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
www.bankcrozier.com/info
Internal Administrator
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011
Joined: 10/12/2010
Posts: 5780


Posted: 6/13/2003 4:05:55 PM

By: Patrick

Crozier finally got the site up with status on things and explanations. Comments from depositors?


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/15/2003 8:19:43 PM

By: For Cyrille and CrozFunds victims

The law firm is in great danger, if it never advised Peter Johansson that his "structure" was an illegal misrepresentation og the Crozier group. Similarly, if it did advise Peter Johansson of this, it should have resigned in protest when the defect was not cured. They also should have known that the Luxembourg entity touted by Crozier is not a legal entity in that jurisdiction. They do have another company that WAS created legally, but it's not the same one they name in their brochures.

As to the unhappy owners of units in the various CrozFunds, they are supposedly managed by Stephen Hancock, of Cardinal International, in Nassau, Bahamas. His e-mail is Stephen@cardinal.bs

I would suggest investors file an interpleader suit in Nasssau, to have the courts direct Cardinal to liquidte the funds and distribute them to the investors, rather than go through Crozier, where they might well disappear forever.

Good luck.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/15/2003 6:21:40 PM

By: Cyrille Emery

First of all I am really surprised that the website is still up and running with no mention at all on the home page of the problem incurred with the licence. I think it is a bit strange that Grenada's official have not forced them to issue a warning to future depositors....

Next I wonder what sort of security a Grenada's IBC would offer to depositors if they relinquish legal title to their money to a trust in Nevis. I think this is just cosmetic change of last minute!
It is not for the Grenada's authorities to accept a move but for them to impose the best solution to depositors. As far as I can see, it is Bank Crozier leading the pace and regulators playing to their tune... Makes you wonder about the supervision of the potential IBC...

I am also very surprised by the absolute silence of the law firms mentioned on the website (Kleinfeld in Miami and others). None of them has come to the rescue of BC on this board to rebuke my postings or René, or Ol Hap or Sooltauq... This is a silence that no US lawyer is used to, specially when they are considered as "business associates"...


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/13/2003 5:43:27 PM

By: daniel

Grenadian IBS - it means that they will not move money to Nevis? It will stay at Grenada? Looks much better and under GIFSA control.

They should definetly send new document to accept to depositors.

I am willing to accept it. I would rather risk with this guys than waste a lot of money to liquidators.

daniel


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/13/2003 5:34:44 PM

By: Patrick

Actually I havent heard one single depositor who have signed up but thats just me. Have you heard on anyone who actually has signed for the deal?

I find it encouraging though that they have agreed to use a Grenadian IBS instead of moving funds elsewhere.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/13/2003 5:25:22 PM

By: Marc

Is this a good sign?

Regards.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/13/2003 5:16:07 PM

By: daniel

Hello !

They say that 95% of depositors agreed to move funds to Trust or generally accepted a plan?

And What does it mean:

GIFSA stated that they prefer the Plan structure to include a Grenada IBC so they may review the process. We have agreed to this request.

daniel


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 1:11:22 PM

By: worried

I agree with what you're saying boogeyman, it's one big, messed up situation I guess with no forseeable solution except for liquidation. If it comes down to that it's going to be a long drawn out no-win situation for anyone involved as probably a big chunk of assets will be eaten away by lawyers, liquidators etc. leaving very little for depositors/clients of both branches. Why did no one see this conflict of intrest with P. Johanssen earlier and if they did how come no one spoke up? So many unanswered questions . I guess the waiting game continues.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 12:56:41 PM

By: for Mike - StLucia depositor

It's a lot more complicated than that. The StLucia regulators cannot afford to drop their suit, as they have an obligation to protect the StLucia depositors to the fullest extent available to them. Additionally, as CEO and sole shareholder of the StLucia bank, Peter Johansson is also the CEO and partial shareholder of the Grenada bank. This divided loyalty and conflict of interests makes it impossible for the StLucia authorities to trust his stewardship of the Grenadian liquidation or reorganization, at this point.

