Speak Asia to pay up with money it doesn’t have?
Last Monday saw the continuation of the Solomon James writ 383 case that is currently playing out in the Supreme Court of India.
Last we checked in the Union of India had been given two weeks to file a response to the Lahoti Mediation Report.
Unfortunately the contents of this reply were not made public with the judge’s attention instead turned towards ensuring that Speak Asia can indeed meet the financial commitments it has towards its members.
Financial commitments the company has filed an affidavit stating it can meet, but when you look at the staggering amount owed – begs the question as to just where exactly is Speak Asia going to get the funds from?
Quick to claim complete and total victory for Speak Asia and its panelists, AISPA Secretary Ashok Bahirwani did his usual song and dance update, stating that
1. SAOL has been ordered to deposit 50 crores with the Supreme Court Registry.
2. CBDT (IT Dept) has been asked to give the details of their dues.
3. EOW has been ordered to handover the admin rights of the website along with all other material to the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lahotiji.
Of particular note here is the mention of 50 crores as, as far as I know, Bahirwani’s initial update is the only source of this figure.
A figure of 1,300 crore has been circulated around but it’s being quoted as the amount Speak Asia took from members, not what is owed. As for where this figure comes from, if you multiply 1.2 million (members) by 11,000 (membership cost), you get around 1,300 crore.
If we look at the specifics of the February 6th order, it makes no mention of a deposit having been made. Rather, the order states
We direct the concerned respondents to deposit the amount indicated by the learned Mediator with the Secretary General of the Supreme Court within two weeks of the order of the learned Mediator.
In regards to what the amount indicated by the mediator is, that appears to have not been set yet. In order to determine what Speak Asia owes its members, the court requested that
the learned mediator ascertain how much amount in fact is due and payable to the petitioners and other authorities.
We direct respondent no. 6 to provide print out of the data collected to the learned Mediator by 11/2/2012.
Respondent number 6 is the EOW and they’ve previously gone on the public record stating that ‘the total payouts assured by the company to investors is more than Rs.30,000 crore‘.
This 30,000 figure was calculated and released by the EOW after they obtained access to the Speak Asia website, including the databases the company used to keep track of reward points held by members.
As it stands, the Supreme Court have asked Lahoti (the mediator) to ascertain what is owed to panelists based on the EOW’s data. This in itself is interesting as it could be hinting at a lack of trust in the company or confidence that they themselves would be able to provide accurate data (it’s inconceivable to think Speak Asia didn’t have backups of the databases the EOW has/had access to).
With the EOW stating that Speak Asia owe 30,000 cr in reward points, one would imagine that after going over the source of this information the mediator would accept the figure. Following on, as per the order Speak Asia would then have two weeks to pay up once the mediator announced the figure owed.
It’s worth noting that the figure will most likely be higher than 30,000 as the order explicitly mentions an amount due to “other authorities”, in addition to the petitioners.
I’d assume the other authorities in this instance would be the Income Tax department, as they had launched their own investigation into Speak Asia back in June 2011. Whether or not any other authorities are owed any amounts as per Speak Asia’s financial obligations in India is unclear.
Regardless, the major problem with all this at this point is that the EOW, based on the same evidence used to calculate the 30,000 cr owing figure, at the same time announced that Speak Asia have only taken in 2,300-2,400 crore.
The discrepancy between what is owed and what has been made stands at a whopping 27,600 crore (276,000,000,000 rupees or 5.5 billion USD).
Where Speak Asia are going to get this money from when the mediator announces the final figure owed (after going over the EOW’s website data) remains a mystery.
Even if one were to take into account Seven Rings International’s previous MLM venture(s) in India, the AdMatrix and the Mister Colibri scam currently operating in Brazil, the sum total of revenue generated is likely to be nowhere near this 5.5 billion USD amount.
Also worth mentioning is the specific use of the word “petitioners” in the order. Solomon James and senior panelists have consistently told Speak Asia members that their petition applies to all Speak Asia members, yet the wording of Monday’s order is quite narrow in scope.
The order requests that ‘mediator ascertain how much amount in fact is due and payable to the petitioners‘. ‘The petitioners’ explicitly references the 115 petitioners signed on the writ petition itself, with no mention of Speak Asia’s 1.2 million panelists as a group.
If the order is to be taken literally and the mediator is only to use the EOW’s data to work out how much is owed to the petitioners, this might explain Speak Asia readiness to assure everyone it can meet its financial commitments as per the Solomon James writ.
Most definitely the amount owed to the 115 signed petitioners is going to be just a fraction of the total 30,000 crore the EOW state the company owes its members.
In the meantime, whilst the mediator goes over the EOW’s data (due to be submitted on or before the 11th February) and prepares to release the dollar figure Speak Asia owes the named writ petitioners, the company has confirmed that any notion of business operations restarting are for now on the backburner.
Shortly after Monday’s hearing Speak Asia (once again proving they can update their members if and when it suits them) put out a press release stating that they
will extend all the support required in executing this directive of the honourable Supreme Court and will actively work towards re-starting its suspended operations at earliest opportune moment.
Reading between the lines, currently it is not an opportune moment to work towards restarting business operations.
I suppose over at Speak Asia headquarters, like the rest of us they’re waiting for Lahoti to confirm once and for all whether or not the James writ 383 covers all panelists, or just those signed.
Between the possibility of facing a 30,000 crore payout and whatever is owed the 115 Jame writ 383 petitioners, it’s no wonder the company is not working towards restarting its suspended operations at this time.
When you’re potentially 5.5 billion USD in the red, it kind of goes without saying that restarting business operations is well and truly off the table for now.
In other news, if I’m understanding the order properly, it also appears that Speak Asia’s two writ petitions (3210 in Raigad and 3211 in Thane) to have investigations into the company quashed are set to be dismissed.
Both petitions were heard on the 7th February with the order for the hearing simply stating:
1. The respondent to file affidavit in reply.
2. The petition shall be disposed off at the stage of admission itself.
Adjourned to 22 nd February 2012.
These petitions were filed back in October last year and have remained in pre-admission ever since. Looking at the latest order, as I understand it one of the respondents is to file an affidavit in reply (to what remains unclear) and subsequently on February 22nd the petition itself will be disposed.
The disposal of Speak Asia’s writ petitions indicates that the Mumbai High Court believes there is a criminal case against Speak Asia and resulting charges that have yet to be brought forward.
Update 11th February 2012 – The EOW have confirmed the 50cr amount exists, but look who it’s for:
SpeakAsia, the investment firm that duped thousands of people of crores of rupees, has appealed to the Supreme Court that it will return Rs 50 crore to 115 petitioners who had invested in it.
In Supreme Court, the firm has offered to return the money of 115 investors, most of whom filed a petition, demanding their money back.
However, the police are not ready to agree: “The company is ready to return money to 115 investors, but what about the more than two million people who invested in SpeakAsia? Going by our record, the company cheated lakhs of investors of a total Rs 2,276 crore.
Why does the company want to return Rs 50 core only?”
All along these petitioners have been playing the rest of the memberbase along knowing full well the petition as it stands only covers them.
50cr divided by 115 members is a whopping 4.3 million rupees each (it obviously won’t be divided equally) so here’s your evidence that the top panelists, franchisees have been duping everyone else all along.
This 50cr figure must have been calculated in prior mediation meetings and is evidence that up until now, the payouts owed to the greater panelist base have not been considered. After all, it is only now that the court has even requested that the mediator take into consideration and calculate the payouts owed to all panelists.
Wake up people, you’ve been played.
These senior members, panelists and franchisees have invested (relatively) huge amounts of money into the scheme and will stop at nothing to keep panelists together like sheep and get their money back. Even at the expense of said panelists.
Thankfully the EOW (who have seen Speak Asia’s ‘we will pay the 115 petitioners’ affadavit and were present in court) objected to this nonsense,
opposing the move, the city police said there were many more who had invested in the firm and the amount ran into more than Rs 2,276 crore.
To prove its claim, the economic offences wing (EOW) will submit a list of all the investors who lost their money to the multi-crore fraud.
And now, only because of this objection by the EOW, Speak Asia are staring down the barrel of a possible 30,000cr payout.
Not only that, but it looks like the investigation chickens have come home to roost too:
the court also asked the investigators and other agencies involved in the probe to file their reply by February 11.
The Enforcement Directorate, which has registered a case against the company under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, is probing how the money invested in the firm was channelized abroad; the income tax department said the firm had transferred over Rs 700 crore to Singapore.
It’s quite obvious Speak Asia don’t have 30,000cr+ to pay out and were counting on just having to settle the money owing to the 115 petitioners. Looks like this is the beginning of the end.
Footnote: Whilst I appreciate that Speak Asia’s activities mostly affect Indians in India, please respect that this is an English blog. Comments in Hindi will not be published.
1. The respondent to file affidavit in reply.
2. The petition shall be disposed off at the stage of admission itself-order on thane/raigarh quashing case
the eow is to file an affidavit.
the petition will be disposed , not DISMISSED at the pre admission stage.
this means the bench will give it’s ruling at the pre admission stage and in doing so DISPOSE [settle] the matter.
this matter would have been ‘disposed ‘of on the feb 7 itself if it were not a known habit of respondents to try and drag out matters.
the rest of your blog -UNREADABLE.
take the doping test norway is selling on your site.
Being disposed at the pre-admission stage is as good as dismissed is it not?
If the court can’t even be bothered admitting the petition that doesn’t exactly convey that they believe it has legal merit.
Or is this going to be another “masterful stroke” case of Speak Asia withdrawing their petitions before they are disposed?
the court is not bothered to to admit the petition because it’s a simple petition backed by a strong precedent of supreme court rulings in similar matters .it can be disposed pre-admission itself.
i repeat-this matter would have been ‘disposed ‘of on the feb 7 itself if it were not a known habit of respondents to try and drag out matters.
If you mean ‘opposing Speak Asia attempting to stop investigations into its scam activities’, then sure. More power to the EOW.
Sorry anju, the “extended doping test” was recommended for YOUR family in a previous comment.
“Extended” was used in the meaning of “Don’t stop before you have found the reason. Check what they’re eating, drinking and smoking, air quality and all other matters that can be a cause for this delusion.” 🙂
It was meant as a joke, but …
… it may gradually become more serious. I ‘ll have to eliminate some other reasons first. 🙂
SAOL cheerleaders’ extreme undying optimism and yesterday’s statement released by Speak Asia Marketing Team do not inspire any confidence especially when there is no backing assurance / commitment from SAOL’s top management.
It is high time CEO Manoj Kumar, Harender Kaur or SAOL owners Pal brothers should come out with another video appearance telling clearly how SAOL plans to settle its huge liabilities and also restart its operations.
(Apex Panelist Ram Sumiran Pal had announced in a presentation held in Kalidas Hall in Mumbai on April 9, 2011 that ultimately SAOL would become the biggest shopping mall in the world.)
Just “who” is “Speak Asia Marketing Team” now any way?
@anju
Are you a teacher? 🙂
Something in your DISMISSED / DISPOSED comment gave me the deja vu feeling of a teacher repeating the correct expression, over and over again.
I’ll guess I’ll have to replace my previous images. I have had a few of them, but more recently I have gradually switched to the image of a Sumo-wrestler. 🙂
Here’s an image of me – the evil look at 2:15 into the video – right before the end. The video is a parody of Bob Dylan’s “Man gave name to all the animals” by Cruz y Raya (so people don’t have to click).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoVUuSfaJWM
speakasia to pay up with money it does not have !!! (Title). Someone has reviewed speakasia’s Balance sheet I suppose
Article updated!
The EOW have confirmed the existance of the 50cr payout, but stated it is only for the 115 petitioners (4.3 million rupees per petitioner!). The EOW objected to this and demanded Speak Asia be held responsible to pay out all its members, to which the court agreed and requested the mediator establish what is owed to everyone.
It’s important to note that up until now, the court was obviously just dealing with the money owed to the 115 petitioners, despite their lies that it covered everyone. This is further evidenced by the 50cr figure itself, which must have been calculated previously based on what was just owed to the petitioners.
Only after the EOW objected has the mediator been requested to investigate what is owed to all panelists (based on the EOW’s website data).
Wake up people, you’ve been lied to.
@Oz
I have noticed one thing
Speak Asia Online Pvt. Ltd in SINGAPORE is the original scheme.
Speak Asia Online Pvt. Ltd in INDIA is a new entity.
This may make a difference. We don’t know which of these companies that are respondent no. 3 in WRIT 383/11. They may be 2 different entities.
I believe the Indian version was set up around the time when trouble started, and before that they weren’t registered in India. Criminal charges are related to individuals and companies involved in the operation organized from the entity in Singapore.
This may make a difference?
It might, but without seeing anything official it’s hard to say.
One would think if they were registered in India they’d be making a song and dance about it to distract everyone from what’s going on in the Supreme Court regarding petitioners payments.
With the same management running both entities it might not even matter. Court listings tend to be a bit finicky when it comes to names. Solomon “Jemes” is still listed as the primary petitioner and I’ve seen Speak Asia spelt incorrectly a few times too.
Now it is proved 50 cr payout is only for ashok(anju) bahirwani and his gang. We have told this before and TOI report is just a confirmation of the claim.
Anju bahirwani and gang will tell the *sheeps* that this news is motivated. The fact is all the updates from bhirwani and gang and speakasia *official blog* are twisted tells and lies.
We know now why anju bahirwani and her gang hiding information saying this mater is sub-judice.
One thing I don’t understand if ashok bahirwani is interested in his share from the payout why he is supporting speakasia.
I mean if said 115 panelists filed a writ to recover their money from speakasia why they are supporting the company or listening company’s lawyers.
Because some of them are so deluded that they think ponzi schemes are legal.
That’s probably what Bahirwani’s police interrogations were about (or at least part of it). Effectively he’s been neutered. Somebody dying just makes a convenient excuse for absense (you could say the same about me being busy this week but I don’t have the police accusing me of lying and interrogating me).
All this crap about there is no case yada yada is clearly false.
@ Oz..
There is another angle to this Supreme Court Order..That is the claims of the CBDT (Revenue Department).. according to Indian Tax Laws.. SAOL ought to deduct Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) @ 10% + Surcharge & Cess for every payment made to Panelists if payment to a Panelists amounted to more than Rs 10,000/- per year.
This TDS was supposed to be deposited in a Bank within the 7th of every month. For e.g. Payment made to a Panelist in month of Feb, TDS had to be deposited by 7th of March. In case this is not done then there is a penalty and severe Interest payable by the Deductor.
Now imagine the amount paid by SAOL to it’s Panelists from Jan,2010 till May,2011 and just imagine the defaults. The amount will run into Several Crores. When and if this all is sorted out, all the Panelists would have to file revised Income Tax Returns to claim such TDS Credit in their Pan Accounts unless CBDT through it’s Special Powers issues a Suo Moto Order and allows this Tax Credit to be made in the Current year.
This will become a huge headache for the Panelists. I also believe FEMA (Foreign Exchange and Management Act) also does have some case here as Foreign Exchange Remittances above a certain limit made without Specific permission from FEMA Authorities will also attract severe Penalties, Prosecution and Penal Interest.
After all these payments (I think Rs 50 Crores will not be enough to pay off all these Departments) what do you think will remain with the SC to pay these Panelists off. The Penalties alone are about 100% to 300% of Tax sought to be evaded.
This is a huge mess and might take months to determine the exact amount of such…. JAI *********.
So in other words, SAOL has not been deducting income tax for the panelists at all as required by law. That is the IT claim, yes? If so, this is coming out of SAOL’s budget, not the panelists, right?
Q1) how much is 50 crore’s worth of taxes and penalty for just the 113 (or so) panelists?
Q2) What is Bahirwani’s explanation now? Clearly panelists don’t think that just by resolving these 113 out of 1.2 million panelists EOW will let SAOL off the hook? The court clearly don’t think so either.
Seems Anju’s Blah Blah Blah, Cease & Desist Notice of SpeakAsia to TOI (Mateen Hafeez) has been thrown into dust bin.
SpeakAsia’s notice have become jokes it seems.
when people were earning through speak asia then no were compl. now why?? any its networking 100% risk
@Mr Y
You’re much more informed on India’s tax laws then I am. If Lahoti takes more than a few weeks to announce an owed sum you might just be right.
The court doesn’t appear to think this will happen though I think as they’ve already pre-ordered a due date of two weeks from the date which Lahoti announces the owed sum.
@teamasia
I reviewed Speak Asia back in March and through the business model claimed it to be an obvious recruitment scam. That was while they were still paying.
Furthermore the risk in MLM is like any other business, you might fail. The risk is certainly not that you’ll get scammed or participate in a ponzi scheme.
Oz… Please correct the title of this post…
Doesn’t need correcting.
Unless you can show where Speak Asia are going to pull 30,000cr from.
I just talked of spelling… OZ… You seem to have been caught on a wrong foot..
Lol, so I have. Cheers.
By the way the big sum can be pulled out easily in India. Because first of all the number itself is dicey. The correct number should be lower.
Secondly not everyone is going to ask for the complete money immediately as there is a big surety of business coming back to its normal operations. So when money flows in with new joinings , old liabilities can be paid off. Plus many renewals are due, when business is going to restart the revenue from renewals would also come. Then there are defamation suits filed by company, those too will be received and used to pay back the dues in the normal course. The revenue from real clients of speakasia not to be forgotten..
As per my understanding the immediate liability of the company towards panelists is
1. The cash request which were bounced in the month of May and June
2. The money which company needs to pay for the Persons opting for exit option.
3. Rest all liabilities can be paid off once business comes to its normal operations through Earn and Burn Points programme..
Look at the enormous numbers involved in various other scams (led by our beloved politicians…)if those can be recovered, this too will be recovered. They have their revenue sources and a much bigger revenue source to fall upon when the business restarts..
I am responsible for what I say and not what u understand!!!!
Unless ponzi schemes are now legal in India… business operations restarting is a stretch.
Further note that the court has already stated Speak Asia are to deposit the amount within 2 weeks after Lahoti specifies what the amount is. What members do or don’t ask for is irrelevant as the court appears to have demanded the entire amount in full (making exit options and other company created payment strategies redundant).
So what do you feel, will the company be asked to deposit money for all those reward points too… Not at least in my opinion. I have already said about the immediate liabilities which the company may need to pay..
I missed the liability of government dues if any, kindly add that into the list of immediate liabilities which Speak Asia need to pay..
ha ha ha ha speak asia is coming back, just wait n watch now its just a matter of few days
@ajex
Are you “heavily involved” in the business?
Most panelists will loose money if SpeakAsia is allowed to restart. SpeakAsia needs both to be allowed to restart with a new business model, and be allowed continued recruitment and continued investments in panels before ordinary panelists should be interested.
Running Ponzi or pyramid schemes needs to be allowed in India before a restart should be of interest for an average panelist.
Being allowed to restart with a new business model means you won’t get your money back, you will have to spend them on products instead. Most people will prefer money instead of products.
Doing surveys:
As long as SpeakAsia doesn’t have clients to pay for them, the work done here is fake work, meaningless and unnecessary. It would have been better if people could be paid without doing this work.
Buying panels:
Most people bought panels as an income opportunity, because they thought SpeakAsia had real clients willing to pay for the surveys. It’s meaningless to buy panels if SpeakAsia use your own money to pay you back less than you have paid for the panels. Buying a panel for $200 to get paid $100 (in products) isn’t a good investment. It’s more like a Ponzi scheme, and that’s why SpeakAsia have been in trouble for 9 months.
I don’t think Ponzi schemes will be allowed in India. This means parts of SpeakAsia’s original business model will still be illegal. A new business model will not work as an income opportunity, it will work more like a club where you can buy products (and not be paid for work).
SpeakAsia will either need a change in laws, or they will have to get real clients willing to pay for surveys each week – enough clients to support the number of panels. I don’t think they will be able to find any real client willing to pay more than $10 per survey.
Recruitment:
Paying for recruitment is illegal in MLM, so a big part of the income opportunity will disappear.
Conclusion?
Restart with a new business model isn’t a good deal for an average panelist. Being forced to spend money on products isn’t what most people want, when they initially have joined a company as an income opportunity.
The average panelist are about to be cheated once again, but since they seems to be happy about being cheated then nobody else will care.
What are the numbers are in this article? At the beginning you said Rs.30,000 crore to be paid to panelists then you said Rs.1300 crore collected by the members.
Further you said that Rs.700 crore transfer to Singapore and previous article you said that the EOW Officer has agreed that Speakasia has already paid Rs.1100 crore to their panelist upto 11 May 2011.
Can you please tell us how these numbers are connecting each other and how these numbers are authentic?
some how everythig seems to be settling down soon. I think panelists will accept products if company cant provide money. Its indian mentality to get as much as one can instead of loosing everything.
9 months surely have made indians ready to recieve what all they can get. The people who invested are ambitious people who thought of earning easy money. Just clicking answers for some questions appeared without being sure about their answers.
So the money invested is not hard earned money. In fact its a money invested in gambling. Thats why many many panelists are quite. They are just eager to know whether they lost or won. If lost they would just say bad luck. If they get back what they invested they would say. Thank god atleast i got my money back. If they are paid for their points earned they will be happy thanking god to make available such an easy earning opportunity.
If they come to know that the company cant pay in rupees but can compensate by products. The people will readily jump to their feet to collect any product of any quality for their invested money. . . this india and and its poor indian mentality. . Hard earning people will never even show a bit of interest in to these cheap earning opportunities.
@soori
If it had been me, I would have preferred to sue the owner instead of accepting a bad deal. Suing the owner won’t give them all the money back, but I’m sure they would have been able to get something.
Most people joined SpeakAsia as an income opportunity. If the company can’t deliver what it promised then it’s usually better to terminate the agrement, and demand “give me my money back”.
Most people seems to believe that SpeakAsia will continue as it did before the trouble began. It won’t be able to do this, unless laws are changed. Involving recruitment and selling panels have suddenly become a great risk, both for the company and for people involved.
So, SpeakAsia isn’t an income opportunity anymore, except for a limited amount of money they already have. But most people seems to believe it still will be able to provide them with income.
Accepting bad deals is a habit most of us doesn’t want to have. SpeakAsians have already been cheated once by this company, and they seems to gladly accept to continue being cheated.
The big problem is the lack of real clients. Doing surveys is meaningless if you don’t have real clients willing to pay for them. This is meaningless both for the company and for the panelists. The only purpose of the surveys was to make SpeakAsia look like a real business, and make people willing to invest in subscriptions and panels.
SpeakAsia has a limited amount of money. Unless they’re getting some real clients, willing to pay several hundred million USD per week, they will not be able to support surveys for a long time (pay for surveys, not some rules about “earn them and burn them, by investing in more panels”). The number of panels and panelists are a big problem when they don’t have real clients to pay for surveys.
The only reason why SpeakAsia needs to continue is for the chance to reduce claims against them. Management and senior panelists are in risk of loosing more than SpeakAsia. Manoj Kumar had 3 of his other businesses involved in this, and I’ll guess other senior panelists also have something to loose. People can’t just flee from something in their own country.
As per my knowledge base we need not to worry about financial status of Speak Asia because during the month when all banking route was seized they have send numerous appeal for authorization towards RBI by saying company is ready to pay to his panelist.
Thus, they have enough corpus to provide. In any business thousand days is pregnancy period, result start dividends after that. They must have planned for that. Our level of knowledge is limited and no way comparable with minds of Speak Asia.
