Continously updated crime report draft criminal RICO case targeting McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices
Excerpts from Draft Number 27. The content I am currently publishing online comprises only about one tenth of the entirety of Draft Number 27.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(I) Introduction: This Crime Report is Written Under Duress
(I)(A) Witness Tampering and the (Death?) Threats I Have Received
(I)(B) The Christian Duty to Report Wrongdoing
(I)(C) Key Witness, Analyst, Whistleblower, and Now Whistleblower x 2
(III) Understanding McDonald’s Influence and Its Power to Corrupt
(IV)(E) The First “1 in 4” McDonald’s Monopoly MassMarketing Fraud in France for the Year 2011
TLDR; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(1) McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity as defined under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1961(5).
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(2) This crime report is written under duress. So far, I have received multiple serious threats, thereby constituting the crime of witness tampering as defined under Title 18, Section 1512 of the U.S. Code. Whether death threats were hinted at, potentially targeting me and/or my family members, remains to be clarified.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(3) I have been informally, and therefore illegally, gag ordered. As a result, and for reasons I won’t and/or can’t detail now—due to the gag order—I firmly believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the U.S. Department of Justice knew or ought to have known since the summer/fall of 2019 that McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices have been engaging in criminal activities.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(4) I have notified the European Court of Human Rights and requested interim measures (Rule 39 of the Court) in the case V.L.C. v. France 50552/22. Due to the extreme sensitivity of some information related to the McDonald’s case, the Court’s records have been sealed. However, given the grave nature of the ongoing whitecollar, criminally organized financial crimes, and in the interest of public awareness, I have decided to start publishing selected documents online around April 24, 2024. These documents are carefully redacted to protect sensitive information while informing the public.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(5) I also started notifying two United States Senators: Mitt Romney^{1} and Chuck Grassley[^TLDR2openletterGrassley].
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(6) Some of the crimes committed by McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices include massmarketing frauds, money laundering, corruption of foreign officials, corruption and/or corruption attempt of American law enforcement officers, and violations of securities laws stemming from their ongoing failures to disclose significant legal challenges that have jeopardized the company’s survival. If the rule of law is upheld, McDonald’s Corporation is currently, for all intents and purposes, virtually bankrupt.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(7) There are billions of fraudulent transactions spanning multiple countries. It’s global case.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(8) Here is one, and only one, example of the many frauds which were committed: in the United States, McDonald’s Corporation and its thousands of accomplices, which include among other persons, the franchisees, defrauded consumers, the victims, who include millions of innocent childvictims, by falsely claiming that they had a per attempt probability, in which 1 attempt was 1 game stamp, of 1 in 4 chance to win instantly. It was a vicious lie and a vicious fraud: this wasn’t the probability of winning instantly per attempt. It was, in reality, the result of the sum of what we call in probability theory the probability mass function (PMF) of the hypergeometric distribution for obtaining at least \(k\) successes, summing from \(i=k\) to the minimum of \(n\) and \(K\), each term calculating the probability of exactly \(i\) successes in a sample of size \(n\) from a population of \(N\) with \(K\) successes and represented by the following expression:
$$P_{N, K, n}(X \geq k) = \sum_{i=k}^{\min(n, K)} \frac{{\binom{K}{i} \cdot \binom{NK}{ni}}}{{\binom{N}{n}}}$$
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(9) McDonald’s Corporation and their accomplices lied when they fraudulently claimed consumers had “1 in 4” chances of winning instantly. The real probability of winning was in fact “1 in 8.” Please keep in mind that this is only one of their many frauds.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(10) If the real probability per attempt is approximately 2.84% of chance of winning, with 10 attempts, you end up having approximately 1 in 4 chance to win instantly:
$$P_{10,\frac{2.84}{100}}(X \geq 1) \approx \frac{1}{4}$$
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(11) It’s like saying:
First part: “You attempt 1 time […]”
Second part: “[…] 10 attempts with a 2.84% of chance of success per attempt […]”
Third part: “[…] and the probability of a success is about 25%, or 1 in 4.”
But McDonald’s fraudulently omits the second part: “[…] 10 attempts with a 2.84% of chance of success per attempt […]” and as a result, they end up making the following fraudulent, by omission, statement: “You attempt 1 time and the probability of a success is about 25%, or 1 in 4.”
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(12) McDonald’s fraudulently claimed that it’s the result of a probability, while it was in reality the probability mass function (PMF) of the hypergeometric distribution for obtaining at least \(k\) successes, summing from \(i=k\) to the minimum of \(n\) and \(K\), each term calculating the probability of exactly \(i\) successes in a sample of size \(n\) from a population of \(N\) with \(K\) successes. Furthermore, by never telling all the parameters to the consumers, it was impossible for them to just guess.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(13) Important note: please remember that it’s the probability mass function of the hypergeometric distortion and not the binomial distribution but that I am displaying, however, the binomial distribution formula because it’s close enough, to demonstrate this fraud, and it can help the reader visualize the Machiavellian fraud committed by McDonald’s Corporation and their accomplices. Let me give you other examples:
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(14) If the real probability per attempt is 1 in 200, or 0.5% (half a percent) of chance of winning, with 57 attempts, you end up having 1 in 4 chance to win instantly:
$$P_{57,\frac{1}{200}}(X \geq 1) \approx \frac{1}{4}$$
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(15) If the real probability per attempt is 1 in 500, with 144 attempts, you end up having approximately 1 in 4 chance to win instantly:
$$P_{144,\frac{1}{500}}(X \geq 1) \approx \frac{1}{4}$$
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(16) If the real probability per attempt is 1 in a million (1,000,000), with 287,682 attempts, you end up having 1 in 4 chance to win instantly:
$$P_{287682,\frac{1}{1000000}}(X \geq 1) \approx \frac{1}{4}$$
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(17) McDonald’s Corporation and their accomplices lied when they fraudulently claimed consumers had “1 in 4” chances of winning instantly. The real probability of winning was in fact “1 in 8.” Please keep in mind that this is only one of their many frauds.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(18) The real probability of winning, “1 in 8,” was never told to consumers, the victims. The number “1 in 4” is, in fact, the result of a complex calculation driven from a binomial distribution function. It’s the result if, and only if, the consumers (the victims) were to attempt their chances multiple times.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(19) But consumers (the victims, including millions of childvictims), couldn’t have easily guessed since the criminal entity McDonald’s Corporation, and their accomplices, among other persons, the franchisees, fraudulently claimed, with emphasis in upper case and bold characters that more attempts, i.e. purchases, wouldn’t increase the chances of winning.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(20) Here is an example and a fact: if the real probability of winning is 1 in a million (1,000,000) per attempt, the probability of winning after 287,682 attempts is “1 in 4.”
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(21) Fact and yet another example: if the real probability of winning is “1 in 500” per attempt, the probability of winning after 144 attempts is “1 in 4.”
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(22) McDonald’s could have made up almost any numbers using such fraudulent methods.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(23) I received a kind of gag order, and I am potentially (not sure) currently being blackmailed. As a result, I can’t discuss certain aspects of this case publicly any longer.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(24) I want to trust the FBI and the DOJ 100%. But there will be lots of pressure on Washington D.C.: many financial institutions, financing, through stock ownership, the criminal entity McDonald’s Corporation, are bound to lose a lot of money if it goes bankrupt. Yet, the law is the law and McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices are not above the law.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(25) However local officials at municipal, county, and state level, don’t need to wait for the green light from Washington D.C. and can start prosecuting McDonald’s Corporation and their accomplices, that is, among other persons, the franchisees, right now.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(26) These predators made tens of millions of victims in the United States alone, including millions of childvictims. Among the victims are not only consumers but other businesses who can’t possibly compete fairly with a criminal organization which has engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (RICO) through frauds and money laundering.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(27) Criminal activity is continuous and has not concluded.
(DRAFT#29)(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(28) If you don’t understand, I am here to help. Email me at vincent@ecthrwatch.org
Return to the Table of Contents ↩︎
Preamble
(DRAFT#29)(Preamble)(1) This document serves as a nonexhaustive crime report against McDonald’s Corporation and its various accomplices, encompassing a spectrum of allegations that span from direct involvement in criminal activities at local levels to federal criminal activities, including but not limited to money laundering and violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. While certain aspects of these allegations necessitate federal investigation and even international cooperation with judicial systems of other countries affected by this criminal enterprise, it is crucial to recognize the integral role of state and municipal law enforcement in addressing the implicated crimes at the local level.
(DRAFT#29)(Preamble)(2) It’s indeed apparent that the franchisees, through their complicity or direct involvement, have participated in actions that contribute to the operation of a criminal RICO enterprise.
(DRAFT#29)(Preamble)(3) Law enforcement officials at all levels are implored to consider the breadth of their jurisdictional authority in the context of this report. Municipal and state law enforcement agencies are equipped with the legal mandate to investigate crimes committed by McDonald’s franchisees and local outlets within their respective jurisdictions. Such investigations are not only within their purview but are essential for comprehensively addressing the scope of this criminal network and its impact on local communities.
(DRAFT#29)(Preamble)(4) Therefore, while this report may warrant the attention and action of federal entities like the FBI, it should not be exclusively escalated to federal authorities without concurrent local action. The collaborative efforts of law enforcement at every level are paramount in ensuring a thorough and effective response to the allegations presented herein. It is with the intention of fostering a multifaceted law enforcement approach that this report is submitted, urging officials at the municipal, state, and federal levels to undertake a coordinated investigation into the crimes committed by McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices.
(DRAFT#29)(Preamble)(5) Furthermore, authorities in other countries where McDonald’s operates are also called to scrutinize the crimes of McDonald’s entities within their jurisdictions. The global nature of McDonald’s Corporation, positioned at the apex of this criminal enterprise, implies a systemic influence that extends beyond the borders of the United States. Foreign law enforcement agencies must therefore also investigate the extent to which McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices have engaged in criminal activities that violate local laws.
(DRAFT#29)(Preamble)(6) For authorities in countries where specific fraudulent activities have not been identified, it is crucial to consider the broader implications of affiliation with a corporation involved in a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined under the RICO Act. Indeed, even in the absence of direct massmarketing fraud within a particular country, the overarching power and influence of McDonald’s Corporation does have adverse effects on local markets and competition. Small business owners and competitors are effectively forced to contend with an entity whose global operations are tainted by criminal conduct and more specifically money laundering. This situation creates an uneven playing field, disadvantaging those who endeavor to compete fairly. Law enforcement and regulatory authorities worldwide are therefore urged to assess the impact of McDonald’s operations on local business ecosystems, considering the indirect victimization of competitors and the integrity of the market.
