Print the value of index0
Roger Hamilton And XL Results Foundation Pte Due Diligence, Non Disclosure, Cover Up, Misrepresentation, Deliberate attempt to mislead consumers, Pyramid Scheme Singapore Internet
Individuals who are considering buying an XL Life Membership from Roger Hamilton of XL Results Foundation, Paul Stuart Dunn of Results Net Australia and Daniel Steven Priestly of Triumphant Events UK are advised to conduct due diligence. The following extract is a public document available from the Subordinate Court of Singapore.
XL Results Foundation has enforced a legal gag on the ex employee since 2005 and is in current litigation.
XL Results Foundation is attempting to block legal requests to provide full disclosure of the company's revenue source.
IN THE SUBORDINATE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
MC Suit No. 24750 of 2006/D
Between
XL RESULTS FOUNDATION PTE LTD
(RC No 200107729C)
Plaintiffs
And
Linda Ruck
Defendant
Supplementary Affidavit (April 2007)
I, Linda Ruck (Personal details of the Passport No and Address of the defendant removed) do make oath and say as follows:
1. I am the Defendant herein.
2. Insofar as the contents of this Affidavit are within my personal knowledge they are true and insofar as the contents of this affidavit are not within my personal knowledge they are true to the best of information, knowledge and belief.
Background and employment
6. In or around March 2002, I become acquainted with one Roger Hamilton (RH) and was employed by a company known as Achievers International Pte Ltd, as the personal assistant to RH, who was a director in the said company.
8. I came to know at the time that RH had other business concerns. One was a company promoting speakers i.e. Competitive Edge Pte Ltd (CE) and the other a local magazine company known as Expat Living Publications. Exhibit LR-2.
Birth of the Plaintiffs
9. After about 6 months, RH discussed with me about a managerial position in CE.
10. I was soon tasked to promote a Life Membership program in CE which promised, amongst other things the following:-
a) This Membership includes the rights to 4,000 to 6,000 wherever applicable, ordinary shares in Competitive Edge Pte Ltd, amounting to 0.2% of its enlarged share capital of 2m ordinary shares. I may exercise this right in the event of a sale, merger or public listing of the company.
b) Life Memberships may be resold at any time in any country after a full year of membership. The transfer fee payable to CE for membership is USD$500. Exhibit LR-3 is a copy of a Life Membership subscription form.
11. After a successful round of promotions, CE managed to get about 200 members. Each one of those members paid USD$6,150 (S$10,762.50). The real attraction at the material time was the opportunity to participate in the future of CE. The investment was presented as risk free with the transferability clause. Investors were lulled into thinking that their membership had a market value which could be cashed out at their option, with only a small penalty of USD$500. Exhibit LR-3, Clause 9 under Benefits.
12. I am now advised and verily belief that CE was not permitted to sell or offer its shares or options in its shares without a prospectus or seeking approval from the relevant authority. The talks and promotional materials issued by CE at the time also did not confirm with the requirement of a prospectus. Moreover, the representation of a market for the Life Membership maybe false.
14. In or around 18 August 2004, CE changed its name to XL Results Foundation Pte Ltd (the Plaintiff), RH explained that the business was expanding and needed a better image. Except the change in the name, the Plaintiffs operated and continued to promote the same scheme. The members were only notified of the name change about 6 months later.
15. In July, 2004 I was appointed as editor-in-chief of the new magazine XL Magazine. I developed, wrote and created the magazine content. The magazine promoted the Plaintiffs. I am advised and verily belief now that the magazine was an essential propagandist tool used in the recruitment of new Life Members. I am also beginning to see and belief that the books, seminars and network sessions are just tools to help RH and the other licensees generate hype, so that new members maybe recruited and the enrolment fees utilised to keep RH and the licensees well lubricated.
The Recruitment Scheme
16. In the course of the work, I travelled extensively with RH, assisting with the development of the Life Membership program and the Wealth Dynamics weekend seminars. I also spoke on the commitment of the Plaintiffs to donate 10% of revenue to charity. I also oversaw the day to day operation concern of all staff and licensees in each country. At the time and like the Life Members and licensees, I really believed in the Plaintiffs and that it had potential of making everyone wealthy and also contributing to the good of the community.
17. By the end of 2003 the Plaintiff had approximately 10 licensees in India, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines USA east and west coast, Taiwan and UK.
