Like Amway all the fraudsters have fancy names

Shyam

As ever, it doesn't matter what fancy name has been dreamed up, 'Gemini Techno Marketing Services Ltd.', 'Canadian Treasure Traders Ltd.', 'Business In Motion Inc.', 'Amway India Enterprises', etc., absolutely any corporate structure, offering absolutely any banal product(s), and/or service(s), can be used as the bait to lure ill-informed individuals into a pernicious (blame-the-victim) closed-market swindle or illegal money circulation scheme in which (at best) victims will lose their shirts, or (at worst) their lives.

It is not surprising that vile home-grown 'MLM' charlatans like Mr. Jyothi Babu (the arrogant boss of 'Gemini Techno Marketing Services') have begun to appear in India, when the Indian government has allowed vile foreign-based racketeers to operate the same style of fraud shielded by mystifying labyrinths of multi-national corporate structures. No doubt Mr. Jyothi Babu will now hand some of his stolen wealth to amoral Indian attorneys who will endeavour to present him as an innocent entrepreneur under attack, point to other 'Successful Direct Selling Companies' like 'Amway India Enterprises' and who will recite all of the classic 'MLM' sophistry - 'exclusive, good value, high-quality products and services', 'money back guarantees', 'expanding sales', 'government approval', 'internationally-accepted marketing strategy', 'association with world-class companies', etc.Hopefully, Indian judges will be prepared for all this meaningless and puerile nonsense.

In the adult world of quantifiable reality, no matter what camouflage has been chosen, the fundamental question which should be put in order for Indian law enforcement agents and prosecutors to prove that a pernicious (blame-the-victim) closed-market swindle or illegal money circulation scheme has been in operation, is:

Since the scheme's instigation, what percentage (by value) of its revenue has actually come from a source, and/or sources, other than the contributing participants in the scheme themselves?

For if the scheme (under investigation) has had no significant and sustainable revenue other than that deriving from its own contributing participants (no matter how they are arbitrarily and falsely defined in their contracts), then it has been impossible for the scheme's sponsor(s) to pay the overwhelming majority of its contributing participants a profit, because the scheme is actually based on the economic-fallacy of endless-chain recruitment or perpetual geometric progression, and is, therefore, inherently fraudulent.

David Brear (copyright 2010)