(DRAFT#29)(Preamble)(7) As a document, “MONEY LAUNDERING: A PRACTICE MANUAL FOR STATE PROSECUTORS”, found on the website of the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice^{2} explains:
(DRAFT#29)(Preamble)(8) “Money laundering also distorts the economy. Honest businesses lose out to those bankrolled by organized crime. As a member of the Italian parliament and former prosecutor observed, ‘How would you like to be a company competing against [businesses taking dirty money] when you have to carry a debt load of 25 percent and your competition has zero?’ With such a competitive advantage, it is no wonder that dirty money quickly penetrates and dominates entire industries.” (emphasis added) (PART I INTRODUCTION TO MONEY LAUNDERING, CHAPTER ONE – MONEY LAUNDERING: OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM, SECTION B. MONEY LAUNDERING DISTORTS THE ECONOMY AND CORRUPTS SOCIETY).
(DRAFT#29)(Preamble)(9) That’s precisely what McDonald’s Corporation is: a criminal entity orchestrating a criminal enterprise which has dominated the fastfood industry because they’ve engaged, for decades, in a pattern of racketeering activities as defined in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (see Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1961(5)).
Return to the Table of Contents ↩︎
(I) Introduction: This Crime Report is Written Under Duress
(I)(A) Witness Tampering and the (Death?) Threats I Have Received
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(1) Dear Sir or Madam,
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(2) I wish to bring to your attention a series of local, national, and transnational criminal activities involving McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices. McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity as defined under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1961(5). I am a key witness, analyst, and whistleblower, in this criminal RICO case targeting McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(3) In order to protect McDonald’s Corporation from bankruptcy, there might currently be attempts by both the United States and the French government to cover up these serious crimes, which I am exposing in this crime report.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(4) That’s why if you are a part of the local law enforcement community and have not fully read the preamble of this report, which briefly explain the scope of this criminal network and the necessity for a layered investigative approach, I strongly urge you to review it now to fully understand the roles and responsibilities that local jurisdictions hold in addressing these serious allegations.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(5) I must first emphasize that this crime report is written under duress since I’ve received multiple threats including being witness tampered with and blackmailed.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(6) Furthermore, I’ve been informally gag ordered since June 2023, potentially, but not necessarily, as an attempt to silence me.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(7) Since there is no such thing as an informal gag order, at least from a legal point of view, such an informal gag order might be construed as an act of witness tampering (18 U.S. Code § 1512) and even as potential death threats.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(8) I could publicly detail why the informal gag order I’ve been subjected to might be construed as encompassing death threats, but to do so would require me to violate the very gag order that has been informally imposed upon me. This places me in a classic catch22 situation. For those unfamiliar, a catch22 is a paradoxical scenario where an individual cannot avoid a problem because of contradictory constraints or rules. Essentially, the resolution of the problem is dependent upon an action that is forbidden by the problem itself, creating a nowin situation where every potential solution is blocked by the terms of the predicament itself. Thus, I am compelled to remain silent about specifics that could potentially illustrate and expose these threats, as doing so would itself be a breach of the gag order.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(9) That’s the reason why, despite the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) having granted me anonymity in November 2022, I decided to temporarily lift my anonymity at the end of August 2023. This decision was made not only for my own safety but also, more importantly, for the safety of my loved ones. In December 2023, I filed additional requests for interim measures with the ECtHR, case V.L.C. v. France (50552/22). The Court’s records pertaining to this case have been sealed to protect sensitive information, specifically including details related to the informal gag order I have received, which was notified to me in an unofficial manner.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(10) I have also taken the initiative to inform two U.S. Senators about these developments, ensuring that key policymakers are aware of the situation. Additionally, I will continue to actively submit evidence to the FBI and other relevant authorities to aid in the investigation of this global case. Recognizing the international scope of the issues at hand, I have begun notifying a member of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, aiming to engage support and action from influential figures across different jurisdictions. This approach underscores my commitment to pursuing justice and safeguarding the rights and safety of all involved parties, transcending national boundaries to address the criminal activities comprehensively.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(11) For a long time now, I have faced multiple threats for trying to raise public awareness about the crimes committed by McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices, as well as for my efforts to report these activities to the relevant authorities. For example, in the summer/fall of 2019, shortly before the abrupt dismissal of McDonald’s Corporation CEO Steve Easterbrook, I was threatened and blackmailed by Cédric Villani, a highprofile French elected official who was in a position to confirm the serious crimes McDonald’s has committed.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(12) This incident is one of many pivotal moments in this case. Cédric Villani, before turning to politics, was awarded the Fields Medal—often regarded as the Nobel Prize of Mathematics. His profound expertise in mathematics enabled him to quickly understand the extent of McDonald’s crimes. This expertise is one of the reasons I reached out to him initially.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(13) However, instead of fulfilling his duties as an elected official, Villani, through his director of communication Philippe Mouricou, resorted to threats and blackmail in an attempt to silence me. Moreover, based on statements made by his director of communication, there is probable cause to believe that McDonald’s pressured French elected official Cédric Villani. If confirmed, such actions by McDonald’s would not only fall under the scope of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) but also constitute another predicate act in the pattern of racketeering activity that McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices have engaged in for decades.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(A)(14) All this underscores the need for a comprehensive overview of the events that have unfolded. Before delving into a brief, nonexhaustive timeline to illustrate the broader context of this case, it is crucial to first address my Christian duty to report these wrongdoings. Additionally, I will clarify my role as a “key witness, analyst, whistleblower,” and now, given the complexities and increased risks I face, as “whistleblower x2.” These sections will set the foundation for understanding the ethical and personal imperatives that drive my actions.
Return to the Table of Contents ↩︎
(I)(B) The Christian Duty to Report Wrongdoing
(DRAFT#29)(I)(B)(1) In light of the scriptural commands and my own Christian convictions, reporting wrongdoing is not merely a legal obligation but a divine mandate. The Scriptures make it clear, as stated in Exodus 20:16: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” This commandment not only prohibits lying but also compels us to speak out against falsehood and injustice wherever they may arise.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(B)(2) Similarly, Isaiah 59:4 paints a vivid picture of a society overwhelmed by deceit and injustice:
“No one enters suit justly;
no one goes to law honestly;
they rely on empty pleas, they speak lies,
they conceive mischief and give birth to iniquity.”
(DRAFT#29)(I)(B)(3) This passage, like many others in the prophetic books, is not only a critique of current misdeeds but also a call to amend our ways and seek justice and truth earnestly.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(B)(4) In my efforts to expose the malpractices at McDonald’s Corporation, I am driven by these biblical injunctions. The decision to report their actions stems from a commitment to uphold the principles of truth and justice, foundational to both societal wellbeing and Christian doctrine. Reporting such activities aligns with the biblical imperative to protect the innocent and ensure that justice prevails. It is a reflection of my duty, not to spread rumors or engage in gossip, but to act responsibly and courageously in the face of wrongdoing.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(B)(5) This commitment to truth is further underscored by the Christian belief that God is law and justice. As I challenge the attempts by any entity, whether corporate or governmental, to silence this truth through a gag order, I stand firm on the promise that “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). My pursuit is not motivated by personal gain but by a sincere desire to see justice served and integrity restored in accordance with God’s law.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(B)(6) While the crimes committed by McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices on a global scale are already exceptionally serious, any attempt by the American and/or French governments to cover up these crimes would constitute an even graver category of offenses.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(B)(7) Guarantee of Disclosure:
(DRAFT#29)(I)(B)(8) It is important to clarify that my earlier pursuits may have been influenced by personal circumstances, including financial distress and my wife’s health concerns. Initially, any potential settlement with McDonald’s might have alleviated these personal hardships. However, the focus of my actions has evolved significantly, particularly after being blackmailed, threatened, spied upon by the French government, and now informally served with a gag order—an action that could be seen as a further instance of blackmail and threat. Today, my commitment to exposing the truth is driven by a desire to prevent further harm to others and to seek justice for the irreversible damages caused by this criminal enterprise. Highlevel officials from France have already partaken in these activities, at the very least through serious criminal negligence, as I have detailed in a communication submitted to the European Court of Human Rights^{3}.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(B)(9) Should there be any attempts by governmental entities to protect or obscure the serious crimes committed by McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices, I assure all stakeholders that these efforts will be met with heightened vigilance and escalated actions to ensure maximum scrutiny and public awareness. I am committed to full and thorough disclosure of the facts surrounding these cases. My resolve is to bring transparency to these proceedings, ensuring that justice is served openly and without interference. The involvement of any government in protecting McDonald’s would be utterly unacceptable, compounding the gravity of the original offenses and betraying public trust.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(B)(10) I won’t act against conscience.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(B)(11) “Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues with injustice.” (Proverbs 16:8)
Return to the Table of Contents ↩︎
(I)(C) Key Witness, Analyst, Whistleblower, and Now Whistleblower x 2
(I)(C)(a) Definition and Role of a Whistleblower
(DRAFT#29)(I)(C)(a)(1) In this section of my crime report, it’s essential to clarify my position as a key witness, analyst, whistleblower, and, following the gag order I’ve received, a whistleblower times two (x2). This classification is not arbitrary but deeply rooted in the definitions and circumstances surrounding my interactions with McDonald’s Corporation, McDonald’s Europe, McDonald’s France, and the nonpublic information I have in my possession.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(C)(a)(2) Firstly, it is crucial to establish that my use of the term “whistleblower” is consistent with accepted definitions, despite never having been an employee of McDonald’s. A whistleblower is generally understood as someone who exposes information on illegal activities or dangers to public health and safety, which otherwise might not have come to light. The National Whistleblower Center provides a clear definition^{4}:
(DRAFT#29)(I)(C)(a)(3) “On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing. A whistleblower typically works inside of the organization where the wrongdoing is taking place; however, being an agency or company ‘insider’ is not essential to serving as a whistleblower. What matters is that the individual discloses information about wrongdoing that otherwise would not be known.”
(DRAFT#29)(I)(C)(a)(4) This definition encapsulates my situation. Initially, my involvement began not as an insider but as a victim of McDonald’s Corporation’s activities in France. My efforts to raise concerns directly with McDonald’s France and subsequently with McDonald’s Corporation about ongoing consumer fraud and other illicit activities granted me access to sensitive exchanges and communications. These included correspondences between company executives and me, and one correspondence between my attorney and one of McDonald’s attorneys, which clearly demonstrated McDonald’s awareness and total disregard of the crimes they were committing.
(I)(C)(b) Evolution of My Role as a Whistleblower
(DRAFT#29)(I)(C)(b)(5) The term “whistleblower” was first applied to my actions by a journalist who described one of my websites dedicated to exposing these issues as a “whistleblower site.” Although initially hesitant to adopt this label—given my external position relative to the company—it has become increasingly fitting. The nonpublic information that I have disclosed not only confirms misconduct but also highlights systematic efforts to suppress this information.