Clearly I have seen 16th May’s press conference video, what i have understood concerning company business strategy is as follows:
Company is involved in Precision Mass Marketing and at the moment involved with providing a Panel Base to companies. Before they gets into the second phase of actually product marketing and various other verticals it is presently also conducting Surveys and offering to their clients precise opinion of a dedicated empowered sovereign consumer.
The Gen X Consumer fair in Goa showcased the strength of this family of SpeakAsians pertinent to note here is that this Gen X had participation from over Hundred Bluechip multinational companies etc.
All members got to taste the fruit of being part by burning reward points of this fast growing platform/family of Empowered Consumers. The Gen X was an ideal platform to show how an idea can be winning for all concerned, The Seller and the Buyer.
Like any new entrant every company needs to have a base of consumers to address to, either with their products or their services.
They also wanted a base of customers and a wide one at that, so for the first phase they may have adopted the referral method which is a time tested method to add on more consumers in a short time.
The stand of the company is simple they are in the business of marketing E-zine magazine through a network of distributors/franchisees who in turn pay Service tax to the Govt for services rendered.
& rest stories has become a history !
Based upon the facts, if govt. authorities can give permission to re-start operation in India & company begin his business then we willingly enjoys by purchasing product & services.
How much “products” does SAOL have besides that one container of TV any way?
@ K Chang
Perhaps, one container TV sets of YUG Brand only, besides that have you seen Mega consumer fair in Goa call “Gen-X-Baazar”, participation from over Hundred Bluechip multinational companies etc..
All we had purchased product at discount rate & a number of people exchange core & non-core brand products with reward points.
@Sanjeev
The court has asked the mediator to use the EOW’s data (taken from the website backend). They’ve said it’s 30,000cr owing. They’ve made no mention of exit fees or partial refunds and the 50cr being used to pay out the petitioners, none of which I imagine are ‘we just joined yesterday and made no money members’ indicates refunds being dished out in full.
The government liabilities are to be set at a later date, thus it appears the 50cr is solely for the return of funds to the petitioners (who even now continue to deny the 50cr is exclusively for them).
@raj
30,000cr is the calculated amount owed (reward point balances) of all the accounts of Speak Asia. This figure was calculated off the website backend by the EOW. This is the figure they’ll provide to the mediator to establish what is owed.
The 1,300cr figure is membership fees paid to the company.
Whatever Speak Asia have already paid is irrelevant because the RP are owing (the 30,000cr figure) is unaffected by the amount currently paid out to members.
What was transferred to Singapore is the greater part of Speak Asia’s money laundering efforts.
In a nutshell, Speak Asia thougth they’d get away with paying 50cr to 115 panelists and that’d be the end of it. The EOW naturally objected to this as there’s various taxes owing and the amount owed is much larger than 50cr and affects a lot more people than 115.
@soori
Current indications are that the courts are not entertaining exit options, spend and burn schemes or product compensation. They have requested a dollar (rupee) figure from the mediator and have ordered Speak Asia to pay this amount in full within 2 weeks of the amount being finalised.
If Speak Asia cannot produce in full the amount the mediator sets (which should be 30,000cr if he goes on the EOW’s data, or I suppose at this stage the very least the membership fees invested), then the court isn’t going to be happy.
@Aam
Only if you take the company at their word. This is a company that has previously lied about their clients, and about their business model (they submitted a model to the Supreme Court they never even used).
Furthermore this is when Speak Asia were coming up with all sorts of garbage, like exit options, reward point spending etc to lessen the amount they have to pay out. Thus far, the court appears to be ignoring these schemes and has demanded the entire amount in full be deposited with the court after the mediator has established what the amount is (from the EOW’s data, which states it’s 30,000cr).
Assumption on your part. These guys are chronic scamsters who, through Seven Rings have demonstrated that their only interest is to establish multiple scams in multiple countries and dupe as many people as they can.
Unfortunately for them it’s gotten to the point where they can’t hide anymore and with most of management being Indian, can’t choose to simply ignore legal proceedings in India against them.
In short, they got too greedy and started to drink their own kool-aid.
To date not one company name has been made public. Neither has any company come forward and claimed to have purchased any marketing data from Speak Asia.
With the amount of companies owned between Haren Ventures and Seven Rings, any companies Speak Asia do claim to exist are highly likely to be just shill companies forming a greater part of management’s money laundering operations.
Actual clients are non-existent, as evidenced by the release of not even one name and the signed confession of Khandoor, the man who made up the surveys based on which Wikipedia articles Manoj Kumar pointed him at.
If by “time-tested” you mean tested in court and found to be illegal as a ponzi scheme, then yes.
If you have a genuine product or service of value to offer you will naturally attract members, that’s how the market works.
If you’re running a ponzi scheme you need to pay out commissions on membership money, that’s the model Speak Asia used.
I thought you said they are in the business of precision mass marketing…?
Either way, we already know the e-zine is just rehashed Wikipedia articles… so there’s no value in it. Hence the need to attach a compensation plan structure that charges a membership fee and pays out commissions based on the amount of new members recruited into the scheme.
What you were/are going to do doesn’t negate what you have done. If business operations restart under the current business model more people will get sucked in and more people will lose money.
The only difference is those who have already invested might see a slight return on their investment (ie. the people that got in early made their money, as with all ponzi schemes).
Name 3. And then get them to acknowledge that they have or are prepared to have any business dealings with Speak Asia.
To date, outside of Yug no external company has been publicly associated with Speak Asia with any credibility.
@Oz
Usually we can’t select two different options, if one of them counterdicts the other. They either have to claim money returned or keep quiet and hope for the best.
If they claim money returned from SpeakAsia they have to have a reason.
* SpeakAsia being a fraud is an acceptable reason.
* They don’t have any rights to get paid for participating in a fraud. Fake surveys was part of the fraud, it didn’t have any other purposes than to make the fraud look more like a real business.
* They don’t have any rights to get paid for recruiting others into a scheme.
You can’t expect the court system to protect all kinds of imaginary rights. They will have to identify the correct rights if they should be able to protect them. I don’t think any court will protect “salary” derived from recruiting people into a pyramid / Ponzi. I don’t think they will protect “salary” from doing fake surveys, either.
People will have to realize they have been scammed, and avoid claiming anything else than what they have lost in the scam.
True and I think the fact that the courts have asked the EOW to provide the mediator with the data backing the 30,000cr figure, shows that they have a reason – only we don’t know what it is.
Remember, no timeframe has been set nor has any indication that the money will actually be paid out to members – all they’ve said is deposit the money. Speak Asia’s members naturally have equated the deposit of money to payment, but that’s obviously not the case (otherwise the 115 petitioners would have been paid by now).
Quite obviously the courts appear to not want to release any funds to any panelists until there are sufficient funds extracted from Speak Asia to pay what is owed to members and the regulators.
From the looks of (likely based on the objections by the EOW) it appears as if the court is testing the accuracy of Speak Asia’s claims it can actually pay what is owing. And inadverdently getting them to transfer back into India a fair chunk of the money they ran off with.
Given that there were no other revenue sources other than membership fees, it’s kind of obvious Speak Asia doesn’t have 30,000cr.
When the mediator sets the figure it’ll be very interesting to see what happens in the following two weeks. If the mediator doesn’t use the 30,000cr figure supplied by the EOW, it’ll be equally interesting to know why (and that might be due to some of the reasons you’ve suggested regarding right to payment).
Any one can pay for a booth or stage time at the Bazaar. Heck, they can even pay for a special train (actually sponsor a train). It doesn’t imply anything other than they have the money.
The question you should be asking is: how is SAOL going to get enough products to satisfy everybody? Products don’t come FREE. How much TV does that one container have any way? 50000? That may be worth about, what? 40 crore? (I have no idea what the TVs are worth in India as I don’t know what model or specs they are)
Nobody is going to be putting another rupee into SAOL until panelists are paid (though some may be satisfied with merely promises… but I don’t think there will be too many of those). Panelists want to see their own reward points actually redeemed, and SAOL have ability to supply more products for the reward points to be redeemed, before they will release SAOL from any more liabilities. (And for EOW to stop whatever they are doing, however unlikely that will be.)
Oz..
My one simple query : If 30000 Cr is the liability as you say, then it means that you are accepting that whatever work Panelists have done is genuine and hence they are eligible for getting reimbursed all their reward points. Being a Panelist I would be very happy if this amount is certified by EOW, because it will indirectly lead us to the conclusion that work done was not fake.
But I don’t think EOW will come to that conclusion so easily and hence the number has to be lower when provided by EOW.
As the EOW say. The same EOW who are supplying the mediator with website data to back up this claim…
You’re lumping handing over the money with payment to panelists. To date there has been no mention of payment to panelists or how that will happen.
As I see it, the court at this stage is making sure Speak Asia can meet its financial obligations (because the company’s word is not enough) by ordering them to deposit the money with the court.
Thereafter the legalities of the company might very well be played out and it can be established what is paid out and to whom.
The courts are just covering their bases. No point going through a big legal case over the legality of the company, only to rule that it is legal and then find out that because it was a scam anyway that there’s not enough money to be paid out.
Please don’t spam this website with Facebook crap. In future I’ll simply flag the entire entire comment as spam.
@Aam Aadmi
“The best solution” will differ from panelist to panelist.
Those who have withdrawn more than they have invested (in real money) will have an interest in letting the business continue, so they can burn some of their reward points on goods (as fast as possible).
Those who have withdrawn less than their investments (in real money) might have an interest in joining it as a “buying club”, but most people will have a better outcome if they get their investments returned.
The above statements are based on if the laws in India aren’t changed, allowing Ponzi / pyramid schemes to operate freely. And it doesn’t relate to people who doesn’t bother if something is illegal or legal.
Are you really sure you want to participate in SpeakAsia if it becomes a “buying club”? With no Reward Points from surveys or from recruitment / selling panels coming in? They are able to support paying RP for surveys for a short period, but they won’t be able to continue to pay if they don’t have real clients.
Most people joined SpeakAsia in the last 3 or 4 months before the trouble started in May 2011. This means most of them will have earned less than their investments, and they shouldn’t be to happy for joining a “buying club”.
They joined an income opportunity, and changing the business model into a “buying club” won’t give them any income. Most of us wouldn’t like to be forced to spend money on products, when our real interest is money. The “taste of fruit” might be like sour grapes for lots of people. I would have demanded my money back in this situation.
SpeakAsia can of course continue to run the business with an illegal business model, with new investigations and payment trouble, new arrests, new freezing of accounts, etc. – if this is what people really wants? An illegal business model will allow for more Reward Points.
The main problem is that SpeakAsia doesn’t have real clients to pay for the surveys. If they did have real clients they wouldn’t have been in trouble, either.
OZ How much money has oversezed and how much payment have been made to that panelists from feb 2010 to April 2011, can you give me some rough figures, and norway company has never failed to deliver its promise(regular payments).
i have personally visited the ICICI Bank to see the manager, he has told me that they have got mail from mumbai head office(ICICI) to freeze the banking banking channels of speak asia, you only think of ur own who is the BIG B of all these banks who can give them order like this, from that day payment was been stopped speak asia never failed.
fews months back you have written people have to take home YUG cheep china made products, if YUG is china made then what u will say about NOKIA, SONY, SAMSUNG, LG
@ajex
Freezing of accounts: EOW (or other police forces)
Stop in transactions: Bank Laws
RBI don’t usually “instruct” banks to stop payments, but Bank Laws does it. RBI can only send a reminder of Bank Laws to the banks, and this will usually stop transactions.
I haven’t checked Bank Laws in India on this, but I’ve checked Norwegian Bank Laws superficially (in mid January). I did also check the jurisdiction for the Central Bank in Norway, “what they do or don’t do”.
So how did company failed in here to deliver
The key point is: is there a real dollar for each Reward Point?
To make things easier to understand: Khan Academy’s class about Ponzi Schemes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UVpLPtgdF4 Pay attention in the difference between “percieved value” and “total actual value”
@ajex
I have never made any comments about YUG, but Oz have. I have never focused on this part of the business.
I have briefly read about this stuff, but I haven’t studied any details. That’s why I’m focusing on the “buying club” from a different viewpoint, if it’s in the interest of people.
It’s mostly in the interest of those who have lots of RP to burn, and doesn’t have much money to claim.
I evaluated the products as part of a solution in October. Most people will prefer products instead of nothing, but most people will probably prefer money instead of products. People usually won’t like to be “forced” to spend money on something.
@ aam admi
Your comment carries correct facts and all those thousands of speakasians who visited Goa GenX bazaar have witnessed and participated in ‘Earn & Burn’ reward programe and did shopping using smart card of SAOL.
The vendors present over them are big corporates including MNC’s. The communication and relationship between SAOL and panelists is enduring due to trust and transparency.
Our brothers who are unaware of these facts are making comments, let us not be offended
The problem is not that company fail to deliver now, it is that company CANNOT succeed in the future.
Consider the following facts:
FACT: SAOL, thus far, NEVER PROVED it has any income OTHER THAN panelist enrollment fees (Manoj Kumar keep saying they have clients, but thus far, none have been shown, even after EOW interrogation of other SAOL top members)
FACT: SAOL has transferred hundreds of crores out of India to Singapore
LOGIC: give that there is no proven income other than panelists, the only way panelists can be paid is from other panelists’ money. (Even the TVs are paid for by panelists’ money)
And that is the very definition of Ponzi scheme / money circulation scheme.
The point I believe that was made back then is that the TV were discovered to have been made by HiSense, which IS a low-end Chinese TV maker, despite repeated assurances of “German engineering”
@ajex
The reason for banks to stop payment is probably because SpeakAsia is under criminal investigation, including money laundering. I found lots of rules in the Norwegian Bank Laws related to this.
SpeakAsia needs to be cleared from some points in the criminal investigation, or some rules will have to be over-ruled by the Supreme Court.
SpeakAsia failed in doing something to clear itself from charges. Hiding management doesn’t exactly speed up the case.
@viniben
A “buying club” isn’t exactly ‘Earn & Burn’, it’s more like ‘Earn a little & Spend alot’. Are you really interested in that?
SpeakAsia’s original business model was ‘Earn & Burn’ for most people, encouraging people to spend money on panels instead of withdrawing money.
If they plan to keep the business model legal, they will probably have to stop mass recruitment, stop selling extra panels to people, and stop paying $10 per survey.
Instead you have to earn money on recruiting people to a buying club, where you don’t make money before they buy something. Paying for recruitment is usually illegal, but they can pay something in goods.
The model is similar to a book club, where the primary motive for being a member is reduced price on books. I don’t know laws in India, if they allow a combination of MLM and buying club, but in most countries this combination is illegal.
If the combination MLM and buying club is allowed:
TVs and other stuff will of course generate some income if you have a downline, but you can’t expect any ‘easy money’ in a business model like that. People are more willing to spend money on an income opportunity than on a buying club.
Selling goods (or buying club membership) will require a different set of skills than you have to use when you recruit people into an opportunity. That’s why lots of MLMs prefer to focus on recruitment rather than products.
@ajex
I can’t remember if this information has been released or not so not off the top of my head no.
Regardless, you seem to be attempting to peg Speak Asia’s legal credibility on their ability to pay. There’s much more to it then that, that being the ponzi scheme and illegality of it.
Just because a company pays out doesn’t make it legal. Obviously ponzi schemes need to pay out in the beginning in order to generate membership. What then happens is they get to big and collapse.
Speak Asia’s business has been halted before this organically occured. Had the company of continued to let members generate points by recruiting others on and on it would have gone and eventually when the collapse came (all ponzi schemes collapse) there’d be an even bigger mess then there is now.
Now the big question is whether or not they have the funds to cover what is owed. That appears to be what the court is trying to establish by forcing them to deposit the total amount owed before there is even any talk of distribution of monies or evaluation on the legality of the business.
The courts don’t appear to be interested in earn or burn schemes, exit options or Yug products at the moment as they’ve solely requested a lump sum of actual money be transferred back into India and out of Speak Asia’s hands.
@Oz
I have found a blog that has saved an Alexa pagerank or something from the right period – July 2010 to May 2011.
http://www.labnol.org/india/speak-asia/19386/
It shows a steep increase in traffic for the last 3 or 4 months. Near the end of that period they recruited 30,000 to 35,000 members a day.
I haven’t studied any details (I’m not that kind of guy), but I have used it some days ago to calculate an estimated number of “newly recruited panelists” in May 2011. Nearly half of them seems to have been recruited in the last 2 or 3 months.
NOTE:
The statistics includes Bangladesh, with nearly 250,000 panelists (unknown source, might be exaggerated).
Ahh Speak Asia Bangladesh. Didn’t Manoj Kumar say they were starting business there in December 2011?
Some guy was on Facebook telling everyone it was going to start in the first week of January… lol what a laugh.
Hats off to u oz, there’s one question i wanted to ask u for a long back why ur always behind mlm cracking them down, have u every lost ur money in these type of concepts??? If u so much of knowledge regarding this industry why dont u share the articles about those companies why really legal and genuine so that we can work on then what do u think OZ???
@Oz
The statistics also includes Poland and the U.S., but it might of course be something ‘local’ (a few hundred panelists or so).
I used the statistics to get some kind of overview over the recruitment, like when the majority of people joined. People who joined late shouldn’t be very interested in joining a ‘buying club’, they should be far more interested in getting their money back (partially).
One problem is that I see this from a different viewpoint than most panelists. Most of them seems to be happy when they’re cheated, and they seems to prefer hope rather than calculated chances. I’m not ‘on the same wavelength’ (and I’m not very interested in being so, either).
I would have preferred ‘money in hands’ rather than vague hopes from a company that already has cheated me once. I would have accepted a reduced amount, even if it hurts (within some limits, sometimes it will hurt too much).
This is a plain and simple ‘business mindset’, the opposite mindset of what brought them into trouble – those who where recruited in the last 2-3 months or so.
For some people it will of course seem like a good idea to continue to use the same mindset. “It has brought me into trouble before, so I don’t see any reason to change it. Sooner or later it might work better.” 🙂
@ajex
Since around 2009.
No.
I only review companies, the fact that most of the companies reviewed on BehindMLM appear to be not legit is a reflection of the industry itself.
I do favour newer companies in my ever going list of companies to review and unfortunately the bulk of them appear to be nothing more than shallow scams.
OZ…
Previously, all 32 media including Print, digital & TV media ask directly with companies’ representative at mega press conference & they have explained entire business structure in good health somewhere recorded on YouTube. But remarkable in the next day none of the press media discharge his judgment; if they caught on the wrong foot then they have to formulate press release same day or next.
Afterwards a few month investigation switch-on by logging multiple FIRs.
Finally they have explained entire business model to Hon’ble Supreme Court; I believe it is similar with earlier model. As your tip of sight “they never even used previous model” Is they cheated with the hon’ble Court by screening false model? 🙂
As per my opinion, if SpeakAsia coming up with EXIT option, RPs spending ect then most of the people (approx eighty percent) already reimburse subscription cost & rest twenty percent has applied for EXIT forms. So, they shouldn’t lessen the amount to pay back. But your hypothesis is nothing else just a garbage.
Yeah, if business operations restart, it’s well again for all rather than staying empty box during several months due to never ended investigation, at least we can get opportunity to earn extra sum & acquire YUG product to display at home.
Moreover, if you still choose the way of doing your performance against Speak Asia it’ll be confirmed that you are trying for some other intention like getting money from someone and acting against it,
Well, I sometime think that why people write big fused articles against Speak Asia only and not on any other Indian companies, surely because only Speak Asia gives you good number of visitors to your blog/site that’s why again and again you folks beating the bush around.
Earlier Speak Asia could have given the money to each and every panellist if you people have chosen the right way to publish the news. Each & every panellist knows the true facts about Speak Asia & all over forum of social site (facebook & personal blogs) thousands of people energetically supporting SpeakAsia. So, you don’t need to bother about it …
Your negative articles are not doing good but only digging a ditch for panellists.
People are more willing to spend money on an income opportunity than on a buying club – norway
the ezine sales will continue and the binary bonus scheme will continue.[empowering consumers]
however it will NEVER be compulsory to make ezine sales.
the surveys will continue and RP’s will be generated from this as before. ALL the survey income MAY not be encashable.[get paid for your opinion]
the product sales will generate commissions to the 6 th or 7 th level.[precision marketing]
if anything saol is increasing the revenue earning possibilities for it’s panelists.
soapbox
in todays aispa update pay attention to part that saol and haren ventures filed an affidavit before justice lahoti saying that they were willing to bring in money to pay exit optioners.
on the basis of the lahoti report [with the said affidavit duly attached]the supreme court has asked justice lahoti to ascertain the total amount due to the panelists.
@Aam
Wasn’t that because they had the same reaction everyone else who hadn’t drunk the Speak Asia kool-aid had?
That being that the press release explained a business model that didn’t exist and wasn’t being used. They also didn’t name any clients they’d previously lied about.
The one and only model Speak Asia have ever used is that of a ponzi scheme. There was never any formal change to the business model between May 2010 and May 2011.
The courts don’t appear to be interested in exit options or any other crap Speak Asia have come up with to sustain their ponzi payouts that much longer. They’re asking for a lump sum to be deposited. So really, your opinions are irrelevant on who wants what.
Oh dear, so you’re one of those types of panelists…. well best of luck to you. Jai Speak Asia and all that crap.
…except that Haren Kaur decided to transfer the money to Singapore to line her retirement fund with instead.
The only ditch here is that left by one of the largest ponzi schemes I’ve seen in a long time. You stick to your blind faith in a scam and I’ll continue to dissect the information infront of me.
@anjuExcept that’s not what was stated on the order. To date there has been no mention of exit options and regardless of who filed what affadavits, the Supreme Court doesn’t appear to be willing to trust Speak Asia in paying anyone.
In order to settle the big question they’re demanding the company front the money owed and deposit it back into India. Then I suppose the mess of ascertaining whether or not ponzi scheme members are even entitled to the money begins.
@anju
In other words, SpeakAsia will continue to recruit more panelists and sell more panels they are unable to support by real clients? The illegal part of the business model which brought SpeakAsia into trouble?
Real clients is an absolute requirement if SpeakAsia will continue with surveys, subscriptions and selling panels. They can’t expect members of a buying club to be able to support their own payments through buying of goods – the additional payment needed to support survey-payouts (even if they pay in goods).
All companies needs external sources of income, clients or customers willing to support all expenses by buying products or services. Some internal customers may work too, but you can’t expect a business model to work if they only have internal customers.
Book clubs and similar models work, but they don’t pay huge amounts of “salary” to their customers either. The few rewards they give for recruitment are usually books (cheap to print some extra books, won’t cost them anything extra if they give some of them away as rewards, it will actually save money).
If the business model isn’t sustainable, then panelists can expect a new period where the business is shut down, or some other “inconveniences” after a while – with even more people involved as victims of a fraud?
Unless the affidavits are made public there’s always doubt on whether those are genuine, and furthermore, does not answer th question why the money was moved OUT OF INDIA in the first place.
@anju
Why are the offer from SpeakAsia so “stingy”?
“We are willing to pay max $220 to each newly recruited panelist. We don’t have any acceptable offer to people that have bought more than one panel. If anyone have bought more than one panel they will have to drop further claims to get any money.”
The offer is close to blackmailing of most panelists. “We won’t pay you if you don’t drop further charges against us, even if we still owe you money.”
People who have bought more than one panel should deliver a protest against that offer (consult with a lawyer first). They can’t start to treat people differently. “Parity before the court” should be the rule.
