From Livestock to Lies: The Farm2Market Scandal That Shocked Baguio

By Louis ‘Barok’ C Biraogo — September 1, 2024

IN THE mountain breeze of Baguio City, whispers of prosperity have turned into desperate cries for justice. What began as a simple investment in animal husbandry has spiraled into a nightmare for hundreds of hopefuls, now trapped in the web of Farm2Market Agri-Farm OPC. The company’s promises of easy wealth through livestock have shattered, revealing a darker reality—a reality that the newly invigorated National Bureau of Investigation, under Director Jaime Santiago, is now racing to expose.

A Nation Plagued by Scams

The Philippines, a nation that has seen its fair share of investment scams, is no stranger to the devastating consequences of financial fraud. From the infamous Aman Futures Group, which swindled billions from thousands of Filipinos, to smaller, more localized schemes, the country has become a fertile ground for con artists. These schemes often prey on the vulnerable, those who dream of a stable income in a country where economic opportunities are scarce. The recent case involving Farm2Market Agri-Farm OPC is the latest chapter in this grim saga.

The Farm2Market Promise

Farm2Market Agri-Farm OPC presented itself as an agricultural venture that offered investors the chance to “buy” piglets and chickens, promising substantial returns through a so-called “paalaga” system. For a modest investment of ₱5,000, one could purchase a piglet, with the company guaranteeing a profit of ₱2,600 after three months. Larger investments, such as ₱100,000, promised returns as high as 52%, luring many to part with their hard-earned money in hopes of a quick and easy profit.

The Case Against Farm2Market: A Legal and Ethical Examination

The legal and ethical case against Farm2Market is compelling. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a cease-and-desist order on August 20th, warning that the company’s operations bore all the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme—a fraudulent investment scam that pays returns to earlier investors using the capital of new investors, rather than generating legitimate profits. This model is unsustainable and collapses when the flow of new investments slows, leaving later investors with nothing.

From an ethical standpoint, the promise of guaranteed returns should have raised immediate red flags. Ethical standards in investment, such as those outlined by the Code of Professional Responsibility for Investment Advisers, emphasize transparency, honesty, and the avoidance of misleading claims. Farm2Market’s guarantees were not only unrealistic but also unethical, as they misled investors into believing in the viability of a venture that could not possibly deliver on its promises.

Legally, the company’s failure to secure the necessary licenses to solicit investments places it squarely in violation of the Securities Regulation Code (Republic Act No. 8799), which requires companies to register any securities they offer to the public. The Philippine Supreme Court has been clear in its rulings on such matters, consistently upholding the need for strict compliance with registration requirements to protect the investing public from unscrupulous schemes.

Farm2Market’s Possible Defense

Despite the mounting evidence against it, Farm2Market Agri-Farm OPC may attempt to mount a defense. The company could argue that it operated in good faith, genuinely intending to develop a profitable agricultural business. It might claim that the failure to deliver returns was due to unforeseen market conditions, such as the fluctuating prices of livestock or outbreaks of disease among the animals—factors that are beyond their control.

From a legal perspective, Farm2Market might contend that the cease-and-desist order was premature, issued before a thorough investigation into the legitimacy of its business operations. The company could invoke the principle of “presumption of regularity,” arguing that in the absence of concrete proof of fraud, its business should be presumed to be lawful.

The Strength of the Accusations: A Legal Examination

The case against Farm2Market is formidable. The SEC’s cease-and-desist order, combined with the NBI’s investigation, suggests that the authorities are convinced of the company’s wrongdoing. The fact that investors stopped receiving dividends just as the company continued to solicit new investments strongly supports the Ponzi scheme allegations. Moreover, the legal precedents and ethical standards cited above heavily favor the prosecution’s case.

While Farm2Market may attempt to argue mitigating circumstances, these defenses are unlikely to hold up against the weight of evidence indicating deliberate deceit. The company’s failure to secure the necessary licenses and its misleading promises of guaranteed returns make it difficult for any argument of good faith to be taken seriously.

Recommendations

To the NBI: The Bureau should continue its rigorous investigation, ensuring that all relevant documents and testimonies are gathered to build a comprehensive case against Farm2Market. It should also work closely with the SEC to monitor other companies that might be operating similar schemes, ensuring that this case serves as a deterrent to future fraudsters.

To the investors: Those who have invested in Farm2Market should come forward and cooperate fully with the NBI, providing any evidence that could help strengthen the case. They should also be cautious in the future, remembering that promises of guaranteed returns are often too good to be true.

To Farm2Market: If the company genuinely believes in the legitimacy of its operations, it should cooperate with the authorities to clear its name. However, if it has indeed engaged in fraudulent activities, it should take responsibility, return the investors’ money, and face the consequences of its actions.

Conclusion

The Farm2Market Agri-Farm OPC case is a stark reminder that the promise of quick riches can often be a dangerous illusion. But as we watch the investigation unfold, we must ask ourselves: What will be the legacy of this case? Will it serve as a cautionary tale, a reminder of the need for vigilance and accountability? Or will it become another chapter in the long and tragic history of financial fraud? The answer lies in the choices we make, both as individuals and as a society.