Speak Asia claim 94,334 panelists want OUT. Source?
Whilst Speak Asia, 115 panelists and former Justice RC Lahoti discuss in secret how best to carve up the 50 crore Speak Asia has deposited amongst the 115 signed writ 383 petitioners, whoever runs Speak Asia Online Marketing has in the meantime put out a press release regarding its exit option.
Launched last year in October, the Speak Asia exit option was seen to be some sort of joke rather than a serious attempt to record any relevant information.
Because for starters the exit option form merely collects data and itself does nothing to verify it. The information entered into the form is not verified and you can enter any information into the fields, click submit and have the website accept your application.
Speak Asia themselves note
Your details will be verified with the company’s database and a confirmation mail will be sent to you. This is subject to gaining access to the company’s servers from EOW Mumbai.
At the time of publication the EOW haven’t handed over access to the website, yet that didn’t stop Speak Asia today from stating that
A total of 94,334 panelists decided to exercise this option (this is less than 7% of our entire universe of Speak Asians.)
Without verification, where are they pulling the 94,334 figure from? And given that in reality there is no verification (anyone can enter anybody’s details if they are known to them), further still how can this exit option process be remotely seen as secure and accurate?
The mind boggles.
Regarding the statement that only 7% of Speak Asia’s panelists have opted for the exit option, that in itself is no surprise.
Considering the exit options:
- members who earnt 0 RPs are entitled to a full membership refund
- members who earnt less than their membership fee in RPs (220-240) are entitled to a refund of their membership minus the difference in RPs they earnt
- members who earnt more than their membership fee in RPs are entitled to nothing
Is it any surprise that when released, most people thought it was a joke?
Forget the massive recruitment commissions Speak Asia were paying out, even just doing surveys entitled members to 20 RPs a week…. meaning that in roughly 3 months (12 weeks) by doing nothing more than filling out fake surveys panelists would be entitled to nothing via the exit option.
With the bulk of members ineligible for payments… is it any wonder that (questionably) only 7% of panelists have opted in for it?
Without any sort of verification I’d peg that percentage much, much lower than 7%… and not out of any misguided loyalty or belief in the legality of Ponzi schemes – merely because most of Speak Asia’s panelists are excluded by default from opting for the exit option.
Pretty much the only members even eligible for the exit option are those who joined in the last three months of business (March to May of 2011) and failed to generate at least 220-240 RPs.
The EOW have previously released the figure in RPs owing to all panelists at 6.1 billion (30,000 crore rupees converted to USD with 1 RP equal to 1 RP).
With 1.2 million reported panelists, that’s a staggering 5083 RPs average per panelist, far above the 220-240 maximum to qualify for the exit option. Now obviously in reality the RPs are going to be spread heavily skewed towards those who recruited the most but it gives you an idea of what Speak Asia is trying to weasel out of paying here.
What’s stopping Speak Asia from just depositing 30,000 cr to pay out the entire RP balance owing and if the business is legit, pick up from where they left off?
I hope Lahoti has his eyes wide open because if the press release put out today is true, it appears Speak Asia is yet again trying to pull a fast one…
Just one question: considering that SpeakAsia took 400 million USD in membership fees and owes 6 billion USD, when some panelists say “we want our money back”, are they talking about the 400 million or about the 6 billion??
Those that have recruited really mean ‘give us our RPs’.
Those that haven’t mean ‘let the business restart so we too can recruit and earn huge commissions’.
Meanwhile management and senior panelists run around convincing people that the only way either will happen is if the ponzi is allowed to restart.
Can anybody have idea on SpeakAsia’s claim on the patent “precision marketing tool”? If you know it provide a link for that patent.
I think Bahirwani just gave the game away:
AISPA aren’t obviously going to do this for free – so the only logical conclusion is they are an extension of Speak Asia management, entirely funded by the company. Most likely they always have been.
Perfectly explains Melwyn Crasto’s kickbacks from Speak Asia that Anju so vehemiently denied were direct payments from the company for running AISPA.
