Tarak Bajpai refused anticipatory bail, again.
Way back in October of last year, Speak Asia COO Tarak Bajpai and his buddy Rajiv Mehotra (business partner of Speak Asia CEO Manoj Kumar, on the management team of Seven Rings International, listed as a director of Tulsient Technologies (Kumar’s private business) and “assistant for daily portal operations and incharge of regular pop-ups” guy who was running the Speak Asia website), had applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a First Information Report (30 of 2011, dated 21-06-2011 and lodged in Hyderabad).
Upon hearing the applications in court and the public prosecutors case against the two men, a judge denied the request.
Hoping to try their luck again, even though nothing had changed in the case against Speak Asia and their involvement in the company, on the 30th of December 2011 Bajpai and Mehrotra filed for anticipatory bail in connection with the same FIR.
Specifically,
to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime in FIR.No. 30 of 2011 dated 21-06-2011 on the file of the respondent police SHO, CID, Hyderabad on any terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Not surprisingly, once again a judge refused to grant the bail application (Bajpai’s CRLP 14089/2011 case was disposed, as was Mehrotra’s CRLP 14088/2011 case).
As per the application itself, based on the evidence presented by the public prosecutor appearing for the CID of Andhra Pradesh, a judge ruled that granting Bajpai and Mehrotra anticipatory bail would not be “in the interest of justice”.
Last we heard, the Mumbai EOW had announced that they had approached the High Court to cancel Bajpai’s bail (he had previously been granted bail under a strict set of conditions).
The EOW claimed that upon being released on bail, Bajpai was ‘avoiding cooperating with the police, and neither appeared before the investigators nor did he furnish the personal surety‘.
The status on this move to have Bajpai’s bail cancelled remains unclear at this time. However it is believed Bajpai remains at large with the EOW officially stating that Bajpai has gone into hiding and that they have no idea where he is.
With Bajpai having originally disappeared back in October upon his original bail release, that puts us at now five months that the EOW claim they haven’t been able to find him.
Regardless of whether this is due to incompetency on the EOW’s part or the effort Speak Asia’s lawyers have put into hiding Bajpai from the police (which we’ve seen before, when AISPA Secretary Ashok Bahirwani went into hiding for 2 months when he thought the EOW wanted to arrest him), an interesting article featured in the Times of India today addressing the issue of missing persons who are wanted in connection to the scams they are involved in.
Titled ‘Change the mindset of cops: HC‘, Rosy Sequiera writes:
“Before we changed the mindset of people, we must change that of the police”, said the Bombay High Court on Thursday while hearing a petition alleging police inaction in tracing a director of Aryarup Tourism and Club Resorts, which has cheated investors in a quick returns scheme.
The observation from a division bench of Justice V M Kanade and Justice P D Kode followed public prosecutor Pandurang Pol’s remark that during the hearings of scams like Citi Limouzine and Speak Asia, it had been suggested that the police must create public awareness programmes.
The investors’ advocate Nisrin Shinde said the police, including the Economic Offences Wing in Mumbai and Pune, were being negligent in handling the case. She said the directors, including Ravindra Deshmukh, as well as the core team members of the company were shown as absconding. “Deshmukh is the mastermind of this multi-level scam,” said Shinde.
To this, the judges said it was “inconceivable” that the police could not find Deshmukh. “The Mumbai police had good reputation. They were considered next to Scotland Yard. What has happened? Are you controlled by all these people? You can’t trace one man?
If you want, you can trace anyone from anywhere,” said Justice Kanade.
From the looks of it, the case against Aryarup Tourism is solid but, like Speak Asia, those in charge have fled and the EOW can’t track them down.
Ultimately it appears it is the investors who lose out and apart from the fact that some of Speak Asia’s members have petitioned the company and Union of India (an assortment of the government agencies investigating Speak Asia) in the Supreme Court, it would appear that the two cases are strikingly similar.
Ignoring the judge’s frustration at having nobody to hold accountable for the running of the Aryarup Tourism scam, what is perhaps highlighted here is an inherent incapability of the current police system (EOW or otherwise) to properly handle these scams and capture those accountable.
Then of course (specifically with the Speak Asia case) there’s the issue of bail being granted and those who are granted bail going into hiding (aided by high-priced lawyers or otherwise) never to be heard from again.
To date Tarak Bajpai, Rajiv Mehotra, Shaikh Rais Latif, Ravi Janakraj Khanna, Melvin Crasto and Ashish Dandekar have been arrested and released on bail in connection with the Speak Asia scam. With the exception of Dandekar and Crasto, all are confirmed by the EOW to have ignored their bail conditions and have gone into hiding upon release.
Regarding Crasto (President of AISPA) and Dandekar (Regional Director for Speak Asia and acting COO), neither have been publicly seen or heard from since their bail releases late last month. Whether they’ve followed the lead of Speak Asia’s Tarak Bajpai and gone into hiding too remains to be seen.
If you look at Speak Asia’s business model, that the company ran a ponzi scheme between May 2010 and May 2011 is undisputable. Members and employees of Speak Asia will shout and scream that it’s not a ponzi scheme until an Indian court says so, but that defense falls short in that it’s solely the business model that dictates whether or not something is a ponzi scheme or not.
With the ongoing Supreme Court case in which 115 panelists have demanded their money back, any commissions owing and that the police and courts ignore the company was a ponzi scheme and allow it to restart its operations, there appears to be a shift in position as the case progresses.
