How Navniit Kkhosla recovered money from Speak Asia
Yesterday saw the latest hearing of the Solomon James writ 383 petition and whilst the order hasn’t been made public, the general consensus appears to be that the proceedings are now at the mercy of the criminal investigations being conducted by various government agencies.
Noticeably absent from the discussion has been any mention of exit options or subscription refunds.
Of course once the order is made public of course a clearer picture will be made but until then, I thought I’d put up some information regarding Navniit Kkhosla’s refund.
From time to time I’m contacted by Speak Asia’s panelists asking what they should do to go about getting their money back. Not being an advocate or concerned with individual refunds outside of the scope of the business operations of Speak Asia itself, I usually state as such and refer them to seek legal advice.
My interest is and always has been after all with the business model and analysis of the company as a MLM opportunity in general.
Still, with a hearing set four weeks away and Navniit Kkhosla kind enough to forward his story along with his intervention order currently filed in the Supreme Court, I hope this information is of some use to panelists being kept in the dark by Speak Asia and its officials.
Navniit Kkhosla was largely demonized by senior panelists within Speak Asia as being the root cause of the “problems” Speak Asia were having. With Kkhosla being the face of the FIR that the EOW had apparently based their entire investigation on, many believed that if he withdrew his FIR that the investigation would go away.
Kkhosla meanwhile refused to just blindly accept that a writ petition specifically naming 115 panelists seeking to recover their money covered everyone and held firm.
First, an introduction by Navniit Kkhosla in his own words,
I am 59 years old now. I invested my company’s funds in Speak Asia on 23rd Feb, 2011 and 3rd March, 2011. I have fought Speak Asia with my heart and soul since then.
I had to fight when I was totally sidelined by my upline for demanding proper hard copy invoices for my tax records.
I sent my request to Tarak, Dandekar, Kulshreshth and my entire upline including Dipankar Sarkar. Only on threatening them with legal action in this matter did SAOL pay 54 crore as service tax and invoices were issued by Dipankar Sarkar and Rajesh Enterprises issue invoices.
It was very hard emotionally, particularly when so much money was lying invested and recovery of my investment through payment of surveys was totally at the whim of a non-resident company with no base to drag to any authorities. I died a hundred times in the process.
At best well wishers thought I was a fool to have invested so much money. And others ……… I did offer to quit the online survey scheme but I was bluntly told -”no way”. I was also told – “You are alone. What can you do?”
On the night of 11.05.2011 I informed my Director that our investment was stuck and it would be a long fight to get the investment back. I was not aware that delivery would be full term – nine months – 15th March, 2012.
The EOW have been most unhelpful for the recovery of my money.
I have attended bail applications to oppose any relief to the accused – irrespective. I provided the Court the Board resolution authorizing Dandekar to appoint an advocate and file a suit for damages for Rs. 500 crore against Star TV. His bail application was rejected.
I have appeared in the PILs in the Bombay High Court and submitted that in India SAOL was never selling any products or services and the stated business of the company was online surveys and getting investments from new panellists.
I stated in the Bombay High Court before the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Desai that a senior advocate was falsely submitting orally that SAOL was like a MLM company and was selling products like mobile phones.
The PIL was withdrawn and the senior advocate has never appeared in the High Court thereafter.
Kkhosla’s complaint was lodged by the EOW Mumbai as FIR 60/2011. Seeking to quash this FIR, the All India Speak Asia Panelist Association (AISPA) lodged a writ petition (writ 3611) in the Mumbai High Court.
The basic gist of AISPA’s argument was that the Supreme Court was handling the matter of the recovery of funds of all panelists, and therefore FIR 60/2011 was not needed.
Seeking to put to this to test, Kkhosla filed an intervention order with the Supreme Court of India on the 1st March 2012. On the 13th of March, Kkhosla attended a mediation meeting between mediator R.C. Lahoti and the various parties involved in writ 3611.
At 6.00 pm on 13.03.2012 I went to attend the meeting of the Lahoti Committee headed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice RC Lahoti at the India International Centre in New Delhi but was not permitted to participate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lahoti explained to me that the meeting for the mediation proceedings was only for the parties in Civil Writ Petition no. 383 of 2011.
I explained that I had filed an intervention application in Civil Writ Petition no. 383 of 2011 which was pending. I also explained that I was the complainant in FIR no. 153/2011 later renumbered as CR no. 60/2011 by the EOW of Mumbai Police.
My pleas were not accepted and I came back to Mumbai.
This is exactly what Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lahti said –
“Right now this meeting is only for the parties in CWP no. 383/2011. Later the Court may decide to make others a party. So you can not take part in the mediation proceedings.”
And with this rejection, the illusion that the mediation proceedings as part of writ 383 covered all panelists was shattered. Of course this shouldn’t have been too much of a surprise, seeing as previous court orders from the 383 petition had explicitly directed the mediator to concern himself with the payments of ‘the petitioners’.
The petitioners being the 115 signed panelists who filed the petition along with Solomon James.
With the argument that the Supreme Court writ 383 proceedings in their current state covering all panelists completely ruined, two days after Kkhosla was turned away from the Lahoti Committee, AISPA refunded Kkhosla’s entire invested amount in Speak Asia (~$12,000 USD).
At the time AISPA believed this would dissolve FIR 60/2011 and quash the EOW’s investigation into Speak Asia, but this has thus far proven not to be the case.
The EOW were instead directed to report back to the High Court what exactly was going on at the Supreme Court regarding writ 383 (as I understand it).
In the meantime they’ve continued on with their investigation launching two new cases against the AdMatrix and Seven Rings International, with the latter being the parent company of both Speak Asia and the AdMatrix. Beyond being the parent company, the management of Speak Asia (specifically Indian CEO Manoj Kumar, currently a fugitive in hiding overseas) are linked to all three companies.
Kkhosla’s intervention application was supposed to be heard yesterday, but pending the court order being made public I’m not entirely sure what happened there.
Kkhosla himself stated yesterday that
the matter was adjourned. Let me read the final order when it is posted before I give some more details.
In the meantime, with the next writ 383 hearing set for April 30th, a long wait is ahead of Speak Asia’s panelists whose recovery of funds, in all probability, isn’t even being addressed in writ 383.
Regarding the mediation process, it’s noted that Rule 18 of the Mediation Concilation Rules of the Delhi Mediation Centre states that
On the expiry of ninety days from the date fixed for the first appearance of the parties before the mediator/conciliator, the mediation/conciliation shall stand terminated, unless the Court, which referred the matter, either suo motu, or upon request by any of the parties, and upon hearing all the parties, is of the view that extension of time is necessary or may be useful; but such extension shall not be beyond a further period of thirty days.
The first meeting of the Lahoti Committee took place on the 28th November 2011. 90 days from the 28th puts at roughly the end of February. Granting the maximum extendable time of a further thirty days then puts us at the end of March.
Somewhat worryingly, no announcement has been made by AISPA, Solomon James and the signed petitioners or Speak Asia regarding the conclusion of the Lahoti Committee and/or any forseeable resolution.
Given that the formation of the committee was initially ordered by the Supreme Court to explore the ‘possibility of an amicable settlement’ between Speak Asia and the 115 signed petitioners and the lack of a public resolution, one can only assume that an amicable settlement via mediation was not reached in the 120 days since the first committee meeting.
Looking forward Kkhosla has offered his experience in the recovery of funds to other panelists, advising yesterday that he
trying to organize a method to enable many panelist / investors to file an intervention application in the Supreme Court in CWP 383/11 in a cost effective manner to recover their dues.
Currently the only panelist out of 1.2 million members to have gotten any money back from Speak Asia, one would imagine Kkhosla’s advice and experience would be worth listening to and learning from.
From the sounds of it, the whole process doesn’t sound all that difficult:
I think someone who has invested Rs. 50,000 and above should be able to recover the investment with some efforts and very little expense in a small group. Anybody with an investment of over Rs. 1,00,000 will not be wise to lose his investment.
It is doable. Do not listen to anybody. Just ask for your money. You owe it to yourself and your family. Period.
I had filed the Intervention Application no. 9 of 2012 in person without any advocate. It cost me only Rs. 1,350 as legal fees. Travelling, food expenses, etc were extra.
I reached the Supreme Court at 12.15 pm and left by 5.15 pm after serving the advocates on record and filing my application.
This happened because I know my way around the Supreme Court having lived nearby for 44 years. I had also talked to the registry earlier and printed all the details from the Supreme Court website totaling over 100 pages.
I had to make some minor changes on three pages and in the affidavit.
I was paid the investment by the advocate of AISPA (and confirmed in the High Court) only because I had filed this Intervention Application containing the truth about Speak Asia and the fact that I was not allowed to attend the Lahoti Committee meeting.
Further in Mumbai in CrWP 3611/11 I have been submitting the facts about Speak Asia in the proceedings to the Court.
The expensive Senior Advocates found it difficult to counter the facts about the fraudulent online survey scheme of Speak Asia with legal posturing.
The Division Bench was also most cooperative and always heard me fully and understood that I was submitting the facts that the State of Maharashtra / EOW should have submitted immediately on commencement of the proceedings.
This can be done by any other investor also.
Remember FIR, Intervention Application in Supreme Court, Bombay High Court, Lahoti Committee and you get your investment back.
Good luck to all!
As a matter of interest, I’ve included Kkhosla’s intervention order as filed in the Supreme Court below.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. No. 9 of 2012
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 383 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Solomon James and others .….Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Others ….Respondents
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
Navniit Kkhosla … Applicant/Intervener
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION
To
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS HON’BLE COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. That the above mentioned matter is pending in this Hon’ble Court for the purpose of adjudication.
2. That the civil writ petition in question has been filed by certain persons claiming to be panelists of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) inter-alia praying for a direction against the Company for disbursement of payments as per their reward points and for refund of their subscription amounts.
3. That at the outset it is submitted to this Hon’ble Court that the present intervention application has been submitted by the applicant / intervener in person and hence he prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone any technical mistakes.
4. That the applicant / intervener also prays for the assistance of this Hon’ble Court in the proceedings as he is appearing in person because his company PFIC Consultants Pvt. Ltd. has lost a large sum of money which was invested in the fraudulent online survey scheme of Speak Asia and hence he is unable to engage a counsel.
5. That the applicant / intervener is the Managing Director of PFIC Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and is the intervener in the matter of the fraudulent online survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. and others which was recorded as FIR no. 153 of 2011 by P.S. Nirmal Nagar and renumbered as CR No. 60 of 2011 by the Economic Offences Wing (hereinafter called the EOW) of Mumbai Police and which matter is being investigated by them.
6. That after the registration of the complaint of the present applicant as FIR no. 153 of 2011 by P.S. Nirmal Nagar and renumbered as CR No. 60 of 2011 by the EOW of Mumbai Police and ten persons have been arrested till now.
7. That the applicant / intervener had learnt from the accused that the investor has to fill surveys online and send it to the company on their website speakasiaonline.com and on an investment of Rs.11,000/- for the first panel two surveys per week were sent and on filing the surveys a payment of Rs. 500/- per survey would be paid.
They assured him that on an investment of Rs. 11,000/- there was an assured income of Rs. 1,000/- per week for one full year of 52 weeks totaling Rs. 52,000/- for twelve months.
That it was further told that each ID could have nine additional sub panels on further investment of Rs. 10,0000/- each and each sub-panel would also be given the same two surveys every week and on filing the surveys a payment of Rs. 500/- per survey would be paid for the sub panels also.
The accused assured me that on investment of Rs 1,01,000/- for each profile there was an assured income of Rs. 10,000/- per week for one full year of 52 weeks totaling Rs. 5,20,000/- for twelve months.
The accused also informed the applicant / intervener that sponsor income of 15% of the survey income would also be paid by Speak Asia on the income of a direct down line investor for each survey filled out by the down line profile.
8. That the accused said that Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. was conducting these surveys for reputed clients like ICICI Bank Ltd., Bata India Ltd., Nestle Ltd., ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Bharati Airtel Ltd. as well as several other reputed companies in India as well as overseas who wanted to invest in India and needed to conduct market surveys for their products and services.
On 12.05.2011 these companies denied that had commissioned Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. to conduct any surveys for them.
That thereafter the media exposed various aspects of the working of Speak Asia and alleged that it was a Ponzi scheme/ money rolling scheme without any customers.
9. That in February, 2011 the accused further informed the applicant / intervener that he should invest in a tripod by making three profiles through an investment of Rs 11,000/- for each profile totaling an investment of 33,000/- and having nine sub-panels each for each of these three profiles investors which would total Rs 3,03,000/-.
The accused explained that one profile would sponsor the other two profiles in the tripod and this would result in reward points being awarded from which new sub-panels could be generated and hence the total investment would be Rs 2,83,000/- instead of Rs 3,03,000/- for a tripod of three profiles and nine sub-panels for each of the three profiles.
10. That the accused also informed that Speak Asia also provides the investor an e-wallet and he could know how much money he has earned from the surveys and the date on which this will become payable. Speak Asia shows the money as payable in the e-wallet 30 days after the completion of the surveys by the investor.
Thereafter the investor sends an online request for payment and he has a choice on the mode of payment – direct through banking channels or alternately through a banker’s cheque / demand draft sent to the residential address recorded at the time of initial registration of the investor.
The accused also explained that alternately the profile can use the money to generate PINs to enroll other investors as investors in the survey scheme of Speak Asia.
11. That based on the assurances of the accused the applicant / intervener agreed to make an initial investment of Rs. 33,000/- in a tripod for generating income by filling surveys online in the survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd.
Thereupon Ujjwala and Amit informed him that the sum of Rs. 33,000/- would have to be paid to Mr. Deepankar Sarkar who was a Distributor / Franchise of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. and was based in Raipur because he was one of the 100 original promoters of the survey scheme of Speak Asia in India.
12. That the accused induced the applicant / intervener to invest a total of Rs. 6,06,000in the fraudulent survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd., of which over Rs. 5,00,000/- is by cheques.
13. That the applicant / intervener had already conveyed to his upline that he would not get any other investor to join under him in the online survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. till all the money invested by his company had been received back in full along with the cost of money and the administrative cost of business as was calculated by him in the internal costing sheet.
14. That on the applicant / intervener insisting for invoices and receipts for the investments in the survey scheme he realised that service tax was payable on the transactions for the survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd.
That the applicant / intervener spoke to Tarak Bajpai, Ashish Dandekar, Abhishekh Kulshresth and his entire known upline. That the accused shunned the applicant / intervener thereafter and he informed his upline and the company officials that he knew many senior officers in the Government of Maharashtra and Government of India and that invoices must be issued.
That, thereafter, the applicant / intervener later learnt that Speak Asia paid service tax amounting to about Rs 54.0 crore to the Government of India through the Master Distributor and subsequently issued invoices to the Master Distributor who in turn issued invoices to the Franchisees and others for the payments received as investment in the survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd.
Thereafter Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. paid additional service tax and the applicant / intervener has learnt from Speak Asia that a total of Rs. 68.0 crore was paid as service tax.
15. That the applicant / intervener learnt that the investors have a choice on how to use their income from filling surveys between generating PINs for enrolling new investors for which they are given a bonus of 5.5% or to request for their dues of money to be sent to them.
In the second option a investor has to choose the mode of payment – directly through online banking channels or alternately through a banker’s cheque / demand draft sent to the residential address recorded at the time of initial registration of the investor.
The investor is charged a penalty fee of 3% by Speak Asia if he chooses to call for his dues in addition to the bank charges payable amounting to about 1.5% of the amount.
Thus Speak Asia gave an indirect incentive of about 10% if a investor did not call for his money but chose to enroll new investors and collected the initial investment from him and thereby kept the Ponzi scheme / money rolling scheme going.
16. That Speak Asia had organized a Maha Mela at Goa on 9th, 10th and 11th of May, 2011 where it claimed more than 8,000 investors had come.
During a Press Conference on 11.05.2011 the Chief Marketing Officer Vivek Gautam had claimed ICICI Bank Ltd., Bata India Ltd., Nestle India Ltd., ING Vysya Bank Ltd. and Bharati Airtel Ltd. were some of the clients for whom Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. had been conducting surveys.
This was a false statement and was denied by the respective companies. This denial was breaking news on the audio visual media and print media from 12th May onwards and the survey schemes were openly branded as fraud by the media.
It was now clear to the applicant / intervener that the business model of the company Speak Asia had no product or sales related income from which the company would pay the investors.
It also became clear that the survey scheme of Speak Asia was a “Ponzi scheme” or money rolling scheme which was banned in India.
17. That Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. claimed through online pop ups that it was shortly opening an office in Goregaon, Mumbai and the interiors of the office were being completed and the office would be inaugurated by 1st of April, 2011. It has not been opened till today.
Around 15.07.2011 Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. has claimed in an online pop up that it is awaiting the permission of the Reserve Bank of India for opening a PE (permanent establishment). No address was given earlier and no address is given even now.
18. That it was clear that the applicant / intervener along with other investors who had come in late had been cheated.
The applicant / intervener has now further learnt / realised that:
a) The business model of the company Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. had no products or sales related income from which the company would pay the investors.
b) The survey scheme of Speak Asia was a “Ponzi scheme” or money rolling scheme which is banned in India and the applicant / intervener along with other investors had been cheated and no further payment would be made by the company for the surveys already completed.
Income was collected by the company solely from new investor investor investing in the scheme. Early investor investors earn more as time passes and the later investors lose if the scheme comes to a halt.
Investment in the “Ponzi scheme” or money rolling survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. has come to a halt.
c) Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. had given two options to an investor to choose from for payment of dues – directly through online banking channels or alternately through a banker’s cheque / demand draft sent to the residential address recorded at the time of initial registration of the profile. This was clearly recorded in the website of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd.
After the media exposure from 12.05.2011 onwards that the survey scheme was a fraud and cover up for a money rolling / Ponzi scheme the second option of payment through a banker’s cheque / demand draft sent to the residential address recorded at the time of initial registration of the investor was quietly removed from the website without any information being given to the investors through an online pop up as is the usual practise.
This proves that Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. did not wish to make any further payment to the investors after 12.05.2011.
d) Even the requests for payment of the dues for the surveys completed would not be honoured and the remaining money with the company would disappear under some pretext.
e) Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. claims that the investment made in the online survey scheme by the investors was for e-zines. This is totally false as there is no need to make exorbitant payment for information freely available on the internet.
Additionally for a tripod with nine sub-panels each this means that payment has been made for thirty e-zines and sixty e-zines for the two tripods funded by the company of the applicant / intervener. This is absolutely ridiculous, false and unacceptable.
f) Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. now falsely claims that it is selling e-zines only since its inception. Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. put out its first e-zine on 17.02.2010 and which means that till 12.05.2011 it should have sent two e-zines for each week totaling 64 weeks amounting to 128 e-zines.
In fact till 12.05.2011 Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. has sent only 72 e-zines.
19. Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. has claimed that United Overseas Bank in Singapore asked it to shut down its Bank account with it after giving it a notice period of only two days and the account has been shut down on 27.05.2011.
This cannot be accepted as no Bank can ask its account holder to shut down the account without valid reason and after giving it an opportunity to be heard and time to rearrange its affairs.
20. That obviously the fraudulent survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. was started one day in India and which is the date of the first e-zine being sent namely 17.02.2011.
That there must be persons who were taken on as investors and who must have interacted with Ms Harender Kaur and her management team from overseas as well as recruited in India when this fraud on Indian citizens was started.
That these initial / first group of investors must have known that there was no client for whom the surveys were being conducted and hence it was a totally fraudulent Ponzi / money rolling scheme for which they had joined.
21. That as submitted above the applicant / intervener was induced by the accused to invest a sum of Rs. 6,06,000/- belonging to his Company in two tripods in the fraudulent online survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd.
That this investment was made by the applicant / intervener pursuant to ongoing criminal conspiracy between the accused to get more persons to invest in the fraudulent online survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. which admittedly did not have any customers for its surveys and of which fact the accused persons were well.
That the accused persons did this for unlawful profit for themselves and thereby caused unlawful loss to the applicant / intervener.
22. That Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. is not talking of payments received by the upline as it must have generated many dummy profiles without any payment to siphon the money of the investors in the online survey scheme.
That the upline of the applicant / intervener has also received a large amount of money as binary income for the investments of the applicant / intervener and which money can also be recovered from them as it is ill-gotten gain in criminal conspiracy as they were aware that the survey scheme was fraudulent.
23. That the Economic Offences Wing of the Mumbai Police claim that a large no. of complaints have been received by them from other investors in the fraudulent survey scheme of Speak Asia.
However no FIR has been recorded by the EOW/Mumbai Police against the accused upline and these complaints have been edited and tagged along with the complaint of the applicant / intervener – FIR no. 153/2011 which was renumbered as CR no. 60/2011 by the EOW, Mumbai Police.
24. That a full Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has directed that a FIR has to be recorded immediately on receipt of a complaint.
The Eco but yet complaints of the other applicant / interveners against Speak Asia Directors, management, officers as well we the upline of the individual applicant / interveners have not been recorded as FIRs as submitted above for reasons best known to the Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai Police.
25. That the Company has been using these proceedings as a tool to cover up their unlawful acts and for preventing the authorities to investigate the offences committed by the Company and its officials.
In fact, even the present proceedings which has been filed by the so-called panelists has been initiated at the behest of none other than the Company itself.
The same is evident from the fact that assuming that each petitioner / panelist has invested a sum of Rs.11,000/- with the Company therefore the instant proceeding for 115 panelists seeks a recovery of Rs.12,65,000/-.
However, the records of the proceedings shows that senior most and highly paid Counsel of the country are being engaged by the 115 panelists for a recovery of merely Rs.12,65,000/-.
This shows that the instant proceedings have been launched at the behest of and at the instance of the Company otherwise no sane person would pay three times the sum of their recovery to lawyers for each hearing and continue doing so without knowing when their money would be returned.
26. Still further, the applicant submits that a perusal of the order sheets shows that on 06.02.2012 neither any submission was made by the Company to deposit money nor was any statement given that the Company was willing to settle the claims of all panelists across the country.
The order only records that the Hon’ble Mediator was to determine the amounts payable to the petitioners (115 panelists) and authorities and only 2 weeks thereafter the Company would make payment in the Registry of this Hon’ble Court.
However, in order to take advantage of the Mediation proceedings in the ongoing criminal matters the Company offered to deposit a sum of USD 10 Million and the same is evident from the minutes of the Hon’ble Mediator held on 13.02.2012.
