Amway is still looting my country and many countries

Let us have a look at an interesting portion of Andhra Pradesh High Court judgement. Amway apologists may content that the business plan has been modified after the court verdict. Still, the Amway India which used to rob the house may now be only picking pockets, is still a thief looting our country. READ and enjoy the following excerpts.

The learned Advocate General (appearing on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh State Governmetn) referred to diagram contained in the said brochure (published by Amway India) and pointed out that the whole scheme is evolved in such a manner that a person who joins as distributor is required to enroll six persons and each of the six persons would enroll four persons who in turn would enroll three persons each and, in this manner, the strength of the entire group becomes 103.

He further pointed out that the money the person at the top of the group is supposed to get according to the scheme includes the money which, the other 102 persons, who are directly or indirectly sponsored by the first member, pay either towards subscriptions (initial/renewal) or by selling products. The learned Advocate General argued that there are reciprocal promises involved in the scheme. He submitted that while the promoter gets money from the members as a consideration for promise made to pay them money on the happening of event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrollment of new members, the members earn easy or quick money in redemption of the promise so made by the promoter. He controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no compulsion or coercion to sponsor the members.

The learned Advocate General then argued that petitioner No.1 (Amway India) evolved a mechanism where introduction of new members is made so attractive and luring that every distributor strives for sponsoring others in order to earn more and more money consequent on the enrollment of new members. He also submitted that the scheme as is being implemented was not the one wThe learned Advocate General referred to diagram contained in the said brochure and pointed out that the whole scheme is evolved in such a manner that a person who joins as distributor is required to enroll six persons and each of the six persons would enroll four persons who in turn would enroll three persons each and, in this manner, the strength of the entire group becomes 103. He further pointed out that the money the person at the top of the group is supposed to get according to the scheme includes the money which, the other 102 persons, who are directly or indirectly sponsored by the first member, pay either towards subscriptions (initial/renewal) or by selling products. The learned Advocate General argued that there are reciprocal promises involved in the scheme. He submitted that while the promoter gets money from the members as a consideration for promise made to pay them money on the happening of event or contingency relative or applicable to the enrollment of new members, the members earn easy or quick money in redemption of the promise so made by the promoter. He controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no compulsion or coercion to sponsor the members. The learned Advocate General then argued that petitioner No.1 evolved a mechanism where introduction of new members is made so attractive and luring that every distributor strives for sponsoring others in order to earn more and more money consequent on the enrollment of new members. He also submitted that the scheme as is being implemented was not the one which was placed before the Government of India or the one which is pleaded in the writ petition.

In order to fortify his contention that easy/quick money is involved, the learned Advocate General referred to para-11 of the counter affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, CID, Hyderabad (Respondent No.6). It would be convenient to extract para-11 herein below:
“ 11.Easy/quick money and it being dependent on enrollment of members:
a) A substantial sum of Rs.1,800/- out of Rs.4,400/- is credited direct to the account of “Amway”. It is stated on behalf of the company in the Writ Petition that it enrolled 4,50,000 distributors all over India. Taking this as correct, a sum of Rs.81,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty One Crore) is appropriated by the company at the time of enrollment of the members itself. This cannot but be stated “easy/quick money” got by it from the so called distributors/member de hors any service.
b) The terms and conditions of “Distribution Renewal from”, supplied by “Amway” shown as Annexure-3 read as follows:
Condition No.3: “The distributorship agreement if not renewed by Amway shall stand terminated on 31 December or on expiry of one year from the date of distributorship, as the case may be.”
Condition No.12: “The Renewal of subscription fee including Block Renewal subscription fee is non-refundable.”
Condition No.14: “Renewal of subscription fee is mandatory to continue with business and maintain your position in line of sponsorship”
Thus, from 4,50,000/- distributors the company would get a sum of Rs.45,00,00,000/- (rupees forty five crores) (4,50,000 x 995) per annum on completion of every year which can only be stated to be “easy/quick money” sans any service to the distributors/members.
c) To enable him to get the so called commission @ 3% every month, the ABO has to distribute/purchase/sell products worth Rs.2,000/- of “Amway” every month or else he will not be eligible to get any commission or continue as member in the scheme. Thus, each member is forced/induced/lured to purchase the products worth Rs.2,000/- every month to keep his chance of getting commission alive. Thus, “Amway” would automatically get a business of the quantum of Rs.1080/- crores (4,50,000 x 2,000 x 12(months) ) per annum which would yield an astronomical profit and it cannot but be stated as “easy/quick money” without any service to the distributors/members irrespective of whether they sell the products or not, though the company may conveniently refer it as “turnover by sale of products”.