What was once ‘Speak Asia is absolutely not a ponzi scheme, in India or anywhere else’ has since turned into, as Ashok Bahirwani’s daughter Anju Agarwal put it yesterday, ‘saol satisfies indian law‘.
Along with the apparent ease of which lawyers and multi-million dollar scams are able to hide their operators from the authorities, what we might be looking at here ultimately is not whether or not Speak Asia are a ponzi scheme, but whether or not the Indian legal system is capable of handling the magnitude of some of these scams and bringing those responsible to justice.
An example of some of the absurdity so far surrounding the case is Rajiv Mehrotra being denied anticipatory bail just two days ago, but at the same time the existance of a case yet to be heard where Mehrortra (and four friends) are seeking to have the FIR that started the investigation in AP squashed.
The same FIR a judge has twice ruled that is serious enough that should the AP CID as a resut of their investigation need to arrest Mehrotra, Bajpai and friends, it is “in the interest of justice” that they do so.
The case (CLRP 10782/2011) is set for hearing next Tuesday, the 7th of February.
To date Speak Asia has been linked to money laundering operations across four continents spanning at least six countries. Doing their best to hinder police operations, the company (with the help of lawyers Phoenix Legal) have managed to keep their CEO’s Harendar Kaur and Manoj Kumar in hiding overseas.
Both are wanted for questioning by the authorities and both remain at large in locations unknown – eight months after Speak Asia effectively ceased running its scam and investigations into the company began.
As an observer, the fact that a multi-million dollar scam like Speak Asia can flout the law so openly, severely thwart police investigations at an international and local level and still have the audacity to approach the Indian legal system to squash and any all investigations into the company – after transferring hundreds of US dollars overseas, refusing to co-operate with authorities and having anyone even remotely connected to the company’s management disappear and ignore bail conditions – is nothing short of remarkable.
Remarkable not because it’s admirable, but remarkable in the sense it begs the question: How did this happen?
The next Supreme Court date is in three days time on Monday the 6th of February. As the Supreme Court of India and the country’s various regulatory authorities sit on the verge of either showing its citizens and the world that is capable of dealing with high-profile multi-million dollar scams such as Speak Asia, or that, with enough money at their disposal, those responsible are able to get away with it and repeatedly flout the law and hinder investigations – one would hope common sense will prevail.
A win in the Supreme Court would be a gargantuan victory for ponzi scheme operators everywhere but at the same time, a disasterous blow for the Indian population at large.
How exactly can Indian authorities and the police be expected to police such scams if the highest court in India rules there is no criminal liability or case for management to answer after they’ve run the largest MLM fraud the country has ever seen?
The precedent this case could possibly set in the policing of exisiting and future ponzi schemes in India is almost unimaginable, bearing the utmost in careful consideration from all currently involved.
@Oz
I believe Phoenix Legal acts within the laws, and are not helping their clients in any illegal way. Lawyers will usually know what’s legal.
Lawyers have other definitions for “within the laws” than we have, and they are correct if you are a lawyer.
It’s not illegal to meet a client in their office, or in a “secret place” or wherever they wants to meet him. It’s a normal and legal part of their job. A lawyer doesn’t have to report his client to the police or something similar.
The easiest method is to assume they know their job, and that they don’t engage in any criminal activity. They just have some professional rules that allows them to act differently than others.
Protecting the clients interest is okay. Being actively involved in any criminal activity isn’t. Bail conditions may be punishable if you break them, but it’s not “criminal activity”. I believe this matter is regulated by “Penal Code” rather than “Criminal Codes”.
Harendar Kaur is a citizen of Singapore, and I don’t think she needs to hide there.
Manoj Kumar will have to return to India sooner or later. It’s possible to arrest him in other countries too, using Interpol (if the crime is serious).
Tarak Baipaj adds some fun to this story, in the comments from panelists. “Tarak Baipaj can’t be seen in public due to his bail conditions.” 🙂
Not illegal no, and I think I stopped short of accusing them of that – but I think we’re all on the same page when it comes to Phoenix Legal advising Speak Asia management to go into hiding and remain there.
Naturally if they think hiding from the police is in their clients best interests they’re going to help them.
These actions, whilst perhaps within the law don’t lend any credibility to Speak Asia itself. I personally think the main reason this mess has gone on for so long is precisely due to the lack of management available for interrogation and a general lack of accountability within Speak Asia.
At present there’s no assets (apart from that piddly sum the CID I think it was managed to re-freeze) or mangagement (nobody has seen Bajpai for months) to recover within India if Speak Asia’s case falls apart or they are ultimately ruled against.
There are the houses and cars the EOW mentioned last month but those are a far cry from the money that has been laundered out of India into Seven Rings various other ventures and management’s retirement funds.
clap for yourself soapbox.
well written article except for one small flaw
SAOL IS NOT A PONZI SCHEME
when i say it ‘satisfies indian law’ HOW can it remain ponzi?
is it possible to satisfy the law of the land and still remain ponzi?
thanx norway for taking a less prejudiced view of the situation.
soapbox fails to understand that whatever steps saol or the panelists take in courts is their absolute legal right.
if they were not legally sustainable why would the court accept to hear the case at all?
it upsets you ,i understand, that saol or panelists should even DARE to fight back.
you prefer we all pack our bags and move in with the eow.
ALL because YOU decided saol is ponzi.
i beg of you .explain to me how,why tarak bajpais bail is still not cancelled considering he has been ‘hiding’ for over five months now.
or instead ,please visit the eow office on mondays and thursdays when the bailees go there as their bail conditions require.
sometimes i almost fell like forgiving you ,you have a sharp mind but not enough real info to process through it.
