OffshoreAlert
Daily news, documents and intelligence about Offshore Financial Centers and those who conduct business in them that you will not find anywhere else.
RSS Feed Print
?? For John Colvin - Should Crozier Clients Look at Omnicorp??
Internal Administrator
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011
Joined: 10/12/2010
Posts: 5780


Posted: 5/30/2003 4:42:30 PM

By: Ol' Hap

John Colvin,

What eventually happened to the restructured Omnicorp Bank once it was altered to run more like an investment fund? Did it succeed or fail? Do you think that whatever happened with Omnicorp may be a precedent which the current BC depositors should take under serious consideration?

-Hap

RE: the following John Colvin post from a previous thread...

"While I am not a depositor, from the descriptions on this site, what Bank Crozier is offering as a solution, i.e., having depositors elect to become more like long-term fund investors, seems somewhat similar to what Nelson Bayford of Omnicorp Bank of St. Vincent and the Grenadines did when that bank was unable to meet its interest commitments. As described by David Marchant in a story on the OBNR/KYC site, the rap on Omnicorp Bank was that it was directly offering HYIP to clients. When insolvency threatened, Omnicorp attempted to alter its structure and become more like an investment fund."



Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 5/31/2003 12:41:56 AM

By: Sooltauq

Regretfully, the more I learn about Crozier, the more inclined I am to believe that Crozier could possibly be yet another in a long line of Grenada banking scams -- and not merely the first "honest failure" -- primarily because the investment structure of Crozier does not appear to have been commensurate with the first great light of quality banking, i.e., to protect one's depositors no matter what, as much as (in the best light). By contrast, what we have in the best light is a wild-gamble with an internet start-up 50:1 long-shot in AddTrust, with a sort of "If it hits we'll be rich, if it doesn't it wasn't our money" attitude. In the worst case, Crozier's investments may simply have been an attempt to quietly funnel depositors assets away from the bank, while disguising the affair as a bank failure precipitated by unfortunate investments.

If the latter is the case, I would suggest that those involved with Crozier learned much from the FIBG and similar scandals, as to what the regulators and investors would and would not do to attempt to get moneys back, and seem to have tailored circumstances where the collapse is neatly explainable, albeit with some canyon-sized gaps in accountability.

PWC's role in this affair gives little comfort. For PWC's auditor to called Crozier "the only honest bank in Grenada" is oxymoronic. It defies logic to believe that any bank in such a thoroughly corrupt jurisdiction, with nearly all government officials involved to their necks in corruption involving banks there, and with nearly all the other banks failing because of corruption (and the regulators protecting the crooks), would somehow stay clean. Even if the original intent was for the bank to stay clean, the contagion of corruption that is Grenada was probably inevitable. But I have less confidence that the intent was ever to run a clean bank. For PWC to announce that it has found "no wrongdoing" while at the same time PWC admits that it is struggling to get a grasp on what actually occured (apparently without the co-operation of Crozier's management, who allegedly hid the failure of AddTrust from PWC although I bet it is a long time before we come to the bottom of that one), is approaching Pythonesque.

Salt all of this with the apparent involvement of some highly questionable individuals at the holding company level, and the presumption goes from "prove Crozier was a scam" to "prove that Crozier was ever really legitimate". Considering their totally inappropriate investments, choice of one of the most corrupt jurisdictions on earth by going to Grenada in the first place, and involvement with questionable individuals, and I become very skeptical about the Crozier story.

The attempted Nevis thing seems to be the icing on the cake. Not so much for the move to Nevis, but for the appearance that the bank is doing something to attempt to "reorganize" and get back at least a portion of depositor's funds -- and just like many classic investment schemes, hoping the depositors will simply take some piddling sum and go away believing that the bank at least tried to help them, and that inquiry will go no further.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 5/30/2003 11:32:25 PM

By: Ol' Hap - Thank You, But, But, But....

Thanks so much for all the information and analysis.
The mechanics and logistics and any parallels you saw with Omnicorp are much clearer now.
Illuminating....well, like a miner's light, anyway.
Seems the more questions are answered, the deeper and darker the mine *may* be, but you don't know *how* deep unless you keep walking in the dark.
Guess we'll all find out eventually.
I hope you are right that there is no malice afoot here, and that "alp" is wrong, but I have to say, he's making sense.