27. That the said minutes were circulated by the Counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3611 of 2011 in Bombay High Court during the course of proceedings on 23.02.2012.
The said writ petition is another proxy litigation in the Bombay High Court initiated and funded by the Company through certain panelists who have sought quashing of the FIR and again huge amounts are being spent by them by engaging senior lawyers of the country on each date.
In the said proceedings it is being vociferously argued by the petitioners therein that the FIR has to be quashed as the Company is repaying the money.
Thus, in the garb of the mediation proceedings and the proceedings before this Hon’ble Court, the Company is attempting to take advantage in order to mislead various Hon’ble Courts that too through certain persons claiming to be panelists.
28. That the Company has voluntarily deposited a sum of USD 10 Million only to take advantage in criminal proceedings and not with bona fide intentions.
The Company is fully aware that in order to meet the liability of 25 Lac Panelists it would have to cough up a huge amount of Rs.8000 crores but is trying to hoodwink every Court that it has intentions to repay the amounts by showing that it has deposited a sum of Rs.10 Million
29. That, in order to assist this Hon’ble Court about the intentions of the Company and the motive and purpose behind the present litigation, the applicant is seeking his impleadment in the instant petition especially in view of the fact that the FIR which has been got registered against the Company is on a complaint given by the applicant and is being sought to be quashed by misleading the Hon’ble Courts about the instant proceedings.
Thus, the instant application is being filed for the impleadment of the applicant as a respondent for the purpose of properly assisting this Hon’ble Court as also for seeking a clarification of the orders of this Hon’ble Court in order to bring the facts properly before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
It is settled law that mere repayment of the amount does not take away the criminal liability and the culpability of running a scheme by the Company cannot be diminished or diluted by the return of money by the Company through Mediation or the instant proceedings.
30. That grave prejudice would be caused to the applicant and various genuine panelists and the authorities in case the instant application is not allowed and the applicant is not permitted to be added as a respondent in the instant proceedings.
It would not be out of place to mention here at this stage that besides the FIR lodged at the instance of the applicant there are various proceedings and complaints pending against the Company with various authorities and in case the instant application is not allowed, the same would also be adversely affected.
31. That the instant application is bona fide and in the interest of justice.
PRAYER:
In the view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is most humbly prayed that in the interest of justice this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
a) Permit the applicant to intervene in the above matter; and
b) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts of this case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL FOREVER PRAY
(Navniit Kkhosla)
Applicant in Person
Place: New Delhi
Filed On: 01.03.2012
AISPA have also filed an intervention order in the 383 writ case,but as per Anjali, unofficial AISPA spokesperson on BehindMLM,
aispa has very much filed an intervention application. when we want it to be heard ,we will have it heard.
Despite the fact that all panelists are clearly not covered in the 383 writ and AISPA’s claims that it represents the interests of all panelists, for now AISPA seem content to sit on their hands.
Those wishing to contact Kkhosla for more information and advice may do so in the following ways:
My email ID is speakasiainvestors@gmail.com
My phone contact no. is 08652154000
Footnote: Before the rumour mill campaign starts up again, I’ll clarify that I’m in no way associated with Kkhosla’s actions and have nothing to do with any Speak Asia court case.
I’m putting up this information only as a matter of public interest regarding the case and to direct the enquiries I get regarding recovery of payment seeing as I myself am not involved in this matter.
I follow Speak Asia as a MLM company within the niche of this blog.
It is a sad reflection of the secrecy that AISPA and Speak Asia operate under that I as a third-party have to share this information about writ 383 and what is actually going on in court.
This is information that both AISPA and Speak Asia should have been openly supplying to the general public and the company’s panelists over the last few months. How either party expect panelists to make informed and educated decisions regarding the recovery of their funds with such a lack of information being circulated amongst panelists is beyond me.
With the mediation process, as per the Mediation Concilation Rules now expired, there simply is no excuse.
But anyway, the cat is out of the bag and hopefully going forward those looking to recover their investment can now do so eyes wide open.
Very well Done Kkhosla ji. If speakasia is trying to hoodwink the courts by Depositing $10Mn what are you doing to the courts by hiding the fact that you have already received back your money in question.
but is trying to hoodwink every Court that it has intentions to repay the amounts by showing that it has deposited a sum of Rs.10 Million
I am unable to understand that what will you achieve by this act of yours.
While I was putting together this article, whoever runs the Speak Asia Online Marketing blog put out a press release:
Yeah good one guys, are they seriously going to pretend Manoj Kumar isn’t on the management of Speak Asia and Seven Rings and that Seven Rings had nothing to do with the Ad Matrix, given that they run the Mister Colibri clone in Brazil?
Buuuuuuuuullshit.
What? Apart from the EOW categorically denying they have this, the database and “data” are sitting in Singapore with hosting company USonyx.
And what, Speak Asia don’t have backups of their databases and data? Please.
Uh what? The actual order stated
A printout is all that was ordered, nothing else. What are they talking about?
Ahh I see, they’re trying to use the return of a database and “data” that was never ordered, nor that the EOW even has as a wedge issue to address the fact that the bullshit exit policy 31st March deadline has now expired with no action resulting nor mention of it in any court order.
Oh dear.
And here’s the real stuffup by whoever is running the site:
How are Speak Asia verifying panelists’ credentials if they’re claiming that the EOW have their database and “data”?
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/38320113242012p.txt
supreme court order of 02.04.2012.
Wow, the Supreme Court order didn’t reveal much at all. Basically sounds like nothing much happened.
So much for exit options and all the other bullshit flying around before the 2nd April.
Wow, the Supreme Court order didn’t reveal much at all. Basically sounds like nothing much happened.-soapbox
yeah. the supreme court saw that the income tax dept was not ready to file it’s reply yet, and allowed time.
but how does this help your argument that the criminal issues are the the reason that the court has given time?
tomorrow WR 3611 is listed at no 3. but there is a supplementary board before it . we hope to be heard before lunch at least.
be good and say all the best!
I picked up a question about summer vacation for the Supreme Court from Speakasiaonline.mobi:
“Do they close the SC during summer, i.e. May and June?”
The answer can be found in SC’s “Handbook” Chapter 3.C (page 19):
People will have to interpret this themselves, but atleast some cases will be heard during the summer, if they are urgent enough – “inter alia accompanied by such an affidavit”.
I don’t have the impression that this case has been treated as “urgent”.
Thanks, for reference of the honorable order of the SC postponing the matter of payment of “Rs 12,65,000” to 115 panelists by another three weeks and thereafter after the end of the hot summer vacation of two months, and then after another adjournment to ……
How long will your husband/father/uncle/nephew/… “Honorable” Bahirwani keep panelists guessing the restart of the ponzi/prize chit fund business or return of their investments?
At the end there will be so many new petitioners through their respective Intervention Applications that the SC would need a hall to seat them all along with visitors.
If “Honorable” Bahirwani had indeed filed an application on behalf of AISPA would it not be mentioned in the above said order as was that of Navniit?
@Navniit
I became a panelist by buying a pin from a friend who in turn got it from another and so on. Some paid 11k each directly to a local agent of SAOL distributor, Venus Multilinks, Jabalpur, venusmultilinks.com.
Accept for the agent who was already on top of the binary income of 26k/day (I think), we all friends got cheated. In my FIR I would NOT like to implicate my friend/friends even if they are not joining me in filing an Intervention Application in the Supreme Court. What to do?
@anjali
Because the IT are just one of the many departments who launched a criminal investigation into Speak Asia.
That and tax fraud/not paying your taxes is a criminal matter.
since soapbox keeps asking aispa to keep the public updated he should allow this post.
mr khosla filed his intervention application in the supreme court on 01.03.2012.
but the point to be noted here is that the same mr khosla has filed his affidavit in reply to aispa writ 3611 on 05.03.2012 saying if he receives his money in full he will not pursue his complaint.
you are aware from the high court order of 15.03.2012 that the bench has taken note that mr khosla has recieved his money and is not interested in pursuing the matter further.
read the order again –
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/criminal/2012/WP361111150312.pdf
in light of this development do you think mr khosla is still a party in this case? further do you think the supreme court is going to entertain his intervention after he has received his money and expressed his desire not to pursue the matter further?
I wasn’t aware you had to file a FIR or have a complaint to intervene in a Supreme Court case.
Kkhosla is still a panelist of Speak Asia and to date has not officially been paid by the company. That should be enough to get the application heard.
It carries more weight than AISPA’s ‘we represent everyone because we say so’ claims prior to charging for membership so they actually have some weight.
What’s your official employment position in AISPA? Y’know, now that you’re commenting for them in an official capacity on here by your own admission.
What do you think OZ – Is supreme court a small institution? How can any and everybody come to Supreme Court claiming to be a panelist and submitting his application. Intervening in an existing case is not that easy a matter.
If you have no complaint filed earlier, how will SC allow you to intervene directly, this is beyond my logic.
You either are or you aren’t. There’s no claiming.
Kkhosla filed his application and it’s being heard… sounds easy enough to me.
So have AISPA lodged a complaint against Speak Asia too? On what basis are they filing an intervention order (if one has been filed, of which no proof seems to exist)?
Furthermore the intervention order clearly paints a solid picture as to why Speak Asia should not be able to move money around or continue business operations whilst being under criminal investigations.
As Kkhosla stated, this is along the lines of what the EOW should have submitted themselves (and may yet). One of the prayers of the writ 383 petition mentions a business restart does it not.
Kkhosla’s intervention order directly addresses this and obviously the Supreme Court feels it’s worth hearing or they wouldn’t have accepted it. As you yourself state, ‘intervening in an existing case is not that easy a matter.‘
I’m going to nip this one in the bud as I’ve seen people claiming that the HC mediation rules don’t apply to SC cases. This is beinf inferred on the basis of the Delhi Mediation Centre having the following after the listed Mediation Concilation Rules:
At first I thought it was a fair point to make that these rules were specific to HC mediation but after further research I don’t think this is the case.
Following the above paragraph it’s stated:
Not sure where the writ 383 mediation proceedings are taking place but I’m sure someone can fill us in on that.
These rules appear to have been made at the behest of the Supreme Court so that they could refer cases being heard in the Supreme Court for mediation:
These drafts went on to become the ‘MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION RULES, 2004’ that the Delhi Mediation Centre uses.
If I’m understanding correctly, the Supreme Court directs cases to be attempted to be settled via mediation to the Delhi Mediation Centre and as such they are orchestrated under the Mediation and Concilation Rules, 2004 – which includes Rule 18, which states mediation proceedings are terminated after 90 days regardless of whether they are concluded or not.
(This is as I understand it but if anyone has an alternative take on the mediation process I’m all ears).
Some more research:
On page 63 of the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Handbook a ‘Supreme Court Mediation Centre’ is mentioned:
Some contact details are provided, so it would seem the matter of clearing up whether or not there’s an expiration date on Supreme Court mediation proceedings is a relatively simple matter of someone in India calling them up and asking.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdelhimediationcentre.gov.in%2FMediationConciliation.htm&h=PAQHFq61zAQGdcLgOjpY2UxhcOxX8PoGc9AVrGv8YnQiAPg
2]how is mr khosla still a panelist if he has recieved all his subscription money ? his affidavit clearly specifies that he has not asked the money from the company only but any other accused as he believes all the panelists have conjoined to cheat him [lol, he was a panelist himself but puts himself above all blame].
3]mr khosla has very thoughtfully published his intervention application.since his affidavit in the high court followed this application should he not thoughtfully publish that also to afford the panelists a complete overview of his legal position.giving incomplete info is tantamount to misleading the public.
4]aispa is a powerful legal body doing a very good job of protecting the panelists rights. aispa forced the eow to the mediation process and got the investigations stayed. over the next few days you shall see further inspired legal moves to push this matter along further.the panelists understand the motives of aispa even though you struggle with it.
5]as for aispa intervention in writ 383 we will time it according to legal advice.our lawyers have done a masterful job up until now and we trust them to guide us expertly in the intervention matter too. timing is everything.
6]i am a volunteer in aispa. you called me the unofficial spokesperson of aispa on your site, and if this position is still available to me ,i’m game.
That Anand Prasad quote clarifies nothing. Why even bother publishing it?
Have Speak Asia terminated his account? Given the EOW apparently has login access (not databases or any actual hardware mind you), I don’t think they have formally terminated his account.
AISPA paid Kkhosla off because the ‘everyone is covered in 3611 argument’ went pop when Kkhosla was rejected from participating in the Lahoti Committee as he’s not one of the 115 signed petitioners.
Given we already know Kkhosla wanted his money back, there’s nothing to be learned by publication of the affidavit.
To date, the only panelist to get their money back out of the scam was not an AISPA member.
…good job there.
AISPA happy to sit on your hands whilst panelist wonder what is going on. Instead they’re too busy trying to get criminal investigations into Speak Asia stopped, because that’s truly who they represent.
Meanwhile Kkhosla filed an intervention, blew the ‘everyone is covered by writ 3611’ facade out of the water and got his money back.
I don’t think they have formally terminated his account.-soapbox
the court will understand very well why saol cannot terminate his account.
the reason mr khosla should publish his affidavit of the high court is because his stand in this affidavit is totally contrary to his stand in his intervention application.he clearly says he wants to have nothing to do with the company if his money is paid back.
AISPA paid Kkhosla off because the ‘everyone is covered in 3611 argument’ went pop when Kkhosla was rejected from participating in the Lahoti Committee as he’s not one of the 115 signed petitioners.-soapbox
don’t mix up issues.
1] aispa paid off khosla because it was a good way to help in getting the FIR quashed.the FIR is the cause of the eow investigations and arrests and why would anybody not take up such a great offer to settle?
2]mr khosla could not participate in the mediation meeting because his intervention application had not yet been heard by the supreme court and approved.if the court approves your intervention application then you become a party to the mediation.
AISPA happy to sit on your hands whilst panelist wonder what is going on. Instead they’re too busy trying to get criminal investigations into Speak Asia stopped, because that’s truly who they represent.-soapbox
hey, aispa is fully alert and watching the entire situation with eagle eyes. just because you think we’re sitting on our hands wont make it true.
and of course we’re trying to quash the fir and stop the investigations. we’re doing it in court .it’s legal.
Regardless, he’s still a panelist. And you’re telling us what the court will and won’t understand now?
Kkhosla has filed an intervention order in the Supreme Court, not Speak Asia itself. Do Speak Asia run the Supreme Court now?
I don’t have anything to do with Speak Asia, yet I too can spot an obvious Ponzi when I see one. Having something to do with Speak Asia and making sure the Supreme Court are aware of their bullshit is not mutually exclusive.
they idiotically thought the FIR would be quashed and so too would every criminal investigation into Speak Asia.
That hasn’t happened.
and meanwhile another has taken action and gotten his money back.
Let us know how sitting on the fence waiting works out for you.
Nobody said it was illegal… I too wouldn’t expect anything different from the defacto management of Speak Asia. Glad to see you acknowledge it.
@ Oz,
How many people are there with Mr. Khosla now?
So, how exactly Mr. Khosla is planning to file intervention application in the supreme court to stop the company to come back or delay the work of the company or court proceedings?
Everyone of us knows that, earlier Khosla doesn’t want his money through EXIT OPTION since he found something wrong with that POLICY / OPTION, also he was thinking like company is cheating or eating his money in the name of EXIT OPTION (I mean to say what Khosla feels like – through EXIT OPTION no Investor / Panelist will get their complete money what they have invested / subscribed for),
But now all of a sudden Khosla is going and intervening with WP(Civil) 383/2011 with 115 panelist i.e. along with Solomon James team who wished for business restart along with getting back their money (what they have paid as subscription costs for e-zine magazines), but Khosla is not having that point in his mind for business restart (also won’t recommend anyone to fight for business restart), then how come he can join them and file intervention application without having the same wish?
The prayers of 115 panelists in that list is totally different from Khosla’s. Also Khosla points out like company is doing fraud business and company should not come back and court should not allow this company and also investigation has to continue for longer period, company has to give back all the money to all investors whoever invested in the scheme and get lost from this country.
Khosla don’t want to sell products, he simply wish to keep on doing surveys which is asking: Which product do you like? and Which product do you use? But don’t want to buy / purchase or use any product whichever SpeakAsia gives in future..! That was very good plan. Superb!
While investing his personal money into this scheme, he was very much interested to get back his money 2 times or 3 times or 4 times or even 5 times more than his actual amount of investment only with the purpsoe by doing surveys (which he consider as totally fake) and wants to keep on getting the money from the company only with that intention he has paid around 6 lakh rupees (without any interest of doing fake surveys he shouldn’t have paid that money!).
But, later started to tell that he was cheated by his Uplines. At that time, he forgets to think: he’s the only person responsible for the money what he paid to the company by getting PINS from his Upline, also he forgets to think he is the person responsible to share or bear the loss or profit whatever happens in future, most importantly he forgets to think that he’s the person having the sole responsibility to think what he’s doing and no one is there to take up his responsibility!
Why can’t he file a separate WRIT or case since his wishes doesn’t match with the Solomon James WP(Civil) 383/2011 of 115 panelists.
You’re assuming his intention(s). You’d have to ask him what that is/they are.
An intervention doesn’t have to be lodged in agreement with the prayers of the petitioners.
Again, more assumption.
As per the intervention order, it was only after he had invested that he became aware of the scam. For clarification on this you’d have to ask Kkhosla yourself.
Sure, but that doesn’t absolve criminal liability of running a ponzi/pyramid scheme hybrid.
Because they don’t have to match.
@ anjali
On the contrary, AISPA is trying very hard to please its masters by destroying the panelists’ rights. AISPA is trying to push for settlement of exiting panelists’ dues as peanuts by getting the mischievous Exit Policy included in mediation process.
The panelists who bought upto 9 subpanels (costing Rs 90,000/-) will not get any refund of subpanel subscription cost under the Exit Policy Categories 2 & 3 (Very few panelists will fall under Category 1).
There will be further deduction for reward points encashed / used by the panelist. As a result, lakhs of panelists who bought subpanels will end up with zero to Rs 10,000/- refund under the Exit Policy.
AISPA has steadfastly refused to officially clarify regarding the refunds for subpanels under Categories 2 & 3 of Exit Policy. Informally, officials of AISPA and SAOL have admitted that subpanels have zero refund value.
AISPA protecting the panelists’ rights is a big joke. Under the guise of Exit Policy, there is a criminal conspiracy involving SAOL and AISPA to knock off SAOL’s subpanels liability in excess of Rs 1,000 crore.
Wonder if you care to offer any clarification in the matter on behalf of AISPA.
The question is very simple: what has AISPA done for the panelists?
The answer thus far: nothing except press releases
To date, not a single panelists supposedly represented by AISPA has been paid a single rupee.
In fact, AISPA has raised money from these panelists it supposedly represents to pay off Khoosla. And how does paying off Khoosla help the panelists? It does not. It helps SAOL, not the panelists.
So where does AISPA’s true loyalties lie? Stop listening to the words, and analyze its ACTIONS. What had it actually DONE, and who does those actions benefit? Actions speak louder than words. What has AISPA done, besides spending panelists’ money to protect SpeakAsia?
BREAKING NEWS!!!
in aispa writ 3611 in the mumbai high court the bench has ordered further stay on the FIR and investigations until 3 rd ,may ,2012! this is because the eow has not approached the supreme court for clarification on investigations uptil now.
1]with investigations stayed no panelist can be arrested or harassed by the eow.
2]this stay will lead to ultimate quashing of the fir which is important for the restart of business that the panelists are looking forward to .
3]aispa is ready with it’s intervention in the supreme court and will strike when the iron is hot.the payments are not coming through because of noncooperation of the eow and this is not aispa’s fault.in fact it is aispa which by it’s writ 3611, forced the eow into the mediation process.
4]aispa has filed a writ to protect the association so that the panelists can have an umbrella to fight under.aispa has provided a single platform to such a large group of affected people.
5]in the coming days some more legal actions of aispa will be filed in the designated courts.
So the EOW pretty much a month to get their reports together. Like I’ve always said, nothing much will happen while there are criminal investigations open (not just the EOW).
You mean defacto management… and that’s of course disregarding the Seven Rings/Ad Matrix FIRs. With common management amongst all three companies I imagine if the EOW need to arrest people in connection with their investigations they will.
…and that’s being pulled straight out of your arse.
Oh dear, we’re still dangling that little carrot. Ponzi schemes don’t restart, it’s economical idiocy to allow them to suck more people into the scam once the scam has been stopped.
but is sitting on its hands because making sure all panelists are covered by writ 383 isn’t in the best interests of Speak Asia.
Speak Asia management. Yes, we already know this.
More attempts to stop criminal investigations into Speak Asia?
Guess they must have made a recent cash injection into AISPA’s coffers… or they just want to spend the membership fees they recently took in.
All the while instead of letting the criminal investigations proceed, instead you’ve got AISPA and Speak Asia delaying them as much as possible thinking they can litigate their way out of police investigations.
It’s almost comical.
@anjali
AISPA seems to protect the interests of the few, those who are most heavily involved in Speak Asia and have had it as a major income source. They don’t seem to protect the interests of the many, those who have been less involved and only wants their money back.
In some of your statements, AISPA seems to primarily protect the interest of Speak Asia management from top to bottom (more protected the higher they are in the system), gradually more willing to sacrifice people’s interests the lower they are in the system in order to protect the bosses – focusing more on “rank” and “status” than on “equality before law”.
This means AISPA is not a true member association. They don’t listen to the majority of the panelists, and that’s probably why most panelists prefer not becoming members either.
Most ordinary panelists will prefer to get their money back in full ASAP, and they are not very interested in any business restart. The ones that are interested in business restart are those heavily involved, and those that can’t stand to lose the income source (their downline, etc.).
I’ll believe most ordinary panelists are pretty fed up with Bahirwani’s “song and dance” acting, and will prefer results rather than motivational speeches.
I will also guess that most ordinary panelists will prefer transparency rather than “filtered updates”, where leaders will give them access to all the information they want rather than “serving” positive news that never leads to results.
Sometimes khosla has prove that he is not interested in his money he want to arm twist the company & he wants to stall the economical progress of the over entire Panellists. But at the end he has confirmed that he will be happy if he obtains his subscription amount from any source.
His deceleration is witnessed in the form of Affidavit, in a statement he has informed hon’ble high court that he has received his entire subscription amount & he does not wish for pursues his complaint against SpeakAsia.
Now, it seems that Khosla wish for dual benefit by filling his intervention application at Supreme Court or he wish to set hierarchy on the way of entire panellist by appealing at one clot to create chaos at highest echelon.
