ShyamLaw enforcement agents and legislators agree that the overwhelming majority of fraud victims do not make any form of criminal complaint, because they are too ashamed, and/or too embarrassed, to admit publicly that they could be deceived. Often charlatans, construct fiendish frauds which require their victims first to admit that they were willingly participating in a criminal act, before they can complain to the police.
So what does this perplexing fellow, Mr. Chang, do now?
It's amazing isn't it. You keep politely telling Mr. Chang that he is not welcome on Corporate Frauds Watch because of his egocentric attitude and because he has posted false and defamatory opinions concerning the authors of CFW on one of his own Blogs in response to our daring to challenge his ill-informed comments on the grounds that these are unhelpful and potentially dangerous to certain Indian readers of CFW.
He returns to CFW, and posts yet another false and defamatory opinion in defense of his ego and (as predicted) repeats a comment which is unhelpful and potentially dangerous to some Indian readers of this Blog, who (out of shame, embarrassment, fear, etc.) are still reluctant to make criminal complaints to the police about 'MLM'fraud. Mr. Chang has completely ignored my detailed explanation (which he arbitrarily brands hostile and condescending towards him) and again says:'government will NOT save you if you don't do your due diligence.'
How many times are we going to have to tell Mr. Chang, before it finally sinks into his mind? The position of Corporate Frauds Watch, remains that, Mr. Chang has been a blinkered nuisance who, if he took the trouble to do due diligence himself (and examine the wider-evidence, which he actually has boasted he has not done), would quickly discover that, without exception, all 'MLM income opportunities' have been examples of essentially the same cultic racket, and that, without exception, all 'MLM income opportunity' racketeers have sought to avoid being held to account by blaming their victims. Therefore, Mr. Chang (even though he continues to deny it) is playing right into the hands of 'MLM income opportunity' racketeers by making half-baked statements like the one above, which effectively blames the victims of 'MLM'fraud.
To any individual who has already been the victim of 'MLM income opportunity' fraud, I would like to say that it is most certainly not your fault. The majority of 'MLM'victims have been recruited by persons whom they already know and trust. All 'MLM' recruiters insist that 'MLM is approved by governments around the world. Furthermore, no ordinary person can be reasonably expected to investigate the backgrounds of individual 'MLM' racketeers (like Alan Kippax) who have been allowed to escape criminal prosecution, and who have invested considerable sums of stolen money hiding the truth about their criminal objectives and portraying themselves as God-fearing philanthropic businessmen.The taxes of ordinary citizens pay the salaries of law enforcement agents. In theory, the job of law enforcement agents is to protect ordinary citizens without fear or favour. Sadly, in the case of 'MLM income opportunity' fraud, many law enforcement agents have not been doing their job, and some of them have actually been directly involved in protecting, and/or promoting, 'MLM income oppotunity' fraud. Sadly, by telling your readers that it is up to the individual to do 'due diligence,' Mr. Chang's ill-informed attitude towards 'MLM income opportunity' fraud has been essentially the same as the ill-informed attitude of many cowardly, and/or corrupt, law enforcement agents.
Without their fully-informed consent , 'MLM' victims have been drawn into reality-inverting cultic groups which employ co-ordinated devious techniques of social, psychological and physical persuasion designed to shut down their adherents critical and evaluative faculties.
In reality, Governments have been to blame for allowing 'MLM income opportunity'fraud to grow out of control without any rigorous challenge. Therefore, anyone who continues to insist that 'MLM income opportunity' fraud is a serious problem, but that the victims of 'MLM income opportunity' fraud have been (partly or entirely) to blame, cannot have entirely honest motives.
David Brear (copyright 2011)