To be fair, India wasn’t the only country that had problem finding the heads of ponzi schemes.
In Colombia, Carlos Alfredo Suarez, head of “Proyecciones DPRE”, is believed to have absconded with a vast fortune (hundreds of millions of dollars?) in a SIX MILLION MEMBER ponzi scheme. He disappeared in 2008 when Colombia cracked down on the various schemes and had never been found since.
Leader of another Colombian scam, David Murcia (head of Grupo DMG) was arrested in Panama when apparently US government put pressure on the Panamanian government to arrest him and send him back to Colombia (to be extradited to the US later).
Murcia apparently thought he bought off enough Panamanian officials to be safe. He didn’t expect the national police to show up at his door unannounced. Later accounting tallied the capital he sucked in at two BILLION dollars, of which, he had already spent half. He’s currently serving time in the US for money laundering.
There are a LOT of parallels you can draw with SpeakAsia, believe it or not.
http://kschang.hubpages.com/hub/When-a-Scam-Becomes-a-Cult-what-makes-it-possible-and-how-to-prevent-it
@anju
Because a country’s laws don’t determine if something is a ponzi or not, the business model does.
Laws only determine if ponzi schemes are illegal and if there’s any criminal liability in running and/or promoting one.
There are countries in the world where ponzi schemes aren’t illegal, does that mean if you decide to run a ponzi scheme there that it’s not a ponzi scheme, of course not.
Speak Asia had/has no clients and was paying out commissions from membership fees. The business model they submitted to the Supreme Court was a lie in that they never actually used that model.
The courts don’t determine if it’s a ponzi scheme, the business model does and after analysis it’s obvious that it is. The Indian courts will then decide whether or not that model is illegal within Indian law.
That was the whole point of my article, that if the court rules the model Speak Asia used between May 2010 and May 2011 isn’t illegal, that pretty much opens the floodgates for legal ponzi schemes in India.
This makes no sense when you’ve got the courts at the same time telling the EOW to better inform and warn the public of such scams.
I have a sharp mind, too. So there’s still some hope for me?
“So young and naive, and so misguided. Trying to correct him doesn’t seem to work, so it might be better to forgive him.”
soapbox
ponzi schemes as explained under our PCMC act are very much illegal and banned in india.
saol is not in court ,and neither are the panelists ,to SOMEHOW convince our courts to allow a ‘ponzi’ scheme to carry on.
our humble submission to our very wise and well informed courts is to actually SEE if saol falls under the PCMC act.
before huffing and puffing and blowing our house down i seriously advice you study our PCMC act in detail.
with your wide brush strokes maybe you’re missing out on the finer details which actually mark a true work of art.
Again, the Prize Chits and Money Circulation act does not define ponzi schemes, the business model does.
The PCMC act solely establishes whether a business model breaks Indian law or not and what the criminal liability is if it does. It’s not like India has it’s own definition of a ponzi scheme than everyone else – a ponzi is a ponzi the world over, it’s not defined by the country it’s being run in – only by the business model.
If the Supreme Court ultimately allows Speak Asia to restart operations yada yada yada, they essentially give all ponzi schemes in India the green light.
The precedent set would allow anyone caught running one to just point at the Speak Asia decision and state ‘well they didn’t get into trouble for running a ponzi for a year, so I can’t either’.
The widespread implications of this decision is the real danger here.
The PCMC act solely establishes whether a business model breaks Indian law or not -soapbox
RIGHTLY SAID .
since saol is in india it needs to satisfy indian law and not soapboxlaw .
look at shyam sunder of corporate frauds watch.
if he had his way MLM would be banned all over the world .instead the truth we see is that , by your own submission, that EVEN ponzi schemes are free to operate in many ‘developed ‘ countries.
our country has a PCMC act to look into such schemes.
I as a panelist, am only counting on my company satisfying the legal conditions laid out under this act.
why should i care about about whats legal in other countries?
it’s enough in pakistan and afghanistan to get your head chopped off for silly things.
should their thinking be applied for all countries and cultures then?
our country is poor but it WORKS. our laws and our judiciary
and the mindset of our people have ensured a free minded democratic culture.
saol does NOT have to be proved legal in australia or norway or brazil.
saol IS legal in INDIA.
if any other company is BRAVE enough or INTELLIGENT enough to sail past our PCMC act they are most welcome to do business here.
if you DON’T break the LAW you’re LEGAL.
@anju
When we use the expression “Ponzi scheme” and “pyramid scheme” here, it’s NOT as exact legal definitions. We are usually trying to identify something for a general audience, using words and expressions that most people are familiar with.
Whether or not a business is illegal will have to be decided by the correct authority in each country, usually a court or an administrative authority.
If you don’t like the expression “Ponzi scheme”, I’m sure I can replace it with something else. Do you prefer the use of “Pyramid/Ponzi hybrid that includes money laundering” instead of “Ponzi scheme”? 🙂
One can always use “money circulation scheme”, which is why it was banned by PCMC.
here’s a very good summary on what PCMC is supposed to cover.
http://www.neerajaarora.com/money-circulation-scheme-or-money-cheating-scheme/
@anju
Here’s an addition to my previous comment.
When I analyse something, I don’t do it as an “expert”. I’m only using plain and simple methods, and don’t do any “scientifical analysis”.
An example:
When I analysed the statements “SpeakAsia sold subscriptions for e-zines” and “SpeakAsia sold panels” I tested these statements against MARKETS, MOTIVES, PRICE and USABILITY, using the Norwegian market as a model.