What an arrangement to haul SpeakAsia’s case upwards. I don’t thing hon’ble Supreme Court will entertain his intervention application & he will be triumphant in his progress.
Kkhosla already has his invested amount, but from the looks of it he’s still willing to dedicate his time doing what he can to hold Speak Asia accountable and ensure they don’t sucker more people into their scam.
He could have taken his investment payout and faded quietly into the background, but he hasn’t. Of course the smear campaign starts up again with senior panelists claiming he is holding everything up… but as per the court orders that’s quite obviously not the case. Make of that what you will.
Speak Asia’s business model is what caused the closure of the business and collapse. Harendar Kaur transferring what she could after she got an injunction to open up Speak Asia’s bank accounts last year when she could have just paid people is why nobody has been paid since mid last year.
Don’t lose sight of or forget that.
AISPA seems to protect the interests of the few, those who are most heavily involved in Speak Asia and have had it as a major income source.-norway
with business restart everybody from top to bottom will have an opportunity to earn. people can earn more or less depending on the effort they are willing to put in.so how does this mean aispa is protecting the interests of a few?
also the matter of payments has already been addressed by the 115 panelists in the supreme court.aispa cannot file any other fresh case for payments since the matter is already in the apex court.so aispa has made an intervention application and is standing by for the right time to enter the process. wrong timing can hurt a matter .
and norway, support for aispa is immense.soon aispa will announce state wise chapters of the association so that there is representation from all over.
We all know a business restart would mean Speak Asia’s fugitive management would somehow have magically gotten away with running the largest Ponzi scheme India has ever seen.
And we all know that’s not going to happen until criminal investigations are concluded. Why do you think AISPA and Speak Asia are trying to stop the investigations rather then let the various government agencies get on with it?
It also means Speak Asia can continue to drag more people into it’s Ponzi to pay off existing members… which would be irresponsible for any court to allow.
In that sense, AISPA are just the defacto management of Speak Asia in India and are really only serving their interests. The Ponzi restarting just conveniently allows them to dangle the ‘you will get your money once we scam even more people’ carrot infront of existing members.
This is sadly evidently enough to shut most of them up and render them docile.
I am the one that have made most comments about (against) the Exit Policy, claiming it to be misleading and useless for most panelists, and claiming that it seems to have been designed to cheat people. I’m also the one who tried to get it verified by the Supreme Court, by sending an e-mail 20.03.2012.
KNOWN PROBLEM
Most people seems to KNOW there are some questionable points in the Exit Policy, where the unclear conditions easily can be used to cheat people.
You can’t expect people to accept an unclear agreement. The responsible person behind the Exit Policy has failed to make it clear enough to be useful for most people who wants to EXIT. They have also failed to get it verified by correct authorities (the Supreme Court).
Even Bahirwani and Aman Azad have realized that the conditions are unclear and can be used to cheat people. They have tried to “interpret” the conditions in a positive way.
Bahirwani has also realized the lack of verification from correct authorities, and have tried to offer his own “verification” through a press release / press conference.
ADDRESSING THE REAL PROBLEM
The source of the problem can be identified to be the Exit Policy itself, and how they have handled the need for verification. They have done nothing to correct the problems, and instead they have tried to change people and what they believe about it.
“Changing people” will always fail as a method, so I don’t know why they return to such methods over and over again. This method can be used if you believe PEOPLE are the problem, but most often the problem will be something else.
Correcting the Exit Policy should be an inexpensive and easy operation, so most leaders would have selected that option instead of trying to convince people about its legitimacy – a far more costly and less reliable method.
Most leaders would also have tried to get it verified by the correct authorities, instead of acting as “authorities” themselves – yet another costly and ineffective method.
They don’t protect the interests of those who wants their money back and wants to be finished with Speak Asia ASAP, all the hundred thousands of people who consider it to be a scam and a Ponzi scheme.
AISPA/SPAI protects Speak Asia’s management rather than the ordinary panelists, or even panelists that are not “in the right group of people”. They protect the bosses rather than the workers, the employer rather than the employees. They act more like “paid agents” for the bosses than as a real association for the panelists.
I’ll guess this problem also will be reflected in SPAI’s memberlist?
And what do you mean with “immense support”? Being represented in each and every state doesn’t require much support, it requires a few hundreds of people heavily involved and a few followers for each of them.
Please use more precise measurements than “immense” and other non-metric variables? “Number of members” should be a more precise measurement.
@Navniit Kkhosla
From a neutral viewpoint, I seriously hope you have limited it to “method” – “organizing a method”. Organizing PEOPLE is a hell of a job, and will usually need an existing organization – experienced and capable in handling large numbers of members.
the exit option is precisely for these people and if the eow cooperates faster they will get their money faster.
um, no.
but a good indicator for people online is that the most popular web pages for panelists supporting saol like speakindia, spaeakasia mobi ,bizbasket,spaeakasia powers group etc etc etc and etc are all reporting aispa updates as the official word for the panelists.
local organisations of panelists in various cities and states are writing in ,wanting to be affiliated with aispa.
People will probably be more interested if Speak Asia comes up with real clients, enough clients to support the surveys.
In general, people should be very little interested in doing fake surveys, or paying for panels or subscriptions.
The lack of real clients is the true nature for WHY Speak Asia got into this problem, and why they haven’t been able to solve it. They can’t solve this problem in court. They can’t solve it with a new business model either, or by recruiting more people or selling more panels.
The people who are most interested in a business restart are the ones that have invested lots of work, like in creating a huge downline. AISPA seems to protect the interests of these few rather than the interests of the many ordinary panelists (who only wants their money back).
M_Norway !
As per my understanding Writ (Civil) 383/2011 will cover all panelist accountability. It is not required to surrender additional Intervention Application with Mr. Khosla.
If he is actually interested to co-operate each and every one innocent people then he has to accept his funds & surrender his affidavit during the year of 2011 or before.
Why he has submitted his Affidavit after ten month back (eleventh hour or after too much arguments) at hon’ble High Court?. Why he hasn’t confirmed this technique earlier?
In fact it is not a free service work provided by Mr. Khosla. It seems that, it is a move forwards arrangement to keep continues expand hearing for several months at hon’ble supreme court.
So, rest panelist will face more frustration & Speak Asia will have powerless to switch on business at India. Furthermore, each & every panelist shall bind to stop thinking about along with disbursement.
@Samina
Where’s this understanding coming from?
The Supreme Court order specifically directed Lahoti to calculate payments for the petitioners. There are 115 signed petitioners, no more and no less.
To date there has been no public indication or mention of money owed to all panelists in regards to writ 383. The entire argument seems to hinge on ‘we asked for a buisness restart and that won’t happen unless everyone gets paid, so it covers everyone’.
Given you can’t get a ponzi scheme restarted in a civil action, it’s not a very strong one. Especially when the court hasn’t publicly even acnknowledged anyone except the 115 signed petitioners.
AISPA/SPAI haven’t exactly worked for the interests of the panelists when it comes to the Exit Policy. Both Ashok Bahirwani and Aman Azad (and others) have realized the problems with the Exit Policy, that it can be used to cheat people who have invested in many subpanels.
Instead of getting it corrected, they choosed to “explain it” in a positive way, leaving the real problem unchanged. The real problem is within the Exit Policy itself.
The Exit Policy will also need to be verified by the correct authorities, as an “official solution” rather than some unknown solution. This should have been done before the deadline expired 31st March. Instead they released a press conference, where Bahirwani acted as an authority himself in “verifying” the Exit Policy?
You can continue to TELL US how AISPA/SPAI is protecting the interests of the ordinary panelists, but most people have probably lost interest long time ago. Try to SHOW US something instead of telling us?
Show us “SPAI is protecting the interests of the panelists, and we have managed to correct the unclear conditions in the Exit Policy”? And show us “SPAI has managed to get the Exit Policy confirmed by the Supreme Court, as an official solution related to payment to all panelists who wants to Exit”.
Since SPAI/Bahirwani is the official spokesperson, what exactly do you mean this acts as an indicator for?
This website will also refer to Bahirwani’s updates from time to time, but you can’t use that as an indicator for interests in becoming members?
When I quoted him the last time 03.03.2012, it was in order to be able to check something on the internet. I checked different hallusinogens and fungi that can cause symptoms like those he had in his update (where people discover their inner soul, “see the light”, and other out of the body experiences).
I did NOT quote him because I suddenly felt for becoming a member, it was because of doubts about his mental stability.
Again, how many members do SPAI have? Not “indicators” or other meaningless measurements.
aispa is not in touch with company management. that will happen only after business restart.
it is upto the company to clarify the exit option if they feel their panelists have not understood it .
we have intervened in the supreme court but are still not a party because we havent had our intervention heard. besides any plodding by aispa or the 115 panelists or saol will not push justice lahoti to make formal announcements about exit until he has the data he requires from the eow.
nobody can go to the supreme court and make it sing to their tunes .
aispa has a managing committee as established in our recent AGM . bahirwani being the secretary has the task of putting out updates and has generally become the ‘face’ of the organisation.but don’t take credit away from the other members who really work hard.
aispa has a managing committee of 15 people , a media committee of 15 people and an action committee of around 12 people.the report of the AGM has been sent to the charity commissioners office for approval and after that all these details will be released on aispa.co .in.
even before the AGM aispa had a managing committee and a media committee. there is only so much an individual can do. you ‘see’ bahirwani but their are loads of people working behind the scenes.
panelists are convinced by now that aispa is the national body representing their interests and if you remain unconvinced it’s entirely upto you. you are not a panelist as it is , so you don’t have to worry about being represented by the wrong organization.
That is my understanding too, but I’m not sure. There have been lots of “mixed signals” from Justice Lahoti in this case, where the 115 petitioners seems to be the primary matter, and all other panelists seems to be secondary.
WRIT 383/2011 is a separate case, and Kkhosla filed the intervention when this case interfered with his case 3611. He didn’t have any real interests in filing an intervention before WRIT 383 started to interfere with his case, causing lots of unwanted delays.
Initially, he was only advised to check if he had RTI-rights to the documents, but he choosed an intervention instead.
Personally, I don’t support an intervention at this stage, but I will support it as a method to do a “quality check” of the information provided to the court.
I do also support other people’s right to evaluate this as a possible solution, and to use it or modify it or whatever they decides to do.
It may actually speed up the case, but change some of the outcome. He provided lots of information that will make it easier for the court to decide some parts of the case.
By the way, WRIT 383 didn’t exist 10 months ago. It was filed in November 2011 or something. They have also kept most of the details secret, making it impossible for others to find out whether it is within their interests or not.
People starts to file interventions when they suspect a case will harm their own interests. Someone have obviously failed some place here, in not being transparent enough with the information?
Lol.
Yes. Navnit Khoshla IA9 in person
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wc%2038311p.txt
I will say bad move! (personally I don’t think you can force some govt agency to do something)
The whole scenario is no longer limited to just a mediation process.No mater how hard AISPA try they can not restart a ponzi scheme.
So where are they?
andy even you can go file an intervention application in 1500 rs or something.
point is getting the application approved.
yes, but the high court mumbai forced the eow to attend mediation meetings due to aispa writ 3611.
well the entire team is in india, except for manoj kumar and haren kaur.i heard a while back that saol has a team of over 70 management officials.
Almost TWO YEARS after it started, it’s FINALLY convincing? LOL. What was it before? A joke?
Dear soapbox…
You’re very helpful to bundle up soap in own production unit but you’re unable to track factual information through mediator or anywhere apart from goggled.
In the earlier judgment of hon’ble Supreme Court, it has clearly mentioned that writ 383 will cover up each and every one.
If you have petite understanding or until the end of time you would like to whip out others observations in that case nobody will help to contribute information every time within moderation blog. Please make an effort to turn back & read entire history of records which will help you to upgrade your understanding.
You can easily re-start any scheme through civil action if you unable to demonstrate either scheme carried ponzi or not.
Subsequently, only organizing protest within your blog will not justify the complete scheme is false or mock.
So, try to surface & enlighten your self-motivated guess work at hon’ble court then they will understand your entire techniques.
Again, I speak at the top of your voice nowhere mentioned the figure of only 115 panelist, if haves please furnish the confirmation details or else continuous discussing here is a waste of your valuable time.
AND
Dear Norway…
Who have started to file interventions apart from Mr. khosla?
I think no one is paying attention to pursue his guiding principle.
If they will go after & suspect the entire case will harm their own interest then till date numerous numbers of applications should appeared at hon’ble court.
Why he has started help & support center in this blog by giving his personal mobile no & emails?. If already so many people suspect after that, this movement is required for further?
This is an one more misleading information from your side; I think the whole thing is crystal clear between panelist, hon’ble Court’s order proceeding & company’s direction that’s why everybody is silently waiting & following the judgment of hon’ble court.
Recently, Speak Asia has started zone wise email support center & zonal head are supporting us through email anytime, yesterday my friend send email queries & in a minute she got answer back from zonal head.
So, Speak Asia is supporting in every bit in favor of panelist then nobody will bind to take support / respond from Mr. khosla. If your effort really turns successful after that you’ll drag the entire matter for several months if not then company’s effort will succeed.
So basically it acts as an indicator for SPAI having a management committee, a media committee and an action committee? Most people wouldn’t need “indicators” for that.
The other possible “indicator” I found in your comment was only a statement:
So basically it boils down to “being organized”, where the management is more important than the members?
This dialogue has really been “interesting”:
Your answers have confirmed much of my initial statement, about fighting for the few on the expense of the many, and about not being a real member association. They should probably rename SPAI to Senior Panelist Association India, to better reflect the true nature of the association.
So the websites for Speak Asia Marketing Team and the Exit Policy popped up from nowhere, and people realized all by themselves that they simply had to be official websites? People have even defended the Exit Policy as being an official solution ordered by the Lahoti Committee?
I don’t believe any further discussion will be very productive, so we might “draw a line” here. Thanks for clarifying the total lack of logics.
Please cite the judgment, as all of them are online, yes?
Or did you just rely on what AISPA had been telling you?
Anjali, Samina Singh, Sanjeev Khanna, Sivalakshmi, etc. keep harping on the same old issues of lies. Why do you waste time with them Oz? Why cannot you just ask them to refer to older posts under various topics?
They keep kangarooing around here without having done their homework of going through these topics discussed earlier at this forum. Most of Anjali’s cahoots are not even abreast of the court proceedings be it in SC or Mumbai High Court or AP High Court.
One of them is harping on the rejection of the Intervention Application of Navniit without thought that it has been accepted and he is stated as IA 9 in the most recent SC order of 383/2011 dated April 2, 2012, which has given another two weeks to the learned counsel for the Income Tax Deptt to file its affidavit. No other reason.
Not what Honarable Bahirwani is crapping at his blog. With his objective of pleasing his bosses, SAOL management, going nuts, Sir Bahirwani seems to be suffering more and more with schizophrenia. Anjali/Anju your pop/uncle/hubby/etc. needs medical attention to get over his psychosis.
When even the most top secret matters of not only India but also countries get leaked to the press, what is so great of this Justice Lahoti Mediations that it has not been leaked? Could it be that there is nothing substantial being discussed there?
Or maybe not with the objective SAOL/AISPA have in mind. Until now whatever was happening in the Courts other than where Navniit’s FIF was concerned, we came to know the proceedings only through the demented mind of Honarable Bahirwani.
Towards that we all panelists are very grateful to Navniit Kkhosla that he has single handedly taken the matter onto his shoulders to reveal to all panelists what is actually happening in the SC and the true contents of the mediation report as and when presented to the SC, which I think must have already been done on April 2, 2012.
We all panelists not agreeing to the crap being thrown around by Bahirwani/Anjali/Anju to mislead should support Navniit by contacting and sending him token cash for expenses incurred by him to come to Delhi from Mumbai to attend this writ 383/2011 in the SC. Jai Ho Navniit! Morya…Navniit Morya!
It’s impossible for me to answer that statement, since you suddenly switched from one topic to that statement?
I’ll guess you refer to this section?
Information may speed up the case?
We don’t know anything about how “crystal clear” the case has been until now, so information might as well speed up the case instead of slowing it down.
Change some of the outcome?
This doesn’t sound too unrealistic, do you think?
Make it easier for the court to decide some parts?
Again, we don’t know anything about how “crystal clear” the case has been until now. The Fundamental Rights here are very unclear and controversial.
Speak Asia has presented a new business model they never have used as part of their documentation. New information may clarify this point and make the case easier to decide.
The Fundamental Rights mentioned in the WRIT is “the right to choose a profession” and general rights about livelihood.
The big problem in the use of Fundamental Rights is that Speak Asia didn’t have real clients to pay for the surveys. The money they paid in “salary” was the panelists own money, using money from newly recruited panelists to pay the old ones, similar to a Ponzi scheme.
Having real clients is the most important question in Speak Asia’s business model. Without real clients the sale of panels will be meaningless, and so will the surveys too. It will make them “fake surveys”, a meaningless imitation of real work that doesn’t generate money for the whole group of panelists.
Participating in a recruitment scheme or Ponzi scheme isn’t any Fundamental Right, and it will also be meaningless in relation to livelihood. It’s like “steal from the poor and give to the rich”, or “steal from the newly recruited and distribute the money to the upline, but keep a major part of the money for the company and other related companies”.
Did the information become less misleading now?
Where?
The only mention of payments was on the 6th of February.
To date that is the only mention of amounts owed to anyone anywhere, and it clearly states who they are calculating it for.
Time to get AISPA’s dick out of your mouth and enter the real world.
Here’s Home Minister RR Patil openly calling for more scrutiny in analysing scams like Speak Asia:
Ponzi schemes don’t restart, no matter how many court cases are launched.
@M_Norway (and everyone really)
As a matter of interest, this is why I wind up just nuking most of the Anjuspam. It goes round and round in circles and she usually never provides anything of actual value to the conversation.
No concrete figures or facts, just ‘we will definitely win… because we will win’ crap. Works with the villagers but consistently gets torn to shreds here and essentially wastes everybody’s time.
Refer to the judgment of 6th Feb. The Hon’ble Mediator has been requested to ascertain how much amount is due and payable by the company’s to the petitioners and the authorities CBDT and other various authorities.
The Company have been directed to deposit such amount as would be ascertained by the Hon’ble Mediator with the Secretary General of the Supreme Court within two weeks from the date the Hon’ble Mediator passes such an order.
Company has submitted an affidavit before the Hon’ble Mediator wherein they were absolutely clear that they wish to bring in $ 10 Million (approx Rs. 50 crores) to settle the claim of the panellists who have opted for the EXIT option & previously deposited the said amount at hon’ble Supreme Court.
It is abundantly clear by the stated stand of the company that mediation is to deal with the payments to the panelists who have opted for “EXIT OPTION”.
The other issue which raises concern is the request of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the Hon’ble Mediator to ascertain the amount “due to the petitioners”.
We all know that the emotion and the prayer of the WP/383/2011 relates to the 115 petitioners along with lakhs of similarly placed panelists. If the writ, indeed is for the entire Speak Asia’s family then why should it be left in the hands of mere 115 panelists?
If you try to understand the all facts then there is no fundamental issue left over in the earlier Judgment.
If you can’t be aware of after that your angry outburst to force your coyote’s activities for civilized lady to discharge your off thoughts into other’s throat?.
Goodbye to ALL, if i keep on arguing with you then your unwanted word will spoil my further status.
samina singh has quoted from bahirwanis aispa update.
Sorry what? When did that happen?
The 50cr was deposited with the court and the court itself stated it would be up to them how, if and when the money would be disbursed.
Nobody cares. The Supreme Court has not mentioned payments to anyone except the 115 signed petitioners. Nor have they (or any other court) made any mention of an exit option.
Stop regurtitating bullshit Facebook updates.
Then back it up with something, as thus far the court itself has only acnknowledged the 115 signed petitioners.
You mean try to twist and manipulate anything you can to instil false hope amongst people. The order is crystal clear, to date the Surpeme Court has only interested itself with the money to be paid to the petitioners. It’s right there in clear English, no need to “try to understand it”.
Toodles.
@anjali
I thought so. It was either that or Facebook.
Seems I was right when I told her to clear her throat. Quoting baseless bullshit from either AISPA or Facebook doesn’t get you very far here.
Especially when there’s nothing to back up your claims.
@ Anjali/Anju,Oz,Chang,Norway –
Words, words and only words..reruns after reruns.. thats what is happening here, there everywhere.. Anjali/Anju just a couple of points for you to ponder –
If Justice Lahoti did not include KKhosla in the Mediation proceedings..it is crystal clear that the whole case scenario is only and only for the 115 apostles mentioned in the Supreme Court case and no one else..hence stop repeating every time that it included all the panelists across India..
You guys called for the Aispa meeting after I commented about various procedures to be followed to be an Association to be in force– you and your BIG SHOT Lawyers??
Secondly…you all Panelists (AISPAns) are fighting for the Company to restart ASAP.. now just assume for arguments sake that Supreme Court gives permission to do so but with certain conditions, one of them being..let the Company restart with the current Panelists minus the Panelists who opt for EXIT Option.. and no further addition of Panelists to be made for the next N Years and the Business will be closely monitored by relevant Govt. Agencies regularly.
Will SAOL Management be ready to take such an offer. This in effect would mean no new recruitment, the Revenues Generated will only be through “VARIOUS ACTIVITIES” as proclaimed furiously by SAOL in various releases.
Hence the Company will have to self sustain by generating revenues from Surveys, Selling Electronic Goods online, Trainings, Calling Gen – Y,Z etc..
If an offer of this sort is taken/declared by SAOL and they sustain for a couple of years or more, only then it can be absolved off the Crimes it is supposed to have been committed by them.
@ Anjali/Anju
And yeah..most importantly SAOL Management (if found anywhere on the Planet) should first and foremost allow independent Auditors to Audit their Books of Accounts and first quantify the amount of Liquid and Fixed Assets SAOL has in the current date so that Justice Lahoti and the Supreme Court can deduce the actual their Paying capacity ..back to the Panelists..thier Subscriptions and their RP Points en cashed.
the affidavit seeking to deposit 50 crores with the supreme court registry was filed with the mediator during a mediation meeting.
the mediator included this prayer in his interim report to the supreme court and during the subsequent hearing the court permitted the company to deposit this amount.
remember the mediator has not yet arrived at the figure the company owes exit optioners and cbdt.
this is because the eow has not yet provided data as ordered and because the cbdt has again requested two weeks time to calculate dues payable to them.
well neither does any order of the supreme court specify a particular number like ‘the 115 petitioners’.it says ‘petitioners’.383 is filed by 115 petioners for themselves and all others in the same situation as them.
feel free to disbelieve this .i can tell you what i know, but it’s not my job to convince anybody.
also, aispa is not some bullshit facebook page but an independent website of a registered association.respect please.
hahaha.
there goes mr abdi’s job.
mr y you are formally invited to take over legal responsibilities of aispa !
pigheaded or what?
mr khosla has put up his application for hearing and approval.
it is NOT APPROVED as yet.don’t misguide yourself.