(I)(C)(c) Amplified Role Following the Gag Order
(DRAFT#29)(I)(C)(c)(6) Following the informal gag order imposed upon me, my role as a whistleblower has effectively doubled—hence, whistleblower times two (x2). This term reflects the increased risk and responsibility I’ve shouldered in continuing to disclose critical information under heightened constraints. The gag order, while preventing me from discussing specifics, underscores the severe implications and risks associated with my continued exposure of these truths.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(C)(c)(7) As I proceed, it remains my imperative to persist in uncovering and reporting the malfeasance of McDonald’s Corporation and its affiliates, maintaining the integrity and truthfulness required to champion public safety and corporate accountability.
(I)(C)(d) Understanding My Analytical Role Under the DoddFrank Act
(DRAFT#29)(I)(C)(d)(8) My analytical role, though perhaps not formal in the sense of financial analysts or accountants, involves a deep dive into the statistical probability and the operational patterns of McDonald’s criminal schemes. This type of analysis is crucial and aligns with investigative and forensic analysis, which looks beyond surface information to understand underlying mechanisms.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(C)(d)(9) Under the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, an analyst can indeed be someone who compiles and interprets publicly available or secondary information to detect violations of financial regulations or misconduct. This role extends beyond traditional financial analysts to include any individual who, through their analysis, enables regulatory bodies to identify and act upon regulatory breaches.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(C)(d)(10) According to Stephen M. Kohn in his book Rules for Whistleblowers: A Handbook for Doing What’s Right: “The DoddFrank Act also permits analysts to file reward claims. An analyst is not a traditional original source, but rather a person who puts together public or secondary information in a manner that permits the commissions to learn that a violation has occurred.”
(DRAFT#29)(I)(C)(d)(11) This provision is particularly pertinent to my activities, as my investigations into the criminal practices of McDonald’s do not merely interpret data but reveal systemic fraud that was not previously acted upon by regulatory bodies.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(C)(d)(12) Given that my work exposes significant frauds followed by serious financial crimes and misconducts (money laundering and failure to alert investors), it may qualify for whistleblower protections under DoddFrank. This is crucial as it shields me from retaliation.
(DRAFT#29)(I)(C)(d)(13) In conclusion, my role as an analyst in this context extends beyond traditional financial analysis and enters the realm of forensic examination, where the analysis itself helps to unveil complex schemes and subsequent regulatory violations. By doing so, I embody the spirit of the DoddFrank Act’s whistleblower provisions, serving as a critical conduit for transparency and accountability in corporate practices. This reaffirms the legal and societal value of my investigative endeavors, positioning me as a key figure in advocating for consumer rights and ethical business conduct.
Return to the Table of Contents ↩︎
(I)(D) The Big Picture: A Brief, NonExhaustive Timeline of Events
This section might update very soon. Maybe on April 30, 2024.
(I)(D)(a) 2002: McDonald’s Corporation v. Simon Marketing
(I)(D)(b) 2011: Beginning of My Discovery of the Crimes
Return to the Table of Contents ↩︎
(II) How Does the McDonald’s Frauds Scandal Compare to the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal: a Call For Equitable Accountability
(II)(A) A Reminder of the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal and its Implications for Corporate Accountability
(DRAFT#29)(II)(A)(1) The Volkswagen emissions cheating scandal, infamously known as “Dieselgate,” highlighted a stark case of corporate deceit with profound environmental and public health repercussions. Research from MIT estimated that the excess emissions from Volkswagen vehicles would lead to approximately 60 premature deaths in the United States^{5} and 1,200 premature deaths across Europe^{6}, spotlighting the severe consequences of corporate malpractices.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(A)(2) This information confirms the serious health consequences of Volkswagen’s actions, providing a precedent for evaluating the indirect impacts of corporate misconduct on public health.
(II)(B) Drawing Parallels, McDonald’s Corporation and Their Accomplices are Architects of Mortality: They Have Probably Already Caused, or Will Certainly Cause in the Future, Far More Premature Deaths Than Volkswagen
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(1) For decades, the public has been systematically misled by McDonald’s false portrayal of itself as an ethical entity. Such claims are a stark contradiction to the reality of its criminal operations. It’s imperative that we critically reassess these narratives and unmask McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices for what they genuinely are: a criminal organization comparable to the most notorious mafias.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(2) McDonald’s, albeit not through overt violence, inflicts serious harm. Its criminal activities encourage the consumption of unhealthy food, which has probably already indirectly contributed, or will certainly indirectly contribute in the future, to premature deaths among its consumers.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(3) Prominent critiques, such as those from Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, a member of the House of Lords, the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, sharply criticized^{7} McDonald’s Monopoly promotion describing it as a “grotesque marketing strategy” and unequivocally branding it “a danger to public health.”
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(4) Unbeknownst to Lord Watson, the situation extends beyond ethical concerns; evidence I’ve gathered confirms that McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices are deeply entwined in criminal activities surrounding their fraudulent sweepstakes. These include serious crimes, including, but not limited to, McDonald’s Europe, based in London, playing a role in the serious crimes of crossborder money laundering operations.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(5) The case of Volkswagen, which faced severe backlash and was, in a way, held indirectly accountable for the future premature deaths caused by manipulating engine emissions, sets a precedent:
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(6) If individuals and legal entities like corporations are indeed equal under the law, then similar scrutiny must be applied to McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(7) It’s essential to question: How many lives might have already been, and/or certainly will be in the future, adversely affected by their crimes? We must not shy away from labeling them accurately: McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices are perpetrators of fraud and architects of mortality.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(8) The severity of these actions and their classification as equivalent to manslaughter may vary across legal systems. However, if the indirect consequences of their crimes will be responsible for hundreds of thousands, if not more, of premature deaths, such a comparison warrants serious consideration. We must be fearless in declaring the truth: McDonald’s criminal practices contribute to loss of years of life.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(9) Moreover, we must acknowledge the broader societal impact of McDonald’s practices: the strain on national social security systems. Individuals suffering from chronic conditions like diabetes, heart diseases, exacerbated by the overconsumption of unhealthy food, inevitably lead to increased healthcare costs. These expenses are ultimately borne by social security systems, underscoring the farreaching consequences of dietary habits influenced by junk food consumption.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(10) While McDonald’s is not the sole entity selling unhealthy food, its extensive involvement in criminal activities to boost profits distinguishes it significantly. Given this overstepping of legal boundaries, it is reasonable to argue that McDonald’s should face punitive damages through legal proceedings. This approach not only holds them accountable for their actions but also serves as a deterrent against similar conduct by other corporations.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(11) The information provided in the studies previously mentioned and conducted by researchers at MIT and Harvard University is crucial, especially considering McDonald’s evil marketing strategies, which skillfully target vulnerable demographics, including children and teenagers. A notable example is one of McDonald’s partners in crime, The Marketing Store, in France, proudly professing their expertise in engaging these young audiences. Such tactics, deliberately designed to exploit, can only be described as malevolent. Remember, even thirteenyearold children are expected to discern the implications of these sophisticated marketing schemes. This exploitation of innocence is nothing short of diabolical.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(12) A post^{8} published in March 2024 by the American Cancer Society on LinkedIn states that “McDonald’s changed the way kids dined when they launched the Happy Meal nationwide in 1979. If you were also established in 1979, then it’s time to talk with your healthcare provider about colorectal cancer screening. […]” (I emphasize).
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(13) This post by the American Cancer Society unambiguously implies a correlation between the commercial practices of McDonald’s and cancer.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(14) See the screenshot of the American Cancer Society’s post below for evidence:
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(15) So, yes. McDonald’s kills. Sure, it’s not as fast as a bullet in the head but as the American Cancer Society’s post clearly implies, an unhealthy diet will, sooner or later, cause serious health complications and therefore, sometimes, premature death.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(B)(16) And I believe the number of premature deaths that McDonald’s Corporation and their accomplices have already caused or will cause in the future might be thousandsfold higher than the number of premature deaths Volkswagen will cause. Which leads us to the next question, and section: equality before the law.
(II)(C) Will German Automobile Manufacturer Volkswagen and American Fast Food Chain McDonald’s Corporation Be Held Accountable to the Same Standard by the American Judicial System?
(DRAFT#29)(II)(C)(1) The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), along with other regulatory bodies, took significant actions against the German automobile manufacturer Volkswagen in light of the emissions scandal. Volkswagen agreed to plead guilty to three criminal felony counts and paid a $2.8 billion criminal penalty for its scheme to cheat on U.S. emissions tests. This settlement^{9} was part of a broader action that included a total of $4.3 billion in criminal and civil penalties. The penalties were imposed not only for the direct violation of environmental laws but also for misleading consumers and the government about the vehicles’ emissions standards compliance. These actions reflected the DOJ’s commitment to holding companies accountable for corporate wrongdoing, emphasizing the importance of corporate honesty and integrity.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(C)(2) In addition to the criminal penalties, Volkswagen agreed to spend up to $14.7 billion to settle allegations related to cheating on emissions tests and deceiving customers. This settlement included up to $10 billion for buybacks, lease terminations, or modifications of affected vehicles and compensation for consumers. Furthermore, Volkswagen was required to spend $4.7 billion to mitigate pollution and invest in green vehicle technology, highlighting the government’s effort to not only penalize but also rectify the environmental damage caused.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(C)(3) While the specifics of the settlement discussions between Volkswagen and the DOJ do not explicitly mention the estimates of premature deaths caused by the excess emissions, the comprehensive nature of the penalties and the requirement for Volkswagen to mitigate pollution suggests a broad effort to address the environmental and public health impacts of the scandal.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(C)(4) The actions taken against Volkswagen serve as a precedent for holding corporations accountable for environmental violations and ensuring they contribute to remedying the harm caused.
(DRAFT#29)(II)(C)(5) Given the rigorous legal actions taken against Volkswagen for its environmental violations, it raises the question of whether the American fast food chain McDonald’s will face similar scrutiny and accountability for engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity as defined under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The precedent set by the Volkswagen case underscores the importance of corporate responsibility and the legal system’s role in enforcing it. Will the same standards apply to McDonald’s Corporation and their accomplices, ensuring that they are held accountable for their crimes?
(DRAFT#29)(II)(C)(6) As we navigate the complexities of corporate malfeasance and organized crime, the cases of Volkswagen and McDonald’s illuminate the urgent need for transparent, ethical business practices. It is a call to consumers, regulators, and the legal system to hold corporations accountable, ensuring that the standards of integrity apply uniformly across the board.
Return to the Table of Contents ↩︎
(III) Understanding McDonald’s Influence and Its Power to Corrupt
(III)(A) Beware of False Appearances! McDonald’s Is a True and a Very Powerful Criminal Organization With Deep Political Connections
(DRAFT#29)(III)(A)(1) This section is intended to delve into the complex interplay between McDonald’s corporate strategies and its extensive political connections, which contribute to its powerful influence over various sectors. A brief analysis and evidence will be provided in future updates to this report.
