Cults like Amway and fraud are closely linked

Shyam

Fraud, like rape, is a particularly insidious crime, in that its traumatized victims often feel obliged to remain silent. Indeed, it is generally-accepted that the most-effective frauds are maliciously designed to incriminate, and/or embarrass, their victims into silence. Consequently, it is not difficult to deduce why cultism and fraud are so closely linked; for pernicious cults like 'Amway' and 'Scientology' are intrinsically blame-the-victim deceptions. The few victims who do manage to complain, testify that, internally, pernicious cults are exploitative totalitarian groups dedicated to crushing all dissent, but they are presented externally as traditional associations offering all manner of benefits to willing participants. In reality, like all successful frauds, pernicious cults manipulate their adherents' existing beliefs and instinctual desires, creating the illusion that they are excercising free-will. However, since, by their very nature, pernicious cults never present themselves in their true colours, no one ever becomes involved with one as a result of his/her fully-informed consent.

So who stands between the public and pernicious cultism?

I don't know about India, but in the UK, there is no government initiative. If you are a victim, or the relative of a victim, of one of these insidious groups in Britain, the only organizations (where you can go for help and support), are private. Furthermore, as both 'Amway' and 'Scientology' have proved, there is nothing to stop a cult boss from creating, and/or subverting, cult advice associations. From my own experience, I know that (as a private citizen) complaining to UK law enforcement agencies about long-established, wealthy groups like 'Amway' and 'Scientology,' is a waste of time. The UK Serious Fraud Office should be the government department with responsibility. However, this agency has rather foolishly broadcast the shocking statistic that, of the estimated £30 billions currently being stolen by fraud each year in Britain, a mere fraction of one percent (around £20 millions) was actually recovered by the SFO last year. Given the fact that the SFO is costing UK taxpayers more than £40 millions each year, then its continued existence really cannot be justified. The SFO is hardly acting as a deterrent to foreign-based racketeers. In fact, the SFO's laughable recovery/performance rate must be having completely the reverse effect.

Let's face it, if we were the billionaire bosses of a group like 'Amway' or 'Scientology,' would we be scared of the UK SFO?

I very much doubt it.

David Brear (copyright 2010)