In Norway, we don’t have a large general population that spends thousands of dollars on “subscriptions” and “panels”, looking at them and playing with them or whatever people do with panels. People spending money on income opportunities are far more common.
Thus, both statements tested FALSE when I tested them. It seemed more like the subscriptions and panels were part of an income opportunity rather than “products”.
I’m sure someone will point out any differences in the markets, like showing me the “panel industry”, “panel deliverers”, “panel shops” etc. in the local Yellow Pages, and also inform me about the use of panels in the general population (if they’re used as entertainment, as decoration, or whatever they are used for).
Anju you really don’t get it.
As far as Indian law goes, it has no bearing on whether Speak Asia is a ponzi scheme or not. Nobody cares.
The issue now is whether or not India legalizes ponzi schemes (oh and yeah, there’s the whole money laundering side of the business too).
At the end of the day, whatever Indian law states running a ponzi scheme is what Speak Asia have done, whether this is found to be illegal or not is up to the Indian legal system – the fact they ran a ponzi remains unchanged either way (one of the main points of this article).
Because some of us are able to look past our own financial noses and call out a scam when we see it. Some of us even tirelessly report, research and track them to create public awareness of such scams.
It’s a big wide world we live in.
Any activity that harm ordinary people can be classified as illegal. Upto May 2011 the business model used by speakasia is a ponzi scheme. Most Indian laws are very old and does not cover cyber crime and related frauds. India passed IT act in 2000 and updated it once to deal with this kind of crime. So if a fraud activity satisfy the law that doesn’t mean the law can’t be updated or changed.
@anju
Why do you think people involved in SpeakAsia have been arrested?
For doing something legal?
Or there maybe of course be a coincidence? When more than 1 million people are involved, it’s not statistical unnatural that a few of them … etc.?
SAOL seems to be a hybrid between Ponzi and pyramid schemes, and PCMC mostly seems to cover pyramids. The difference between them are the recruitment model. SAOL seems to be closer an investment scheme than a recruitment scheme, but actually it involves both models. We have mostly called SAOL “a Ponzi scheme” because it’s more similar to that model.
I believe Phoenix Legal would have advised Manoj Kumar and Harendar Kaur (and the others) to meet before a court, if they had believed it would be highly possible to win this case.
A party confident to win a case should be eager to face the court as soon as possible, instead of having to face losses by delaying it. Most of the strategy used by SpeakAsia has been to delay consequences.
The REALITY speaks out loud and clearly to anyone willing to listen, but that doesn’t seem to include you. SpeakAsia have been shut down for 9 months, people have been arrested, accounts have been frozen, and several lacs of people have lost money.
The REALITY doesn’t exactly speak in your favour.
http://hc.ap.nic.in/orders/crlp_5626_2011.html
Order on criminal Petition filed by Speakasia Online Pvt. Ltd seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.30 of 2011.
Here how high court iterpreted the law
reference Speakasia case http://hc.ap.nic.in
CRL.M.P.Nos.6459 and 7016 of 2011
and
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5626 of 2011
If I didn’t know any better…
…I’d say that’s a pretty strong precedent against quashing FIR’s and criminal investigations set way back in August of last year.
Kind of makes all these silly we want such and such quashed cases Speak Asia have launched set for failure based on the precedent set above doesn’t it?
@Andy
It’s not wise to be too ‘fixed’ at one particular law when analysing this. The PCMC banning Act is mostly related to pyramid schemes, while SpeakAsia used “a combination of pyramid and Ponzi schemes with some fake work included”.
Recruitment model was similar to pyramid schemes, but people didn’t have to recruit people to make money, as they have to do in pyramid schemes. Large groups of people can participate and make money without having to recruit anyone. The company however are dependant on “fresh capital”, and this usually will mean recruitment.
Investment in panels was similar to Ponzi schemes. The main purpose for investing in them is Return of Investments, by adding some work to the investments (do surveys each week). The work separates them from plain investment schemes, but since the work was fake it may still be investment fraud. The main purpose of the work was to make the scheme look more similar to a real business, and the work didn’t have any other significant purposes. Thus, the fake work shouldn’t separate this from a Ponzi scheme.
All in all, it will probably be better to let the court system decide which laws to use here. Further analysing will only make me more confused. 🙂
@M_Norway
This is what honorable court said in speakasia case
Off topic
——————
This guy is with speakasia from the beginning (Feb or Mar 2010) I don’t know if he came in picture or not.
Sponsor Id: gmehta01
9873097769
9873497769
Email: (removed)
blog: speakasiasurveyz.blogspot.in
(removed)
Yes, but I believe it is from the Quila Court, or whatever they call the lower court system.
The judge identified the reasons for why to not quash the FIR, but he didn’t analyse deeply which laws the offence was related to. “Clearly indicates the acts which attract an offence” is just what he say it is, an indication rather than an exact identification.
The reasons for not quashing the FIR was that investigation had shown more than enough evidence to allow it to continue, but he didn’t specify this part either (because of prejudice to the parties).
Does it matter?
It depends on what evidence represented before the court. Remember it was on 30th August. It will be fun to watch when EOW will rock the show.
My point is same as you guys are saying if it is a ponzy scheme any person with a little brain and without greed can identify it.
saol has moved the supreme court for quashing of this FIR.
everything will happen in due course ,don’t worry.
Off topic
—————-
Why do you think people joined speakasia?
1. for ezine – NO
2. for doing surveys – NO
3. for buying panels – NO
4. for buying YUG products – NO
5. to perform precision marketing and market research – NO
People joined speakasia because of guaranteed income of 372% on their investment. Try to remove the money involved and see how many proud speakasian say jai *********.
