Good Evening Speakasians,
There seems to be some confusion amongst the panelist family pertaining to clarifications of the RBI, in an RTI matter of Mr. Swapnil Kumar.
I make an attempt to clarify the exact situation as under:
The RBI circulated a “CAUTIONARY CIRCULAR” vide circular No. DBS.CO.PPD No. 16237/11.01.005/2010-11 Dated May 23, 2011 addressed to The Chairman/Chief Executive of all Scheduled Commercial Banks asking the banks to adhere to the KYC/AML guidelines while opening and conduct of the accounts of Multi Level Marketing Firms.
The RBI erred in drawing the name of Speakasia to make an example of the business model.
The RBI passed the following directions issued to the scheduled banks:
“We advise that banks “should be more careful in opening and operating accounts for such schemes specifically the type of business and inherent risk associated with such activity.
Further, we advise that bank/s will be held responsible for losses incurred by customers by way of deposits in / remittances from such accounts if they are found to be in violation of regulations, KYC/ AML and/or other regulatory /statutory requirements.
Banks are advised to be extra careful and may also improve their existing KYC/ AML drill and transaction sanctity to examine the business practices of prospective customers so as to ensure that no unauthorized/illegal activity is being carried out.
Existing accounts may be reviewed to ascertain and ensure that these are not related to unauthorized / prohibited / illegal schemes. Further, adherence to requirements under FEMA 1999, other applicable statutory/regulatory requirements and KYC/AML compliance in the strictest form needs to be ensured.
Failure to adhere to the regulatory restrictions will invite supervisory action.”
The tone and tenor of the RBI circular had scared the banks away; no bank wants to find itself as going against the dictates of the RBI. No bank is in a position to face the wrath of the RBI so the banks took a non controversial stand and started to reject any remittance arising out of Speakasia into their panelists account.
Yes the RBI is technically correct when it says that it had not passed any seizing or freezing of any account but by passing such strict instructions they had compelled the banks not to touch any Speakasian transaction. This act of the banks constituted to a debit freeze because of which none of the panelist has received any remittance attempted by the company.
This particular RTI of Mr. Swapnil Kumar which is in question is full of technical errors and he has missed a golden opportunity to have forced proper answers from the RBI e.g. he has relied on the letter written by our Chairperson and Global CEO Mrs. Harendra Kaur but the date is wrongly put as 19th August, 2011 whereas the letter from Mrs. Kaur under ref. No. SAOL/IND/RBI/06 is in fact dated 5th August, 2011. We have to understand that nobody nowadays manually finds documents as everything is system generated and the RBI may have made a search for SAOL letter dated 19th August and ‘no match found’ ….end of query.
What is the positive I see in the RTI reply? I draw your collective attention to point 5 of the reply. The RBI is on record to say that it met the company representatives and the company has urged the RBI not to treat their business model as a MLM operation or term it as Money Circulation Scheme. The RBI HAS NOT REFUTED the request of the company and actually is on record to state that the RBI has advised the company to adhere strictly to the FEMA guidelines as framed by the RBI.
I see this as a hugely positive answer on two counts as follows:-
1. The RBI has not rejected the plea of the company which is that it should not be viewed as an MLM operation neither has it made any comment on the company’s stand that it not be viewed as a money circulation scheme.
2. The RBI has advised the company to follow the FEMA guidelines as formulated by the RBI. The company is fully confident that it has not violated any guideline in fact the company SAOL is fully confident that they have adhered fully to the FEMA guidelines to the ‘T’.
There was news of Mr. Navneet Khosla (don’t we all know him by now, he is indeed a household name amongst us Speakasians) making an application for intervention in the associations PIL. This has not been dealt with and at present is an application pending before the Hon. Court for due consideration. This is not a new or a fresh PIL; it is an attempt of an aggrieved party seeking intervention. The law will deal with it as they feel fit.
Today we saw, two News reports, one carried by CNN IBN, and the other by Zee Business. I attempt to analyze both as under:-
The CNN IBN report showed how the panelists represented by over 225 panelists represented by Mr. Solomon James and Mr. Pankaj Mishra have moved the Hon. Supreme Court seeking intervention of the Hon. Supreme Court to see that the over 150 Crores freezed on the shores of the Indian Union be brought under the purview of the
1. Hon. Supreme Court registry and under the guidance of the Hon. Court be distributed amongst the Panelist family.
There seems to be some confusion amongst the panelist family pertaining to clarifications of the RBI, in an RTI matter of Mr. Swapnil Kumar.
I make an attempt to clarify the exact situation as under:
The RBI circulated a “CAUTIONARY CIRCULAR” vide circular No. DBS.CO.PPD No. 16237/11.01.005/2010-11 Dated May 23, 2011 addressed to The Chairman/Chief Executive of all Scheduled Commercial Banks asking the banks to adhere to the KYC/AML guidelines while opening and conduct of the accounts of Multi Level Marketing Firms.
The RBI erred in drawing the name of Speakasia to make an example of the business model.
The RBI passed the following directions issued to the scheduled banks:
“We advise that banks “should be more careful in opening and operating accounts for such schemes specifically the type of business and inherent risk associated with such activity.
Further, we advise that bank/s will be held responsible for losses incurred by customers by way of deposits in / remittances from such accounts if they are found to be in violation of regulations, KYC/ AML and/or other regulatory /statutory requirements.
Banks are advised to be extra careful and may also improve their existing KYC/ AML drill and transaction sanctity to examine the business practices of prospective customers so as to ensure that no unauthorized/illegal activity is being carried out.
Existing accounts may be reviewed to ascertain and ensure that these are not related to unauthorized / prohibited / illegal schemes. Further, adherence to requirements under FEMA 1999, other applicable statutory/regulatory requirements and KYC/AML compliance in the strictest form needs to be ensured.