And the court quite clearly stated they would decide what happens with the money, if anything and when.
The mediator was never ordered to calculate anything other than the amount owed to the petitioners. As per the 6th Februrary court order.
Seriously, listen to yourself.
‘The petitioners’ are the named petitioners on the petition, of which there are 115. It’s there in plain English.
@ Anjali/Anju
There…I did not expect anything more OR less from you..sarcasm does not always pay. Lets wait and watch.
What you have failed to understand is that speakasia’s server is located in Singapore not in India. That’s what speakasia claims in its online FAQ.
So there are two possibilities (1) speakasia is operated from India not from Singapore or (2) speakasia is lying that EOW has their servers. (actually servers were never taken over by EOW as they are located in Singapore)
The severnrings.net site was also hosted on the same server with speakasiaonline.com now it’s gone. It seems these scam operators are covering their tracks (or it is a technical issue).
Speakasia FAQ:
Hosts 1, 5, 7 are down others are up.
Lol, they pulled the website after the investigation was launched?
Manoj Kumar and the rest of his scammy Seven Rings management buddies are guilty as sin.
It seems the domain name is expired.
Created:2007-01-29
Expires:2012-01-29
Updated:2012-03-08
Registrar Status:redemptionPeriod
But it is very unusual that speakasia(AISPA) claiming Seven Rings as a content provider and host their website on their own server.
Why Seven rings a London, Italy, UAE based comany needs to host its website in Singapore?
Same goes for AISPA website, its hosted in UAE. UAE is not a preferable choice to host your website if you are from India.
Because that’s where your mate Manoj Kumar is currently living with the rest of Seven Rings management.
Seven Rings probably get a hosting discount keeping all their company websites (AISPA, Seven Rings, Speak Asia) under the same account.
This was written on Seven Rings website:
Ahmad M. Abdi from “Abdi and Company” also a lawyer for AISPA in WP3611/2011.
Ram Nivas Pal, Preeti Pal, Antonio Grasso, Elia De Prisco, Melwyn Crasto, Suhas S Shirke, Anne Wessel are FaceBook pals.
So you have 70+ people in India and 9 people in Singapore HQ? LOL
What about Bangladesh? How many *management officials* are there?
Is there any ABSPA? (All Bangladesh Speakasia Panelist Association)
So AISPA’s lawyer Abdi is the same guy who represented Manoj Kumar and friends over at Seven Rings International…
Pop goes the weasel.
Does Abdi work for Phoenix Legal? Or is he independent?
SAOL have said many times they are using Phoenix Legal, right?
Didn’t AISPA say they can’t afford such nice lawyers and have to raise money from the membership to pay for a lawyer?
I think Phoenix legal and Abdi & Co are two different firms. You can check their websites.
@Andy
Correct.
Speak Asia has engaged the law firm Phoenix Legal and AISPA has engaged the law firm Abdi & Co.
Sr. Advocate Dinesh Mathur and now Sr. Advocate Patwalia who have represented AISPA in the Bombay High Court are engaged through a law firm from New Delhi associated with Abdi & Co.
Big ticket lawyers. Who pays for them?
Mr. Navnit Khosla,
After receiving your hard earned money, what is your next plan? Suppose, If Speak Asia returns after the approval and permission of India Government, would you like to continue your work in the company?
As, you are still a panelist in the company and the company didn’t remove your profile. Tell me frankly as you are a frank spoken person.
@Ravi Shankar Mishra
Mr. Kkhosla needs the settlement to be confirmed by the High Court before it will be valid and “final”, but currently WRIT 3611 is stayed (because of WRIT 383). The High Court can still order otherwise than a settlement in WRIT 3611 (as far as I can see here).
Receiving money doesn’t mean the case is finished yet, the High Court will have to make a final decision before the case can be considered to be settled.
This didn’t answer your question about his personal motives, but it is an answer to why the intervention in WRIT 383 still exists – why he still has some “legal motives” for the intervention.
I believe the intervention itself will answer the question about whether or not he wants to continue in Speak Asia. It doesn’t exactly look like he is eager to join Speak Asia or other related companies?
The same answer will probably also apply to most other “late joiners”, the people that never got heavily involved in anything.
As in the matter of writ 383, the High Court hasn’t of yet considered the matter closed. They specifically used that terminology in the writ 383 case.
We don’t even know if legally they’ll accept payment from AISPA unless they officially confirm the money came from Speak Asia. The FIR was lodged against Speak Asia, not AISPA and “the panelists” who paid him.
For me, it looks like AISPA saying “if it’s about your money, take it, so we can restart opur operations”. Kind of weird.
They used the expression “we deem it fit and proper” about the settlement (21.03.2012), but the case itself hasn’t been finished – and is still awaiting some clarifications from the Supreme Court (WRIT 383). I don’t think where the money came from is the problem here.
The problem here is to “decipher” the expressions they use:
A. “has received the entire amount, we deem it fit and proper”
B. “we deem it fit and proper,
so far as this case is concerned,to direct that further investigationin respect of the complaint filed by Navnit Tarachand Khoslais stayed till the next date.”“A” means the settlement is fit an proper, while “B” means a stay order is fit and proper. And I’ll guess “B” is the most correct interpretation here. Courts will usually not make partial decisions, so the case is still active and can be ordered otherwise.
I would have preferred to “close the case”(3611), protecting my economical interests as a first priority, and considered criminal parts of the case to have a lower priority. I will usually analyse my own motives, and separate “direct interest in something” from “indirect interest”.
Navniit Kkhosla has still a direct interest in WRIT 383, since this case prevents his case from finally being settled. He should probably use his right as a party to get insight into some of the documents.
* a list of all documents related to the case (date, description, filed by party).
* the Report(s) from retd. Justice R.C. Lahoti (I don’t think the report itself is secret).
A lawyer would have asked for ALL documents, to get complete insight. But a lawyer also have other rights than a party representing himself.
Note: The right to insight as a party is other than the normal RTI-rights, and basically you should have the right to insight into ALL docments that aren’t protected by any laws.
In the connection of Mr. Khosla’s earlier comments, Affidavit & date of filing Intervention Application at Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Here is the quick review:
As per his comment posted on February 28th, 2012 at 8:57PM quoted as..
Source link: https://behindmlm.com/companies/speak-asia-online/eow-reveal-seven-rings-and-speak-asia-4060-deal/
As per his Affidavit submitted on March 15th, 2012 at Hon’ble High Court
AND
His application was registered & first hearing was done on April 2nd, 2012 in his prayer of IA9 (Intervention Application) which was submitted on 28th Feb (as mentioned above).
His line of statement is clearly presenting his prayer is..
“the Court to decide whether the criminal proceedings will be affected by the proceedings in WP(Civil) 383/2011 as well as the mediation proceedings.”
If this statement is correct & was written same in his Application then this is in regard with only asking the querry whether the criminal proceeding will continue or not?
After all his same criminal matter was already quashed on 15th March with his affidavit (on-paper) at Hon’ble High Court.
It seems that there is no worth of his IA for further that’s why Hon’ble Supreme Court order of 2nd April was mentioned only regarding Income Tax Affidavit. After reading 2nd April Judgment it has been confirmed that neither his application adjourned for next date nor approved from Hon’ble Supreme Court.
So, this is another twisted claim of Mr. Khosla, I believe that if he inform to the apex court concerning his submission of affidavit then his Intervention application would be withdrawn by himself.
Great post! Thanks for your nice suggestion “Shiva Lakshmi” it will helps me to clear my darkest time of interference. While, I’m looking for correct solution of this issue from the beginning.
As many people have said that Mr. Khosla has submitted application to solitary taken the matter onto his shoulders to reveal to all panelists, what is actually happening in the hon’ble Supreme Court and the true contents of the mediation report as when presented to the hon’ble Supreme Court.
But finally I accepted that these are only misleading statements of those and now, one person has exposed the truth of intervention topic.
Possibly for some of the questions, someone say that the matter is not so important and that hon’ble Supreme Court might be willing not to approved the application with regard to it. There would be no questions that really have fundamental issues about that, it really is not important at all.
The real question here is… if Khosla got his money back, should whoever cheated him go unpunished?
or let’s put it this way:
A cheats B out of large sum of money
B files FIR with EOW
C goes to B and pays B large sum of money
Does FIR and EOW then have nothing left to investigate?
Logically, the answer is “EOW have to make sure no crime had been committed and punished the offenders, if any”. The fact that B had been paid is actually irrelevant. The alleged crime still must be investigated.
To give a example… Let’s say “a house was burned down, arson was suspected”. if some donor paid to have the house rebuilt, does that mean police and fire department CANNOT investigate whether the house was arson or not”?
However, SAOL and AISPA seems to think that once B was paid off in full, EOW would have to pretend that the FIR have never happened. or in other words, as long as someone paid to have the house rebuilt, police CANNOT investigate the fire.
Tell me, does that make any sense to you?
@Sivalakshmi
No, it wasn’t.
It seems like you’re doing lots of “interpretations” to get the answers you like? Oz has already pointed out that WRIT 3611 was stayed, and the FIR wasn’t quashed on 15th March.
In the hearing 2nd April, the case itself was adjourned for 4 weeks, and Kkhosla’s intervention will follow it to the next hearing 30th April.
It has already been approved by the Supreme Court and is registered as IA9. They have even registered his name in the court documents, along with all the other parties in the case.
In case you haven’t noticed it, “Solomon Jemes & Ors.” weren’t adjourned they either, and neither were Speak Asia or Haren Ventures. 🙂
I’ll guess it is a sign of being too often in court, when they register you as the opponent’s lawyer? 🙂
From APPW 218/2012 (application related to WRIT 3611), last hearing 04.04.2012, status disposed:
They will probably tell you something like:
“It makes no sense for you because you didn’t understand SpeakAsia’s business model”
I thought it would be more like
“You just don’t understand India’s justice system.”
Yes, the only way for all those things they claim make sense is if Indian laws are completely different from Western countries’ laws
Wrong, it was not quashed, stay has been imposed on the FIR filed by Navniith Kkhosla.
Why Stay has been imposed, instead of Quashing?
Since the Criminal WP 3611/2011 case has been associated with (Raigad & Thane case) Criminal WP 3210&3211/2011 which is still pending.
This case is still pending in Mumbai High Court and it is coming for hearing on coming Wednesday 11th Apr, 2012 – it is expected that on that day quashing will take place and even if quashing is not taking place the direction of the High Court is considered to be vital.
It’s highly expected that High Court might be asking EOW to co-operate the Supreme Court or wait for Supreme Court’s hearing.
Even if the case WP 383/2011 is Civil in Supreme Court, it has all power to direct all the criminal cases which are in High Court of any State inside Indian territory.
Reference: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jurisdiction.htm
(kindly read the complete jurisdiction of Supreme Court of India so that you can understand better).
Also for more information on filing any case in Supreme Court or getting legal advice you can read this information in this following link of FAQ (which has only little but important information in relation to this issue; find it yourself!)
Reference:- http://www.sclsc.nic.in/faq.htm
Supreme Court has all rights to issue directions or any ORDERS to any type of cases (both Criminal as well as Civil) in any High Court Of India
Or Else
High Court can send those parties involved in the Criminal Writs filed in High Court to Supreme Court if the same case or related case is taking place in Supreme Court (now taking place in the form of mediation in CWP 383/2011).
Until what time Mr. Navniith Kkhosla is eligible for applying Intervention Application (IA):
1. Until the FIR related to the Criminal Writs 3611/2011 & 3210&3211/2011 in High Court is not getting quashed, Navniith Kkhosla is having his own right to appeal for Intervention. Once it was quashed chances of accepting Intervention Application will be diminished.
(Even now there’s less chances of accepting the Intervention Application and it depends on the internal issue of the case which only mediator knows and based on studying the matter from all sides or all parties he is having all rights to decide the matter by giving the power or rights to any person in making him as a party permanently.)
2. Until the direction of the mediation committee shown by the Mediator is not getting implemented in WPC 383/2011 – i.e. the Mercantile Operations of the Company not started to implement with the help of the directions of Retired Chief Justice Of India and appointed Mediator for the Mediation committee
It is the personal right of the petitioners involved (115 panelists) for asking their livelihood in the WRIT and if the company violated the law of the land they will be pushed to the situation to pay the penalty and if possible with the help of newly imposed regulations Supreme court will direct agencies in helping to bring back the company to implement or restart its operational activities.
Few Important Points to consider for a peculiar case of its kind:
1. Direction of the Supreme Court of India, the higher court of the land is final for Speak Asia Online and the direction for Criminal Investigations will also be included in that (i.e. It includes only Directions to the High Court of the State for all kind of Criminal Investigations whenever required / necessary; it is not taking control of all Criminal cases by Supreme Court which are under Investigation by Govt. Investigating agency).
2. Supreme Court can DIRECT or ask or INTERFERE any Govt. Investigating Agency of any state within India for the purpose of knowing the status of the case which is associated with the fundamental right to livelihood of 15-21 lakhs of members also they represent in a CIVIL WRIT in its own court.
3. Supreme Court, many times did it against a State Govt. and it’s policies in India, take for e.g., recently in a completely different case (nothing associated with Speak Asia or case of its nature except two things we can take as associated here, one is against a State Govt. of the country and another one is blocking a set or community of people for the fundamental right to livelihood) Supreme Court said that the state was the biggest land grabber, depriving farmers of their livelihood for generations.
http://www.legalindia.in/state-biggest-land-grabber-supreme-court-of-india
The law of Fundamental Right to livelihood, Article 21 of Human Rights plays a vital role here.
4. Supreme court also has the right to regulate the Business by linking the specific and required agencies to formulate or regulate the business in the right way by scrutinizing and implementing the workings within the business and the model using perfect laws which suits the country.
Thanks & Regards,
Lakshmi.
Summer vacation for the Supreme Court is from 14th May to 30th June (last day Friday 11th May, first day Monday 2nd July), according to the calendar found on their website
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/calendars/cal.htm
How they will solve cases during the summer vacation has been explained earlier.
The Supreme Court can accept any Intervention Application from any person or entity (like NGO etc.) in any ongoing case before it if the Court feels that it will lead to greater clarity and bring more evidence / facts on record to assist in passing a better order.
Between 17.02.2010 and 11.05.2011 Speak Asia was never selling any goods or services in India. It was only conducting surveys for which it has produced no names of any customers. No company or entity has also come forth to state that it had ever commissioned Speak Asia to conduct any surveys for it.
I have been served a lot of documents in CWP 383/2011 but this fact and other related facts have not been brought. There are other matters also which have not been revealed to the Supreme Court and which I have submitted in my Intervention Application.
I am also filing an additional affidavit to cover the facts / information that has not been submitted to the Court as yet.
Hence my Intervention Application will contribute in the progress of the case based on facts and will ensure that the Court keeps the interest of all the panelists in mind and not only the 115 panelists who are the petitioners.
This sounds nearly impossible?
The business model they used until May 2011 is meaningless when it comes to the Fundamental Right of livelihood, if we consider the participants to be a whole group with similar rights to livelihood.
The business model will harm the livelihood of the many, but it will support the livelihood of a few.
You can’t “regulate” a business to get real clients willing to pay $200 million USD per week for surveys, to a price that is 10 times higher the normal market price for surveys. Without real clients, the business model itself will be meaningless.
Most decisions, either they will allow Speak Asia to continue or prevent it from doing business, will most likely harm the interests of someone.
The best way to protect the Fundamental Right to livelihood is probably to return the “investments” to the “investors”. Money is the most fundamental part in livelihood.
Doing fake surveys have no meaning when it comes to livelihood, in a business model where they use money from new “investors” to support payouts. It doesn’t really matter whether they pay for the surveys or not, if they are using the panelists own “investments” to pay for them.
So restarting SAOL is now a “human rights” issue? Rather hilarious, actually.
That’s like saying “I don’t care if they have no clients or other sources of income, I just BELIEVE that if if SAOL restart they’ll somehow find a way to pay me.”
I thought that was the exact argument the petitioners of writ 383 used…
Kkhosla Sahab – How will your position be different than Mr. Solomon Jemes.
In which capacity can you ensure that the interest of all panelists will be kept in mind.
Don’t you feel that by introducing yourself at this juncture will only delay the proceedings since your application does not state any fact hitherto unknown in public domain and hence it is bound to be rejected.
In other words which is the new thing you are going to add in this case by filing an intervention application based on which court would allow you an intervention. I fail to understand.
Stop fooling around. You already have got your money back and a person of your age and experience does not earn any respect by these actions of yours.
Mr. Jemes is already fighting a case for us panelists and nothing has happened till date which gives us the impression that he is fighting a case for personal benefit. But your intervention application is pointing to a single focus point – Your personal benefit and nothing else…
The criminal Writ 3611/2011 is useless case now, it is ‘a fit and proper case’ now after the submission of affidavit-in-reply by Navniit Kkhosla Ji.
Rest of all the formalities will be completed once settlement is finished in higher court for WP(Civil) 383/2011 (in Supreme Court).
So, no company or entity has come forward to ‘YOU’ for accepting that they have commissioned Speak Asia to conduct any surveys for it?
Are you talking about interest of all the panelists Or Are you interested to get the names of the entity which has commissioned Speak Asia to conduct any surveys for it?
How do you know those facts / information that has not been submitted to the Court by Speak Asia? Have you gone through all the facts / information from Supreme Court which have been already submitted to Supreme Court by Speak Asia Online?
So, you have collected almost all required documents whatever SpeakAsia submitted to Supreme Court and it’s really surprising to know that Supreme Court has given all of those documents to you for reading..!
Since, you are unable to fulfill your wish of collecting / getting the list of entities (from the Supreme Court) which has commissioned Speak Asia, you have taken the step of filing an Additional Affidavit.
Do you think your additional affidavit will help you to collect names of all the entities in the list which has commissioned Speak Asia till this date? I’m not asking the question by having that – what you are going to do? Of course you know the answer better than all of us!
Simple truth is a person who has got back the money (through the help of some panelists) what he has “invested” in a fraudulent scheme (as you consider) is now very much interested to know about the list of entities which has commissioned Speak Asia in the past or till this date.
Rest of the people whoever hasn’t got their money are waiting eagerly only for the money!
You, yourself know through the above questions where you stand now in this scenario?
Respected Sir, Court knows better than you. If your wish & interest is really for the well being or livelihood of all the panelists (not only for 115 panelists who are the petitioners in the Civil Writ 383/2011), it is very much appreciated.
Do you think that you will be served the documents which has the list of names with the entities which has commissioned Speak Asia in between 17th Feb to 11th May, 2011? (by the Supreme Court what Speak Asia has given)
So, you know all the matters whatever Speak Asia revealed to Supreme Court? What you are hiding here by telling “other matters” also not been revealed by Speak Asia?
Don’t you remember about NDA what company was talking about in their “Press Conference”?
Yes, i completely accept or completely agree that SpeakAsia has to submit those name list of the entities which has commissioned Speak Asia from 17th Feb to 11th May, 2011.
But it is not necessary to submit or reveal those documents to YOU, but it is very much necessary to submit that list to the Supreme Court of India (under the supervision of High Commissioners).
You can ask the Supreme Court of India whether they have collected those list of client from Speak Asia Online or they have got the list of entities which has commissioned Speak Asia from 17th Feb to 11th May, 2011.
Everyone knows that; Not started that phase ever!
@Sivalakshmi
Ultimately it doesn’t matter. Speak Asia don’t have 30,000 cr to pay everyone. They never did, regardless of what they may or may not have told the Supreme Court.
If anything, Kkhosla’s intervention shifts the focus onto accountability and whether or not more people are going to get recruited into this scam, rather then the possible payment of money to 115 signed petitioners.
So, you have checked balance sheet or statement of financial position of SpeakAsia!
And giving this information…
You keep on telling this word again and again in your blog so many times…
Don’t write again (by telling the reason) as..
There’s no need to check balance sheet or statement of financial position of Speak Asia to tell “Speak Asia don’t have 30,000 Cr to pay everyone” (And also It’s basic understanding).
Why can’t Navniit Khosla Ji file an affidavit asking for balance sheets or statement of financial position of SpeakAsia to pay to all panelists instead of asking the real clients of the business.
Knowing both of them is very important for confirming the company is Genuine Or Scam?
Instead of using our hypothetical theories and speculations we have to go by reality (real facts)!
Please ask your friend Navniit Kkhosla Ji to do that way..!
If both of them real (client list & balance sheet) I hope you will also come and join to do this business along with Navniit Kkhosla Ji., what do you say?
Nope, but the EOW has and they stated Speak Asia only have recorded revenue of 2,200 or so cr.
Why, does it upset you that Speak Asia can’t pay everyone?
Because he doesn’t need to. The EOW already have access to all this.
As above, the EOW have already made this info public. Nailing Speak Asia on having no clients though (when we already know they have none that aren’t bullshit company’s set up by management shuffling money around) is just icing on the cake.
Sure is, and with the EOW announcing that 2,200cr is all of the recorded revenue with approx 30,000cr owing out, it’s quite obviously a scam. Well, you’d already know that if you analysed the business model.
I agree, so why don’t you stop wasting my time.
Maybe they told only to the judge, secretely, who are their clients
If you feel I’m wasting your time, I’ll stop writing in your blog..!
The problem here is if EOW found only 2,200 Cr is recorded revenue of Speak Asia and their liability is 30,000 Cr (owing out), why can’t EOW submit the proof (at least as preliminary report) in High Court before High Court asking them to stop all investigations on Speak Asia by imposing a Stay?
And also why can’t they do the same thing to Mediation Committee headed by Lahoti Ji., (which is very important since High Court in both cases asking the parties including EOW to co-operate with Mediation Committee Or Mediator).
Problem with you is: you are following and thinking all news coming in the newspapers are true? But it’s not in India! For your information, many times the news has been incorrect in newspapers!
Supreme Court knows better and by this time they would have taken this case to find out the root cause instead of giving solution only for settlement of money, i.e. I mean to say by emphasizing the importance of the whole case and the interdependence of its parts in this case (concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts).