Well, no wonder they guys go around accusing everyone else of being ‘paid agents’ and ‘the enemy’… they’ve been on the company bankroll all along. Oh, and still think AISPA have anyone but Speak Asia’s own interests at heart?
They can’t bite the hand that feeds them.
As for who Speak Asia’s corporate marketing team are, one and the same. With forged signatures on “company” press releases and Bahirwani’s revelations above – that much is obvious.
Oh, and still think they’re “just panelists”?
According to Ashok Bharwani’s post of March 12, 2012 at AISPA
The above means that the Rs50 crores deposited in the SC by SAOL may not be the only demand put forth by the Hon’ble Mediator, Retd. Justice R.C. Lahoto. More is yet to come.
That could only mean that EoW is doing a lot of back staging work in its meetings with the mediator that a lot of many more crores needs to be demanded to cover at least the membership fees of all the 12.5 lakh panelists around at least Rs1375 crores excluding the demand of other departmental authorities.
Time to rejoice AISPA panelists! At least you will first get your membership fees back if not the reward points before SAOL can ever dream of moving into gear 2 of its new Business Model of attempting to market its YUG (Yuck!) products.
And that too after it has been cleared of money laundering charges, Ponzi namesake, and getting approval from RoC not to say anything of any bank wanting to touch it.
I believe they are fooling people, and that the first payment is related to return of subscription fee – because the e-zine hasn’t been delivered since May 2011.
The second paragraph under point a in the WRIT 383/2011
Refund of subscription fee is relatively uncomplicated, and each and every panelist has nearly similar rights here. This point shouldn’t need any Exit-option.
Payment for Reward Points will be far more complicated, and may potentially violate Fundamental Rights (equality before law).
They may have added something during the mediations, but I don’t believe a mediator will agree in the current Exit-conditions (unless he has been heavily misled). I can’t see why a mediator should handle anything related to Speak Asia’s business model, either.
Bahirwani has lots of symptoms for not being in contact with the real world, if you read page 2 of his update. 🙂
“Feeling elevated and light, joyus and happy, enveloped by love, feeling the love and affection from 12.5 lakh panelists, etc.”.
Senior Panelists are claiming that Navniit Khosla was refused entry into the mediation process yesterday.
Wasn’t it just claimed to be argued in the quashing of Kkhosla’s FIR that he should just come along to the Supreme Court mediation meeting?
If I’m understanding correctly, well played Kkhosla. He can now return to the Mumbai High Court and simply tell them he was refused entry.
That ought to confirm that the mediation meeting is for the signed 115 panelists and them alone.
Of course none of this information has been confirmed so the accuracy of it is questionable. On one hand you have senior panelists releasing information like this but in the same breath also stating they can’t say anything more because it’s a closed door process.
Quite obviously this is horseshit and they are just picking and choosing to release whatever information they can spin in a positive manner. Oh well, back to the court cases – at least their orders are reliable and not full of crafted nonsense.
Wasn’t it just claimed to be argued in the quashing of Kkhosla’s FIR that he should just come along to the Supreme Court mediation meeting?-soapbox
any panelist or even a respondent in the matter who wants to be part of the mediation process has to first impleade themselves into the writ 383.
it is not enough to file an intervention application. the said application has to be heard by the supreme court and approved by it. even aispa has filed an intervention application but we have’nt yet asked for it to be mentioned in court.when we’re good and ready we can ask for the application to be heard and if approved, aispa will become a party to the mediation process.
when aispa had withdrawn it’s PIL in the mumbai high court under the instructions of the court to ‘go to the mediation process’ that did not mean aispa could crash into the mediation meeting.due process of law has to be followed.
who is the eow to first say pay all outstanding RP’s and now say pay all subscription money ? justice lahoti has to decide the amount payable, he is the mediator not the eow.
the exit option was explained to the mumbai high court and the bench found it completely satisfactory .
nobody can allay norways fears since he has the propensity of thinking himself into knots.
