Author Avatar

editor

0

Share post:

On a “Team Relentless” webcast on July 11, Elomir CEO Van Nguyen recently attempted to resolve compliance-related difficulties.

Unfortunately, Nguyen was off-target. She also intensified her husbattemptedand’s deception using cryptocurrency securities.

Nguyen stated Elomir is being run as a pyramid scam while speaking on behalf of Elomir corporate, which includes business owner Terry LaCore.

Only distributors were permitted to sign up during the pre-enrollment period in July, and the entry fee was $250.

Additionally, one parcel will be mailed somewhere in July. Naturally, the remainder of the (ordered) items will be delivered in full beginning on August 15.

Nguyen attributes product delivery delays to malfunctioning equipment. That’s okay; delays in shipment occur as a result of many circumstances.

Why not simply postpone the launch completely to comply with regulations? If your MLM business only allows distributors to join up for $250 each and pays commissions on those costs, you are operating a pyramid scam.

In the tree, there are 6500 registered Brand Partners. More than 5000 transactions were completed successfully.

When you realize you won’t be able to complete orders, the moral thing to do in this situation is to cease receiving money from customers.

Reopen to distributors and retail consumers once you have repaired any necessary machinery.

Nguyen continues by characterizing regulatory compliance—specifically, how the FTC oversees the MLM industry—as “rumors”.

Hearing about the FTC and the FDA over the weekend must have been emotionally taxing for some of you. I’m operating illegally since I don’t let consumers in, and NAC is a prohibited substance.

Guys, believe me when I tell you that our legal staff is supported by a billion-dollar company.

Only if I was unlawfully running a business and not properly disclosing what was going on would the FTC shut me down.

Everyone knew that if we were going to enter this pre-enrolment phase, that meant it was only open and limited to the three-box order for Brand Partners when we went public on July 5. This understanding was reached during a discussion with the current leadership that was enrolled in the tree before it went live.

After that, after the inventory was replenished, we would let users onto the system. because we, the proprietors, lacked the confidence to demand payment from our clients.

And gentlemen, such information was openly given on the ATM page titled “Live Your Best Life.”

Will the FTC allegedly attempt to pursue me and the company?

Guys, the FTC only goes after businesses because… for several reasons; firstly, do you handle medical claims out in the field?

The FTC also checks to see if we mistreat our consumers and brand partners. And by that, I mean that we are not offering them a refund or addressing their issues over the goods or our potential.

If our consumers or distributors report theft or fraud, that is the only way the FTC will take attention.

Are failing to disclose information and “screwing” over customers and distributors while issuing refunds potential FTC violations? Absolutely.

But to assert that these are the only two reasons the FTC “pursues” MLM organizations is blatantly incorrect.

Generally speaking, pyramid fraud is the main reason the FTC targets MLM organizations for regulatory enforcement.

That is when the income from distributor orders exceeds the revenue from retail orders at an MLM organization. Having little to no retail sales volume is a concern, but other factors might change the scope of the claimed fraud (promotion, “screwing over” distributors and consumers, etc.).

In the past, the FTC has been rather explicit about this.

All of the sales money made by Elomir can be attributed to its affiliates. As a result, any commissions that are paid out are in reality directly related to hiring.

Emir is now functioning as a pyramid scheme in violation of the FTC Act without even having a single retail customer.

Will Elomir be shut down by the FTC when it arrives with all guns blazing?

Probably not at this time. As I previously stated, equipment failure is a fair reason for a delay, and while courting Brand Partners may not be the most appropriate course of action, it isn’t necessarily a problem right now.

In a sense, Elomir has forced themselves into a corner. An FTC probe may be sparked if, months from now, retail is still nonexistent (for whatever reason), given how long this has gone on.

The reasons behind the Elomir Brand Partnership are one issue that would be of interest to the FTC.

Distributors join a reputable MLM organization to operate a business selling goods to retail clients.

There are no retail customers present with Emir. For $250, thousands of brand partners join up, but none of them can provide anything for sale to retail customers. They are limited to recruiting.

When product distribution is delayed for a month and you can’t sign up for the product without investing in Elomir’s business opportunity, the defense “But I signed up for the product!” is also very challenging to defend.

The FTC made it quite apparent in its Vemma and Herbalife litigation that distributors are not retail consumers. In both cases, this was contested in court, and the FTC won.

The decision to continue operating while there are still product delivery concerns raises questions about why distributors are joining up to represent Emir.