Theoretically, as indirect depositors under a correspondent banking agreement, the StLucia depositors have priority over the other depositors in the Grenada bank.

But there are other questions withn regard to a reorganization, in light of many legitimate questions as to the Crozier organization, its officers and clients. A preponderance of evidence of prior HYIP activities, as well as a pattern of certain types of clients, seem to indicate that any regulatory authorities should take a firm view and favour liquidation over any form of continued existence of the Crozier operations.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 12:17:07 PM

By: worried to greenlab

Greenlab I think you've hit the nail right on the head with that post. What GIFSA appears to be trying to do is protect the depositors intrests of the St. Lucia branch which I think is more than fair (maybe I'm biased since I'm a St. Lucia depositor). But I think that unless Grenada does deposit that 6 million there's going to be no way in hell that St. Lucia will drop their lawsuit...can you blame them? And with the lawsuit(s) in place there's no way this restructuring plan is going to go anywhere fast and we're probably heading towards liquidation. It would appear that they're trying to save the Grenada bank at the expense of St. Lucia...am I wrong??? It would appear to me that Grenada hasn't offered anything to St. Lucia depositors and they expect us to just keep quiet as we're lead to the slaughterhouse...I don't think so. I hope this post this doesn't offend any of the Grenada depositors as it's not meant to do that, but rather to just point out that things are just a bit lopsided as they stand right now...correct me if I'm wrong.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 7:25:05 AM

By: question

Can you answer, I saw in previous post question, what does it mean:

GIFSA stated that they prefer the Plan structure to include a Grenada IBC so they may review the process. We have agreed to this request.

thx


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 7:09:01 AM

By: stev

Hello !

So, did anyone accepted their proposal with trust after FAQ? What is new in FAQ motivating us to accept this domument (Is there anything)?



Stev


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 6:17:12 AM

By: greenab

>GIFSA has requested that the owners place an additional $6 ?>million of cash into the Bank.

HOWEVER :

>Additional cash and assets are not available and in fact, >Crozier companies have over $2 million in deposits in the >Bank and Bank Crozier International has over $6 million on >deposit.

lol...this means they try to save Grenada with Crozier St Lucia money heheh


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 7:42:04 PM

By: David Marchant

For the record, no-one has ever given me any credible information or anything that could reasonably be considered evidence that Bank Crozier has been involved in any financial impropriety.

I have asked people to send it to mail, fax or email it to me but no-one has sent a single piece of paper so far.

PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has been in control of Crozier for nearly 12 months, has told me it has seen no evidence of fraud regarding Bank Crozier and the primary reason for its financial troubles is poor investments.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 6:48:18 PM

By: Try to make it a little clearer

Some must have more information than these posts they are working from but they don't seem willing to share that information. Or at least that is what I assume when I see comments like the following in a post about Marchant not reporting on Bank Crozier:

"especially in the face of considerable evidence and advanced warning"

This kind of comment makes it sound like an awful lot of information was given to Marchnat. At least more than a couple of posts at DD boards.

All I can do is wish you luck in tyring to find out what if any information was given to Marchant and when. If you find out anything definite then please let me know.

I do think negative information about some people and/or entities that used the bank will keep being posted. After all it is/was a Grenada bank.

Hope that helps,
Hunter










Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 5:48:03 PM

By: Ol' Hap - A Bit Clearer

Thanks, Hunter.
Red flags all over the place, huh?
I must admit, I've seen such posts for at least the past year or so myself.

However, and a BIG however, I don't see David Marchant defending BC or dismissing the red flags, just questioning the credibility of anonymous posters, which is his justifiable but sometimes irritating habit. What exactly is the basis for all of the claims that Marchant has defended Crozier? Does anyone have documented Marchant posts where he specifically defends Crozier as a reputable institution? Or documented proof that Crozier was a financial backer of OBNR, as has been suggested?