Since the Supreme Court is in Dehli, it wouldn’t have been very practical for him either, if he had to participate in meetings.
The WRIT 383/2011 interferes with his case WRIT 3611/2011, but he hasn’t any interests in the mediation other than a need for insight, and a possible need for adding some information.
“Right of Information” means getting copy of the documents related to the case. It’s not necessary with all documents either, but some documents could be useful. One of them is the temporary report from the Lahoti Committee. A list of documents could also be useful, to see if something has been added to the case.
Right of Information is for Indian citizens only. Some of the answers can be found here (forums with annoying popups):
RTI-officers, Supreme Court:
I haven’t found any information about on going cases in a court. Right of Information applies only to public documents, and I don’t think a case in progress is public.
“who is the eow to first say pay all outstanding RP’s and now say pay all subscription money ? justice lahoti has to decide the amount payable, he is the mediator not the eow.”
Now, now Anjali/Anju/Ms/Mrs Baharwani there is no reason to get cheesed up. I have not stated that EoW is demanding anything. They are in discussion with the Mediator and not you or your pop. After all the Mediator is going to trust a governmental investigative authority rather than a bunch of hallucinators.
M_Norway’s mention of the prayer makes the inside of 383/2011 all the more interesting. Thanks M_Norway for updating me on the same and also thanks for putting Anjali/Anju/etc’s brainwashing into knots. Other than here or at AISPA’s site the Exit Option was never mentioned in any court of law as courts are not chat forums to fling irrelevant matters.
It seems to me that Rs50 crores was not the demand of the mediator at all. Trying to win goodwill of the SC and authorities and fool the panelists and public, SAOL has put forth the amount in the SC. The demand from the mediator is yet to come as stated by your pop/husband at his AISPA site.
I’m familiar with legal proceedings, formal agreements in business and other related stuff, including the hierarchy in organisations and the right to make decisions.
The official Exit Policy has points that is questionable and unclear, and so far no officials have been able to clarify anything. Ashok Bahirwani is not an official for Speak Asia or Haren Ventures, and he also stated this in the disclaimer. He is not an official for the Supreme Court either.
If they want to reduce confusion among the panelists, they first have to follow a correct procedure, meaning official statements from someone who has the right to make official statements. Ashok Bahirwani or any other in AISPA doesn’t have this right.
If they make some agreements in the Lahoti Committee, Justice Lahoti himself will have to release some information if he is allowed to do so. If he isn’t allowed to do so, the Supreme Court will have to release the correct information.
Ashok Bahirwani have no rights to make statements on behalf of the Lahoti Committee or the Supreme Court as far as I know, so people should simply ignore statements from him unless the information is verified by official sources.
If Justice Lahoti needs some information, like the number of panelists wanting to Exit, then he first will have to release the official statements where he asks for this information. Since I am able to identify a correct procedure, there shouldn’t be any problem for him to identify a correct procedure either.
Don’t you agree in this?
if people can be bothered to read carefully ,they would have read at the company blog spot that the 50 crores has been deposited voluntarily by the company to show it’s seriousness about paying exit optioners.
it’s obvious to even the feeble minded that there is NO WAY the mediator could have given any figure until now as the exit option process is on till march 30 th.
Other than here or at AISPA’s site the Exit Option was never mentioned in any court of law as courts are not chat forums to fling irrelevant matters-juta
the exit option has been mentioned in the companies blog spot and also had a detailed mention in aispa writ 3611 when justice lahoti’s interim orders were read out and submitted to the court and the exit policy was clearly mentioned in them.
WHERE has bahirwani EVER SAID he was speaking on behalf of the lahoti committee the supreme court or even the company?
he is the secretary of the panelist association please do not confer some godlike stature to him how much ever your ‘love and affection ‘ for him may be elevating you into ‘lightness and joyousness’.
it is totally upto the panelists to follow aispa updates or not. read if you want to, believe if you want to.
i agree completely. wait for it.