MoneyLife.in has a report on this now, the amounts involved and some similar topics.
http://moneylife.in/article/will-speak-asia-refund-money-to-all-panellists/23615.html
I can’t figure out how to make sense in the amounts here, since most people seems to have bought lots of extra panels as initial investments.
(Some math)
19 lakh panelist (1,900,000 panelists)
2,280 crore INR (22,800,000,000 INR or $456 million USD)
$456,000,000 USD / 1,900,000 = $240 USD per panelist
The math doesn’t make sense here. It seems like the company has run 2 businesses
* 1 official, selling subscriptions (e-zine, ID, 1 panel)
* 1 unofficial, selling additional panels and paying rewards
moneylife says the company got a shock when the supreme court pronounced it’s order.
WHAT can be further from the truth?
the order is exactly what the company wanted.
who is money life to decide how much the company has to pay?
do they think justice lahoti is not smart enough?
chang
yes of course we’re lying about affidavits in the supreme court.go check for yourself.
just because our press can invent red corner notices and ED cases doesn’t mean ALL indians LIE through their teeth.
norway
exit option-
NO Reward points (henceforth referred as RP ) earned after becoming a panelist:
If you have recently subscribed to the E-Zine and have not participated in any of the SAOL activities or no RP’s have been credited in your account then you can opt out of your association with SAOL by agreeing to these terms and conditions and filling up the attached form. By doing so you will a refund of your entire subscription cost less the registration amount to your bank account mentioned in your profile. The e-zine subscription shall cease to be sent to your mail ID and you will no longer be associated with SAOL.
RP’s Earned lesser than Subscription Cost:
In case you have en-cashed or used RP’s, whose total value is less than the subscription cost, these RP’s shall be deducted from the cost of subscription and the balance will be credited in to your bank account. The ezine subscription will later cease to be sent to your mail ID and you will no longer be associated with SAOL.
RP’s en-cashed or used are more than subscription cost:
You are welcome to participate in SAOL website since your participation has earned your RP’s more than your subscription cost. You can now utilize the RPs for various revenue generating activities of the company once restart of our services is allowed in India.
subscription money includes panels.
Note that the above exit option is something Speak Asia themsleves concocted up.
It hasn’t been mentioned in any court order nor does it appear the courts at this stage are even entertaining the idea. They’ve asked for a lump sum payment from Speak Asia once the figure owing is announced by the mediator.
given it’s their business ,who else is entitled to announce an exit option? moneylife?
who is the eow to tell the company to pay all the panelists the full liability ?
it’s panelist money we will ask for reimbursement when we want.
let the people who want to exit do so , they have lost money due to stoppage of business activity .the rest is a personal relationship between the company and it’s consumers.
no court, no police ,can tell a company to clear ALL it’s liabilities . that’s the right ONLY of the persons owed.
the panelists who have earned more RP’s than their subscription cost ,want the company to restart so that they have a continuous revenue stream.
I said why haven’t the affidavits been made public, and why was the money transferred out of India in the first place. You dodged BOTH questions.
@anju
What about all the extra panels?
People who has bought more than 1 panel will loose that extra investment if they sign up for the EXIT-option.
It also seems like these extra panels is a “side-business”, not visible in SpeakAsia’s accounting? Is that correct?
I believe it will be better if you realize that SpeakAsia has a big problem in all the panels sold. The recruitment is a plain and simple pyramid scheme, while the extra panels is a hybrid between Ponzi scheme and downline in a MLM-pyramid.
You can’t expect this to become legal? And allowed to recuit even more investors to pay for old sins?
Consider what AISPA has done so far:
FACT: Bahirwani released information without clarification, causing confusing among panelists, regarding that 50 crore deposit.
FACT: Bahirwani did not do much to fight for payment for all panelists, but instead, “Jai SAOL”.
Did AISPA got removed as a party from Lahoti panel? I forgot.
Yet AISPA claims to represent interests of all panelists. What has it accomplished? Nothing substantial.
Perhaps… AISPA is NOT representing interests of panelists.
Perhaps… AISPA’s purpose is to keep the panelists in line, have them believe that once Solomon Jemes’ case (those 113 panelists) were resolved with a lesser amount of money, SAOL can restart operations, without paying ANY of the remaining panelists.
Which basically means AISPA’s purpose is to PREVENT all panelists from getting paid, or if paid, as little as possible, exact opposite of what it claimed.
The pattern fits. Can we guess a motive? Who benefits from NOT paying the panelists?
SAOL benefits, of course. If nobody else would ask for a refund (esp. with AISPA telling them they don’t need it), SAOL can claim there is no more case or cause for investigation, and resume operations. And they can even say to pay the panelists they NEED to resume operations. By sucking in another bottom layer (3-4 million people?), they can pay off the current 1.2 million panelists.
This even fits why Melwin Crasto and other officers in AISPA was interrogated by EOW: collusion with SAOL.
Sure, it’s a theory. Care to blow some holes in it?
ask justice lahoti why he won’t show you the affidavits. i am not empowered to answer that.or you can call him.i remember he has had long chats on the phone.
the money the company collected has always been sent to singapore.it was never kept in india .so whats new ?
good the money was sent off. lying frozen in accounts doesn’t help anybody.
norway the panels are a part of subscription money.ALL unencashed subscription money will be returned via the exit option.
@changcriticizing or finding fault with aispa’s work or it’s contribution has NOTHING to do with saol legality or restart.if you are a public body you will get your share of brickbats and that is okay.
aispa has filed an intervention application .if necessary it will intervene.
the company announced it’s exit option on 1 st august 2011.
aispa was formed on the 14 th august.
panelists can ask for payments under this policy only, while the company is in trouble.
aispa wants to make sure nobody loses money due to business stoppage and of course speakasians WANT the company to restart.
the case for cheating and conspiracy would go but the charge of being a money circulation scheme would still have to be settled in court.
@anju
So Lahoti is the only one with a copy of the affadavits?
Ashok Bahirwani’s daughter has allegedly seen the affidavit (I’m remembering you’ve claimed that multiple times in the commentary here), but Speak Asia’s panelists and the general public have to get a copy from the mediator?
Well, perhaps the Bahirwani’s aren’t just “regular panelists” after all. But hey, we already knew that.
We’re not quite there yet, but that’s exactly what’s happening.
The court has demanded Speak Asia pay within two weeks whatever amount Lahoti determines is the amount owed, based off the EOW’s data, which is inturn based off the Speak Asia website.
It has nothing to do with exit options, burn and spend reward schemes or any other nonsense, it’s a dollar figure.
The EOW have previously set this total amount at 30,000cr.
Note that this money isn’t guaranteed as being returned to anybody, the court at this stage is just establishing whether or not Speak Asia even has enough money to deposit. No point getting into the legalities of who is eligible to receive what if there’s no money to hand out.
I’d love to be a fly on the wall when Lahoti sets the figure (whether it’s a few thousand crore or 30,000cr) and see Kaur and Kumar’s facial expressions when they realise they have to transfer most of the laundered money back into India from their retirement funds or throw in the towel.
Oz,
This is Sanjeev Khanna’s statement here
Rest all liabilities can be paid off once business comes to its normal operations through Earn and Burn Points programme..
===========================================================
See that earn and burn, while he says that here, on the Facebook SpeakAsian Power Page he or his other admin hide this fact that they will not get their Survey Income.
Everyone there is believing once business restarts they will get all their money back.
This earn and burn means the panelist will have to spend more money to buy products, something like 80 percent Cash and 20 percent RPs to buy a TV of Rupees 10,000/-, while the actual cost of this sub standard Chinese product would be 2000.
There are some fools who say what about LG, Samsung, Apple etc who get their products from China. What these fools dont know is these are known brands with a high level of Quality Control that is why you dont get defects in their chinese products.
Whilst there are lots of other unknown brands from China who offer iPhone kinda phones but there is no quality control, similar to SpeakAsia’s YUG.
Who knows SpeakAsia as a brand, infact even if they manage to get these products to India, do they have any brand value, infact they will be known scamsters who did not pay survey income to everyone.
@anju
When I checked the EXIT-option, the amount was limited to $220 USD, and they had to drop further claims against SpeakAsia. Most like blackmailing of people that had bought more than 1 panel.
So the EXIT-option isn’t very usable for most panelists, unless they have made some major changes. It means they are treating panelists differently, and those who have bought more than 1 panel doesn’t have any acceptable offer.
Besides, the extra panels seems to have been a “side-business”, not showing up in the official amounts stated by the company.
You can’t expect SpeakAsia being allowed to continue to create more mess, involving even more people recruited?
The major problem is that they don’t have clients that can pay for the surveys. It will get even worse if they recruit more people and sell more panels. The survey+panel side of the business has never been sustainable.
This revealing news of http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-10/mumbai/31045772_1_investment-firm-return-money-investors dated Feb 10. 2012 got Anju’s “learned” father’s goat that he commented on his blog/AISPA:
Then knowing very well that the SC order in this case WP/383/2011 relates to the 115 panelists he puts his foot in his mouth by stating for the doubtful community that he proclaims to represent:
“… if need arises the Association is ready to intervene in this WP/383/2011 for the proper representation of the entire 12.5 lakh panelists.” (what happened to his earlier figure of 19 lakh?).
“The intervention of the Association will “Expouse the cause” of the entire Speakasian family. With this intervention I assure the entire Speakasian family that the mediation will cover all the 12.5 lakh Speakasians, leaving no room for doubt.”
In the above blog (that is what it is as it is only for brainwashed pro-Bahirwani commentators) where u cannot copy anything, he is back to cursing Star TV also who continue to expose his hidden exploits.
Would anybody have a list of the 115 panelists of the WP/383/2011 case? I just wonder as to if Ashok Bahirwani. Anju Aggarwal, etc. names along with all franchisees and top leaders figure in it.
No, the names of Ashok Bhairwani and Anju Aggarwal are not listed in the list of 115 petitioners in CWP no. 383 of 2011 in the Supreme Court.
The list has:
1. One name from Noida – Solomon James
2. One name from New Delhi
3. Two names from Ludhiyana, Punjab
4. Ninety seven names from Tamil Nadu – Dharampur / Chennai
/ Erode
5. One name from Samastipur, Bihar
6. Thirteen names from Dehradun, Uttaranchal Pradesh
You must have me confused with Khoosla.
If money’s handled in Singapore, then why is SAOL being sued in INDIA? And what funds did EOW/CID froze if they were “always been sent” to Singapore?
Neither does money handed to a court, by that logic, as it doesn’t help anybody (yet).
I’m questioning what has AISPA done for the panelists besides DELAYING THINGS AND MISLEADING PANELISTS, and WHY is it doing so. If you don’t have an answer, don’t answer.
Given that last attempt by AISPA to intervene was dismissed, all AISPA’s doing is handing more of panelist money to Phoenix Legal (or whoever AISPA’s hired).
And what exactly does that prove?
It appears 113 of them decided on a different policy: sue SAOL.
As nobody got paid, nobody has lost anything “yet”…
They want to get paid. Restart is completely optional.
Which doesn’t explain what has AISPA done other than rallying panelists to NOT sue SAOL like the 113, who is getting paid (and the rest are NOT getting paid)
At least navneetji should get his money back. After all he has fought for everybody and why should only 115 panelist get.
@viniben. I am in total agreement with you. How about suggesting that to Ashok Bahirwani and his daughter Anju?
And what about me? Why not? I have been kicking the backside of SAOL and their pro-speakasians for a long time and ‘am in touch with EoW, RBI, RoC, etc. etc.
@Navniit. Any contact number or address of Solomon James, Noida? I could visit him for details as Noida (better known as “No Idea”) is close by?
In the hearing today of CrWP 3611 of 2011 there was Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Sr. Advocate (who comes from New Delhi for each hearing along with another advocate) a/w Ahmad Abdi and Satyaprakash Sharma i/b Abdi & Co., Mumbai
for the Petitioners Ashok Bhiarwani and Melvyn Crasto.
Mr. P. A. Pol, P.P. appeared for the Respondent / State of Maharashtra and for EOW, Mumbai.
I being Respondent No. 3 appeared in person – I do not have the money to pay for any advocate and can not even think of getting senior advocates like Mr. Harish Salve who are, according to Anju Aggarwal, in the list of the most influential persons in India. After all I do not have the money power of Speak Asia which is now reported to have clocked revenues of over Rs. 2,500 crore between 17.02.2010 and 11.05.2011.
No further relief was granted by the Court on the submissions of Mr. Dinesh Mathur.
Mr. Pol submitted that the Investigating Officer had gone to New Delhi for the mediation meeting.
I submitted about the working of Speak Asia between 17.02.2010 and 11.05.2011. My submissions are based on my FIR recorded by the Police and which facts I resubmitted.
The Court clarified some points and directed me and Mr.
P. A. Pol, P.P. to submit the replies by the next date. Adjourned to 23.02.2012.
Ashok Bahirwani has given update on Mediation meeting taken by Justice Lahoti on Feb 13 at New Delhi:
“Everything is moving in a positive direction and today’s mediation meet has been a big positive for us….ALL IZZ WELL…Jai Speak Asia”.
Senior panelist controlled blogs are flooded with wild bonhomie expecting Speak Asia to resume operations within this month itself.
The mood will change by 180 degrees once the hard reality sinks in that Speak Asia wants to get away with almost Rs 50 crore payment while the dues payable to panelists run into thousands of crores as per EOW’s data submitted to Justice Lahoti. Speak Asia will simply melt away once Justice Lahoti presents a big bill to Speak Asia.
Which is why I suspect the true purpose of AISPA: to PREVENT panelists from being paid by promising them resumption of business.
@Navniit Kkhosla
Usually we shouldn’t focus on who they are or how much money they have. It’s far better to focus on the case itself, and what we need to do to get a fair outcome. Being able to focus on the important parts can often make the difference between “win or loose”.
This case is SpeakAsia’s nightmare, not your’s. Having a solid case is far better than having an expensive lawyer.
———
I will have to identify the status of the case, and some of the details.
PARTIES INVOLVED:
* Petitioners are initially AISPA, later divided into Petitioner no. 1-3 by an amendment?
* Petitioner no 1 is either Dandekar or Crasto?
* Petitioner no 2 is Ashok Bahirwani. Confirmed.
* Petitioner no 3 is either Dandekar or Crasto?
* Respondent no 1 and 2 are the State of Maharashtra (EOW, other Governmental agency)
* Respondent no 3 are you? “Present in person”
THE CASE SO FAR: Quick and dirty analysing.
9. December 2011:
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/criminal/2011/WP361111091211.pdf
* AISPA is permitteded to amend the petition (separating the petitioner AISPA into 3 separate petitioners = Crasto, Bahirwani and Dandekar).
——————————-
14. December 2011:
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/criminal/2011/WP361111141211.pdf
* Separating AISPA into 3 respondents isn’t done yet.
* “5. Amendment be carried out on or before 20th December, 2012. In addition, we direct the petitioners to file additional paper-book to be supported by affidavit to place on record complete compilation of Writ Petition (Civil) No.383/2011 filed before the Apex Court before the next date of hearing.”
——————————-
22. December:
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/criminal/2011/WP361111221211.pdf
* Nothing important, only a new date for next hearing.
——————————-
6. January 2012:
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/criminal/2012/WP361111060112.pdf
* AISPA’s claim is that the civil part (WRIT 383/11) is sent to mediation.
* EOW’s claim is that the mediation and the criminal part of the case is separate matters (or something similar).
* and the ORDER confirms the criminal matters.
* (some parts about arrestment of Bahirwani, 72 hour notice, etc.)
——————————-
16. January 2012:
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/criminal/2012/WP361111160112.pdf
* AISPA states “that the mediation proceedings are still in progress.”
* The Public Prosecutor agrees in a new date.
* You can contact AISPA’s lawyer if you need the amendment.
* 4. The learned APP submits that, he would like to file reply affidavit, which can be filed on or before 23rd January, 2012. ???
——————————-
13. February 2012:
* Order hasn’t been published yet.
* Who is Mr. Dinesh Matur? It’s not important if he’s a lawyer, since I’m only trying to identify the parties involved.
——————————-
THE SHORT VERSION
A quick overview tells me that AISPA initially tried to quash the FIR no. 60 because of … (I haven’t found the original arguments for quashing it).
* EOW tried to get WRIT 3611/11 dismissed, because AISPA isn’t a registrated organization, and not mentioned in the FIR. This later led to the amendment, where AISPA was deleted as petitioner and separated into 3 individual petitioners.
* AISPA’S arguments are that the civil part of the case (WRIT 383/11 and the Lahoti Committee) is more important than the criminal part? Something like …
“This case is already being handled by the APEX court. There shouldn’t be any need for a criminal case here, since the court is already handling the civil part.”
* the court hasn’t agreed with AISPA, and AISPA’s lawyer has been ordered to provide the court with records from WRIT 383/11 (all the documents related to that case).
MY CONCLUSION
I haven’t identified all details here, but the court sees the relation between WRIT 383 and WRIT 3611, and both of these cases are carried forward.
AISPA is waiting for an outcome of WRIT 383/11 that HOPEFULLY will free them / SpeakAsia for criminal charges, and make SpeakAsia become a legal business allowed to continue, by paying some of the panelists through the EXIT-option.
The court seems also to be waiting for an outcome of WRIT 383/11, since they have carried WRIT 3611 forward instead of dismissing it (or approving it).
You may probably have the right to insight into WRIT 383/11, since it seems to be a part of (or interfering with) your case. The registry in the Supreme Court can give you information about this.
RIGHT!
from the initial stand of the respondents that the FIR had nothing to do with the CIVIL MEDIATION PROCESS ordered by the supreme court,the stand has since changed to 1] we acknowledge there is a mediation going on and further 2] -we have not filed our replies because we are ENGAGED in the mediation process.
norway ,dandekar is a company official .he is not part of this case.
aispa was removed from the writ, not being a registered body.
now aispa has asked to be re instated as the first petitioner as it is registered.this will happen by the next date.
Laws involved in WRIT 3611/2011:
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC)
Constitution of India 14,19,21,226
Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) 420,406
@anju
Thx for the information. I wasn’t able to identify Petitioner 1 and 3 exactly, so I guessed as a temporarily solution.
I haven’t identified Respondent 1/2 exactly, either. One of them is EOW.
What about the other parts? Were they mostly correct or incorrect?
it’s not a question of IMPORTANCE.
aispa’s stance is that since the eow is impleaded into the supreme court writ,the entire matter criminal and civil is being addressed by the supreme court and that the eow
should respect the mediation order of the supreme court.
one of the respondents would be the state of maharashtra ,i suppose.
@observer
are you questioning the supreme courts ability to identify the payable dues of the company?
according to you ,WHO must decide? money life or toi ?
The Supreme Court doesn’t have original jurisdiction in criminal cases. They have to be handled in the lower court system first. Original jurisdiction was very limited when I checked.
A court should first of all be able to identify its own jurisdiction, whether they have the right to handle (parts of) a case or not.
I’ll guess neither the Supreme Court nor Justice R.C. Lahoti have asked any difficult questions? 🙂
The positive side is they can’t rule against something, either.
Interesting thought process, but the case being ruled is merely between SAOL and the 113 plaintiffs. Adding additional respondents doesn’t change the nature of the case. It’s simply a contract dispute between the two parties. SAOL can pay in full, pay in part, or pay nothing. No ruling on the legality of SAOL business model is necessary. In fact, it would be irrelevant.
YES!
our courts and justices are intellectually challenged, what can we do? WE NEED YOUR HELP!
could you rewrite our constitution while you’re at it?
the 115 panelists have asked the court to preserve the money frozen by the IT dept and use the same to pay exit optioners.
the 115 panelists have asked the court to allow saol to resume it’s business so that they can earn a livelihood.
so chang ,it was imperative to add all respondents who have a role to play in making payments and allowing business restart.
if no authority can make a case against business restart, then saol will restart.
note that saol has not stopped functioning due to any govt order or criminal charges being proved.
saol is not a defunct company it just can’t FUNCTION due to certain restraints.
1] the rbi cautionary
2]the admin rights of the site taken over by eow.
saol does not need anyone’s permission to restart, it just needs to fix the above two restraints.
uh, the court has clearly made no mention of exit options, payments or business restarts. They’ve asked Lahoti to confirm what is owed based off the EOW’s data and deposit it within a fornight.
That’s it. You’re as bad as your father in spreading misinformation vs. what has actually been ordered.
Please tell me we’re not back to this RBI cautionary rubbish. How many times do they need to confirm they never ordered anyone not to do business with Speak Asia. They simply warned against the liabilities of doing business with ponzi schemes.
A a restraint isn’t something you fix, it’s put there for a reason.
Why do the EOW have Speak Asia’s websites?
Why are the banks refusing to do business. Such that a court won’t accept anything less than Speak Asia surrendering their money to the court itself, rather than through a bank?
…
Speakasia doesn’t have any bank account in India. Any bank account frozen by any department was franchises bank account with the subscription money (as speakasia claimed that the payment to panelists was performed directly from SG bank account).
Thus, if speakasia was really doing any business or have any clients can pay for the exit option right now. It will be fun to watch when EOW will give the correct figure in court (through the mediator)
andy
the money in the franchisee accounts is the money payable to haren ventures ,it is not the personal funds of the franchisees.if IT dept does not have a lien on the entire amount they will have to release it.
it will be fun to watch when the ‘mediator’ will give the correct figure in court. nobody has asked the eow for the FIGURE. they have been asked to provide data about the figure the mediator ‘decides’ upon.
Again, this is not what happened and there is no supporting information to back up your claims.
The EOW objected to Speak Asia paying 115 panelists because 30,000cr is owed in RP and there are 1.2-1.8 million members (depending on who you ask). The court agreed paying 115 panelists was rubbish.
The court then, and only then for the first time asked the mediator to consider the payments due to all panelists. In order to substantiate their claims, the EOW were to hand over the reports they’d generated off the Speak Asia website backend, clarifying what was owed to panelists (where the 30,000cr figure came from).
Whether the mediator uses a 30,000cr figure or less is entirely up to him. The fact stands that it is the EOW’s figures and supporting data that he is considering. Speak Asia are totally out of the equation.
Source: the Supreme Court order itself and the EOW (via the TOI).
@anju
You have missed this part dear,
“Thus, if speakasia was really doing any business or have any clients can pay for the exit option right now. It will be fun to watch when EOW will give the correct figure in court (through the mediator)”
It is the subscription amount collected from the panelists.
So your below statements are wrong
Try to follow the topic!
The question is: speakasia was doing some real business or not? speakasia has real clients or not? Otherwise how can speakasia pay money to the panelists?
the second part of your statement is unacceptable because we’ve heard mainly LIES in the guise of news.
and WHERE does the court order say pay ‘all’ the panelists ‘all’ their dues?
it clearly instructs the mediator to decide what dues are payable.
the court order instructs eow to give DATA collected ,but which data ,how much data is not specified.the order does not say ‘all’ data.
so if the mediator is to decide the dues it follows he will also decide WHICH data he requires.
It is the subscription amount collected from the panelists payable to haren ventures, and haren ventures is willing to use this money for paying exit optioners.
speakasia was doing some real business or not? -andy
i’m not beating that dead horse anymore.
we’ll get stuck at
no real clients[ me- no real clients required]
no revenue source[ me-definite revenue sources]
you try to follow the topic!why are you dragging this up again. read the older posts.
The fact stands that it is the EOW’s figures and supporting data that he is considering. ‘Speak Asia are totally out of the equation’.-soapbox
um,so during the mediation meetings does saol have to hide behind a curtain or stand outside the door?
