Friday, 9 September 2011

From Indian Independence to Indian Fascism

Shyam
As far as I was aware, since 1947, it has been the job of the Indian police to enforce the laws of the Republic of India without fear or favour. Thus, in 2011, if a well-informed and honest senior Indian police officer, like Jayanath Jayanthan, suspects that a major crime has been committed and takes swift action against its perpetrators to protect the Indian public, how is it possible that an ill-informed, and/or corrupt, senior Indian public servant, like Mr. Prabakaran, can attempt to prevent the police from investigating and prosecuting this crime, whilst imagining that no one will notice what he has done, and hold him to account?
 
As you know, the following was reported in 'The Hindu' Sept. 7th 2011 http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/kerala/article2432798.ece .
 
'The State Cabinet (of Kerala) approved on Wednesday the recommendations of the committee headed by Chief Secretary P. Prabakaran on direct selling, specifying guidelines for the sellers.
Chief Minister Oommen Chandy told the media after a Cabinet meeting that direct selling companies which abided the law and did not cheat or fleece customers would be allowed to function. They should not function like money chains or resort to tax evasion. Compulsory subscription or insurance would not be permitted at any stage.
The Chief Minister said the offices of multi-level marketing companies closed following police action could reopen if they functioned according to the guidelines, which would be communicated to the police immediately. Cases against them would be withdrawn if their operations were within the parameters of the guidelines. Otherwise, they should change their mode of operation before restarting sales.
An official release said the guidelines specified that the consumer should have the right to get refunds if products found unsatisfactory were returned within 30 days. No product should be forced upon the sellers by the company and no membership fee collected.
Commissions paid to direct sellers should be in tune with the quantity sold. The consumer should get an opportunity to examine samples before buying. Companies would be required to provide full information on their products and sellers. Salesmen should have identity cards issued by a government agency and should take advance permission for selling in various areas. They should issue clear records of the sales to the customer.
Companies should be authorised to do business in India and should file all mandatory returns. They should have trademarks or licences. They should maintain a regularly updated website giving details of their products, services, price, and other details, besides information on their companies.'
Unfortunately, the demonstrable lie that 'Amway India Enterprises' has been a 'direct selling company offering a viable income opportunity to the Indian public,' is at the heart of this shameful matter. Consequently, the recent article in 'The Hindu' begs the obvious question:
Is Chief Secretary Prabakaran (head the committee which advised the State Cabinet of Kerala on what the Chief Minister of Kerala still falsely describes as 'Direct Selling') completely stupid or completely corrupt?
In effect, the Chief Minister of Kerala now says that the officers of Indian-registered, so-called 'MLM' companies (one of which has recently been closed-down and placed under criminal investigation in Kerala on suspicion of shielding a major money circulation fraud, for many years), will be completely immune from prosecution, provided these companies now simply change their own rules, and promise to stop stealing from the Indian public. One would have thought that the Chief Minister of Kerala might have had sufficient a level of intellectual curiosity to have asked the head of his advisory committee:
 Why, if the officers of these fake 'direct selling' companies have all been lying through their teeth for all this time, should we be so naîve as to trust them now?
By definition, an unlawful act cannot be lawful, but a crime can be effectively legalized if those who are responsible for enforcing the law prohibiting this crime, fail to do so, or are prevented from doing so.Thus, it would be inaccurate to say that, in 1920s America, the production and sale alcohol was legal. However, because the law banning the production and sale of alcohol was generally not enforced in the USA during the 1920s, these crimes were effectively legalized. Today, in respect of US-based crime, legalistically, this is a very important difference. The reason why this difference is of such importance, is as follows: Since 1970, in the USA,  if certain laws prohibiting criminal acts (including fraud) are not enforced, because those who are breaking these laws have corrupted, and/or intimidated, those whose job it is to enforce these laws without fear or favour, then US federal RICO legislation defines the criminal acts, and the obstruction of the investigation, and prosecution, of these criminal acts, as being the constituent parts of an overall pattern of ongoing major racketeering activity. 
Frighteningly, what the ill-informed, and/or corrupt, advisors to the Chief Minister of Kerala are apparently trying to do, is authorize a US-based major organizd fraud by using their current power to prevent honest Indian police officers and judges from enforcing the Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act without fear or favour. However, this latest development, where the Chief Minsiter of Kerala is apparently placing himself, and the bosses of at least one US-based 'MLM' mob above the law in India, appears to be part of an overall pattern of ongoing major racketeering activity. 
The 3 questions which should be put to the Chief Minister of Kerala, and to the members of his advisory committee, are as follows:
 
From whom did you derive your current power?
For whose benefit do you wield your current power?
Right now, does anyone in India have the authority to investigate you for possible corruption and hold you to account?
 