@anju
Exactly what do you mean will happen?
Phoenix Legal, SpeakAsia, senior panelists, etc. must have some kind of ideas of what they are doing, why they’re doing it, what outcome to expect, and so on? So far they seems to be very eager to file cases, but sometimes it’s very difficult to discover some intelligent life in the SpeakAsia universe.
As an example, it seems like they’re expecting some specific outcome of “Solomon Jemes & ORS” and quashing of some FIRs? Or do they expect the case to be “outdated” if they continue to fight?
Often it seems like SpeakAsians have a “fixed vision” of an outcome, but without a roadmap for how to make this vision become reality. It looks more like they’re trying random strategies instead of following a plan.
“We’re bound to win and will definitely win …
… when one of our random strategies actually works.”
@Andy … as I know… a handful of people never Joined SpeakAsia for money… they purely joined for the knowledge provided by the ezine (Google & Wikis would give much more for free)
And 2 among these handful are 1) Ashok Bahirwani 2) Anju Agarwal (Bahirwani) … They paid 22k for the ezines… LOL
@anju
Sorry, my mistake. I didn’t read the exact details in your comment.
“Moved the Supreme Court” seems to be a brilliant idea. The outcome of the case seems to be clear as crystal if neither the judges nor the opponents are able to find it. 🙂
Phoenix Legal, SpeakAsia, senior panelists, etc. must have some kind of ideas of what they are doing,-norway
of course they ALL DO norway.
they’re just not into SHARING with you right now.
dint soapbox say there would be no payments while ‘criminal investigations’ are going on ?
dint i say the supreme court would ‘allow’ payments.
i suggest you first look for intelligent life here and then investigate speakasias universe.
we’re getting it ALL RIGHT and you guys are getting it ALL WRONG.
shows we’re more intelligent than you and your buddies in chaddies.
Who said anything about payments? And the status of the criminal investigation has been kept under wraps since the last EOW update. Whether it’s concluded or not (and what that outcome is) remains unclear.
Speak Asia have just been ordered to pay a rather small amount deposit to the court. Furthermore there’s no mention of where this 50cr figure came from or what it’s for. So who knows, but let’s keep our heads grounded shall we.
Still no idea where all this ‘victory’ rubbish is coming from. If anything it looks like the courts are taking the amount Speak Asia owe seriously.
And we all know they don’t have 30,000cr so that should be hilarious to watch unfold once the EOW have given their data to Lahoti.
And remember, the EOW’s data on what is owed is straight from the database backend of the website. So no weaseling out of that on Speak Asia’s behalf.
Asok Bhairwani has posted on aispa.ccom
Welcome To All India Speakasia Panelist Association
Ashok Bahirwani’s Updates: 6th February, 2012.
Hindi Version
Good Morning Speakasians,
Congratulations all Speakasians this is our first step to absolute victory. The hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order which is absolutely in our favor.
The salient features of today’s orders are as follows:
1. SAOL has been ordered to deposit 50 crores with the Supreme Court Registry.
2. CBDT (IT Dept) has been asked to give the details of their dues.
3. EOW has been ordered to handover the admin rights of the website along with all other material to the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lahotiji.
This is an initial update and detailed update will be posted as soon as the Order comes in hand.
Morya…. Bhai Morya
Jai Speakasia
Jai Speakasia
Jai Speakasia
Ashok Bahirwani
Secretary
AISPA
But this is not what the order of the Supreme Court states.
The order dated 06.02.2012 states:
Will Hon’ble Lordship Ashok Bhiarwani change his orders issued on 06.02.2012
OR
Will his posting disappear like the management of Speak Asia
Dear Investors in Speak Asia,
Rise and claim your money.
The Supreme Court of India has passed orders for this. There is a world full of people who want to help you out there.
If I can help do not hesitate to contact me on speakasiainvestors@gmail.com
it’s not payment. It’s a deposit, “bail” if you wish, for SAOL itself to make sure the “panelists” get SOMETHING.
It’s NOT payment until it actually reaches panelists’ hands, and it’s not a voluntary payment either. It was ORDERED by the court.
And when’s the money going to be deposited at the court any way?
The order indicates that the Supreme Court and retired Justice R.C. Lahoti are treating SpeakAsia as a bankrupted company (in some areas of the case), using Lahoti as a “liquidator”.
They’re preparing for payouts (not payments) to the parties that have claims against the company. This means they have separated the money issue from the criminal parts of the case, and are protecting some economic interests.
THE ORDER:
A. How much money do you owe?
B. How much money do you have?
C. Deposit A in full here, or B in full if you don’t have A.
… and then we can start to talk about other issues, like whether you should be allowed to continue or not.
This actually looks like a complete loss for SpeakAsia and Haren Ventures, if they will have to deposit 30,000 crore INR or any other amount that looks similar. It will of course depend on how the payouts are handled by retired Justice R.C. Lahoti.
“Payouts” will usually mean:
* paying first priority claims in full (taxes, and so on)
* paying secured claims, if any
* paying dividends to unsecured claims
An extended doping test seems to be required in the Bahirwani family ASAP.
“Extended test” means “test what they’re eating, drinking and smoking, and even air quality and other stuff until you have found the reason.”
From his initial update:
It is positive that he admits it’s the first step to something, but it seems like he cannot accept reality?
“I will ignore reality and substitute it with my own image.”
@anju
The order looks alot closer to our analysing than to your statements?
There’s a difference between “payouts” and “payments”.