Until I see such posts or proof, I have to admit that it looks as though certain BC depositors or Marchant nemeses are either looking to Marchant as a scapegoat to excuse their own obliviousness to all the red flags, or simply trying to find a way to discredit him.

-Hap


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 5:19:10 PM

By: Bank Crozier two years ago

Ol' Hap:

Not too sure about what boogyman has in mind but the following posts may be considered a warning to some. If you learn more please let me know.

Thanks,
Hunter

SOME OLD POSTS - little difficult to tell who posted what questions and who replied; also from what I stuck in a file it is a little difficult to tell where one post starts and another ends

FROM GOLDHAVEN BOARD
Posted by Alp on July 04, 2001 at 13:42:19:In Reply to: Re: Bank Crozier posted by Uncurious on July 04, 2001 at 05:04:03:Or... it could be sour grapes from a former Managing Director who was "let go" for promoting "HYIP" from his position at the bank, using bank CDs? Notwithstanding David's unconditional blessing of this bank and his touchiness with regard to pointed inquiries, I feel the jury's still out on the matter. I presently find myself "neutral" on this institution, needing more time and data to make up my mind.

: I think what you will find with Crozier is that they have a crooked client who has had his assets frozen for ripping off his clients and the client is now trying to create problems by anonymously posting messages over the Internet.

Posted by newengland on July 05, 2001 at 05:50:15:In Reply to: Re: Bank Crozier posted by Alp on July 04, 2001 at 13:42:19:: Or... it could be sour grapes from a former Managing Director who was "let go" for promoting "HYIP" from his position at the bank, using bank CDs? Notwithstanding David's unconditional blessing of this bank and his touchiness with regard to pointed inquiries, I feel the jury's still out on the matter. I presently find myself "neutral" on this institution, needing more time and data to make up my mind.: : I think what you will find with Crozier is that they have a crooked client who has had his assets frozen for ripping off his clients and the client is now trying to create problems by anonymously posting messages over the Internet.Anyone who wants to deal with a bank that runs their whole book through Sweden, should give their head shake. From what I can see, they are using the parent company's accounts in that country to run their "offshore" bank. I would suspect the privacy of any client's business affairs could be compromised.

In Reply to: Re: Bank Crozier posted by robin on July 04, 2001 at 18:35:28:My clients use both. Belize Bank is more expensive than Bank of Nevis.arnie...: : : : And since you do not have enough confidence in your opinion to attach your name to your post, then it can't be taken seriously.: : : : Who on earth cares that an anonymous person feels that "the jury is still out"?: : : : David Marchant: : : This has apparently become your stock reply.: : : I can think of several good reasons why people should post anonymously. One reason is very obvious. Why would I want my email address available to you.


Subject: Couple may have missed ...Posted By: HuntersHelper - Registered UserPosted At: (5/29/03 2:52:46 am)Reply | Edit
Posted by Scott Wilson on July 04, 2001 at 17:04:29:In Reply to: Bank Crozier posted by Curious on July 04, 2001 at 03:49:10:: I do not want to evaluate are they good or bad. I believe they are acting in good faith, but are just too small and operating in very undercontrolled legal environment and with no protection for depositors. Anything could happen…even to Swedes or Englishman.: More:: They do not have their own credit cards, they are agents for Horizon.: They do not have debit cards at all.: Internet bank is more the way to send secure e-mail to the bank, than real online banking. Very poor.: Wire transfers in currencies other than USD are slow. I do not believe they are using SWIFT really.: We have had problems with payment orders when sums are more than US$100K. The bank was not executing the wire transfers without any substantial reason or explanation for several weeks. It appeared to be liquidity problem.: Clearance of checks is taking forever.: SafePlus/Performer – these investment products sound like Ponzi scheme.Crozier is actually an excellent bank regardless of what one misguided soul writes. They do have a large office wih real people who you can talk to and good banking staff. Crozier does have their own debit and credit card system now after a very long due dilgence phase with Mastercard ( who are careful now of who they do business with) The internet system is one of the most secure and best managed out there. And actually works. They do use Swift and other systems well.They are very liquid.Checks and money orders can take 3-4 weeks to clear at every offshore bank because so many people particularly in the US have tried to rip off them and all of the offshore banks. They will hold funds in some specific cases if they are not comfortable with the source or use of funds, so that they do not get themselves or other clients in trouble with clearing banks. Many banks are asking for details of transactions before movement in or out unitl they are comfortable. $100k is not that large to present a problem to them. Investment funds are legit and are not really that great unless someone wants complete conservative approach.Review the site and they even tell you who the senior staff is. And they are not someone from an island who do not know banking. St Lucia government did an extensive credit and due diligence check before allowing them to be the first licensed bank on the island. New bank and head offices being built.Happy to discuss in private if this person cares to tell the truth to anyone.