-Hap


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 5/30/2003 10:00:08 PM

By: Dear Mr Colvin

perhaps you should reconsider your very mild opinion of the Crozier deals in the light of some facts.

1] Peter Johansson is 100% owner of Crozier(St Lucia) and 50% or less owner of the Parent of Crozier(Grenada), but he appears to be the CEO of both.

2] Crozier(St Lucia), which is NOT part of the Crozier group other than through the Johansson connection, is the main depositor at Crozier(Grenada) but under a correspondent banking arrangement.

3] Be very aware of the fact that all the Crozier "managed funds" have disappeared, either momentarily or permanently, that 1 executive and 1 major shareholder of the group were very actively involved in promoting HYIPs involving the purchase and leveraging of Crozier CDs (Dr Brian Terry and Bruno Andersson, both assisted by other, non-Crozier joker-brokers). Those CDs bear interest rates indicating they would not have been issued by any real bank in a falling dollar-rate environment, UNLESS, they were simply marketing tools for HYIP, and they expected to swap them for profits in Viking or whatever, and never have to cash them. Otherwise, issuance of such CDs was just an obvious bank ponzi from the start.

4] GIFSA refuses to allow the problem to be swept under the rug outside of their jurisdiction. Why? Your clue: Despite PWC having been in the bank for MONTHS, no one really knows how to account for the missing money. GIFSA is still clamouring for accounts from Crozier, and Crozier is trying to move it all off to Nevis.

Now, taking the above modifiers into the equation.... doesn't that change your analysis a bit? I hope it does.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 5/30/2003 8:25:46 PM

By: JColvin - the Omnicorp/Solara Experience

In its December 31, 2002 issue, OBNR reported in brief on the venture fund that Omnicorp investors had been asked to take in exchange for their rights as depositors in October. While I will not reproduce the article in its entirety, here are a few of the salient points from that article, along with some of my comments and subsequent developments:

(1) Purchasers of Omnicorp's high-yield CDs were asked to swap their rights for shares in Vancouver-based Solara Ventures Inc.

(2) Solara appears to raise money from stock sales and spends much of it on related-party transactions. It has not earned any revenue since its inception on June 14, 2000.

(3) In an October 21, 2002 10Q, Solara reported that, in the six months ended August 31, 2002, it had paid or incurred $194,048 in "consulting fees" to related parties. For the 12 months starting on September 1, 2002, Solara stated that it agreed to pay $1.2 million – more than three times its entire current assets of $393,585 as of August 31, 2002 – at a rate of $100,000 per month to Westin Communications Inc. for "investor relation services". Westin Communication's sole director is Solara's former President, Brent Glen Jardine. Westin also shares offices with Solara in Vancouver. Solara also stated that it had "entered into a share purchase agreement with Westin Capital Inc., a related party by virtue of common ownership and directors, to purchase 21,500 shares of common stock of Icoworks from Westin at a price of $3.00 per share".

(4) The Vancouver Sun reported in December of 2002 that a promoter of Solara shares is Terry Schauer, who also promotes the stock of Hastings Literacy Foundation, "an offshore charitable-donation tax shelter scheme" that is a "scam" operated by Nick Thill, "who has an extensive rap sheet for fraud, theft and securities offences". I understand that some of Thill's tax shelters were marketed to US investors, and that the IRS is aggressively pursuing audits of the US investors.

(5) Also in December, the Seattle Weekly reported that Omnicorp had invested $3 million with KCTS-TV, Seattle's public television station (respected for its programming if not for its financial acumen) which is in serious financial difficulty because of grandiouse production projects and a lack of internal controls. (I think I posted that article at some point.)

(6) Solara admitted in the October, 2002 10Q filing that there is "substantial doubt" about its "ability to continue as a going concern".

(7) In its SEC filings, Solara states that it is in the business of "the exploration of mineral properties" and "investing in certain private equity securities". In apparent pursuit of its mining dreams, Solara entered into an arrangement with Tanex Resources PLC, an English firm on October 2, 2001. In the October, 2002 10Q, Solara disclosed that it had agreed to "make certain convertible loans and payments to Tanex Resources plc".

( Further public information is not likely to be forthcoming, because on January 8, 2003, Solara announced that it was terminating its securities registration because its share-ownership was less than 500 and its total assets were less than $10 million in each of the last 3 years.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1160972/000112785503000010/0001127855-03-000010-index.htm

(9) In March 2003, Solara entered into a transaction whereby it purchased 2 million shares of Icoworks (a dba for PARAGON POLARIS STRATEGIES.COM INC.) in a Reg S offering. Nevada filings indicate that Icoworks (Paragon Polaris) is also run by two Vancouver residents, Robert Foo and Samuel Lau.