It’s a flimsy platform to create an MLM business on since Elomir is in “pre-enrollment” (what does it even imply with 6500+ Brand Partners enrolled?).

In a troubling manner, Nguyen continues to deny and reject consumer concerns made to the FTC.

There are a lot of anti-MLM people that report every business. referring to them as a pyramid scam, among other things.

Do you believe the FTC has the resources to investigate such complaints?

BehindMLM found no evidence of a pyramid scheme when studying Emir. We were also unaware that Elomir had signed up more than 6500 distributors without acquiring a single retail client.

Emir must either resolve this matter quickly and begin accepting purchases from retail customers, or it must offer a refund to Brand Partners and halt enrollment.

Now that we have addressed the N-acetylcysteine (NAC) product in Axis Klarity, Nguyen misrepresents the most recent FDA regulatory guidelines.

Our legal team is fully aware that the FDA is considering NAC and may elevate it to the level of prescribed medicine.

Not at all, no. NAC is a presently authorized medication that needs a prescription. Currently, it is prohibited to include it in dietary supplements.

The FDA is considering permitting NAC in dietary supplements as of April 2022, although no decision has been taken as of yet.

I think selling a product with an unlawful substance is a poor business choice, similar to having an MLM firm with no retail clients.

Nguyen misrepresents NAC’s current legal standing in dietary supplements and instead of addressing it, he invokes a “big pharma” conspiracy scenario.

Big pharma is attempting to remove NAC from the market for dietary supplements; I’m not sure why.

With our legal staff, I’m collaborating closely. In January, they sent me an update and informed me that “Van, as of right now, not a full decision has been made.” You shouldn’t worry about it, but if a ruling does result in something, we will need to handle the element.

I’m not sure what LaCore Enterprises’ attorneys are examining, but here is the FDA’s request and the current NAC status as of April 2022;

Products containing substances that have received section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355) approval as new drugs are not considered dietary supplements unless one of two exceptions applies.

First, if the product was advertised as a food or dietary supplement before such approval, there is an exemption.

The FDA may provide an exemption if it determines, after notice and discussion, that the article would be legal under the FD&C Act (under power assigned by the Secretary of Health and Human Services).

NAC was authorized as a novel medication before it was promoted as a dietary supplement or as food, according to the FDA, hence it is not considered a dietary supplement under section 201(ff)(3)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act.

On September 14, 1963, NAC (acetylcysteine) was specifically authorized as a novel medication under section 505 of the FD&C Act (see 28 FR 13509 (Dec. 13, 1963) (announcement of the approval)).

NAC was not promoted as a food or dietary supplement before September 14, 1963, as far as FDA is aware. In response to two citizen petitions, the FDA has validated NAC’s absence from the definition of a dietary supplement, as is covered in Section III below.

Nevertheless, we are thinking about starting a rulemaking process under section 201(ff)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act to allow the use of NAC in or as a dietary supplement (i.e., to stipulate by regulation that NAC is not excluded from the definition of dietary supplement). If among other things, FDA does not identify safety-related concerns as we continue our review of the available data and information, we are likely to propose a rule providing that NAC is not excluded from

But why should “big pharma” conspiracy theories be constrained by the truth?

So, we’re going to keep (NAC) in there for as long as we can. I pray and hope it doesn’t end up becoming a prescription medication.

It has been for fifty-nine years and is already.

Fantastic if the FDA modifies NAC’s categorization. It’s safe to use Axis Klarity. But it hasn’t taken place.

Emir, however, seems to have taken a chance and anticipated the FDA’s course of action by deciding to include an unlawful chemical in its flagship product and taking a chance on the potential regulatory repercussions.

Legally, we are keeping a close eye on it. Please understand that I’m not ignoring anything or merely slapping things together in the hopes that they will work and hoping they don’t notice us. That’s not how we think.

As previously said, it sort of is. Emir thinks just like that.

Selling items with unlawful chemicals is not a strong foundation to establish an MLM business on, much like having no retail consumers.

At this time, Nguyen brings up BehindMLM, pleading with the Elomir distributors not to visit it.

Please avoid using Google to look for the BehindMLM article if someone asks you about it since once you do, it simply pops up, guys.

It’s not good form for an MLM firm to prevent its distributors from doing their research.

Please let me know if anything posted on BehindMLM is inaccurate, and I’ll correct it. But it hasn’t taken place.

Instead, the CEO of Elomir has mischaracterized NAC’s present legal standing as an authorized medicine while neglecting the main reason the FTC targets MLM organizations.

