An advantage of such a scheme is that if the E-cat doesn't work, it is not clear that the purchasers have been defrauded. They would still have exclusive manufacturing rights. The rights would simply be for a device that doesn't work. It would all depend on how the contract were worded. An important detail would be what court had jurisdiction and who the enforcing authority would be.
You only have to look at software contracts to see that it is easy to write a contract which completely protects the seller and leaves the buyer with no effective recourse.
That's a very, very interesting and insightful observation. Hmmm...
How long do you think he would still be breathing unassisted if he accepted 40M from someone for a scam? Think he would make it for an entire week?