Who said anything about the mediation meeting? More misdirection from the Bahirwanis.
And the EOW have confirmed this was due to their objection on Speak Asia trying to get away with paying 115 panelists. On this objection it is only now that all panelists are being considered.
The court has already decided, he is to use the EOW’s data. Speak Asia and all their silly schemes are out of the equation. The court is only interested in a lump sum deposit by them within 2 weeks of the amount being announced.
With 30,000cr being the figure pegged to RP in the EOW’s data, if the figure Lahoti announces is less than this it indicates that panelists are not entitled to their full FP balance. The only reason he’d do that is if there were doubts about Speak Asia’s business model and how the RP’s were earned.
Speak Asia are pretty much in a hole here.
They don’t have 30,000cr and if the announced figure is less it draws into question how the RPs were earnt and why the mediator doesn’t see the payout of RPs as a valid due.
here is the court order for the hearing on the 13 th feb of aispa writ
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/criminal/2012/WP361111130212.pdf
So the AISPA is only there for the benefit of exit optioners? For the other members AISPA is selling them an illusion that they will get their return when SAOL re-commences their money chain business again and/or selling their unknown YUG products which is never to be, and, thereby, keep the flock from forming separate associations like that of Solomon James & Othrs and filing cases in the Supreme Court.
Well such associations have already formed but just waiting for the outcome of this case,i.e. if the mediator/SC demands SAOL to cough out to all 1.2 million panelists or not.
Speakasiaonline.mobi has posted the following from Solomon James which was his Updates in facebook:
We are told that all the investors in Speak Asia are winning but no details have been shared till now. Hence the correct position is concealed.
Correct?
So is it AISPA and SAOL’s claim that these 115 are the ONLY ones who want an exit option?
@bahirwanis
Your attempt to seperate speakasia and haren ventures is useless. Panelists are requesting money from speakasia, all FIRs are registered against speakasia and every update is given on speakasia. Arguing on subscription money is just for hiding panel cost.
juta ,you’re an exit optioner right?
take your money and scram.
you guys need to read the exit policy on an hourly basis till you understand it.
the 115 panelists have signed the writ but their prayer is for ALL panelists.if there is any room for doubt, aispa is standing by to intervene.
lots of panelists ‘know’ what went down in the CLOSED DOOR mediation meeting on monday evening. will we talk ? NO .
WHY? study the meaning of ‘closed door’ meetings carefully.
nobody can separate saol from haren ventures.problem is they are already separate.all i said was that haren ventures is willing to lend a helping hand to saol. if this pisses anyone off it’s their problem.
and juta ,people can continuously form associations on a street to street basis, but the company stand is very clear by it’s exit policy.
Closed door means don’t tell anyone that doesn’t agree with AISPA. Got that.
Oxymoron of the day.
No. You need to read the whole comment before replying to anyone.
You always miss the information presented in any comment and start barking.
And the so called Exit policy doesn’t mention panel cost anywhere. Correct me if I am wrong.
Anyway, for further info we have to wait for 23/2/2011
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/criminal/2012/WP361111130212.pdf
@K. Chang
Here what anju’s dad is telling about the mediation meeting
@anju “juta ,you’re an exit optioner right?
take your money and scram.” So kind of you. Now how are u going to pay me? SAOL is paying you and your papa millions to pay advocates to keep on putting cases in Mumbai and Supreme Court and look for loopholes in Indian Law so that SAOL can restart their loot business. No problem to me if you or your papa can just pay me the discounted 22k out of the millions stacked up. “Discounted” in the sense no need to pay for the accumulated RPs. No cheques/hundis/bills of exchange/promises, illusions/brainwashing/subject to court decisions, etc. please. Just bank-to-bank money transfer. OK?
He must have been absent from class when they tought about “strategy skills” and “analysing skills”? At this stage he would have managed the situation better if he had released MORE information, and had been factual in his information.
Most panelists have probably realized the problems with the EXIT-option now. 11 out of 12 lakh people will probably be pissed off instead of happy if the option is permitted, if I have guessed right about extra panels and subpanels.
Most of the time it seems like Bahirwani is fighting for SpeakAsia’s interests in paying as little as possible in money, and to force people to spend money in a “buying club” if they want some of their money back (as a reduction in the price).
Most panelists should probably prefer to get money back as soon as possible, instead of vague promises.
what part of ‘closed door mediation meeting’ do you not UNDERSTAND.
and what makes you feel the situation is unmanaged?
why will people be pissed if they get ALL the money they paid to saol back [except registration fee]? could you stop using ‘guesswork’ as the ‘framework’ of your theories.
WRIT 383/2011 “Solomon Jemes & Others”:
I am able to identify at least one possible “backdoor” to interfere with the decision, but people shouldn’t use it before they have analysed the situation.
I believe the court system will be able to handle the case correctly without any interference, but I haven’t had access to information about the progress in mediation in the Lahoti Committee. Missing important information is a problem here.
One possible outcome is that they will rule in favour of AISPA.
* pay 115 paneliste or EXIT-optioners, or whatever they have claimed
* allow SpeakAsia to restart and continue to organize fake surveys etc.
I seriously doubt this outcome, but it might be possible. I am expecting a very different outcome, only allowing some “payouts” instead of “payments”. Basically, I expect the court to rule against AISPA and SpeakAsia in their most important claims.
Possible “backdoor”:
The “backdoor” is respondent no. 6 (EOW), represented in the case by their advocates, but contactable through Chief Investigator Shelke at EOW (or some other at EOW) – within reasonable time ASAP before next hearing 23.02.2012.
This is a possible “backdoor” that can be used by ONE person or ONE group of panelists – sending a “notice of concern” that might be added to the case.
I don’t believe there is a need for this “backdoor”, but I prefer to let people decide for themselves what to do in their own cases.
Deadlines:
Next hearing in the Supreme Court is Thursday 23.02.2012, so an absolute deadline for this solution is Monday 20.02.2012.
AISPA claims to represent the interests of ALL panelist, without even have asked a number of panelists with different interests. Most of Bahirwani’s updates are monologues or motivational speeches, and it doesn’t look like he has analysed the different interests.
I believe most panelists will prefer money back even if the amount is heavily reduced for most of them, instead of vague promises that aren’t backed up by any reliable plan (the current plan doesn’t solve any ot the real problems).
“How to do it” etc. will continue in the next episode of “Soap”. 🙂
@anju
You haven’t seen the problem in the business plan?
SpeakAsia’s trouble started when Star News (or someone) reported about fake clients. The surveys and sale of panels isn’t a sustainable business model if they don’t have enough client willing to pay for the work done.
Continuing to sell more panels to be able to pay old panelists will only make the situation worse. You have failed to deliver a trustworthy business plan that people can believe in.
I believe most panelists should be allowed to decide for themselves what they really want – based on correct information and all the information they need.
AISPA have most of the time looked like a “self declared authority” that protects the interests of a few, but pretends to protect the interests of all panelists. I believe most panelists are better equipped to take care of their own interests than AISPA is.
What I’m missing from AISPA:
* They haven’t been willing to identify the real problem, and are mostly ‘fixed’ to one specific solution.
* They haven’t been able to communicate how this solution will work, they only deliver motivational speeches.
* They haven’t been able to identify the variation in interests among panelists, and they haven’t even tried to do it.
The real problem:
* SpeakAsia didn’t have any real clients in May 2011, and I can’t believe they have been able to make deals with enough clients since then – to support paying for the surveys. They can’t expand the number of panels and panelists before they have found a solution. They will more likely have to reduce the number of panels / panelists.
* Using money from panelists to pay for surveys is meaningless for the whole group of panelists. It will benefit a few, but harm the interests of most others.
This problem can of course be solved if someone gives a trustworthy and specific description for HOW and WHEN all panelists will be paid if SpeakAsia is allowed to continue – without creating further problems by continuing recruiting or selling panels.
The question is, who, besides the 113/115, and SAOL officials would have details about the “closed door meeting”?
Yet Anju claimed that many in AISPA knows all the details about but are not telling.
Where they DID get the info from? Clearly, whoever leaked it to them don’t care about “closed meeting” status.
(Or Anju is a liar about others already have the leaked info)
WHO among the 115 are in AISPA? Given that AISPA’s position is pleading to NOT sue SAOL, just wait for exit option or whatever, the answer seems to be “none”.
So where do you think AISPA members got their info from, if NOT from the 115 members in the suit? (And assuming Anju was not lying?)
“When you eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbably, must be the truth.” — Sherlock Holmes
Which would explain a lot, wouldn’t it?
@K. Chang
Often it will be easier to identify possible sources rather than using Sherlock Holmes’ logics.
From memory:
Respondent no 3: SpeakAsia Online
Respondent no 4: Haren Ventures
Respondent no 5: Reserve Bank of India
Respondent no 6: EOW, Mumbai
In many articles of various new papers and media clippings you would have heard our company SAOL being compared to pyramid schemes. Many Speak Asians are confused as to what is “Pyramid” first of all and is our company a pyramid? In our previous articles also we have tried to clarify this that the model followed by SAOL is not at all a pyramid scheme. Here is one more effort to educate the Speak Asia family so that our confidence and devotion in the company remains intact.
Pyramid scheme
A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public.
Pyramid schemes are illegal in many countries including Albania, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada,China, Colombia, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Iran,Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Poland,Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan,Thailand, Turkey, theUnited Kingdom, and the United States.
These types of schemes have existed for at least a century, some with variations to hide their true nature, and many people believe that multilevel marketing is also a pyramid scheme.
Concept and basic models
A successful pyramid scheme combines a fake yet seemingly credible business with a simple-to-understand yet sophisticated-sounding money-making formula which is used for profit. The essential idea is that one Mr. X, makes only one payment. To start earning, Mr. X has to recruit others like him who will also make one payment each. Mr. X gets paid out of receipts from those new recruits. They then go on to recruit others. As each new recruit makes a payment, Mr. X gets a cut. He is thus promised exponential benefits as the “business” expands.
Such “businesses” seldom involve sales of real products or services to which a monetary value might be easily attached. However, sometimes the “payment” itself may be a non-cash valuable. To enhance credibility, most such scams are well equipped with fake referrals, testimonials, and information.
The flaw is that there is no end benefit. The money simply travels up the chain. Only the originator and a very few at the top levels of the pyramid make significant amounts of money. The amounts dwindle steeply down the pyramid slopes. Individuals at the bottom of the pyramid (those who subscribed to the plan, but were not able to recruit any followers themselves) end up with a deficit.
Connection to multi-level marketing
The network marketing or multi-level marketing (abbreviated MLM) business has become associated with pyramid schemes as “Some schemes may purport to sell a product, but they often simply use the product to hide their pyramid structure.”And the fact while some people call MLMs in general “pyramid selling” others use the term to denote an illegal pyramid scheme masquerading as an MLM.
The Unites States of America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) warns “Not all multilevel marketing plans are legitimate. Some are pyramid schemes. It’s best not to get involved in plans where the money you make is based primarily on the number of distributors you recruit and your sales to them, rather than on your sales to people outside the plan who intend to use the products” and states that research is your best tool and gives eight steps to follow:
1. Find — and study — the company’s track record.
2. Learn about the product
3. Ask questions
4. Understand any restrictions
5. Talk to other distributors (beware Shills)
6. Consider using a friend or adviser as a neutral sounding board or for a gut check.
7. Take your time.
8. Think about whether this plan suits your talents and goals
Some believe MLMs in general are nothing more than legalized pyramid schemes.
History of trouble because of Pyramid schemes
The 1997 rebellion in Albania was partially motivated by the collapse of pyramid schemes.
In early 2006, Ireland was hit by a wave of schemes with major activity in Cork and Galway. Participants were asked to contribute €20,000 each to a “Liberty” scheme which followed the classic eight-ball model. Payments were made in Munich, Germany to skirt Irish tax laws concerning gifts. Spin-off schemes called “Speedball” and “People in Profit” prompted a number of violent incidents and calls were made by politicians to tighten existing legislation.Ireland has launched a website to better educate consumers to pyramid schemes and other scams.
On 12 November 2008, riots broke out in the municipalities of Colombia after the collapse of several pyramid schemes. Thousands of victims had invested their money in pyramids that promised them extraordinary interest rates. The lack of regulation laws allowed those pyramids to grow excessively during several years. Finally, after the riots, the Colombian government was forced to declare the country in a state of economic emergency to seize and stop those schemes. Several of the pyramid’s managers were arrested, and are being prosecuted for the crime of “illegal massive money reception.
Throughout 2010 and 2011 a number of authorities around the world including the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Bank of Namibia and the Central Bank of Lesotho have declared TVI Express to be a pyramid scheme. TVI Express, operated by Tarun Trikha from India has apparently recruited hundreds of thousands of “investors”, very few of whom, it is reported, have recouped any of their investment.
To conclude we want you to understand this article and subject the tests laid out in this article on the business model of Speak Asia. You will find out that the model followed by SAOL is not at all a pyramid scheme and it it just the TRP hungry media and malicious competitors who are trying to degrade the company’s name. Whole world knows that entire media and all competitors of SAOL fumbled badly in there effort to stop a revolution called SPEAK ASIA.
@Rana Ravinder Singh
You’re right. SpeakAsia isn’t a pyramid scheme, it’s more like a hybrid of promotional pyramid and Ponzi schemes.
* recruitment organized as in promotional pyramid schemes.
* investments more like in Ponzi schemes. Most of the revenue derived from this model – all the extra IDs, panels and subpanels sold.
* I will believe we can ignore the surveys, even if they paid money for doing them. The only purpose of the surveys was to make SpeakAsia look like a real business.
The reason people call it either “pyramid” or Ponzi” is beause these names are commonly used. People won’t usually specify “promotional pyramid”, it’s more common to use the short description “pyramid”.
@Rana Ravinder Singh
The major reason for WHY people call SpeakAsia “pyramid” or “Ponzi” is because they didn’t have real clients to pay for the surveys, and was heavily focused on recruitment.
Do you remember Manoj Kumar’s statement “1 crore panelists in December 2011”.?
Some other reasons can be found here (disabled links):
speakasiahyderabad.com/2011/05/payment-mode/
speakasiahyderabad.com/2011/05/binary-sub-panel-income/
speakasiahyderabad.com/2011/05/binary-panel-income/
speakasiahyderabad.com/2011/05/indirect-survey-income/
speakasiahyderabad.com/2011/05/direct-survey-income/
speakasiahyderabad.com/2011/05/direct-survey-income-2/
speakasiahyderabad.com/2011/05/gifts-and-rewards/
scribd.com/doc/50798570/speakasiaPPT
scribd.com/doc/53532487/Speak-Asia-Full-Concept-Updated
Don’t have any. Manoj Kumar’s track record is… debatable.
As you can’t resell SAOL’s “e-zines”, it clearly is not the product. So, there isn’t any. yet that is what you pay for.
Did you answer any?
Did you explain any?
As there’s nothing to distribute from SAOL, what’s the use?
Presumably, someone NOT already enrolled in SpeakAsia.
Actually, those are PONZI schemes: people are promised extraordinary returns, as high as 150% per month. Whoever wrote this paper didn’t do much research.
Colombia had a mix of both Ponzi and pyramid schemes (and hybrid schemes). Grupo DMG headed by David Murcia recruited people by promising them returns on whatever “money card” they buy, based on how many people they convince to also buy these money cards and how much money was put into those cards. That would make it a Ponzi scheme, not pyramid scheme.
Except nothing about SAOL was explained. Basically, this article talked about everything EXCEPT SpeakAsia. Thus, this article is bull****, pardon the term.
Consider the following facts:
FACT: SpeakAsia enrolled supposedly 1.2 million panelists, each of whom paid thousands of rupees to join SAOL.
FACT: SpeakAsia, to date, never proved it has any clients that paid them for the surveys.
So the question is… WHERE IS THE MONEY PAID OUT TO PANELISTS COMING FROM?
Given the bad research in the article, the explanation posted is bull****. The article is trying to “split hair” between “pyramid scheme” and “Ponzi scheme”. Both are scams.
SpeakAsia COO appears before cops after four-month hiatus
It is called the BizBasket Research
Here is the *oblivious* original link Pyramid scheme – From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
@K. Chang
Ponzi and pyramids ARE different in their respective recruitment systems.
* Pyramids will always have decentralized recruitment, done by the participants and rewarded by the scheme.
* Ponzi schemes will most often have centralized recruiment, with no need to reward participants for recruiting.
Pyramids will usually use fixed amounts to participate, but might as well have different ranks (“Silver”, “Gold”, “Platinum”, etc.) with different rights.
Ponzi schemes can use any amount.
The difference is important in legislation. Usually it’s not illegal to participate in a Ponzi scheme, and money invested by participants isn’t seizable. Pyramids are illegal in all parts – organizing, marketing, participating.
Ponzi schemes will usually be sustainable for a longer period of time, because they don’t have the contineously need for recruitment. That’s why many scams will prefer a hybrid between Ponzi and pyramids.
“Both are scams” and “Split hair”? 🙂
Common Man
I think all the information you are talking about, are only those details you have gathered from various sources like non-responsible media persons, personal blogs, people working with other companies & write against to demolish name & fame etc. to call SpeakAsia a mere Ponzi scheme is incorrect, casual and insulting.
In any Ponzi scheme, if you do not add new members under you, you do not make any money. This is because there is no real work there to be done, the entire emphasis is on adding new members and using that money to keep the older members satisfied, all the way to the top.
A SpeakAsia member can make money simply by filling out surveys task and no one from the company will ever ask him to do anything more and his payments was never be stopped before.
If SpeakAsia was indeed a Ponzi scheme, why would they allow their members to keep on making money just by filling out surveys Task? The primary mode of making money is by filling out surveys.
The secondary mode is to have new members join SpeakAsia since larger the survey sample space, the greater the leverage the company will have when dealing with its clients.
Think of Newspapers, Channels, and TRP. We keep on having these National Surveys which keep on telling us that Channel ‘X’ has most viewers and Newspapers ‘Y’ has most readers.
Just like them, SpeakAsia also want to increase their subscriber base. And they want to do it because they have bigger plans in the future wherein they will use this huge subscriber base for further forays.
But why would an existing member do the hard work of finding new members if it is only SpeakAsia that gets the benefits? No one will be ready to work for free.
I can believe they have been able to make deals with enough clients since then – to support paying for the surveys, if I signed non-disclosure agreement (NDA) then confidently I can acquire the client directory.
Speak Asia has created a community of consumers which earns rewards points by participating in companies activities ( e.g -ezine sales , surveys filling , product referrals / sales , advertising based surveys , self development training programs ) on the website and burns those earned reward points for purchase of products and services from the website .
The company’s business model is to make profits from product and service sales after providing for the cost of servicing the reward points. They had research done and different companies, products and services; panellists earn reward points (RP) for participating with their valuable opinions in the surveys effective.
SpeakAsia was compensated several people to run livelihood for which depends on their income. And when enquiry started all banking route & account blocked, Lakhs of people’s livelihoods twist towards shadowy.
Now, we have faith in our judicial system those who heard the business scheme & structure of SpeakAsia & granted quick relief (for monies issue) for all innocent panellists.
Hopping for the best, SpeakAsia will bring back his business towards India & provide us earning place to run our livelihood.
So, stop all this nonsense argument & if really interested in welfare of common man, do somewhat practically. Don’t just park yourself 24/7 in front of hopeless blog & bound to talk rubbish.
They misrepresented Ponzi schemes as pyramid schemes, did they not? A “money game” or “money circulation scheme” in general means a Ponzi scheme, not a pyramid scheme.
Thus, the denial “SAOL is not pyramid scheme” is useless.
hi all,
all ur dicussion are interesting. when the matter is in highest court why not wait for the outcome which in any case we have to accept. even the big corporates loot general public in guise.
this is my personal experience. let us be oriented towards correcting an innovative idea than killing it.
Except the “outcome” is for a civil lawsuit, not the criminal investigation being conducted by EOW/CID.
What’s innovative about a ponzi scheme, which was outlawed by Money Chits and Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act like 40+ years ago? You can disguise it with almost anything: travel, survey, watching ads, placing ads, auctions, etc. But it’s still a Ponzi scheme.
Thanks for that update Andy. Good to see Bajpai has come out of hiding and is playing ball.
Meanwhile I’m not sure what’s going on over at the Bahirwani household but I received this email last night:
The offending comment in question (originating from a different IP to the one Anju usually uses) was
How that constitutes a death threat who knows…
Guess I’ll have to watch the anjuspam IPs a bit more closely in the future.
@jp
I believe people should be offered a choice, not being forced to accept solutions that are mostly in the interests of some self declared “leaders”, but actually seems to harm the interests of most others.
I believe most panelist are concerned about their money, and that “SpeakAsia will rise again” are less important to them than their money. Most of the panelists believe in the IDEA that SpeakAsia is the right solution for them, that it will continue as before and give them Return of Investment.
The only problem here is that SpeakAsia used the panelist own money to pay them, so the group of panelists have lost most of the money they invested. I don’t believe in the idea of adding more people to this group, even if it will help someone reduce their loss (on the expense of others). Adding more people to this group will mostly protect the interest of those who are heavily involved in SpeakAsia, but it will harm the interests of others.
“Steal from the poor and give to the rich” isn’t exactly innovative, it’s an idea that has been used thousands of times before. It isn’t very honourable, either. “Proud to be a SpeakAsian” is a self delusion.
I believe most panelist will prefer to don’t do any surveys, if they realize that SpeakAsia doesn’t have any clients willing to pay for them. Doing fake surveys will only cost them time and money. The only reason why they are willing to do them is because they believe they are paid for doing them (real “salary”, not using their own or other panelists money to pay them).
To continue with this flawed business model as “panelist” or “investor” people will need self delusion, or seriously believe in the idea “Steal from the poor and give to the rich”. If they believe in the last idea they should also accept that THEY are the victims this time, since being cheated is something they really believe in and will gladly accept.
Correcting an innovtive idea?
They need either to get real clients willing to pay for surveys, or to heavily reduce the number of panels and panelists – by returning some of their money.
Continuing with this flawed “business idea” will only make the situation worse. Adding a “buying club” to this business model won’t solve the main problem, and I don’t think people are very interested in being forced to buy products (instead of making money). The solutions offered by SpeakAsia are close to blackmailing.
The Indian court system:
I seriously believe they will be able to handle this case correctly, so I don’t think there should be any need to interfere with anything.
However, this is my personal viewpoint and based on limited insight, and I won’t win or loose any money no matter what the outcome will be. I believe people should be offered a chance to evaluate matters from their own viewpoint, what THEY have to win or loose.
I would have focused on the basic idea of “justice”, rather than the idea of defending personal or group interests. This might be in conflict with the interests of many of the panelists, or what they believe are their real interests.
————-
I can do motivational speeches too, but I prefer adding more facts and have focus on other ideas than Bahirwani. 🙂
@Common Man
The main purpose with the surveys is to make the concept look “believable” and as a “real company”. As long as panelists are willing to invest in more panels the company won’t have big payouts, either. The surveys are paid in the virtual currency Reward Points, and they had internal rules like “earn and burn” to prevent people from withdrawing too much money.
The primary mode of making mooney is by selling panels and subpanels, not by doing surveys.
The company being able to pay doesn’t prove anything, but their balance sheet would have proved something if it wasn’t fixed. It seems like some of the revenue don’t show up in their balance sheet, and I’ll guess this is related to that part of the business has been “unofficial” – the part of selling subpanels or something.
The main problem is that SpeakAsia didn’t have real clients to pay for the surveys. They used money invested from other panelist to pay for them.