(III)(B) McDonald’s Corporation and its Accomplices are Major Donors to Politicians
(DRAFT#29)(III)(B)(1) This section will explore the significant financial contributions made by McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices, including various franchisees, to political figures across both major U.S. political parties. Despite its extensive involvement in lobbying and political donations, there are serious allegations that McDonald’s operates as a criminal enterprise. This presents a troubling paradox where influential corporate practices may potentially intersect with illicit activities. Detailed evidence and further discussion of these issues will be expanded upon at a later stage if time permits.
(III)(C) Has McDonald’s Corporation Corrupted Washington D.C.?
(DRAFT#29)(III)(C)(1) The integrity of the American judicial system is something I deeply respect and uphold as fundamental to our democratic systems. However, the extraordinary implications surrounding the potential bankruptcy of McDonald’s Corporation — a scenario with farreaching economic and social repercussions — necessitate a cautious and vigilant approach. It is not my intention to cast unwarranted allegations on the federal government or to suggest that the core of Washington D.C. is corrupted. Instead, this section poses a rhetorical question: Has McDonald’s Corporation Corrupted Washington D.C.?
(DRAFT#29)(III)(C)(2) This inquiry serves as a critical reflection point to scrutinize the interactions between McDonald’s and key elements within the federal system. Given the magnitude of what’s at stake, it is imperative that every facet of this case is examined under the most rigorous and transparent standards. We must ensure that our guardians of justice, whether in the United States, or in France or other countries, remain vigilant and that their actions continue to foster trust and uphold the law without compromise.
(III)(D) Have the Accomplices of McDonald’s Corporation Corrupted U.S. States and Local Officials?
(DRAFT#29)(III)(D)(1) Just as it is prudent to examine the potential influence McDonald’s Corporation may exert on federal entities, it is equally crucial to consider the extent of its reach within state and local government structures. McDonald’s operates not only as a corporate entity but also through a vast network of franchisees who, while independently owned, are intrinsically linked to the corporation’s broader agenda. These franchisees often engage in significant political contributions, either directly to local officials or through Political Action Committees (PACs) that support various political figures including senators and governors.
(DRAFT#29)(III)(D)(2) This section will explore whether the affiliations and financial activities of McDonald’s and its associates have the potential to unduly influence local governance and law enforcement agencies. This is not just a theoretical concern but a practical one, as the localized power dynamics can directly affect communitylevel regulations and enforcement practices.
(DRAFT#29)(III)(D)(3) As we proceed to question these influences, we will also delve into specific examples, such as the inquiry into whether the MiamiDade Police could have been compromised by such corporate relationships. This will serve as a concrete case study highlighting the need for vigilance and transparency at all levels of government interaction with private entities.
(III)(E) Has the MiamiDade Police Force Been Corrupted Already?
(DRAFT#29)(III)(E)(1) Coming soon…
(III)(F)
(III)(H) McDonald’s Power to Corrupt in France
(DRAFT#29)(III)(H)(1) As this report unfolds, intricate facts will be brought to light. A notable instance involves McDonald’s France, a European subsidiary of McDonald’s Corporation, which was represented at some point in time, maybe still is, by the law firm Péchenard & Associés. This law firm was established by the parents of Frédéric Péchenard, who, at the time of numerous massmarketing frauds and money laundering incidents, held a position analogous to the Director of the FBI in the United States—as the General Director of the French National Police.
(DRAFT#29)(III)(H)(2) What deepens even further the complexity of this relationship is the connection between McDonald’s France’s legal representation and Frédéric Péchenard. The attorney for McDonald’s France, Éric Andrieu, is not merely a partner of Péchenard & Associés; he is reportedly Frédéric Péchenard’s lifelong best friend, since childhood, based on information from a news article. This relationship mirrors a hypothetical scenario where the legal counsel for McDonald’s Corporation in a criminal RICO investigation is best friend, since childhood, with the FBI Director Christopher Wray, and is employed by a law firm founded by Wray’s parents, with Wray’s mother still a lawyer within the firm. The parallels drawn here illustrate a profound conflict of interest that sharply highlights the issues at play in France.
(DRAFT#29)(III)(H)(3) While it may be premature to categorize these actions unequivocally as corruption pending a thorough legal evaluation, it is evident that these dealings directly contravene the internal compliance policies of McDonald’s Corporation.
(DRAFT#29)(III)(H)(4) But in his book titled ”I Sold My Soul to McDonald’s,” JeanPierre Petit, the former CEO of McDonald’s France, makes a provocative assertion. The title itself, a reference to the saying “selling one’s soul to the devil,” sets the tone for Petit’s revelations. Within its pages, Petit appears to boast about McDonald’s ability to wield influence over politicians, suggesting the company had key political figures in their pockets. This candid admission sheds light on the extent of McDonald’s entanglements with political power, echoing concerns about corporate influence on democratic institutions.
Return to the Table of Contents ↩︎
(IV) Nonexhaustive List of the Crimes and Sometimes Alleged Crimes, Committed by McDonald’s Corporation and its Accomplices, and Persons who Became Accessories After the Fact, in the United States and/or Other Countries
(IV)(A) Quick Introduction about this nonexhaustive list and why the criminal activity, the RICO pattern of racketeering activity as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5), is continuous and has not concluded
Return to the Table of Contents ↩︎
(IV)(E) The First “1 in 4” McDonald’s Monopoly MassMarketing Fraud in France for the Year 2011
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(1) The 2011 McDonald’s Monopoly event in France was marred by at least five distinct criminal activities. This not only included an illegal lottery—a fact conclusively proven—but also encompassed three instances of massmarketing fraud, with the facts of these cases established beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is also a strong indication of a fifth fraudulent activity, the details of which are yet to be fully uncovered. This partial analysis exposes the first of these five fraudulent actions, masterminded by McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s France together with their coconspirators, including franchisees and other complicit parties. Notably, the “1 in 4” massmarketing fraud that occurred in France during 2011 encompasses two separate fraudulent acts; this discussion will specifically address the initial one.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(2) I will begin by presenting a photograph that now serves as crucial evidence in this criminal RICO case. This photograph was included in an open letter I addressed, in 2019, to François Molins^{10} who had previously served as the head of the prosecutorial office of the Paris Court, France’s leading authority on overseeing whitecollar and financial crimes nationwide. By the time of the letter, he had ascended to the ultimate position in the prosecutorial hierarchy as the Chief Prosecutor (Procureur Général) at the Court of Cassation (Cour de Cassation), one of the French Supreme Courts.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(3) While the initial impression may lead one to believe that this is primarily a French matter, I must respectfully disagree since similar frauds also took place in the United States and other countries around the world. It is imperative that the FBI, along with state and county prosecutor’s offices and law enforcement agencies worldwide, conduct thorough investigations into these crimes without solely relying on or deferring to the French judicial system. The reasons for my skepticism towards solely depending upon the French authorities will become apparent as I elucidate the corruption aspect of this case later in this report.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(4) Notably, McDonald’s France was funneling money to the law firm Péchenard & Associés, established by the parents of Frédéric Péchenard, the former General Director of the French National Police. This act was condoned by the executives of McDonald’s Corporation, despite my explicit warnings to them, even though it starkly contravenes their own compliance policy.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(5) It’s important to note that François Molins had close ties with Frédéric Péchenard, the former General Director of the French National Police. I read on the blog of a French magistrate that it was Molins’ favorable relationship with Péchenard that facilitated his career advancement. I’ve reported both Péchenard and Molins as people of interest, among others, in the second complaint I submitted to the SEC Office of the Whistleblower on November 15, 2022^{11}.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(6) That is why in the introduction of my open letter to François Molins^{12}, then Chief Prosecutor of one of the French Supreme Courts, I expressed my respect for him and gave him the benefit of the doubt. However, I also unequivocally stated that “[…] after reading this formal notice, if you continue to claim that the facts I am denouncing do not constitute criminal offenses, I take no risk in stating that you would then be either dangerously incompetent or simply corrupt.” I stand by my statement!
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(7) Here is the English translated version of the picture I submitted to the French authorities as evidence:
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(8) The original French version is available for viewing here or in my open letter to Mr. Molins.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(9) This picture shows you what consumers (i.e. the victims) would see at the time of placing their orders at the McDonald’s DriveThru. It fraudulently and clearly states “1 CHANCE OUT OF 4 TO WIN INSTANTLY”. The probability is given irrelevant to how many “GAME STAMPS” the consumers purchase. The consumers have 1 in 4 chance of winning instantly whether they purchase an item offering 2 game stamps or 4 game stamps.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(10) Let’s explore the logical implications of the claim that the chance of winning is 1 in 4, regardless of whether a consumer purchases an item that gives 2 or 4 game stamps.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(11) Assumption:
The sweepstake claim is that participants have a 1 in 4 chance of winning, irrespective of the number of game stamps purchased.
Logical Deduction:
Uniform Probability Claim: The claim factually states a uniform winning probability across different quantities of game stamps. It means that the probability doesn’t change with the number of game stamps purchased.
