| Comment Number: | 522418-10219 |
| Received: | 7/15/2006 11:11:17 PM |
| Organization: | Quixtar IBO |
| Commenter: | Ramsey Slaieh |
| State: | TX |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
I recognize the need to protect prospects from fraudulent schemes, however the proposed rules would hamper and unfairly burden the growth of legitimate opportunities. The fraudulent and misleading enterprises are not concerned with ethics to begin with, and would probably disregard the proposed rules. Quixtar requires around $100 to register which is refundable within 12 months, hence there is no need for a waiting period. As for providing a prospect with 10 references of other IBO's in the area I would have to quote Quixtar's projection with such an idea: "This requirement would infringe on the privacy of every IBO whose name, address, and phone number was provided to prospects. It would also penalize the sponsor, who would be required to give his prospect contact information for 10 other IBO's, any of whom might be happy to register the prospect themselves." I do not understand how such a rule would even "protect" a prospect from fraudulent schemes. My prospects are encouraged to meet other IBO's and usually see more than 10 before they register. Also, I do not need my personal financial information disclosed to other prospects. As for income disclosures, those are already provided and explained with disclosures that are easily understood when explaining the business model. Income claims related to an accomplished level in the business model do not need to be substantiated using personal financial documents since the average income at each level is already disclosed and explained. Personal financial documents usually contain sensitive information concerning other incomes and businesses of an individual. This rule may even encourage fraudulent schemes to produce phony documents. The proposed rule requiring a list of litigation of "misrepresentation, fraud, securities law violations, or unfair or deceptive practices with the past 10 years" does not differentiate from allegations that have no merit. Also, the more well established the entity, the more false claims they have endured, and therefore punishes the legitimate entities rather than the start-up scheme which has no history and is trying to make a quick buck. Thank you for your intent on protecting prospects from fraudulent schemes and charlatans, but please do not lump the good with the bad. In summary, as I have implied throughout my comments, the entity with fraudulent, unlawful, unethical intent to begin with is not concerned with adhering to these proposed rules.