When “Victim Support” Appears After iX Global: Why Caution Still Matters

An investigation into iX Global, post-collapse “victim support” groups, and why caution matters when helpers emerge after MLM and crypto scams collapse.

“The harm doesn’t always end when the scheme collapses.”

That line explains exactly why I didn’t rush to publish anything about iX Global.

Over the years, I’ve been contacted by hundreds of people claiming to represent victims of failed MLMs, crypto schemes, and trading platforms. Some are genuinely trying to help.

Some are overwhelmed and searching for direction. And others operate in a grey area where authority, influence, and opportunity start to overlap in uncomfortable ways.

This blog documents how I was first approached about iX Global, what followed after that initial contact, and why my focus shifted beyond the collapse itself to the ecosystem that formed around it afterward.

Because experience has taught me something most people only learn the hard way:

Not everyone who claims to be helping victims is acting independently — or safely.

How I Was First Approached

I was contacted with a request to cover the collapse of iX Global, described to me as one of the largest MLM-style frauds to affect Indian families. The initial contact came via Mr. Sunil Patole, who identified himself as the President of the MLM Schemes Victims Association, and was later reinforced through Pranjal R Daniel, who claimed to be acting via Strategy India.

The communication was heavy from the outset — long emails, large document packs, strong language, and a constant sense of urgency to act quickly.

On its own, that isn’t unusual. People who have lost money are often emotional, angry, and desperate to stop others from being hurt the same way they were.

What made me pause was not the emotion, but the structure. The story arrived pre-packaged. The narrative was already framed. The conclusions were already drawn. And I was being encouraged to amplify it before I had asked my own questions or carried out my own independent checks.

As the conversations continued, it became clear that I wasn’t dealing with a single victim group in isolation. I was dealing with two connected entities operating in parallel — an MLM consultancy with deep industry ties, and a newly formed victim association led by someone who openly acknowledged he had previously promoted iX Global himself.

At face value, this was being presented as a consultancy and a victim group working together. In my world, that’s exactly the moment to slow down.

Why Strategy India Set Off Immediate Alarm Bells

As the conversations around iX Global continued, I took a closer look at Strategy India, the consultancy that had positioned itself alongside the MLM Schemes Victims Association and was actively communicating with me through its Chief Strategist, Pranjal R Daniel.

On the surface, Strategy India presents itself as a long-standing advisory firm focused on the direct selling industry, with a domain history dating back to 2005. Longevity alone, however, does not equal independence — and it was the nature of their services that immediately made me slow down.

One service in particular stood out: “MLM Legal & Statutory Compliance.”

To an everyday reader, that phrase sounds reassuring, even protective. It suggests an organisation that helps prevent harm, ensures legality, and safeguards consumers. But when you read their own descriptions carefully, it becomes clear that this service is not about protecting the public — it is about helping MLM companies structure themselves in a way that avoids regulatory trouble and public classification as Ponzi schemes.

In plain English, Strategy India positions itself as an organisation that helps MLMs design compensation models, marketing structures, and operational frameworks that stay just inside legal boundaries. They openly discuss helping companies avoid being “labelled” as Ponzi schemes, navigating regulatory grey areas, and tuning business models to survive scrutiny. That is not victim advocacy. That is industry optimisation. And those two roles should never be confused

This immediately matters, because Strategy India is not observing MLMs from the outside. It is embedded inside the industry it claims to advise, regulate, and critique.

What raised further concern was the contradiction between the authority implied by their services and the basic standards missing from their own website. Despite claiming expertise in compliance, legality, and regulatory frameworks — and despite operating for nearly two decades — there is no visible Privacy Policy, no Terms and Conditions, and no clear explanation of how data is handled or what protections exist for the public engaging with them.

That absence is not a technicality. Organisations that claim legal and compliance expertise should be held to the highest standards of transparency themselves.

This is where the conflict becomes impossible to ignore. Strategy India claims to:

• advise MLM companies on structure and compliance,

• help them avoid regulatory classification as scams,

• assist with investment positioning and business growth,

• and simultaneously research, label, and expose scam operations.

Those roles do not sit comfortably together.

An organisation cannot simultaneously build the machine, certify the machine, and then present itself as an independent watchdog over that same machine without raising serious questions about incentives, independence, and credibility.

That doesn’t mean Strategy India is illegal. It doesn’t mean crimes have been committed. But it does mean that any information, referrals, or narratives flowing from them must be treated with extreme caution, especially when they intersect with vulnerable victims who have already lost money and are looking for guidance.

