FPO rejects claims of oversight in iCon Group’s business structure

The Fiscal Policy Office (FPO) issued a statement on Thursday rejecting claims that it had failed to detect irregularities related to the business structure of iCon Group before it was registered in 2019.

The FPO statement came after the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) tried to tackle public anger by saying it had sought to consult with the FPO in 2018 about the operations of iCon Group, and the FPO had said there was nothing wrong.

In the statement, the FPO admitted it had received a letter from OCPB on July 20, 2018, asking it to check the iCon Group’s business plan and determine if any of it was unlawful in nature.

The FPO said the company had registered with the Commerce Ministry on June 1, 2019, and did not conduct any business that year, so there were no damages. It also said that when it received the letter from OCPB, it had not received any public complaints about the company.

The FPO said the firm later registered its direct sales and direct marketing businesses with the OCPB on August 2, 2019.

In the statement, the FPO said it had not voiced any opinions because it had no authority to consider the business patterns of any company that wanted to register with the OCPB. It added that it also refrained from opining about the case, because it may have been inaccurate.

The FPO reasoned that its responsibility is to receive public complaints from people affected by businesses that operate their financial schemes unlawfully. It also said that it could reply to questions from other government agencies based on the information provided in the attached documents.

The FPO statement said it could have determined if the company had violated the 1984 Emergency Decree on borrowings considered public cheating and fraud. However, it said, these cases are reviewed on a case-by-case basis based on a company’s business operations, but the iCon Group had not started operating in 2018.

Also, it said, it is required to consider three criteria when checking to see if a firm has violated the decree. They are:

• Whether the firm is publicly advertising or distributing documents via various media to deceive the public
• Whether the company has promised to provide investment yields that are higher than the maximum loan rates of banks
• Whether the company uses the money of new investors to pay previous investors.