In relation to livelihood, this idea is pretty meaningless. People will improve their livelihood on the expense of others, like stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Stealing from Peter to pay Paul for doing fake work is even worse, since they steal time from Paul in addition to stealing money from Peter.
Most panelists would have been more able to support their livelihood if they had kept their money, and hadn’t paid for any subscriptions or panels. They will be more able to support their livelihood if they get some of their money returned, and stop wasting time doing fake surveys each week.
By identifying these problems we prevent even more people from reducing their livelihood. It should be bad enough as it is, and there shouldn’t be any need for reducing livelihood for more people.
The main problem is that the company didn’t have real clients to pay for the surveys, so buying subscriptions and panels was pretty meaningless IN REALITY.
Another major problem is people’s willingness to believe in something, and the resistance against accepting reality. They can’t expect to solve anything if they can’t solve this major problem themselves. Being self-delusional isn’t a good idea for most people.
Agreements between parties has a low rank in the judicial system. They are subordinated to other laws in most cases, and they’re not valid if they violates conditions set by other laws.
Showing proofs of real clients to the police or in court doesn’t violate conditions in an NDA. The NDA has a lower rank, and we can’t claim it should have a higher rank, either.
Is it believable that a company will prefer to literally being shut down and have employees arrested, rather than lawfully reveal their clients to police or in the court? A real list of clients would have made them free from most charges, but a fake list of clients would possibly have brought someone into trouble.
@norway
i truly appreciate ur stand point. i have been monitoring the discussion board regularly in recent times. i have observed prejudged views and arguments leading to prove the point. my request is to have a open mind to the process being initiated at the highest judiciary of this country.
words used to represent the subject like “investment, return , sponsoring, etc “are tactically avoided in the grand scheme speakasia. may be underneath masking of so called ponzi or pyramid scheme is what court is deciding.
whether civil or criminal the fundamental issues will be definitely be addressed in judicial process.
on the matter of surveys and clients the company will have a NDA in place. therefore till we have nailing data all the views are speculative in nature which cannot be relied upon.
i am open to discussion on merit and for the sack of acquiring dependable knowledge to guide innocent and gullible public to caution from sharks out in net domain .
thanks jp
It will be fair for a company to require a survey company to sign NDA to not reveal nature of the product being surveyed, but to sign NDA that say “You can’t even say you are working for us”?
This is not “Impossible Mission Force”, where all actions will be disavowed. Sorry, the NDA angle makes absolutely no sense.
Ah, just like they created those surveys, eh? 🙂
@jp
I have already answered the NDA-issue in another comment, waiting for moderation.
Here’s the answer:
SpeakAsia wouldn’t have violated any agreement if they had documented the clients. Insisting in keeping the clients as a secret seems to be too unbelievable.
I have lots of prejudged views like most others.
I do also have some “selectable views”, where I select a specific viewpoint even if I’m not sure it’s correct. Here’s one of them:
This viewpoint was selected, by choosing to trust my instincts rather than all the confusing information from sources with quite opposite viewpoints.
@Oz
I am amazed at the allegation and I have in any case not sent the message:
“Ad interim relief is when pending the final disposal of the case any relief is sought from the court during the pendency of the matter. In this case AISPA has sought that the entire matter should be kept in abeyance until the Mediation process is not completed.
Simran is more beautiful than Gunjan!”
And you are right that this message does not constitutes a death threat in any case.
On 11th February, 2012 Bhairwani has posted the following on aispa.co.in:
In the hearing on 13.02.2012 I had opposed the submissions of the Senior Counsel representing Ashok Bhairwani and Melwyn Crasto regarding the business model of Speak Asia.
I also submitted that between 17.02.2010 and 12.05.2012 Speak Asia was conducting surveys through its website and was not selling any products to or through the panellists / investors in its survey scheme.
Oz, could this be the reason for this person from Bhairwani’s family feeling threatened?
In any case the EOW has not helped me in any manner what so ever. As far as they are concerned I am only a complainant in one of the many cases being investigated by one of the eight or nine Units into which the investigations are divided in EOW.
@Common Man
Oh dear. I suggest you go read what a ponzi scheme is then.
To try and look legal. These days ponzi schemes usually contain some rudimentary task for its members to complete in an attempt to try and make the ponzi look legit. Other tasks used are forcing members to spam the internet with ads, adding free products with membership to pretend it’s a product purchase etc.
If Speak Asia had anything of value to offer survey wise, they wouldn’t have to. Organic demand alone would be sufficient to ensure company growth.
Fortunately people are usually wary of ponzi schemes these days so they have to offer huge recruitment commissions and get their members to make income claims.
Please, the maths on this never ads up. 1.2-1.8 million members at 2 surveys a week is an astronomical amount to have to charge any survey clients the company has for a survey.
@Navniit
Assuming the accusation itself isn’t nonsense, then maybe.
As for the postcards and email, I thought AISPA had full trust in the judiciary? Why the need to harass individuals and coax Speak Asia members into doing so?
Do they not think the court system is enough now?
@norway,
i respect the difference in selective view point. let us wait for mediator recommendation. my honest desire is innocent people’s money should atleast get paid back at the earliest so that they productively spend the time instead of …..
False. Plenty of people in the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme did absolutely NO recruiting at all. They thought it was an investment in a legitimate investment company.
Adding new members can be done at the company level. The point is there is NO (significant) money being generated in a Ponzi scheme other than member fees.
Which makes the rest of your points, well, rubbish.
@jp
The EXIT-option isn’t FAIR, since it only covered subscriptions $220 as max payback, and doesn’t offer any acceptable choices for those who have bought extra panels.
“Justice” contains some basic principles that most people are willing to accept, even if it harms their personal interests. One of them is EQUALITY BEFORE LAW or “treat people as fair as possible”.
I would have focused on that idea. AISPA is focusing on other ideas, and I don’t think they are worth supporting. But I don’t think it’s necessary to interfere in anything either.
AISPA and “Solomon Jemes & Others” are mostly supporting SpeakAsia Online’s and their own interests. They are supporting specific groups of people on the expense of others, much like “stealing from the poor and giving to the rich”.
They don’t address the real problem either, the need for real clients to support paying for surveys. “We don’t need real clients as long as we can recruit more panelists” isn’t a working solution.
@norway and others
i am clear in one thing. all in the discussion group are looking at things like blind seeing the elephant. it is not worth anymore to voice selective personal opinion.pl do through research and come with nailing data in support of the theory being advocated.
current initiative leads to no man’s land.objectivity is utterly lost. thanks ??????
“In the kingdom of the blind, one-eyed man is king.”
The unspoken addendum is “the rest are sheep to be fleeced”. We are trying to remove the blindfold. If the sheep choose to be sheep, so be it, but they shouldn’t convince people who can see that they should be blind.
@jp
When we analyse statements we usually MUST include more than one viewpoint. We have to start from the original viewpoint and analyse if it’s true or not.
Like this:
“Did SpeakAsia have real clients paying for the surveys?”
Original statements
The original statements was a list of clients, which was later proven to be false – admitted to be false by Manoj Kumar after it was exposed by some journalists.
Then we have a statement from Manoj Kumar claiming to have clients, but they have signed a Non Disclosure Agreement. These clients doesn’t show up in the company’s accounts either, in their total revenue in the last 3 quarters before May 2011.
Number of panels, cost of surveys
If we assume each panelist had only one panel each, then the company would have needed clients willing to pay more than $24 million USD for surveys each week. In reality it seems like average panelists had alot more than one panel. 10-15 panels per average panelist isn’t unrealistic, it’s a low number possible to calculate from other numbers.
These clients would have created streams of money possible to detect in an investigation. The only stream of money possible to detect was the money from the panelists – to lots of accounts in other countries.
Price for each survey
Then we have the reward for doing surveys, $10 per survey and 2 surveys per panel each week, a total of $20 USD for 20-30 minutes work each week. Online surveys have been around for years, and they usually pay peanuts.
SpeakAsia must have been able to find clients willing to pay 10 times the market price, without any specific qualifications to make these surveys more valuable than others.
A sales organization?
The organization in India is certainly not designed to sell surveys to clients. The surveys done was made by “Ram Surveys”, owned by Ram Sumiran Pal and/or Ram Niwas Pal. They didn’t sell any surveys to any client of SpeakAsia, they just made the surveys up by using information from the internet.
The organization in Singapore isn’t designed for selling surveys either, it had 9 persons employed there according to its own statements – but it actually had a virtual office. People selling multi million dollar contracts from home each week isn’t very usual in the real world.
Other factors
Then we have anju stating “SpeakAsia doesn’t need real clients to pay for surveys, it will be able to pay in products”.
Then we have the fact that no other of the businesses released by Seven Rings have been real businesses. They have all been pyramid-like schemes that have collapsed.
Then we have Mister Colibri in Brazil admitting they don’t have any real clients. “We will have to build up the organization first, and train people in watching ads and be paid for the work. Then we can attract clients when we have some millions people to do the work.”
Conclusion
I would have guessed that SpeakAsia doesn’t have real clients willing to pay for the surveys, but I can’t prove it. I’ll have to stick to the pre-judgemental viewpoint I already have, until I get some more facts.
If people really WANT to believe SpeakAsia had/have real clients I will usually let them continue to believe in it.
I dont know why people are even talking about exit option, carefully looking at the terms & condition of the exit option it can be made that exit option will only give RP’s & nothing else because they have already credited more RP’s into account.
So if you have RP’s than you will get RP’s you can eat the Rp’s that’s all no money will be returned for the rp’s in your account.
exit option is ueful only if somebody has joined & has not participated in the survey & I think there is rarely anybody who has joined but didnt do the survey’s. OZ gone through the terms & conditions of Exit in detail??
Just to mention that i am not in the company but my friend is..
Until the court mentions exit options it’s just something Speak Asia came up with any carries no weight.
All the court has said thus far is we’ll determine how much Speak Asia owes and they’ll deposit that within 2 weeks with us.
@amit
Anju claims that the amount to be decided by court and to be paid out is for exit-optioners only.
The exit-option might have changed since I checked it 3 months ago (or someting similar).
The exit-option had 3 groups (when I checked):
1. Made no money – return $220 (in money, not in RP)
2. made less than $220 – return the difference
3. made more than $220 – “Welcome to continue”
Option 1 and 2 had the conditions “We return money, but you will have to drop further claims against SpeakAsia”. People who have bought more than 1 panel will loose money if they use these options.
The exit-options would have been more fair if they had replaced the amount $220 with ‘initial investments’ (subscriptions, panels, sub panels), but still it wouldn’t be fair for everyone. Replacing money with RP is even more unfair.
Those who benefits most from the exit-option are SpeakAsia’s management, and people heavily involved from the start (with alot to loose). It’s a cheap solution to reduce some claims against them.
—-
If data collcted from SpeakAsia’s server are correct, they have had
* 2,200 – 2,600 crore INR in total revenue
* 30,000 crore INR in total investments (reward points and panels)
The difference between these amounts doesn’t make any sense. They indicate that extra panels isn’t included in the official revenue, that part of the business must have been unofficial.
@M_Norway
The 30,000cr is what’s been generated in RP, not what has been invested. This amount was mostly generated in recruitment commissions.
Remember that 1RP = 1USD (from memory).
@Oz
The amount 30,000 crore doesn’t make any sense either, if it doesn’t include investments.
2,200 crore INR / 2 million panelists = 11,000 INR
30,000 crore INR = $6 billion USD (at fixed rate 50:1)
$6 billion USD / 2 million panelists = $3,000 USD in average RP
$6 billion USD / 1.2 million panelists = $5,000 USD
The 2,200 crore amount makes sense. It looks like they only have counted subscription fees, and excluded extra panels in their revenue.
I’ll guess some of the RPs must have been invested in panels and subpanels. Most people wouldn’t have liked to have thousands of dollars invested in a virtual currency “Reward Points”. Having most of the money invested in “panels” makes more sense. 🙂
As I understand it, 30,000cr is the amount calculated from the server backend that is the total commissions earnt by panelists (mostly from recruitment).
It doesnt include the subscription fees as this wouldn’t normally be owed to panelists.
The problem is that under the Speak Asia business model (suspending whether it’s legal or not for a moment), that’s the total amount they’d be up for if they were to pay out all their members.
They obviously don’t have 30,000cr – so without the recruitment of new members the company can’t pay out.
$Oz
Most of the revenue comes from selling panels and subpanels, both the company’s revenue and the panelists “income”.
30,000 crore sounds like the real thing in commissions, but they had an internal rule ‘earn it and burn it’ = buy more panels to earn even more money. I’ll guess some of the 30,000 crore must have been reinvested in extra IDs, panels and subpanels.
The extra panels shows up as Reward Points in SpeakAsia’s accounts, but it doesn’t show up as revenue. Revenue shows only subscriptions and the first panel/ID = 11,000 rupies per panelist.
I’ll guess Manoj Kumar must have kept a part of the business separated from SpeakAsia’s accounts. He have probably kept the income from selling extra panels, and paid commissions directly – skimming SpeakAsia for most of the money.
The money from franchisees was collected through Manoj Kumar’s different companies, and sent to SpeakAsia and to other companies in different countries (AdMatrix, Seven Rings, etc.).
As far as I remember, the investigation detected transfering of money to more than 100 different accounts in other countries.
Some statements from Harendar Kaur 27. May 2011 makes more sense:
4,800 crore INR = $960 million USD
* Liquids = Bank, cash
* Assets = Invested in something
The extra panels doesn’t show up as revenue in their accounting, but they show up in the 4,800 Crore statement from Harendar Kaur.
Parts of the amounts collected must have been separated by Manoj Kumar and sent to other destinations, while payment for the first panel was sent to SpeakAsia in Singapore.
Top of the foodchain
It seems more and more clear that Manoj Kumar is on top of the foodchain in all these scams.
* His company Tulsient has been involved in all of the scams as a consultant and software provider, right from Mango Universe in 2006 to more recent scams.
* Money from franchisees was collected by 3 of his own companies, before they were sent to various destinations mostly in other countries.
Usually we won’t allow someone lower in the foodchain to handle amounts of that size – 100’s of millions of dollars and more than 100 different bank accounts.
Ram Sumiran Pal and Ram Niwas Pal doesn’t fit the profile of being on top of the foodchain. They fit the profile of being second in command, along with many others. Being on top of AdMatrix and other schemes doesn’t mean they are on top of the foodchain, it will more likely contradict such position.
dear all,
numbers discussed has no correlation . eg 30 k crores payout should result in collection of 30/5 = 6 k crores (approximate) including sub panels.
logic is 10k becoming 52k in one year i.e 104 surveys. payouts were made till april 11, 2011 surveys . almost 8 months surveys were not loaded.
i see a miss match in the numbers or the amount collected should have been much higher.
i will thankful for clarity on the subject
@jp
The numbers didn’t make any sense for me either, and that’s why I’m analysing other statements from different sources
Data gathered from the server indicated 30,000 crore INR in Reward Points, during the whole period (early 2010 to May 2011), and I’ll guess the amount includes RP ‘burned’ on buying more panels and subpanels. The real growth came in the last few months.
2,200 – 2,400 crore INR was supposed to be total revenue for the same period, but this amount seems to be far too low. The revenue must have been higher if we include extra panels and subpanels.
In one of the sources I found the EOW stated “SpeakAsia investors pocketed Rs 1,052 crore“.
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_speakasia-investors-pocketed-rs1052-crore_1592858
Panels and subpanels
It wasn’t unusual that average panelists bought more than 1 panel as an initial investment. People invested what they could afford to invest (within some limits). Initial investments from 1 to 5 lakh wasn’t unusual, but I don’t know anything about how usual they were, either.
Bahirwani has a comment about a news story “MBA lost 14 lakh”, where he defends Speak Asia.
Another example, Bahirwani claimed to have bought a “tripod”:
The links used here was found in this article:
https://behindmlm.com/companies/speak-asia-online/aispas-ashok-bahirwani-is-completely-misguided/
You guys are factoring in the binary pairing recruitment commissions right?
This was where the bulk of the commissions (paid out as RPs) came from, and as they were created out of thin air (paid out as RP means there doesn’t have to be cash backing the RPs until cashouts), explains the point discrepencies.
The 30,000cr figure is not revenue generated, merely the lump sum of revenue owed in payouts if everyone cashed out.
$10 million USD is good and bad news. The amount is too small to pay many of the panelists waiting for money, but at least it is a start.
@ Norway..
Hi..from where did you get the news that SAOL has deposited Rs. 50 Crores..I believe the amount was to be decided by Justice Lahoti on the 23rd Feb…
There you go again..Rana..posting the good news..(Oh man…spreads like an Australian Bushfire…on the Net)…no confirmation yet on anything..the buzz is spreading..these so called senior Panelists..how do they know the dates of everything..(must be Astrologists).
Even if the news that SAOL has deposited 50 crores with the Court..there is very little to cheer as this amount might be only for the 115 Panelists who are mentioned in the Court case and not for the general group of 2 million Panelists/Sub-panelists.
@ Oz,Chang,Norway ..
You guys shall be proven right on the fact that this whole Bhaiwani/Aispa episode might be a big conspiracy to shut out common panelists to pay the top few who have already earned..and keep the common Investors from doing anything..
I honestly believe that as Aispa is not a registered Association, Supreme Court ruling will be only in favor of 115 Panelists and not for ALL..I sincerely believe that ALL IS NOT WELL!
@Mr. Y:
From Flash scroller at aispa.co.in
xyz posted a message here about it, a message that is probably deleted.
I’ve nuked a lot of Speak Asia spam today.
Plenty of Jai Speak Asia cheerleading crap that adds nothing to the discussion.
Regarding the xyz post, I don’t mind people publishing information (if they cite it and it’s not just baseless cheerleading), but ‘hey guys go look here’ just wastes mine and everybody elses time.
Not to mention someone reading this in the future will have no idea what was published somewhere else as it’s likely to change.
Quote what you’re citing and back it up with a link. Don’t waste our time with ‘omg look here!’ type comments.
Not sure what the story is, but the Thane and Raigad cases have been adjourned again until the 23rd March 2012.
So much for being disposed on the 22nd…looks like the affidavit reply by the EOW warranted another hearing in the case. The courts just don’t seem to be interested in quashing FIR’s against Speak Asia.
No word on the defamation case yet, although adjournment until a later date appears to be the order of the day regarding Speak Asia’s lawsuits.
dear all,
i understand that the whole episode is in decisive round. it is not win or loose but a feedback to our collective effort so far.
i am waiting to understand how supreme court is going to unmask the deceit if it were to be true. if precision mass marketing is fully executed, the society will stand to gain with cost of consumption or ownership being considerably less due to branding cost , advertisement etc. eliminated in the consumer cost. this is theoretically a correct view.
the cost so avoided does not add any value to actual consumption. consumers will also evaluate the product more on technicals and core usage value. may be the company saol might have misjudged the possibility but the economics behind the model can be reviewed for refinement and future prospecting.
i am keen to listen to the views with absolute open mind.
@jp
Speak Asia has never been about precision marketing. There’s nothing precision about doctoring up surveys from Wikipedia articles and paying the majority of your commissions on the recruitment of others.
And you’re using future tense, what is going to or might happen is irrelevant, what Speak Asia has done is all that’s relevant.
Seven Rings have already admitted their other scam Mister Colibri has no clients, Speak Asia doesn’t either – they just use membership fees to pay commissions. Where’s the “precision marketing” in that?
It’s just a buzzword (not the only one Speak Asia management use) thrown around to inflate the self importance of those who swallow the Speak Asia kool-aid.
oz,
greetings. what saol has done or doing or going to do is in the fair hands of supreme court. i do not want become a judge.
read my submission closely . i have been observing as a matter of interest. i respect ur personal freedom of expression . goodluck OZ
What does luck have to do with it? I or anyone else can’t change the fact that for a year Speak Asia ran a blatant ponzi.
Whether or not there’s any criminal liability to answer for is up to the courts. The Supreme Court appears to just be about payouts, the Mumbai High Court case today appears to be indicate that there’s no intention of magically dissolving investigation into the company.
@jp
You can’t expect people to ‘serve’ something to you, like ‘proofs’ or ‘evidence’. You’ll have to do some of the work yourself, like checking links and sources and connecting different kinds of information.
How the subscriptions and panels were sold/marketed can be found here:
A couple of news from september 2011:
Some amounts, money taken out of India and money brought back to pay members.
The fake surveys:
The problem is “open mind” has different definitions to different people.
A true “open mind” means ability to accept and process new information and update one’s position, if needed.
However, some scamsters are known to use “open mind” as a way to install doubt on real information, claiming that all information has same value, whether they are verified / corroborated info or “crap info”.
Spotted this on Facebook today regarding Speak Asia:
lolwut?
Good quote, since we’re talking exactly about pyramids and Ponzis
When a SpeakAsian compares SpeakAsia to a pyramid, I think it’s a Freudian slip
the story is that the case was listed at number 68 and the court ran out of time so the matter could not be heard.
save your conspiracy stories of the courts adjourning saol matters because of ‘disinterest’ if you do not understand our court systems.
also the eow has not yet filed their affidavits either the raigarh/thane cases or the aispa matter [being heard today].
not replying to the court inspite of several such orders from the court is irresponsible and can delay matters but for how many weeks more?
we are patient.
I think your own court system doesn’t understand itself.
Why does the Mumbai High Court website listing for both the Thane and Raigad cases state:
(note that the court only updates Raigad, they don’t bother updating Thane as they treat them as the same case)
If nothing happened, they’d have just been rescheduled without updating the last hearing date wouldn’t they?
Look at Speak Asia’s Star News defamation suit, now delayed until April (lol).
Note there’s no hearing date provided, which appears to be the case if there was infact no hearing.
Not saying you’re wrong, just questioning why a hearing date is listed if there allegedly wasn’t one.
@chang
“open mind” means accepting a subject for evaluation scientifically and draw objective conclusion for common benefit.prejudice is eliminated at all stages.let us brave ourselves to the process. thanks
@oz,
the two cases were clubbed as per the court instruction . pl follow the case closely.
well our courts are somewhat overburdened.
depending on how much time individual hearings take the bench may be able to sometimes hear only 10 of the matters listed and sometimes even 70 matters.the matters which are not heard due to lack of time are fed back into the systems computers and assigned a fresh hearing date.
this new date for the case will be updated during the day today.
about the star news defamation suit did i not tell you months ago that such cases can take years which is why our press is pretty much scotfree. let it take two years even -who’s in a tearing hurry?
Clearly the Indians never heard of the TransAmerica pyramid in San Francisco… finished in only 3 years. 😉
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transamerica_Pyramid
@jp
And what is your objective conclusion so far, related to doing surveys? Are they worth doing or not for an average panelist?
We have lots of indications saying they were “false”, used as a honeypot that promised Return of Investment, but never generated any income from real clients.
If they don’t generate money from real clients the company will have to use the panelists own money to pay them, so doing surveys doesn’t generate any extra income for panelists.
Welcome back, anju.
I believe one of the reasons for ‘overburdened’ may be related to people’s mentality? Indians seems to be very eager to solve all possible matters in court (like quashing of FIRs, defamation suits, PILs, WRITs, SLPs, etc.).