18. In the copies of the Country Licence Agreements, it was stipulated that the licensee had to pay a licensee fee. Before the Plaintiffs change of name, the fee was USD$25,000 per year if they were not Life Members or if they were Life members USD$20,000 per year. After the Plaintiffs change of name, the fees were USD$8,000 per year. However, the licensee fee will be returned in full if the licensee reaches 20 or more new Life members in a year. Exhibit LR-4.
19. On the face of the licence agreements, the licensee appears to receive the following heads of remuneration:-
a) A commission of ticket sales, sale of products, training sales and book sales (hereinafter collective referred to as Product Commissions):
b) A 20% commission on the sale of Life Memberships (Membership Commissions)
c) Before the Plaintiffs name change a retainer of USD$1,500 per month. The condition to this retainer is pegged to 12 new enrolments in a previous 3 month period (The Retainer).
20. In the course of my work with the Plaintiffs and RH, I know that the bulk of the income earned by the Plaintiffs and the licensees were from the Membership Commissions and The Retainer. When compared to the Membership Commissions and The Retainer, the Product Commissions are small or negligible.
21. This can be easily seen from the list of Benefits that each Life Member gets for free. Essentially a Life member gets free admission to events, magazine and workshops. The Product Commissions are virtually small or negligible. This can also been seen from the Sales Report in New Zealand in 2004, where the only revenue was from the sale of 38 new life memberships. According to the sales report, the New Zealand licensees got a 20% commission on the sale of the life memberships. Exhibit LR-5.
22. I am now advised and verily believe that it is not lawful to operate a scheme or arrangement for the distribution or purported distribution of a commodity whereby, the person then receives a benefit as a result of the recruitment of more additional participants in the scheme or arrangement. It is clear from the matters described above, that RH, together with the licences are using the Plaintiffs to operate such a scheme.
Paul Stuart Dunn (PSD) and Daniel Steven Priestly (DSP) are licensees and part of the scheme.
23. Both PSD and DSP are licensees in the same scheme abovementioned, perpetuated and operated by RH though the use of the Plaintiffs as a vehicle.
24. They each have huge financial interest in keeping the scheme and the Plaintiffs surviving. In a way and as I am now advised and verily believe, they together with RH are using the Plaintiffs to suck on and prey on new recruits.
25. In fact, DSP himself may have let slip that the bulk of RHs wealth is derived from the fees of Life members:-
LR: No. Rogers got absolutely no money. Roger doesnt have any money.
DP: Well, what about all the Life Members fees. - emphasis added.
(See page 16 of DSPs affidavit, at line 4 to 5)
26. Clearly, the licensees knew that the primary revenue and financial base of the Plaintiffs business and the scheme is their individual income is from the fees of new members.
Confidentiality clause is a cover-up
27. In or around the time of my resignation from the Plaintiffs company, I could only suspect that something was not right with the Plaintiffs business. In fact, I could not and was notable to put my finger on the issue until recently and after I appointed my new solicitors to look into the matter with fresh perspective.
28. I verily believe, from the reasons explained above, RH together with PSD and DSP are using the Plaintiffs as a vehicle to suppress their criminal activity.
29. In fact, Clause 8 of the Severance Agreement which I am alleged to have breached does not seek to protect any legitimate or real confidential information/trade secrets belonging to the Plaintiffs. I verily believe that the only trade secret was the secret that RH, PSD, DSP and the other licensees are using the Plaintiffs as a front to bleed money from the new members.
30. I maintain that I did not start nor was I possessed with the ability of spreading ill will against the Plaintiffs or RH. The simple truth of the matter was that until recently, I myself did not comprehend how the scheme worked.
31. Like the other people in the Internet, I was merely joining in their chorus about monies not been given to charity and how the matter was being investigated by the authorities. Coming from a background of volunteer work, I was very upset that money promised by the Plaintiffs to charity has not been given. I knew something was amiss, but did not at the time have the facility to articulate it.
I did not breach any confidentiality clause
32. The transcripts from PSD and DSP if taken at face value will clearly show that the calls to me were all initiated by PSD and DSP.