Failure to adhere to the regulatory restrictions will invite supervisory action.”
The tone and tenor of the RBI circular had scared the banks away; no bank wants to find itself as going against the dictates of the RBI. No bank is in a position to face the wrath of the RBI so the banks took a non controversial stand and started to reject any remittance arising out of Speakasia into their panelists account.
Yes the RBI is technically correct when it says that it had not passed any seizing or freezing of any account but by passing such strict instructions they had compelled the banks not to touch any Speakasian transaction. This act of the banks constituted to a debit freeze because of which none of the panelist has received any remittance attempted by the company.
This particular RTI of Mr. Swapnil Kumar which is in question is full of technical errors and he has missed a golden opportunity to have forced proper answers from the RBI e.g. he has relied on the letter written by our Chairperson and Global CEO Mrs. Harendra Kaur but the date is wrongly put as 19th August, 2011 whereas the letter from Mrs. Kaur under ref. No. SAOL/IND/RBI/06 is in fact dated 5th August, 2011. We have to understand that nobody nowadays manually finds documents as everything is system generated and the RBI may have made a search for SAOL letter dated 19th August and ‘no match found’ ….end of query.
What is the positive I see in the RTI reply? I draw your collective attention to point 5 of the reply. The RBI is on record to say that it met the company representatives and the company has urged the RBI not to treat their business model as a MLM operation or term it as Money Circulation Scheme. The RBI HAS NOT REFUTED the request of the company and actually is on record to state that the RBI has advised the company to adhere strictly to the FEMA guidelines as framed by the RBI.
I see this as a hugely positive answer on two counts as follows:-
1. The RBI has not rejected the plea of the company which is that it should not be viewed as an MLM operation neither has it made any comment on the company’s stand that it not be viewed as a money circulation scheme.
2. The RBI has advised the company to follow the FEMA guidelines as formulated by the RBI. The company is fully confident that it has not violated any guideline in fact the company SAOL is fully confident that they have adhered fully to the FEMA guidelines to the ‘T’.
There was news of Mr. Navneet Khosla (don’t we all know him by now, he is indeed a household name amongst us Speakasians) making an application for intervention in the associations PIL. This has not been dealt with and at present is an application pending before the Hon. Court for due consideration. This is not a new or a fresh PIL; it is an attempt of an aggrieved party seeking intervention. The law will deal with it as they feel fit.
Today we saw, two News reports, one carried by CNN IBN, and the other by Zee Business. I attempt to analyze both as under:-
The CNN IBN report showed how the panelists represented by over 225 panelists represented by Mr. Solomon James and Mr. Pankaj Mishra have moved the Hon. Supreme Court seeking intervention of the Hon. Supreme Court to see that the over 150 Crores freezed on the shores of the Indian Union be brought under the purview of the
1. Hon. Supreme Court registry and under the guidance of the Hon. Court be distributed amongst the Panelist family.
2. The petitioners have further prayed before the Hon. Court to pass orders to the company SAOL to give details of the entire dues of the Panelists earned by them through RP’s and order the company to bring the entire dues of the panelists to the Hon. Supreme Court registry for disbursement amongst the panelist fraternity.
3. Pertinent and important to note here is that the company SAOL has gone on record and filed their affidavit confirming their intention to bring in the entire dues of the panelists and their desire to deposit the entire dues of the entire earnings as of date of all the panelists with the Hon. Supreme Court.
4. The Zee Business report was yet another attempt of lazy journalism trying to hash up once again, old and unsubstantiated news and present it as NEW. Why do I say this?
a. The reporter Mr. Amul reports that the company has been in communication with the panelists over the last two days introducing the EXIT OPTION. This clearly shows that the report was filed sometime in early September when the company actually launched the EXIT POLICY through their Blog Spot WHY THE ZEE BUSINESS BUREAU PREFERED TO RELEASE AN OLDER REPORT AS NEW IS BEYOND MY COMPREHENSION.
b. The report goes on to explain the business model of the company in a malicious manner both by the anchor and the lady reporter. Their report is full of wrong reporting which seems motivated against the company. To discuss the gravitas of the anchor and the reporter is below my dignity. I condemn the entire report whole heartedly and I am itching to report this misreporting to the correct forum.
c. What amuses me most is that the reporter Mr. Amul has interacted with me in the past, He has my cell number and as the secretary of AISPA he could have, if he wanted, called me to seek clarification on the issue of EXIT POLICY but then that would have costed him a phone call, and lazy journalists are not known to do any research we Speakasians are privy to such laziness over the last 5 months.
Friends, Fellow Speakasians tomorrow our matter is going to be before the Hon. Supreme Court and once again we are all hoping to get major relief from this apex forum. It is good to have hope but to rely completely on hope is wrong. I only request my fellow Speakasians brethren, please for god sake do not please, do not pin your hope entirely on any one major movement. We have to look at the entire movement we need to extract ourselves and take an over view of the entire matter at a macro level. We need to detach our emotions and take a professional decision based on hard realities and facts.
What makes a person successful? I think it is the Key to success. The seven (7) P’s
Please allow me to list the seven ‘P’s which I will explain another day, and the seven P’s are as follows:
· Purpose
· Persistence
· Patience
· Positivity
· Passion
· Personality
· Pleasance
A successful and a satisfied proud Speakasian is the one who has all the seven P’s in him/her.
I once again urge all my Speakasian brethren/family to have implicit faith in the company, have patience and above all trust your company.
Remember we are bound to win and we will definitely win.
Proud to be Speakasian…. actually very proud.
Jai Speakasia.
Ashok Bahirwani
Secretary
AISPA
