The Not-So-Great Pyramid: Why multi-level marketing is always a bad idea

“Honest work is much better than a mansion.”— Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy

“It’s a big job, just getting by”—Merle Haggard, “Working Man’s Blues”

Most everybody works hard, and despite this effort, most everybody has limited resources. It’s disheartening for us to struggle and sacrifice and yet still fear financial catastrophes, such as a major car repair or outsized medical bill, to say nothing of the specter of job loss and the uncertainty of retirement. We were told as children that we were special, at least by Mr. Rogers et al, and so it is especially unsettling to find ourselves living ordinary lives. It doesn’t seem fair.

This feeling of injustice, otherwise known as quiet desperation, creates a problem to be solved, which in turn creates a market with products to be sold. As with other terrors of modern life such as the hopelessness of finding a suitable romantic partner or the failure to lose weight, this void has been filled with a creature both utterly modern and thoroughly timeless: the huckster.

Here, the huckster has taken the form of a “brand ambassador,” who agrees with you in these key areas: You ARE special and you were meant to be wealthy, wealthy in a way that manifests itself in material goods and tropical vacations. You’re meant to be a success, but the problem is, you’ve been doing it wrong (and nobody needs to tell you THAT). Your boss is “buying you at wholesale and selling you at retail,” when fairness dictates that you keep the fruits of your labor for yourself. You need to cut out the middle man. Oh, and you get a Lexus.

To right this injustice, you simply join your new advocate in a business opportunity known as multi-level marketing, also known as direct selling or network marketing, but hereinafter called MLM.

In this post, I’ll define MLM and explain why it’s mostly illegal and always ill-advised. I’ll explain why I advise anyone who will listen to avoid these scams (and let me be clear: they are all scams in one way or another).

What is an MLM?

We’re familiar with MLMs because we can name a few of the largest ones. The products are not sold in stores but are sold by your friends, neighbors, and relatives, sometimes at parties or online. Perhaps someone we know has approached us to sell Amway or Pampered Chef home products, Avon or Mary Kay cosmetics, or Young Living or doTerra essential oils.

MLMs are regulated by state agencies and by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which defines an MLM as an organization that

  

distributes products or services through a network of salespeople who are not employees of the company and do not receive a salary or wage. Instead, members of the company’s salesforce usually are treated as independent contractors, who may earn income depending on their own revenues and expenses. Typically, the company does not directly recruit its salesforce, but relies upon its existing salespeople to recruit additional salespeople, which creates multiple levels of “distributors” or “participants” organized in “downlines.” A participant’s “downline” is the network of his or her recruits, and recruits of those recruits, and so on. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/business-guidance-concerning-multi-level-marketing

How do legitimate MLMs differ from illegal pyramid schemes?

Chain letters and Ponzi schemes are clearly illegal and ill-advised, and most people know those are sketchy, so it doesn’t make sense to talk about those in depth here.

(A chain letter asks you to send money and a copy of the letter to a certain number of people, with the false hope that you’ll get even more money back. A Ponzi scheme takes money from new investors and gives it to current investors, making them believe that the enterprise is profitable, thereby defrauding them into investing more money.)

In short, organizations that don’t sell products but make their money by recruiting new members who pay joining fees that profit those further up the chain are certainly illegal pyramid schemes.

But MLM promoters often claim that MLMs are NOT pyramid schemes by definition, because MLMs sell real products. This isn’t necessarily true. An MLM can sell products AND function as an illegal pyramid scheme at the same time.

The key difference is: Do participants make money by profiting from the sale of a legitimate product to other people, which is legal, or do participants make money primarily by recruiting other people to join the organization, which is illegal? See In re Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 86 F.T.C. 1106, 1181 (1975)

That is, if you buy legitimate products from a wholesaler and make your money by selling the products at retail to other people without making false claims regarding the products’ effectiveness, you’re not breaking the law.

Few MLM participants adhere to this, however, as I’ll explain below. 

Even “legal” MLMs cause the participants to break the law

Many MLMs operate within the bounds of the law (barely). In fact, they’ve wisely hired lawyers who specialize in this area of the law to advise them on how to push the envelope—but not so far that they’ll be sanctioned by the FTC or sued by a state’s attorney general.