After setting out all of this information about how sinister the Solara arrangements seem to be, I hesitate to classify ANYONE in the same category as Omnicorp, which was a promoter at Global Prosperity events, and associated with the Arndt/Noser/Kraus crowd in Switzerland.

The effort to set up a non-bank entity may merely have been a effort by Bank Crozier to solve its liquidity crisis and extend the payment/payout periods to depositors (who could not be paid cash on the barrel), as its liquidity had substantially diminished with the failure of AddTrust (and perhaps not yet disclosed investments also gone south). As I set out in an earlier post (on Diligizer I think), from a cursory review of the 2001 financials published on the Bank Crozier (Grenada) website, there appears to be substantial investment in volatile assets, including investment in related entities. The ratios of "risky" to "safe" assets appear far higher than in comparably sized institutions in more tightly-regulated jurisdictions.

Likewise, there may have been nothing sinister about the choice of Nevis as a location, as the Crozier Trust company was set up to do business in Nevis. The proposed entity may have simply been the standard Crozier trust product, rather than a disingenous attempt to push depositors into the least favorable forum for creditors.

I doubt that I've answered all of your questions, but hopefully this information will help.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 5/30/2003 8:21:41 PM

By: Randell

Seems to me the depositors do not have a lot of choice. They cannot get at their money so they are now investors. This is just like the convertable note syndications in the 80's. The underlying deal made no difference (Real Estate, Ostrich Farms, Oil & Gas, etc) they all worked the same. If the deal was good everyone converted into an equity interest. If the deal did not work they had to convert anyway. I have been watching this board and the Crozier sites and the story line is just like the Limited Partenrship Structures that ran their gamet in the 80's. Cant pay the interest? Make evryone equity partners. Cant pay the principal? Roll them all up or forwared into the next deal. Can't return the money? Blame it on everyone else. St. Lucia blames Grenada. Bank Crozier appears to be operating in the true spirit of a Limited Partnership. In a Limited Partnership one partner has the money and the other has the experience. Over the course of time that situation changes. The partner with the money ends up with the experience and the partenr with the expereince ends up with the money. Lawyer are of no assistance. Regulators of no assistance. The horse is already out of the barn and the money is gone. If you want to embark upon a real exercise in futility try to find out where the various Crozier Investment Funds that they hyped and guarenteed are.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 5/30/2003 5:28:04 PM

By: Ol' Hap - Clarification

Suppose I should clarify.
What I'm really asking is...is there any successful precedent at all for the restructuring plan proposed by Bank Crozier at this juncture?

I mean, if it works, great!
But if nothing like this has ever been done before, isn't that fact, in and of itself, rather damning for the whole proposal?

Should a reliable bank really expect its depositors to fly by the seat of their pants on a never before attempted restructuring schema?

Or is this kind of blind risk inherent in offshore investment as a whole?

-Hap


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/1/2003 4:15:22 AM

By: Ol' Hap - For Alp RE: Marchant Comments

Ya know, in the short time I've been perusing this board, I've seen any number of completely bombastic and ridiculous posts by obvious adherents to the Fraser/Brook/Imperial Consolidated camp accusing David Marchant of being somehow nefariously connected to Bank Crozier.

Granted, I think we all know he is a friend of Johanssen's, but he has also run articles related to the Bank Crozier Grenada situation, and continued to let investors post to this board their worries, and detractors post their concerns regarding this whole mess. He had every reason to believe at the beginning of this whole BC phenomenon, that people claiming to be depositors were actually Fraser/IC folk just ranting again. It's clear to me that he now sees otherwise and is willing to post all sides of the issue on his message board....which strikes me as honorable and professional.

Alp, no matter how much sense you're making at the moment, this is the wrong time to hurl insults...as if there's ever a right time. David hasn't banned you from the board on this subject, now has he?

-Hap


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/1/2003 2:49:17 AM

By: JColvin - A Mild Reply to ALP

It was not my intent to suggest that Bank Crozier had done nothing wrong in the past. Indeed, I thought of the Omnicorp parallel because you and others have suggested that Bank Crozier or its affiliates were also offering High Yield products.