SpeakAsians on the other hand have only 4 cases in court this week, so they seems to be relatively ‘relaxed’ in the use of courts. 🙂
i will take this opportunity to confuse you further by stating that ALL money circulation schemes are NOT illegal.saol is NOT a money circulation scheme as per the requirements of our [india’s] PCMC act.
i once again reiterate that we are interested ONLY in following our own laws.everybody else can keep their laws and private opinions to themselves.
actually the average indian avoids courts like a rash.it’s just too time consuming.
and yes we do have four cases this week .if our institutions will not listen to the company or the panelists then the only way to be heard is through the courts.
and we’re really happy with the response of our judicial system until now.
@anju
Well good thing the Bahirwani’s aren’t running the universe then.
Money circulation, ponzi scheme… whatever you want to call it. At the end of the day it’s unsustainable and whatever Indian courts rule legality wise, that fact alone will do the company in itself.
It’s the reason ponzi schemes are illegal the world over.
@anju
Here’s the actual definition used in the act
http://www.dif.mp.gov.in/Prize_Chits_Money_Circulation_Sch_Banning_Act_1978.pdf
care to explain WHY SAOL does NOT qualify as money circulation scheme as quoted above? Or are you going to defer to Phoenix Legal (i.e. dodge the question)?
@anju
The PCMC Banning Act relates both to participants and to the organizers (the company in this case).
Do you seriously mean that Speak Asia wasn’t dependent upon recruitment? And that most of the “revenue” came from something other than recruiting new members (and selling panels to them)?
Selling panels is a part of recruitment, even if they’re sold to people already recruited.
The company will be able to pay panelists for 4-10 weeks with the balance they had in May 2011 (4,800 crore rupies or $960 million USD). For how long they are able to pay depends on the average number of panels per panelist.
Besides, the court system isn’t limited to use one specific Act. PCMC wasn’t mentioned in any of the WRITs trying to quash FIRs. As far as I remember they mentioned other laws, like “Indian Penal Code §406 and §420” (Cheating), “Indian Penal Code §120B” (Criminal conspiracy).
The worst problem in the Indian judiciary system is all the people that doesn’t have “ground contact”. 🙂
norway the FIR’s are filed under three complaints ie cheating, conspiracy to cheat and the money circulation act.
as i told you before, with the exit option the first two charges will die a natural death and the third charge of money circulation will remain to be cleared for business restart.so it’s on the back burner for now,once the exit option is dealt with, this final roadblock will be dealt with.
care to explain that? like our rbi our judiciary is one of the sharpest and wisest of our institutions. our democracy is alive, because our judiciary does not allow any agency to mess with it. a little respect here would be nice.
chang, i’m not discussing any secrets here. who knows who all are your friends ?
@anju
Do you really MEAN this?
I’m sure it sounded ‘intelligent’ when you wrote that statement, but you should consider to change your statements to something closer to reality in the future.
Your statement indicates that you also are willing to accept the situation if Speak Asia looses the case, as far as it’s in accordance to Indian Laws?
And willing to accept Melwyn Crasto, Ashish Dandekar, Manoj Kumar, Tarak Bajpai, Ashok Bahirwani etc. to be arrested and prosecuted – as long as it is within the law?
Nice.
I’ll guess most of us will remember your statement.
I meant all the PEOPLE eager to drag a case to the court, even when it isn’t necessary.
I did also mean all the PEOPLE willing to join and defend scams.
Ponzi and pyramid schemes doesn’t generate much value, like contributing to BNP and taxes and similar stuff. 1,2 million people participating in a scheme is absolutely insane.
People doing fake surveys is insane, too. The same is people believing in Indians buying subscriptions and panels just to have them on their computers, or are using such ideas in their arguments – like “Speak Asia sold subscriptions” and “Speak Asia sold panels”.
Most people with a little ‘ground contact’ will realize that people bought these things because of the income opportunity.
The high level of insanity seems to be a big problem in the population.
Your statement indicates that you also are willing to accept the situation if Speak Asia looses the case, as far as it’s in accordance to Indian Laws?-norway
duh.
what else can anybody do?
the courts are the final frontier as they say . nobody wants to argue with decisions made by the supreme court.
we are not willing to let our eow or media, declare and hang saol as a money circulation scheme ,that decision will be made only by our supreme court.
this is a fair enough stand and you should be able to accept it without suffering moral angst.
and by the way saol paid huge service tax [around 60 crores] to the govt of india . nobody is expecting a free ride on the expense of the state.
if the IT dept proves it’s dues [unlikely], saol will most happily pay that too. they have already made this submission to the supreme court in writing.
and well, there is a very fine line between insanity and genius.
Actually SAOL wanted to create a base of panelists fast. Their target was 2 million panelists by Dec 2011.
The idea was to then set up shop of selling electronic goods online through panelists for panelists and to the public at large. Being sold online through panelists the products would have been far lower in price than their competitors.
This was a new marketing strategy in India. They had plans to set up kiosks for selling these products and service centers all over India. To reach the target they wanted panelists to get more panelists enrolled by providing binary income.
They also kept panelists happy by providing them Reward Points and were actually paying the same in cash and allowed them to make sub-panels. However, the plan of allowing sub-panels was to change in May itself to just one ID per person with more IDs to be transferred to relatives or other family members.
However, instead of unfolding their future plans like this plan of online sale of products right at the beginning in their preamble they unfolded the same a year later in May 2011. For some reason the media was unhappy with them and did a write up of their own despite them having paid service tax and other liabilities to the authorities.
What followed was what is going on now. With their ultimate objective of online marketing scuttled, they have been accused of running a ponzi scheme or money laundering scheme, etc. and left to defend themselves in the Courts.
SAOL has become a topic of scam which would not have been the case if they were just left alone. All who had become panelists in the same new the risks which would have been far lessened if SAOL had unfolded their plan right at the beginning of marketing online products under a new brand called YUG.
Also there was no point in criticizing the brand YUG. Does not one find online marketing of a brand of mobiles called VOX? These are not actually made by VOX. It is just a brand in India. Similarly LG does not make pressure cookers but the same is sold in India by door-to-door sellers and these are of pretty good quality.
All brands take time to settle down. Even Microsoft releases OEM versions of their new softwares in the free market to make them popular.
SAOL image was ruined by some jealous competitors including the media. Nobody questioned Amway or Herballife whose products are not make in India but imported and sold mostly through members. No action was taken against Sohonet of yesteryears run by a Raj of Hyderabad who fleeced millions in the guise of providing home-based work.
There are plenty others running online training program with the promise of providing home-based work after completion of training which is never honored. No action is taken and they continue to fleece the desperate aspirants especially housewives especially in these inflationary times.
Coming back to the subject, now all panelists fearful of not getting a return have also joined the wolf pack of howling at least for their initial investment to become panelists. I too am a looser.
@Jasbir
Given that this was the majority of commissons paid, it’s a pyramid scheme.
As has been discussed many times before, what you were going to do doesn’t negate what you did.
Running a ponzi scheme (or ponzi/pyramid hyrbid as was the case here with bogus surveys and recruitment commissions) isn’t justifiable under any circumstances.
Says who, Speak Asia?
Given Seven Rings management were rolling in the revenue generated by membership fees, who’s to say they had any plans to stop the recruitment commissions (the bulk of their revenue)?
Let’s not waste time discussing what didn’t happen, and just stick to what did – in that Speak Asia ran a ponzi/pyramid for a year and are now facing the consequences because management got greedy.
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/casequery_action.php?auth=bV9oYz0wMSZtX3NyPVImbV9zaWRlZmxnPUNSJm1fZmlsX25vPTAxMzA4MDMyMTAyMDExJm1fc2tleT1XUCZtX25vPTMyMTAmbV95cj0yMDEx
the next date for the hearing of the thane/raigarh quashing matter is 14 th march 2012.
we lose one week because the supreme court has a week long vacation in early march [holi vacation]
@anju
As far as I can estimate without having the exact amounts, selling extra panels was an “unofficial business”. The amount doesn’t show up as revenue in any official statements, except in the balance sheet reported in May 2011 by Harendar Kaur (the 4,800 crore balance). It shows up in the 30,000 crore reported by EOW, too.
68 crore rupies are appr. 1.5 percent tax. HUGE service tax? Have Indians finally got a sense of humor?
And doing fake work will still be meaningless. It might feel very meaningful to you, but I’ll guess people gradually will understand that the work doesn’t create any extra income.
It will be more acceptable if they’re able to keep the problem within India, but it seems like they’re trying to spread these schemes in lots of other countries. I’ll prefer to stop them where they originates.
———————————-
@jasbir
Speak Asia will continue to have the same problem, too many panelists and panels and no clients to pay for the surveys.
The balance reported in May 2011 was 4,800 crore rupies.
With only one panel per panelist they will be able to pay for 40 weeks (for surveys), but the average number of panels was much higher.
* An average of 10 panels per panelist is a more realistic number – they will be able to pay for 4 weeks.
* An average of 5 panels per panelist – they will be able to pay for 8 weeks.
Recruiting more panelists or selling more panels will only make the problem worse.
The new business model will be more like a ‘buying club’ than an income opportunity (if they don’t allow more panels to be sold). It means you’ll have to spend money instead of earning them, if they want the business to be sustainable.
NOTE:
The amount 4,800 crore rupies was from Harendar Kaur’s statement around 28. May 2011, in “Speak Asia will fight back”.
Do the math yourself?
1000 rupies per week * 1.2 million panelists * average number of panels per panelist
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/383201132322012p.txt
todays order from the supreme court.
norway
have you seen the balance sheet of the company? the service tax people seem satisfied with the amount filed by the company and i’m pretty sure they understand service tax regulations better than you and me.
it’s now the income tax dept trying to figure how a company registered abroad is liable to pay income tax to the indian govt. they probably need to read up on their tax regulations a bit more.
you are most welcome to stop saol in your own country, but other countries will just happily follow their own laws and not worry too much about your feelings and protestations.
@Jasbir
India seems to have outdated laws in many areas, poorly designed to handle the changes internet have made to trade and marketing.
They are welcome to keep pyramid and Ponzi schemes, as long as they are able to keep them as “local entertainment” in India. They’re not welcome when they try to spread those schemes to other countries. Bangladesh and Pakistan are OK too, but that’s as far as I’m willing to go. 🙂
I can probably send you some Scandinavian schemes if you’re interested? Sitetalk / Unaico seems to have started in India, last time I checked (5-6 weeks ago). I can probably find a few other schemes too, within a couple of weeks.
I’ll be more than happy to help, if people really want that kind of help.
‘Spreading the word’
I can also offer additional help, like ‘spreading the word’ on MoneyMaker-forums and similar forums. “India is the most promising market I have seen. It seems like it’s possible to run any kinds of schemes there, and there’s hardly any resistance in the population.
People will go to court to defend their favourite schemes, if you ask them to do so. It’s easier than stealing candy from a kid.”
Adding some stories about people doing fake surveys and watching fake video-ads will do the rest. I can even give organizers (in Europe and the U.S.) names for local organizers in India.
It will be even better if I can tell people that it’s possible to run a scheme for more than a year without any risks, as long as they have plans that looks more like a real business.
sour grapes?
look at this site .soapbox liquidates ponzi schemes at a rate of sometimes two a day. and they’re NOT in india [mostly at least].
you need to find some other country as your favorite scam destination.
remember the money life article where they awarded the year 2011 as the year of pulling down pyramid scams? india definitely does NOT allow a free run for scams.
we can’t help it though can we, if we fight through the toughest trial by fire [investigating agencies,RBI, tax dept and union of india] and manage to get clearance?
if our law clears us why should anyone complain?
@Jasbir and all other speakasia defenders (repeated)
Why do you think people joined speakasia?
1. for ezine – NO
2. for doing surveys – NO
3. for buying panels – NO
4. for buying YUG products – NO
5. to perform precision marketing and market research – NO
People joined speakasia because of guaranteed income of 372% on their investment. Try to remove the money involved and … everything will be useless like speakasia’s business model and future ideas.
WP/3611/2011 next date is 29/2/2012
Listing Dates Purpose
13/02/2012 FOR ADMISSION – CIRCULATION (CRIMINAL SIDE MATTERS)
23/02/2012 FOR DIRECTION [CRIMINAL SIDE MATTERS]
Well it’s going to take some time.
Supreme Court order today 23/2/2012 on WP/383/2011
Why the hell is only $10 million? I think only 115/117 people are going to be paid. (observe there is no mention of so called exit option in any order up to now)
This matter is going to be disposed now and no indication given by the court to restart speakasia’s business.
One thing I don’t understand
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 – Speakasia nad Haren Ventures. Why FD of 91 days?
Well, I believe the money covering the 115 petitioners has been deposited. So they’re covered, as planned all along.
Meanwhile absolutely nothing about exit options, business restarts or the other panelists.
Looking forward it’s unclear what’s going to happen, at least my understanding anyway. I’m sure the ‘Jai Speak Asia’ crowd will be standing by to announce that the business will start tommorow or some such, but apart from this Solicitor General affidavit to be filed within 2 weeks and then a reply to that within another 2 weeks, there’s little indication as to what’s happening.
Given that there’s no mention of Speak Asia depositing any more money, it appears Lahoti hasn’t named an amount owing yet.
Note that the current amount deposited is being held by the court and they look to be holding onto it for an extended period of time. 91 days is 3 months so at a minimum nobody is getting anything till then.
I’m thinking once Lahoti names this figure owed, if Speak Asia deposit the amount he names then the legality of Speak Asia might finally be heard and the investigations brought to the forefront. At the moment the priority appears to be establishing whether or not Speak Asia has the money to cover all the panelists before anything else is brought to the discussion table (legality, ponzi schemes, investigations etc).
We all know they don’t have 30,000cr so I guess we wait for Lahoti to name his price.
(this is my opinion based on the information at hand – which isn’t much).
@anju
Sour grapes? No. I was testing something …
But I still have the same feeling, “it feels like shooting an unarmed man”. 🙂
I would probably have failed miserably in the “Spreading the word”-part, since I don’t speak MoneyMaker-language.
@Oz
I don’t think 91 days is a minimum. It sounds more like a “standard timeframe” in bank-language, like “3 bank-months + 1 day”. Bank-months are usually 30 days.
[quote from the court order]
“However, it is made clear that the disbursement of the amount would be subject to further orders of this Court.”
@anju
Speak Asia (Harendar Kaur) published some amounts around 28. May 2011 – $482 million USD in bank account in Singapore, and 4,800 crore in the balance-sheet (balance will usually include bank-accounts, and any other assets).
The statement was found on several Speak Asia supporter sites, so it might have been plain ‘motivational speech’.
OK, I didn’t understand part of the court order (and neither did you, I’ll guess). 🙂
The case is still PENDING, so I’ll guess “this application stands disposed of” only relates to a part of the case?
The part that is disposed (settled) is the “deposit an amount of 50 crore rupies in the Supreme Court registry” or something?
@M_Norway
Regarding the further orders, I don’t think they’re going to get to discussing any possible disbursement until the Lahoti figure is named and the money deposited.
As per the last court order 50cr is just for the 115 named, Lahoti still hasn’t named a figure for the rest of the panelists yet (as far as I know).
I know the petition isn’t dissolved, just the application to deposit 50cr with the court.
@andy,
leading IT (information technology) training advertisement says pay rs 30000/ and get employed with rs 25000/ min salary per month after successful completion of the course in latest technology. my ?
is will you calculate 1000% return on investment which is arithmetically accurate. (30k becomes 300k)
speakasia schemes were ingeniously crafted . please read their offer document carefully . corporates are driven by profits without any moral or social responsibility . public are taken for big ride more so in the health sector ,medical insurance & hospitals , pharma.
all these are masked in the name of civilisation , let us wait & watch how this game is going to unfold.
@jp
1. The training company do not hire you, they train you.
2. When you do get employed by a third party, you’re not paid to recruit people.
3. You’re paying for training, not employment or membership. With Speak Asia you pay for membership and your commission is paid out of other people’s membership fees. Not withstanding the bulk of commissions paid out being recruitment based.
Comparison fail, and there’s nothing ingenious about pyramid and ponzi schemes – been around since at least the 1920s.
If I know correctly that WP/383 is for the settlement of dispute between consumers (Solomon & others) and company (Speakasia and Haren Ventures). And because of this the Lahoti committee was created.
If you look at the order dated 6/2/2012 and yesterdays order you will know that $10M is to be paid to 115/117 petitioners only. After the respondent no. 6 (EOW) gave print out of data by 11/2/2012 and the amount indicated by the Mediator to respondents no. 3 and no. 4 (Speakasia and Haren Ventures).
This is just my view may be I could be wrong about this.
Taking that order at word then yes it fits.
1. EOW provided Lahoti with supporting data to back the 50cr amount by 11th Feb.
2. Speak Asia deposited 50cr within 2 weeks.
3. There is a mediation process going on about disbursement of these funds.
The timeline of events and lack of communication by those directly involved (to protect their interests at the expense of the greater panelist population), means that it’s a bit difficult to put together timewise.
But it does fit.
The only loose end is the EOW and their protest that 50cr only covers 115 petitioners. Perhaps that’s what this Secretary General affidavit is about? This appears to be somewhat external to the current scope of the Lahoti mediation process, which seems to be limited to discussion on the disbursement of the deposited 50cr.
Personally despite all the talk of exit options, business restarts and payments for everyone I think the proceedings are much simpler in nature.
1. Establish the gross amount owed to the petitioners.
2. Through a mediation process attempt to work out what is the net payment owed.
The precise details of how this being discussed/calculated we’re not privvy to as those involved are keeping silent on the specifics. All the other panelists kicking up a fuss over why they aren’t getting any of the 50cr doesn’t serve the best interests of the petitioners or Speak Asia.
The petitioners would be held accountable by their fellow panelists and Speak Asia would be looking at a much larger payout than 50cr (and taxes) should the panelist base revolt and demand their own payments.
It seems that Bahirwani and gang is also collecting money from *poor*, *robbed* panelists. I don’t know if anyone has noticed the name of the bank account “Speakasia Panelist Association of India” it is surely not “All India Speak Asia Panelist Association” (AISPA). Who knows if it’s the same (registered or unregistered) association?
Just to further clarify, here’s what Anju Bahirwani said on the 9th February –
There’s also that TOI article in which was stated:
Is this what the Solicitor General affidavit is regarding? The data handed over by the EOW was merely to cross refernce the 50cr amount whereas a signed affidavit is needed to back the claims of money owed to all the panelists.
Anju’s mention of exit optioners can be ignored as clearly the order mentions petitioners – but everything else supports the above process steps. 50cr was named by Lahoti and deposited within 2 weeks. The order explicitly states this is money potentially owed to the petitioners, nobody else.
What’s more worrying is that yesterday’s order states the application is disposed. I take that to mean that unless this Solicitor General affidavit is regarding a security deposit covering the rest of the panelists, there is no more money to be deposited by Speak Asia that might be used to pay out panelists at a later date.
I wonder for how much longer the panelist base at large are going to continue to swallow the ‘be quiet and don’t disrupt our payments’ line the senior panelists and management are pushing onto them on a daily basis?
May be EOW have opposed to pay $10M to XYZ in court but it was a news report. While what I am stating are court orders and EOW surely can’t change the matter on which the proceedings are going on.
If it is criminal case against speakasia then EOW can show the investigation data to the court. But as far as WP/383 is concerned I guess it is purely for the settlement issue.
@Andy
I believe the EOW opposed that the 50cr be the only deposit Speak Asia make. Per the court’s order the 50cr matter is settled and all that needs to be discussed now is the disbursement of funds (via the mediation process using the EOW’s gleaned data from the Speak Asia website).
Unless this Solicitor General affidavit is in regard to payments to the rest of the panelists (which fits, otherwise I have no idea what it’s about), the rest of them are screwed.
Filing an affidavit to support an objection that Speak Asia only pay 115 panelists does fit well though, moreso when you consider the court is willing to receive a response to the affidavit (Speak Asia trying to weasel out of depositing money they don’t have to pay everybody else on the legal basis that everybody else didn’t petition against them demanding payments).
Anju had confirmed before that she (and her daddy) considers SAOL to be restarting as soon as the 115 are paid off.
We’ll see what EOW has to say about that idea.
@ Oz..
So here comes the Judgement.. Oz you are right All the Saol Panelists barring those 115 mentioned therin the SC Order are Royally ******. Even these 115 wont get the money till a later date as decided by the Court. WHAM!!!
I think now.. that the stinging reality will hit the “OTHER PANELISTS” that once again they have been SUCKERED by the Bhairwanis of AISPA, once again their trust has been breached.
So much euphoria was going on on the Net these last few days regarding the 23rd Feb Verdict that people has presumed that the Website will open on 24th Feb,2012, Panelists who had taken EXIT Option will be paid before the end of FEB., Permanent Establishment of SAOL will take effect in 1st week of March and Surveys and Recruitment will start by 10th March…so on and so forth. PHEW!..
What to say? Nothing seems to be going all right for these Panelists.. on top of that Bhaiwanis want more Money from these Suckered Panelists in the form of Donation…Donation to a Association which is not registered anywhere and not represented/recognises in Court.
All this time Bhairwani was shouting that All the Panelists are being represented in the SC and now it turns that SAOL has been let off the hook for the time being by paying pittance for the 115 Panelists…
I sincerely hope that EOW now gears up and opens all its card asap..for the benefit of the Panelists
Some logics related to payment:
* Price for subscription: $220 (commission $20)
* Price panels and subpanels: $200 (binary commission)
* Payment for 2 surveys per week: $20
If all panels and subpanels were sold at once (the same day and week by the same recruiter), they could max have been able to pay for surveys for 9.5 weeks paying in cash instead of reward points).
9.5 weeks is the upper limit for how long the price of a panel can support paying for 2 surveys per week.
They will never be able to pay in cash no matter what they do, if we’re talking about the whole group and for more than 4 weeks.
Adding products will only delay the collapse. Selling more subscriptions and panels will make the situation worse, but it will also delay the collapse for a short period of time (because new and fresh money are added).
Of course it will be possible to over-price the products, and have terms and conditions like “pay 50 percent in cash, pay the rest in reward points”, but then very few people will like to join. People won’t earn any money with such conditions, they are forced to spend money instead.
@Navniit Kkhosla
What happened yesterday regarding WP 3611/2011?
Andy & Mr. Y: When it was not registered, every one shouted that it is an unregistered thing. Now it is registered by the name of Speakasia Panelist Association of India , then also you are unaware of this fact.
You people forget the important factual things very easily and keep on beating the bush around non-fact based data.
OZ & M_Norway – I hope you are aware that AISPA is a registered association now by the name of SPAI.. If not please let me know , i would provide the factual link for the same.
@OZ,
greetings , i fully appreciate ur stand point. subtle diff is ur views are in difference with my views.
i have seen enough number of candidates suffering the fate what i have brought out. eg y2k training loot. several such instances can be quoted with solid proof . even in medical service especially cardio related emergencies how tactically first relatives are extracted almost at gun point and with delicate precision. the facts were enacted by a leading mbbs md of the same profession .
everywhere ethics were pledged for profit. my humble request to u is to await the final clear orders of supreme court and gracefully accept the verdict.
understand that the burden of carrying the freedom obtained shall be on saol and they have to perform with razor sharp precision at all times and the fun part is only a beginning.
long ago say 9 months back in a discussion forum i voiced such view that the company should be allowed to function with owners pledging everything to the law agencies and life will become a must to perform as envisaged in the business model.
we could have prevented lose of time , sympathy and unnecessary hero out of yet to be proved concept.
pl give ir thought.
“…..this application stands disposed off”. Does this mean the matter of 383/2011 stands closed and only on SC orders the money will be distributed? Whatever happened to the demand that was to be raised by Justice Lahoti on SAOL? Has this Bahirwani/SAOL preempted Justice Lahoti’s move of a bigger demand?
