 |
| Kautilya Pruthi |
A UK court has recently heard how an estimated 700- 800 people were hypnotised by a kitsch façade of luxury homes, flashy cars, sexy girls, diamond-studded watches, helicopters and
private jets (all secretly paid for with their own money) into giving
Indian-born, economic Alchemist, Kautilya Nandan Pruthi (aged 41), an estimated £38
millions over a period of just three years 2005-2008. His victims came from Britain, Hong
Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Spain and Australia. They included celebrity actors and sports
stars whose names and reputations were used to bedazzle more victims. The scam has been reported as being worth £115 millions, but
(exactly as in the case of Bernie Madoff) this impressive, but essentially-meaningless figure,
appears largely to be based on Kautilya Pruthi's own absurd
claims. He was, in fact, bankrupted by the UK High Court in 2010, after he, and his associates, failed to pay the UK Financial Services Authority £115 millions (i.e. the sum total of victims' actual, outstanding cash 'investments' + their wholly-imaginary outstanding profits).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17299967
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111820/Kautilya-Pruthi-Britains-Bernie-Madoff-guilty-115m-swindle.html?ITO=1490
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/9130175/Mastermind-behind-Britains-biggest-ever-Ponzi-scheme-Kautilya-Pruthi-faces-14-years-in-jail.html
Kautilya Pruthi hid behind the name of 'Business Consulting International (BCI)' and offices in London's prestigious Relton Mews, Knightsbridge. He steadfastly pretended that the unusually-huge profits he guaranteed investors (up to 20% per month), came mostly from the interest on £60 millions of short-term loans his company made (each month) to trustworthy and solvent import/export - companies experiencing temporary cash-flow problems. Classically, Kautilya Pruthi used a proportion of his ill-gotten gains to maintain and expand the illusion of 'risk-free profits' being paid out, but (again, exactly as in the case of Bernie Madoff) he never really explained why, if he was such an infallible investment wizard, he felt the need to share the secret of his success with ordinary mortals. Obviously, the scam was only sustainable so long as more and more wealthy victims kept joining. It collapsed, when (yet again, exactly as in the case of Bernie Madoff) too many victims, tried to take their non-existent money out.
It is interesting to note that whilst Kautilya Pruthi's was found guilty of 30 fraud offences (including running a bogus business, money laundering and obtaining money by deception) and sentenced to 14 years and 6 months prison (+ deportation on release), his two closest associates, London-based accountants, John Anderson and Ken Peacock, were only given prison terms of 18 months for 'unauthorized regulated activities.' They were cleared of fraud. The jury concluded that, although the pair had used their own social and professional contacts to bring many victims into the Ponzi scheme (Peacock was a member of Surrey County Cricket Club), they had ultimately been major financial victims themselves. Indeed, since they both have received psychiatric treatment, it is to be presumed that Anderson and Peacock must have been exhibiting chronic psychological deterioration symptoms: depression, overwhelming feelings (guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, etc.). They courageously testified that they 'had trusted Kautilya Pruthi completely.'
As ever, in reporting this strangely- familiar story, the mainstream media has not attempted to inform the public that the hallmark all pyramid scams, Ponzi schemes, money circulation schemes, etc. is that they are always examples of dissimulated closed-market swindles without any significant, or sustainable, source of revenue other than their own victims. Despite what the City of London Police have stated about their 3 year investigation into Kautilya Pruthi being extremely complex, self-evidently, in order to uncover any Ponzi scheme, the blindingly-simple question to ask the suspected instigator(s) is:
Excluding your own documentation, what quantifiable evidence can you produce to prove that your scheme has had any significant or sustainable source of revenue other than its own participants?