Even if the MLM operates legally, its participants usually don’t. They operate as independent contractors and are not closely supervised by company employees, and their claims are hard to regulate because they’re made at parties or on social media and not in widely distributed written materials such as sales brochures.

This loose structure allows MLM participants to break the law in two keys ways. First, they make (or attempt to make) a profit primarily through recruiting new members rather than by selling product. Second, they make false claims about the product.  

Amway and the 70 percent rule

We’ve established that a “legitimate” MLM is distinguished from an illegal pyramid scheme because the bulk of its profits results from product sales and not downline recruiting, but how much product must be sold to satisfy this requirement?

The decision in the 1979 case In re Amway Corp. (93 F.T.C. 618) answers that question. Here, the judge held that if 70 percent of an MLM’s earnings come from product sales, then the MLM is not an illegal pyramid scheme.

It’s easy for an MLM to reach the 70 percent mark. The MLM requires its new recruits to buy a certain amount of products from it at the outset and perhaps at regular intervals, thus making 70 percent or more of its profits from product sales. This works well for the MLM, but it means that the members must sell all of those products or be stuck with them.

Even in the unlikely event that the member sells that many bottles of lotion to the public, the earnings will not generate enough income to make the effort worthwhile. The member may meet the 70 percent rule but will be making a modest income, which isn’t the member’s goal.

The real money is in adding new recruits to the bottom of the pyramid, which motivates the member to recruit new participants and make promises that violate FTC regulations including the 70 percent rule.

The MLM is in the clear, but you are not. Because you’re an independent contractor who is violating written MLM company policy that you agreed to when you signed up, the MLM won’t defend you if you get into trouble.

False claims

In addition to overstating the potential financial gains, MLM participants are prone to make false or misleading claims about the products themselves. These claims may constitute false advertising or worse—untrue or even dangerous promises about the health benefits and risks of the products.

The biggest problem areas: Dietary aids, supplements, anti-aging potions, and some household products.

When selling a dietary supplement or food product, to suggest that a product is intended to “diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease” violates the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Further, to make such claims violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Taken to the extreme, you could be practicing medicine without a license.

Two recent, egregious examples:

The now-defunct MonaVie (sellers of acai fruit juices) claimed that its juices contained large concentrations of phenolics, which were said to prevent or treat such conditions as hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease. Independent laboratories tested the juice and found that it contained fewer phenolics than Mott’s apple juice and Welch’s grape juice, even though it was priced 40 times higher. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to MonaVie. The MLM toned down the claims, but its members did not and continued to promote the juice as a miracle drug.

Essential oil MLM Young Living encountered a similar problem by stating that using its oils in the home infused the household air with disease-fighting and illness-preventing properties. The FDA sanctioned Young Living, but this has not stopped its members from making these claims, and the FDA has collected screen shots from members’ social media accounts as evidence.

While MLMs frequently violate FTC and FDA regulations, that’s far from the only legal trouble they’ve encountered. They’ve also been sued by celebrities for using their images without permission. Anti-aging skin care MLM Nerium International settled out of court with actor Ray Liotta when it falsely claimed that he was a Nerium customer and featured him in advertisements that used doctored before-and-after pictures of his “results” without his permission. (Speaking of Nerium, it contains oleander, which is toxic in small doses. Users have reported skin rashes and other serious side effects.)

Note that the MLMs have a team of lawyers and millions of dollars to survive these legal actions. Its members do not, and the MLM generally will not aid in your defense.

Both of these behaviors (profiting by recruiting and making false claims) mean that the MLM participants are breaking the law even if the MLM itself is not. And both of these behaviors are rampant in MLM participants.

You’ll lose money

Despite the compelling sales pitch, almost no one makes money by joining an MLM. Indeed, the numbers are bleak.

A study of 350 MLMs conducted by the independent research firm Consumer Awareness Institute found that 99 percent of MLM participants lose money. (Jon M. Taylor, MBA, PhD., “The Case (for and) against MLMs.”) The study further found that the net income for the few who profited was insignificant. For example, acai juice MLM MonaVie’s own financial disclosure report from 2007 showed that less than one percent of members earned a commission at all, while ten percent of that one percent earned a commission greater than $100 for the entire year.