Like I said, if AISPA and Speak Asia want people to believe in the Exit Policy, they will have to release the official orders or provide links for where they can be found. “Official orders” should of course be from the Supreme Court or Justice R.C. Lahoti, not from any AISPA member.
Or they should drop the whole procedure if they can’t get any official verifications from the Supreme Court or R.C. Lahoti, a document where this procedure is ordered. They should do so before someone starts to ask difficult questions to the Supreme Court about this procedure, or starts to ask questions to EOW about it.
The deadline for the Exit option is 31. March 2012 (16-17 days ahead). This means someone will have to start asking official questions within a couple of days, to be able to analyse the answers and be able to share the information within the next week. A friendly advise here is to pull the Exit option offline ASAP if they can’t get it confirmed by the Supreme Court.
By the way, Bahirwani’s “state of mind” didn’t look very sound in his last update, 12.03.2012, in all the emotional stuff near the end. I have evaluated this from a neutral viewpoint, and partly based on experience with other people I have met. The update made him look very unstable.
a spiritual state of mind can never mean instability, but quite the opposite.
we indians are very comfortable, both with our emotionality and our spirituality.
They were ordered to deposit it on account it was the amount owed to the petitioners.
As per the court orders (6th February and 23rd February 2012),
There has been no public acknowledgement of exit options or amounts owing to any other panelists by the Supreme Court.
Your family might be able to publish whatever claptrap they want on the AISPA website, but please don’t try to pass off your nonsense here when court orders clearly state otherwise. You’re treading on increasingly thin ice credibility wise.
WRIT 3210/2011 and WRIT 3211/2011:
Last date: 14.03.2012 (today)
Next date: 11.04.2012
Status has been changed back to Pre-Admission (instead of for final disposal at hearing).
They haven’t posted any order yet.
It seems like the outcome of each and every case is dependant on other cases.
as predicted ,with time, ALL matters will accumulate in the supreme court court, which has been our aspiration ,from the day the supreme court ordered a mediation settlement to the saol issue.
norway, your mention of the above cases have also been put in pending actions, dependent on the lahoti committee meetings.
how can lower courts give orders in cases which are pending before a mediation effort?
tommorow , aispa writ 3611 is at NO.1 on the supplementary list.
imagine my heebie jeebies and empathise.
Or that the courts just aren’t interested in hearing about Speak Asia’s silly cases.
The defamation case against Laxman was rejected, I suppose you’re going to tell us that’s heading for the Supreme Court too?
Here’s to more delays from today’s case. Bajpai and Mehrotra’s ‘please stop investigating us’ case is also scheduled today in the AP court.
They can’t, the Fundamental Rights part of the case has to be handled first. This is the only pending part of the cases that prevents the lower courts from handling something, not the individual rank between the courts.
You are also misinterpreting the rights of the mediation process? Since it was ordered by the Supreme Court, the mediation process has a lower rank. It will have to have its conclusions confirmed by the Supreme Court. A mediation process doesn’t have any power of its own, other than what has been given to it by the Supreme Court. The outcome of the mediation process can be contested in the Supreme Court.
Both the Supreme Court and the mediation process will have to obey rules in the Constitution of India, the law that has given the Supreme Court its power. They will also have to obey international agreements signed by the Government, like some international human rights.
In the long term, we can boil it down to whether or not it is legitime for a business to have illegal stages, run a Ponzi scheme for a year and defend it by “We had a plan to make it legitime and legal as soon as possible”. We can also boil it down to whether or not doing fake surveys and paying for the right to do them is a Fundamental Right.
I have boiled other parts of this down to the need for real clients to pay for the surveys, or else doing the surveys will be meaningless.
All in all, Speak Asia has a very weak case, with lots of logical errors. The case will probably fall apart if someone adds the right action here.
I joined Speak Asia on May 11 last year..I did’nt got a single penny. Am totally confused whether we will get our principle money back? if yes when?
And the company official should know that they are not doing any favor to us we want our money….
You’re right, the situation is very confusing. And it needs to be corrected soon.