* Payouts are handled by the order of some “legal authority”, where THEY decide how to pay money to parties involved.
* Payments are handled by the party itself, and IT decides how the payments should be solved.
SpeakAsia has neither been allowed to continue it’s normal operations in any way, nor been allowed to handle payments by itself. This is very close to my analysis and statements. READ the order?
Of course there might be some other outcome when payouts are handled by the Lahoti Committee, but so far you aren’t even NEAR a victory.
Correction:
A loss may be a victory in itself, so you’re closer to an achievable victory now. Being willing to drop / adjust the idea “SpeakAsia will rise again” is a needed step if you want to win.
@anju
I have actually found a few signs of intelligent lifeforms in the SpeakAsian Universe, but there seems to be lightyears between them. Some of them even seems to be very hostile by nature.
Please be more specific in your statements? Expressions like “getting it ALL” are very general.
Some of the resistance we show against believing in something are more related to “sense of reality” than to intelligence.
We know perfectly well it’s possible that Indians buys “panels” just to have them on their computers, to play with them or whatever people do with “panels” in their spare time. However, we’re finding more realistic motives to buy them.
norway/chang
It’s a deposit, “bail” if you wish, for SAOL itself to make sure the “panelists” get SOMETHING. -chang
it’s a deposit of the amount ascertained by the mediator [not ‘liquidator’ as norway would hope] which is payable to the petitioners and govt authorities.
so it is a deposit ‘not’ to be held as some bail amount but for actual payment to panelists.
of course the court ‘ordered ‘that saol make this deposit
and in doing so granted the first ‘prayer’ of the petitioners and the two of the respondents ie saol and haren ventures.
also remember that this request of the company to be allowed to pay it’s panelists is under the the exit policy announced by the company. read the exit policy again and clear the cobwebs of your limited minds.
the order also says that the mediator should ascertain the amount owed by the company to other authorities [ie IT [CBDT]]
this automatically means the IT dept has to place it’s exact claim before justice lahoti so that he can fix the amount of money the company needs to bring in ,in total.
all the things reported on aispa are true and actually happened in court .you have to be a very very experienced lawyer to figure that all these things are ‘covered ‘ in the said order.
thing is ,aispa is in touch with very very senior lawyers.
are YOU very very senior lawyers or do you just like to ‘pretend’ you know more?
this is definitely the first step to normalisation and of course “SpeakAsia will rise again” is a foregone conclusion.
trivia-GUESS who was in court yesterday for saol.
h n salve, senior counsel.that’s harish salve who has been named the 18 th most influential person in india.
so we have harish salve ,mukul rohatgi, gopal subramanium, mahesh jetmalani all on our side.
quite a line up honestly – awe inspiring.
today in the mumbai high court in the case regarding the quashing of the thane and raigarh fir’s ,mr mahesh jethmalni is appearing for saol.
anybody find soapbox’s SUDDEN leave of absence SUSPICIOUS?
or is it just me?
Here’s a correction to one of my former statements:
CORRECTION 1:
“Payouts” will usually mean:
* Paying identifiable rights (added)
* paying first priority claims in full (taxes, and so on)
* paying secured claims, if any
* paying dividends to unsecured claims (panelists, etc.)
“Identifiable rights” are money paid IN to local agents, which haven’t been added to “the pool of money”. These amounts are still within the frozen accounts, and will be traceable to specific panelists.
“Unsecured claims” are all other panelists and other claims, they have to share money from any “pool of money” that is available. This will usually mean a small dividend if the company can’t pay in full.
CORRECTION 2:
I identified the “identifiable rights” as mostly belonging to newly recruited panelists (in another thread). Other panelists may also have similar rights, if they have paid money IN that are still in the frozen accounts. People doesn’t have to be “newly recruited” to have identifiable rights.
I don’t know whether the Supreme Court will separate these “identifiable rights” or not, but it should be possible to separate them from other claims. These amounts aren’t taxable if they are returned to the right owners, and they have never been involved in any illegal activities.
MISINFORMATION?
Most SpeakAsians seems to have misinterpreted the actual court order. It is some sort of “victory” for most panelists, but it doesn’t include vital points for the company.
Most information posted in SpeakAsian websites doesn’t post the actual order, they’re posting an edited version of it. I have checked AISPA, BizBasket and SpeakAsia.mobi, and they all preferred edited versions (editing away important parts rather than unimportant).
VICTORY OR MAJOR LOSS?
For most panelists the “victory” may mean they will have to accept a major economical loss, but they will finally be paid SOME money. Being paid something is better than having to wait for a “possible payment” that never will happen.
For SpeakAsia and Haren Ventures this court order seems like a major loss. One of their major claims was to do a voluntarily payment, using the EXIT-option as a solution. The court has ignored that claim.
Another major claim was to be allowed to continue it’s operation. This claim has also been ignored.
All in all, SpeakAsia and Senior Panelists seems to have temporarily lost their most important claims. “Being allowed to continue” was far more important than paying panelists.
I would have felt this court order as a major loss if I had been Manoj Kumar or any other person deeply involved in SpeakAsia. SpeakAsia aren’t allowed anything related to their most important claims, they are only allowed to deposit money.
One of their major claims was to do a voluntarily payment, using the EXIT-option as a solution. The court has ignored that claim.-norway
saol’s prayer to the supreme court was to set up a mediation committee to overlook the payments it wanted to make .there was NEVER any request on saol’s behalf for ‘voluntary’ or ‘self conducted’ payments. saol asked to be allowed to make these payments to bring to fruition the EXIT POLICY it had announced for the benefit of it’s panelists .
and that’s exactly what the court has allowed.