Again, this Bahirwani chap at its AISPA has stated that at the 3611/2011 hearing in Bombay High Court on Feb 23rd, EoW had stated that the Supreme Court had allowed them to continue their investigation and that the Bombay High Court had asked it to place that order with them.
Again, this Bahirwani chap has also stated something about arm twisting by Navniit Kkhosla and the Bombay High Court censoring him for it. Is it true or is Bahirwani just hallucinating or in desperation become schizophrenic in not being able to keep his flock of brainwashed panelists in line after a series of court cases going against his beloved SAOL?
The amount of Rs 50 crore does not seem to be limited to 115 petitioners as the average payout of Rs 43.5 lakh (Rs 5000 lakh/115) per petitioner is too large to be correct.
Supreme Court’s order to SAOL to deposit Rs 50 crore appears to be merely a security deposit to be retained until SAOL clears its outstanding dues to statutory authorities and SAOL refunds the dues to all panelists who have sought Exit Option (SAOL has given affidavit that it wants to pay to all panelists who want to avail Exit Option).
Supreme Court is not expected to get involved in calculation of total dues and refund process. It will be SAOL’s responsibility to manage the entire refund exercise through its bankers. That is why EOW has been asked to release the website to enable SAOL to carry out this exercise.
Once SAOL files an affidavit to Supreme Court that there are no claims pending for refund in respect of Exit Option and payment of outstanding statutory dues, then some time will be provided for filing of counterclaims by statutory authorities and unpaid panelists who had sought Exit Option.
The security deposit of Rs 50 crore along with accrued interest may be refunded to SAOL once the entire exercise is completed in a satisfactory manner.
The restart of business can be only after SAOL is given a clean chit by EOW and SAOL gets registered in India and obtains approval for setting up Permanent Establishment in India.
The entire long drawn process of settlement of dues to statutory authorities and outgoing panelists and clearances required before restart may fully drain out SAOL’s financial resources. Hence, restart may just turn out to be an elusive fantacy.
The entire complex exercise including control of panelists through AISPA / dedicated blogs / cheerleaders / spinmasters appears to be to save the necks of some masterminds who are willing to pay any price for this purpose.
Affiliate marketing is not new and neither are ponzi and pyramid schemes.
What exactly is unproven in Speak Asia’s business model?
@Observer
I doubt it’s spread evenly. There was massive recruitment going on so these huge commissions by the senior panelists are not surprising.
The application per the order was to establish how much was owed to the petitioners. That amount appears to have been fixed at 50cr, which was then deposited within 2 weeks by Speak Aisa.
Whether or not the petitioners are legally entitled to appears to be what is being established in the mediation process. Rather then waste time establishing what is legally owed only to find Speak Asia unable to pay, the court has gotten Speak Asia to deposit the gross amount in full.
Whether or not the EOW can get the court to order an assesment of what is owed beyond the signed 115 petitioners remains to be seen. The Lahoti Committee and Solomon James writ 383 has and was always only ever to discuss the financial interests of the 115 signed petitioners.
@Sanjeev Khanna
As far as I know, I have never made any comments abouts AISPA’s registration, or made any point out of whether they are registered or not.
Besides, anju informed me that they were about to be registered a couple of weeks ago, when I tried to identify the Petitioners in WRIT 3611 (where AISPA had been deleted).
Thx for informing me about the name-change to SPAI.
@ Sanjeev Khanna
Sanjeev.. a Registered Association means that a Addendum/Declaration on a Stamp Paper is made with appropriate matter written therein and the name of the Members of the Association along with various other details are also mentioned in the Schedules Annexed.
How the Hell do you think Bhairwani (who says he is representing all the SAOL Panelists across India..i.e. about 1.8 to 2 Million) got their Signatures on those schedules and got the same Notarized..only then it can be safely said that the AISPA Association represents the Millions of Panelists..
has anybody gone to the Govt. Department which registers these Associations and checked the names of the persons mentioned therein. No one can say that all SAOL Panelists are members of the Association .. their Authorization must be taken in the Form of Signatures where the Power to represent them is therefore handed to Bhairwani..
@Mr. Y
I fully agree with you.
@ Sanjeev Khanna
Please read the comment first and then write something.I said either AISPA is registered or not it is not confirmed. I can not believe something you say or anju or his daddy say over here. I am not a speakasian or a panelist. I know this is off topic but can you provide the registration number at-least so someone can verify if Bahirwani’s association (SPAI or SPY whatsoever) is registered or not.
hello, talk to ME.
aispa is a legally registered body after following due process of law.
registration number of the registered body is: G.B.B.S.D 204 of 2012 dated 3rd February 2012 under the Society Registration act of 1860.
if andy or mr. Y have any doubts they can approach the concerned authorities in mumbai and CHECK for themselves.
was the registration an uphill task?-you bet your ass.
but persistence PAYS and aispa is legally registered whether people like it or not.
also, a small reminder .
this entire case is about saol.
aispa is incidental.
So Bahirwani claimed to represent 1.2 million panelists but registered a WHOLE YEAR after starting the association?
Clearly he hadn’t been doing much except press releases singing praises of SpeakAsia.
EOW don’t think so. Didn’t your daddy got invited by EOW for a couple interviews? And don’t forget Crasto…
@Observer
To whom was this affidavit filed? Last I had read was that to RBI (though no verifiable paper from RBI’s website).
SAOL’s Indian coterie had mentioned that SAOL wanted to make payment to panelists. And for that reason SAOL was prepared to deposit $10 million. There was no mention of any Exit Option as such in that.
Now don’t you or that Anju preclude that what else was this little amount for. No court case or governmental authority has stated in any of its decisions or statements of any Exit Option which is just a concoction of Bahirwani & Co to get panelists to sing Jai Ho!
Well sorry. We are not here to sing that, but rather would sing “griftar karo in choron ki paltan ko” (Arrest this army of cheaters).
@anju
Question 1:
Has the EXIT-option been changed since I checked it some months ago?
The EXIT-option I checked had 3 groups:
Is this close to being correct?
The reason why I’m asking is because I read Bahirwani’s update on 24.02.2012, where he is criticizing Navniit Kkhosla for not using the EXIT-option. Something like “He’s more interested in arm-wrestling than in the money”.
Question 2:
Have Bahirwani read the conditions for the exit-option, and understood what the conditions really means?
Either Bahirwani or I must have misunderstood something? Since there is a long time since I checked facts I’ll guess it must be me, and that’s why I’m asking question one (before I make any comments about him).
Question two is in case I have read the conditions right.
No the exit option conditions are the same. There is no mention of specific amount but it refers only to subscription cost.
Hence to assume that $220 is the only amount which will be returned is not fair. Subscription Cost as per my understanding is E-zine subscription for both panels and sub-panels.
@NORWAY…EXIT option is very ok..and ders nothing confusing about it…the subscription cost less ur earning wld be returned..i think its pretty fair…y discussing it over and over agn….
@Sanjeev Khanna, Boogie Man
Have anyone checked? And have they got it specified what the EXIT-option actually covers?
Subscription costs = $220 (for premium panelist), and covers e-zine, ID and 1 panel.
What the EXIT-option offer is return of the subscription costs. I would have been very careful checking the specifications here before I would used the EXIT-option. We don’t GUESS when we sign a contract or an agreement, do we?
Hence to assume they cover more than they describe seems alot worse, doesn’t it? In professional business we should be able to ask questions if we’re in doubt of something, and we don’t sign anything before questionable points are specified.
Besides, I didn’t find the extra panels in the amounts stated by EOW, the 30,000 crore / 2,300 crore rupies. I didn’t find them in a statement from Manoj Kumar either, when he gave an overview in May 2011.
The extra panels seems to be a “side business” that doesn’t show up in official accounts for Speak Asia (except when Harendar Kaur reported the balance in May 2011).
I have also tried to ask anju about this, but she avoids parts of the questions each time.
When I checked the EXIT-option around November 2011, I only checked how the EXIT-options were offered. I didn’t look for any hidden details or any additional info hidden elsewhere.
Can one of you please give me a link to where the additional info can be found? Where they specify what the EXIT-option covers?
>> M_Norway
Instead of doing this kind of research in EXIT Option, it’ll be better to do research how & when SpeakAsia will pay to its members.
Yeah, everyone will accept that EXIT Option will be somewhat loss for everyone whoever opt for going. But, what to do? Something is better than nothing Na..!
As a common man, the basic & important question is when will they get their money back? How money comes is next part..! Is it not?
Norway,
All the terms & condition of EXIT policy is clearly visible in the site (speakasiamarketing dot com) as follows:
As per my knowledge said above all terms of policy is applicable for Panel cum sub-panel panellist. And many others companies have different kind of policy like Money back Policy, Refund policy ect & also haves own terms & condition.
If we the member of that company and wishes to submit an application for that subsequently we have no any alternative. Generally, company reserves the right to change or modified his policy & members should agree to be bound by all of the terms & condition.
@ Anju
Dear Miss Anju..as usual you still avoid answering questions completely and in parts..Off course you have mentioned the Aispa Registration No. and asked us unabashedly to check it out..BUT>>> either you misread or on purpose did not answer all the parts of my observations ..
“How the Hell do you think Bhairwani (who says he is representing all the SAOL Panelists across India..i.e. about 1.8 to 2 Million) got their Signatures on those schedules and got the same Notarized..only then it can be safely said that the AISPA Association represents the Millions of Panelists..”
Does this registered Association of yours Legally represent ALL the SAOL Panelists??? Have each one of them Consented to be a Part of AISPA or any other Association by any other Name?
Well! My Brother in Law and a lot of other close relatives are SAOL Panelists..non of them were approached by your Highness or anyone else and took their consent to be a part of AISPA or any other so called Association…so pray tell me How can you or Mr Bhairwani represent ALL SAOL Panelists..
To be a Leader of a Group you need Legal Express Permission from each and every Member of the Group .. it cannot be implied..If on one fine day I proclaim to be the Prime Minister of India..can I become one, only on the basis of my SELF DECLARATION?
No Madam..I need to go through the Legal Electrol Processes and then get elected by VOTES of the People…so get your specs straight and then comment.
I’ve always personally found it amusing Ashok Bahirwani just woke up one day and decided he represented 1.2 million panelists.
Hilarious.
@Sanjeev Khanna, Boogie Man
I have worked as a sales-man in the contract market (business to business) for 6 years, “some years ago”. The questions I’m asking are similar to what any professional business leader would have asked.
It also means I’m able to identify sections of an agreement that are diffuse and vague, and some other tricks used to fool people.
I’m not that kind of guy that will believe anything people tells me when I’m checking agreements, so I didn’t swallow the statement “Hence to assume that $220 is the only amount which will be returned is not fair”.
I try to be fair by asking questions, and by asking for statements to be confirmed if needed. Being more fair than that is ‘gullible’ rather than fair in business.
If there are some doubts about what the EXIT-option covers, Speak Asia should be able to clarify any doubts and specify the conditions. If they don’t specify these matters there should be a reasonable doubt here, enough to avoid using the options if people have bought more than one panel.
@ Oz
Hilarious!!! Oz I find it obnoxious and also smell fumes of Conspiracy Theories…Hahaha
@Vikky, Common Man
The EXIT-option seems to cover the subscription cost for the e-zine – the $220 for Premium Panelist (and $120 for Standard Panelist).
Many people have invested alot more than $220 as an initial payment. Investments in the range 1-5 lakh were not unusual, and some people invested even more.
Why should people be willing to drop further claims against Speak Asia if they use the EXIT-option?
Being paid $220 isn’t an acceptable option when people have invested many times that amount. These conditions will be UNFAIR to most panelists.
@anju
Thanks for sharing this information. You know I don’t win or lose anything if speakasia restarts or not. I am just analyzing factual information available according to my views.
I wanted to know for sure that AISPA and SPAI is the same organization covering all panelists of speakasia (as stated by anju and others) as member of SPAI. And that’s only because a donation request was put on the AISPA site with different name of the organization.
@everyone
If I am a panelist I will never go for exit option. Because …
1) Exit option is fake, useless and do not use any data of panelist form anywhere. If you trace the source code (in .js and .php files) below it is evident that there is no data operation performed on the site.
If you do not verify who is registering for exit option and it is not stored in a database how will you execute the exit option?
I am sure this things will be changed in some time by speakasia’s programmers so better look at it right now. These people will modify all things and then will tell you that you are wrong.
2) SPEAKASIAMARKETING.COM and SPEAKASIAONLINE.COM domain info mismatch and SPEAKASIAMARKETING.COM info seems to be fake.
Notice Email id speakasiamrketing@gmail.com and phone number +65.6591234567. address is also different.
3) Site seems useless http://www.google.co.in/search?q=site%3Aspeakasiamarketing.com. 2 pages related with exit option and 1 *official* letter from speakasia.
When I checked the EXIT-option around November 2011, they had basically the same text, but they had some additional phrases too – like ‘You won’t receive any help from the company’ and something about claims against the company.
They have made some minor changes, but it seems like the EXIT-option still only covers $120 / $220 Subscription Costs?
There are reasonable doubts here. Should we believe in Sanjeev Khanna and Boogie Man, or should we check further? Try to answer it as a professional, please – not as a desperate “I only want SOME money ASAP”.
Norway…i can understand how u think from ur experience of a sales man..but my dear friend stop confusing urself..exit option is very clear..and any discussion over it ..is a waste of time…the bigger question Is der any possibility to give this business/scheme is legal shape..?
mr y
aispa hired the services of a senior lawyer to get registered .you are free to take up the nitty gritties of association formation with him.
but if you use simple logic you will find that since aispa is legally registered ,it follows that all the parameters for association formation have been met and your argument is a silly waste of time.
also who told you that an association formed for protecting the rights of 1.2 million people needs to collect 1.2 million signatures?. NO . the process requires a particular number of signatures and this was provided.
if any panelist wishes to NOT be under the umbrella of aispa they are free to hold their own brief.the association is NOT going to be banging on your door forcing their help.
the process of holding elections and the time frame for such a process are governed by law and not soapbox’s ‘hilarious’
interpretation of bahirwani’s leadership.
aispa will be run under the aegis of the laws that govern associations and we definitely will not be requiring your help and advice in doing so .
mr y when the elections are held i suggest you ask your ‘relatives’ to stand for them.seeing the help and support they’ve provided i’m sure they will win hands down.
norway
same advice to you as to mr y -use simple logic and don’t unnecessarily fry your brains.
indians LOVE their money. nobody’s going to accept a loss making deal [exit option] from the company. there would have been objections raised on all forums against the terms of the exit option if it was unfair in the least.subscriptions cover panels also.
up until yesterday you people were not able to accept that the exit option would be a reality. but we were right weren’t we?
whatever we say will happen, happens.trust us.
@Boogie Man
I specified “in a contract market”.
“B2B” was just to give people a vague idea.
Would you recommend people to sign a contract where one of the most important points are vague and diffuse? Where you will have to GUESS what the meaning is? And where they can risk to loose lots of money if your guessing fails?
Speak Asia will need to specify what the EXIT-option covers, whether it is limited to $220 or if it covers extra panels/subpanels too.
I believe they will prefer that solution rather than risking some unknown solution from me. 🙂
@anju
Can you ask them to specify what the EXIT-option covers?
In business we usually ask for written confirmation when somethings seems unclear, in the same place where people shall agree to the conditions. Statements in a blog doesn’t do the same job.
It shouldn’t be much of a problem to add a line:
“Subscription Costs is the price for e-zines, and any extra panels or subpanels bought.”
They may of course adjust it to be more specific, for what it won’t cover and so on.
Speak Asia do still have lots of chances to loose.
They will increase the chances for loss if there is unclear conditions in the EXIT-option, because people will have to find other solutions to protect their interests. In a worst case scenario (for Speak Asia) someone might give people some ideas.
One thing for sure, mediation meeting is for settlement of dispute between parties only. Final result will only be delivered after investigation process will be completed by EOW and criminal side is heard. Until then I don’t think speakasia will be able to start its business. I don’t know how long the panelists will hold their patience.
Petitioner No.2 – Ashok Bahirwani
Respondent No.3 – Navnit Khoshla
The Supreme Court should be able to handle a situation where 1.2 – 1.9 million people are involved, and be able to protect fundamental rights like EQUALITY BEFORE LAW. They shouldn’t settle anything if a settlement violates the fundamental rights of others.
Mediation in a small case court is between two parties. Mediation ordered by the Supreme Court should be able to identify ALL parties involved.
The “one thing is for sure” isn’t as sure as you believe.
@M_Norway
What I am saying is the speakasia matter will conclude only after criminal side of the case is resolved. If anyone is saying that after mediation process the company can start the business than its just a daydream.
@ Anju…
Anju..Anju…Anju..I said Once again get your facts straight..Memmership in a Society as per Society Registration act, 1960 is as below:-
“Member defined − Disqualified members.− For the purposes of this Act a member of a society shall be a person who, having been admitted therein according to the rules and regulations thereof, shall have paid a subscription or shall have signed the roll or list of members thereof, and shall not have resigned in accordance with such rules and regulations; but in all proceedings under this Act no person shall be entitled to vote or to be counted as a member whose subscription at the time shall have been in arrear for a period exceeding three months.” – Source – http://uprfsc.up.nic.in/India%20Societies%20Registration%20Act.pdf
Here it clearly states that SIGNATURES are required or Membership by Subscriptions need to be paid by each and every Member(thereby accenting to be Governed by the Laws and Bylaws of the Society).
Also pls check this –
Registration of societies formed before Act −Assent required.− Any company or society established for a literary, scientific or charitable purpose, and registered under 10[10]Act XLIII of 1850, or any such society established and constituted previously to the passing of this Act but not registered under the said 11[11]Act XLIII of 1850, may at any time after be registered as a society under this Act; subject to the proviso that no such company or society shall be registered under this Act unless an assent to its being so registered has been given by three-fifths of the members present personally, or by proxy, at some general meeting convened for that purpose by the governing body. In the case of a company or society registered under 12[12]Act XLIII of 1850, the d10[10]Subsequently replaced by the Indian Companies Act, 1866 (10 of 1866), section 219.
11[11]Ibidirectors shall be deemed to be such governing body.
– Source – http://uprfsc.up.nic.in/India%20Societies%20Registration%20Act.pdf
1)..No general Meeting of Aispa/Spai was called.
2).. No 3/5th of the members were present to take the
decision of it being Registered under the Society Registration Act,1960
3)..No Signatures were taken of General members for the Memorandum of the Society.
4)..No Subscription was taken in any form from the General members and hence making them a member of such Society as required by Law.
5)..No Copy of Rules were given (as required by Indian Societies Registration Act, 1860) to each and every Members for their perusal.
6).. At the time of Formation and within 14 days of an Annual General meeting being called a complete list of ALL the members that are part of the Socity need to be submitted to the Registrar’s Office or else the Society becomes Non Complaint..you say that the Society was registered on behalf of ALL the SAOL Panelists on 3rd Feb,2012..do you have a list of ALL the Panelists (Names/Age/Gender/Address/Pan No. etc..) and have you submitted the same to the Registrar…
Now tell me …your “VERY SENIOR LAWYER/COUNCIL” did not advice you on these facts.Pls check out the various Website/Books/Law Books available in the market or better still go to the Registrar of the Indian Societies Act, 1960 and gets the fact straight….LLLOOOLLL.
@ Mr. Y
d :-o:
————-
Off topic
————
You know what, Bahirwani has not given any information to the members of AISPA about its registration. But the registration no. is given on this blog. *The power of social media!*
@ Andy..
Hahaha…While Anju prepares a line of Defense for my Comments above..lets all laugh and wait..she surely will have a weird answer trying her best to completely counter my Comment with Obnoxious one liners…Honestly that’s what makes me come back here…N Joy..Hahaha
@Ozsoap, In my post of February 24th listing the SC order on case #383/2011 I had inquired “Whatever happened to the demand that was to be raised by Retd. Justice Lahoti on SAOL?” The Rs50 crore ($10 million) deposited with the Secretary General of the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the demand that was to be raised on SAOL by Retd. Justice Lahoti on the basis of the report that was submitted by EoW on Feb 11, 2012. What amount was demanded from SAOL by Retd. Justice Lahoti?
mr y
sorry, no ‘line of defence ‘ for your wasteful copy paste arguments.
The regsitration of aispa has been done u/s 20 of the society registration act 0f 1860
“Societies formed by memorandum of association and registration.− Any seven
or more persons associated for any literary, scientific or charitable purpose, or for any such
purpose as is described in section 20 of this Act, may by subscribing their names to a
memorandum of association and filing the same with the Registrar of Joint-stock Companies
4[4][* * *] form themselves into a society under this Act”.
the registration of aispa is ALREADY DONE. past tense. water under the bridge.
soon the original registration certificate will be uploaded at aispa.co.in. till then wait patiently or stand around laughing,if it helps you kill time.
whatever regulations need to be followed, will be followed don’t worry , we have a smart team at aispa and topnotch legal advisors.
What I am saying is the speakasia matter will conclude only after criminal side of the case is resolved. -andy
i’ve said this before and i’ll say it again ALL the five FIR’s are being contested in the mumbai high court and the supreme court.
the exit option helps greatly in watering down of these fir’s.
one day, soon ,the fir’s will stand quashed and you will quit worrying about the criminality aspect .
See M_norway : I am still saying that company has told that it is entire subscription cost and when you say subscription costs, it includes Sub panels by default. As there is a seperate ezine for subpanels , hence the doubt you are raising is baseless.
Andy : FYI, this information was first released by Mr. Ashok Bahirwani only through his letter on AISPA.co.in . Letter id 74 or 75. It seems you are not following his posts regularly.
@Sanjeev Khanna
Then it shouldn’t be any problem specifying the extra info on the website, where they sign in for the EXIT-opition?
“Subscription costs” is a misleading and confusing expression, and agreements should be absolutely clear and understandable. Insisting on keeping conditions unclear isn’t very wise.
I wouldn’t have agreed in the conditions if I had invested in 5 panels or more as an initial investment. I would have asked them to make the agreement absolutely clear before I had signed anything.
Speak Asia are at risk of suffering losses if they insist on keeping the part unclear, if people choose to use other methods than opting in for the EXIT.
Since the expression “Subscription Costs” is unclear and probably misleading, it should be wise to analyse the conditions.
This agreement seems to be all about unsubscribing to the weekly e-zine, and get the subscription amount minus registration costs refunded?
* “If you have recently subscribed to the E-Zine”,
(and meet the specified conditions)
(and agree in the conditions here)
(and choose to EXIT)
* “you will a refund of your entire subscription cost less the registration amount”
People signing this agreement will agree in receiving an amount less than $220, in exhange for partially dropping other claims.
Is it worth signing?
* YES, if you have bought only a few panels.
* NO, if you have bought more than 4 or 5 panels, or whatever you feel you can loose in an investment.
Here are the rest of the conditions.
Sorted each sentence or paragraph A B C D etc.
Point G-H-I is questionable, and point I is very questionable. You will agree in that they can delete your reward points (if you have any).
I would never have agreed in such conditions from a business relation, unless the amount they offer is close to the amount they owe me (meaning: If I only had bought 1 panel).
If I had been desperate for money (any amount) I might have choosed to sign it, but being desperate isn’t a valuable skill in business.
—————————–
This agreement has far too many signs of one party trying to cheat another party.
I don’t think these signs of cheating are related to “being unexperienced” or something similar.
Is there any other options than signing the EXIT-option conditions?