THREAD AT DILIGIZER ON MILLENNIUM ASSET MANAGEMENT
ONE OF SEVERAL POSTS IN THREADSubject: I think this links with other threadsPosted By: watcher - Unregistered UserPosted At: (6/24/01 10:28:38 am)I see from posts in this thread that David Findlay was associated with these people. THere was a document posted on a thread about a Peter Staples which I can no longer find on the board that tied in David Findlay with Bainton Management since liquidated by the Isle of Man Authorities and a St David's Trust the Bank used in this scheme was Bank Crozier although the investors money appears to be safe in CD's issued by Bank Crozier the idea seems to have been to TRADE and earn very high returns, with the bank putting up the money against the security of the CD's. At least that is how I understood the document posted.



Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 3:06:10 PM

By: Ol' Hap - For Boogeyman

RE: "Alarms were sounded 2 years ago. They were promptly slapped down by - among others - the owner of this board. This created a great interest in letting sleeping dogs lie, and monitoring relationships and activities, in order to ascertain the extent of certain problems."

Exactly *what* alarms were sounded, and exactly *how* were they dismissed by Marchant two years ago?? That was before my time, and I'm curious. Any documentation?? Can you direct me to old board posts or articles?

-Hap


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 2:08:28 PM

By: StLucia&Grenada

Hello!

I don't think that StLucia depositors should have priority over the other depositors in the Grenada bank. Depends on situation. What if money from StLucia was invested too in wrong company? All depends on agreement between StLucia and Grenada.

stev


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 1:23:24 PM

By: reply to Mike

Alarms were sounded 2 years ago. They were promptly slapped down by - among others - the owner of this board. This created a great interest in letting sleeping dogs lie, and monitoring relationships and activities, in order to ascertain the extent of certain problems.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/17/2003 10:59:51 AM

By: Noone -


lets keep the marchant thread seperate shall we...

good intentioned reckless bad investmenting and poor
management is just as bad as fraud to me as a depositor.
would like to see peter go down for this if at all possible,
unless of course he pulls a white rabbit out of the hat.

GIFSA has filed petition to liquidate, not sure what the
hearing date is set for, should be within 1-2 weeks.

Peter's information continues to be very limited with no details, still waiting for a real presentation of plan
with financials, list of current assets, locations,
details of IBC/trust structure, answers to many questions not
in FAQ. apparently his plan is to use dividends from crozier
company depositor to pay in extra funds into the trust to make
up for the money loss that caused the insolvency. doubt he
could find agreement between all the large players and
lawsuits at this point. but it would be nice to get 23% out
asap. im happy that GIFSA has finally moved things forward.

Not sure about the Crozfunds... are these the same as the
CD's crozier was offering?

i think all crozfunds and cash deposits may be lumped together with all depositors treated equally in the liquidation process from what PWC said. although this does not seem fair to me as all of our deposits were in cash rather than in higher risk high interest investment funds.

