Beware Of Amolatina.com
I got scammed out of $3500 at these Amolatina.com and dating-marriage sites. Why does PAYPAL support these crooks? As far as I know, 100% of the women were being paid to write me letters and chat. I thought I was popular. I got 1000 letters. Every woman I tried to get serious with was a dead-end…..sometimes they just “became unavailable”. And the excuses became so numerous, along with so many other lies I uncovered, that I figured the dating service is in on the whole scam. Here is a blog I found that supports my experience. Please note, English is his second language:
This is from Estefano L.
Amolatina.com Fraud Site
These “Dating sites” are named differently Russian love match, Hotrussianbrides, Amolatina, A foreign affair, Anastasia, etc. And have in common that more than 90% of their girls are apparently “beautiful and young”, as if they were “call girls” instead of “marriageable women”. Ukrainian and Latin American women who do not care if you are 90 years old, or if you are ugly, because their secret interest is fooling you into spending money in chatting and gifting them. These agencies induce slyly these girls, who are in want of one job, to partake in this trick. They are teamed up with bilingual persons, euphemized as “translators”. The translator (either male or female) is confided the task of beguiling men with a chat of coquetry while the young woman is supposed only to smile at the video camera. The more time the tricked men are in chat, the better.
Amolatina Scammer Site
The more men the “translator” wiles concurrently, the better. Both woman and translator get a vague commission for it. The amount of this commission is unknown, but, for sure, risible, and this is maybe the worst. I worked in one of these agencies (in Medellin, Colombia), for almost one year (August-June, 2008-2009), and I know certainly that here girls worked without a covenant with their “managers” about this commission. They simply get one pay every 15 days for a chat, which is rather capricious or arbitrary, and one commission for gifts.
I will mention, as an example, the Sangoma’s case, the woman I teamed with for six months (from January to June of 2009). Her nickname was Sandgom. The Sangoma’s average was about 10 men daily. Every message in chat costs less than one dollar. The average of messages every man transmitted was about 100 in our 8 hours shift, which may amount to about $ 80. So, ten men chatting with us might have become an 800 dollars gain for the owner (or owners) of the “Dating Site” every day. How much of this gain was given to Sandgom? 15 dollars only, as an average. Notwithstanding, there were days in which she was told she had made nothing but 3 dollars in her 8 hours shift.
Amolaltina Fake Site
As for the gifts, when one man orders flowers (or other false “gifts”, as candies, English lessons, and jewelry) for one woman, this one does not get the flowers but one little commission for them (about 10%).
Of course, there are many lawsuits against the “Dating Sites”. How are they presenting themselves to be convicted? They force their ladies to sign and video a written declaration that they are in their respective agencies, neither for money nor for gifts, but for their wanting one husband, which declaration is completely false, except for a few women. Women relucting to sign such declaration are threatened to be unpaid for their chats.
Dating chats are as lucrative as sex chats are. The difference is, besides the unreality of women being nakedly exhibited, that men in sex chats know it is a mere erotic play, whereas men in dating sites do not know that most of women are dissembling with them.
“Translators” personate their teamers mainly when a camera is off. When one woman is not able to come to “office”, the translator makes men believe that they are chatting with her. There are cases, even, in which translators personate women who are not “working” for their agencies, women who, for whatever reason, have consented to the institution of their “profiles” and neglected to demand the removal of these ones. In December of 2008, I was told by the owner of the agency to log in to chat under the nicknames of some of these women. They did not know that we were personating them.