As a general rule, don’t sign any agreements if the conditions are unclear and can be used to cheat you – unless you are willing to accept the risk.
The Exit Policy isn’t “official”, in the meaning of it hasn’t been confirmed by the correct authority. It has never been mentioned in any order from the Supreme Court, or in any official statements from Justice R.C. Lahoti. These are the only “officials” who can make the Exit Policy become official.
Statements from Ashok Bahirwani, Aman Azad or any other senior panelist isn’t worth much. They don’t have the right authority to promise anything. Speak Asia doesn’t have the right authority either, in making the Exit Policy become an “official” part of the payment process.
A bad sign is that senior panelists have tried to solve this situation by using wrong methods. They will need an official statement from the Supreme Court or Justice Lahoti to make the Exit Policy become more trustworthy. Instead they have tried to use their own fake authority to explain it, and have added pressure on people by setting a deadline. A skilled and trustworthy person would have used better methods than that.
If the Exit Policy really is a vital part of the payment process ordered by the court, then it shouldn’t be any problem for Ashok Bahirwani or others to get an official statement from the Supreme Court or Justice Lahoti. Their advocates have participated in the meetings and in the court, and it should be easy to ask for an official statement.
All in all, I consider the Exit option to be fake. They haven’t been able to solve the confusion related to it, a problem very easy to solve.
There is a news spreading all around that Mr. Khosla is going to withdraw the case against speak asia and he has requested the court and given an application in Mumbai High Court for that.
what is the reality behind that and how do you all think about that ? Why did Khosla turn his mind suddnely ?
It looks something fishy here. As far as I think, the game is speak asia is going to take a new turn. I’m totally confused now. Now, it’s your turn to explain each and every thing.
News is trickling in that Navniit Kkhosla has moved an application to withdraw the case filed against SAOL. Can somebody please throw a light on this..
on the 4th / 5 th of march 2012, navnit khosla filed his affidavit in reply to aispa writ 3611, in which he stated that if he received his subscription amount, his FIR would be satisfied and he would be pleased to withdraw his complaint.
today in the mumbai high court, he personally informed the bench that he had received his money and would like to withdraw his FIR. the court has taken his statement on record.
as of now ,i have no further details including the next date of hearing.
…who suggested the refund?
In any case, good thing you don’t need FIRs to investigate companies. If I was the EOW I’d wait to see how the Supreme Court action plays out too. It’s not like Speak Asia’s panelists are recruiting any new members and effectively the company has been dead for nearly a year.
I’ll wait till the 3611 order is published (or Kkhosla leaves a comment here) before commenting furhter. Although I suspect as before it won’t be long before there’s a one-sided half-story out on the AISPA website.
khosla suggested the refund in his affidavit.
without the FIR which includes cognizable offences of cheating and conspiracy ,the eow will be left investigating an alleged money circulation scheme which is a non cognizable offence which is instantly bailable.
under this act, which has little teeth, i wonder if the supreme court will condone eow’s high handedness in taking control over the servers of the company.
anyway this is too much good news to digest all at once, let’s wait for our lawyers to explain all the ramifications and then of course i’ll share.
Seriously Anju, how looney tunes do you have to be to suggest it’s impossible to know if a business is a money circulation scheme?
Also why am I reading that Speak Asia didn’t pay Kkhosla, but rather AISPA and
Ashok Bahirwanisome mumbai panelists did?
Re. the EOW, if I was them I’d sit back, let the Supreme Court petition wrap up (according to the latest order they already consider the payment matter disposed) and then lodge the criminal proceedings.
Navniit Khosla Has Finally submitted the affidavit to withdraw the case and complaint in Mumbai High Court after Receiving his money back.
Some of The Mumbai Panelists with Help of AISPA have managed to Pay back An outstanding amount to Mr. Navniit Khosla and finally he admitted to withdraw the complaint against Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd.
He has Also Given one More Affidavit stating that he received his money back and now settled and further he has no more complaints with Company.