And do not believe the company’s claims that its participants earn money. These reports, even when technically accurate, are written to deceive. For example, the FTC found that Nu Skin’s “2008 Distributor Compensation Summary” listed the income for the handful of people who made significant profits but then falsely projected these earnings onto the other participants to show an astronomically high rate of return for all participants. MLMs frequently do this: Take two or three successful participants and then imply that all participants met with similar success.

One reason it’s hard to make money: Overhead is high. To comply with the 70 percent rule, MLMs require recruits to buy large amounts of product, commonly $5,000 as with Lularoe leggings. It’s hard to sell $5,000 worth of leggings to your friends and family.

The real money in MLMs, then, is made by the people who set up the company. That’s not you.

It’s rude

Most of us would sooner pick up a wild-eyed hitchhiker who is brandishing a bloody knife than invite a relative into our home who is making an MLM pitch.

The favorite sales and recruiting tool of the “brand ambassador” is the “party.” Real parties are warm gatherings in which you artlessly spend time with people you like. If you’re selling something, you’re not a host, the attendees are not your guests, and it’s not a party. It’s rude to conceal a business venture in the guise of a social event. Don’t do it.

There’s nothing wrong with selling products or services to someone you know. Indeed, it would be hard to avoid doing this if you own a small business. The difference is: Are you trading on your relationship with this person to manipulate them into doing business with you? If so, it’s unethical.

Even more unpleasant, some MLM recruiters adopt cultish behavior. When I was researching this post, many commenters reported that family and friends had chosen to end relationships when their targets refused to join an MLM. When I left comments on some online posts, MLM participants attacked me with harsh language and fervor usually reserved for defending a political candidate. It was downright disturbing.

To me, this should be enough to dissuade you from joining an MLM.

How to research an MLM

If all of the above hasn’t stopped you from considering an MLM, I hope you’ll at least research the MLM and make an informed decision.

Here’s the best way to do it:

First, don’t bother Googling the name of the company, even if you include “scam” or “fraud” in your search terms. MLMs and their proponents write blog posts with titles such as “I though this company was a SCAM but….” The first three or so pages of your search results will return these phony positive accounts, so it doesn’t help to Google. Further, MLMs tend to bully reviewers by threatening them with lawsuits unless they remove their negative reviews. It’s therefore hard to find any honest accounts of MLMs online.

In general, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) is not helpful—for anything, really. The BBB has been credibly accused of bias toward those businesses that pay membership dues. It’s unlikely that the MLM would have been on the losing side of the BBB’s dispute resolution process, so you’d either find no information at all or an untrustworthy favorable rating. Skip the BBB.

Instead, start with your state’s consumer affairs agency. Their website (and their often helpful staff) will tell you if consumers have filed complaints against the MLM (and they almost always have) and have detailed information on the various scams and frauds that have plagued the state’s consumers. Tennessee’s is the Department of Consumer Affairs at https://www.tn.gov/commerce/consumer-affairs.html, but find yours by visiting your state’s secretary of state’s website and navigating to consumer affairs from there.

While you’re at the state level, ask your state’s attorney general’s office whether the company has been sued by the state. Often, the state’s consumer affairs division is part of the attorney general’s office, but it doesn’t hurt to check both places even if this is so.

Then, go to the federal level. The FTC website has quite a bit of helpful information. In addition to its general information section on scams and fraud and warnings about recent scams (https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/scam-alerts), it describes recent and historical complaint cases and their outcomes. Start with https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings.

Next, ask yourself (and the recruiter) these questions:

Start with specific questions such as: How long has the company been in business? Who is the CEO? Have there been any complaints? You’re not asking these questions to get the specific information contained in the answers, but you’ll find that the recruiter doesn’t know the answers at all, which is a very bad sign.

Ask for time to consider the written materials. If you’re not allowed to do this, don’t get involved. A legitimate business opportunity is upfront about its numbers and wants you to make a sound decision. It provides its prospective investors with written materials and gives them time to review them. Before you commit, discuss the MLM with a trusted friend or adviser, particularly if the friend or adviser is an accountant or a lawyer.

