Sunday, 12 July 2009

Amway business is fundamentally fraudulent

For our smug Mr. IBOFB Steadson to state that I have accused UK judges of 'incompetence' is a typically gross-over-simplification of my analysis of the recent, failed UK petition to wind up 'Amway'. But then, what do you expect from a simpleton.
My lengthy deconstruction of the of the High Court and Appeal Court Decisions was posted on the Net. At the heart of this criticism was the irrefutable fact that UK government commercial regulators knew full-well that 'Amway' was a closed-market swindle shielding a much larger advanced fee fraud, but foolishly they decided first to pursue only a civil investigation of, and civil lawsuit, against 'Amway UK Ltd.' , in order to shut the front company before a full-scale criminal investigation could go ahead. The rules of the Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Ministry, obliged its officials not to collect any evidence of criminal activity or introduce such evidence into a civil lawsuit. The appropriate agency in the UK to gather such evidence and prosecute, is the Serious Fraud Office. Officials of the SFO are also fully aware of what 'Amway' is, but they are now reluctant to pursue a criminal enquiry, because the civil lawsuit did not succeed and because 'Amway' has been (effectively) stopped in its tracks in Britain.
That said, the evidence recovered in the UK clearly demonstrated that 'Amway UK Ltd.' had virtually no external retail customers and was, therefore, guilty of operating a premeditated closed-market which could never produce a profit for the overwhelming majority of its contributing participants. However, the BERR lawyers failed to present this clear deconstructed analysis to either the High Court or to the Appeal Court. Absolutely, no evidence was presented relating to the much larger advanced fee fraud that lies behind the 'Amway' front. 'Amway UKs' corporate officers pretended that they were not responsible for this activity, but, tellingly, its lawyers promised the court that this activity would, henceforth, stop
In other words, a mountain of evidence was there that the so-called 'Amway Business Opportunity' is fundamentally fraudulent, but the prosecutors and Judges were unable to interpret it correctly. On this basis, I stated that the refusal of the UK High Court and Appeal court to wind up 'Amway' after its lawyers promised to reform its counterfeit 'commercial' activities, was based on an error of logic worthy of a lazy schoolboy.
The 'Amway' fraud has been designed to be beyond ordinary human understanding, and the recent UK Court case proves this..
David Brear


IBOFB said...

Brear says -

That said, the evidence recovered in the UK clearly demonstrated that 'Amway UK Ltd.' had virtually no external retail customers

What did the UK court actually say?

Paragragh 37, Berr vs Amway UK Judgement

I have also taken into account that in truth only about 9% of registered IBO’s are actively involved in retailing, accounting for some 40% of purchases (figures derived from averaging material provided in reports by KPMG in 2001 and 2004).

According to the judge, based on audited reports 40% of Amway's volume was from retailing IBOs!!!!!!

Contrast this to Brear's statement above -

'Amway UK Ltd.' had virtually no external retail customers

I won't even bother with the illogic of the rest of his statement.

rocket said...

Typical Amway horseshit.

On one hand, they say that they aren't responsible for the activity of their distributors, but then, in US court, claim downlines to be their property.

Only an idiot would defend....oops, sorry IBOFB/ David Steadson. I didn't know you were around here.

Hope you were able to finally land a contract!