@Oz: SpeakAsia cannot pay or do anything unless they have given the authorization to do so. Since, their matter of getting into India is still in the court.
They cannot pay through Cash, since it would go into Hawala.
They cannot pay through Bank, since any bank in India wouldnt authorize the transaction as per RBI instructions.
Please understand the most simple concept of business.
Few Mumbai Panelist and the AISPA went a step ahead to get this matter solved, so then we can get the business started asap.
Dear OZ, on the one hand,AISPA writ petition in Bombay High Court (Criminal) 3611/2011 has been fixed for the hearing and on the other hand Mr. Khosla withdraws his case against the speak asia. Both the things happen on the same date (15 March 2012). Is there any correlation between ?
As far as I think, He has been brainwashed by Bahirwani very tactfully and intelligently for that. Your opinion OZ.
Really… Bahirwani and friends are going to try and buy Speak Asia out of this mess? Good thing criminal liability didn’t pay a subscription fee then.
The AISPA writ was to quash the FIR. They are related matters.
As to why he did it, who knows. I guess he figured getting his money back was realistically as good as it was going to get, even if it came from Bahirwani and friends and not Speak Asia itself.
In any case, that’s something Kkhosla himself has to answer. I know as much as you guys.
@Oz: Its not all about just getting SpeakAsia getting out of this mess, but what about the Panelists.
Its more complicated than seen, and to fight for the rights against all odds, is something to look at.
Just AISPA and Ashok Bahirwani is not what we can see. They are ones who projected in the media, but they are projected as the predecessor for all the Registered Panelists.
don’t ask me ask the eow.
for over nine months now all they’ve done in any court is use ‘time wasting tactics’. not once have they said what proof they have that saol is a money circulation scheme.
saol is not a party in writ 3611.
aispa has not yet been reinstated as petitioner no 1 in the said writ, so could not pay .
as this offer was unmissable, the individual petitioners castro and bahirwani collected funds from panelists mainly in mumbai and paid off khosla.
in the last one week a sustained telephonic campaign has been run collecting money from panelists to pay khosla. nobody wanted to miss this chance.
even we want the eow to sit back until the mediation proceedings are over .after that they can investigate saol from every angle and the company will fully cooperate.
Oh dear. I certainly hope they didn’t run around promising people business restarts and other such nonsense.
Join AISPA and bankroll the Speak Asia recovery fund… gee panelists must be signing up in droves.
Smart move of him. Or a smart move of both of them, KKhosla and Speak Asia, since he would have continued to be a major problem for Speak Asia’s management.
To settle a case outside court is often cheaper than to continue to fight in court, if we look at the “personal costs” and not only the economical. Many fights in court is simply not worth it.
He would have become a worse problem if the Supreme Court had allowed him access to and insight into the mediation process, so Speak Asia has avoided a potential danger here.
All in all, both parties should feel satisfied if they have been able to settle the case.
I’ll guess he was able to identify his real interests, protecting his economical interests rather than fighting in court, in a case where he has few other interests than getting his money back and be finished with the case.
A settlement was the best solution he could get. He wouldn’t have been able to get a better result if he had continued to fight in court.
We have tried to analyse different interests in some of the older posts, but I’ll guess he has analysed this topic on his own.
Oz : It seems you are getting Awed by the way we have been picking things up and getting all the pieces of puzzle fall through in right slots.
Where there is a will , there is a Way
Truth always prevail.
These two evergreen idioms are perfectly fit for the current situation.
Try nonplussed with a dash of boredom. I review business models and write about MLM, I don’t have time to waste with every little development, especially when not much comes of it. Panelists will run around like it’s Christmas and well… then we’re back to square one. Speak Asia’s management are still in hiding and a crimninal case has yet to be been registered against it.
The onus is on the Indian authorities now, either prosecute the largest scam India has ever seen or let those repsonsible get away with it. Guess we’ll see what they decide to do after the senior panelists are done making sure they get something in the 383 case.