Inherent Implication: If the chance of winning is indeed 1 in 4 for any number of game stamps purchased, the logical implication is that each game stamp individually offers a 1 in 4 chance of winning. This is because the probability must be consistent across different quantities of game stamps to sustain the claim.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(12) Observant consumers directed to the fine print by a small asterisk (*) would find a claim of even more favorable probabilities—asserting that the chance of winning was not 1 in 4, but an implausible 1 in 2.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(13) To fully understand McDonald’s second fraudulent claim of an even more favorable probability—a 1 in 2 chance, as stated in the fine print—I refer you to the clear explanation I provided to New York Times journalist Constant Méheut. He acknowledged his comprehension of the fraud by stating in French, “J’ai bien compris la fraude ‘une chance sur quatre’,” which translates to “I clearly understood the ‘1 in 4 chance’ fraud.” For a detailed understanding of this matter, please refer to the explanation on my website: https://www.tojournalists.com/openletters/explanationssenttoconstantmeheutmay252022/
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(14) To summarize in one paragraph what I explained to Mr. Méheut, McDonald’s committed massmarketing fraud by falsely claiming consumers had 1 in 4 chance to win instantly. The fine print contradicted the main message by claiming an even better probability: a 1 in 2 chance to win instantly. However, the actual probability were neither of these, but rather a significantly lower 1 in 8 chance to win instantly, probability which appears nowhere, neither in the fine print nor in the official rules.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(15) If the real probability of 1 chance out of 8 wasn’t displayed anywhere, how could I find out, you might wonder? The answer lies in the application of statistical analysis, particularly the Central Limit Theorem. This principle illustrates that with a large enough sample size, the distribution of sample means will approximate a normal distribution, regardless of the population’s distribution shape.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(16) Through extensive participation in the McDonald’s Monopoly game and a significant investment, I gathered a large dataset of game stamps. This data enabled me to calculate an empirical probability of winning, which distinctly indicated a winning chance of merely 1 in 8.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(17) As an analyst who closely observed the patterns within this data, I was able to derive robust statistical evidence to expose the discrepancy between McDonald’s advertised probabilities and the actual chances. Thus, while the promotional materials failed to disclose these probabilities, my comprehensive personal analysis revealed this severe instance of massmarketing fraud orchestrated by McDonald’s Corporation, McDonald’s France, and their accomplices.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(18) The criminal nature of this fraudulent promotion is revealed when examining the actual probability of winning advertised to consumers. Despite the bold claim of a “1 in 4 chance to win instantly,” the real probability was only 1 in 8. This substantial discrepancy between the advertised and actual probabilities, coupled with internally contradictory information, undoubtedly constitutes a case of serious massmarketing fraud.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(19) According to the EU’s COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, “where there is doubt about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favorable to the consumer shall prevail.” Therefore, the interpretation most favorable to the consumer would be a 1 in 2 chance of winning instantly, revealing a fourfold deviation from the advertised probability.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(20) To provide clarity for the authorities, consider this analogy: imagine a jeweler advertising a ring as 12 carats gold, while the fine print claims it to be 24 carats gold. However, when customers purchase the ring, they receive only a 6 carats gold product. This scenario unequivocally constitutes serious fraud, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(21) The EU’s Council Directive 93/13/EEC, dated 5 April 1993, shares an indirect relationship with the legal principle of “contra proferentem,” also known as “interpretation against the draftsman.” This principle asserts that any ambiguity in a contract or its clauses should be interpreted against the party responsible for drafting it. The rationale behind this principle is the presumption that the contract’s author is in the most favorable position to clarify ambiguities, thus bearing the responsibility should the document’s language remain unclear.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(22) Moreover, this directive is part of a broader framework of laws and regulations designed to enhance consumer protection, a commitment that extends beyond the European Union. Many countries, including a majority of U.S. states and other nations worldwide, have enacted similar legal safeguards to protect consumers. These measures ensure that consumers are not disadvantaged by ambiguous contractual terms, promoting fairness and transparency in commercial dealings.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(23) While I won’t provide the complete text of Article 3131 of the French criminal code (formerly known as Article 405), which offers an indepth definition of fraud that encompasses a wide range of deceptive tactics and ruses to clarify what constitutes fraud, it’s beneficial to refer to several jurisprudences from French courts to further illustrate the scope of this law:
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(24) “Simple lies, even when documented in writing, are insufficient to constitute punishable maneuvers in matters of fraud; however, it is different when these lies are repeated and widely broadcasted via press advertisements.” (District Court of Laval, November 22, 1940) (I emphasize)
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(25) “Intensively resorting to deceptive advertising to lend credibility and support to false allegations itself constitutes a set of fraudulent maneuvers within the meaning of Article 405 of the criminal code. [Note: Article 405 in the former criminal code is now Article 3131 of the criminal code]” (District Court of Paris, November 17, 1983) (I emphasize)
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(26) “Advertising that can mislead the public in general, regardless of any harm, and fraud to the detriment of a specific person are two materially distinct offenses and can thus be prosecuted under two distinct counts.” (Criminal Chamber of the French Court of Cassation, May 10, 1978) (I emphasize)
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(27) So, while it’s evident that the promotional campaigns undertaken by McDonald’s rank among the most intensive worldwide in terms of advertising scope, quantity, and intensity, the stark violation of article 3131 (fraud) of the French criminal code cannot be overlooked: it’s a fact, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that McDonald’s France and its accomplices committed fraud.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(28) Another partial explanation of the “1 in 4” massmarketing fraud committed in France during 2011 is available in French. You can read it in the open letter I addressed in 2019 to Mr. Molins, who was then serving as the Procureur général près la Cour de Cassation—the highestranking public prosecutor in France. The letter can be accessed here: https://archive20210730.FrancoisMolins.fr/fr.html
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(29) Please note that FrancoisMolins.fr is a nonofficial website on François Molins.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(30) To access the content in English or another language, you might consider leveraging the translation feature integrated into your web browser. This tool can automatically translate the webpage for you, offering a convenient way to understand the information presented.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(31) McDonald’s France and their accomplices lied and committed massmarketing frauds targeting, among other people, vulnerable population like children. They lied because the real probability of winning was 1 in 8 and not 1 in 4 and even less 1 in 2. It’s massmarketing fraud. And nowhere was it written, not even in the official rules that almost nobody reads and which wouldn’t have any legal values in such instances of massmarketing fraud.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(32) Please remember that I initially said that the “1 in 4” massmarketing fraud that occurred in France during 2011 encompasses two separate fraudulent acts; this discussion specifically addressed the initial one. I will explain later, in another section, the second and distinct fraudulent act of this “1 in 4” massmarketing fraud. Furthermore, remember that I said that the this analysis was partial only.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(E)(33) Let’s now explore, in a more indepth analysis, the “1 in 4” massmarketing fraud as it occurred in the United States of America and let’s explore in details the nasty ruse, truly a criminal act of fraud, McDonald’s and its accomplices used to successfully (so far; but their days are now counted) defraud hundreds of millions of consumers, if not billions, across the world, over the last few decades.
Return to the Table of Contents ↩︎
(IV)(F) The First “1 in 4” McDonald’s Monopoly MassMarketing Fraud in the United States for the Year 2011
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(1) Similar to the 2011 instance of massmarketing fraud in France, the American version also exhibited multiple fraudulent elements. The “1 in 4” scheme in the United States was not a singular fraud but rather encompassed two distinct types of fraudulent activities. This analysis will concentrate on the first of these two types. Furthermore, it’s my assessment that the 2011 American edition not only engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation–through its collecttowin component–but also operated as an illegal lottery. These aspects, along with others, will be elaborated upon in subsequent sections.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(2) I believe we will go a long way if I directly give you a brief introduction with the answer, which I actually already partially gave in the executive summary, to how this criminal enterprise orchestrated by McDonald’s Corporation has successfully defrauded billions of consumers worldwide for decades while successfully flying below the radars and never getting caught (yet). It’s also important to quickly mention that I currently believe there might have been attempts, by government officials, both American and French, to cover up the crimes in an attempt to protect McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s France from bankruptcy. There is a lot of money at stake. An exceptional diligence is in order!
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(3) It’s crucial for you to understand that there were many different types of massmarketing frauds and the massmarketing fraud I focus in this section is proven not only beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond a shadow of a doubt since it’s supported by a rigorous mathematical demonstration.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(4) But what is a fraud? Here is how an archive of the criminal resource manual of the website of the United States Department of Justice^{13} defines fraud:
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(5) “The statute does not define the phrase “obtained by fraud.” Fraud is defined by nontechnical standards and is not to be restricted by any commonlaw definition of false pretenses. One court has observed, “[t]he law does not define fraud; it needs no definition; it is as old as falsehood and as versatile as human ingenuity.” Weiss v. United States, 122 F.2d 675, 681 (5th Cir. 1941), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 (1941). The Fourth Circuit, reviewing a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2314, also noted that “fraud is a broad term, which includes false representations, dishonesty and deceit.” See United States v. Grainger, 701 F.2d 308, 311 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 947 (1983).” (I emphasize)
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(6) Consider this straightforward analogy to better understand the nature of fraud: Imagine a jewelry store that advertises and sells rings purported to contain 12 carats of gold. However, the actual gold content in the jewelry is only 6 carats. This would undoubtedly constitute fraud. Similarly, if a vendor claims to sell 100% milk but dilutes it with water so that it only contains 50% milk, yet still fraudulently advertises it as 100% milk, this too is a clear case of fraud.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(7) In essence, this is precisely what McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices are accused of doing: they advertise false probabilities of winning their sweepstakes to encourage consumers to spend more money. However, fraudulent advertising by McDonald’s isn’t limited to misleading probabilities. It can also involve other forms of deception, such as inaccurately representing product specifications. An example from China, which I will detail later, demonstrates how dimensions of a product were fraudulently advertised. While the fraud in China did not involve sweepstakes, the underlying modus operandi—misrepresenting the truth to enhance consumer spending—is identical.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(8) In cases of whitecollar and financial crimes, the motive is almost invariably financial gain. However, it’s important to remember that massmarketing fraud represents just one facet of this extensive criminal RICO case. Other offenses include money laundering, obstruction of justice, corruption of foreign officials, and corruption and/or attempts to corrupt American law enforcement officers, among others. We will delve deeper into these aspects in due course.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(9) Here is a screenshot from a TV advertisement featuring NBA basketball superstar LeBron James. In this commercial, McDonald’s blatantly lies, asserting that the probability of winning are 1 in 4 per attempt, where each attempt corresponds to one game stamp:
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(10) The video from which this screenshot was captured can be viewed in this post^{14} on X (formerly Twitter). As you can clearly see, McDonald’s unequivocally states that the probability of winning is 1 in 4, while the fine print, barely legible, confirms the obvious: “Odds based on 2 Game Pieces (each has 2 Game Stamps).”
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(11) In other words, the calculation for the winning probability is actually based on 4 game stamps, since 2 game pieces each contain 2 stamps, effectively making it 2 × 2 = 4.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(12) Drawing from “Probability: For the Enthusiastic Beginner”^{15} by David J. Morin^{16}, a Senior Lecturer and the CoDirector of Undergraduate Studies in the Physics Department at Harvard University, the probability \(p\) of an event happening is calculated by:
$$p = \frac{\text{number of desired outcomes}}{\text{total number of possible outcomes}}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(13) In the context of probability theory, when defining a specific probability scenario with an equation, it is common and appropriate to use uppercase ‘\(P\)’ in probability notation. Thus, if we are trying to determine the probability ‘\(p\)’ of an event being an instantwin, we denote it as \(P(\text{instantwin})\).