Think about this: If the product is so effective and therefore profitable, why aren’t the companies that make their profits from selling similar products already selling THESE products? Cosmetic companies, for example, spend millions of dollars per year on research and development, so it isn’t credible that Olay and Neutrogena have failed to develop a certain revolutionary wrinkle cream or bought the rights to sell it, and it doesn’t make sense that stores such as Wal-Mart or Target aren’t making millions from retailing the product.

Because the recruiter is discussing his income with you openly, ask to see his income tax returns from the last year or so. If this sounds odd to you, consider that any other company that would have you be their sales rep would show to you a profit-loss statement, so why not this one? Your recruiter claims to be an entrepreneur and wants you to be one, too, so it’s only fair that you examine relevant financial documents.

If this product is so effective at helping people lose weight or avoid the visible signs of aging, has the recruiter effortlessly maintained a slim figure or an ageless appearance? If not, clearly the product doesn’t work. If you think about it, you may conclude that your cousin or friend appears to be aging at roughly the same rate as the rest of us.

Finally, consider your personality and interests. If you’ve never spent many hours per week successfully selling products, or if you’ve got no experience running a similar business, this may not be the best fit for you.

The truth is, MLMs are profitable for those who own the MLM but not for those who participate in it. The best way to be successful with regard to MLMs is to avoid them entirely.

Prove it: A course correction regarding evidence in light of Kavanaugh

There's no point for me to add my voice to that of the thousands of writers who are discussing the Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations. I can’t say anything that isn’t already being said. Besides, the matter keeps evolving as more information comes to light, so anything I write will be obsolete as soon as I write it.

I’m interested in evidence and the law of evidence, however, so I thought it would be helpful to correct some common misconceptions that I’ve heard about evidence that have cropped up as people discuss these allegations.

Criminal acts are not criminal charges

First things first: The source of the misconceptions

People are confused in part because the allegations, if true, describe a criminal act.

Kavanaugh won’t be charged with a crime, however. While it’s tempting to apply standards of evidence related to criminal prosecution here, it’s technically incorrect.

Presumption of innocence

If you think he did it, I guess you don’t believe in ‘innocent until proven guilty’!

In a criminal prosecution (and this is not that), the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty under a particular standard of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt, for example) to the trier of fact.

This principle is an ancient one, and it’s one of the most important tenets of our criminal justice system: that the government cannot imprison a person unless they have proven every element of a criminal charge. It’s vital in a free society, because it prevents, among other things, political leaders from imprisoning critics of their regimes.

It’s also an admirable value for us to have in general. We should doubt the bad things we hear about people unless we’ve got good reason to believe otherwise. In particular, we should afford Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt (although I suppose we’re not required to).

Still, being quick to judge is different than taking a serious allegation seriously. We can and should do both. We should take all such allegations seriously (no matter which political party will be hurt by it) and then investigate to see if we believe the allegations. If we believe them, we’ve got a decision to make: If we find the allegation credible, does it disqualify the person?

In this case, the Senate Judiciary Committee has asked Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey Ford to testify. After hearing her testimony and asking questions and considering all of their other findings, they will decide whether to send Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate for a vote on whether he should be confirmed.

If they find Ford credible, they’ve got a grave decision to make. That is, if they believe that Kavanaugh committed attempted rape when he was 17 and has now apparently lied under oath to them about it recently, they must decide whether to send his nomination forward, allowing the full Senate to vote to confirm or not by a simple majority. As they vote, the Senators will be considering the same thing: If true, does this disqualify him from serving?

Many of the Senators have already made statements that they presume him to be innocent. Others have stated, incredibly, that even if her allegations are true, they don’t consider it to be disqualifying. We can infer from these statements that they will be fair to Kavanaugh, perhaps more than fair.

While various pundits and members of the public have alternately said that Kavanaugh is clearly innocent of wrongdoing or that Ford is clearly mistaken or lying, it appears that the people who will make this decision (the Senate) are committed to a presumption of innocence to say the least.

Due Process

Kavanaugh’s life is being destroyed with no Due Process!

Due process is another bedrock principle of our republic, and it doesn’t just apply to criminal cases.

The Fifth Amendment (and the 14^th Amendment, as applied to the states), guarantees that “no man… shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” U.S. Const. am. 5 and 14.

This means that, if the government seeks to take away your life (death penalty), your freedom (imprison you), or take your property (condemn your property, for example), you must be given Due Process.