When something interesting happens perhaps I’ll regain interest in the Speak Asia case.
Otherwise like I said earlier, the story is dead with Speak Asia coming up to their one year anniversary after being shut down.
I appreciate that the above doesn’t neccessarily fit in with the manufactured narrative of global conspiracies, paid agents, wars between ‘us and them’ and what not. But it is what it is. There’s always something else to write about in the MLM industry niche.
If you’re wondering about my opinion, settling the Kkhosla case was a smart move from both parties.
Navniit Kkhosla didn’t have many other interests in his case, other than being finished with it and protecting his own interests. A settlement should be a very good solution for him, instead of escalating his efforts. I would have accepted a similar solution.
I’ll believe it was a good solution for Speak Asia too, since it reduced some unknown risks. Navniit Kkhosla was the one person that possibly could have had legal rights to get insight into the case documents in the mediation process and WRIT 383/2011, since this case interfered with his case WRIT 3611.
The other respondent in WRIT 3611 (EOW) was automatically added as a party in WRIT 383, so he could possibly have claimed similar rights. He didn’t have any real interests in WRIT 383/2011, other than that this case interfered with his case.
As far as I can see, a settlement was a smart move for both parties, and both parties should feel satisfied by having fixed a problem before it became too serious. In general, it’s also better when people find solutions on their own.
I’m satisfied with this outcome, because it was very difficult to calculate which information that could possibly harm his interests, and which information that could be safe for him to use. It makes it very difficult if you’ll have to calculate different interests instead of just analysing the information.
@ Norway : I have started liking your statements of late. Your statements are very near to ground realty and kudos for your efforts.
read this from your favorite most trusted mouthpiece ,the indian media
Panelists paying people off doesn’t affect the criminal liability of the business model. Nor does it change the fact that ponzi/pyramid hybrid schemes are unsustainable.
It’s a shame there are those gullible enough out there willing to effectively pump even more money into this scam.
you dint read the part about how the mediator appointed by the SC is calculating the amount payable to people who want to ‘EXIT’ from the company.
you said till date there has been no mention of the exit policy on any public forum. here it is. since it’s the media YOU have to believe it finally.
of course it does .the quashed FIR will reduce criminal
liability greatly as i’ve explained several times before.
and if AMWAY can be sustainable with it’s luxury product range then SAOL will definitely succeed with it’s
“necessities” product range.
enjoy bahirwani’s update.
Dear Soap, seems u r disturbed by this news. And as far as the criminal liability is concerned, the law will take care of it. I think you would also be aware that no body..no body can escape ever from the law.
So please be patient and slowly but gradually everything would come out in open COS cloudy sky doesnt mean that SUN is dead…may be he’s just taking a nap..Truth will prevail..never doubt it..
How is that even possible when the exit option list isn’t even verified? The article states the verification will be complete by the 31st March, not likely given that anyone can punch any details into the so-called Speak Asia exit form and the system will accept it.
To date nothing has been done to authenticate the list, and claiming it’s being currently verified doesn’t add up. Verified against what?
Look, at the end of the day we all know recruitment driven models aren’t sustainable. Whether India wants to legalise them is irrelevant to this fact.
If they do, they’re opening themselves up to a world of trouble as even more professional scamsters will flock to set up shop in India.
Except that’s not what most of Speak Asia’s panelists signed on for, they signed on to participate in a ponzi/pyramid scheme hybrid and earn ludicrous recruitment commissions…
Most of the people hanging on are clutching to the hope they’ll still earn the masses of recruitment commissions they generated in RPs. Not gunna happen unless Bahirwani and AISPA want to pay them all out.
Anjali..soap here has a very valid point. But one thing i am sure now that at last soap has accepted that u can not rely fully on media…all the best soap
I think SAOL and AISPA is hoping that EOW would give up the criminal case once the civil cases are settled. While we are not privy to what EOW is thinking, except what they choose to tell the media, based on what they have released thus far, I rate the chances of EOW giving up on prosecuting SAOL (and AISPA) as highly unlikely.
So why does SAOL / AISPA continue to settle civil cases by paying off people?
Anjali, why do you use unofficial sources, when official sources are highly needed?
If the Exit Policy really is an important part of the mediation process, then it shouldn’t be any problem getting it verified by the right authority?
Ask Bahirwani to call Phoenix Legal and explain the problem?
“Some people have problems accepting the Exit Policy as an official part of the mediation process before Justice R.C. Lahoti. Can you ask Justice Lahoti or the Supreme Court to verify the Exit Policy publicly, as soon as possible?”
It’s better if he call Phoenix Legal instead of sending an e-mail, since Bahirwani seems to be forced into some “spiritual state of mind” whenever he writes something. Too much contact with antaratma (“the inner soul”) doesn’t exactly improve his communication skills.
I can of course send an e-mail to the Supreme Court and ask myself, but this shouldn’t really be needed. It may also potentially be a major problem for someone if the Exit Policy isn’t a part of the process, and it may also be a problem for the handling of the case in court.
Navniit Kkhosla made an offer to be finished with his case (I’ll guess), and to get his money returned. The other option would have been to escalate his efforts, by intervening in WRIT 383/2011 and the mediation process (travelling to Dehli for each meeting).
He wouldn’t have won anything by a continued fight in court, but he could potentially have created alot of trouble for the opponent.
For Speak Asia, AISPA etc. he was an unknown risk, so an offer about settlement must have been highly welcomed by them.
Both parties had a potentially risk of loosing alot if they hadn’t settled the case, so both parties have made a wise decision – as far as I can see. The risk of loosing alot has also been increasing during the last few weeks for both of them.
Hey chang..stop imagining things. None CAN hopE that EOW wld give up its investigation. There is a process and it is meant to be followed. EOW has a responsibility and a job to do. But everything has to be done with in the legal boundaries. I suggest u to be practical.
Very true…none gets befitted by being arrogant. Application of mind is must and i think the parties involved hv understood this at last.
@Lee, you didn’t read “Anju” or Anjuli’s comment earlier, when I asked the same question. Anju herself (whoever she is) stated that there’s nothing to stop SAOL from restarting if all the lawsuits are settled.
There is no point in discussing the exit policy unless Hon. Mediator comes up with the exact liability of the company and court decides on the future course of action.
I cant predict future but yes if every things gets settled in favor of company , thn anju may get happy…But i still maintain that nothing illegal escapes from the land of the law.
Most of the time they have seemed to be unable to detect and solve the real problem, whatever the real problem has been from time to time. Solutions have only been temporarily, with no real and lasting effect.
Check all the details to see what I mean?
* A list of fake clients didn’t really solve anything, but it worked as a temporary solution.
* recruiting people and selling lots of panels hasn’t really solved anything, it has created lots of problems.
* etc. (instead of a long list)
Most of the time it seems like they have created new problems for every temporary solution, worse than the original problem.
Take a look at the questions I have asked about the Exit Policy, where the temporary solutions they have tried only have made the situation worse. My original question was about the definition of “Subscription Costs” in the agreement, and now I’m asking for the whole agreement to be confirmed by the Supreme Court instead.
Most of the “solutions” I have seen have only been illusions, and usually they have been doomed to fail after a while.
Agreed, but I also note that it IS possible to settle civil lawsuits WITHOUT admission of fault or guilt.
Also on the general topic of the EOW not being able to investigate Speak Asia until April, this was published by senior panelists on Facebook:
Of course cases against uplines and franchisees are related to Speak Asia… but who these cases are lodged with isn’t clear. It certainly adds weight to the EOW’s claims that they have other reports lodged with them.
Keep in mind this 30 case number is also coming from senior panelists who aren’t working at the EOW. It’s not a hard number. I remember an EOW officer put the number at 200 a few days ago.
In summary, I believe all the 3611 stay covers is further investigation until April into Ashok Bahirwani and AISPA’s actual relationship with Speak Asia. That’s it.