Toan, Nguyen’s spouse, then begins to promote cryptocurrency Ponzi schemes while pretending to be the co-CEO of Emir.

I anticipated reading a BehindMLM piece on me. I anticipated that they would claim that my spouse participates in Ponzi schemes because we do.

The position of investing in and, more significantly, endorsing Ponzi schemes is unjustifiable. Nguyen, therefore, characterizes her husband’s Ponzi scheme as “investing in cryptocurrency.”

Regarding BehindMLM, I have no issues with “investing in crypto.” Whether Van and Toan Nguyen are cryptocurrency investors who manage Elomir doesn’t matter to me.

What bothers me is that Toan Nguyen is advocating cryptocurrency Ponzi schemes, which is something that everyone researching Elomir must realize. It has been for a while.

You are a con artist if you invest in a Ponzi scheme and make money from it.

You are an even larger con artist if you advertise Ponzi schemes.

I’ve supplied evidence to support my arguments that Toan Nguyen accomplishes both of these things.

The height of dishonesty is to reduce Toan Nguyen’s promotion of Ponzi schemes and the fraud that is perpetrated via them to “investing in crypto.”

Guys, you may ask the O.G. team since we told everyone everything in detail.

“Hey, guys, when BehindMLM comes out, be careful they’re probably going to suggest Toan does Ponzi scams,” I informed them at my dining room table when they first arrived at our home. Right? Considering that he uses crypto.

No. Because “Toan does Ponzi schemes,” Toan Nguyen “does Ponzi schemes.” It makes no difference whether wire and securities fraud is carried out via cryptocurrency or any other method.

Van keeps adding more falsehood to her defense of her husband’s Ponzi scheme;

When it occurs, kindly inform folks up front that, yeah, my spouse does cryptocurrency.

Although cryptocurrency is very contentious in the US, it doesn’t intentionally steal money or defraud people. I want you guys to be transparent to the individuals you speak to since he has a YouTube channel where he analyzes cryptocurrency projects, NFTs, and other such stuff.

Toan Nguyen would have to admit that he “reviews” cryptocurrency Ponzi schemes in which he recruits individuals.

To better understand why Toan’s crypto Ponzi fraud was such a major concern in BehindMLM’s Elomir review, let me briefly step back.

Securities offers are opportunities for passive investing. If you don’t understand that statement, study up on the Howey Test and how it’s used to prove that an investment contract exists.

The SEC oversees the regulation of securities in the US. The SEC requires both firms issuing securities and promoters of securities to be registered.

Unregistered securities may not be offered or promoted in the US (and anywhere in the world with financial regulation).

The most recent con by Toan Nguyen is Yield Nodes:

A cryptocurrency Ponzi offering a passive 213 percent yearly ROI is Yield Nodes.

Toan Nguyen aggressively recruits investors into a Ponzi scam by promoting Yield Nodes on social media and YouTube.

Toan Nguyen and Yield Nodes are not SEC-registered companies. You may independently confirm this by performing a search in the SEC’s Edgar database.

Once again, it is against the law in the US to offer and promote unregistered securities.

Toan Nguyen is conducting securities fraud; this is not about “investing in cryptocurrency.”

I genuinely don’t lie. My spouse isn’t lying, and I know that. And if we know we are breaking the law, why would we openly reveal this?

By her admission, Tan and her spouse Toan have not revealed Toan’s involvement with or support of cryptocurrency Ponzi schemes.

I commented on BehindMLM’s Elomir review that it wasn’t a good look to have an executive openly engaging in securities crime by endorsing Ponzi schemes.

I support that.

To be clear, I’m not implying or implying that Terry LaCore or LaCore Enterprises are anyhow connected to Toan Nguyen’s Ponzi scheme fraud on unsuspecting victims. But it’s important to remember that Terry LaCore has a history of engaging in securities fraud.

In light of this, I find it particularly surprising that I have to bring up this subject once more. Toan, Van, and LaCore might want to sit down and discuss this.

Not “investing in crypto,” this. The marketing of Ponzi schemes and serial investing constitute outright financial fraud.

Or maybe LaCore doesn’t care if one of his execs is using Ponzi schemes to defraud others. I’m not here to pass judgment on that; rather, I’m merely outlining the facts as part of my investigation into Emir.

Here, there seems to be a repeating pattern of bad business decisions and misrepresentation of regulatory compliance.

I appreciate Mombie #Anti-MLM for letting me know about Van Nguyen’s misleading webinar.

click a button Review - Is a Fraud
BitConnect Review Part 2 - Is a Fraud

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *