In March 2026, Hyderabad police arrested 32 alleged QNet promoters, adding to years of scrutiny surrounding the Hong Kong-based direct selling company. Similar concerns have surfaced in Ghana, Bhutan, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kazakhstan, where authorities have taken action over QNet-linked activities.
The cases are not part of one global investigation, and they involve different people, allegations and legal systems. But they repeatedly raise the same question: does QNet operate as a legitimate direct selling company, or does its model create incentives that resemble the pyramid schemes regulators warn against?
QNet strongly rejects the latter description. The company says it is a legitimate direct selling business, that commissions are linked to product sales, and that fraudulent activity is carried out by independent representatives who violate its rules. There is no single court judgment that has globally declared QNet itself a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.
A Global Direct Selling Business
QNet operates through a multi-level marketing model in which independent representatives sell health, wellness, lifestyle and other products. Representatives can earn income through their own sales and through the wider sales network they help build.
The company has operated internationally for decades and has built a presence across Asia, Africa, the Middle East and other markets. Its visibility increased further through high-profile sponsorships, including its partnership with Manchester City. Such partnerships do not amount to an endorsement of a company’s business model, but they can significantly strengthen brand recognition and credibility among potential customers and distributors.
That global reach has also meant that disputes involving QNet-linked representatives have surfaced across multiple jurisdictions.
The Question at the Centre of the Debate
A conventional direct selling company earns revenue primarily by selling products or services to genuine customers. A pyramid scheme, by contrast, relies heavily on participants recruiting new members whose payments support those already inside the network.
That difference matters because earnings in multi-level marketing are often highly uneven. A 2024 US Federal Trade Commission review of income disclosure statements from 70 MLM companies found that most participants earned $1,000 or less annually, while participants at some companies earned nothing at all. The FTC also warned that business expenses can reduce or eliminate those earnings.
Against that backdrop, authorities investigating QNet-linked cases have repeatedly focused on recruitment practices, large upfront payments and unusually aggressive income promises.
India Has Produced the Largest Number of Cases
India has one of the longest paper trails involving QNet and its local franchise operations.
In early 2023, India’s Enforcement Directorate searched nine premises in Mumbai, Bengaluru and Chennai and froze 36 bank accounts holding more than ₹90 crore. Investigators alleged that Vihaan Direct Selling India, QNet’s master franchisee in the country, had used shell companies and dummy proprietorships to route money collected from people who were allegedly promised unusually high returns.
The Enforcement Directorate said the proceeds of crime cited in the underlying case were around ₹400 crore and alleged that more than ₹2,000 crore had moved through related entities. These remain allegations made by an investigating agency and should not be treated as findings of guilt.
Hyderabad and Cyberabad police have also pursued several QNet-related cases. In 2019, Cyberabad police announced 70 arrests across 38 cases. QNet disputed accusations against its model and said commissions were based on product sales and the effort made by distributors.
The issue resurfaced in March 2026 when Hyderabad police announced another 32 arrests across Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.
According to ETV Bharat, police alleged that some victims had been shown social media advertisements claiming that investments of ₹5 lakh to ₹10 lakh could grow to ₹3 crore or ₹4 crore within two years. Investigators also alleged that some participants were encouraged to take personal loans at interest rates of 19% to 22%.
The reports described products including honey and biscuits as being used in the transactions, while police argued that recruitment and financial promises were the real attraction for participants. Those arrested had not been tried at the time of the reporting.
Courts Have Not Reached One Uniform Conclusion
The legal history is more complicated than the police cases alone suggest.
QNet has pointed to court orders in India as evidence that accusations against its business model have sometimes been overstated. A 2017 Supreme Court order reportedly stayed proceedings in a number of cases involving QNet and Vihaan, while the company has also cited a Karnataka High Court decision that it says distinguished its operations from illegal money circulation schemes.
However, a stay is not the same as an acquittal, and individual police forces can still investigate new complaints that arise later.
In another case, a special court in Chennai convicted Pushpam Appala Naidu, managing director of an earlier QNet franchise, Quest Net Enterprises India, over false statements in company filings and sentenced him to three months in jail. That case involved company-law violations rather than a judicial declaration on QNet’s entire global business model.
India has been able to tighten its laws for direct selling. The Consumer Protection (Direct Selling) Rules passed in 2021 ban the promotion of money-circulation or pyramid schemes through direct sales by businesses. Certain kinds of subscription fees are also banned.
Russia and Kazakhstan Have Taken a Harder Line
Outside India, some authorities have used more direct language.
In 2022, Russia’s central bank reportedly listed QNet as showing signs associated with a financial pyramid. The warning referenced QNet websites and a Hong Kong address.
Kazakhstan has gone further in individual criminal cases. In 2023, two people described by local media as organisers of a QNet-linked pyramid scheme were sentenced to six years in minimum-security facilities.
The court found that 30 people had suffered losses totalling about 25 million tenge. According to the reports, recruits had paid substantial sums to register as representatives and purchase travel club products.
Those convictions were against individuals operating under Kazakh law and were not convictions of QNet Ltd itself.
Saudi Arabia and Bhutan Have Also Acted
Saudi authorities have previously taken action against QNet-linked activity. In 2018, the country’s Ministry of Commerce said it had raided a training session involving 12 Q-Net members in Makkah. The ministry described network marketing of that kind as prohibited and potentially misleading because of the way income opportunities were presented.
Bhutan took an even clearer position. In August 2022, the country’s Office of Consumer Protection declared QNet a pyramid scheme and banned it.
