QNET Response to complaint filed by Gurupreet Singh Anand

Sudatta Jaysing Patil

Advocate, High Court

4th Floor, Janmabhoomi Bhavan,

Janmabhoomi Marg, Fort, Mumbai -400001.

Contact No:9820375757/9004307430 Emai l ID: sudat tapat i l@gmai l .com

Response to complaint filed by Gurupreet Singh Anand against QNET

QNET responds to allegations made by Gurupreet Singh Anand against

QNET in a complaint to Joint Commissioner of Police, Economic

Offences Wing (Mumbai).

On Involvement of Bollywood Actors in QNET​

The complainant al leges that a number of prominent Boll ywood actors

are business partners and/or shareholders in QNET. There is no truth to

this. QNET has organized a number of events and conferences for its

independent representatives all over the world, where certain

Bollywood actors have been present as inv i ted guests or as motivational

speakers.

This is a usual business practice followed all over the world by di fferent

companies to promote brand awareness. Celebri ties are often invited to

be part of international events by corporate enti ties. This does not

make them a business partner or shareholder of the company.

On Involvement of Mr. Boman Irani

The complainant alleges that Bollywood actor Mr. Boman Irani is

involved in promoting QNET through trainings and other appearances.

QNET can confirm that Mr. Boman Irani is not an independent

representative of QNET and has only appeared as an invi ted guest at

events. He is in no way involved in promoting the business of QNET.

On Al legations of Money Laundering

QNET as a matter of pol icy adheres to strong prin ciples of legal

business, transparency and corporate governance. All documentation

pertaining to the operations of i ts Indian Franchisee Vihaan Direct

Selling (VDS) and i ts financial transactions have been provided to the

investigators at the EOW. Addi tionally:

• Viha an’s finan cial accou nts are audi ted wi th a c lear trace able

history of all financial transactions. All documents demonstrating the

same have been already submi tted to the EOW.

• More than 50,000 pages of documentation has been submi tted to

EOW.

• QNet’s busine ss ru ns on an eComme rc e p latform.

• All product sales transactions are transparent and cleared through

a third-party payment gateway, cheques or through Demand Drafts.

QNet has also publicly refuted any and all allegations of money

laundering which has been carried in the media in the past. As such, this

allegation remains completely wi ld and speculative in nature.

Prize Chi ts and Money Circulation (Banning) Act 1978 (Referred to

herein as PCMC Act)

The biggest chal lenge the Indian direct selling industry faces today is

that of regulatory uncertainty and lack of legislative support in

expressly recognizing the industry as falling outside the prohibitions of

the PCMC Act.

Secti on 2(c ) th e PCMC Ac t define s “money c ircula ti on sc hemes” a s:

“… any sch eme, by wha teve r name c alled, for the ma ki ng of qu ick or

easy money, or for the receipt of any money or valuable thing as the

consideration for a promise to pay money, on any event or contingency

relative or applicable to the enrolment of members into the scheme,

whether or not such money or thing is derived from the entrance money

of the member s of such sch eme or per iodica l su bscrip tion s”

The Act renders money circulation schemes as illegal. It does not

regulate the direct sell ing or MLM industry. Al so, there i s n o ‘e ntr y fe e’

or periodical subscription required here pursuant to Section 2(c) of the

Act.

Original Complaint by Gurupreet Singh

QNET is very concerned with the manner in which the complainant has

been maligning QNET though baseless allegations in the media. Officials

of Vihaan have been fully cooperating wi th investigating authori ties

from the EOW.

The entire case is based on a ficti tious complaint by Gurupreet Singh

who never bought any product from QNET, leave alone the bio disc that

he claims to have bought, in the media. On the contrary, his wife placed

an order for an online education product from QNET, which she

sub seq uen tly ca nc elled an d even i ssued ‘stop payment’ instruc ti on s on

her cheque for Rs 30,000.

QNET is shocked and dismayed at the police projecting the non-existent

dispute over Rs 30,000 as a multi crore scam and the media reports to

this effect.

QNET would like to take the opportunity to prove the legitimacy of the

business in the court of law, where al l allegations aga inst the company

can be disproved. Currently, the trial by media instigated by the

complainant and other interested parties has only served to damage the

reputation of the company without giving it an opportunity to defend

itself.