For me, this wasn’t about making accusations. It was about recognising a pattern I’ve seen many times before — where industry insiders reappear after a collapse, not necessarily with bad intentions, but with roles that blur the line between advocacy, authority, and opportunity.

And when that happens, slowing down isn’t optional. It’s essential.

What iX Global Was Actually Selling

Before anyone can understand what happens after a collapse, they need to understand what people were sold in the first place.

iX Global was marketed as a financial education and lifestyle opportunity. That’s the language people heard — education, empowerment, freedom, community.

What sat underneath that messaging was a recruitment-driven MLM structure.

People paid recurring subscription fees. Those fees weren’t just for education; they were required to remain eligible for commissions. Income was tied to recruiting others into the same system, and upgrading memberships increased earning potential.

As recruitment slowed, the model didn’t simplify — it expanded. On top of that, it was layered with additional “opportunities”, including:

• automated trading bots

• forex-related platforms

• crypto node licences

• NFTs and tokenised concepts

• third-party schemes such as DEBT Box

The important thing to understand is this: the system only worked while new people kept joining and paying in. When recruitment slows, a structure like this doesn’t wobble — it collapses.

The Red Flags Were There All Along

This isn’t hindsight talking.

Models like iX Global follow patterns that have repeated again and again in MLM and crypto hybrids. Recurring fees, vague products, income stories based on team growth, constant pivots into the “next big thing”.

These are not hidden signs. They are well-known warning signals.

That doesn’t mean people who joined were stupid. People trust friends. They trust leaders. They trust community pressure. And when you’re shown apparent success stories, it’s easy to suspend disbelief.

But it does mean something else — and this is where the discomfort starts.

What The Authorities Are Saying in India

One reason I’m comfortable saying iX Global caused real harm is because this isn’t just online gossip or angry victims swapping stories. Indian enforcement documents and court records describe investors being trained via the iX Global platform and then directed toward forex activity connected to TP Global FX — with allegations of deception, dummy entities, and significant fund movement. (Indian Kanoon)

India’s Enforcement Directorate (ED) has also published multiple press releases describing an ongoing PMLA investigation involving TP Global FX and iX Global, including searches, seizures, freezing/attachment activity, and references to promoters/influencers allegedly pushing TP Global FX to iX Global members. (Directorate of Enforcement)

This matters because it separates two things that often get blurred online:

1. the collapse narrative, and

2. the documented enforcement trail.

And when victims are reading “official-sounding” PDFs from private groups, the best protection is always the same: verify what’s real, what’s filed, and what’s just being circulated.

A Relevant Court Finding Worth Noting

While reviewing additional material, I came across a December 2025 judgment of the Calcutta High Court in a bail application involving Viraj Suhas Patil, an individual identified by enforcement authorities as a distributor and influencer associated with iX Global.

According to the judgment, the Enforcement Directorate alleged that investors were introduced to forex trading through training programmes conducted on the iX Global platform, and were encouraged to invest via TP Global FX, a forex trading platform later declared unauthorised by the Reserve Bank of India. The judgment records that training and promotional activity formed part of the investigative narrative, alongside the movement of investor funds through multiple bank accounts.

It is important to be precise here. This judgment does not determine guilt. It addresses whether prolonged custody was justified at the bail stage, and the Court explicitly stated that its observations should not be treated as findings on the merits of the case. Bail was granted primarily on constitutional grounds relating to the right to liberty and delay in trial.

That said, the judgment is relevant for one reason: it confirms that iX Global’s “education” and “training” activities are being examined by Indian enforcement authorities in connection with alleged forex-related fraud, and that the influencer and training layer is not being treated as incidental.

This matters because it reinforces a central point of this blog — that what is often presented as education, mentorship, or lifestyle training can sit uncomfortably close to regulated financial activity, and that those distinctions only become clear after harm has already occurred.

The Question That Has to Be Asked

If these warning signs were visible to outsiders, then it’s reasonable to ask:

Why didn’t people who now present themselves as experts, organisers, or advocates recognise them at the time?

This is not about shaming victims. You can be a victim and still have exercised poor judgment. Those two things can exist together.

But when someone who promoted a scheme later steps into a leadership role after the collapse, it’s fair to slow down and ask:

What did they miss then?
What do they see now?
And why should their judgment be treated as authoritative today?

Experience inside a scam does not automatically equal independence from it.

Why I Started Looking at the “Helpers”

As the iX Global conversations continued, my attention shifted away from the collapse itself and onto the post-collapse ecosystem forming around it.

