Shyam
In order to explain our attitude towards Kasey Chang, it is important for your free-thinking readers to understand how 'MLM business opportunity' frauds have infiltrated traditional culture to a point where even critics believe that they might be dangerous, and/or pointless, but they are not necessarily unlawful. Sadly, Mr. Chang is the living proof of this.
In reality, in 1979, the 'Amway' racketeers were not judged or punished for what they had actually done in the USA. Unbelievably, they were judged on the basis of what their attorneys and employees claimed (and most probably believed) they would do in the future in the USA. Even more unbelievably, in 1979, no independent instrument was created by US regulators to monitor the 'Amway' racketeers' subsequent activities or those of any charlatans who might copy them.
Thirty years later, the 'Amway' racketeers were yet again caught red-handed (this time in the UK) operating exactly the same dissimulated pyramid scheme, yet again they employed the same effective tactic to avoid being held fully to account. In 2009, after having been neither judged nor punished for what they had actually done in Britain during 34 years, but on the basis of what their attorneys and employees claimed (and most probably believed) they would do in the future in Britain, the 'Amway' racketeers were given a free-hand to pretend that that they have been fully-investigated and declared lawful in the UK. This grotesque distortion of reality is now being used as a false-justification for them to continue their profitable criminal activities elsewhere; particularly, in India.
At the end of January 2009, the following brief article appeared in the tabloid British national newspaper, 'The Daily Mirror'.
'Multi-million pound marketing group Amway (UK) Limited has today escaped being shut down.
The government wanted Amway (UK) put into compulsory liquidation in the public interest, claiming it was unlawfully trading and running an illegal lottery - effectively, a pyramid scheme.
Trade Secretary Lord Mandelson said it was selling "unachievable dreams", but his argument was unanimously rejected by three Appeal Court judges.
Lord Justice Rix sitting with Lord Justice Toulson and Lord Justice Rimer said Amway had been operating in the UK for 30 years and had an annual turnover of up to £13 million.
It sold goods such as cosmetics, cleaning products, jewelry and dietary supplements through independent business operators, who in turn recruited other operators.
The Trade Secretary acted to shut down the company following complaints that it failed to supervise the marketing tactics used by the independent operators.
When the case came before the High Court last June, Amway (UK) promised to clean up its act with a new business plan with tighter controls.
The judge Mr Justice Norris said under the old plan independent operators had misrepresented their own income and were "selling a dream" with people who bought into that dream being deceived about how much they could earn.
While he found they had been trading unlawfully he accepted Amway's undertakings to impose tighter controls and refused to wind up the company.
On appeal the Trade Secretary said the judge had been wrong to refuse to wind up a company which had been guilty of past misconduct, and that it was wrong for the High Court judge to accept promises of better behaviour from the company when the Government hadn't accepted the same promises.
Lord Justice Rix, in dismissing the Government's appeal, accepted that the Trade Minister "seeks to act in the public interest" but ruled that in this "unusual, indeed exceptional case" the original High Court judge had been right.'
What was, and could not be explained within the confines of this article (written by hard-pressed journalists), was that, prior to any case being filed, UK government regulators had removed truck loads of documentary evidence from the HQ of 'Amway UK Ltd.' These extraordinary documents revealed, that during the period 2006-2007, around 35 000 UK citizens had been under contract to 'Amway UK Ltd,' only a small percentage had received any payments from the company whilst effectively none of them were showing an overall trading profit from the operation of a so-called 'Amway business', because they were not selling a majority of products and services to the public. Furthermore, the previous numbers of contractees, coupled with the mean annual drop-out rate (in excess of 50%), revealed that, since the so-called 'Amway business opportunity' first arrived in Britain in 1972, around one million UK citzens had been churned through it. Contrary to what the UK High Court and Appeal Court Judges said, the figure of £13 millions actually represented the largest quantity of cash to have flowed into the 'Amway' closed-market swindle during a 12 month period. Without significant and sustainable retail sales of products and services to the public for a profit, for more than 30 years, the only real cash circulating in the 'Amway UK' system had always come largely from the constantly-churning, insolvent UK participants. The UK judges made this gaff due to the fact that 'Amway UK Ltd.' had been allowed to pay VAT (i.e. retail sales tax) to the UK government on unlawful internal payments received from its non-salaried commission agents (in exchange for effectively-unsaleable
Today, so-called 'MLM' companies registered in the UK are still allowed to pay VAT on internal payments received from their non-salaried commission agents (in exchange for effectively-unsaleable
Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of 'MLM' victims continue to remain silent in the UK, and elsewhere, because they have been conditioned to believe that they were involved in a lawful business opportunity. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that very few people can accept that they were the victims of a fraud.
David Brear (copyright 2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment