Author Avatar



Share post:

Elomir CEO Van Nguyen recently tried to fix compliance-related issues in a “Team Relentless” webcast on July 11.

Sadly, Nguyen missed his mark. She also used cryptocurrency securities to further her husband’s fraud.

Speaking on behalf of Elomir corporate, which also includes company founder Terry LaCore, Nguyen claimed that Elomir is being run as a pyramid scheme.

During the pre-registration period in July, only distributors were allowed to register, and the enrollment cost was $250.

One package will also be sent somewhere in July. Naturally, the remaining of the (ordered) things will be delivered in full commencing on August 15.

Equipment malfunctions, according to Nguyen, are to blame for late product deliveries. That’s okay; there are a lot of reasons why shipments become delayed.

Why not just entirely delay the rollout to adhere to regulations? You are running a pyramid scheme if your MLM company only enables distributors to sign up for $250 apiece and pays commissions on those fees.

There are 6500 registered Brand Partners in the tree. More than 5000 transactions were successfully completed.

The right thing to do in this circumstance is to stop taking money from consumers once you understand you won’t be able to finish requests.

Once you’ve fixed any essential machinery, reopen to wholesalers and retail customers.

Nguyen goes on to refer to regulatory compliance, in particular how the FTC regulates the MLM sector, as “rumors”.

For some of you, hearing about the FTC and the FDA over the weekend must have been emotionally draining. Since I don’t let customers in since NAC is a restricted drug, I am operating illegally.

Guys, believe me when I say that a billion dollar corporation supports our legal team.

The FTC would only close me down if I was operating my company illegally and without properly disclosing what was happening.

When we went public on July 5, everyone was aware that if we were to enter this pre-enrolment phase, it would only be open to and restricted to the three-box order for Brand Partners. This consensus was established after talking with the current leadership, who had signed up for the tree before it went live.

When that, we would provide people access to the system after the inventory had been restocked. because neither the owners nor we felt confident enough to ask for payment from our customers.

And ladies and gentlemen, the ATM page labeled “Live Your Best Life” explicitly provided this information.

Will the FTC reportedly try to bring me and the business to justice?

Guys, the FTC only pursues firms for a number of reasons. To start, do you deal with medical claims in the field?

The FTC also investigates if we mistreat our brand partners and customers. And by that, I mean that we are neither addressing their concerns over the products or our prospects, nor are we granting them a refund.

Only if our distributors or customers allege theft or fraud will the FTC pay heed.

Are there potential FTC violations if information is withheld and consumers and distributors are “screwed” while reimbursements are given? Absolutely.

However, it is patently false to claim that these are the only two reasons the FTC “pursues” MLM businesses.

In general, the FTC targets MLM companies for regulatory enforcement because of pyramid fraud.

At an MLM company, this occurs when the revenue from distributor orders is greater than the revenue from retail orders. Although having little to no retail sales volume is concerning, other variables (advertising, “fooling” distributors and customers, etc.) might alter the extent of the alleged fraud.

The FTC has been quite clear about this in the past.

Elomir’s affiliates are entirely responsible for the sales revenue the company generates. Any commissions that are given out as a result are really connected to recruiting.

Without even having a single retail client, Emir is already operating as a pyramid scheme in violation of the FTC Act.

Will the FTC shut down Elomir when it shows up with all guns blazing?

Probably not just now. Equipment breakdown is a legitimate cause for a delay, as I previously indicated, and although wooing Brand Partners may not be the best line of action at this time, it isn’t always an issue.

Elomir has, in a way, backed itself into a corner. Given how long this has been going on, an FTC investigation may be started if, months from now, retail is still nonexistent (for whatever reason).

The Elomir Brand Partnership’s motivations are one matter in which the FTC would be interested.

Distributors sign up with an established MLM company to run a retail sales operation.

Emir is alone; there are no retail customers here. Thousands of brand partners sign up for the program for $250, but none of them can provide anything for retail shoppers to purchase. They can only engage in recruitment.

The response “But I signed up for the product!” is also very difficult to argue when product distribution is delayed for a month and you cannot join up for the product without investing in Elomir’s business opportunity.

In its Vemma and Herbalife cases, the FTC made it quite clear that distributors are not retail customers. This was fought in court in both instances, and the FTC prevailed.

Why distributors are banding together to represent Emir raises doubts given the choice to carry on business while there are still issues with product delivery.