I was attempting to address some of my comments to Ol' Hap's question about whether the collapse was simply one of the risk one took in offshore banking. What I could tell from the financials is that the company's investment mix did not appear to resemble that of banks I was familiar with. I was suggesting that loose regulation, i.e., the regulator's acquiescence to a a significant amount of risky investments at the bank, was a contributing factor in the collapse. If the problem was compounded by unsustainable high yield offerings through the bank or its affiliates, then the potential culpability of the bank insiders rises a notch or two.

Now, at least so far, I haven't seen evidence of any of the obvious self-dealing that was endemic to Omnnicorp/Solara present in the Bank Crozier's AddTrust investment, or the proposed Nevis trust. Depositors should clearly be on their guard for shenanigans of this sort, and hopefully, if a new non-bank solution is ultimately adopted, it will have protections for the depositors.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 5/31/2003 10:24:49 PM

By: David Marchant

Re. "I have to wonder is those baseless, scurrilous and definitely unprofessional attacks are part of the continued shielding of Crozier? Such apparently gratuitous venom makes one wonder...."

And there we have it - hypocrisy in its purest form. Someone who routinely makes "baseless, scurrilous and definitely unprofessional attacks" about anyone he chooses while hiding behind anonymity being shown to have the thinnest of skins when it is directed at him.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 5/31/2003 8:45:24 PM

By: A very odd phenomenon

Seems like the owner of this board has a very nasty streak against anyone involved in any way in unraveling the Crozier fiasco...

Subject: Here's a good one ...
Posted By: OBNR - Registered User
Posted At: (5/31/03 10:52:08 pm)
Reply

news.independent.co.uk/bu...ory=411306

I wonder if, by any chance, 'Alp' and Lincoln Fraser are related.

I think we should be told!

It is clear that Messrs. Fraser and Brook could teach Messrs. John Knox and Tony Bukovich a thing or two about the sale of High Yield Investment Schemes.

David Marchant

I have to wonder is those baseless, scurrilous and definitely unprofessional attacks are part of the continued shielding of Crozier? Such apparently gratuitous venom makes one wonder....


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 5/31/2003 5:49:28 PM

By: To Sooltauq

Congratulations! Now that you've allowed yourself to think about the unthinkable, you are free to explore the next step. Where did those little buggers squirrel away the money they didn't already lose to bigger HYIP scammers?

I believe you're right about the lessons learned from FIBG, btw.... their actions are inexplicable from any conventional business point of view, but begin to make sense in that context.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 5/31/2003 12:45:12 AM

By: Sooltauq -- Corrected Version

Regretfully, the more I learn about Crozier, the more inclined I am to believe that Crozier could possibly be yet another in a long line of Grenada banking scams -- and not merely the first "honest failure" -- primarily because the investment structure of Crozier does not appear to have been commensurate with the first great light of quality banking, i.e., to protect one's depositors no matter what. By contrast, what we have in the best light is a wild-gamble with an internet start-up 50:1 long-shot in AddTrust, with a sort of "If it hits we'll be rich, if it doesn't it wasn't our money" attitude. In the worst case, Crozier's investments may simply have been an attempt to quietly funnel depositors assets away from the bank, while disguising the affair as a bank failure precipitated by unfortunate investments.

If the latter is the case, I would suggest that those involved with Crozier learned much from the FIBG and similar scandals, as to what the regulators and investors would and would not do to attempt to get moneys back, and seem to have tailored circumstances where the collapse is neatly explainable, albeit with some canyon-sized gaps in accountability.

PWC's role in this affair gives little comfort. For PWC's auditor to called Crozier "the only honest bank in Grenada" is oxymoronic. It defies logic to believe that any bank in such a thoroughly corrupt jurisdiction, with nearly all government officials involved to their necks in corruption involving banks there, and with nearly all the other banks failing because of corruption (and the regulators protecting the crooks), would somehow stay clean. Even if the original intent was for the bank to stay clean, the contagion of corruption that is Grenada was probably inevitable. But I have less confidence that the intent was ever to run a clean bank. For PWC to announce that it has found "no wrongdoing" while at the same time PWC admits that it is struggling to get a grasp on what actually occured (apparently without the co-operation of Crozier's management, who allegedly hid the failure of AddTrust from PWC although I bet it is a long time before we come to the bottom of that one), is approaching Pythonesque.

