Sunday, 7 March 2010

Court requested to direct CID to further investigate Amway India case

A rejoinder is being filed by the de facto complainant in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampaly, Hyderabad which is trying the criminal case against Amway India requesting the honourable magistrate to instruct the CID Police to further investigate into the scam.
Several IBOs of Amway India has appealed to the Andhra Pradesh High Court to declare the business model of Amway India as legal. However, the Honourable High Court has stated in its judgement that the business model of the Amway India attracts the provisions of the Prize Chits Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) act, 1978. However, the CID did not include the names of these IBOs in the charge sheet.
The details of these distributors of A1 are as follows (in W.P.No.20471/2006) 1. K. Rajashekar Reddy S/o K. Laxmikanth Reddy, Aged 24 years, R/o Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2. DVSL Deepak S/o D Ramachander Rao, Aged 31 years, R/o 24-87/4 Anand Bagh, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad-47 and 3. G.V. Triveni Prasad S/o G.V. Chalapathi Rao, Aged 53 years, R/o Picket, Secunderabad. Apart from this another distributor by name Sistla Raviteja S/o S. Radhakrishna Murthy, Aged 38 years, R/o Vijayawada vide of 2006 approached the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in support of A1 styling himself as one of the promoter of scheme of A1. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P. dismissed his writ petition. Still his identity was not shown in the charge sheet. So is the name of Balaji Sukumara in W.P.No.20470 of 2006 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P.
The rejoinder has also mentioned that the charge sheet stated and explained the 6-4-3- scheme. But the CID mentioned the names of only ten persons though it needed 103 persons to complete one leg. It is a wonder only ten persons are indulging in a money circulation scheme.
It was also mentioned that the CID did not take any action against the erring company though it was prohibited in the G.O.M.S. 178 of September 15, 2008 from publishing advertisements both in print and electronic media. Moreover the CID simply stated that they need not action in this connection since others were requested to take action in this regard.
It is hoped that the Magistrate would take necessary action and order the CID to further investigate into the case and come out with a foolproof case.


dtytrivedi said...

yeah this would nice atleast officials would come to know that 6-4-3 is an example and like this countless models can be made.

My real question is why officials want to make the model rigid or to be more precise like they want to stick to the model of 6-4-3.

why they are considering the 6-4-3 the only way of doing. Infact when they would come to know that there is less than 0.001% of total distributors who are building business through this 6-4-3 model, they will definitly get some new insights.

dtytrivedi said...

Majority of the findings are based on assumptions 'if' or aexamples and not on reality basis. And shockingly i get reply that examples are meant to be followed.

I will not be surprised if an innocent person is caught as a prime accused person as killer or as a terrorist if they use 'if' as way to derive nonsense conclusions.

Infact by this way of thinking even i am also prime accused or posing threat to my county!!!!

Infact by checking the business structure of raja naren (one of the prime accused person) i am sure that they will also come to know that how business is being built.

Tex said...

Good job Shyam, now that you have provided the names, these guys should be arrested immediately! LOL

dtytrivedi said...

yeah these names mentioned are the prime accused persons and there is no further proof needed.

They can be easily proved through "IF" evidence

Shyam Sundar said...

The whole case is based on the affidavit filed by Amway India itelf and the company itself admitted that it is its own business mmodel. Now some Tom, Dick and Harry come and say that it is only an example.
Even the latest business model also says that the IBOs could earn 'if' they enrol more members. Enrolling itself attracts the provisions of the PCMCS Act, 1978.

dtytrivedi said...

"Even the latest business model also says that the IBOs could earn 'if' they enrol more members."

i request u to refer it again the latest model as well as older one.

Its not enolling members its the total business turnover which makes eligible to earn. Because if i enroll 102 members in a month and i earn windfall income just for one month (based on older sales and marketing plan). Infact what matters is movement of products. People like u and others (who are doing business in faulty way) will always focus on enrolling members.

those people who genuinely do the business they will focus more on business tur

Infact in latest model enrolment of a person is not at all considered in business turnover.

Tex said...


You are a very confused person! LOL