Another major claim was to be allowed to continue it’s operation. This claim has also been ignored.-norway
is the case over? step by step norway ,every journey is undertaken one step at a time.
Most SpeakAsians seems to have misinterpreted the actual court order.-norway
speakasians DO NOT pretend to be experienced lawyers.we depend on our very very senior lawyers for interpretation of court orders. i did mention the impressive line up of black coats, dint i?
i suggest you take up your silly billy interpretations with mukul rohatgi or maybe the man himself -harish salve.
these kind of guys REALLY KNOW what they’re doing ,whereas you’re just beating around the bush and dissecting things to subatomic levels.
@anju
So far SpeakAsia haven’t got a “YES” for their most important claims:
* the voluntarily solution for paying through the EXIT-option
* being allowed to continue normal operations, in some way or another
The EXIT-option was important to reduce claims against SpeakAsia, but it would also seriously harm the interests of most panelists. So far this method isn’t included in the court order.
* Being ordered to deposit money is far away from allowing any solution offered by the company.
No, I’m neither a lawyer nor an experienced lawyer, and not a “very very experienced lawyer” either. But if you claim to have received information from experienced lawyers, then you should be able to point out where the conditions are
hiddencovered within the court order?Here’s the court order:
“We have heard learned counsel for the parties” doesn’t tell us anything, but some conditions may have been included here?
The next three paragraphs are related to EOW, Justice Lahoti and to SpeakAsia. It may be hidden within the Lahoti Committee’s “interim report” or “final report”?
“All the parties would be at liberty to participate in the proceedings before the learned Mediator” doesn’t tell us anything meaningful, but the lawyers may of course have a plan for how to convince Justice Lahoti about some solutions here?
@anju
Exactly WHEN did the Supreme Court of India start to hide information, making it available only for “very very experienced lawyers”? 🙂
respondent no. 6 to provide print out of the data collected to the learned Mediator by 11/2/2012.-norway
will it be possible for the eow to print out data [???] without the company’s cooperation as they have the data collected from panelists who have opted for the exit option? so unless the eow do not relinquish control of the website to justice lahoti how can this cooperation work?
these things are all discussed verbally in the court but the court order just points in a particular direction without going into the details of HOW the TASK ordered by it will be ACHIEVED .
We request the learned mediator to ascertain how much amount in fact is due and payable to the petitioners and ”other authorities”.
the authorities present in court are the union of india ,the IT[CBDT] ,the rbi and the eow.
the only ‘authority’ out of these that ‘could’ have a financial claim on the company is the IT dept.
how can the learned mediator ascertain how much amount is due and payable to the IT if it has not stated it’s exact claim? so from this line of the order it stands ‘ordered’ that the IT has to give it’s claim IF ANY.
Exactly WHEN did the Supreme Court of India start to hide information, making it available only for “very very experienced lawyers”-norway
i think since when lawyers decided to charge exorbitant fees.
i mean, if the courts would dress down a little and give simple straightforward orders the public wouldn’t live in awe of the MEN IN BLACK [CLOAKS].
it’s like the ‘brahmins’ of ancient india. they were the only guys who could read religious texts and were thus treated like demi gods.
@anju
Is your answer YOUR interpretation of the court order, or the interpretation from one of the lawyers?
So this means some of the parties involved have accepted “discussed verbally in court” as the outcome of the most important claims? 🙂
The Supreme Court haven’t even bothered to confirm important details in their written order, details that are the difference between “win or lose” for one of the parties?
FALSE HOPES?
At this stage of the case it’s most important to be correct and specific. Spreading false hopes isn’t a good idea, because false hopes won’t last very long.
* Bahirwani posted an update yesterday, but he forgot to update the post as he promised?
“This is an initial update and detailed update will be posted as soon as the Order comes in hand.”
* Most other “official” SpeakAsian websites either use his update, or they use an edited version of the court order. SpeakAsia.mobi has now a correct version, but most other sites used an edited version when I checked (yesterday).
* People have started to quote other sources in comments, over at SpeakAsia.mobi. The source quoted is pardaphash.com
/news/sc-asks-speak-asia-to-return-inr-1300-cr-to-investors-till-feb-11/688078.html
Bahirwani seems to use a very long time?
Normally this isn’t a good sign, when we promise to update something SOON we should also be able to deliver it soon. I’ll guess he needs to get something confirmed by the lawyers?
pardaphash.com has reported scary scenario for SAOL:
“Company’s dignity rattled after certain questions were raised on the company’s ownership and business model to which, Singapore-registered Speakasia Online has been unable to settle the doubts.
A bench of justices Dalveer Bhandari and Dipak Verma asked the mediator, appointed by it earlier, to ascertain the exact amount which is payable by Speak Asia to the investors and other authorities and directed the company to deposit the same within two weeks after that.
According to reports, mediators have given details in which they have shown a whopping amount of around INR 1300 crore that the company has to return to its investors till 11th February”.
@Observer
Pardaphash didn’t have all the details correct, so it isn’t very reliable as a source. At least the date seems to be incorrect here, and also “return to its investors”:
“whopping amount of around INR 1300 crore that the company has to return to its investors till 11th February”.
My point (to anju) was that Bahirwani seems to use a very long time, and are willing to accept lots of unofficial information to be posted in different places.
Most people have probably noticed the difference between Bahirwani’s first update and the actual court order, and people have started to spread rumours and other sources. Sometimes it’s better to make a decision rather than to wait.
