Wednesday, 19 May 2010

No criminal probe has been pursued against Amway UK

Shyam
If you compare the exact detail of the two public interest bankruptcy petitions which were filed by UK government trade regulators against 'Treasure Traders Corp. Ltd.' and 'Amway UK Ltd.', you find some pretty alarming differences in the way they were worded - considering the fact that both these corporate structures were discovered (by the same team of UK civil investigators) to be counterfeit 'direct selling companies' hiding essentially the same, foreign-controlled closed-market swindle or illegal money circulation scheme.
Amongst other things, 'Treasure Traders' was directly accused of operating a 'business' in the UK which involved the commissioning of criminal offences in breach of the Fair Trading Act of 1973. In brief, the UK government's case centred on the key-facts that the banal 'Treasure Traders' wampum had been (effectively) unsaleable to the general public and that promotion, and compensation, in the unviable 'Treasure Traders' scheme had, therefore, actually been based on illegal recruitment and self-consumption rather than on its participants retailing goods to the general public for a profit. 'Treasure Traders' was ordered to hand over to the UK High Court all of the illegal cash it had previously acquired in the UK, but the company was automatically bankrupted, and closed, because it didn't have sufficient capital assets to cover this huge new liability. Thus, Alan Kippax was allowed to get away with stealing millions of pounds from thousands of UK citizens. The only penalty he suffered was the actual loss of one of his many counterfeit corporate fronts. To date, no criminal investigation has been pursued.
Unlike the 'Treasure Traders' petition, UK government lawyers mysteriously stopped short of directly accusing the so-called 'Amway Business' of involving the commissioning of criminal offences under the Fair Trading Act of 1973. Indeed, the 'Amway' petition made the key facts that the banal 'Amway' wampum had been (effectively) unsaleable to the general public and that promotion, and compensation, in the 'Amway' scheme had, therefore, actually been based on illegal recruitment and self-consumption rather than on its participants retailing goods to the general public for a profit, into minor issues. Inexplicably, the same government lawyers made into a major issue, the minor issue that nominal, illegal 'registration' and 're-registration' fees had been charged by 'Amway UK'. Thus, to the UK High Court and Judge Norris, 'Amway UK Ltd.' (a company that had never declared an annual trading profit) appeared only to have been taking illegally about £50 -£100 annually from each participant in the UK, when the actual theft was several thousands £ annually per active victim. Even though (over a period of 34 years), 'Amway UK Ltd.' was proved to have collected tens of millions £ in so-called 'registration' and 're-registration' fees in breach of the Fair Trading Act of 1973, the company was not ordered to hand over all this illegally-acquired cash to the UK High Court. Thus, even though 'Amway UK Ltd.' did not have the capital assets to cover such a huge new liability, Judge Norris refused to order the company's automatic closure under the Insolvency Act of 1986. Furthermore, unlike the 'Treasure Traders' petition, UK government lawyers mysteriously made no attempt to explain to the UK High Court that the corporate officers of 'Amway UK Ltd.' were merely the agents of crime-bosses in N. America. Thus, the billionaire bosses of the 'Amway' mob have been allowed to get away with stealing tens of millions of pounds from hundreds of thousands of UK citizens. The only penalty they suffered was the effective loss of one of their many counterfeit corporate fronts. To date, no criminal investigation has been pursued.
David Brear (copyright 2010)

2 comments:

SEODinah said...

oh weve been in this case and its hard...

Shyam Sundar said...

R U M RAO SAYS:

Metnews Pokorney Quixtar

Tumbles down a case illustrating how much dependent the Independent Business Owners are.
Those who take up defense for the perpetrators of frauds on this blogspot seem to be arguing, with a notion that those on the other side are blind. Their typical answers remind us of the proverbial cat drinking milk with its eyes closed and saying: I am not drinking milk because I haven't seen others seeing me drink milk.
It requires lot of tenacity and perseverance to counter. You must keep on despite a lot of your time and resources being spent. Lot good takes place some time or the other, somewhere or other.