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(14) Given that McDonald’s claimed consumers had 1 in 4 chance to win instantly, the probability \(P(\text{instantwin})\) is expressed as:
$$P(instantwin) = \frac{1}{4}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(15) This translates to:
$$P(instantwin) = \frac{1}{4} = \frac{\text{number of desired outcomes}}{\text{total number of possible outcomes}}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(16) McDonald’s specified in the fine print of their 2011 TV advertisement featuring NBA superstar LeBron James that the calculation was based on 4 game stamps. Thus, the total number of possible outcomes is 4 game stamps:
$$P(instantwin) = \frac{1}{4} = \frac{\text{number of desired outcomes}}{\text{4 game stamps}}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(17) Given that the total number of possible outcomes is 4 game stamps, and McDonald’s has not explicitly clarified the number of desired outcomes—namely, how many of these 4 game stamps are winning—we must solve the equation ourselves. Let’s denote the variable \(x\) to represent the number of desired outcomes, that is, the number of instantwin game stamps:
$$P(instantwin) = \frac{1}{4} = \frac{x\ \text{game stamp(s)}}{\text{4 game stamps}}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(18) To determine the value of \(x\) that makes this equation true, we analyze the relationship between the two fractions. We need to find how many game stamps (\(x\)) out of 4 represent a quarter (\(\frac{1}{4}\)) of the total. Therefore:
$$\frac{1}{4} = \frac{x}{\text{4}}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(19) To solve for \(x\), you can crossmultiply if it helps to see the logic, but in this case, since both denominators are the same (4), it directly implies that the numerators must also be equal for the fractions to be equal. Therefore:
$$x = 1$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(20) This calculation confirms that 1 game stamp out of the pool of 4 must be a winning stamp to satisfy the advertised ‘1 in 4’ chance of winning instantly. Thus, the fine print does support McDonald’s heavily advertised claim of a ‘1 in 4’ chance of winning per game stamp.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(21) This may appear innocent at first glance. However, the genuine fraud materializes when you examine the reality of the situation. Contrary to McDonald’s claim, American consumers only had a 1 in 8 probability of winning.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(22) McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices systematically manipulated the game to dispense only half the instantwinning game stamps than what they expressly promised.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(23) McDonald’s heavily hammered the consumers (the victims) with that fraudulent claim that they had “1 in 4” chance to win instantly per game stamp. Yet, as I perfectly demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, it was mathematically impossible–even for those carefully reading the fine print which was barely readable–for the millions of victims of this criminal enterprise, criminal enterprise orchestrated by the criminal entity McDonald’s Corporation, to realize that they were being defrauded and that the real probability was in fact 1 in 8. Indeed, and as I previously briefly mentioned in the previous section of this crime report regarding the fraud as it happened in France for the same year of 2011, the real probability of winning instantly was 1 chance out of 8 and not 1 chance out of 4!
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(24) To fathom the severity of this massmarketing fraud, consider the same analogy I previously mentioned: if a jewelry store advertises and sells a ring as being 24 carats gold, but in truth, the ring only contains 12 carats of gold, it’s undeniable fraud. Given the prior warnings and knowledge, McDonald’s Corporation did not act on mere oversight or innocent misrepresentation. Instead, they deliberately engaged in massmarketing fraud. By extension, given the financial gains achieved through this deception, they also became implicated in money laundering activities.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(25) The 1 in 4 discrepancy was not just a minor oversight; it was a blatant manipulation of odds that misled in the U.S. alone tens of millions of consumers, if not hundreds of millions–including millions of childvictims–leading them to believe they had a better chance of winning than they actually did. This isn’t merely a violation of advertising standards; it’s a stark case of fraud!
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(26) Such a significant distortion in consumer promotion, especially when propagated by a global corporation like McDonald’s, cannot be understated or dismissed as a mere misstep. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, as the premier agency upholding federal laws, must intervene without delay. This singular instance of fraudulent misrepresentation demands a comprehensive investigation. It is imperative to determine the extent of McDonald’s criminal practices and ensure that all of the entities involved, including franchisees, in this deliberate deception are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(27) This fraudulent concept wasn’t confined to a single region or country. In collusion with its numerous accomplices, McDonald’s Corporation executed this maliciously deceptive and criminally fraudulent scheme on a global scale.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(28) You may contend, based on what has been presented so far about the U.S. version of the fraud, that I haven’t conclusively demonstrated any deception. Instead, you might see a consistency between McDonald’s claims and their fine print. I understand this viewpoint. So, how can I assert with confidence that the probability was truly 1 in 8, rather than 1 in 4? The key lies in an article penned by journalist Walter Hickey, for Business Insider, roughly a decade ago.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(29) However, I must interject here with a significant cautionary note. The said article, although enlightening in some respects, contains a multitude of inaccuracies and errors. Mr. Hickey’s credentials, as per his LinkedIn profile, suggest he holds a Bachelor of Science in Applied Mathematics from William & Mary University. His article emerged shortly after his graduation, which implies it’s improbable he’d already forgotten fundamental mathematical tenets. Yet, his work exhibits glaring mathematical and statistical oversights.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(30) I am inclined to believe in the professional integrity of Insider Inc., the parent company of Business Insider where Mr. Hickey’s article was published, and hope they acknowledge these errors. Yet, it is imperative for the U.S. authorities to comprehend that the article’s mathematical assertions are flawed. For the sake of ensuring that this crime report remains concise and focused, I’ve included an open letter (intended for Insider Inc. and Mr. Hickey) as Annex A. This letter calls upon him and his publishing entity to rectify the identified errors and all other inaccuracies. The stance they choose in response shouldn’t deter American authorities from scrutinizing the facts objectively.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(31) As I explained Insider Inc. and Mr. Hickey, “the axiom of extension in the set theory underscores that two sets are equal only if they share the same identical elements. [His] conflation of individual elements with sets in [his] probability calculations is a fundamental error.”
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(32) To augment clarity, I’ve also prepared a comprehensive exposition detailing the “1 in 4” fraud as it transpired in the U.S. context. This thorough exploration is backed by supporting evidence. Based on this data alone, there exists a compelling case for alleging massmarketing fraud by McDonald’s, a case that, I argue, is substantiated beyond any shadow of doubt.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(33) However, before diving into the specifics contained in Annex A, I ardently recommend that you continue perusing this primary crime report in its entirety. Upon completion, I advise a second reading, but on this round, kindly include the supplementary information furnished in the attached annex.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(34) Before delving into the intricate mathematical analysis that exposes McDonald’s reprehensible conduct, it is crucial to understand the profound severity of their actions. This crime report and the ensuing detailed analysis meticulously uncovers the monstrous criminal scheme perpetrated by McDonald’s Corporation. As we proceed, you will see how this multinational giant, with the complicity of thousands of franchisees and other coconspirators, has systematically executed one of the most egregious massmarketing frauds on record.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(35) The analysis leverages rigorous mathematical principles to demonstrate conclusively how McDonald’s deceit was not merely a violation of ethical standards but a calculated betrayal of consumer trust. This deception cruelly ensnared millions, including vulnerable children, under the guise of a fair game. Unlike mere allegations, the evidence compiled herein establishes McDonald’s culpability beyond any shadow of a doubt.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(36) This meticulous dissection of their scheme will lay bare the cold, calculated precision with which McDonald’s manipulated probabilities to their favor, perpetuating a lie that has grievously harmed consumers, and competitors, worldwide. As we expose this truth, I urge you to absorb every detail of this report, preparing you for the unvarnished reality of corporate malfeasance at its most unforgivable.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(37) So, in the United States, for the 2011 edition of this massmarketing fraud, McDonald’s Corporation and their thousands of accomplices, which include among other persons, the franchisees, fraudulently claimed to consumers, the victims, who include millions of innocent childvictims, that they had a per attempt probability–in which 1 attempt was 1 game stamp–of 1 in 4 chance to win instantly. It was a vicious lie and a vicious fraud: this wasn’t the probability of winning instantly per attempt. It was, in reality, the result of the sum of what we call in probability theory the probability mass function (PMF) of the hypergeometric distribution for obtaining at least \(k\) successes, summing from \(i=k\) to the minimum of \(n\) and \(K\), each term calculating the probability of exactly \(i\) successes in a sample of size \(n\) from a population of \(N\) with \(K\) successes and represented by the following expression:
$$P_{N, K, n}(X \geq k) = \sum_{i=k}^{\min(n, K)} \frac{{\binom{K}{i} \cdot \binom{NK}{ni}}}{{\binom{N}{n}}}$$
Where:
 \(\binom{a}{b}\) is a binomial coefficient.
 \(K\) is the number of potential successes in the population (which in our case corresponds to the total number of instantlywinning game stamps in the population).
 \(N\) is the total population size (which in our case corresponds to the total number of game stamps).
 \(n\) is the sample size, corresponding to the number of attempts; in our case, this equals the number of game stamps used for the calculation.
 \(k\) is the number of successes desired, corresponding, in our case, to the number of instantlywinning game stamps needed for the probability to be deemed successful. In our case, this is 1 instantlywinning game stamp, as we calculate the probability of winning instantly and only 1 instantlywinning game stamp is required to qualify as a win.
 \(i\) is the current number of successes being considered in the summation, ranging from \(k\) to \(\min(n, K)\).
The term \(\min(n, K)\) in the formula represents the smaller of the two values, \(n\) and \(K\):
 \(n\) is the number of trials or attempts, which in the context of this game is the number of game stamps you have.
 \(K\) is the total number of successful outcomes available in the population. In this game, this represents the total number of winning game stamps.
The function \(\min(n, K)\) is used in the formula to ensure that the summation does not exceed the actual number of successes or trials available. For instance, if there are more trials than instantlywinning game stamps available (i.e., \(n > K\)), then the maximum number of successes you can actually observe is \(K\). Conversely, if the number of available instantlywinning game stamps exceeds the number of trials (i.e., \(K > n\)), then the maximum number of successes is limited by the number of trials \(n\).
Using \(\min(n, K)\) in the formula ensures that the probability calculation remains realistic and grounded in the actual constraints of the situation. It avoids calculating probabilities for more successes than are logically possible given the setup of the population and the sample size.
A binomial coefficient, commonly represented as \(\binom{a}{b}\) and read as “a choose b,” is a key mathematical concept used in combinatorics. It describes the number of ways to choose \(b\) items from a set of \(a\) items without regard to the order of the items. Here’s how it is calculated and what it represents:
Calculation of a binomial coefficient
The binomial coefficient is calculated using the formula:
$$\binom{a}{b} = \frac{a!}{b!(ab)!}$$
where \(!\) denotes factorial, the product of all positive integers up to that number. For example, \(5! = 5 \times 4 \times 3 \times 2 \times 1 = 120\).
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(38) And that is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what the “1 in 4” was approximately the result of. And I repeat it again to make sure it sinks in: it wasn’t the result of the probability \(p\) of a certain event happening, probability \(p\) which is defined, and understood by 99.9999% of the population, if not 100%, by the following expression:
$$p = \frac{\text{number of desired outcomes}}{\text{total number of possible outcomes}}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(39) This simple formula represents the probability of a certain event happening and it’s how 99.9999% of the population, if not 100%, understand the term “probability.”
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(40) This formula defining a probability is selfexplanatory: imagine an urn containing 4 drawing balls (the total number of possible outcomes), and if 1 of these drawing balls is of red color and 3 of these drawing balls are of blue color, if you want to calculate the probability of drawing the (only) 1 drawing ball of red color, since there is only 1 red drawing ball in the urn, the number of desired outcomes is 1, and the probability is 1 in 4, or, written as a fraction, \(\frac{1}{4}\).