Of course, Supreme Court is not an investigating agency but it is more than an investigating agency!
I’d assume this has been mentioned in the affidavits flying back and forth at some point.
In any case, the Supreme Court is only handling payment to the 115 signed petitioners not all panelists so the issue hasn’t come up. Speak Asia in all liklihood has enough money to pay off the 115 petitioners. Kkhosla’s intervention might go one step further though as it brings up several inconvenient facts about Speak Asia.
Regarding the High Court case lodged against the EOW to quash their investigation,
Until the EOW conclude their investigation I don’t see any reason for them to divulge the extent of their investigation. If and when they file charges it’ll all come out in the wash. For now Speak Asia and AISPA are just playing games trying to stop the investigation alltogether.
Then of course there’s the CID, who Speak Asia seem much more concerned about. We as of yet don’t know what they have on the company or have submitted in their particular case (Speak Asia don’t like to talk about that).
There’s a reason these investigations haven’t been quashed though… despite the cases dragging out for months.
“I am also filing an additional affidavit to cover the facts / information that has not been submitted to the Court as yet”. —-Mr. Khosla
During the period of ten month of lengthy investigation, whatever you have found or if you have facts in hand then you should provide all your records at Hon’ble high court.
Also they should take further action by understanding your reports. But you have surrendered yourself in the form of Affidavit as “ I have received the entire amount due and I do not wish to pursue the further complaint”.
Strange! You kept your entire proof aside or what? And going to submit at hon’ble Supreme Court or you are requesting for fresh investigation with reference to your reports?.
I won’t believe hon’ble Supreme Court will welcome your additional affidavit & alter the further judgment.
Purely observation: sounds like Khosla is filing “amicus brief” if he’s just adding information as a somewhat related / interested party. At least that’s the term used in the US.
@Sanjeev Khanna
Navniit is not looking for respect from vested interests like that of yours, SAOL and the family running AISPA. As stated earlier he is doing a big service for panelists and public by bearing the burden on his shoulders of presenting in the SC by his affidavit facts hitherto hidden by vested interests stated above.
Facts of what goes on in the SC and what the mediation report states will be made known to the panelists and public right here and not through the deceitful mouth of Honarable Bahirwani.
No. Solomon James is fighting the case for only the 115 panelists who are the petitioners in the writ 383/1011. AISPA and others have nothing to do in the same and are only attempting to hijack it for their SAOL’s attempt.
Sorry. You are wrong. His application is for the benefit of all panelists and the public who must know the facts as stated and not through the mouthpiece of vested interests.
What is the matter with you? Frustrated like Anjali/Anju that nobody is buying your crap theories anymore like that nonexistent clients? Yes panelists are waiting for refund of their dues and if need be will get it through the nose of Haram Khor!
Whom you telling that, the administrator of this blog? What balance sheets or financial statements are you yapping about? These at best need to be filed in Singapore where it was incorporated via Registration # 200618809D. One can purchase the information at https://www.psi.gov.sg/NASApp/tmf/TMFServlet?app=MYBIZFILE-SHOP-CART&gotoPage=CompanyProdcutPage&lnkCoNo=200618809D&lnkCoName=SPEAKASIA%20ONLINE%20PTE.%20LTD.&lnkCoStName=UBI%20CRESCENT&lnkStatus=Live&lnkType=Company&page=RCBBIZCONAMELSTNEW&navTransList=Y&index=1&S=&D=&prn_userid=&Param_Fromtype=RegisteredEntity%22=%22.
Dear “Anjali” has posted at http://www.grahakseva.com/complaints/10301/speak-asia-online-cheated-me#comment-82522:
So this Anjali has a big setup?? She is no other than Ashok Bahirwani himself with AISPA goons in each State. Why a gender change Ashok as Anjali? Are u a hijra (transvestite)?
Speak Asia named as a Ponzi scheme with a public warning issued against investing in such schemes:
In this moment, SpeakAsia fanboys are probably posting comments in that site saying things like “you’re lying, SpeakAsia isn’t a Ponzi scheme, it will be allowed to restart in a few days” and other things like this
It seems like one of their strategies is to spam forums and blogs with “positive information”, and copy/paste the same comment over and over again.
I even found fake “M_Norway” comments in the newest complaints.
* grahakseva.com/complaints/53615/speak-asia-atleast-give-me-the-deposited-amount
* grahakseva.com/complaints/53560/speak-asia-money-lost
* grahakseva.com/complaints/53550/speak-asia-online-money-cheating
Here’s a short list for people’s initial investments, copied from the latest Speak Asia complaints (between 30th March and 9th April):
Frustration is mounting on you guys/gals. Inspite of your so much provocation you are unable to find out why SC and other courts have not yet ruled anything majorly negative against SAOL. This frustration will keep on mounting on you my buddies. SAOL is here to stay and you just keep a watch…..
This will be make or break event for MLM Industry in India.
Speak Asia… dead for nearly a year with management in hiding.
How’s that for nothing ‘majorly negative’.
@Sanjeev Khanna
Is there any one from speakasia who is answering to all (panelists, courts, EOW, media and ordinary people)?
May be this is how the 7% figure of exit option was calculated.
Speakasia usage statics from alexa.com indicates huge number of visits around July, August 2011. It was about 0.013 percentages of global internet users. All these numbers are just estimates of the traffic; you don’t need to believe it. I am writing these numbers just for the sake of information. Don’t need to take it seriously.
This is how we can (approximately) calculate the number:
I am assuming that averaging these two numbers may gives a close approximate which is: 0.00075. If we consider less number of users from this (signed up for the exit option) we may opt for 0.0007.
This is the estimated values from the International Telecommunication Union.
Estimated number of people visited the exit option site (for registration only because there is nothing else to do):
8190 if we consider 0.0007% for last three months
152100 if we consider 0.013% in the month of July, August 2011
117000 if we consider 0.010% in the month of July, August 2011
This is the estimated values from the internetworldstats.com.
Estimated of number of people visited the exit option site:
15870 if we consider 0.0007% for last three months
294740 if we consider 0.013% in the month of July, August 2011
226723 if we consider 0.010% in the month of July, August 2011
Dead Only for you… because they are not in public view. IF you can’t see some one it doesn’t mean that some one is dead.
Yes, yes and the company will restart tommorow yada yada yada. We’ve heard this ‘everything is going absolutely positive’ broken record for a year.
In other news… the Speak Asia ponzi scheme shut down a year ago and the only people who are convinced it’ll every start again are the idiots who invested their life savings into it.
RIP.
The only people who are convinced that it is dead don’t know that Dead Companies don’t fight. They just vanish away.
Yeah… because ‘please don’t let the police investigate us!’ is a legal fight they’re going to win.
In other news, up is down and down is up.
Its dead in Bangladesh.
@M_Norway
“I even found fake “M_Norway” comments in the newest complaints.
* grahakseva.com/complaints/53615/speak-asia-atleast-give-me-the-deposited-amount
* grahakseva.com/complaints/53560/speak-asia-money-lost
* grahakseva.com/complaints/53550/speak-asia-online-money-cheating”
Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering why u were posting in that mental asylum. I have made posts there so that the non-mental cases get away from there and see sense by visiting forums like this or http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1671122&TPN=91.
The WRIT 383/2011 is about Fundamental Rights, not about the criminal parts of other cases. The Supreme Court doesn’t have original jurisdiction in criminal cases. They won’t evaluate whether the business model they used was illegal or legal, unless someone brings it up as a condition for Fundamental Rights.
I’ll guess that answer was clear enough, even if the answer wasn’t clear at all for how most people see this case?
The Supreme Court won’t directly “clear” Speak Asia for any criminal charges, but they might indirectly evaluate whether or not the current legal actions against it violates Fundamental Rights – like the freezing of payment for nearly a year and other actions.
The one point where Speak Asia is most vulnerable is if someone uses the same viewpoints about Fundamental Rights against them in court. I have already analysed those viewpoints long time ago, sometimes in December 2011. I’m sure I can “refine” them and make them more usable.
The reason why they fight is because they don’t have any other choices. We can’t flee from our home country, it will usually only be temporarily. Most of the management have been too openly involved in this case. They are not fighting for Speak Asia as a company, they are fighting to protect their own interests against being involved in a possible nightmare.
I don’t consider it to be an asylum, but usually I don’t post anything in most Indian forums or blogs (because I can’t read many of the comments, and can’t answer questions in Hindi).
The username “M_Norway” has only been used here on BehindMLM (the first comment was in OzSoapbox), and in one single post in an Australian forum in 2010.
The “Anjali” posts there may be false, too. Most of her comments here uses a different communication style than the comments I read there on the complaint board.
MR andy
Speak asia offices are reopened in bangladesh and singapore
believe or not its upto u
A panelist using his basement in Bangaladesh does not qualify as an office of Speak Asia.
Nor does sticking a great big sign outside some empty rented office space in Singapore.
The company has had no business operations for a year and management are hiding fugitives. Yeah, they really need offices.
Finally this is what Speakasiaonline.mobbi has posted on its blog!
NO COMPLAINTS PLEASE!
YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO SING:
“THE GOOD TIMES ARE SOON COMING THROUGH AN ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT”
Please find out the object clauses of the Memorandum and Articles of the Company registered in Bangladesh and Singapore!
It may not be online surveys without a client!
So what will the panelists of SAOL do? Sell consumer durables in MLM mode?
Like refrigerators, washing machines, etc.?
And what else?
What is the brand name?
Where are the products displayed?
How will payment be made?
Before delivery or after delivery?
Gets more complicated as you go along!
Previously we got this information at GenX Bazzar, Goa on May’2011. Hope, they’ll follow the similar steps, if they re-start the business.
Q1: Like refrigerators, washing machines, etc.?
Ans: Yes, all.
Q2: And what else?
Ans: And Many more, (Electronic & Home appliances ect etc)
Q3: What is the brand name?
Ans: Core (YUG) & Non-core (Others) Brand
Q4: Where are the products displayed?
Ans: Online portal & Offline (pick up centre in various state).
Q5: How will payment be made?
Ans: Through Cash Deposit, net banking, Credit Card & Debit card
Q6: Before delivery or after delivery?
Before Delivery or Cash on Delivery.
Q7: Gets more complicated as you go along?
Ans: No, it’s easy as other online portals (TVC-skyshop, Homeshop18, TeleBrand, Amazon, Mayantra, Flip-Kart & ect ect) are selling products online.
Dear Navnit khhosla
What the panelists of SAOL will do, is not your tension. Dear, Why do you taking so much tension in the matter of SAOL ? They will sell comsumer durables or will sell Bricks or Stone chips, it’s not the matter of your concern. You have got your hard earned money, now go and enjoy with your family. And all the questions which you asked to the people, are useless and completely bakwaas questions. All the panelists are ready to sell Bricks or Stone chips in the name of SAOL . Okay dear Khhosla.
@Ravi Shankar Mishra
Not me u brainwashed idiot. Provide a list of all the idiots with the amount of their investments in SAOL who want to sell bricks or/and stone chips for SAOL before you state “All the panelists”.
They will probably use a variation of RMP Infotec‘s model, selling the income opportunity rather than the products. Recruiting is easier than sale.
* “To become a distributor, simply buy a product.” (price 7-8,000 INR and upwards to 30-40,000 INR)
* “You will only need to recruit 2 customers (distributors) to start making money” (and they will have to recruit 2, and so on and so forth).
* “The more you recruit, the more you will earn per week.”
The business model (Promotional pyramid) is illegal in Europe, in point 14 in EU’s blacklist (The UCP Directive – Unfair Commercial Practice). It’s probably illegal in India too, but some of their laws seems to be poorly updated.
I think you mean the panelists will BUY bricks or stone chips. and try to sell them to their own family. So more money will go to Dubai or Singapore, while India gets more bricks and stone chips.
Maybe you should have asked for more TVs from China. At least those you can sell.
K. Chang……
Each & everyone panelist will be happy, if SAOL get re-start trade operation in INDIA & start selling any manufactured goods. Anyone can purchase through SAOL portal as many other e-commerce portal are selling online.
Of course money will go to the manufacturing Industry from where products are coming either Dubai or Singapore or china or Japan or anywhere. Seller, distributors, importers, retailers, and dealers will only generate sales commission/profits within MRP tag.
All electronic goods are manufacturing at china & assembling in India or other country even Hp-Compaq’s computers to Samsung, LG’s *spares* are manufacturing at china.
It is doesn’t mean they are selling Chinese goods. All manufacturing /production industry is located at china & entire world is using MADE IN CHINA *spares*.
1] aispa’s site is hosted by BSNL which is a govt owned company.
so i guess andy will have to ask what relation BSNL has with manoj kumar and why aispa’s dynamic IP points at UAE.
it would be lovely if soapbox wrote a new story about how saol is actually OWNED by bharat sanchar nigam limited [govt owned broadcasting corporation].
the eow has already checked this out and could not use this rope to hang aispa, so i suggest you should not waste any time on this either.
2] how can you knock products [yug] you havent seen or used?
3] i have not been on any consumer complaints site offering help from my ‘team’. reason being i have NO team as on date.
but once saol starts i’ll have a big team ,don’t worry.
4]how is mr khosla going to wish away his affidavit in reply in 3611? that is his last submission of his stand in the courts of law and renders his stand in his previously filed intervention application redundant.
to clarify this subject once and for all mr khosla should publish this document. since he is such a braveheart what does he have to hide?
got on aispa chatrool
soapbox
i have recd info that some other people from different locations in india are not able to access your site.so i guess that excludes the possibility of you blocking my IP.
i think your site went dead for some people around the 5th/6th of april.
i can’t access the link provided by you but it must be completely fake.
crasto is not a facebook kind of person .he never had a facebook page up until yesterday when he set up his first facebook account in a proxy name.
@ M_Norway
i find ur comments to be unbiased and based on perfect facts. i hv been following ur comments on this blogsite since long n i mst say tht i m vry vry impressed with them.
the only thing i wnt to know in the SAOL matter is about the clients. like u, even i think tht if thr r no clients then thrz no biz. just wnt to confirm if it has been proved tht thr hv been no clients who commissioned the surveys.
u urslf hv mentioned many times tht thr hv not been any clients for commissioning the surveys. cn u pls provide proof for this? this will really clarify my thought process.
@anjali
I didn’t block anyone. Must be problems with the connection between India and the US.
A little exaggeration? 🙂
Late-joiners will probably prefer their money back, instead of a vague income opportunity that already has caused lots of trouble.
People heavily involved will probably accept any solution where they can keep their downline and the source of income.
If you read comments in different Speak Asia support forums or blogs, you will see two kinds of comments – the supportive “Speak Asia will rise again”, and the other ones – “Where is my money?”. People have even redesigned the Speak Asia logo from “Values Your Opinion” to “Where Is Our Money?” 🙂
Because of the different motives, no solution will really work well.
Because of the different motives, no solution will really work well -norway
not really.
the supportive “Speak Asia will rise again” panelists [who are the majority ] are waiting eagerly for business restart.
the other ones – “Where is my money?” can apply for the exit option and as soon as the eow cooperates ,they can take their money and walk away .
different motives can have different solutions and everybody can be happy.
How do you know they (the supporters) are the majority here? Is it based on facts or self delusion?
The number of members in SPAI should reflect something about majority, so how many members do SPAI have? Not “indicators” or “strong management”, but real ordinary panelists?
The Exit Policy will still need to be clarified, and be verified by official sources.
because the company informed the panelists via their blogspot that some 97,000 [or something] odd people had chosen the exit option.
considering that panelists number between 12 lac to 15 lac it would make saol supporters the majority, wouldn’t it?
all in good time.
The 97,000 figure is laughable at best, given there is no indication as to how it was reached.
(if anyone suggests an anonymous run blogspot website that collected information punched in by anyone without any verification whatsoever resprents any sort of accuracy, they’re delusional.
Furthermore given that the exit police as it stands doesn’t even apply to most panelists (or is useless when the ‘lol company will restart tommorow’ carrot is continously dangled by senior panelists, AISPA and management infront of people), you can’t equate ‘didn’t sign up’ to ‘support’.
I don’t work with “proofs”, I work with information. And I will usually focus on the whole picture, not the individual details.
1. Nayan Khandor who made the false surveys was among those who were arrested in August 2011.
2. Manoj Kumar had to apologize for misleading members. The first source I found here was CorporateFraudsWatch, but the site seems to have links to the original sources.
http://corporatefraudswatch.blogspot.com/2011/05/speak-asia-apologises-for-misleading.html
3. To be able to support an average of (let’s say) 5 panels per panelist, and a total of 1.2 million panelists (both are low numbers), they will need clients willing to pay $120 million USD per week.
3a. They didn’t have the organization needed, like a sales organization. The only “sales organization” they had was directed towards recruitment.
4. The organization was only set up to recruit people, not for doing any real business. All the managers were directed towards the same goal (recruitment, and some training).
They didn’t even have an official office in India, and in the so called “headquarter” in Singapore they only found 9 accountants – not a real organization.
Most panelist waited to the last moment for some clarification around the Policy, and many have probably refused to sign an unclear agreement.
I asked for the number of members in SPAI under that point? And you answered with something completely different?
There’s no need for exact numbers either, just give us an estimate or something? Something like “SPAI rounded its first half million members 3 days ago, and are well on its way to 1 million members, with tens of thousands joining each day”. 🙂
And don’t try the old trick of repeating my “half million” statement, and adding “You didn’t guess right, but you were close enough to be accepted.” 🙂
norway
when aispa decides to announce it’s active membership base you shall stand enlightened along with everybody else.
remember that all panelists are by default a member of aispa and this was further reinforced with a resolution being passed to this effect at the AGM of aispa on 31.03.2012.
further for WHATEVER reason panelists have not opted for the exit option the fact stands that they have NOT opted for it. doing soul searching on their behalf does not help you. every individual is responsible for his/her choice .
the fact that 12 lac people did not file FIR’s against the company inspite of the media barrage is also a good ‘indicator’ of where the people’s loyalties lie.
you may not believe in the strength of ‘indicators’, and be a stickler for actual numbers, but when dealing with a large mass of people, ‘general indicators’ are enough to gauge the mood of the people.
@Nisha
If you want a general discussion about banners, logos, branding and similar stuff then you should probably CALL someone? The topic is very off-topic in relation to the main topic here.
The modified Speak Asia logo popped up on one of the websites I visited 1 or 2 weeks ago, and was probably designed as a joke. It partly reflects the current situation, so the tagline has a fair chance of becoming popular.
and round and round in circles we go with anjali again not really providing any information other than generalisations and question-dodging.
I think that’s enough anjuspam for today.
@ Natasha
Bravo! Well said Natasha!
I made a statement in the proceedings in the Bombay High Court that I was not a member of AISPA and that I had serious objections to AISPA’s claim that by default it represented all the panelists of SAOL.
AISPA could not be even registered. Another body has been registered and again similar claims are being made.
We need more Natashas to stand up and say that they want their money with interest and not a bull shit policy that lets SAOL decide what it will pay.
Does SAOL think our Judiciary is a bunch of fools who can be misguided by highly paid advocates to accept that SAOL was actually selling goods and services in India?
BULL SHIT!
Time will tell what the Judiciary of India thinks of SAOL and its fraudulent survey scheme as well as binary income for panelists without any clients for goods and services.
Can you prove it? Or just bluffing.
And you’ve missed some questions that I am unable to find justifiable answers.
(1)
Can you explain the connection or its just a co-incidence?
(2)
If someone is saying that EOW has admin rights of the site then he should explain how they received it. By the way, admin rights are just the username and password to control the domain hosting, it’s not a physical thing that can be borrowed or returned. s
peakasia can still use the same to operate the website and it has nothing to do with the panelists database. (and then speakasia people will say it can not interfere with ongoing … blah blah blah …)
(3)
I have no idea about speakasia in Bangladesh. Speakasia claims they never operated in Bangladesh and so many people from Bangladesh are shouting they are panelists of speakasia all over the internet. (don’t forget the letters from Haren Kaur to panelists in Bangladesh: posted on speakasiaonline.com) Is there anyone from Bangladesh reading this? Can you shade some light on the situation?
(4)
So AISPA (sorry… speakasia) is hosting their content provider’s website on their own site (wait! in that case the meaning of content provider will change), AISPA is using the same law firm as their content provider’s low firm …? *%$$^& %) it’s very hard to distinguish between AISPA and speakasia.
One request to all readers “Please provide link/source to support your claim.
I have taken up one investor’s case. He has executed a Power of Attorney in my favor.
I am filing his Intervention Application in the Bombay High Court in CrWP 3611/11 as well as the Supreme Court of India in CWP 383/11. I am also requesting Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lahoti to let him attend the mediation proceedings slated for 23.04.2012.
I am also getting his FIR recorded in Mumbai.
EOW Mumbai has claimed to have received many complaints which have been tagged with my CR no. 60/11 which was originally FIR no. 153/11. I have heard that around 200 complaints have been received after Mr. Himanshu Roy, Jt. Commissioner of Police, Crime held a Press Conference on 30.07.2011 and asked the victims to file their complaints. But they have not been given separate FIR nos.
This will now be done by the respective Police Stations in Maharashtra as per the orders of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court.
In my opinion in the matter of the investments in Speak Asia as well as the money paid to the upline for the PINS generated from the money lying in their e-wallets, the only way to recover the money is a FIR.
FIR = Refund of investment in the survey scheme of SAOL.
ABSOLUTELY FOOLPROOF.
There are two separate investments. When upline uses the credits in the e-wallet for generating PINs then this MONEY DOES NOT GO TO SAOL.
SO IT HAS TO BE A SEPARATE FIR AS PER THE CrPC AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE FULL BENCH OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT.
EVERY INVESTOR WHO HAS LOST MONEY IN THE SURVEY SCHEME OF SPEAK ASIA SHOULD ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS THREE TIMES A DAY!
1. When will I recover my investment in the survey scheme of Speak Asia?
2. What is my FIR no.?
3. How can be file an intervention application in the Supreme Court of India?
4. How can I join / initiate a case in the local High Court?
THE INVESTOR WILL RECEIVE THE INVESTMENT IN TWENTY DAYS AFTER HE HAS ANSWERED THE FOUR QUESTIONS GIVEN ABOVE!
TRY IT AND CELEBRATE THE POWER OF POSITIVE ACTION!
Your previous “indicators” indicated a strong management and a weak memberbase of ordinary panelists, exactly what we can expect to find in an organization like SPAI.