Salt all of this with the apparent involvement of some highly questionable individuals at the holding company level, and the presumption goes from "prove Crozier was a scam" to "prove that Crozier was ever really legitimate". Considering their totally inappropriate investments, choice of one of the most corrupt jurisdictions on earth by going to Grenada in the first place, and involvement with questionable individuals, and I become very skeptical about the Crozier story.

The attempted Nevis thing seems to be the icing on the cake. Not so much for the move to Nevis, but for the appearance that the bank is doing something to attempt to "reorganize" and get back at least a portion of depositor's funds -- and just like many classic investment schemes, hoping the depositors will simply take some piddling sum and go away believing that the bank at least tried to help them, and that inquiry will go no further.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 5/3/2004 2:17:04 PM

By: L. Jeffrey Pogachar

Just wondering re: Hastings Literacy Foundation. Is this the one marketed through PQI and is it the foundation that promises the 70% gift back to the person donating while providing a 46% tax break?


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/10/2003 10:55:07 AM

By: Cyrille Emery

I dont know on which basis a trust (investment or otherwise) is a good way to save a failing bank... I am not even sure it is the best way to protect depositors as you have pointed out there area lot of uncertainties at the outset.
The basle committee recommand the setting up by local authorities of a bridge bank, a temporary bank structure, destined to shield from risks depositors. Possibly this is why PwC use the trust when local regulators are not willing or able to step in forcefully. Then the solution might be fraud of danger depending on who is managing the trust, how the trust invest the money..etc...

The question thus remain open as to the security and legitimacy of financial institutions based in offshore jurisdictions (and which are not part of a larger banking group).
I hate to say this but it seems like the willingness of offshore countries to attract such type of banks made them blind to danger and the lack of their supervisory system.. I think it is time for them to correct the situation if they want to remain credible!


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/4/2003 1:02:04 PM

By: Ol' Hap

Thank you for all the information. Seems like there are more similarities here with Omnicorp in terms of the *structure* issues than even you thought, Mr. Colvin. Good call.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, the conversion from bank to fund, or in Crozier's case from bank to trust, is a viable option. It's the choice of investments made by the newly created fund or trust that will determine the survival and/or success of the new entity.

Do the depositors have any idea what the investments of the new trust will be before they sign the agreement? I know when I deposit money over several investment funds, that I've already seen a prospectus of how the money will be distributed and of previous performance. In the absence of evidence of previous performance, do these depositors at this particular juncture have any right to know how the new trust will invest whatever's left of their funds, or to do any due diligence of their own on the prospective companies to avoid what happened with Solara/Omnicorp?

-Hap


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/3/2003 9:26:10 PM

By: jcolvin - PwC Recommended Omnicorp Fund Plan

I hadn't looked again at OBNR's original article on the Omnicorp restructure (October 14, 2002) until today. What I had failed to notice until now is that PwC had been the party which had recommended conversion of Omnicorp Bank to an investment fund. PwC may have been the genesis of the Nevis Trust/fund idea in the Bank Crozier case.

The original sample article found at

http://www.offshorealert.com/KYC/Archives/2002/10_Oct/kycalert_1.htm

Omnicorp Bank attempts to restructure

Omnicorp Bank, of St. Vincent, is attempting to convert from an offshore bank to an investment fund in an attempt to stave off liquidation.

Canadian national Nelson Bayford, who controls the bank, has been approaching depositors requesting that they convert their interest from debt to shares, said two sources.

OffshoreAlert understands that nearly all of the bank's clients have already agreed to the change, which can most easily take place under law if 100 per cent of them agree to it.

The conversion from bank to fund was recommended by accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, which the bank appointed several weeks ago to conduct a review of its operations.

PWC was called in by Omnicorp when it could not meet its financial obligations to depositors and was under pressure from local regulators, OffshoreAlert was told.

Some depositors were offered annual interest rates of up to 60 per cent and Omnicorp's products were promoted at offshore seminars organized by the notorious Institute for Global Prosperity.




Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/1/2003 7:56:09 AM

By: dot

If you people have to much time and don't have anything better to do, instead of continuing senseless attacks on forum's owner what does not bring any valuable information to other readers
better join charity organisation, or start making money (if you have an idea how to do it) then you can finally become offshore bank client, and/or invest other way, so you will better feel other posters and BC's customers. From your behaviour past weeks is obvious that you are jelaus that DM has most popuplar portal, that you never will have same.