Since Elomir is in “pre-enrollment” (what does it even mean with 6500+ Brand Partners enrolled? ), it is a shaky foundation on which to build an MLM company.

Nguyen’s continued denial and rejection of consumer complaints reported to the FTC is alarming.

There are many anti-MLM individuals who expose every company. describing them, among other things, as a pyramid scheme.

Do you think the FTC has the resources necessary to look into these complaints?

When researching Emir, BehindMLM couldn’t find any proof of a pyramid scheme. Also unknown to us was the fact that Elomir had signed up over 6500 distributors without ever obtaining a single retail customer.

Emir must either swiftly remedy this issue and start taking retail customer transactions, or it must give a refund to Brand Partners and stop enrollment.

Nguyen misrepresents the most recent FDA regulations now that we have discussed the N-acetylcysteine (NAC) product in Axis Klarity.

Our legal team is fully aware of the FDA’s consideration of NAC and its potential elevation to the status of a prescription drug.

No, not at all. NAC is a currently approved drug that requires a prescription. It is now forbidden to add it to dietary supplements.

Although no decision has been made as of yet, the FDA is contemplating legalizing NAC in dietary supplements as of April 2022.

Selling a product that contains illegal ingredients, in my opinion, is a bad business decision, much like running an MLM company with no retail customers.

Instead of addressing Nguyen’s inaccurate portrayal of NAC’s existing legal status in dietary supplements, he conjures up a “big pharma” conspiracy theory.

I’m not sure why big pharma is trying to get NAC off the market for nutritional supplements.

I’m working closely with our legal team. They updated me in January, saying, “Van, as of right now, not a full decision has been made.” You shouldn’t worry about it, but we will need to deal with the element if a judgement does have an impact.

I’m not sure what the lawyers for LaCore Enterprises are looking into, but here is the FDA’s request as well as the NAC’s present standing as of April 2022;

Unless one of two exceptions applies, products containing ingredients that have been approved as novel pharmaceuticals under section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355) are not regarded as dietary supplements.

First, there is an exception if the product was promoted as a food or dietary supplement prior to such approval.

If the FDA finds following notice and discussion that the material would be acceptable under the FD&C Act, it may grant an exemption (under power assigned by the Secretary of Health and Human Services).

According to the FDA, NAC was approved as a new drug before it was advertised as a dietary supplement or a food; as a result, it is not regarded as a dietary supplement under section 201(ff)(3)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act.

Acetylcysteine (NAC) was expressly approved as a new drug on September 14, 1963, in accordance with section 505 of the FD&C Act (see 28 FR 13509 (Dec. 13, 1963) (announcement of the approval)).

According to FDA, NAC was not advertised as a food or dietary supplement prior to September 14, 1963. The FDA has confirmed NAC’s exclusion from the definition of a dietary supplement in response to two citizen petitions, as is discussed in Section III below.

However, we are considering launching a rulemaking procedure under FD&C Act section 201(ff)(3)(B) to approve 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). As we continue to analyze the data and information available, among other things, if FDA does not uncover any safety-related issues, we are likely to propose a regulation stating that NAC is not exempt from.

But why should the reality limit “big pharma” conspiracy theories?

We will thus continue to use (NAC) there for as long as we can. I hope and pray that it doesn’t wind up becoming a prescription drug.

It already is and has been for 59 years.

Fantastic if the FDA changes the classification of NAC. Use of Axis Klarity is secure. However, it hasn’t happened.

However, by choosing to incorporate an illegal substance in its main product and gambling on the possible regulatory implications, Emir seems to have taken a risk and predicted the FDA’s course of action.

Legally, we are closely monitoring it. Please be aware that I am not just throwing things together in the hopes that they will hold together and that no one will see us. We don’t think like that.

As was already stated, it kind of is. Emir has similar thoughts.

Similar to having no retail customers, selling goods that include illegal ingredients is not a solid business model for an MLM.

Nguyen brings up BehindMLM at this point and begs the Elomir distributors not to go there.

If someone asks you about the BehindMLM piece, please refrain from searching for it on Google since, once you do, it just appears, guys.

A MLM company should not restrict its distributors from conducting their own research.

If something on BehindMLM is incorrect, do let me know so I may fix it. However, it hasn’t happened.

The CEO of Elomir, however, has misrepresented NAC’s current legal status as a recognized pharmaceutical while omitting the primary reason the FTC pursues MLM firms.

Nguyen’s husband Toan then starts hawking bitcoin pyramid schemes while posing as the co-CEO of Emir.