I will sometimes use “general indicators” myself to check people’s
moodmental stability. I used this method on one of Bahirwani’s updates, the one where he “was in contact with his inner soul” and had other “out of body experiences”.But usually I won’t repeat “general indicators” when I can’t find any clear answers, so I will still consider Bahirwani to be close to sane most of the time (in a “best case scenario”).
You on the other hand seems to prefer “general indicators”, instead of looking for clear answers?
No, I don’t believe in the strength of “general indicators”. Most often they are only misleading. They prevents people from checking facts, and are often used to avoid telling the truth about something.
My original question here was “How do you know they (the supporters) are the majority here? Is it based on facts or self delusion?” It seems like you have answered the question indirectly.
@Navniit Kkhosla
The post from “Lakshmi” is worth reading and analysing. Some of the rules may affect your case.
It’s a very long and detailed post, but it also contains lots of factual information.
Most of us will consider the Speak Asia case to be “Criminal case” plus a “Civil case” (the last one about payment). But actually it is a “Fundamental Rights case”, with different sets of rules.
The case isn’t about Speak Asia’s criminal activity. It’s not about payment either (as in a Civil case), it’s about the right to payment (livelihood) without having the right blocked by authorities.
It’s also about whether or not the process against Speak Asia violates Fundamental Rights (as far as I could see from the post).
I haven’t analysed all this yet, but I will probably post something about specific viewpoints that can be useful. A case may look completely different if you see it from another viewpoint. It may also make a case easier to “win”, but you may have to change some of your targets.
If you have had access to some of the documents in the case, please give some brief information? A short list plus description or something? I’m usually not dependant on details.
Is that an admission and acceptance that SpeakAsia is actually “SellAsia” and had always been a lie?
Speakasia in Bangladesh said they cannot pay because Bangladesh Govt. is not allowing them to pay. I think same thing will happen in India and that’s why I am trying to link the situation to Bangladesh.
http://www.moneylife.in/article/speakasia-still-cant-show-valid-legal-documents/15551.html#comment-12954
One funny excuse given by speakasia to panelist in Bangladesh about deduction in RP and non-payment “Bangladeshi Panelists are uneducated and have wrongly filled the survey” 🙂
http://www.complaintboard.in/complaints-reviews/215824-l117744.html#c1135731
You can find more info on the same on following FB group.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Speak-Asia-OnlineBangladesh/138155592900595
Tell me how many companies will start their operation in a country without studying its laws. On the one hand speakasia is using India’s reputed law firms after its business operation is stopped on the other hand they never followed guidelines of IT dept, CDBT, RBI, FEMA, … .
So many excuses, blunders, reparse of statements by company officials, so many mistakes on website and in general, frequent changes in company business and policies, and much more. This is not the way a good company (no matter how big or small) works – professionally.
@Andy,
Yes I’m a Bangladeshi panelist and I’m watching the situation of Speak Asia. Soon I’m going to post the entire situation of Speak Asia Bangladesh chapter from beginning to till now, actually what has happened to innocent Bangladeshi panelists and what is happening now.
@Sahuda
Thanks for the reply.
You know it’s very hard for middle class and other poor people from countries like India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. to live a decent life. They invest their hard earned money in different investment schemes so they can earn a little bit more and its not for pleasures but to support their families.
Government authorities in these countries are not efficient enough to stop fraudulent schemes like speakasia. Sometimes the laws doesn’t cover the matter, sometimes the govt. actions are slow, sometimes people don’t come forward to warn others and so many other problems, that allows some people to loot poor people from these countries and run away.
Now days we have so many platforms like this and other blogs, FB, Twitter … that can be used to spread the correct information to people, to educate them for similar fraud activities so they don’t invest their money in such schemes and to stop the cheaters to continue – from a collective effort from people like us.
I hope if we identify such scams early and identify the personals involved, we can at least slowdown them, they can be nabbed and pay for their criminal activities.
Speak Asia hasn’t been ran like a real company. It has been more similar to an illegal scheme.
* located outside India, out of reach for Indian authorities
* no business registration in India, until they had to do it
* no taxes, until they had to pay some
* no real accounting (made up fake amounts most of the time)
* no receipts to panelists
* no other documentation to panelists
* lots of payment in cash, “preferred method”
* very few registered employees, most were independent
* no real organization, only some parts
* fake clients
* fake surveys
For me, coming from another country, Speak Asia was clearly no real business. Most parts were only illusions, designed to fool people into believing it was a real business. That’s partly why I consider a business restart to be unattractive for most people, unless they’re already heavily involved.
A solution can of course be if they BUY real companies, but Speakasians themselves doesn’t seem to have the skills needed to run a real business – the way a real business has to be ran to survive (no “side business” and other scams to support the survival).
Hi Oz
Ur site behindmlm.com is not accessible from Vodafone network, i tried it from Mumbai it did not work, right now in Bangalore it did not work.
The site is even not opening using the wifi access of this hotel where i am staying but works when i use my reliance cell network.
Have you by any chance changed the ISP or your ISP has changed routing?
I am posting this using zendproxy.com
Regards,
Sam
@Sameer
Try without “www”?
Your webbrowser will automatically put in “www” if needed in an URL-address.
@Sameer
Check you operating system’s Firewall settings. It may be blocking this site or your browser. I use Mozilla Firefox (FF) with auto update and currently it is version 11.0. I do not use any addons and Java is disabled in Firefox, However, you need Java in IE and Chrome which I rarely use.
If using FF you need to Go to https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/ and do a plugin check for your FF periodically.
@Sameer
I haven’t changed anything, don’t think my ISP has either. Sounds like a DNS and/or routing problem in India itself.
Abdi, Crasto and Bahirwani do some Q&A below, with probably the most important point being that writ 383 is solely for the payment of money – nothing else. To who? The signed 115 petitioners.
They also mention that AISPA are sitting on their hands waiting to intervene, I’ve in the past guessed that this won’t happen until a court actually hints at the suggestion of money being paid – which to date it obviously hasn’t as when it does AISPA will intervene and attempt to include all panelists (which will most likely fail, seeing as Speak Asia don’t have enough money to pay all panelists, nor do they want to).
Ultimately they thought 50cr would shut the Supreme Court and regulators up and close the writ 383 matter. That didn’t work out for them as planned.
Another interesting point was the notion of a business restart isn’t being entertained in any current court or case. I’ve been stating this for as long as I can remember now. The only cases that exist are payment to the 115 signed petitioners, and AISPA and Speak Asia’s attempts to stop government agencies from investigating Speak Asia.
I am offering a clarification in the matter of selection of a Senior Advocate. I think Mr. Ahmad Abdi is not a Senior Advocate. The following is an extract from an article in the Hindu newspaper:
Please make the correction in all future posts.
Dear Anjali:
Subject: Procedure to filing an FIR for recovery of dues from SAOL.
I have been away from this and other forums for some time now being busy in preparing the FIR to be filed at the local police station that gives full details of how I was lured by SAOL and its senior panelists into becoming a premium panelists.
Much of the details I have picked up from that stated by Navniit Kkhosla here and also from my records on my PC including all the popups. Also stated that SAOL was a virtual scheme showing itself as a pvt company registered in Singapore but being non-compliant in filing its legal returns, and also now as much a fugitive as its global and Indian CEO, Harender Kaur, Chartered Accountant, and Manoj Kumar respectively.
I have also mentioned its underworld links with Seven Rings, Red Carpet, etc. I have also mentioned in all three downlines I made by virtue of selling my pins. One of them was a family member. Along with this family member, we have lost in all about Rs37k net of recovery through pins sold but including our investments of 22k.
As a result we do not come within the terms of the hitherto bogus Exit Option as we would recover nothing. Anything else?
Can I also file a case against SAOL for cheating via pyramid scheme including doing “bogus” surveys for non-existant clients, with the Consumer Court under the Indian Consumer Act giving its Indian management representative being AISPA, Mumbai?
Also where to include that the GoI not taking steps to have the fugitive management of SAOL arrested and brought to India to stand trial for cheating and/or to cough out the dues to all panelists? Is there need to mention all the ongoing civil and criminal cases against SAOL in different parts of India?
Is there a need to send a copy of all this to Anna Hazare of India Against Corruption Movement to let him know that of the very Indians that he is fighting for there being a cluster of cheats under the banner of SAOL, AISPA, etc. trying hard to continue their practice of cheating in India, Bangladesh, etc. by calling it as being their Fundamental Rights under the Constitution?
Anjali, do advise as to how to keep my expenses to the bare minimum and what else I should include in my report.
I sure am glad that I did not get taken in with opening sub-panels of Rs10k each and doing the exactly same bogus surveys over and over. No?
Looking forward to hearing from you and I hope all is well with you and your papa/husband/uncle/etc. Ashok Bahirwani & Othrs of AISPA team of scoundrels.
Jutamaro
We need a transcript of that interview.
I have finalized the Intervention Application in CWP 383/11 in the Supreme Court of the investor whom I am helping and whose Power of Attorney I hold.
I have also finalized his Intervention Application for the Bombay High Court in CrWP 3611/11. He had himself submitted his complaint to EOW Mumbai on 24.08.11 in CR no. 60 of 2011 which was originally my FIR no. 153/11.
Today is a holiday in Mumbai even for the postal department owing to Bharat Ratna Dr. Balasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti. However, I believe there is a facility for 24×7 Speed Post dispatches in Mumbai.
Hence notices will be sent today through Speed Post to the advocates by way of service for the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court Intervention Applications.
God helps only those who help themselves. My young man has been consistently following up his complaint and deserves to be helped. I am but a servant of God and HIS WILL dictates my life.
Today I will send a letter and request Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. C. Lahoti to clarify the duration of the mediation proceedings and about our status as Interveners awaiting acceptance by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
I also want to clarify whether I can participate for the person who has given me his Power of Attorney. He feels that he will not be able to represent himself in person.
The origin is from Aesop’s Fables – “Hercules and the lazy man”. Aesop is more about “day to day wisdom” than “religion in general”, so I don’t think you should mix them.
@Navniit Kkhosla
The only one that has made a “deep study” into different law-related questions is Lakshmi.
I don’t do any deep studies into different topics, because I have no intentions of becoming a professional in any of the areas I’m studying. That’s why I try to identify when someone provides something useful.
Lakshmi has some points. One of them is that your right to intervention may disappear when an order is passed either in the High Court or in the Supreme Court. It may disappear shortly after it has been accepted, IF they accept it.
Another point is the difference between a Fundamental Rights case and ordinary Civil/Criminal cases. There’s a difference between a Civil claim about payment and a similar claim related to Fundamental Rights. The first one is between two or more parties, the last one is about the Government violating some fundamental rights. They will need different sets of thinking.
Normally, it’s not in your interest to participate in blocking of REAL fundamental rights, and I’ll guess there are some real fundamental rights involved here (but I don’t accept all the claims, or all the methods).
In general, a solution that allows payment or refund of money should be within the interests of most (or all) panelists. Business restart is more questionable, and is probably not a REAL fundamental right. They try to make it look like a real fundamental right, but it’s certainly questionable.
What I mean is that you’ll have to adjust yourself (some of your ideas) to “Fundamental Rights thinking”, and make sure your own ideas are within the same area – working in the same direction as these rights.
@M-Norway
The Supreme Court of India can permit any person to become an intervener in any pending case being heard in India in the interest of justice. There is no bar or limitation for the Supreme Court to exercise its power in its absolute discretion.
dear jutamaro ,
i’m absolutely the last person you should approach for help with an fir. are you confused about my stand ?
also ,in the matter of old complaints under CR no 60 being revived as fir’s i wonder that the court will not immediately recognize malafide intent.
the mumbai high court is very clear that the supreme court is seized of the matter and eow needs to get clarification from the supreme court for investigations. any fresh fir in the same case will not alter the courts mind.
i agree that the supreme court in the interests of justice can allow intervention of any individual. however a person who’s plea has been satisfactorily settled in the high court and who has given an undertaking by an affidavit that he shall have nothing further to do with the company ,cannot go back on his sworn statements.
about representing another individual in the supreme court through power of attorney- that is not even allowed.
@Mrs/Ms Baharwani
A Power-of-Attorney is a legal document to represent person A who has vested rights in person B on his behalf. Person A will be legally bound to all legal decisions imposed through person B.
Such a document is to be signed even hiring legal counsel. Then person A need not be present in Court until demanded by the Court, and can be represented by person B. It is for this reason that you usually see mostly advocates in the list of petitioners and defendants in relation to any case list.
Look at it like this. An association may vest the rights of all its members in (say) the president/secretary to do and take all decisions for the benefit of the association of members. Such president/secretary must be a member of the association and not an outsider.
However, all members must be signatories to the association. An association cannot just proclaim that it is representing members who are not signatories as if that association has been elected under the Constitution of India for that purpose.
For example, the ruling party may have less than 50% of the votes of the electorate, but may win to rule at the Center/State the whole country/State and this is provided under the Constitution of India.
I wonder under what section of the Constitution of India is AISPA proclaiming itself as representing all the panelists of SAOL when the signatories of the association are only a minor fraction/percentage of the 12-15 lakh panelists.
I also wonder if Ashok Baharwani or you are a panelist. Under such circumstances AISPA knows well enough that it could not file any intervention application anywhere as facts mentioned above may come into question by the respective Judges of the Court.
But surely AISPA could state that it is just representing SAOL towards (say) restart of their current business model of a pyramid scheme or any other in future provided they have been authorized through Power-of-Attorney or state that they are representing a handful of panelists.
In a similar way, Navniit Kkosla can too state that he has been submitted power-of-attorney to represent another in any court.
@Navniit Kkhosla
My impression was that your intervention was related to (because of) WRIT 383/2011 interfered with your case?
You have a legal motive in that explanation directly related to you and your own situation, instead of having a general motive related to “justice”.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
The differences between Fundamental Rights cases and Civil/Criminal ones are, among other things, that the Constitution has a higher rank than the other laws and can probably be evaluated separated from other laws (the other laws will have to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution doesn’t have to follow them – but it will have to follow other parts of itself).
It means that criminal activity in itself isn’t enough to stop Fundamental Rights. People can still have the Fundamental Right of being paid “salary” or similar payments, even if the company is under investigation for criminal activity.
The Fundamental Right of being able to choose a profession is more questionable here. Doing fake surveys or recruiting people into a scam isn’t a profession.
You will probably need very specific viewpoints in this case, and I haven’t analysed it that closely.
An example of specific viewpoint is this:
“Paying for the surveys shouldn’t be enough to consider it to be ‘legal work’. WHERE the money comes from is far more important, whether the money comes from scamming people or from legitime sources.”
In relation to business restart, people are faking a Fundamental Right that really doesn’t exist – if the money comes from themselves or from other participants in the same group. The money will have to come from external sources in order to make any sense as support of livelihood.
The lack of real clients is the area where Speak Asia has its weakest defense in relation to Fundamental Rights. The business model will harm the livelihood of most people rather than supporting it. And it’s probably better to use this viewpoint than any detailed focus on its criminal activities – when the case itself is primarily about Fundamental Rights.
WRIT 3611/2011:
This case will probably have to be “closed” before the settlement is final. Receiving money an signing an agreement with the other party aren’t enough, the court will have to DECIDE something before the settlement is valid. Currently this case is only STAYED.
Be careful, so your current actions doesn’t interfere with your interests in this case.
Your original and main interests of recovering your money is still located within this case, and the case isn’t closed.
@Navniit Kkhosla
The High Court may possibly rule in your “favour” (the original ones), quash the FIR and make the settlement become valid and final. And a judgment like this will actually be within your interests, the interests you had originally.
You have added some new interests about “justice” and “protecting other people’s interests” after that, but these interests may come in conflict with your original ones.
The settlement is in your favour, while the quashing of the FIR is in the other party’s favour (but needed as a part of the settlement). The third party is the “system” itself, the laws and the court system.
The “system” itself should probably be the one able to take care of justice and protecting people’s rights, and this also relates to being able to deal with settlements, quashing of FIR’s, stay in investigation and other related stuff.
My point:
Your original interests should probably have a higher priority than your new motives. It is probably wise to accept the quashing of the FIR.
If you want to protect other people’s interests you will first have to protect your own, instead of having your own interests possibly being able to interfere or coming in conflict with other interests.
“Acceptable viewpoints”
Having a viewpoint like “I have made a settlement, and I’m interested in being finished with the case” is fully acceptable in a court, and it will actually make it easier for them to decide when your motives are clear and understandable.
You may make it more difficult for the court to decide if you add more complex motives, like “… but I don’t want my settlement to harm the interests of other people involved, or harm the investigation.” The court should be able to deal with questions like that on its own.
Make your motives clear, simple and understandable, and let the “system” deal with how to handle the other related interests. Don’t make them a part of your case.
@Navniit Kkhosla
I seriously believe an intervention or similar methods are the right thing to do, IF the Supreme Court is about to make or have made a decision based on misleading.
In other cases, it shouldn’t really be necessary.
In this case, we only have forumposts and blogs indicating a possible misleading. The information is too thin to make qualified decisions.
Ramanuj Mukherjee, a corporate lawyer based in Mumbai India has written an interesting article on dealing with scams like Speak Asia:
mr/mrs/ms priyanka ,
please read this article from TOI
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-14/india/29772519_1_power-of-attorney-holder-justices-markandey-katju-supreme-court.
when a son cannot appear for a father or a senior employee for his company ,i wonder whether a person whose affidavit vigorously states he will have nothing to do with the company if his claim is settled ,will be entertained via POA by an institution like the supreme court.
the fact that aispa represents all panelists of saol is mentioned in it’s constitution and was further reinforced by a resolution passed to this effect in the AGM.
your later advice on whom aispa should ‘say’ it represents is not welcome at this point, since aispa has experienced lawyers to advice it.
the entire matter boils down to one and only one question.
IS SAOL A MONEY CIRCULATION SCHEME ?
the eow and other justice seekers should keep this as their primary focus instead of attacking the peripherals .
It is very interesting that AISPA quoted the article
Yet AISPA claims to have an advocate representing ALL SAOL panleists, just because AISPA passed a constitution/charter proclaiming so.
Apparently Khosla did make a mistake… he needs to form an association and pass a constitution proclaiming that he represents panelists of SpeakAsia (as well) which would make his representation completely legal.
We can boil it down to several questions. Here’s one question related to the fundamental right of livelihood:
Did they have real clients or similar external sources paying for the surveys, or did they use the panelists own money to pay for the work?
It doesn’t have to be ILLEGAL. It should be enough if the work is meaningless in relation to livelihood, and not covered by Fundamental Rights.
Doing fake surveys is pretty meaningless, even if somebody gets paid more than they have invested for doing them. It becomes even more meaningless if they have to spend RP on products.
Power of attorney is a document proving the limited transfer of power from individual A to individual B so B can act on behalf of A.
Yet AISPA, by passing its own charter, claims to represent all panelists without obtaining specific permission from individual panelists.
AISPA is a self-proclaiming self-justifying association that exists because it says it exists.
“It’s mentioned in it’s constitution.” And so?
A constitution doesn’t extend beyond it’s borders, and the borders here are the registered members in the association. People don’t automatically become members. It’s their own choice if they like to become members, not the association’s choice.
I’ll guess most panelists have very little interest in becoming members of SPAI, and you can’t force them to become members either. You should be satisfied by having “strong management” and “lots of indicators”. 🙂
If you checkout the client list of Abdi & Co. law firm, you can find two companies:
(1)LanBit India (P) Ltd; (lanbitdirect.com, http://www.lanbit.com)
(2)Tulsient Technologies (I) Pvt.ltd;
We know who owns the company.
http://snsvo3.seekandsource.com/abdi/
So AISPA is using services from a law firm who already consulted Manoj Kumar and Seven Rings International. No wonder if Seven rings and Manoj are paying AISPA lawyers for court cases.
andy
since abdi & co’s client list is openly showcased on their website ,we can see they have nothing to hide.
this kind of gossip is great fun on a blog forum but try it in court
you-‘judge mr abdi has represented tulsient ,a manoj kumar company in the past’
judge-‘so what ???’
aispa says it represents all panelists .this is an offer that a panelist may accept or reject.
if panelists so wish they can choose not to be under the umbrella of aispa. it’s a free country.
but you do not see this happening ,because mostly people have common sense and they see that since an association has been registered in mumbai and is doing the needful, pretty decently, they prefer to stay informed and supportive.
when faced with a problem of such huge dimensions involving govt agencies, people prefer to unite rather than splinter into smaller groups.
aispa is a registered association of the panelists of saol.
it has a LEGAL existence.
When Manoj Kumar is a fugitive in hiding and the CEO of Speak Asia, a company AISPA claim to have nothing to do with despite being defacto management for them in India… you honestly think the two are co-incidence?
And it’s not gossip, it’s fact.
Quick, get on the phone to Kumar and find out how he wants you to reply next.
It’s a self-proclaimed charter, passed by itself with no input from “all panelists” it supposedly represents.
Tell me, who elected the executive committee or whatever you called the leadership? How many votes were cast? Who audited the results?
Or perhaps you can admit now that Bahirwani simply proclaimed himself “leader” and formed AISPA as an afterthought to justify his “leader” position. Timeline certainly supports it.
chang
you will have to await the official update about the AGM from aispa.
but rest assured, the legalities involved with association AGM’s were followed.
We don’t know anything about “the past”? Manoj Kumar’s companies are still listed as major clients.
Mr. Abdi will be disqualified (inhabil) in many matters when it comes to representing the panelists, since his other client(s) have interests in the same case. His first client has a right before the second client.
This isn’t a problem if Manoj Kumar and SPAI are the one and same client, and share exactly the same interests. It is a problem if SPAI pretends to be independent.
Do SPAI represent the panelists in any Speak Asia cases in court, using Mr. Abdi as a lawyer? Then the judges should be informed, and be able to decide whether he and/or his client is disqualified (inhabil). We can’t represent two different sets of interests at the same time, and he can’t work against his other client’s interests.
Mr. Abdi’s other clients (Tulsient, LanBit and Seven Rings) clearly has an interest in reducing claims, while the panelists in general has opposite interests = being paid in full.
These clients will have some conflict of interests if SPAI is representing the panelists, and Mr. Abdi can’t represent both clients.
Your logic seems to work in opposite direction of what most others will consider to be normal? In a free country they don’t have to choose not to become members.
Section 32 of The Advocates’ Act, 1961 states:
I am sure that the Hon’ble Supreme Court will permit the same in view of my knowledge, involvement and expertise. I am a fit person to explain to the Hon’ble Court that apparently the survey scheme of Speak Asia had no clients and hence may be termed a money rolling scheme.