33. Thus paragraph 8, page 3 of PSDs affidavit is a blatant lie.
34. Again and taking the contents of the transcripts in PSDs and DSPs affidavits on its face value, I am surprised that the substance of the matters discussed were actually expressions of my views and/or opinion about RH and not as alleged leaking company trade secrets. In fact, I was also asking questions about the whereabouts of the money and about the money to the charities.
35. In this regard, I would like to refer this Honourable Court to the following particular excerpts of the transcripts. Transcript documents listed.
36. I am advised and verily believe that I am entitled to express and formulate my views about RH. In fact, and from the said transcripts, those views expressed by me about RH are from sources which could easily gathered the public domain at the time.
37. It is clear from the transcripts that PSD and DSP had themselves heard about the criminal investigations on RH, they had only called to ask me about my views on matters which they already knew about.
38. I have grave reservations about the authenticity and accuracy of the transcripts. I am advised and verily believe that as the transcripts were not affirmed or sworned by an approved transcriber, it cannot be admitted into the Court.
39. In my dealings with DSP, he is usually chatty and responsive. I note that from page 7 to 15 of the transcripts he was very economical with his responses.
Complaints were already circulating around
40. I wish to state that complaints and unhappiness both with the members and the staff of the Plaintiffs were already rife in or around late 2004. In fact and in or August 2004, there was a mass staff walk out in Hong Kong and Singapore.
41. RH had disputes with several staff members in the Hong Kong and Singapore offices, some were unpaid and two staff would not return the Plaintiffs laptops until they were paid.
42. By December, 2004 I had stopped travelling with RH and was working from home. I was deeply concerned over the business conduct of the Plaintiffs company. At the time I did not fully understand the complaints, all I knew was that members were complaining about services not delivered, members felt cheated, consultancy clients werent getting value. I found out that members were starting to go to the Consumer Protection Association and asking me to help get refunds.
43. At around the same time I had also bumped into a lawyer at a coffee shop who advised me to get out of the Plaintiffs company.
44. Sometime, around mid-February 2005 I received an anonymous email from the UK to the community in Singapore and Asia calling RH a charlatan and a compulsive liar. See Exhibit LR-1, page 24 of my earlier affidavit.
51. In or around 14 March 2005, I went into the office to wrap up the last edition of the magazine (XL) I was working on. In the office, I found out RH had sold the Australian licence to his Wealth Dynamics program and XL Life Membership. I expressed my concern over going into a new market (my home market) while promises were not delivered to the Asian members and several hundred members were unhappy.
66. I believe that RH is using the Plaintiffs as a front, in particular, the agreements, to allege that I have breached Clause 8 when in fact, I had not.
67. The criticism which I have made were levied against RH and the manner in which he is using the Plaintiffs for his own financial benefit. If what I have stated is untrue, it would be appropriate as I am now advised for RH to institute defamatory action against me. This fact appears not to be lost on RH when his lawyers at page 83 and 84 of RHs affidavit clearly stated that they were contemplating defamatory action.
68. It is thus telling that instead of commencing defamatory action, they had now commenced an action against me for breach of Clause 8. I believe that RH is simply hiding behind the Plaintiffs. To commence an action under clause 8 of the severance Agreement and Supplementary Agreement is a big smoke screen as RH is terribly afraid that I maybe expressing the truth about him, after all.
The Aftermath The Plaintiffs own doing No credit to me.
69. I categorically deny that I started a slur campaign against the Plaintiffs or RH. I do not have the resources, capability or the facility to start such a one woman campaign. To this extent I cannot take personal credit for the campaign. However, I do believe and as I have explained in the proceeding paragraphs that it would be a matter of time before all the deeds of RH and the licencees would catch up on them.
70. So in or around 2006, members commenced an Asia Pacific petition and buyer beware program against the Plaintiffs, with the support of Ms Ann Phua a community activist in Singapore. In September a blogger in the UK posted a blog titled Roger Hamilton exposed Exhibit LR-6.
71. In November 2006, 40 members went with three journalists and two photographers to the XL business premises and lodged refund requests for approximately SGD$400,000. Two articles have featured in the Straits Times and on the local English and Chinese Radio. Members have also put on record the fact no money went to charity. See Exhibit LR-1.
72. In retaliation to the queries and unhappiness from the public, RH used me as a scapegoat, to slur my character by speaking ill about me, posting a blog, openly lying about me to the business community locally and internationally and sending out emails as well as spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal costs to bully and intimidate me.
