While it’s common for the rhetoric coming out of the MLM underbelly to be at odds with reality, the lenghts USI-Tech and the law firm Hart David Carson are going to misrepresent US authorities stance on securities is mind-boggling.
A few days ago USI-Tech co-founder Horst Jicha announced the company’s intention to defy regulators and reopen USI-Tech in the US.
In the same interview Jicha mentioned a “legal statement”, which he claimed “points out loud and clear that we never had an issue, we as a company, in terms of unlegal [sic] securities”.
Drafted by Hart David Carson, USI-Tech’s legal letter was provided to affiliates a few hours ago.
Accompanying the letter was a communication from Jicha himself, which declared
USI-Tech customers in (the US and Canada) will now be able to buy BTC packages and continue to enjoy the benefits of our product.
We are also working closely with our corporate lawyers to look at ways of resuming commission payments and continuing the referral commission for our partners in North America.
The Texas cease and desist, which is the only known US regulatory action taken against USI-Tech, does not differentiate between affiliate and customer ROI payments.
As per the order, which identified USI-Tech’s Bitcoin Packages as a security, the company was ordered to “immediately cease and desist from offering for sale any security in Texas until the security is registered”.
I think we can all agree the Texas cease and desist was issued in plain English and the prohibition of USI-Tech from offering unregistered securities was abundantly clear.
So how on Earth do we go from that to Jicha declaring
USI-Tech never had a problem in the USA and Canada, the authorities have been active solely through misconduct, false statements and unauthorized marketing activities of local distributors.
Not only is Horst Jicha blatantly lying about the Texas cease and desist, the attached legal statement from Hart David Carson is full of even more rubbish.
As you are aware, USI is actively involved in ongoing regulatory matters in the following states: Minnesota, Washington, Texas, and Hawaii.
I don’t think anyone was aware of regulatory action against USI-Tech beyond Texas but thanks, good to know.
Counsel at HDC is actively engaged with each of the aforementioned states and is working to identify the principal state-based issue, resolve said issue accordingly, and pursue/attain any and all necessary state-based qualifications and/or licensure.
As the Texas cease and desist spelled out, the issue with USI-Tech is the offering of unregistered securities and failure to provide adequate disclosures.
This isn’t a “state-based issue”, it’s a federal issue as the offering of unregistered securities is illegal in every US state and territory.
How does one resolve the issue? By registering your securities offering with the appropriate authorities.
Despite Texas firing the first shot and issuing their cease and desist thirty-six days ago, USI-Tech has thus far failed to register its securities offering anywhere in the US.
Hart David Carson meanwhile would have you believe there’s some deep negotiations going on between USI-Tech and US regulators.
So why then did the Texas Securities Board confirm a few days ago that USI-Tech completely failed to respond to their cease and desist, and that with the thirty-one day deadline passing have forfeit their right to challenge the notice?
Also notice how there’s nothing about affiliates in the Texas Securities Board’s response?
This being said, it can be stated without equivocation that the primary objection posited by each state revolves around the marketing techniques employed by USI members when holding public demonstrations and/or marketing USI over the internet via video or blog.
Additionally, it appears to be a widely held stances among the various states that, but for the marketing techniques of USA and Canada-based USI members, USI could develop a pathway to full regulatory acceptance without tremendous issue.
This being said, the issue of regulating and monitoring USI members marketing techniques remains an outstanding matter that must be addressed prior to any consideration of reentry
into the US market.
USI-Tech can police their affiliates all they want, but as long as the company is offering unregistered securities in the US, the company is operating illegally.
At this point I’d seriously question the professional capacity of Hart David Carson, but then I’m reminded that these are the same clowns that declared USI-Tech unregistered securities offering weren’t a problem in the first place.
Honestly, could the cavernous divide between reality and the blatant lies coming out of USI-Tech headquarters be any larger?
Pretty much every MLM Ponzi lawsuit I’ve ever covered quotes affiliate marketing in one way or another. It’s cited by regulators because how the business is marketed showcases the intent behind the business.
Two USI-Tech affiliates are referenced in the Texas cease and desist, but that doesn’t negate USI-Tech’s own liability.
USI-Tech as a company was named as an independent respondent in the Texas cease and desist.
There’s been no other public regulatory action taken against USI-Tech, so attempting to deconstruct what may or may not have happened in other states is pointless.
What we do know is that USI-Tech is now illegal in Texas, and there’s probably federal action not too far behind.
If USI-Tech were to ignore the cease and desist and resume offering unregistered securities in the US, even if they excluded Texas it probably wouldn’t take long for other states to take action.
USI-Tech is on the US regulatory radar and there’s no coming back from that.
Would it be too much for the Texas Securities Board to issue a statement of their own? If for nothing else than to put a stop to the nonsense USI-Tech is pushing out.
Gullible idiots on Facebook are falling for this crap, because apparently a law firm’s header is all you need to completely disconnect from reality.