The written submissions of the petitioners, Speak Asia and others may not tally with my submissions. Let them give proof of the clients and the payment received for the surveys conducted for them.
My submission is that there are no apparent clients and the earlier submissions therefore may be considered as perjury.
If necessary an advocate can always be engaged to appear after filing a vakalatnama.
NO PROBLEM!
Actually it’s hard to distinguished between AISPA and speakasia both claims to restart the ponzi scheme and do not care about payment to the panelists. That’s why speakasia will pay the lawyers fees to AISPA.
@Andy
When I wrote “no problem if they are the same client”, it was from Mr. Abdi’s viewpoint. There should be no conflict of interest between his clients if they all are part of the same group.
Because of the close relations between these clients, AISPA/SPAI is probably disqualified (inhabil) in representing panelists in general, and so is Mr. Abdi too (probably inhabil).
Both Mr. Abdi and SPAI should probably clarify their relations to Manoj Kumar and his companies, if they are pretending to represent the panelists in any court case (and in most other cases).
AISPA is listed as Petitioner in WRIT 3611/2011 (Kkhosla’s case), with Mr. Abdi as a lawyer, next hearing 03.05.2012. I have temporarily lost track of the other cases (there’s too many of them).
FROM U.S. “MODEL RULES OF CONDUCT”
Conflict of Interests Rule 1.7: Current clients (quoted)
Conflict of interests Rule 1.8: Special rules (too long and too ‘special’ to quote)
Note: The quoted rules are from an U.S. lawfirm, but has been used as a model for several states in the U.S.
The basic rules about conflict of interest will usually be “universal”, almost the same rules in each and every country or state. I was able to identify the possible conflict of interest immediately, without having any specific education.
Here’s the main source for my previous post:
Model Rules of Professional Conduct – the model used for ethical rules for lawyers in several states in the U.S.
Mr. Abdi has represented Manoj Kumar’s companies Seven Rings, LanBit India, Tulsient Technologies – and now he’s representing AISPA/SPAI, an association that should have several adverse interests than his 3 other clients (if they really are representing the members).
Lawyers in India will of course have other rules, but the most fundamental rules should be relatively similar in most countries.
Some of the general rules is that he shouldn’t represent clients with different interests in the same case, even if one of the clients is a former client – and shouldn’t assist any client in fraudulent activity.
I’ll guess we will have to find a method to clarify the possible conflict of interest here, but AISPA is probably a part of the same group as the other clients – representing the management rather than the panelists.
We’re questioning how many panelists out of the 1.5 million panelists AISPA claimed to represent voted to put them into office. If you don’t know then please go find out. It should be public information any way.
Yes. There are “Rules of Professional Conduct” in a way it suggest (related to current discussion) that ‘An advocate who has advised a party in connection with the institution of a suit, appeal or other matter or has drawn pleadings, or acted for a party, shall not act, appear or plead for the opposite party in the same matter’.
More info can be found here:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/prof_conduct/index.html
@anjali
No one is buying your goats over here so go somewhere else.
Please spare us from your nonsense, non-informative, unproductive, useless and baseless stuff.
Either post something real and meaningful or just keep quite.
Go away! Go away!
@ Ashok Bahirwani
The above is part of Mr. Ashok Bahirwani’s update of 15th April in the year of our Lord 2012.
Mr. Bahirwani this is the same Navniit Kkhosla with a double i and double k of FIR no. 153/11 renumbered as CR no. 60 of 2011 by the EOW, Mumbai. This is not a questionable ID.
Regarding the Power of Attorney I have reproduced section 32:
Section 32 of The Advocates’ Act, 1961 states:
In the Intervention Application being submitted in CWP 383 of 2011 we will be praying for permission for me to represent and plead in the ongoing proceedings.
Mr. Bahiwani you must have heard the saying – “Honey it’s all about money”. You are not running a charitable institute risking arrest but not backing of from the investigation by the EOW Mumbai. There must be something in it for you!
In any Court all the participants therein including the Hon’ble Judges are present and earning money for their allotted work. The Hon’ble Judges also has have a humanitarian side to their work as they are always looking at the plight of the litigants.
Mr. Bahirwani my estimate of 20 days is correct. I am thinking of giving an open offer to assist the panelists first from Mumbai – Police complaint, ACMM Court, Bombay high Court and Supreme Court. It may take 30 days only if not 20!
Tell me should I start?
I await you response!
In the interests of transparency and uncovering just what is going on… if it’s not too much hassle then by all means bust what is going on in court wide open.
I’m sure most people are tired of this secrecy nonsense coming from AISPA and Speak Asia.
Thx for the Indian version. They use the same rules as the Model, with some extra definitions.
I don’t have any plans for using the rules, but they CAN be used to clarify something. AISPA is probably in the same group as the other clients, and representing the management rather than the panelists – what we all have known for a very long time, so it isn’t exactly a surprise.
AISPA should probably inform their members about the relations. AISPA has a very close relationship with Manoj Kumar’s companies, clients that possibly can have different interests than the panelists.
Manoj Kumar’s companies seems to be directly involved in skimming away huge amounts of money from Speak Asia’s revenue, and they can possibly be opponents.
Seven Rings had a 60/40 agreement with Speak Asia? And Tulsient was one of the companies involved in collecting money from area managers? And Manoj Kumar was probably directly involved in money laundering?
It seems to be very incorrect if they don’t inform their members about the close relations. AISPA claims to represent all panelists, but with these relations they will only be able to represent the management properly.
Any new information about SpeakAsia?
Nothing much.
Bajpai’s ‘stop investigating Speak Asia’ is being heard today (wasn’t heard yesterday as scheduled) and the other court cases are dragging on.
I wonder why Navniit is keeping his mobile (+918652154000/08652154000 of Idea service provider) shut and not responding to emails to speakasiainvestors@gmail.com.
@Oz
It is probably possible to send a question to Abdi and Company, asking for a clarification.
I’m posting this to highlight the METHOD, not as a suggestion to place on your ToDo-list. You’ll have to decide for yourself what you want to have on that list.
A reporter working for a newspaper would probably have contacted the people/organisations involved, and asked for their version of a story – to establish some of the facts or viewpoints in a case, and to make the story more ‘balanced’.
Abdico was just an useful example, where it was very easy to identify the problem, and to identify the need for clarification. It was also very easy to identify HIS company to be the right one to ask, rather than his clients. The main question was about conflict of interest, not about the clients.
@M_Norway
Abdi aren’t under any obligation to reply though. And being lawyers I suspect they’ll just ignore any correspondence sent to them, especially if we’re talking the exposure of one of their clients.
Phoenix Legal already stood up and lied to the Supreme Court about the business model, I think Abdi will just fire back an Anju reply denying everything.
That said, I sent the following enquiry:
Will update if I get a reply.
aispa’s interests in fact DO ALIGN with saol’s interests.this is not illegal in any way .
remember aispa wants the eow to cooperate so that the exit payments start ASAP .the company has also appeared in the supreme court and declared their intention to pay back subscriptions to all those who wish to terminate their relationship with saol. so one can say the view of aispa and the company are in alignment.
aispa wants the restart of business as so many people are dependent on saol for survival.right to livelihood is a fundamental right. the company also through various communications and even in it’s last message on 3rd
april ,clearly states it’s intention of restarting operations at the earliest.so again the company and aispa are aligned in their viewpoints.
but what is your problem with this ? why can’t the panelists and the company be best friends and supportive? how is it wrong legally speaking ?
and norway, none of the company’s mentioned by you ,who are on abdico’s client list are a party in this case. also, who has deviously added seven rings to the list?
http://snsvo3.seekandsource.com/abdi/
That would depend on your “overall objective”.
If your overall objective is to PROTECT panelists and their money, then I don’t see how your interest can align.
Panelists want a) their money, b) their RP, and c) more work, in that order of priority. AISPA, however, is working in the exactly REVERSE order.
If your overall objective is to restart SAOL, then of course your interest would align with SAOL, but then, you aren’t really working for the panelists.
The simplest way to resolve this is for SAOL to put up money through their lawyers, to the court, and beg the court to make a quick judgement, not to file bazillion motions to quash this and quash that. AISPA should be pleading SAOL to do this and ask EOW to cooperate with THAT. Instead, AISPA has only served to slow down EOW and to impede their case against SAOL as much as possible (even as far as paying off Khosla).
So put up the money already. That 50 crore is only for 115 panelists AND the various government departments for back taxes and what not. Where’s the rest of it? Put up the money already. Anticipate the court, make a gesture. Or would SAOL rather pay lawyers?
Nobody got paid for a whole year already. Clearly, you’re being overdramatic.
SAOL is not his client, the 3 other companies are. Seven Rings’ relation was found on Seven Rings’ own website.
I don’t know anything about legality. What I pointed out was the possible misleading of members, in having so close relations to the management.
A member association will usually not align completely with a company, but management and owner can align completely. AISPA is not independent enough to be able to protect the members interests in several scenarios. They should also have informed the members about these relations.
We have pointed out several times that AISPA seems to protect the interests of the management rather than the ordinary panelists, and even seems to be willing to give the management a higher priority. This has been pointed out over a long period of time, long before we knew anything about the close relations.
You’re not very familiar with lawyers, are you? 🙂
I’m not very familiar with them either, but I’m familiar with general rules related to different professions, without having any detailed insight.
Mr. Abdi knows perfectly well that this is his best chance to present the facts from his viewpoint, and to avoid someone starting to ask questions to the Mumbai Bar Association or whatever they call it.
Asking questions within the professional rules of conduct is something every lawyer should respond to in a proper manner, delivering the facts without hesitation (within his clients interests, but still the facts). He won’t “expose” his clients, but I’m sure he will clarify the situation.
We have a previous post here where I’m asking one lawyer about clients and interests when he posted something here. That lawyer didn’t act as a neutral advisor, so I choosed to ask him about neutrality. The repons was a prompt “I have a client, but I can’t reveal who it is, it will be in conflict with the professional rules”.
When a lawyer starts reading a blog, it’s usually because a client has asked him to do so. It may of course be related to personal interests too, but a lawyer should respond to questions about neutrality when he’s acting within his profession.
Ashok Bahirwani and Anjus concept is fool panelist that company is fighting and keep buying time so that more panelist dont complain.
If at all speakasia is allowed to start these same bahirwanis and crastos will not come into picture when speakasia will not pay survey income and will change business model which does not pay Rs 4000 monthly income.
The links of crasto to seven rings makes it clear either he is one of the senior most panelist or a member of seven rings who has earned crores and wants crime investigation to stop.
some days back a sr panelist of speakasia kamlesh patel member of powergroup replied on one to one facebook wall that nothing is going to happen. when user asked if 4000 rs pm income will not be guaranteed n business will change?
Kamlesh Patel replied 100 percent this will change and said u will only earn by selling products n there wont be survey incomes. and this business does not make everyone rich like earlier.
Someone read this post and copied and pasted it exactly on speakasian powers page and as expected the helpless powerful admins of the page deleted the post.
AISPA is workin for speakasia and not panelists.
if there is any doubt keep asking Ashok Bahirwani whether they and their lawyer will fight for panelist survey income and whether they will ensure survey income will be paid.
@Sameer
As I said before, panelists want (in this order)
a) their own money they put in
b) their money they feel they have earned (i.e. RPs)
c) more work (so they can earn more)
SAOL, however, wants to restart, with the premise that once they restart, they can offer more work (c) If they have to pay a) and b) they’ll do it, but their primary concern is c).
Or to restate the obvious, SAOL wants
c) to restart business / more work
a) to pay out only money put in (exit plan), but only if it helps accomplish c)
b) to pay out some RP (not all, as there’s NOT ENOUGH MONEY to do so), but only if it helps accomplish c)
What has AISPA done so far? What is THEIR priority?
To date, AISPA’s ONLY accomplishments are to file motions to stop investigations and pay off Khosla. Thus, it is OBVIOUS that their priority is c) restart SAOL, instead of a) or b).
Thus, AISPA CANNOT be representing panelists’ interests, despite it repeatedly claimed to.
Everyone is fit to write in against or favour of SAOL only. It seems this is a vast company & controversy never ends, it goes on year N year. It is interesting & creating history of marketing industry. 🙂
It is a huge case involving companies and participants on multiple CONTINENTS and well over a million victims.
However, your article is directing only one continent as INDIA. I don’t think million victims were there, only one KKhosla was claiming victims & too he received back his sum.
It looks like only court conclusions remain there to give judgment to the controversial survey company SpeakAsia.
Well, I don’t have any connection to keep controversy here, you guys are doing massive debate but conclusions of this company might be interesting. 😀
when saol was attacked by the media and the eow ,the panelists thought this was an unfair witch hunt.
when the company had written to the police commissioner offering complete cooperation in any investigation, where was the need to fly off to indore and other places in the dead of the night to arrest people?
the panelists, the educated middle class of india, decided to fight for their rights.
they formed an association ,organised themselves,and moved the courts.this is completely legal.
does aispa support the company?
YES YES YES.
time to get over it.
I thought they supported the panelists.
Bahirwani stated only a few weeks ago that whatever happens to the company was inconsequential, his exact words were ‘let them hang’ when referring to Speak Asia management.
Why not just come clean and state Speak Asia = AISPA and that they’ve been defacto management in India for some time now.
Usually in India, many Govt. officials use to involve with each and every scams, without their involvement their might be no scam. If Govt. officials started to act honestly their might be no scam in the country and also they would have stopped almost all the MLM scams of this country.
Speak Asia ran its business almost more than an year and when star news bursted away Speak Asia matter with some personal vengeance, Indirectly RBI put a stop for all the transactions of Speak Asia from all banks within India (indirectly asking all banks to stop handling Or don’t handle accounts of Speak Asia).
It took one long year for Govt. Agencies to stop all the activities of Speak Asia. Everyone knows, before SpeakAsia and after Speak Asia – there were many companies which participated (closed) and participating (still running its scam) as Money Circulation Or Recruitment Scams.
But, Investigating agencies keep their eyes closed (with some personal reasons) by not looking or analyzing or taking those matters of the companies. This is usual in India, of course all of us knows that so well.
Today, I read in TOI:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Paazee-scam-Senior-IPS-officer-denied-bail/articleshow/12764667.cms
It was a Forex trading company which had promised its members an exorbit (25-30-40% of) returns for their investments. It was more than Rs. 650 Crore scam by the company called Paazee (it might be more than that!).
Recently, Madras High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of senior IPS officer and the Inspector General Of Police Mr. Pramod Kumar, who’s charged with extorting Rs. 1.85 Crore from the main accused in the Rs. 650 Crore Pazee Forex Trading Scam.
An IPS officer, an Inspector General Of Police (IG), Superintendent Of Police (SP), many top level politicians involved in the scam.
Finally, shocking incident from this news is depositors have lost their lives and properties. Some of them have died broken hearted, while many others have committed suicide, said the CBI which is probing the case since April last.
Why can’t Speak Asia’s case can’t be given to CBI for finding out the real culprits behind the screen? Surely many Govt. officials and Govt. agencies would have been involved & will be trapped.
But, here atleast in this case the traceable money / the money which company is willing to give should be returned back to the investors as early as possible Or as quick as possible. It’s clearly understood that Govt. agencies purposefully playing the delaying tactics in Speak Asia case.
As many of them knows, in Supreme Court – Justice Dalveer Bhandari has said recently that the casual attitude of the Government in this issue was very disturbing as it was the issue of the money and livelihood of so many people.
He also has asked Additional Solicitor General Kitit N. Rawal to ensure that both the respondents should file their affidavit before the next hearing in Supreme Court.
Surely, “it was the issue of the money and livelihood of so many people”. This clearly shows that the Civil Writ Petition 383/2011 in the Supreme Court is concerned with the “Right to Livelihood” (of Article 21). Many people came to know about this matter in October, 2011 itself.
As it was rightly mentioned by M_Norway,
Regarding the Right to Intervention, all those 15-21 lakhs members involved were eligible to apply for Intervention Application (IA) in Supreme Court.
Will Supreme Court or Mediator of this case, accept Intervention Application (IA) and allows all 15-21 lakhs members or any Association / group headed by Navniit Khosla (with the total strength of 1-3 persons under him) or Ashok Bahirwani (with the total strength of few thousands under him) to sit in Mediation meeting or inside the court premises.
Already Solomon James, along with 114 panelists as “petitioner(s)” representing the case of WP (Civil) 383/2011 in Supreme Court Of India.
Is ‘Right to Intervention’ is more important than ‘Right to Livelihood’?
People were dying outside without getting back their money and without food and many of them (lakhs and lakhs) involved with the Company who came and joined the company for the purpose of earning money and for livelihood.
All of them have been stopped / blocked to get back their money by different Govt. agencies (with somebody’s backing). We can add those people in the category of Unemployed Or Underemployed Or whatever we want…! That is not the matter here, “Right to Livelihood” is the matter!
Come on, someone’s is blocking that here! Who’s it? Whom to blame? It’s none other than different Govt. agencies..!
It was rightly mentioned by M_Norway stating from the two important points what Lakshmi has described under Intervention Application (IA) topic:(I personally have added very few words along with Norway’s statements)
Bahirwani stated only a few weeks ago that whatever happens to the company was inconsequential, his exact words were ‘let them hang’ when referring to Speak Asia management-soapbox
YES. IF any agency can prove in court that saol is engaged in illegal business then not only bahirwani ALL the panelists will withdraw their support.
Why not just come clean and state Speak Asia = AISPA and that they’ve been defacto management in India for some time now.-soapbox
NO. the company has an experienced management team of over 70 people. they don’t need aispa to poke it’s nose in their workings. aispa has housewives and small business men in it’s committee. i’m sure the company would like to keep such untrained non corporate talent somewhat distant from it’s working!
In order for this to happen, investigations need to be carried out and finished.
Why are AISPA and Speak Asia wasting everyone’s time trying to stop investigations from being carried out into the company?
Most notably the Supreme Court case against the CID which Speak Asia appear to be deathly afraid of should it be allowed to resume.
Why are AISPA and Speak Asia wasting everyone’s time trying to stop investigations from being carried out into the company?-soapbox
you repeatedly forget that it is the court that has stayed the investigation. this is because the court was able to see that the investigation was frivolous and motivated.
if there had been any real strength in the investigations how could the court possibly STAY it? logic please.
Most notably the Supreme Court case against the CID which Speak Asia appear to be deathly afraid of should it be allowed to resume -soapbox
if i were you, i wouldn’t worry tooo much about this case.
Who said anything about staying the investigation? AISPA’s prayer is to quash FIRs believing this will stop investigations into the company is it not?
Why not? The CID are the ones who mentioned Interpol and what not. Speak Asia have let defacto management over at AISPA try to stop the EOW whilst focusing Phoenix Legal on the CID. That’s a strong indication as to whose investigation they are more worried about.
Speak Asia has already pumped how many thousands of dollars of panelists money into trying to stop their investigation now?
of course. the fir is based on falsehood and is motivated.
the investigations are aimed at not proving anything, but merely keeping the company’s head under water long enough to kill it off.
just because it’s the police, they should be left alone to play with the money and livelihoods of SO MANY people?
let the eow convince the supreme court what powerful evidence it has collected against saol in one whole year. let the supreme court decide the future course. as citizens we can only plead ,and trust our judiciary for fairness.
yeah yeah the cid mentioned interpol and what not -but what’s the reality on the ground ? no interpol ,no red corner notices ,no ED case ,no evidence, just a truck load of press reports.
What you or AISPA think of the FIR in inconsequential to this discussion. All that is irrelevant is that AISPA are trying to stop investigations into Speak Asia.
Then in the same breath we have clowns from AISPA declaring that they will stop supporting Speak Asia if an investigative agency brings a case against them.
How are agencies supposed to finish their investigations if AISPA and Speak Asia are wasting their time in court trying to stop said investigations from even taking place?
…and this is why most of your comments these days go straight into the spam bin.
All because of a court case filed by Speak Asia that appears to have effectively stopped the CID investigation until the court case is concluded. It’s not like the agencies dropped their investigations, Speak Asia is wasting everybody’s time trying to have them stopped and have been since they filed the Supreme Court case against the CID.
Business operations have been dead for a year, whatever money is left in India is frozen and Kumar and Kaur remain in hiding overseas. Thus the CID appear to be willing to let Speak Asia’s case play out.
Who loses out? The panelists.
Speak Asia could of course just drop the case and let the CID get on with their investigation… but that’s not in Manoj Kumar’s best interests.
As for the ‘but we need to stop the investigations to restart the business argument, alternatively if the agencies concluded their investigations and found nothing wrong, so too then can the business restart.
Of course AISPA and Speak Asia don’t want this to happen, as if what has already been discovered is anything to go by… it’d place the courts in the peculiar position of having to legalise ponzi schemes in India or ruling against them.
Manoj Kumar has already waged his bets on how that case would go, and so we have Speak Asia and AISPA wasting everybody’s time trying to get criminal investigations into Speak Asia stopped.
*SOME* panelists thought it was unfair witchhunt. Others rioted in the streets and burned SAOL banners and posters and demanded their money back.
Because the heads have already fled the country, perhaps? And others were quoted to have “gone into hiding, we can’t find him” later despite being out on bail?
A few “educated” panelists decided to fight and pretend to lead others, who, as you said earlier “need money to survive”.
Or perhaps you just can’t keep your own rhetoric consistent.
I will believe the self employment ratio plays a more important role?
I noticed this as a key difference when I checked some states in India for background information. The employment rate is only a small fraction of what we find in Europe and in the U.S., with many more people being self employed (and looking for different opportunities).
A younger population may also play a role here, but in Europe most participants in income opportunities are in their 40’ies, 50’ies or 60’ies age – what we call “established” (with money to invest).
Government officials participating may of course play a role, but I haven’t studied this factor. I know the problem exists, but I don’t think we should identify it as the main factor.
About Lakhsmi’s post:
I have identified it to have vital information, and also in which areas the information can be useful. But I don’t have the information about the case WRIT 383/2011 that is needed to identify a strategy, only the general “you’ll have to THINK differently” with a few examples.
People will first have to accept the basic idea “this case is about fundamental rights, so you’ll have to think differently” before you can add some details.
WRIT 3611
In Kkhosla’s case 3611, I would have accepted any results that could lead to the case being “closed”. Quashing of the FIR will actually be in his “favour” when it comes to his primary interests (the money). Any other results that can close the case will also be in his favour, like if the quashing is rejected. This case should have a higher priority than WRIT 383 for him.
