Thursday, 26 March 2009

The thief should be penalised and Amway is the theif

A thief may use any number of tools but the judiciary convicts only the thief not the tools. Let us move ahead irrespective of the tools used by the Amway like subscription fee, annual subscription renewal fee, compulsory monthly purchase of products to make eligible for drawing commissions and so on and so forth. The main intention of these tools is to line Amway's pocket with easy/quick money and that is what pointed out by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Let us move forward with the observations of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The judgment stated that the Amway's counsel contended even assuming that the police are satisfied that the petitioners are indulging in money circulation scheme, they cannot highhandedly interfere with the business of the petitioners till the criminal court, after a full fledged trial, holds the petitioners guilty of the offence alleged against them. After carefully considering this submission, the judgment pointed out that "We have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel. It is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that no person shall be presumed to be guilty until his guilty is proved, but we are unable to accept the broad submissions of the learned counsel for the Amway that till the conclusion of the criminal case the police have no power to interfere with the business activities of the Amway. Section 7 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act empowers the police officer to enter, search and seize any premises if he has reason to suspect any prize chits or money circulation scheme is going on."
It shows that the police have powers even now to stop the business activities of the Amway as it is continuing the same offence again and again with impunity. That is the tragedy.


Tex said...

What part of "enter, search and seize" results in "police have powers even now to stop the business activities of the Amway...."?

The police ENFORCE laws, the judges INTERPRET the laws. If the police were allowed to shut down businesses, there would be no need for the judges.

Are you as clueless as QIAC?

Tex said...

Also, what is the source of your information?

How old are the statements?

I have no issue with a subscription fee, as it weeds out some inactive IBO's. However, I wouldn't mind getting rid of it either, but you should expect higher product prices, or a minimum purchase level to compensate for this change, as has been done in the UK.

The LCK tools are FAR more objectionable than the subscription/annual renewal fee.