From what I've read, "investors" aren't being mislead about where their money is going. They simply aren't being told to a satisfactory degree.
That might be true of some hypothetical scheme. But in the cases listed here, investors are being affirmatively mislead. (Assuming there aren't real investments as the investors are being told.)
That may be splitting hairs, in your book, but this is a classic example of "buyer beware."
Yes, but that doesn't mean what you think it means. "Buyer beware" is just like "pedestrian beware". When you walk in the streets, you better look where you're going because you're the one who will wind up in a hospital or dead if you get hit by a car. But you can't justify reckless driving or intentionally running down pedestrians by saying pedestrians should beware. One has nothing to do with the other.
Obviously some people are pretty happy with the arrangement. Some aren't.
People are often happy when they are lied to, if they believe the lies. Surely that doesn't justify lying to get someone's money.
With all the information available here and elsewhere, I think you would be hard pressed to say anyone is being "scammed" when people are voluntarily handing over their money based on the info they receive. If this turns out to be a bust, the "investor" has absolutely nobody to blame but himself.
Bullshit. A liar has no defense by saying "you shouldn't have believed me". Whether that's true or not, it's no defense of the lair.
If you stumble down a dark street alone in a bad neighborhood with $100 bills sticking out of your pockets, you're going to get robbed. And in a sense, you have nobody to blame but yourself. But don't for a second imagine that this takes any blame away from the robbers or makes what they do justified to even the slightest extent.