WRIT 383
In Kkhosla’s involvement in WRIT 383/2011, blocking of REAL fundamental rights shouldn’t be in his interest. But some of the other claims about fundamental rights are highly questionable and should be contested. But this should have a lower priority than closing his other case.
INTERVENTION IN WRIT 383
When it comes to the right to intervention in WRIT 383, I will consider his “original rights” to be more useful than any “general rights”. WRIT 383 interfered with his case 3611, so he may have some special legal rights rather than the general “the Supreme Court has the power to make any person or organisation …”.
Intervention in this case is his own choice. I only identified a possible legal right to insight in this case, when it became clear that WRIT 383 caused delays in his case.
REPRESENTING OTHERS
This method will probably make it more difficult to have an effective and flexible strategy, and opponents can use this to create a situation with conflict of interest, making it imposible for him to make a good choice (or disqualify him from representing both himself and others).
SPECIAL VIEWPOINT
I’m not a lawyer, so all of this has been analysed from other viewpoints than laws. I will usually try to identify people’s real interests, with monetary interests having a higher rank than emotional interests – atleast when it comes to handling a case in court.
From my viewpoint, adding emotional motives will only make a case become more difficult to solve. This applies to both parties. Panelists wanting business restart as a main priority will only make payment become more difficult to solve. People wanting poorly specified “justice” as a main priority may also cause problems.
Business restart is poorly justified as a fundamental right. This is the most questionable point in the case, and should probably have been dropped or separated from the payment. Including this point in the case will mainly protect the interests of the management, and will possibly harm the interests of the average panelist. That’s why we are critical to AISPA’s role in this.
Speak Asia is not the problem. AISPA protecting Manoj Kumar’s interests is the main problem. Restart of Speak Asia isn’t his main motive, he tries to protect all the other businesses as his first and most important motive. Without these businesses being involved, he probably wouldn’t have cared about Speak Asia at all.
AISPA has too close relationships with Manoj Kumar, using the same lawyer as him. AISPA needs to come out in the open with these relations, and identify the real motives behind the association. Currently they are only fooling average panelists with misleading information.
I believe AISPA also will need to identify the official roles their committee members have in other related businesses. As an example, Melwyn Crasto was involved in Seven Rings, and he has also been listed as “area manager” or something similar in Speak Asia. This may make him disqualified in the role as a president in a member association – he simply isn’t independent enough to act in a role like this.
Advocate Abdi has received an official question asking for clarification. We won’t bother to send any questions to AISPA, because we consider the information from you to be “official enough”.
For a lawyer, it should always be considered to be official when someone asks questions about the professional set of rules he has to follow, and identifies the specific area of concern.
in fact speakasia is the only problem here . the panelists are in court ,only and only regarding the matters related to the payments and legality of saol. let us not digress into moral questions raised by abdico’s representation of other manoj kumar companies in the past. it is not a legal issue ,i can assure you of that.
also i strongly protest the baseless proofless allegations against our president melwyn crasto. saol is crasto’s first foray into the world of direct marketing. he is absolutely not an area manager of the company.
if someone mistakenly adds his name to a list of company officials ,will this one post be enough to tarnish crasto’s reputation ? if that post is believable to you , my post should be even more believable, since i have been writing here a long time now and am in direct contact with aispa.
also norway, i don’t think mr abdi is obliged or even interested, in replying to a question posed by an unknown person.
Except that the panelists are only involved in writ 383, and 115 panelists at that.
writ 383 is only for the distribution of payments to the 115 signed petitioners. Nothing else has has been considered.
The last public mention of Lahoti was an order asking to him to ascertain what was owed to the petitioners, that being the 115 signed petitioners. No further action regarding payments to anyone have been made in court.
And the legality of Speak Asia? Please, too has never been mentioned for consideration in the Supreme Court. I believe it was Abdi himself who stated the restart of business isn’t being considered in any current court case.
Legality of business models is not decided in civil court cases. It can only be worked out following the conclusion of investigations into the business model by those authorities responsible. So what’s happening in regards to that?
Speak Asia and its Indian defacto management over at AISPA are trying to stop said investigations. Stopping an investigation != the business model is legal.
But if you’ve got millions of dollars in Ponzi money I suppose you can hire a fair few lawyers to continue to try (and in the process waste everyone’s time in court).
Manoj Kumar wants to return to India, so why not continue to burn through panelists money to try and get off the hook.
Anybody stating otherwise is talking outta their arse unless they can back it up with proof.
(pretending you have documents stating otherwise but being unable to make them public or quote from them is not proof so don’t even bother with that tired approach).
since you heard that interview, how come you missed the part where mr abdi has said that the supreme court is moving at a record speed because of the large number of people involved ,or words to that effect?
is 115 panelists a large number of people in your dictionary?
so let those agencies file charges against the company and prove in court that the business is illegal.then they can shut saol down. but until then -lay off.
as for those agencies whose investigations have been stayed due to their own dishonesty -who can help them ? they should have been more careful and protected the public interest instead of targeting panelists.
Manoj Kumar wants to return to India, so why not continue to burn through panelists money to try and get off the hook-soapbox
of course manoj kumar wants to come back to india.his latest brainchild saol has the potential to make him a very rich man.
if he spends money to get his company back on it’s feet ,he’s doing the panelists also a huge favor ,because they get to earn continuously from his business idea.
Mr. Abdi knows perfectly well that the other option is to send the question to Mumbai Bar Association or whatever they call it. I was asking a very serious and official question, but he may of course choose to show little interest in it.
The question was mostly about AISPA, about whether they are part of the same group as the other clients – in the meaning of sharing similar interests. I’m interested in the facts here, not in his relation to clients.
WRIT 383/2011 isn’t a civil case, it’s about Fundamental Rights. It’s better if you adjust yourself to see the difference.
The differences:
Payment – a civil case would have been about payment, but in a Fundamental Rights case it’s about the RIGHT to payment, and about Government agencies blocking those rights. It isn’t about payment, but about Government violating Fundamental Rights.
Business restart – the same logics can be applied here too, Government agencies blocking the right to work. They will probably ignore criminal parts of the case because of the lower rank they have in laws (and because of jurisdiction).
The differences are highly important. Seeing it as Criminal or Civil case will make you miss the target, aiming at another target than the real one.
@anjali
I didn’t miss it. Having followed this scam for over a year now, I simply tune out when anyone from AISPeakAsia starts spewing the all too familiar rhetorical bullshit.
Nothing will be filed until the investigations are complete. Which brings us back to the point of Speak Asia and AISPA wasting everyone’s time trying to stop the investigations from going ahead in the first place.
…this would be one of those times I tune out.
Fair enough, but the fact remains that a court alone can’t establish the legality of a business model. There needs to be a third party to have conducted an investigation into it.
With Speak Asia and AISPA actively trying to stop these investigations, you’re left with the merry-go-round that exists today.
Also I’m hesitant to accept that the writ 383 case is dealing with anything other than money owed for tax and the 115 petitioner’s owed money until they state otherwise in an order. To date everything has been about the 115 petitioners money, with no mention of exit options, business restarts or the legality of Speak Asia.
This partly due to panelists, AISPA and senior officials unofficially extending the scope of the writ 383 case, solely because it’s in the Supreme Court.
By all means if it comes out in an order I’ll believe it, till then all they’re working out is what is owed to the 115 signed petitioners.
Melwyn Crasto was only used as an example. The main matter was about identifying concurrent conflict of interests related to different positions in a member association.
Melwyn Crasto popped up on a list for company officials containing 15-16 names, identified as “area managers” or something similar. This happened on speakasiaonline.mobi a few weeks ago, and I have made a couple of comments about it.
Usually, we can’t represent two different interests at the same time. People who are qualified will usually identify the areas where the different interests can be in conflict with each other, and identify the rules they will have to follow when conflicts is likely to happen. One of the rules is NOT accepting positions like this in the first place.
Melwyn Crasto appears to have been receiving payments from Speak Asia or related sources, after the payments stopped for ordinary panelists? He has even been held in judicial custody for this, for 55 days or so? I don’t have all the details, but I have watched the video “Melwyn Crasto being released on bail” a couple of times.
Fundamental Rights isn’t about the legality of a business model, it’s about the legality of actions from Government agencies.
Our normal way of thinking isn’t very useful here. Most people will identify the illegal business model as the most important factor, and identify the solutions in that order.
The Supreme Court CAN ignore the criminal parts, and they probably WILL ignore them too. As far as I can see, they’re not ALLOWED to evaluate them either, other than as a part of directions given to Government agencies.
Your current viewpoint is blocking you from discovering something important. Focus ONLY on Fundamental Rights, and block all the other ideas you have about “criminal business model”, and don’t let the old ideas interfere. Simply ignore the old ideas when they pops up.
The Supreme Court doesn’t have original jurisdiction in Civil/Criminal cases. They won’t handle these matters either, and they don’t have to WAIT for these matters to be handled in the lower courts. This means they will focus ONLY on the Fundamental Rights. You’ll need the same set of thinking, even if they are in conflict with your other ideas.
It has the potential to make him a poor man, too. Most of his other businesses has been involved in something in relation to SpeakAsia.
By the way, we’re glad you finally stated SpeakAsia to be HIS brainchild, not the brainchild of the Pal-brothers or some others.
The questions about Mr. Abdi representing different clients from the same “group” was related to AISPA’s role.
AISPA seems to clearly be more interested in the management than in ordinary panelists, and I can’t see the need for “yet another company supporter” represented in that case?
It will only be misleading if AISPA starts to claim they represents the interests of the members, and I will prefer to keep the case simple (less misleading instead of more).
I will consider livelihood first of all to relate to money, not to work. “The true nature” of the work will have to be evaluated, whether or not the work really qualifies as a Fundamental Right.
“People are getting paid for doing the work” isn’t enough. Only a minor percentage of the panelists have been paid more than they have invested, and the money has most likely derived for other people’s investments (rather than from real clients paying for the surveys).
Supporting the livelihood of the few on the expense of the many violates the whole idea of Fundamental Rights. These rights will have to be applied to the whole group of people involved, not to the individual members of the group.
If we really want to protect Fundamental Rights, we probably need to separate the real rights from all the made up claims about what people FEEL they have the right to. Trying to defend fake Fundamental Rights will only harm the real ones, and make people lose respect in such rights.
SpeakAsia hasn’t been able to SHOW their Fundamental Rights being genuine and real (show real clients), so I should probably ignore all the claims related to business restart.
The claims related to payment (or refunds) are genuine and real. I have never questioned these claims, and I identified the rights at a very early stage.
What Adbi said doesn’t change what’s on the petition: 115 names (and their advocates).
It has potential being used as a precedent when other panelists take action, but is otherwise meaningless until then (or SAOL volunteer to pay up, or EOW seize SAOL assets to pay up).
With AISPA corraling all panelists who may be contemplating suing SAOL on their own, and paying off Khosla, who already did so, it is clear that AISPA does NOT want panelists to take action, which only benefits SAOL, NOT the panelists.
There is no fundamental right to participate in a scam.
With no clients, the only income SAOL ever had was from the panelists. Thus, it is a Ponzi scheme, as alleged by EOW.
The fact that SOME derived income from it by participating in actions they BELIEVE to be legitimate actions does NOT change the fact that EOW assertion that SAOL is a Ponzi scheme.
This “so-called” fundamental right question will be pushed to the backburner UNTIL the primary issue resolved: is SAOL a Ponzi scheme.
Thus, it is actually in AISPA’s interest to resolve this question as soon as possible, so the fundamental rights of the panelists, as they claimed, can be asserted.
Yet AISPA has been doing everything to DELAY / IMPEDE the investigation.
Thus, it is clear that AISPA is NOT serving the interest of the panelists, despite its every claim to do so.
Their strategy is tell the court “let it restart, because the investigation is taking too much time”
Ah, the self-justifying circular argument. I like it.
You’re absolutely right.
Fundamental Rights IS the primary issue, and the ONLY issue. “Is SAOL a Ponzi scheme?” isn’t an issue at all in the Supreme Court.
You will understand it if you check the facts instead of what you believe is the facts, the facts about the individual rank order between laws in a hierarchy of laws, and the facts about the individual rank order between courts in a hierarchy of courts.
To make it easier:
The Constitution of India has a higher rank than the other laws.
The Supreme Court has a higher rank than the other courts.
The law with the higher rank doesn’t have to wait for the other laws, it can be executed completely independent from the other laws.
They don’t have to “test it” against other laws either, other laws than itself. “Test” was used in the meaning “Is this decision in conflict with other laws?”.
The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction (“first and final court”) is basically about Fundamental Rights. It doesn’t have any original jurisdiction in Civil or Criminal cases, so it won’t handle them either in WRIT 383/2011.
Isn’t there a fundamental right of a citizen to see laws enforced and citizens protected from scams?
I don’t see how you can rule on the fundamental rights issue of the writ without FIRST determining whether SAOL is a scam or not.
It is a logic loop, but then, SAOL is well known in involving logic loops.
In WRIT 383 / Solomon James, SAOL claimed they can pay if EOW will just leave them alone. So they forced the inclusion of EOW when it’s strictly a civil law dispute (involving money) between SAOL and the 115 panelists.
EOW of course, states that it has an ongoing investigation.
Therefore it all *does* hinge on EOW determining whether SAOL is a scam or not.
There is no doubt that there is a fundamental right of a citizen to earn his living… AS LONG AS HE IS NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS OR HELPING SOMEONE ELSE TO DO SO (with or without his knowledge).
By ignoring this “exception”, AISPA is trying to troll the waters and confuse the issue.
First of all , you all must wait for the decision of the Supreme Court of India whether Speak Asia is / was a Ponzi scheme or not.
If the decision goes in your favor ( in favor of Oz, K.Chang, M_Norway ) , its okay. The game of Speak Asia will be finished. No one will visit here further to ask anything or to discuss on the issue of Speak Asia with you all.
But remember one thing, that neither a single High court nor the Supreme Court of India has commented anything against the company Speak Asia till the date and that is the main anxiety with you all ( Oz, K.Chang, M_Norway )and ” ANXIETY IS THE CANKER OF HEART ” .
Have Patience for the final verdict of the Supreme Court of India regarding the company “Speak Asia”.
@Ravi — the question is… has the Supreme Court even been asked that particular question, and thus, to rule on it?
@K.Chang — Don’t you know what’s going on and How has the Supreme Court of India been intervening in the issue of Speak Asia ?
Do you read the Supreme Court’s orders, Don’t you? It looks very funny Chang.
Then you should have no problem telling which case you are referring to, and who are the parties involved.
I don’t know, but that right and other Fundamental Rights could have been used, if they were found in the Constitution.
“Equality before law” can be used if the payment is only related to the 115 petitioners. The rule is found in the same section of the Constitution, and has an equal importance. The Constitution has to be “tested” against itself, but not against laws with lower ranks.
When it comes to WRIT 383, stick to the plain logics about ranks between laws without adding your own ideas. The logics goes against how most of us are thinking, we are usually ranking the laws in order from Criminal and down to Civil.
You can ignore the statement about “the decision of the Supreme Court of India whether Speak Asia is / was a Ponzi scheme or not” from Ravi Shankar Mishra. He adds his own ideas.
“The true nature of something” is only something I have added, but Supreme Courts use a similar principle in some cases. There are some basic principles in law theories that can be applied, and be used in the interpretation of laws.
“Rank between laws” is an actual principle, and is used when you have different laws in conflict with each other.
Laws can be defined to be “written rules, derived from ethical principles”. It means they sometimes will have to be interpreted, rather than being applied as they are written.
Strange! All Indians are discussing in a positive way concerning SpeakAsia stuff. Others anonymous are digging disappointing hole. It looks; SpeakAsia will win the whole battle & celebrate their success soon. 🙂
I agree, the above statement is indeed strange. Personally I would have gone with horseshit… but strange works too.
Dont be so happy fake fernando. U will never know where things will go wrong for SpeakAsia.
Wait for restart, and then when panelist will not get their survey income and no guarantee of Rs 4000 pm survey income, then the real fun begans and new FIRs filled and we will see who wins.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has, in Civil writ Petition no. 383/11 permitted Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. to deposit in the registry of the Supreme Court a sum of USD 10 million for payment of dues of the 115 petitioners therein and maybe the interveners also who have applied for their payment in the mediation proceedings.
There have been suggestions from some investors in the fraudulent online survey scheme of Speak Asia that part of this money or the balance amount available after payment of dues of the 115 petitioners therein and maybe the interveners also will be used for payment of dues of taxes payable to the State and Central tax authorities. This seems to be very logical though normally payment of taxes takes precedence over payment of dues of investors.
This act of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed that Speak Asia can transfer money for payment of dues of the panelists and taxes. Section 420 IPC is compoundable and hence any investor who gets his FIR recorded may be paid by Speak Asia or any third party for compounding the offence and settling one aspect of the complaint. This will not extinguish the criminal proceedings but will greatly dilute the offence.
Hence this seems to be a better way to recover the dues of investment in a cost effective manner.
Not all of them, only those who have been most heavily involved in SpeakAsia. And some of them are probably PAID for being positive and for protecting the interests of the management.
You will find some “business will restart soooon” that are more than 6-8 months old. “Being positive” isn’t very valuable in itself. I’ll guess you will find many “positive statements” here where people only have been misleading themselves.
That situation sounds more like “chaos” than a solution you should WAIT for?
Changes in the business model will probably be civil claims rather than criminal. We don’t file FIR in a civil case.
The main problem is that we haven’t had access to the information needed, like the final report from Justice R.C. Lahoti. Access to correct information is absolutely needed in order to make qualified decisions.
Another problem is that people have very vague ideas for what they really want, described in a way that can be applied to the whole group.
@Navniit Kkhosla
Have you had access to documents from the case, like the interim report from Justice R.C. Lahoti or other documents?
Norway: i don’t have any intervention with this company, No matter what I have understood from your argument & i just have elaborated my opinion.
If matter is in court then nobody will predict what will happen next?. And court will give judgment or punish if they have violate law, cheated or anything else.
So, I will not worry either SpeakAsia would re-start or pack up fully his business transaction in future.
I can’t find the section where I should have suggested some specific relations between you and the company? My comment was related to “all Indians”, and to “the value of being positive”. Both ideas seems to be exaggerated in this case?
The ones who are most eager for a business restart belongs to the management, or have been heavily involved in other ways. They do neither represent the interests of the average panelist nor Indians in general.
“The value of being positive” will be too heavy to discuss, don’t you agree? It’s also very off-topic.
The other parts of the comment were related to Sameer’s comment.
I will prefer NOT to discuss “court strategy” or other related topics with you, because I know you haven’t read most of the other articles in this case. We will probably discuss different matters.
seeing that the supreme court hearing is scheduled for 30th
april ,here is the first news report mentioning saol.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/home-ministry-can-set-up-sfio-type-body-to-probe-fraud-by-mlm-companies/articleshow/12880330.cms
over the next two days ,i’m sure many other publications will suddenly remember to post articles about saol.
happy reading !
Meanwhile back in reality… the Speak Asia vs. the CID case is next going to be heard on the 2nd July 2012
From the order:
Oh… and as for the 30th April? The Solomon James case has been postponed until the 13th July 2012.
Proof concrete that whoever is running the “official company blog” has no idea. Time to come clean AISPA…
Read this brainwash post at speakasiaonlinemarketing.blogspot.in
The EoW has filed an AFFIDAVIT in the SC refusing to submit the data to the Mediator!!
Again for re-start of their “business”:
What the hell? Do not tell me that SAOL does not have a list of all its panelists with details of bank account, address, of RPs earned, etc. in their servers maintained in Singapore!
I would have thought it’s obvious by now that the “official blogspot website is just being run by someone over at AISPA…
I’m putting into the same basket as Bahirwani’s AISPA updated, in that their full of hollow rhetoric and unreliable.
In light of the new court dates, I also don’t think there’s any coincidence that both AISPA and the “company blog” were updated around the same time.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari has been voted by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council to sit on the International Court of Justice.
Hence the adjournment of CWP 383 of 2011 to 13.07.2012. Will have to cancel my tickets!
I love how in light of this Speak Asia have instructed AISPA to go around telling everyone that the court cases are not important now. Both of them put out their little updates before the court website updated, indicating they knew this was coming and are obviously working in cahootz to continue to subdue everyone.
They honestly expect people to believe they are going to get a permanent establishment and office while their are open investigations into them by the CID and EOW?
Good one guys…
After over six months of ‘everybody shutup and just pay attention to the Supreme Court case!’, telling everyone to forget about the cases for now and just swallow that the company will magically restart without court clearance is hilarious.
Good to see that AISPA are ready to go with another distraction to keep people’s minds off the obvious… hiding behind a Red Cross partnered blood drive, really?
In other news, Manoj Kumar and Harendar Kaur are still at large sipping Margaritas made from freshly squeezed panelist tears.
That’s the reason because they started that “stop investigating us” case
And until that investigation is concluded, via the courts or natural process suggesting Speak Asia are going to formally set up shop in India and continue business as normal is hilarious.
The AP high court case is also postponed to 4-6-2012.
Not having much quashing these investigations are they.
On the other hand I suppose the agencies in the meantime are tied up with this rubbish instead of just getting on with it too.
And every week more of panelists’ money goes toward paying Abdi or Phoenix Legal…
In the meantime Kumar and Bahirwani are coming up with blood drives and whatever else they can think of to distract everyone.
June/July is still a ways off from mid-May, I wonder what they’ll come up with after the blood drive.
And TVI Express donated to the poor in Indonesia. So what? It’s still a scam.
http://lifestyle.okezone.com/read/2011/04/26/29/450259/gelar-malam-amal-indotviexpress-salurkan-usd10-ribu
(note: link in Indonesian, use Google translate)
And merely a few months later, their business license is revoked.
http://kschang.blogspot.com/2011/08/newsflash-pt-tvi-express-indonesia.html
I had invested Rs 33000/- (Rs 11000*3) in Speak Asia, however was not paid a single panny till all this scam came out.
Further, could not lodge any individual complaint with any authority nor part within any other lodge complaint.
Please suggest what best should be done as of now also please share current status of case against Speak Asia.
Probably want to get in touch with Mumbai police.
As I understand it basic gist is nothing much has changed since Kumar fled India and Kaur transferred over a hundred million out of India.
Hello give me my money back with compounded.
Speak Asia was a Ponzi scheme. Your money is long gone.
Making demands over the internet a decade after it collapsed isn’t going to magically get it back.