73. I am informed that members have lodged requests for refunds of approximately USD$500,000 to one million dollars. Many members are too scared to openly attack RH who will use all legal means to stop anyone standing up against him. On 23rd February 2007 the Australian media wrote an article on RH and XL and the controversy of the company in Singapore. While I have been contacted by the Australian and UK press, I have decided not to be interviewed by them.
74 I pray that this Honourable Court will dismiss the Plaintiffs application with cost.
Sworn by the above named
Linda Ruck
On this 29th day of March, 2007 at Singapore.
Before me. Commissioner for Oaths.
Concerned citizen
Singapore
Singapore
3 Updates & Rebuttals
Ex Duped
Sydney,Australia,
Australia
XL Results Foundation - ponzi scheme collapse
#4UPDATE EX-employee responds
Sun, December 28, 2008
Consumer Update - XL Results Foundation collapse.
The XL Results Foundation Head Office in Singapore has closed down.
Address: 30 Robinson Road, #02-01, Robinson Towers, SINGAPORE 048546.
Victims of Ponzi Scheme operator Roger Hamilton and the XL Results Foundation scam are advised to contact the Consumer Affairs Department and/or Department of Fair Trade in their respective country.
XL Results Foundation Pte Ltd is owned by a holding company incorporated to a PO Box address in the Republic of Seychelles.
Company Secretary, MARGARET LOH CHUI MEI, 10 ANSON ROAD, #21-07, INTERNATIONAL PLAZA, SINGAPORE (079903).
Concerned Citizen
Singapore,Asia,
Singapore
Opportunity for Mr Roger Hamilton to put his detractors to rest
#4Author of original report
Sun, November 18, 2007
Mr. Hamilton if none of the accusations against your are true and if the journalists from the New Straits Times in Singapore or Fairfax Media in Australia (The Courier Mail or Brisbane Times) did not do due diligence as you say they didn't. Why don't you commence a defamation suit against either one of these newspapers?
This is an opportunity for you to put hundreds of your detractors to rest and to clear your 'reputation'.
XL Results Foundation has been featured in several newspapers including: The Straits Times - Singapore (23/10/06 & 25/11/06), The Courier Mail - Australia (24/02/07).
Duped members of the Singapore community have also spoken out against the company on English and Chinese Radio Stations in Singapore including Radio 93.8.
The most recent article appeared in the online edition of the Brisbane Times in Australia (May 30, 2007) under the caption Suspect wealth creation network in Brisbane refer to the link below for full details.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2007/05/30/1180205312469.html
Xl Results Foundation
Singapore,Asia,
Singapore
XL SCAM SPAM AND BLOG WARNING Bogus Emails & Blogs
#4UPDATE Employee
Sat, November 17, 2007
This site has been created by XL Results Foundation to warn you of bogus emails and blogs (about XL) posing as consumer associations, press bureaus and/or as our own Life Members.
Since March 2004 our members and our partners have been hounded by interconnected bogus emails and blogs, alleging wrongdoing of ever increasing proportion. While the allegations continually change, the pattern of engagement has remained the same.
What these emails and blogs look like
1. The emails are aimed to mislead and confuse. They are targeted at the email addresses of our Life Members and partners - often aimed at new targets who are not aware of the history of these emails. Recent emails have addresses such as consumer.association@googlemail.com, scamalertconsumer@gmail.com, lcomplaints@gmail.com and have titles such as Consumer Association - XL Results Foundation Scam and Scam Alert - XL Results Foundation Pte Ltd. At last count, over thirty different bogus Google and yahoo email addresses have been set up to send thousands of such emails over the last years.
2. The blogs are posted on blog sites such as wordpage, blogger and more recently on a US site called www.ripoffreport.com. These blogs have equally alarmist titles such as Roger Hamilton And XL Results Foundation Pte Ltd, Singapore Community Petition, Scam, Duped, Pyramid Scheme, Charity Scam, Mass Refunds, Deception, Misrepresentation, Cheating Singapore Nationwide and Roger Hamilton + XL Results Foundation Ponzi Scheme, Fraudster, Scam, Duped, Conman, Global Fraud, Misrepresentation. Like the emails, they have numerous links to the same articles, blogs, etc and they are all posted using fictitious names such as Hilton, Logan and Singapore Community.
