trust

This evil scheme is a small-scale, local expression of systemic incentives:

• Corporate ethics are reduced to branding while corporate greed becomes the operating principle.
• Corporate accountability relies heavily on overburdened regulators arriving only after the damage is done.
• Neoliberal capitalism rewards high-velocity capital flows and punishes caution; promises of 360% returns are not treated as red flags until the checks bounce.

According to the SEC, Inventis never registered its securities, never provided audited financials, and made widespread use of general solicitation across state lines. Under a genuinely protective system, this combination would be structurally difficult, not routine.

Public trust in markets is a public health issue for society. When people come to believe that every investment is a potential trap, they disengage from legitimate opportunities, remain underbanked, and stay more exposed to predatory actors who thrive in the shadows.

Why This Case Matters for Corporate Ethics and the Public Health of Society

Corporations talk corporate social responsibility while practicing exploitation.

Inventis allegedly:

• Used high-sounding language about portfolios and “emerging projects” to mask a Ponzi-like structure.
• Turned racialized and immigrant communities into high-yield targets, not partners in shared prosperity.
• Treated the corporate form as a shield for private enrichment rather than a vehicle for collective value creation.

For the well-being of society, cases like this force basic questions:

• Can a capitalistic economic system that routinely allows such schemes still claim moral legitimacy?
• How many “isolated incidents” does it take before we admit that corporate corruption is a feature, not a bug, of neoliberal capitalism?
• What does corporate accountability look like when the victims are scattered across communities with limited political power?

If we are serious about reducing wealth disparity and protecting public health in a broad social sense (housing security, mental health, intergenerational stability) then we cannot treat corporate misconduct as a minor compliance issue as we’ve been doing thus far.

The SEC has a press release on this pyramid scheme from November 19th 2025 if you want to check it out on their website: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26421