Had the above question been asked of Kautilya Pruthi in 2005, his fraudulent activities would have been nipped in the bud. Thus, he was yet another thought-stopping charlatan who manipulated the instinctual desires of ill-informed persons, in order to peddle them infinite shares in their own finite money. In reality, what has been described as Britain's biggest Ponzi scheme, was nothing more than an age-old, comic-book fiction presented as fact.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17299967
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111820/Kautilya-Pruthi-Britains-Bernie-Madoff-guilty-115m-swindle.html?ITO=1490
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/9130175/Mastermind-behind-Britains-biggest-ever-Ponzi-scheme-Kautilya-Pruthi-faces-14-years-in-jail.html
Kautilya Pruthi hid behind the name of 'Business Consulting International (BCI)' and offices in London's prestigious Relton Mews, Knightsbridge. He steadfastly pretended that the unusually-huge profits he guaranteed investors (up to 20% per month), came mostly from the interest on £60 millions of short-term loans his company made (each month) to trustworthy and solvent import/export - companies experiencing temporary cash-flow problems. Classically, Kautilya Pruthi used a proportion of his ill-gotten gains to maintain and expand the illusion of 'risk-free profits' being paid out, but (again, exactly as in the case of Bernie Madoff) he never really explained why, if he was such an infallible investment wizard, he felt the need to share the secret of his success with ordinary mortals. Obviously, the scam was only sustainable so long as more and more wealthy victims kept joining. It collapsed, when (yet again, exactly as in the case of Bernie Madoff) too many victims, tried to take their non-existent money out.
 |
| Ken Peacock John Anderson |
It is interesting to note that whilst Kautilya Pruthi's was found guilty of 30 fraud offences (including running a bogus business, money laundering and obtaining money by deception) and sentenced to 14 years and 6 months prison (+ deportation on release), his two closest associates, London-based accountants, John Anderson and Ken Peacock, were only given prison terms of 18 months for 'unauthorized regulated activities.' They were cleared of fraud. The jury concluded that, although the pair had used their own social and professional contacts to bring many victims into the Ponzi scheme (Peacock was a member of Surrey County Cricket Club), they had ultimately been major financial victims themselves. Indeed, since they both have received psychiatric treatment, it is to be presumed that Anderson and Peacock must have been exhibiting chronic psychological deterioration symptoms: depression, overwhelming feelings (guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, etc.). They courageously testified that they 'had trusted Kautilya Pruthi completely.'
As ever, in reporting this strangely- familiar story, the mainstream media has not attempted to inform the public that the hallmark all pyramid scams, Ponzi schemes, money circulation schemes, etc. is that they are always examples of dissimulated closed-market swindles without any significant, or sustainable, source of revenue other than their own victims. Despite what the City of London Police have stated about their 3 year investigation into Kautilya Pruthi being extremely complex, self-evidently, in order to uncover any Ponzi scheme, the blindingly-simple question to ask the suspected instigator(s) is:
Excluding your own documentation, what quantifiable evidence can you produce to prove that your scheme has had any significant or sustainable source of revenue other than its own participants?
Had the above question been asked of Kautilya Pruthi in 2005, his fraudulent activities would have been nipped in the bud. Thus, he was yet another thought-stopping charlatan who manipulated the instinctual desires of ill-informed persons, in order to peddle them infinite shares in their own finite money. In reality, what has been described as Britain's biggest Ponzi scheme, was nothing more than an age-old, comic-book fiction presented as fact.
One wonders when the authorities are
finally going to look beyond the ends of their noses and realize that
blame-the-victim 'MLM income opportunity' fraud, is only a
more-sustainable, and far larger, version of exactly the same self-perpetuating crime, but designed to steal from the masses rather than from a wealthy elite?
The blindingly-simple question to determine the legality of any so-called 'MLM income opportunity' is:
Where has the bulk of the alleged 'sales-revenue' actually come from:
the regular retailing of goods, and/or services, to the public by the participants
or
from the constantly-churning participants' regular, losing-investments laundered as 'sales?'