I noticed a familiar pattern: former promoters repositioning themselves as spokespeople, new organisations appearing with a big sense of authority but a tiny public footprint, and legal-sounding documents being circulated in a way that could easily convince victims that “action is underway” even when nothing verifiable has been filed.

What made it more complicated was the overlap between a commercial MLM consultancy and a victim advocacy narrative running side-by-side. That combination matters, because it’s the exact environment where desperate people can be nudged from one belief system into the next one — not always by bad intentions, but by unchecked confidence and blurred incentives.

I’ve seen this too many times: victims lose money, panic sets in, and the next person who sounds organised becomes the new authority. That’s when the second wave of harm can begin.

Why I Work in Real Time

People often ask why I don’t focus on historic cases or long-dead schemes. The answer is simple: that’s not how you stop people being hurt today.

Modern scams don’t sit still. They operate in real time — recruiting through Zoom calls, moving targets into WhatsApp and Telegram groups, rebranding overnight, and disappearing the moment real pressure appears.

That’s why I don’t chase paperwork after the damage is done. I go where recruitment is still happening.

My work focuses on:

• live recruitment

• active promoters

• meetings happening right now

• people currently being targeted

Once a scheme collapses, the money is usually gone. Pretending otherwise doesn’t help victims — it often sets them up for a second wave of harm.

When the Paper Trail Started Overlapping

Along with the initial emails, I was sent four separate PDF documents intended to support the claims being made about iX Global and to demonstrate that “action” was already underway. At the time, I treated them the same way I treat most unsolicited document packs — as material to be reviewed later, not proof of anything on their own.

The attachments included a General Synopsis of the alleged scam, a list of so-called top earners, and a document presented as a SEBI-related letter. On the surface, this looked familiar. After a collapse, victim groups often circulate paperwork that feels official, structured, and reassuring — especially to people who are desperate for signs that someone, somewhere, is taking control of the situation.

It was only after spending time reviewing those documents — and after further conversations — that something stood out.

The SEBI-related document included the name Pranjal R Daniel.

That mattered.

Pranjal R Daniel was not presented to me as a regulator or an independent authority. He was communicating with me as Chief Strategist of Strategy India, a consultancy embedded in the MLM and direct selling industry. Yet his name appeared on a document positioned as regulatory context and included in the very first outreach from the MLM Schemes Victims Association, led by Sunil Patole.

That overlap doesn’t prove wrongdoing. But it does raise legitimate questions about independence, disclosure, and narrative control.

Separately, while researching the organisations involved, I came across a document titled Lawyer-draft.pdf. This document was not emailed to me, but appeared publicly during my own searches. It was written in formal legal language and appeared designed to signal that legal action was either underway or imminent. A drafted letter does not mean a lawyer has been formally instructed, a case has been filed, or that any court process exists — but to a victim, it can easily create that impression.

None of this means the documents are fake. None of it means regulators aren’t involved. And none of it automatically means bad intentions.

But it does mean that paperwork alone is not evidence of authority.

This was the point where my focus shifted further away from the collapse itself, and toward the post-collapse ecosystem forming around it.

A Word About Strategy India and the Victim Association

Strategy India is not a victim organisation. By its own description, it is a long-running MLM consultancy that advises direct selling companies on structure, positioning, compliance, and investment strategy. That doesn’t make it illegal, but it does mean it operates inside the MLM industry, not independently of it. This matters when the same organisation is presented alongside victim advocacy efforts following the collapse of an MLM scheme. As clarified to me, Strategy India’s involvement spans advisory, sustainability assessments, post-shutdown options, and broader industry engagement — with separation of roles described as a future objective rather than an existing safeguard.

The MLM Schemes Victims Association appears to be a newly formed group, operating primarily through private communications and led by Sunil Patole, who has acknowledged that he previously promoted iX Global before losing money himself. The Association has indicated that it includes multiple individuals, some of whom may have supported networks prior to the collapse, and that leadership roles are assessed internally based on intent, losses, and post-collapse conduct. That context is relevant — not as an accusation — but when evaluating independence, authority, and the weight given to advocacy claims.

Taken together — the consultancy role of Strategy India, the leadership background of the Victim Association, and the current overlap between victim support, industry engagement, and planned legal initiatives — these factors do not prove wrongdoing.

But they do justify caution, particularly for victims who may be vulnerable to misplaced trust in the aftermath of a collapse.

Why This Matters to Victims

After a scheme collapses, people are not operating from a position of strength. They are financially stressed, emotionally drained, and often desperate for reassurance that something — anything — can be done. That is exactly the moment when confidence and authority can become dangerous if they are not backed by independence and accountability.