If you have personal questions to owner, why you dont mail him instead of spamming forums. This way valuable information is hidden among senseless posts!

BC situation is going to be solved soon, they are on good way to solve problems. And if you are not customers is NONE OF YOUR business what decisions customers take.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/1/2003 7:48:44 AM

By: David Marchant

Let's put this into some perspective.

OffshoreAlert has exposed many, many criminals since it was launched in 1997. They are more than welcome to sue me, as three have have done so - and failed - in the past.

Those who have sued and failed are Marc Harris, the First International Bank of Grenada and the Imperial Consolidated Group, all of which subsequently coallpsed collectively owing more than $500 million that was defrauded from their clients.

Part of the defense mechnanism of crooks exposed by OffshoreAlert is to post messages on Internet bulletin boards in an attempt at attacking OffshoreAlert's credibility.

In my opinion, it is not so much a question of whether 'Alp' is involved in 'get-rich-quick' schemes but which ones he is involved with.

The fact that he is unwilling to attach his real name to any of his messages indicates to me that, if he did, a quick background check would throw up some embarrassing run-ins with Inspector Knacker of the Yard or regulatory agencies.

As I have stated many times before, I find it extremely cowardly, not to mention childish, for an adult to post messages making all sorts of unsubstantiated, wild allegations against others while hiding behind anonymity in an attempt to avoid repercussions of their actions.

I find it sad that this type of behavior is accepted so readily by so many and is a sign of how low standards are among the masses.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 7/19/2008 10:11:10 PM

By: Sharon W





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sharon Witzu [mailto:sharonw@vianet.ca]
Sent: July 19, 2008 11:09 PM
To: 'olhap@ziplip.com'
Subject: Omnicorp/AGMC/Nelson Bayford/Solara


I was one of the invesotrs in the Omnicorp Bank in St Vincent for high 6 figures of investment in guaranteed CD's, Mutual Funds and direct investment in American Gold Mountain and within months...AGMC was in trouble (was it really or did it just become an aprent problem?) the bank suggested ( under Bayford) to vote for transferring our shares to Solara after which we were told that Solara paid little attention to our interests with their focus being on Icoworks. As I havejust begun to research( I have no idea where to look) I have onlyj ust found out about other companies such as KCTS, Omnicorp also being in Geneva Switzerland...yet Omnicorp was a promoter of many underhanded scams in Global Prosperity seminars..whereby thousands of peopl ehave lost their life savings and have become destitute at 62 years of age... I have serious reservations as to the authenticity of the intention of the CEO and other administrators of Omnicorp and wonder where the millions actually went...I highly doubt they let it dwindle without shunting some away to their own benefit. Any comments? Any leads for me to follow to find out more?

sharonw@vianet.ca


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 5/3/2004 2:17:44 PM

By: L. Jeffrey Pogachar

Just wondering re: Hastings Literacy Foundation. Is this the one marketed through PQI and is it the foundation that promises the 70% gift back to the person donating while providing a 46% tax break?


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 5/3/2004 2:17:42 PM

By: L. Jeffrey Pogachar

Just wondering re: Hastings Literacy Foundation. Is this the one marketed through PQI and is it the foundation that promises the 70% gift back to the person donating while providing a 46% tax break?


 

Jump to different Forum... 

We hunt for red flags in high-value, cross-border finance by monitoring offshore and onshore courts, regulatory actions, offering documents, and other sources - and email you the results.

View Recent Digests

ALL ARTICLES  
Cayman crypto firm ICOBox sued by US regulator for 'unregistered' activity
Cayman Islands cryptocurrency "incubator" ICOBox and its founder, Nikolay Evdokimov, have been sued by the U.S. SEC for alleged illegal involvement in digital token offerings that raised $665 million. In a separate lawsuit last year, a former CEO of an ICOBox subsidiary claimed the group's "main shareholders" were "all funded by Russian money laundered through bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies".
LATEST ARTICLES & DOCUMENTS  
Cayman Court Secrecy: A Huge Red Flag for Foreign Investors & Clients
David Marchant
As any fule kno, the biggest enemy of fraud, corruption, money laundering, and other forms of financial crime is transparency, while their best friend is secrecy. That's why the unprecedented mass sealing of cases that's taking place at the Financial Services Division of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands is repugnant to anyone with a genuine concern for financial crime.