The contents of these emails, blogs, and our response
1. The emails follow the same themes in the allegations they make. They range from criminal misconduct to fraud to mistreated customers to financial shenanigans. Many of these are similar to the claims made by an ex-employee who left XL employment in March 2002. Some of these claims are now the subject of a legal case that XL presently has with this individual (this is the second such case that XL has with this individual). The history of this case, the claims and our specific responses to each one can be found here: You can view this at www.xlresultsfoundation-legal-file.com
2. On certain occasions, these emails and blogs have been targeted at the press and have resulted in press articles, which in turn are then mass spammed and blogged anonymously, misrepresenting the stories with headlines and editing designed to spread further alarm and distress. You can find our advisory to the media in relation to this pattern of behaviour here: www.resultsfoundation.com/mediaadvisory1 Members of the press are themselves concerned that their articles are being misused and are also keen to know who is distributing these.
3. While the many general claims are addressed in the two links above, we would also like to address some of the more recent claims here. The first is language conjuring up the image of mass discontent, action by consumer associations, government departments, legal actions and the like. These are all entirely false. XL has never been approached by any consumer association and has not been involved in any investigations by any government department in any country. The only legal case we are involved in at present is the one mentioned above. Apart from the two legal cases (one that is currently ongoing) with this ex-employee, the only other legal case that has ever existed was one between XL's Chairman, Roger Hamilton and the same ex-employee when in January 2007 she personally filed a magistrate's complaint for criminal defamation against Mr Hamilton. Significantly, she subsequently withdrew that complaint in April 2007 (after she appointed a lawyer to represent her in these matters against the company and Mr Hamilton, and presumably after receiving legal advice that her claim of criminal defamation was clearly unsustainable).
4. The second recent claim of XL being an illegal pyramid sales' company first appeared as a defense by the defendant's new lawyer in this case in March 2007 (The argument being that the breach of contract claim against the defendant could be defended if XL could be shown to be operating illegally). XL was issued with interrogatories from the defendant demanding detailed accounts on the basis that it was operating illegally. XL applied to the courts for the interrogatories be withdrawn and the Singapore Court ruled in XL's favour, ordering the interrogatories to be withdrawn in August 2007. Even so, the emails and blogs continue with these same spurious claims that XL is a pyramid sales' company and also that we are blocking legal attempts for full disclosure of the company accounts. You can read our affidavit on the matter, detailing our responses on exactly why XL has no similarities to pyramid sales and the court's ruling here at www.xlresultsfoundation-legal-file.com
5. The third recent claim that there is some kind of scam' and thousands of customers duped' are all part of the language used to incite alarm. We operate with full disclosure, a satisfaction guarantee on all our major events and XL membership is transferable. XL Results Foundation operates in over 50 cities around the world with members meeting monthly. As with all large companies, we respond to customer requests on a daily basis. We have service centres in Singapore, London and Los Angeles and anyone with legitimate requests, complaints and suggestions have the ability to connect with us freely and easily.
6. The fourth recent claim a repeat of earlier claims that XL either does not contribute to charities or is not honouring its commitments to charity are, again, entirely false and absurd. XL's mission is World Wide Wealth, and the many charity activities within XL, by XL companies and XL Life Members, are documented every month in our various updates, on the website and in XL Magazine and XL Radio. The progress of our XL SEA Program our accreditation program for Social Enterprises and a full history of charity activity by XL Companies can be found here: http://www.resultsfoundation.com/index.php?id=66
What you can do
The legal case is due for court hearing sometime in early 2008. In the meantime, we request that you take all these anonymous or bogus emails and blogs with a big pinch of salt. We have also found that a reply to sender requesting that your name be removed from the spam list usually results in one or more personal retorts followed by an end to the spam.
We will continue to be transparent in all aspects of our company, which is dedicated to growing the power of social entrepreneurs to create and contribute throughout the world. For verification or inquiries on all aspects of our global commercial and charitable activities, please contact Ian Grundy at: ian.grundy@resultsfoundation.com
For the lighter side of XL, visit our website at www.resultsfoundation.com and we look forward to seeing you at any one of the 2,000+ events we will run in the coming year.
You can also listen to us on XL Radio at www.xl-radio.net
Posted by XL Group Management