Obviously, the con man is responsible for his actions and no amount of negligence, greed or stupidity on his victims' part can absolve him of that.  But the dupes, as you call them, may bear some responsibility too.  The question there is were they negligent or reckless in falling for the con.  If they were, that's their fault, irrespective of the con man's culpability. 

In our case, we, too, must face the question of how we scrutinized Rawat's claim.  Were we stupid or reckless?  Did we ignore readily available information because we simply wanted to believe? 

Frankly, I believe we who got sucked into the cult in the early 70's don't have much to be ashamed of.  For one thing, we were young and a certain measure of gullibility always accompanies youth.  We just didn't have the life experience to innoculate us against good, slick cons like Rawat's.  And yes, it was slick alright.  What a nice touch having the various tiers of testimonials and advocates.  The regular premies, who we most readily related to, touted their own experiences but deferred to the really experienced, long-time and "special" premies.  They in turn looked to the mahatmas who in turn pointed to the "Holy Family" who humbly prostrated at the feet of Rawat.  Who the hell were we to say all these people didn't know what they were talking about?

And don't forget this all occurred in a social environment that flirted quite heavily with anti-rationalism and the "ancient wisdom" of the mystical East.  Hesse, Watts, Leary, Ram Dass, Lang -- they were all urging us to take the leap.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, Rawat hadn't developed any of the long track record he now has for duplicity, evasion, failed promises and the like.  Yes, I admit, there was that one story that his minions were caught smuggling at the Indian airport but that seemed so small and anomalous.  Anyway, once we were in it was a hell of a lot harder to get out, what with all the anti-mind guilt trips. 

Now, when one considers people falling for this con today, well, that's quite a different question, isn't it?  Today, what with the internet and all the ample, readily available evidence against Rawat, it almost seems like wilfull folly for someone to simply jump in without seeking out and reviewing the facts about this man.  Furthermore, society's had more experience with charismatic cult leaders.  The notion was almost nonexistent for us in the 70's.  Today, I'd be surprised if some new person didn't at least consider the idea with Rawat in mind as they signed up for the Keys. 

And also, Rawat is so transparently evasive about everything today, not at all like back in the early 70's at least.  That, too, should raise some flags in any intelligent prospective mark. 

So, in short, the game's changed a bit over time.  It's always fair to ask who's responsible for what.  I think us early 70's premies don't have much to be embarrassed about.  Rawat is on the hook for all of it, though, then and now.  And he's got the bank accounts to prove it.