Local reporting described complainants who said they had paid significant amounts for jewellery and wellness products that they believed were overpriced. Some said the real pressure was to recruit other participants rather than sell products to ordinary customers.
QNet-linked representatives disputed aspects of those allegations.
West Africa Has Seen More Serious Allegations
Some of the most troubling QNet-related reports have emerged from West Africa, where alleged recruitment schemes have sometimes involved promises of overseas jobs, migration opportunities or business opportunities.
The police in Ashanti, in April 2025, arrested 44 Cameroonian people who had been luring hundreds of people into paying huge amounts of money in CFA francs on the pretext of employment in Ghana through a scam known as QNET.
QNet rejected responsibility for the alleged fraud, saying the individuals had acted independently. The company stressed that it is neither a travel agency nor an immigration service and does not promise jobs, visas or overseas employment.
Earlier reports from Ghana described recruits being asked to pay registration fees and purchase products before being told to bring in additional people. Some investigations also alleged that migrants had been confined in compounds or had their phones taken.
QNet has denied that such practices are part of its business model.
Liberia has seen similar allegations. In 2020, police arrested two people in connection with a recruitment operation that media reports linked to QNet. A victim said participants were told to bring in two more people as part of the business.
As early as late 2025, the foreign minister of Ghana had come out to describe QNet-related recruitment as an “organized fraud syndicate” enticing individuals into nearby West African states with the promise of travel or employment. Several Ghanaians had been reported by the foreign minister to be part of Côte d’Ivoire cases.
Again, those allegations concerned specific individuals and recruitment networks, rather than a global criminal judgment against QNet itself.
What QNet Says
QNet has remained consistent in its defence.
The company describes itself as an established direct selling business and rejects allegations that it operates a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. It says its representatives sell real products and that legitimate commissions are based on sales rather than simply bringing more people into the network.
QNet has also argued that critics incorrectly describe participants as investors. According to the company, people join as independent representatives or customers rather than placing money into an investment product.
It has acknowledged that representatives sometimes violate its rules.
In 2020, QNet announced that it had terminated more than 400 independent representatives across more than 20 countries for misconduct. A company spokesperson said improper behaviour by a relatively small group of representatives had damaged the reputation built by the company over many years.
Critics argue that repeatedly blaming individual representatives does not fully answer the broader question of why similar complaints continue to emerge across unrelated markets.
Why Critics Remain Suspicious
The strongest criticism of QNet does not come from any single arrest or investigation. It comes from the recurring pattern described by complainants and authorities in different countries.
One of the most common allegations is that recruitment appears to matter more than genuine retail sales. Victims in India, Ghana and Liberia have described being encouraged to bring in other people in order to recover their initial payments or generate commissions.
Another concern is the scale of income promises allegedly made by some representatives. Hyderabad police, for example, described claims that relatively modest lakh-level payments could become crore-level earnings within two years. Such claims look particularly striking when compared with industry-wide MLM income data showing that most participants earn relatively little.
Large upfront payments also appear repeatedly in complaints. Some participants say they were required to purchase expensive product packages, jewellery, wellness items or travel products before they could participate fully in the opportunity.
Debt adds another layer of risk. Indian police have alleged that some prospective recruits were encouraged to borrow money through personal loans to fund their participation.
None of these features alone establishes that QNet itself is legally a pyramid scheme. But together they explain why authorities continue to scrutinise the company’s representatives and recruitment networks.
The Case for Caution Works Both Ways
There are also important reasons not to oversimplify the issue.
Many people arrested in QNet-related cases are independent representatives rather than company executives. An arrest is not a conviction, and fraud committed by an individual using a legitimate company’s name does not automatically make the company itself fraudulent.
QNet has also successfully challenged or delayed some proceedings in court, and some cases cited by critics involve individuals rather than the company.
A global organisation operating through thousands of independent representatives will inevitably have less direct control over every sales conversation or recruitment pitch.
The counterargument is that similar allegations have emerged repeatedly in countries with different regulators, different police forces and different legal systems. Critics say the recurrence of recruitment-heavy pitches, large upfront payments and exaggerated earnings claims suggests that the problem may be broader than isolated misconduct.
The public record supports elements of both arguments.
So, Is QNet a Scam?
There is no simple legal verdict that answers that question globally.
QNet remains an operating international direct selling company and strongly denies being a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. At the same time, police investigations, regulatory warnings, bans and criminal cases involving QNet-linked representatives have accumulated across several countries over many years.
For someone being approached with a QNet opportunity, the practical question may therefore be more useful than the label.
If the person pitching the opportunity spends more time explaining how many people you need to recruit than who will actually buy the products, that is a serious warning sign. If you are asked to pay a large amount upfront, purchase an expensive product bundle or borrow money in order to participate, the financial risk increases sharply.
Promises of extraordinary returns should receive even greater scrutiny.
Anyone being told that joining the business can guarantee employment, immigration, visas or overseas travel should be particularly cautious. QNet itself says those services are not part of its business.
Before joining any direct selling opportunity, prospective participants should ask for written information on typical earnings, product refund policies, recurring fees and the percentage of revenue coming from customers outside the distributor network.
And anyone who believes they have been misled should preserve receipts, advertisements, WhatsApp messages and other communications and consider reporting the matter to local police or consumer protection authorities.
The broader record does not provide a single global judgment against QNet. But it provides more than enough warning signs for potential recruits to ask difficult questions before putting their money or their debt, into the opportunity.
Also Read: Hoola Health Acquires UpTodd,
