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
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
• 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
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
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