A operates a ponzi scheme and B, C, and D are willing participants. X offers to, and enters into, a transaction with "B" that he calls "insurance" which will purportedly protect B against losses if A defaults. Y offers to, and enters into, a transaction with "C" that he calls a "bet" which will purportedly pay C if A defaults. Z offers to, and enters into, a transaction with "D" that he calls a "put option" which will allow D to sell D's position in A's scheme to Z at some date in the distant future.
The ponzi collapses and A defaults. X fails to pay the claim on the "insurance policy". Y fails to honor his wager. Z refuses to allow D to exercise the option.
Are X, Y, and Z subject to civil liability (in favor of B, C, D, or state/federal regulatory agencies)? Are X, Y, and Z subject to prosecution in any jurisdictions? Which ones, and what statutes would they be charged with violating?
How do the answers differ depending on the nation(s) or states/provinces where B,C,D,X,Y, and Z reside or do business?
I'm tired, and heading to bed. But I just thought I'd give a quick (not well thoughtout) answer to your post. In the morning I might feel differently about my answer. But here it is for now:
X is liable for breach of contract to B.
Y is liable for breach of contract to C.
Z is liable for breach of contract to D.
Unless there is a defense such as illegality. A court will not enforce an illegal contract. Therefore, if for example, Y & C's contract of the "bet" is considered illegal gambling, then C has no remedy against Y, not even an equitable remedy.
X,Y, & Z could be subject to prosecution for criminal fraud in almost any jurisdiction in which they reside, do business, or in which they entered into the contract. (This would require a lengthy discussion of conflict of laws and constitutional law, but that's the general rule.)
I am curious why you did not discuss potential civil/criminal liability for selling insurance without a license, illegal wagering/bookmaking, selling securities without a license, and selling unregistered securities, especially in light of your experience with business law.
These seem like significant issues that X, Y, and Z would want to address, especially if their explanation for why they're not part of A's criminal enterprise is "We're just ordinary businessmen selling insurance/bookmaking/securities!"
Could you explain your understanding of the relationship between "conflict of laws" and criminal charges? I am only familiar with that term being used in a civil context.