What “process” is actually “due” depends on the nature of the action.

A death penalty case obviously affords the accused the highest form of process, as does a prison sentence.

Procedural due process is a lesser form but still requires the government to provide notice to the person and the right to a hearing. This form of due process is used when the government seeks to terminate a person’s welfare benefits, for example.

Here, you can see that Kavanaugh is not being deprived of his life, liberty, or property. He hasn’t got a property interest in the Supreme Court seat, and of course won’t be executed or imprisoned if he isn’t nominated, so the government is therefore not depriving him of life, liberty, or property no matter what happens. Therefore, Due Process is not triggered here.

Still, the nomination process for the Supreme Court is prescribed by the Constitution and will be followed. That’s not a Due Process thing, but we can be confident that Kavanaugh won’t be deprived of anything under color of the Constitution.

This is serious, though, so we can’t dismiss this concern out of hand.

I think people are objecting to the idea that a person can accuse someone of a terrible act, and the mere accusation can ruin the accused’s life. The prime example of this is an accusation of sexual assault. It’s the most damaging thing of which one can be accused, and a false allegation is therefore monstrous. We should be concerned about that and should make every effort to guard against injustice for all people in all its forms. As we hope to validate the purported victim, we should be equally if not more concerned with protecting the purported perpetrator.

The allegation has been made, however, and the Senate has got no other reasonable choice than to consider it. If you think about it, what else can they do? A reasonable person wouldn’t have them ignore it.

Burden of proof vs. standard of evidence

He should have to take a lie detector test to prove his innocence!

She can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt!

We’ve already established that this is not a criminal trial (or a civil or administrative action, even), so these two concepts don’t apply. Still, they are confused and misstated so often that it’s helpful to discuss them.

“Burden of proof” means that the party who brings the accusation must prove it (rather than accusing someone of something and then requiring that he prove his innocence).

This is often confused with the term “standard of evidence,” which is the level of proof required to convince the trier of fact that a proposition is true. (It’s often called a “burden of persuasion” or a “standard of proof,” so you can see why it’s confused with “burden of proof.”)

The standards of evidence commonly used are:

1) Beyond a reasonable doubt--A reasonable person would find it to be true not beyond any doubt but to the extent that there is no other reasonable possibility, perhaps to a 95 percent level of confidence (criminal cases)

2) Clear and convincing evidence—There is a high probability of truth but not an absolute certainty, perhaps to a 75 percent level of confidence (sometimes used in civil cases, particularly those that affect civil liberties)

3) To a preponderance of the evidence—More likely than not, perhaps to a more than 50% level of confidence (often used in some civil cases and some administrative actions)

One of my colleagues noted that he uses the “preponderance of evidence” standard he uses (informally) in situations when he’s trying to decide whether he should vote for a politician despite an allegation of wrongdoing. Does he find it more likely than not, for example, that Trump or (Bill) Clinton is a serial harasser/assaulter? In both cases, he does, and decided not to vote for them because he found the allegations credible and also disqualifying. He suggested that this same standard would be the right one for the members of the committee to use here.

Testimony is evidence

It’s he said/she said. There is no evidence, only testimony.

Testimony IS a type of evidence, and it’s often the bulk of the evidence we’ve got. It can be unreliable, but we often value it as highly reliable.

“Testimony” is a sworn statement made under oath, so statements that a victim makes about her recollections of the incident aren’t testimony or evidence unless they’re made under oath. It’s therefore inaccurate to call the statements that Ford has made or Kavanaugh’s statement denying them “testimony.”

If you doubt that testimony is evidence or that it can be reliable, consider the case of a healthy, sober 30-year-old man who is mugged on a clear, sunny street where there are no security cameras. He reports the incident to the police, a suspect is arrested, and the case goes to trial. On the stand, the victim describes the crime and the perpetrator in detail and identifies him in court. He is consistent and certain, and his story survives cross-examination intact. This testimony will be the only significant evidence in this criminal case, and the jury will no doubt find it reliable when they convict.

What people mean, however, is that in matters such as this where there is no surviving evidence that might corroborate the allegations or denials, how can we be sure which person’s story is true?