Most people will realize that he hasn’t been able to confirm his initial update. He hasn’t been able to deliver what he promised to do. He should at least update the information in some way or another, ASAP.
MoneyLife has the same amount as pardaphash, 1,300 crore INR.
@anju
Seriously, Bahirwani needs to update his ‘initial update’ posted 6. February. People are spreading lots of different rumours related to this case.
From SpeakAsia.mobi comments:
Now they have calculated approx. dates for WHEN something will happen, even before a final decision is made in the Supreme Court?
Others have rumours for WHAT will happen, like how the business will be going to restart. Others are in doubt of the amount, whether it’s 50 crore or close to 1,300 crore INR.
NOTHING is sure, whether SpeakAsia will restart or not. I seriously doubt how most SpeakAsians have interpreted the case. This isn’t exactly the time to spread false hopes.
The AMOUNT stated from different sources are misleading. No one knows the exact amount before Justice R.C. Lahoti has finished his work. The initial statement of 50 crore was a mistake, since it’s not confirmed by the court order.
Nobody knows how long TIME IT WILL TAKE before people will receive any money, or HOW MUCH money they will receive.
Bahirwani can use my “update” if he’s not able to write one himself. It’s possible to “squeeze in” if he deletes the 12 unneeded lines “JAI SpeakAsia, etc.” he seems to have in most of his updates.
he Supreme Court has directed the Singapore-based firm Speak Asia, accused of duping investors to the tune of Rs1,300 crore, to deposit before it the amount payable to investors and concerned authorities, reports PTI.-norway
read the above carefully.
moneylife says saol has ‘duped investors’ to the tune of 1300 crores.it does not say this is the amount to be paid to the ‘investors’ as per supreme court directions.
see what CRAP has been reported by star news and aajtak tv channels.SHAMEFUL. they can’t even report a court matter correctly.
don’t worry about our false hopes we can take care of ourselves.
besides we’re winning, what do we care?
There is a death in Mr. Bahirwani’s family, hence the updates may take a longer than expected time.
@Sanjeev Khanna
Please convey my condolences to Mr Bhaiwani and his family for the loss of a dear family member. May God grant the family strength to cope with this tragic loss.
There are personal matters more important than Speak Asia and Supreme Court orders.
I’m updating this thread with some general information and a link to related information (in relation to ORDER from the Supreme Court, 6. February 2012).
The ORDER in Supreme Court dated 6. February 2012 relates to the case WRIT 383/11 “Solomon Jemes & Others”.
https://behindmlm.com/companies/speak-asia-online/the-particulars-of-the-solomon-james-writ-383/
The case is about payments to panelists, claims from Government agencies, and restart of SpeakAsia’s daily operations.
Petitioners:
115 (Senior) Panelists, on behalf of all panelists
The respondents are:
1. Union of India through the Ministry of Finance
2. Reserve Bank of India
3. Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd.
4. Haren Ventures Pte. Ltd.
5. Central Board of Direct Taxes as
6. the Economic Offenses Wing of Mumbai Police
Why on earth will anyone be focusing on which lawyers they have to represent them in court? Rather than on the case itself?
If you have a solid case you might as well be represented by “My cousin Vinny” (“Vincent Gambini” / Joe Pesci). If you don’t have a solid case it might help being represented by some experienced lawyers, but neither they are able to perform miracles. Courts will usually not give “extra points” for being experienced or famous (or for the use of “Cheseline” haircream). 🙂
If I could choose between a solid case and experienced lawyers I would definitely have chosen the first one.
SpeakAsia management, I believe most of you don’t have the right focus in this case?
—–
WRIT 3210/11 and WRIT 3211/11
The quashing of the Thane / Raigad FIR was adjourned to 22. February 2012.
If you don’t have a solid case it might help being represented by some experienced lawyers, but neither they are able to perform miracles-norway
why does it have be one or the other?
how about a solid case backed by a solid team of lawyers to make a solid impression in court?
Usually we don’t need to make a “solid impression” in court. A solid impression is more needed to impress a client or an opponent, to make them more willing to pay. My comment was related to your focus on the lawyers instead of the case.
SpeakAsia doesn’t exactly have a “solid case”. With a solid case they would have been able to solve the problems within a couple of weeks, and until now they have used 8-9 months. That’s why I would prefer a solid case rather than “impressive lawyers”.
Among the weak points in their case is the “support of livelihood”. It’s pretty meaningless to do fake work in relation to support of livelihood. The majority of SpeakAsia’s panelists would have been more able to support their livelihood if they hadn’t joined SpeakAsia and paid for the income opportunity.
The money SpeakAsia has used to pay for those fake surveys comes from the “pool of money” paid in by panelists. They pay for their own “salary”, and the average payment will be less than they have paid in to the pool. The average panelist will loose money by doing the fake surveys. This is pretty meaningless if they’re trying to support their livelihood?
Currently you are supporting the idea of “steal from the poor and give to the rich”. You can’t expect much support for your ideas in a normal community?
norway
you are MISINFORMED
if saol was doing ‘fake work ‘ and indulging in money circulation,or supporting the idea of “steal from the poor and give to the rich”,there is no way the supreme court would allow the company ,through it’s prestigious office,to make payments.
in india any money from money circulation schemes is NOT PAYABLE back to participants as it is the view of our law that such money was being used to propagate a scam .this money is confiscated and put into govt coffers.
I agree, since I snipped the first part of your sentence, and kept the most meaningful part. 🙂
The court order specified DEPOSIT MONEY, not anything about payments. Payments are usually ordinary payments like “salary” or whatever we can call payments to panelists.