People can ASK to get the questionable points SPECIFIED, whether the Subscription Costs only covers subscription for e-zines, or cover both e-zines and additional panels. The question should be asked to someone with direct connections to Harendar Kaur – the one that has the right to make such changes in an agreement.
Other strategies
It should also be possible to STOP or DELAY the exit-operation, by interfering in the handling of the case in court by adding new information – either through a “front door” or through a “backdoor”.
Possible “backdoors”:
1. EOW is represented both in High Court and in the Supreme Court.
2. Justice R.C. Lahoti is handling some specific parts of this case, ordered by the Supreme Court.
3. WRIT 3611 is listed for hearing 29.02.2012
The definition of a “backdoor” is something like this:
When you don’t have access to a case via normal methods
* like being registered as a party in the case
* but you have economical or other interests in the outcome
* and wants to defend your interests
then a backdoor will be any rule, law, party or similar that can be used to defend your interests in other ways.
Some problems
The problem in this case is that the EXIT-option seems to have been designed to cheat people, those who have bought more than one panel as an ‘initial investment’ (meaning: Paid in cash rather than reward points).
Speak Asia seems to be close to desperate to make this option used by panelists, to be able to reduce the claims against them by paying a relatively low amount. They will never be able to pay all panelists in full, but they can avoid much trouble if enough people use the exit-option and accept less than $220 as a final agreement.
One problem is that the only registered petitioners in the case seems to protect the interest of a few on expense of the interests of the average panelist. They protect the interests of Speak Asia, Haren Ventures and the interests of people heavily involved.
Some information or “points” will have to be presented before the Supreme Court in the case WRIT 383/2011, unless the EXIT-conditions are specified better than they are now. The problem here is that we don’t know which methods that can be used to present some viewpoints in the case, before the Supreme Court.
Using the Constitution as a backdooror front door:
The basic part of WRIT 383/2011 relates to Fundamental Rights in the Constituion of India, the section that defines the right to choose which profession you like (as long as it is legal, ethical and within other laws).
The same chapter of the Constitution also have the subsection Equality before law, a rule with equal rank in the ‘hierarchy of laws’ as the right to work.
The right to work has lots of clauses for where and when the rule shouldn’t be used, so Equality before law is far more fundamental right than the right to work.
Conclusion?
Any information presented before the Supreme Court in the case WRIT 383/2011, and being able to point out a violation of Equality before law in the current handling of the case, will most probably have the power to stop or delay a decision that violates this rule.
The problem is to find the right method to apply the information needed before the Supreme Court. Identifying possible violations seems to be much more easy.
Here are another “backdoor”:
Send the EXIT-option conditions to one of the newspapers, and ask them to use a qualified expert to analyze what the conditions means – and whether people should be recommended to sign it or not if they have invested in more than one panel.
Add the extra information needed, for an expert to fully understand the most important details (average number of panels, etc.).
A newspaper on the internet will be able to reach lots of people, and usually they are able to ask lots of difficult questions when something is unclear. They are able to reach all the way into the Supreme Court and to R.C. Lahoti, without being any formal party of the case.
NOTE:
I’m only releasing possible solutions here, to let people evaluate them before they have a need to use such solutions.
The methods I have described may also harm your own interests if you’re a panelist, making the EXIT-option unavailable for many more months and crash the restart of Speak Asia.
Currently I have added lots of pressure to this case, telling people that I don’t like bullshit and yada yada.
The EXIT-option conditions seems to try to cheat people that have bought more than one panel. I’m NOT very interested in any further discussions about these matters, I will prefer some action from the person that has the right to perform changes in the conditions. This should usually mean Harendar Kaur, Manoj Kumar or someone in similar position (with the right to make agreements on behalf of the company).
There’s a need to specify the conditions, making them less misleading than they are now. Please specify the details for what the EXIT-option will cover, a subscription fee limited to max $220 per panelist, or all the panels and subpanels they have bought?
And please, do these changes ASAP.
The exit option doesn’t store information of the user who register on the website.
Yes Sanjeev the information if posted about registering the organization but the registration number or some other information was not given.
@M_Norway – gone EXIT wild
The exit option doesn’t store information of the user who register on the website. It’s just a simulation no registration operation is performed.
By the way Anju Bahirwani is not the daughter of Ashok Bahirwani but rather his wife.
Was Rs50 crore the amount put forth by the mediator Retd. Justice Lahoti on SAOL as asked by the SC in it order of Feb 6, 2012 towards WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 383 OF 2011?
Related to WRIT 3611/2011
WRIT 118/2012 or APPW 118/2012
Registered: 14.02.2012
Last date: 29.02.2012
Next date: 15.03.2012
Last court order: 29.02.2012
Other court orders related to WRIT 3611/2011 can be found in a previous comment:
I have also found another Speak Asia case from 2012.
WRIT 444/2012 (Original, rather than Criminal or Civil)
Registered date: 24.02.2012
Last date: 02.03.2012
Next date: Unknown
The 444 petition looks like it was rejected when first filed, although a VP was filed on the 3rd March.
The Holi holiday just happened in India so I imagine once that’s over they’ll give them a new date to waste everyone’s time with.
Sidenote: what’s a VP? It’s come up a few times but I can’t seem to find any definition for it law wise?
WRIT 118/2012 or APPW 118/2012 in WRIT 3611
this is the application made by the petitioners [castro and bahirwani] to reinstate aispa as the 1 st petitioner.
looking forward to a BLASTING hearing in the said writ on the 15 th.
VP means verification process.
Welcome back, anjali
Most of us expected the blasting in February, with 4 different cases in 3 days. This time I will prefer to be more relaxed, and not expect any particular outcome. 🙂
I have finally found the one possible subsection in The Constitution of India that makes it possible for the Supreme Court to interfere with a criminal case – section 32.
It means they have the right to order lower courts or Governmental bodies, in cases that implies Fundamental Rights.
It also means they first will have to decide whether or not some Fundamental Rights are violated by an on going investigation and prosecution in court.
Usually we shouldn’t read LAWS, since they’re only short versions of what the law really means. Previous judgements from higher courts are far more reliable sources, since the interpretation of laws usually will be updated via actual cases.
Speak Asia has some weak spot in its case, so an outcome will depend on whether the Supreme Court has discovered them or not. One of the weak spots is of course the lack of real clients, or the lack of a clear business plan that includes how to solve this problem.
One of the weak spots is of course the lack of real clients, or the lack of a clear business plan that includes how to solve this problem.-norway
i don’t think the supreme court is interested in deciding whether a business plan is ‘good enough’ to work successfully.the court will limit itself only to the legality of business plan.
and the panelists in the supreme court have asked the court to issue a writ of mandamus .i’m not sure what it means legally, but i’m sure you’ll find out.
@anjali
The reason why the business plan can be a problem is because it isn’t clear enough to decide whether it’s legal or not. Some of the information seems to be “fake”, in the meaning of it doesn’t tell the whole truth (like all the panels involved).
“Right to choose a profession”:
A profession should mean some NET income. In Speak Asia the NET income was less than they had to pay for participating, if we consider income to be MONEY rather than Reward Points or panels. In reality people paid for their own “salary”, and received less “salary” than they paid for it (as an average in the whole group of people).
This doesn’t qualify for the Fundamental Right of choosing a profession. Paying $200 to be able to earn $100 is meaningless if we’re talking about professions, since most people can’t afford it.
Paying MONEY to earn “Reward Points” is also slightly meaningless if we’re talking about professions. Earning virtual points or buying goods isn’t exactly a profession (although some “shopaholics” seems to be very professional in spending money).
The Exit Policy:
I have also made a comment about the Exit Policy, where Aman Azad, Ashok Bahirwani and several others have delivered their interpretations of what it means. None of them are “officials”, in the meaning of they doesn’t have any rights to decide questions like that on behalf of Speak Asia.
The Exit Policy may violate Fundamental Rights in several ways, like the principle of “Equality before law”.
In Bahirwani’s interpretation it also violates the principle of “Final decisions”, where a decision from a court is considered to be final. Bahirwani interprets it to be up to Speak Asia to make a final interpretation of what they will pay.
All in all, this case seems to have lots of upcoming trouble.
the business plan isn’t clear to YOU as you havent seen the requisite documents. the plan is CLEAR to our supreme court.
Paying $200 to be able to earn $100 is meaningless-norway
you’re right it’s completely meaningless. why would anybody do it? in saol your income depends solely on the amount of work you do, whether it is surveys or referrals or getting your referrals to do their surveys regularly.there were many new avenues of income coming up as announced in the goa genx fair.
Tarak bajpai’s goa speech is in hindi but you wont miss the buzz words like products and narrow casting advertisements and the plans of the company to start a tv channel, become a telephone service provider and enter the insurance,travel and housing industries with huge discounts for speakasians and fat commissions for products and services sold by you and your referrals.
the company announced the exit option and prayed to the supreme court to be allowed to execute it.
the supreme court did not find any flaw in the argument and agreed with saol’s submission .the FINAL DECISION of allowing exit payments has been made by the supreme court, not saol.
the coming week has a mediation meeting,thane/raigarh quashing on 14 th march ,and aispa writ on the 15 th march.
thank god the court vacation is over!
That’s because it’s not their job to. That’s the job of the authorities. The Supreme Court is only there to make a ruling either way based on what’s presented before them.
Speak Asia submit business models they never used and perjure themselves to buggery explaining to everyone what they legally should have done, while all the while paying out recruitment commissions using binary pairing and writing fake surveys.
Sooner or later that’s going to catch up with them. If not in court, then in the subsequent failure of a business model that won’t work because the masses will flee when they realise they can’t earn thousands of dollars anymore recruiting everyone they know.
But of course management will still win if that happens, and so the scam cycle will continue – until Seven Rings come back in a few years with some other scam to sucker Indians into. Although they’ll probably need to change the players that time around.
Sorry, when did that decision happen again?
Lay off the Bahirwani sauce Anju.
Furthermore, I see Seven Rings have apparently pulled their AdMatrix scam offline.
Trying to cover their tracks hey..?
so why isn’t anybody rocking up to the supreme court and filing a complaint against saol for perjury?
in it’s preoperative stage the company was first dealing with market aggregation and consumer education and consumer opinion.without a huge market size HOW could they manage STEEP discounts? the business plan is in stages.plans can be in stages. there is no illegality associated with doing things in stages.
see, under the orders of the supreme court the mediator is calculating the total amount required to pay off exit optioners.10 million is already deposited and if reqd more money will be brought in.
what is the supreme court going to do with exit optioners money? set up a camp for refugee australians? it has said, hasn’t it that this money cannot be disbursed without permission of the court? so the intention is to disburse the money, but the court will wave the green flag when ever it is ready [and the moderator is ready].
good good good.
well we have come a long way since
illegal ponzi scheme-arrest everybody.saol is dead-no court will listen to them.
now all you’re saying is that even if we’re legal ,we won’t survive just because.
who says we can’t prove you wrong again?
Because there’s been no criminal case lodged in court.
For now it’s a matter of recovering funds. Nothing more nothing less. Each dollar the Supreme Court orders Speak Asia to return to India is one less dollar Manoj Kumar, Seven Rings and whoever else can’t run off with if shit hits the fan.
I beg your pardon, the Supreme Court to date hasn’t mentioned exit options or any such. There has been no order in the Supreme Court that approaches or addresses an exit option.
So please don’t spread rumours like this around or try to present this as fact on here.
Since May 2011, all that’s happened is arrests of Speak Asia staff, Speak Asia’s bank channels having been completely frozen and the company being forced to bring 50cr back into India. That’s it results wise.
I said it in my original review back in March 2011 and several times since (most prominently in ‘why the lahoti committee was/is useless’). All the “positive attitude” and writ petitions filed in the world don’t change the fact that Speak Asia’s business model isn’t sustainable.
No recruitment model is, period.
And please, don’t bother trying to imply guaranteed success on a completely different business model that hasn’t been tested. Well actually it has, affiliate marketing has been around for years.
Of course it is illegal to run a Ponzi/pyramid for a year. 🙂
Don’t fool yourself into believing in something else. With your definitions EVERY illegal Ponzi/pyramid scheme will become legal for a period of time, as long as they have some written plans for some changes in the future. They don’t have to make the changes either, as long as they have the plans for doing it sometimes in the future.
A basic principle in the judiciary system is REALITY. They will have to judge based on the reality in what has happened, not in the intentions that might have existed.
Intentions and attempts can be used to, but in a different way, and checked against reality. As an example, if you’re buyng some illegal drugs you either have some intentions of using it or selling it, and can be convicted for the intentions too.
It isn’t that obvious that every people who runs a pyramid/Ponzi always will have some intentions of making it into a legitime business after one or two years. Most of these schemes will be terminated or collapse. Legitime businesses doesn’t run Ponzi schemes in their first few years.
Legitime businesses doesn’t have “preoperative stages” where they run an illegal scheme. There are no laws allowing this kinds of business ideas, and there are several laws prohibiting them.
Showing a plan for how a business will operate in the future isn’t illegal, as long as they don’t present it as evidence for something – like for how they have operated earlier.
Withholding important information in court meetings may be illegal, so I’m far more interested in what they have presented before the Lahoti Committee than in the business plan.
Actually, it is illegal to do things in stages, if one of the stages is illegal. Please use some common sense? A stage can last for a lifetime.
I may be wrong on this one, so where did you find the rules allowing that kind of stages in a business model?
This sounds like the initial business idea had major flaws? I’ll guess the new business model will have similar flaws, since the parts I have checked have been pretty vague?
The new business model:
The income they claim to have from surveys:
@anjali
“Hence the panels cannot know the clients name directly. (e.g. in a stock exchange we buy stocks but at the time of buying we do not know who is selling those stocks)”
A stock exchange publishes data on daily volume and total value of transactions for every listed stock. let SAOL provide this data aggregately or panelwise.
“However our books of accounts clearly show the details of income from panel business and the agencies who gave us work”.
Let SAOL provide this data to establish its credibility.
@ Oz..
Hey Guys.. I sincerely think that EOW is not sitting down and relaxing as it is being portrayed generally and SAOL and top Panelists laughing all the way to the Bank..(Rs 50 Crores is not a small amount for the 115 Panelists)..
the moment the actual Amount to be paid to the Panelists is finally determined by the Lahoti Committee, the EOW and other Govt. Agencies Investigating SAOL will wait and watch how much money is brought back like these 50 Crores back into India..
because seriously if they file Criminal Charges right now before anything else is sorted out..as they have proclaimed they will, the Birds wont enter the Cage to take the bite..they will simply fly away forever.. whatever amount coming in will simply vanish in thin air…
THIS definitely seems to be the strategy being followed by the departments.Get every bit of penny possible back into India into the Judiciary’s hands, pay off the Panelists and then…then.. file the Charges..Good thinking…if that’s the case.
The other part , the Central Board of Direct Taxes putting in a claim of Rs. 150 Crores..wow..a big amount and if actually enforced will reduce the SAOL kitty by a long way..the Interest and Penalty payable on the same (I have previously wrote on this in detail in this blog) will put a big dent in the SAOL/Panelists pocket…and don’t forget Millions will have to file Revised income Tax Returns.
I know this all makes very good reading for people like us not linked to the SAOL matter… but reading off other blogs,most of the helpless Panelists woes really takes my mood out and makes me feel sad. It’s high time the Govt. puts an end to all of this in the right way as soon as possible.
I sincerely hope that People of India have learnt their lesson, to not to fall for easy money making schemes without proper verification and thinking and basically look before we leap. JAI INDIA.
Ashok Bahirwani’s update of March 12, 2012 lets the cat out of the bag:
“Important to note here is that this amount of around 280 crores is sufficient to take care of more than 2 lakh 80 thousand EXITING Panelists and we all know that the number of panelists opting for EXIT is far less than the above figure”.
This update implies that the exiting panelists will get maximum amount of Rs 10,000 each, irrespective of the number of subpanels purchased by them.
@Observer
At least Bahirwani’s message shows that they have mislead most of the panelists, and it has not been done by some accident.
I analysed the Exit Policy and pointed out the questionable points already in November/December 2011. The Exit Policy is pretty useless if people have invested in more than 1 panel.
I have also pointed out that any other interpretations of what the policy means have been done by non-officials, and has never been confirmed by any company officials.
There’s two possible explanations here:
A. Bahirwani is “up in the blue”.
B. Bahirwani has lots of ground contact, and is only pretending to be “up in the blue”.
“Up in the blue” was used in the meaning of focusing on what he want to believe is true, rather than in reality. “To be able to mislead people you will first have to mislead yourself”, a variation of some leadership theories.
This will only be a problem if Speak Asia also have been able to mislead the Supreme Court. I believe we will get some answers in the end of this week.
The Exit option has a deadline of 31. March, so it’s better to wait a few days for more information, rather than do something in a hurry.
@Observer
The last few sections of Bahirwani’s update 12.03.2012 indicates he is far up in the blue. The best strategy now is to wait for more information from reliable sources, and be actively seeking correct information (like using the Right of Information Act).
Some quotes from the update:
We need to be in a special state of mind to write something like that.
Bahirwani seems to be very “far up in the blue” (the opposite of having contact with the real world). 🙂
Here’s the last section of his update (to be able to analyse it):
Reading these sections makes me feel alot more relaxed about possible outcomes of the case, especially after browsing through some of Buddha’s teachings, Most of these statements sounds like some kind of “religious experience”.
It may of course be a clever attempt to avoid prison if something fails, “not guilty because of temporary insanity”.
The statement “What we think we become” will usually be misinterpreted by most people. Buddha did never focus on ideas of “becoming something”. Ideas like that are placed in the same group as greed, selfishness and other unwanted stuff. He also had some basic ideas, and the rest of the teachings are dependant upon those ideas. Bahirwani doesn’t seem to have read the basic ideas.
“If people think misguided thoughts they will become misguided people” is OK for me. 🙂
If someone feels the update threatening to their own interest (since Bahirwani seems very confident on the outcome), then it’s most likely an illusion. I had the same feeling until I started analysing details in the last sections.
In the short term (this week) I believe people should try to feel relaxed rather than doing something in a hurry. This doesn’t mean “not doing anything”.
What people should try to do this week is to become more organized, to be more able to do something (like asking a lawyer for advise, and have someone to share the expenses with). “Organized” doesn’t mean lots of people in the same group, it means more like group(s) of people able to do something (like doing a quick analysing, make a decision, and do what they have decided to do without too much need for detailed planning).
I’ve well and truly given up on bothering to read updates from Bahirwani and his family. Most of the panelists left seem to be clutching at straws if they already haven’t gone off the deep end.
Anju occasionally tries to publish essays that essentially amount to ‘everyone is lying, have faith in us because Speak Asia is going to start tommorow you’ll see!’ but there’s no point in publishing this as it’s the same old recycled rhetoric.
For now I’m treating Speak Asia as dead, with management having run off and remaining in hiding with most of the revenue generated.
Whatever happens in court happens but at present that’s the cold reality of the situation until an order shows otherwise.
Related to my previous comment …
I wonder how many of the panelists who really feels love and affection for Bahirwani?
I’m sure he feels that way, but do other people share the same feelings? 🙂
Why I’m asking these stupid questions?
I’m trying to analyse how far from reality he really is, and if it’s temporarily or permanent.
isn’t that what Khadaffi said not too long before he got killed? 🙂
Government agencies should took over all the money from Speakasia’s accounts and distribute equally among all the members. This will atleast make ease the losses for poor people who were duped.
The top penalist will get their share legally from the court and will leave the all the other 2 million members to eat the dust.
@vassu
The idea “No Profit, No Loss” presented by Aman Azad and Ashok Bahirwani was actually fair enough (as a general idea).
* “When one person EXIT, the RP earned by upline in commission will be deducted from the upline’s RP balance.”
Distribute money equally among panelists:
“Steal from the poor and give to the rich” isn’t acceptable, but neither is “steal from the rich and give to the poor”. It can be acceptable if it’s done by the tax system, but it isn’t very acceptable if it’s done by the court system.
A solution for distributing money to members will first of all have to be fair and legal.
———————–
“Being organized”
Being organized means alot more than being organized as a group. It should also imply being organized as persons, like having a plan for what to do and when to do it, and being able to communicate plans, actions and results.
AISPA has created alot of frustration among the panelists by keeping information secret. An organized group or person will need better methods than they have used.
A part of being organized is to organize information, in case you need to present it as background material for a lawyer or in a court. Some of the material needed here is the Exit Policy, and the interpretations of what it means by Aman Azad and Ashok Bahirwani.
Some of the information that needs to be collected on short notice is documents related to WRIT 383/2011 “Solomon Jemes & Ors.”, by using Right of Information Act or other laws.
One of the actions that has to be done is to identify a possible legal advisor that can be used, and be prepared for some of the questions you’ll have to ask.
I believe the court system will be able to handle this case correctly, so I don’t think all these steps will be needed. However, it will be valuable training and experience. It will also make the difference between being a valuable member of a group or just a member, in case some of the work will be needed.
I believe Speak Asia and Bahirwani are trying to create an illusion, since the Exit-option never have been mentioned in their original filings or in any court orders.
“Return of subscription fee” was related to returning money for the period when the e-zine hasn’t been delivered, but being paid for – in their original filing of the case.
This point will easily be accepted by the court, but the amount is also very limited – max $220 per panelist. A court order that will allow return of money for the e-zines was expected, since this is a very easy case to decide.
A court order that allows Speak Asia to pay a minor amount can be used to trick people into believing that the order includes something else – like the Exit option – and make people sign an agreement where they drop further claims against Speak Asia.
In case I’m wrong:
The Supreme Court’s power is given to it by the Constitution of India, which means the Constitution has a higher rank. The Supreme Court will have to obey the Constitution in its rulings, in case someone thought the Supreme Court was the highest possible “court” in the system, and that decisions from the Supreme Court is final.
Other “courts” with higher ranks are international “courts”, like some Human Rights Committees or Councils, as long as India has signed agreements to follow international laws.
I still believe they are trying to create an illusion, when they claim the Exit Policy will be a part of the order in the Supreme Court.
Here’s two points from the WRIT 383/2011:
1. Payment of Reward Points, to the petitioners and all other panelists, from Speak Asia.
2. Refund of subscription amounts, from Haren Ventures to the petitioners and other subscribers.
The other points are related to “Speak Asia will rise again”, and to stopping criminal investigation against them. The other points can be found in “The particulars of Solomon James & others” article.
They may of course have included some other points during the meetings in the Lahoti Committee, but I can’t imagine a Justice being able to agree in conditions like the Exit Policy offers, without being heavily misled.
I’ll guess they will be allowed point no. 2, but I doubt they will be allowed point no. 1, since they don’t have that amount of money. There shouldn’t be any need to use the Exit option either, since the court order will probably include all panelists by default.
The Exit Policy seems to be a method to trick people into dropping further claims against Speak Asia. I wouldn’t have used it if I had invested in more than a few panels.
We can possibly expect a claim from Speakasians that they have won the case, but it will be important to check the court order instead of their claims. An order that allows refund of subscription costs isn’t exactly a victory.
“Being organized”, part 3
A part of being organized is to not do all the work yourself. Try to identify possible solutions where others can do the work.
An example:
Newspapers can possibly do a request for insight into a case, if it’s part of a story they can use. If you deliver them another part of the story, they’ll have to use their own resources to get the rest of the facts and other background material.
Newspapers are also more skilled than most of us in spreading information to a large group of people.
This same idea will also apply to TV-channels. They may be willing to do some of the work for you if they can use the story.