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(41) While not everyone may know the precise mathematical definition of probability, most people possess an innate understanding of it, as illustrated by the example I’ve just given.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(42) That’s how these fraudsters travestied the truth: this criminal enterprise, orchestrated by the criminal entity McDonald’s Corporation, with the complicity of, among other persons, criminals like the franchisees who partook in this criminal enterprise (criminal negligence at the very least for the franchisees), lied to the consumers and fraudulently misrepresented the “1 in 4” as the result of a regular probability as opposed to what it truly was: the sum of the probability mass function (PMF) of the hypergeometric distribution for obtaining at least \(k\) successes, summing from \(i=k\) to the minimum of \(n\) and \(K\), each term calculating the probability of exactly \(i\) successes in a sample of size \(n\) from a population of \(N\) with \(K\) successes. And it was mathematically impossible for consumers to know what the real probability truly was even if they carefully read the fine print.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(43) Using such a criminal scheme, this criminal enterprise could have used almost any numbers they wanted to conceal the real probability of winning per attempt and yet systematically fraudulently claim, through this massmarketing fraud, that consumers (who are federal crime victims of a pattern of racketeering activity as defined under the RICO Act) had a “1 in 4” probability per attempt of winning instantly, which wouldn’t have been the real probability of winning.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(44) Let’s delve into a practical example to demonstrate how the scheme employed by McDonald’s can obscure the actual probability of winning. Recall the fundamental definition of probability: the ratio of the number of favorable outcomes to the total number of possible outcomes. In our context, this translates to the ratio of winning game stamps to the total game stamps available. Suppose we have a total of 5,000,000 (five million) game stamps, and within this pool, there are only 10,000 (ten thousand) that are instantwin stamps. Then, the probability \(P(\text{instantwin})\) of drawing a winning game stamp is calculated as follows:
$$P(\text{instantwin}) = \frac{10,000}{5,000,000}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(45) By simplifying, this becomes:
$$P(\text{instantwin}) = \frac{1}{500}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(46) This corresponds to 1 chance out of 500.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(47) Now, let’s imagine you are a nefarious organization like McDonald’s Corporation, and you find that a probability of 1 in 500 doesn’t quite entice your prospective victims. To make this more appealing, you opt for a facade of generosity, suggesting a 1 in 4 chance of winning—precisely as McDonald’s did. How can such a discrepancy be orchestrated? The method is straightforward: deceitfully manipulate the perceived probability. This is achieved by fraudulently misrepresenting the “1 in 4” chance of winning through the hypergeometric distribution formula we previously discussed.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(48) Now, to illustrate, with 144 attempts, drawing from a pool of 5,000,000 game stamps where only 10,000 are winners, the probability per attempt is indeed 1 in 500. However, using these 144 attempts, we seemingly reach the appealing figure of 1 in 4. It’s crucial to remember that this ‘1 in 4’ is not the actual probability of winning per attempt; the true probability remains 1 in 500 per attempt. But before we delve deeper, you might wonder how I determined that precisely 144 attempts are necessary to construct this illusion. Explaining this calculation here would be too complex and is beyond the scope of our current discussion. However, law enforcement investigators and their expert analysts are encouraged to contact me directly. I can explain how, while not any number can be fabricated—since certain mathematical ratios must be maintained—almost any numbers can appear feasible as long as these ratios are respected.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(49) To calculate the probability of winning at least one game stamp in 144 draws from a pool of 5,000,000 game stamps, where 10,000 are winners, we must consider all possible winning outcomes—from just one winning stamp to the maximum possible based on our draws. This is because any number of wins from one to 144 qualifies as a successful outcome. We will use the hypergeometric distribution formula to compute the probability for each scenario of drawing one or more winning stamps:
Hypergeometric Distribution Formula for \(P_{N, K, n}(X = k)\)
$$P_{N, K, n}(X = k) = \frac{{\binom{K}{k} \cdot \binom{NK}{nk}}}{{\binom{N}{n}}}$$
Where:
\(N\) = 5,000,000 (total game stamps)
\(K\) = 10,000 (winning game stamps)
\(n\) = 144 (number of stamps drawn per attempt)
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(50) Probability of drawing exactly 1 winning game stamp (\(k\) = 1):
$$P_{5,000,000, 10,000, 144}(X = 1) = \frac{{\binom{10,000}{1} \cdot \binom{4,990,000}{143}}}{{\binom{5,000,000}{144}}}$$
Probability of drawing exactly 2 winning game stamps (\(k\) = 2):
$$P_{5,000,000, 10,000, 144}(X = 2) = \frac{{\binom{10,000}{2} \cdot \binom{4,990,000}{142}}}{{\binom{5,000,000}{144}}}$$
Probability of drawing exactly 3 winning game stamps (\(k\) = 3):
$$P_{5,000,000, 10,000, 144}(X = 3) = \frac{{\binom{10,000}{3} \cdot \binom{4,990,000}{141}}}{{\binom{5,000,000}{144}}}$$
\([ \vdots ]\) (etc all the way down to 143 and finally 144)
Probability of drawing exactly 143 winning game stamps (\(k\) = 143):
$$P_{5,000,000, 10,000, 144}(X = 143) = \frac{{\binom{10,000}{143} \cdot \binom{4,990,000}{1}}}{{\binom{5,000,000}{144}}}$$
Probability of drawing exactly 144 winning game stamps (\(k\) = 144):
$$P_{5,000,000, 10,000, 144}(X = 144) = \frac{{\binom{10,000}{144} \cdot \binom{4,990,000}{0}}}{{\binom{5,000,000}{144}}}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(51) After applying the hypergeometric distribution formula to calculate the probabilities of drawing exactly 1, 2, 3, and so on, up to exactly 144 winning game stamps, we proceed to sum these probabilities. Remember, each attempt of 144 draws can result in any number of wins from 1 to 144—each scenario contributes to the total probability of winning at least once.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(52) The formula for the cumulative probability, or the sum of the probability mass function (PMF) of the hypergeometric distribution, for obtaining at least \(k\) successes is given as follows:
$$P_{N, K, n}(X \geq k) = \sum_{i=k}^{\min(n, K)} \frac{{\binom{K}{i} \cdot \binom{NK}{ni}}}{{\binom{N}{n}}}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(53) This summation integrates the probabilities of all scenarios from drawing exactly \(i\) winning game stamps to the maximum possible, given the constraints of the number of draws (144 attempts, denoted as \(n\) in our example) and the number of winning game stamps (10,000, denoted as \(K\) in our example). Each term in the sum calculates the probability of drawing exactly \(i\) winning game stamps in a sample size of 144 (as in the example we just made) from a population of 5,000,000 (denoted as \(N\) in our example) with 10,000 winning game stamps (as in the example we just made).
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(54) And now, for the moment of truth… drum roll… 🥁 … the result of our detailed calculation is approximately…
$$\frac{1}{4}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(55) We have just demonstrated how an initially unappealing probability of winning—1 in 500—can be manipulated to appear as favorable as 1 in 4. This transformation illustrates the deceptive power of statistical manipulation in promotional strategies, where the true odds are obscured to enhance attractiveness.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(56)
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(57)
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(58) One of the reasons I want to be extremely thorough is that I have myself been a victim of this criminal enterprise not only through their massmarketing frauds but also through their obstruction of justice. Indeed, I’ve witnessed McDonald’s Corporation and their accomplices, like McDonald’s France and its franchisees, and one of their Big Law law firms, Allen & Overy, going as far as to lie in a court of law thus committing other serious crimes as obstruction of justice. It’s my God given duty to report such exceptionally serious crimes to the authorities and to make 100% sure that honest officials don’t get fouled by these criminals and answer for their serious crimes in a court of law.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(59) That’s the reason, even though it might seem a bit repetitive for now, for full thoroughness, I’d like to guide you through another demonstration using, this time, binomial distributions.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(60) I am now going to very briefly introduce the concept of a binomial distribution. Important: please always remember that a binomial distribution is not the perfect formula to describe with absolute perfection what happened, for reasons I might explain later. But for now, simply accept it as true but with one condition: if, and only if, the sample pool size is large enough. The reason I will now use binomial distributions to explain is that by making two of the parameters showing explicitly, it will help you understand more easily the Machiavellian fraud that these whitecollar criminals machinated.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(61) In a hypergeometric distribution, probabilities change after each draw/trial/attempt. This being said, if, and only if, the sample pool size is large enough, a binomial distribution can substituted to the probability mass function (PMF) of the hypergeometric distribution for obtaining at least \(k\) successes, summing from \(i=k\) to the minimum of \(n\) and \(K\), each term calculating the probability of exactly \(i\) successes in a sample of size \(n\) from a population of \(N\) with \(K\) successes. Again, I might explain later why.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(62) Therefore, and to make the demonstration easier to understand we can also say that the “1 in 4” result wasn’t the result of the probability to win but was, approximately, the result of the sum of the probability mass function (PMF) of the binomial distribution (pay attention: this time, we are talking about the binomial distribution and not the hypergeometric distribution) for obtaining at least \(k\) successes, summing from \(i=k\) to \(n\), where each term within the sum calculates the probability of achieving exactly \(i\) successes in \(n\) trials.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(63) And so, the probability of at least \(k\) successes of a certain event happening would therefore be defined by the following expression:
$$P_{n,p}(X \geq k) = \sum_{i=k}^{n} \binom{n}{i} p^i (1p)^{ni}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(64) The small letter \(_p\) right at the beginning in the third position, in the subscript in \(P_{n,p}\) represents, in this formula, a Bernoulli trial. To explain briefly, let’s simply say, for now, that this parameter is the probability per attempt, while the small letter \(_n\) on its left side is the number of attempts. And so, the ruse of these fraudsters was to say, in essence, that a consumer, who would attempt this formula 1 time, would only then get about 1 in 4 chance to win instantly.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(65) And by choosing the right combination for the number of attempts \(n\) and for the probability \(p\), they could choose it in such a way that it would always end up approximately equaling a probability of 1 in 4 (or 25% of chance of winning instantly) even though the real probability could be 1 in a million (1 in 1,000,000, or 0.0001%). Here are a few concrete examples:
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(66) If the real probability per attempt is approximately 2.84% of chance of winning, with 10 attempts, you end up having approximately 1 in 4 chance to win instantly:
$$P_{10,\frac{2.84}{100}}(X \geq 1) \approx \frac{1}{4}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(67) It’s like saying:
First part: “You attempt 1 time […]”
Second part: “[…] 10 attempts with a 2.84% of chance of success per attempt […]”
Third part: “[…] and the probability of a success is about 25%, or 1 in 4.”
But McDonald’s fraudulently omits the second part: “[…] 10 attempts with a 2.84% of chance of success per attempt […]” and as a result, they end up making the following fraudulent, by omission, statement: “You attempt 1 time and the probability of a success is about 25%, or 1 in 4.”
