IBOFB conveniently skips to mention the judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which categorically stated that the business model of 6-4-3 of Amway India attracts the provisions of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
The High Court also pointed out:
"It is, thus, evident that the whole scheme is so ingeniously conceived that the inducement for aggressive enrollment of new members to earn more and more commission is inherent in the scheme. By holding out attractive commission on the business turned out by the downline members, the scheme provides for sufficient inducements for its members to chase for the new members in their hot pursuit to make quick/easy money. On the part of the promoter by pushing each member to achieve the minimum sales worth Rs.2,000/- per month, (this sale includes enrollment of new members) he is assured of about 1000 crores per annum. All this squarely satisfy the description of quick/easy money. In addition to this, it is an admitted fact that each person in order to continue to be the distributor, shall pay renewal subscription fee of Rs.995/- per annum. In para-11(b) of the counter affidavit on the admitted number of distributors of 4,50,000 this amount is calculated at about Rs.45 crores per annum. These figures are not denied by the first petitioner in its rejoinder. The plea of the first petitioner that there is no compulsion that a member shall renew his distributorship looks to us to be specious. Once a person becomes a distributor in a scheme of this nature where the sops in the shape of commission are so luring, it would be very difficult for a member to withdraw from their membership to avoid payment of the annual renewal subscription fee. (Para 34)".
Not a single point in this were denied by either Amway or its apologists.
IBOFB conveniently praises the UK justices but ignores the Indian judges who found fault with the Amway India business model. It is like all Amway apologists. IF anybody criticises Amway they pounce upon them to tear them apart.
He conveniently skips the point that a criminal is a criminal whether it is a small fine or large amount. It is the question of 'superior quality claim'.
Let us look at the 'record sales' turnover by Amway. It is only a claim and nobody is willing to prove it.
8 comments:
Another funny point : That the judges held it illegal only in the particular state. The Indian law is applicable across all the states.Any judge in any state can examine a case under the provisions of the relevant Act; In the present case it is 2(C),Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Ban )1978. Enrollment is the crux.This is akin to pyramid. Number of countries etc do not count. Also, what is legal in one country may be illegal in another.
So growing ANY business is bad? LOL
Not any. It is the ones that are illegal in the country.
You mean the one the U.S. FTC declared legal in 1979? And is now operating in dozens of countries around the world, and has been copied by thousands of companies since? That one? LOL
One of us is stupid. Here's a clue: it isn't me. LOL
Country means _the country of operations.
If it's illegal, why is still operating, and growing, in India? Are you HIGH?
World over, innumerable operate illegally till their day comes. Many can manage to get away. But the illegal would always be illegal. The mark won't go.
The problem with your "argument" is the judicial systems in numerous countries have declared Amway to be legal, although sometimes with major modifications being required, such as the USA 1979 FTC & 2008 UK decisions. You ignore the clear evidence contrary to your unsupported position. LOL
Post a Comment