Perhaps the greatest irony in all this is that Britain's troubled 'Sun' newspaper (owned by Rupert Murdoch's 'News Corp.') completely failed to uncover Kautilya Pruthi's closed-market swindle, but is now reporting the story; whilst, at the same time, Dennis Berman of the 'Wall Street Journal' (also owned by Rupert Murdoch's 'News Corp.') has been recently assisting the billionaire bosses of the 'Amway' mob to hide the results of and, thus, maintain and expand, their own closed-market swindle.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4181586/Conman-behind-UKs-biggest-Ponzi-scheme-jailed.html
ttp://online.wsj.com/video/the-big-interview-questioning-the-amway-way/FE12F29C-D022-42B8-8ACD-16A114E0DA96.html
Berman's only interesting question (after 14 minutes), 'what percentage of Amway's sales are to the general public?,' and his sycophantic acceptance of DeVos and Van Andel's absurd, vague and unsubstantiated reply, is the equivalent of a financial journalist (armed with the truth) asking Kautilya Pruthi (in 2008), where does your company's cash really come from?, but then allowing a dangerous crook to broadcast his financial fairytale as fact.
Personally, I find it very difficult to believe that Dennis Berman (a joint-winner of a Pulitzer Prize for explanatory journalism, 2003) is incapable of looking beyond the end of his nose and deducing that, for more than 50 years, a never-ending chain (now comprising tens of millions of people) have been hypnotised by a kitsch façade of luxury homes, flashy cars, sexy girls, political and celebrity supporters, diamond-studded watches, private jets and even a fleet of Yachts and a Caribbean island (all secretly paid for with their own money) into giving members of the DeVos and Van Adel clans many billions of dollars.
Surely, the Wall Street Journal's Deputy Bureau Chief (Money and Investing) can't be that gullible, but, of course, there are other possible explanations of his behaviour.
The blindingly-simple question to determine the legality of any so-called 'MLM income opportunity' is:
Where has the bulk of the alleged 'sales-revenue' actually come from:
the regular retailing of goods, and/or services, to the public by the participants
or
from the constantly-churning participants' regular, losing-investments laundered as 'sales?'
Perhaps the greatest irony in all this is that Britain's troubled 'Sun' newspaper (owned by Rupert Murdoch's 'News Corp.') completely failed to uncover Kautilya Pruthi's closed-market swindle, but is now reporting the story; whilst, at the same time, Dennis Berman of the 'Wall Street Journal' (also owned by Rupert Murdoch's 'News Corp.') has been recently assisting the billionaire bosses of the 'Amway' mob to hide the results of and, thus, maintain and expand, their own closed-market swindle.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4181586/Conman-behind-UKs-biggest-Ponzi-scheme-jailed.html
ttp://online.wsj.com/video/the-big-interview-questioning-the-amway-way/FE12F29C-D022-42B8-8ACD-16A114E0DA96.html
Berman's only interesting question (after 14 minutes), 'what percentage of Amway's sales are to the general public?,' and his sycophantic acceptance of DeVos and Van Andel's absurd, vague and unsubstantiated reply, is the equivalent of a financial journalist (armed with the truth) asking Kautilya Pruthi (in 2008), where does your company's cash really come from?, but then allowing a dangerous crook to broadcast his financial fairytale as fact.
Personally, I find it very difficult to believe that Dennis Berman (a joint-winner of a Pulitzer Prize for explanatory journalism, 2003) is incapable of looking beyond the end of his nose and deducing that, for more than 50 years, a never-ending chain (now comprising tens of millions of people) have been hypnotised by a kitsch façade of luxury homes, flashy cars, sexy girls, political and celebrity supporters, diamond-studded watches, private jets and even a fleet of Yachts and a Caribbean island (all secretly paid for with their own money) into giving members of the DeVos and Van Adel clans many billions of dollars.
 |
| DeVos yacht, 'Windquest' |
 |
| DeVos yacht, 'Alexia' |
 |
| DeVos yacht, 'Enterprise' |
 |
| 'Amway Aviation' |
 |
| DeVos family jet |
Surely, the Wall Street Journal's Deputy Bureau Chief (Money and Investing) can't be that gullible, but, of course, there are other possible explanations of his behaviour.
 | ||
'Amway's' Peter Island
|
No comments:
Post a Comment