I looked forward to reading a BehindMLM article on me. They’re going to say that my husband engages in Ponzi schemes because we do, I thought.

It is not acceptable to have the viewpoint of investing in or, more importantly, advocating Ponzi schemes. Nguyen describes her husband’s Ponzi scheme as “investing in cryptocurrencies” as a result.

I have no concerns with “investing in crypto” in relation to BehindMLM. I don’t care if Van and Toan Nguyen are bitcoin speculators that run Elomir.

I find it disturbing that Toan Nguyen promotes bitcoin Ponzi schemes, which is something that everyone looking at Elomir must understand. Since quite some time.

If you invest in a Ponzi scheme and profit from it, you are a con artist.

If you promote Ponzi schemes, you’re a bigger con artist than before.

I’ve given examples to back up my claims that Toan Nguyen satisfies both of these criteria.

Toan Nguyen’s advocacy of Ponzi schemes and the fraud that is carried out using them to “investing in crypto” is the height of dishonesty.

Guys, because we went through everything in depth with everyone, you might ask the O.G. team.

I warned them at my dining room table when they initially came at our house, “Hey, guys, be cautious when BehindMLM comes out, they’re definitely going to claim Toan does Ponzi frauds.” Right? given that he employs crypto.

No. Toan Nguyen “does Ponzi schemes” because he “does them.” It doesn’t matter if wire and securities fraud is committed using cryptocurrencies or another type of technology.

Van continues to support her husband’s Ponzi scam with further lies;

Please let people know right as when it happens that my husband does cryptocurrencies.

Despite the fact that cryptocurrencies are very divisive in the US, they don’t purposefully steal money or cheat individuals. Since he examines cryptocurrency projects, NFTs, and other such things on his YouTube channel, I want you guys to be open and honest with the people you speak to.

Toan Nguyen would have to acknowledge that he participates in bitcoin Ponzi schemes where he “reviews” them.

Let me take a little step back to explain why Toan’s crypto Ponzi scheme was such a huge problem in BehindMLM’s Elomir evaluation.

Opportunities for passive investment exist in securities offerings. Study the Howey Test and how it is applied to demonstrate the existence of an investment contract if you don’t grasp what that phrase means.

In the US, securities regulation is supervised by the SEC. The SEC mandates registration for both companies providing securities and promoters of securities.

In the US, unregistered securities may not be marketed or advertised (and anywhere in the world with financial regulation).

Yield Nodes is Toan Nguyen’s most recent scam:

Yield Nodes is a cryptocurrency Ponzi that promises a passive 213 percent annual ROI.

By actively marketing Yield Nodes on social media and YouTube, Toan Nguyen lures investors into a Ponzi scheme.

Both Toan Nguyen and Yield Nodes are unregistered businesses with the SEC. You may independently verify this by running a search in the Edgar database maintained by the SEC.

Again, offering and promoting unregistered securities is prohibited under US law.

It is not about “investing in cryptocurrencies”; rather, Toan Nguyen is committing securities fraud.

I don’t really tell lies. I’m aware that my husband is not lying. And why would we publicly admit that we are breaching the law if we already know it?

Tan admits that she and her husband Toan have kept Toan’s involvement in or sponsorship of bitcoin Ponzi schemes a secret.

I made a statement about how it didn’t seem good to have an executive openly participating in securities fraud by encouraging Ponzi schemes in BehindMLM’s Elomir evaluation.

I agree with it.

To be clear, I’m not alleging in any way that Terry LaCore or LaCore Enterprises are anyway involved in the Ponzi scheme that Toan Nguyen used to defraud unwitting victims. But it’s crucial to keep in mind that Terry LaCore has a track record of committing securities fraud.

Given this, I find it particularly odd that I have to bring up this topic again again. LaCore, Toan, and Van may want to sit together and talk about this.

This is not “investing in crypto.” Serial investing and the promotion of Ponzi schemes are both considered flagrant financial fraud.

It’s also possible that LaCore doesn’t care if one of his employees defrauds others using Ponzi schemes. I’m not here to judge that; rather, as part of my study into Emir, I’m only summarizing the facts.

In this case, erroneous business decisions and misrepresentations of regulatory compliance appear to be recurring patterns.

I’m grateful to Mombie #Anti-MLM for alerting me about Van Nguyen’s deceitful webinar.

TelexFree Review Part 3 - Is a Fraud
EvoRich Review Part 3 - Is a Fraud

Leave a Comment

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