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(68) McDonald’s fraudulently claimed that it’s the result of a probability, while it was in reality the result of the summation of the probability mass function (PMF) of the hypergeometric distribution for obtaining at least \(k\) successes, summing from \(i=k\) to the minimum of \(n\) and \(K\), each term calculating the probability of exactly \(i\) successes in a sample of size \(n\) from a population of \(N\) with \(K\) successes. Furthermore, by never disclosing in the fine print all the parameters to the consumers, it was mathematically impossible for them to just guess.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(69) Important note: please remember that it’s the probability mass function of the hypergeometric distribution and not the binomial distribution but that I am however displaying, to help you understand this fraud, the binomial distribution formula because it’s close enough and it can help the reader visualize the Machiavellian fraud committed by McDonald’s Corporation and their accomplices. Let me give you other examples:
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(70) If the real probability per attempt is “1 in 200” chance to win, or 0.5% (half a percent), with 57 attempts, you end up having 1 in 4 chance to win instantly:
$$P_{57,\frac{1}{200}}(X \geq 1) \approx \frac{1}{4}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(71) If the real probability per attempt is “1 in 500” chance to win, with 144 attempts, you end up having approximately 1 in 4 chance to win instantly:
$$P_{144,\frac{1}{500}}(X \geq 1) \approx \frac{1}{4}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(72) If the real probability per attempt is “1 in 1,000,000” chance to win (one in a million), with 287,682 attempts, you end up having 1 in 4 chance to win instantly:
$$P_{287682,\frac{1}{1000000}}(X \geq 1) \approx \frac{1}{4}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(73) To understand how people could be fooled is simple: it requires expert knowledge in the mathematical field of probability theory to fully fathom and understand perfectly this truly Machiavellian fraudulent scheme. Without expert knowledge and understanding, it’s hard, if not impossible, to understand what’s happening.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(74) Furthermore, because McDonald’s enjoys worldwide brand recognition, people don’t even dare to question if it’s possible they would have committed such vicious crimes targeting even children. And for those who do question their frauds, as I did, they are met with harassment, blackmail, threats, and what I can only accurately describe as the crime of witness tampering as it clearly was, and as a matter of fact still currently is, the case for me.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(75) Always remember this truth, this fact: in the United States, McDonald’s Corporation and their thousands of accomplices, which include among other persons, the franchisees, fraudulently claimed to consumers, the victims, who include millions of innocent childvictims, that they had a per attempt probability, in which 1 attempt was 1 game stamp, of 1 in 4 chance to win instantly. It was a vicious lie and a vicious fraud: this wasn’t the probability of winning instantly per attempt. It was, in reality, the result of the sum of what we call in probability theory the probability mass function (PMF) of the hypergeometric distribution for obtaining at least \(k\) successes, summing from \(i=k\) to the minimum of \(n\) and \(K\), each term calculating the probability of exactly \(i\) successes in a sample of size \(n\) from a population of \(N\) with \(K\) successes and represented by the following expression:
$$P_{N, K, n}(X \geq k) = \sum_{i=k}^{\min(n, K)} \frac{{\binom{K}{i} \cdot \binom{NK}{ni}}}{{\binom{N}{n}}}$$
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(76) Numerous countries were detrimentally impacted by these blatant misrepresentations of winning probabilities. Up to this point, I have already provided the FBI with irrefutable evidence, confirming beyond any doubt and with absolute certainty, that such fraud was perpetrated both in the United States and in France.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(77) But these are merely two instances of massmarketing frauds. A deeper probe is likely to uncover that similar fraudulent activities tainted McDonald’s promotional campaigns in other nations as well. Given the vast global footprint of McDonald’s Corporation, the extent and scale of this deceptive practice can be staggering. A coordinated, multinational approach is warranted to fully uncover the scope of this misconduct and to ensure justice for affected consumers worldwide.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(78) To conclude this section, it’s crucial to remember that the collecttowin aspect of the McDonald’s Monopoly sweepstakes in the United States for the year 2011 incorporated two distinct fraudulent elements. In this discussion, we’ve only addressed the first of these frauds—a twofold deviation from the truth. McDonald’s deceptively advertised the probability of winning per attempt as 1 in 4, while in reality, it was closer to 1 in 8. This is just one part of the broader deceit in the collecttowin scheme.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(79) It’s important to clarify that within this one sweepstakes, various games—each constituting separate instances of fraud—were promoted. The collecttowin game we’ve discussed is just one facet of this deception, possessing two fraudulent elements in itself, and here we have only explored the first. I will delve into the second fraudulent element of the collecttowin for the United States in the year 2011—and similarly deceptive practices in other years—after I present and analyze the nature of the fraud as it occurred in Australia in the year 2022.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(80) Fact: the first aspect of the specifically targeted instantwin fraudulent scheme in the 2011 massmarketing fraud in the United States has been conclusively proven, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt! This scheme includes two distinct fraudulent elements within the instantwin category alone. I will delve into the second aspect of the instantwin fraudulent scheme later on, further unpacking the layers of deception not only within the 2011 frauds but also in other editions.
(DRAFT#29)(IV)(F)(81)
Proverbs 12:22
Return to the Table of Contents ↩︎
(V) Urgent Recommendations for Addressing the Crimes Committed by McDonald’s Corporation and its Accomplices
(V)(Uncategorized1) Immediately Initiate Asset Forfeiture Measures Against McDonald’s Corporation and Any Complicit Parties
(DRAFT#29)(V)(Uncategorized1)(1) Given the magnitude of the purported fraud, the Department of Justice should invoke its authority, as per Title 18 U.S.C. § 981 and § 982, to immediately initiate asset forfeiture measures against McDonald’s Corporation and any complicit parties. Such actions are especially warranted if it becomes evident that the sums due to victims eclipse McDonald’s current market capitalization, not to mention the intrinsic value or book value of the company.
(DRAFT#29)(V)(Uncategorized1)(2) The book value, sometimes referred to as shareholders’ equity, provides a more genuine representation of a company’s net value. For McDonald’s Corporation, the book value is currently negative, a situation largely attributed to the extensive share buybacks the corporation has undertaken. While I’ll expound on this in detail later, there’s an underlying impression that the structure of these buybacks bears similarities to certain aspects of a Ponzi scheme. For the record, I am not categorically stating that McDonald’s Corporation is operating a Ponzi scheme; this is simply a preliminary concern that will be discussed further later in this crime report.
(DRAFT#29)(V)(Uncategorized1)(3) Please allow me to emphasize that civil forfeiture doesn’t require a criminal conviction or even criminal charges against the owner of the asset. Instead, the asset itself is named as the defendant (a process known as “in rem”, or “against the property”). The government only needs to show that the property was connected to certain illegal activities, usually by a “preponderance of the evidence” which is a lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in criminal cases.
(DRAFT#29)(V)(Uncategorized1)(4) The Department of Justice, through its various divisions (like the Asset Forfeiture Program), can and does initiate civil and criminal forfeitures based on a broad range of offenses, including fraud.
(DRAFT#29)(V)(Uncategorized1)(5) The government can initiate forfeiture procedures before a final judgment has been reached in the case, especially in situations where they believe the assets might be hidden, spent, or moved outside the jurisdiction of the court before the case is concluded. This is called “preliminary” or “prejudgment” forfeiture. The goal is to preserve the assets so they can be available for forfeiture if the government is ultimately successful in its case.
(DRAFT#29)(V)(Uncategorized1)(6) Civil forfeiture in the U.S. federal system is primarily governed by Title 18, U.S.C., Section 981 and Title 21, U.S.C., Section 881. These statutes provide the framework and authority for the government to seize and forfeit property involved in certain offenses.
(DRAFT#29)(V)(Uncategorized1)(7) For the specific details about the standard of proof and the “in rem” nature:
(DRAFT#29)(V)(Uncategorized1)(8) Civil Forfeiture Standard of Proof: The standard of proof was raised by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) of 2000. Under CAFRA, the government’s standard of proof in federal civil forfeiture proceedings is “preponderance of the evidence.” This is laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 983(c).
(DRAFT#29)(V)(Uncategorized1)(9) “In Rem” Proceedings: The concept of “in rem” forfeiture (i.e., against the property itself) is embedded in the language of many forfeiture statutes. For example, for assets related to money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 981 provides the authority for the government to seize and forfeit property involved in or traceable to certain offenses, including money laundering offenses. Section 981(a)(1)(A) specifically states that any property involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of sections 1956, 1957, or 1960 of title 18 (which cover money laundering and illegal money transmitting) is subject to forfeiture.
(DRAFT#29)(V)(Uncategorized1)(10) Moreover, many forms of fraud can lead to money laundering charges when the illicitly gained funds are moved, used, or disguised. Therefore, the assets connected to such fraudulent schemes can be subject to forfeiture under money laundering statutes as well.
(DRAFT#29)(V)(Uncategorized1)(11) Again, civil forfeiture actions are “in rem” (against the property itself). This means the government alleges that the property itself was involved in or is traceable to the commission of the relevant offense, rather than pursuing action against the owner of the property. The goal is to remove the assets from the illicit enterprise and deprive wrongdoers of the proceeds of their activities.
(V)(Uncategorized2) Immediately Initiate Asset Forfeiture Measures Against the Attorneys of this Criminal RICO Enterprise
Return to the Table of Contents ↩︎
To gain a clearer understanding of the sequence of events in this case, I invite you to view a detailed timeline at the following link:
https://www.ECTHRwatch.org/timeline/mcdonalds/
This timeline provides a comprehensive overview of the key milestones and developments.

https://www.usavmcdonalds.org/openletters/formalnoticesenttosenatormittromney20240308/ ↩︎

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/155129NCJRS.pdf ↩︎

https://www.ecthrwatch.org/timeline/ecthrrequestforinterimmeasuresfaxsubmission20231215/ ↩︎

https://news.mit.edu/2015/volkswagenemissionscheatcause60prematuredeaths1029 ↩︎

https://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagenemissionsprematuredeathseurope0303 ↩︎

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/17/tomwatsonurgesmcdonaldscancelunhealthycampaignpromotion ↩︎

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/acsoklahoma_colorectalcancereverycancereverylifeactivity7173350818153218048ags4 ↩︎

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagenagagreespleadguiltyandpay43billioncriminalandcivilpenaltiessix ↩︎

https://archive20210730.francoismolins.fr/fr/lettresouvertes/1/escroqueriemcdonalds1chancesur4faux1chancesur8enrealite.html ↩︎

https://www.securitiesandexchangecommission.com/openletters/seccomplaintofficeofthewhistleblower20221115/ ↩︎

https://archive20210730.francoismolins.fr/fr/lettresouvertes/1/introductionfrancoismolinscriminalitefinanciereetconflitdinterets.html ↩︎

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminalresourcemanual1007fraud ↩︎

https://twitter.com/ECtHRwatch/status/1503378499008180226 ↩︎

https://davidmorin.physics.fas.harvard.edu/books/probability/ ↩︎