We can’t, really. As with all testimony, we rely on bringing the person under oath and then allowing him or her to testify. We then ask questions, hopefully pointed questions. We then weigh the testimony (and the demeanor of the declarant) and decide whether we find it to be credible.

In this case, we’ve got a strong allegation and an equally strong denial, so we decide in the same way we always decide: We weigh the evidence we’ve got (however scant) and ask ourselves whether we believe it.

Sometimes, this method is sound, and sometimes it isn’t. It’s all we can do, however.

Testimony is not circumstantial evidence

One person’s memory is circumstantial evidence, and you can’t trust it!

Testimony is not circumstantial evidence. It is usually direct evidence. In popular culture “circumstantial evidence” has become a synonym for “unreliable evidence.”

This is a grievous misconception. Sometimes, direct evidence is wholly unreliable, while circumstantial evidence can be quite reliable.

You may be surprised to learn the difference.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires an inference to connect it to a fact. For example, DNA evidence, fingerprints, fibers, hair, etc., are circumstantial.

In other words, just because a Defendant’s fingerprints were found at the scene of a robbery, this doesn’t mean that he is guilty of the robbery. Perhaps he was at the scene at a different time for a different reason. The evidence (fingerprints) requires an inference (they were found at the scene; therefore, the Defendant must have left them as he was committing the robbery).

Direct evidence, then, supports the fact without need of an inference. The eyewitness testimony (“I saw the Defendant robbing the store!”) of a drunk, blind, witness who has a history of lying is direct evidence.

In this case, the circumstantial evidence is far more reliable than the direct evidence.

Confirmation bias

When someone we support is accused of something, we tend to view the accusations with a skepticism that would torment Sextus Empiricus. When a representative of the other “side” is accused of the same thing, suddenly the accusation is wholly reliable and people are degenerates for doubting it.

This is confirmation bias at work. We like to think that we carefully view the facts and then base our beliefs on those carefully-considered facts. The opposite is true. We form our beliefs, and then go hunting for validation. We cherry-pick the facts, giving great weight to those that support our belief while dismissing those that don’t.

We’re seeing that here. Folks who cheerfully call Bill Clinton a rapist assert that Kavanaugh cannot be, while those who believe this about Kavanaugh defend Clinton.

We should apply the same standards to everyone. That means we should take allegations seriously, investigate them as best we can, and then decide what to do about them, making consistent decisions each time.

A better man: How to avoid danger and have a wonderful life with honest people

This is condensed from ideas I shared in a roundtable discussion with other lawyers. Two important notes: 1) All of this information comes from my private practice and not with my work for the state, and 2) I changed minor details to protect the identities of some of the parties.

A recent newspaper article tells this familiar tale: A Texas woman met a man online and formed a romantic entanglement with him. She allowed him to move into her home and gave him access to her money, only to discover too late that he was in concurrent relationships with several other women in different states and was bleeding them dry, too. Now, her life savings is gone and so is the man.

Before we judge, we should note that the women in these stories are usually smart, professional women. They are not gullible in other matters. Still, these women were fooled. Why? Mainly: The men are masters of deception. They spot vulnerabilities and capitalize on them. It’s simply what they do, just as a shark swims and feeds on prey.

There’s something else at work here, too. I am often surprised that most people are unaware of some free or low-cost methods for checking someone’s background using matters that are public record and are therefore available to everyone who knows where to look.

This is a sad story, but it’s not a new story. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the story is the women’s typical refrain: “I had no way to know that he wasn’t who he said he was.” The reporters often repeat this: “How could they have known?”

This always surprises me when I hear this, because it occurs to me that most people truly do not know how to spot inconsistencies and verify information.

Because I have done thousands of background checks over the years and because it happens to be something for which I’ve got a knack, I have developed several resources that I have found trustworthy. Any of these strategies would have saved the women in this story.

To avoid confusion and because the article that we were discussing has this particular set of facts, I will use masculine pronouns for the perpetrator and feminine pronouns for the victim and I will assume a romantic relationship. This doesn’t universally hold true, of course: Women do this to men, too, and it happens in same-sex relationships, friendships, and even professional relationships.