This is why post-collapse environments matter just as much as the scam itself.

Before trusting anyone who claims they can help recover funds, represent victims, or lead the response, it’s reasonable to slow down and ask a few basic questions:

• Who are they, really — and what role did they play before the collapse?

• What qualifies them to lead now?

• What do they gain by positioning themselves as organisers, spokespeople, or intermediaries?

Good intentions are not enough.
Structure, transparency, and independence are what protect victims — not confidence or urgency.

Where the Real Risk Often Lies

This blog isn’t an accusation. It’s an explanation of something I’ve seen repeatedly.

Scams don’t always cause their greatest harm while they’re running. In many cases, the damage continues after collapse — when false hope replaces false profits, authority gets recycled, and people who are still processing loss are pushed to trust again, quickly and emotionally.

If this makes you pause before following the next confident “helper”, the next legal-sounding document, or the next group claiming to have all the answers, then it’s done exactly what it was meant to do.

“Confidence is not proof — especially when people are desperate.”

Sometimes the most responsible response after a collapse isn’t action.

It’s restraint.

A Note on Differing Perspectives

During the course of this investigation, I engaged directly with Pranjal R Daniel, representing Strategy India, to understand his position more clearly.

His view, put simply, is this:

• Not all MLMs are inherently scams

• Some direct selling models can be sustainable if built around tangible products and realistic pricing

• Their work focuses on identifying mathematically unviable compensation plans, deceptive income claims, and unregistered investment structures

• They publish scam alerts and do not charge victims for legal action

• Victims independently choose and pay their own lawyers

I’ve included this perspective deliberately, because it deserves to be understood in full and in good faith.

Where we fundamentally disagree is not on intent — but on outcome.

From my experience, MLM structures do not fail because they are poorly designed. They fail because the model itself relies on recruitment-driven income promises that cannot be delivered to the majority of participants, regardless of product quality, pricing, or compliance frameworks.

In my view, there is no version of MLM that can be engineered into something ethical at scale. Providing tools, frameworks, or so-called “compliance optimisation” to these systems does not reduce harm — it extends the lifespan of structures that repeatedly produce it.

That is why my work is focused on exposure, disruption, and accountability, rather than refinement.

Acknowledging a position does not require agreeing with it.
And understanding intent does not erase impact.

Disclaimer: How This Investigation Was Conducted

This investigation relies entirely on OSINT — Open Source Intelligence — meaning every claim made here is based on publicly available records, archived web pages, corporate filings, domain data, social media activity, and open blockchain transactions. No private data, hacking, or unlawful access methods were used. OSINT is a powerful and ethical tool for exposing scams without violating privacy laws or overstepping legal boundaries.

About the Author

I’m DANNY DE HEK, a New Zealand–based YouTuber, investigative journalist, and OSINT researcher. I name and shame individuals promoting or marketing fraudulent schemes through my YOUTUBE CHANNEL. Every video I produce exposes the people behind scams, Ponzi schemes, and MLM frauds — holding them accountable in public.

My PODCAST is an extension of that work. It’s distributed across 18 major platforms — including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, and iHeartRadio — so when scammers try to hide, my content follows them everywhere. If you prefer listening to my investigations instead of watching, you’ll find them on every major podcast service.

You can BOOK ME for private consultations or SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS, where I share first-hand experience from years of exposing large-scale fraud and helping victims recover.

“Stop losing your future to financial parasites. Subscribe. Expose. Protect.”

My work exposing crypto fraud has been featured in:

• Bloomberg Documentary (2025): A 20-minute exposé on Ponzi schemes and crypto card fraud

• News.com.au (2025): Profiled as one of the leading scam-busters in Australasia

• OpIndia (2025): Cited for uncovering Pakistani software houses linked to drug trafficking, visa scams, and global financial fraud

• The Press / Stuff.co.nz (2023): Successfully defeated $3.85M gag lawsuit; court ruled it was a vexatious attempt to silence whistleblowing

• The Guardian Australia (2023): National warning on crypto MLMs affecting Aussie families

• ABC News Australia (2023): Investigation into Blockchain Global and its collapse

• The New York Times (2022): A full two-page feature on dismantling HyperVerse and its global network

• Radio New Zealand (2022): “The Kiwi YouTuber Taking Down Crypto Scammers From His Christchurch Home”

• Otago Daily Times (2022): A profile on my investigative work and the impact of crypto fraud in New Zealand