I don't know if there is anyone in india who has campaiged for anti-racketeering laws similar to those enacted in the USA in 1970. Perhaps Anna Hazare is the perfect person who might be interested in looking at the possibility of introducing RICO-style legislation to combat Indian government corruption?.
 
Major racketeering, in the form of 'MLM income opportunity' fraud, which, self-evidently, now possibly involves the attempted infiltration and subversion of the democratic process, and justice system, in Kerala, is Indian Fascism. 
 
David Brear (copyright 2011)

5 comments:

corporate frauds watch said...

Mr. Chang

For obvious reasons, your unsolicited opinion (based on your misinterpretation of a Wikipedia article) that the US federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 1970 cannot be applied to 'MLM income opportunity' fraud, when 'Amway/Quixtar' has already faced private prosecution in California under RICO, has been removed.

Corporate Frauds Watch

Kasey Chang said...

Shyam / CFW,

"Private RICO prosecution"? You mean several IBOs have attempted to sue Amway as a "class action lawsuit" attempting to use RICO provisions of private lawsuits.

In April 2011 Amway offered to settle the lawsuit, without admission of guilt, and the case was continued.

http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com/judge-rejects-pokorny-blenn-et-al-vs-amwayquixtar-class-action-settlement/

That is NOT a RICO conviction. It wasn't even launched by the government.

Furthermore, people have claimed RICO for all sorts of stuff. National Organization for Women had attempted to sue anti-abortion protesters under the RICO act too. Got rejected.

Without conviction or judgement/settlement such lawsuits are meaningless, except publicity value.

You are suing SpeakAsia in court, right? But SpeakAsia had not been pronounced guilty, right? (No, I am NOT supporting SpeakAsia!)

Your AVOIDANCE of RICO Act's limitations is troubling to me. Are you not truth-seekers? If what I posted was not the truth, then please correct me, but outright deletion and dismissal without even a discussion?

Wait, you thought I suddenly flipped sides, didn't you?

I assure you I am anti-fraud. I merely wish Mr. Brear would examine his RICO argument a bit more closely, and perhaps, refine it.

If you take that as uncomplimentary comment, so be it.

Furthermore, I resent your misrepresentation. I cited DIRECTLY from the RICO act text of the 8 types of fraud mentioned as "racketeering activity", and gave link directly to the text. I did NOT misinterpret Wikipedia as you insinuated.

And that is the last thing I'll say on this subject. Let us continue on developements of the SpeakAsia fraud in India.

--KC

Kasey Chang said...

And just let me take Mr. Brear's side for a moment, lest you think I flipped... (I did say we're on the same side)

An expert witness, whose specialty is organized crime, appeared in court and detailed the similarity between Amway and Mafia syndicate:

http://www.amquix.info/blakey.html

You see, you really SHOULD NOT have deleted that post. That way, Mr. Brear can berate me for my ignorance. Now he will not have the chance.

--KC

Shyam Sundar said...

Now Change has come out with his true colours. He agrees that Amway was sued on the charges of fraud. Andhe also admits that Amway agreed to refund stolen money. By merely agreeing to return stolen money, a theft would not become legitimate. All these crooks are same. Amway tried the same trick in India too. It tried to hoodwink the judiciary by appealing it to declare Amway's business model legal. When it miserably failed to do so, Amway resorted to extra-judiciary acts in Kerala. It could have approached the judiciary with its pleas. But Amway knows what it is doing is illegal.
Even in the US court, the Amway had agreed to refund the money stolen from public. Why? If it is sure that it has done no wrong, why it is offering to refund the money.
The reason is simple. If the full-fledged trial continues, it is going to face the reality of its guilt.
Now Chang, in the guise of 'not proved guilty', is trying to hide his true colours. There is nothing to discuss here. Amway is a crook and has been cheating the gullible all over world with its inducement of easy and quick money and financial freedom and 'good business opportunity.
Now you know our stand that all MLMs are pyramid schemes and never try to impress upon us with your skewed arguments.

Kasey Chang said...

What "skewed arguments"?

I have no intention to insult you, Shyam, but IMHO you are reading far too much subtext into my sentences. I have a feeling that every sentence I write is somehow construed as a defense of Amway.

I am simply pointing out the limitations of RICO Act, and its VERY SPECIFIC definition of "racketeering activities", and how difficult it is to apply to a MLM. At best, you can do wire fraud and mail fraud.

Which ties in to my EARLIER comment about how laws needs to be changed and enforcement changed to fit the crime.

Why do you insist that I was defending Amway?

--KC