It’s critical to point this out: Do not break the law by attempting to get information through sources that are not public record. Do not misrepresent yourself or otherwise use dishonest methods to gain access to confidential information. Also, remember that healthy relationships are built on trust and honesty. Do not “investigate” someone who is making a good-faith effort to be upfront with you. Many people become world-class detectives when they are dating someone. Snooping can be morally wrong, and it’s a breach of trust. If you cannot ask questions and be satisfied with the answers, the problem may lie with you, and you should not be dating until you have resolved it.

Again, these tips are meant only to protect someone who has serious questions about another person’s integrity and may therefore be in danger. In short, it’s the remedy for “I had no way of knowing.”

1. Gut feelings: You’ve got doubts, and that fact alone is a red flag. It means that something about this person doesn’t add up, and yet you may be unable to articulate exactly what it is yet. Still, you know something is wrong, so don’t ignore that feeling.

It also means that you don’t feel that you can ask certain questions or that you’re not getting straight answers when you do ask them. This alone is reason enough to put the brakes on.

All of these stories include a lot of “I thought it was odd when…” and “I wondered why he….”

2. Family relationships: Have you met his family? If he hasn’t got a somewhat stable relationship with his mother, father, siblings, and children, this is a bad sign unless there is a reasonable explanation for ONE of these broken relationships.

For example, he may have a tense relationship with his father, because his father is an alcoholic and abandoned the family at some point, but he acknowledges this and still has a close relationship with the rest of the family. That’s normal family dysfunction.

Certainly, if he says that his family refuses to speak to him or that they’re afraid of him, this signifies danger.

3. Current work: Has he got a real job? Is it something he can describe to you in more than just vague terms?

This is one of the biggest lies that con artists tell: “I’m retired military, and I’m doing contract work overseas.” This is true because it sounds dashing and inspires sympathy, but it also provides a handy excuse for not giving you details (national security!) and for being gone for weeks at a time.

I have worked with a lot of retired military men who are doing contract work overseas, and all of them can tell you where they’re working (in general), for whom, and what they’re doing (again, in general terms). Even if it’s a matter of national security, he can give you the name of the company and tell you what he’s doing without revealing confidential information: training troops or working security, say.

There are few legitimate reasons for a person’s job to be a mystery.

Beware also: The “entrepreneur.” Real entrepreneurs can tell you what they sell or what service they provide, and they ought to be out there selling it or providing it much of the time. Self-employment should still look like employment.

4. Military service: Speaking of military service, if the guy is not close friends with the men with whom he served, he is either lying about his military service entirely, or something is very wrong with him. Military men are always lifelong close friends with the men with whom they served. Always. If his military service sounds too heroic to be true, ask other men you know who served in the military and get their take on it. Military men can spot a phony story from a mile away.

Obviously, the military and the Veterans Administration will not release any information to you. It’s a violation of the soldier’s privacy, both legally and ethically, so do not attempt this.

5. Professional licensure: Speaking of jobs, check his professional licensure. If he is a doctor, lawyer, accountant, or a member of one of many other professions, he is required to be licensed by the state in which he practices. This is the number one place I look after I look at criminal records, and this has proven incredibly fruitful. No one ever thinks to look here, but it is in fact one place you should always look—and it’s free.

You can either go to the state’s website and navigate to the secretary of state’s page and go from there OR simply Google his profession, the state, and “licensure” or “license lookup.” Make sure you go to the official .gov page. Every state’s board of licensure for each profession has a license verification feature for the public’s use.

You will find out whether he is licensed to practice and whether he has been disciplined and why.

Also, if he was a member of a profession but claims that he decided to stop practicing, take heed. People change careers for legitimate reasons (Example: After 20 years, he’s decided to stop practicing as a Certified Public Accountant in order to teach accounting at a college.) Still, this is a little unusual given the time and effort that it takes to become a certified member of a profession, so you should look up his license to see if his story checks out.

Example: I did a background check on someone who claimed to be a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) but said he left the profession because he “wanted a change.” The change he wanted was to avoid discipline for sexual misconduct. He was on probation with his state’s licensing board due to “sexual touching/sexual remarks directed at a patient.” While he was on probation, another patient in another city reported him for the same offense, and he lost his license.

6. Criminal records: You likely will not be able to run an official criminal background check on someone without having a legitimate business purpose for doing so, and even then you’d need the person’s permission to do it.

An official criminal records check is not necessary, however. I use an online reporting service for this, and while it’s not perfect, I have been impressed with the results. You’ll pay a small fee (usually $20), but it’s worth every penny. I use beenverified.com, and it’s the only such service I recommend.

Example: A father felt that there was something not quite right about the man who was dating his daughter. Five minutes later, we knew that he had beaten his pregnant girlfriend nearly to death in another state and had domestic violence charges pending in yet another.

I warn you that not all jurisdictions report timely and completely, so this is not foolproof. Still, I urge you not to skip this step.

7. Prison time: Your state’s Department of Corrections website has an offender search for all current and released inmates going back several years. Check every state in which he’s lived.

This doesn’t work if he’s been in the county jail but was not sentenced to prison. Most county sheriff departments and metropolitan police departments have a similar website and arrest reports for their jurisdiction, however.

Example: I did a criminal background check on a man in a distant state and found that he hadn’t been convicted of a crime. He was in the county jail, though, awaiting trial on multiple felony counts that included running an auto theft ring in several states.

8. Sex offender registry: Similarly, look him up on the state sex offender registry for every state in which you know he’s lived. The FBI maintains a directory of these, so you can simply click on the link of the state in question (https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/sex-offender-registry). While you’re at it, quickly check the national registry at https://www.nsopw.gov. These are very thorough and are free and easy to use.

9. Property records: These are usually (but not always) maintained on each county’s tax assessor’s website. These sites are free and easy to use, but it can be very tedious to go to every county’s website where you think me may own property. Do it anyway, because it’s important to know what real property he owns, WITH WHOM, and whether there are any encumbrances on the property (such as liens).

Example: A woman was wondering if her new boyfriend was being honest when he said he owned his own home. We looked it up, and indeed he did own his own home… with his wife of 35 years.

10. Court records: As with real property records, you’ll probably have to go to each court’s website. Sometimes, you may have to pay a small fee to view documents online. This is the place to find out if someone has been the defendant in a criminal trial, for example, and sometimes you can find marriage and divorce records here.

11. Driving records: As with general criminal records, you probably won’t be able to order another person’s driving record without his permission (check your state’s law here https://www.dmv.org/driving-records.php), so don’t bother. The above tips about criminal convictions, jail time, and similar will tell you everything you need to know. Most states report to a central electronic database, and beenverified.com will have this information. It doesn’t have details, but you can see whether something was an infraction such as a speeding ticket or a more serious criminal charge. Once you know that and know the jurisdiction, you can check the county court’s database as described above if you need more details.

But more to the point: Ask him: Has he got a driver’s license? If not, why not? There is almost nothing he can say here that will be a satisfactory answer. There are a few reasons why an adult wouldn’t have a driver’s license, and 99 percent of those reasons are bad. Typically, it signals a substance abuse problem or child support arrears.

12. Online presence: Odds are, you’ve already Googled him six ways to Sunday, so there’s little to add here. One red flag you may have missed: If he hasn’t got much of an online presence at all, that’s quite unusual in this day and age, and you should figure out why. People who use assumed names and move around a lot don’t. Almost everyone else does, even if they don’t really care to.

13. Ask him: You can tell a lot by the way a person answers a question. Pay attention to the answer. If the person answers a different question than the one you asked, something is wrong.

Example: If you ask someone if he uses drugs and he says, “That’s ridiculous. I don’t even drink,” note that he didn’t answer your question. A friend of mine asked a man if he had ever abused a woman. He answered, “I mean, I’ve never beaten up a woman, if that’s what you’re asking.”

People rarely lie outright. People often fail to tell the truth, however.

By the same token, he may answer a question honestly, but we don’t want to hear the answer. We’ve got to keep working on that. It’s unfair to expect a man to be someone he’s not and then be disappointed or angry when he doesn’t change.

In conclusion: I believe most people are honest and downright terrific. That has been my experience. Further, some of the best people I know have committed crimes or have made other serious mistakes in the past, but they have taken responsibility, made amends, and are now committed to leading an ethical life. We have ALL made mistakes.

Every now and then, however, we encounter a person who hasn’t got our best interest at heart and may be physically, emotionally or financially dangerous.

It is our responsibility to be able to tell the difference and to protect ourselves.