In trying to figure out what and where the assets are i have
learned some limited information. Here's a very approximate
breakdown on the assets, could be way off here and these
numbers are only to give a general idea of how things
breakdown and the story behind them.

assets:

5.5 mil cash in grenada

3 mil lost in Addtrust deal

6 mil BC made loan to Stourbridge (registered
carribian company not sure which juristiction) which purchased
equity through Exchange Bank and Trust. Funds are frozen by
SEC in canada through Exchange Bank and Trust account, money laundering/fraud charges against Exchange Bank and Trust. Peter
claims funds may be unfrozen by summer. PWC said issue is
complicated and uncertain of recovery. would love to hear some
speculation on this from those who are familiar with the
Exchange Bank situation and similar types of regulatory issues.

5 mil Related party company loans and individuals

1-2 mil Real Estate

I think its rather appauling that st lucia depositors feel
they deserve all the remaining money that's left in the bank.
but then it's a dog eat dog world isnt it. from what ive heard
St Lucia's case and evidence presented thus far for
establishing trust relationship seems weak, me hopes so!

Noone


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/17/2003 10:02:23 AM

By: FAQs online

new FAQ page has been posted at http://www.bankcrozier.com/info/faq.asp

for your information


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/17/2003 9:17:24 AM

By: Cyrille Emery

I think there are 2 aspects to the Bank Crozier story and that are easily confused by readers as offshore centres receive such a bad press.

1) The allegation of potential frauds committed by Crozier.
I have read many posts alleging that B.C is, was or has been involved in HYIP and other scams. Not to mention the alleged opacity of Crozfunds... It would come handy if some of the posters could come up with some litterature about the above and emanating from BC or any of its subsidiaries.
Until then we are all lost into speculation that may do no good to depositors.

2) The actual liquidation of Bank Crozier.
There there is no doubt that there are improprieties in the making, no matter what PwC says. The matter is so terribly badly handled by BC and the regulators. That is possibly another element to be add to this site Hall of Shame.
The chain of responsibilities in such a scenario goes down as follows :
Regulators : they have guideline to follow when forcing a bank into liquidation and they have powers to force shareholders to contribute into the bank.
It is not to the bank to say to regulators what to do or to approve!
Bank's officers /management : they have a duty to protect depositors fund and they shall be removed if there is conflict of interest, threat to deposits...etc
So far and from what I have read on this site, we are a far cry from any way of protecting depositors assets. I suppose the management will be held accountable at one point in time but then it will end the sorry fate of depositors.
I dont think the Nevis trust is a sound idea and I am surprised by the silence of PwC and the regulators on this issue.
As much I am surprised that B.C website is still up and running without any warning to potential new clients! If this is not fraud, this is close to it...

I dont expect anyone to have a clear cut between white and black in offshore issues as there is in reality so many different sorts of grey. Then we have there all the elements for a future sorry tale.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/17/2003 7:39:21 AM

By: David Marchant

No, neither I nor my company have ever been a client of Bank Crozier's.

OffshoreAlert was the first publication to warn against Grenada as a jurisdiction and has done considerably more than any other news organization to highlight the problems in the jurisdiction.

It's rather fanciful to believe that, given this and the fact that the jurisdiction's Prime Minister and former chief regulator are in our 'Hall of shame', I would somehow bank in the jurisdiction.

Virtually all of the offshore banks registered in Grenada were overtly fraudulent. However, Crozier was not one of them, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers and my own knowledge of Crozier.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has told me that Crozier's books were as well kept as any small offshore bank it has seen, that its business was legitimate and its problems caused by poor investments.

The common denominator of all of the anonymous messages attacking Crozier - many of which are posted by former Imperial Consolidated crooks - is that they contain zero evidence of what the poster is alleging.

Seldom have so many words been written about one subject without a single shred of credible evidence being produced.

If anyone has any evidence of wrongdoing involving Bank Crozier and/or its officers, please send it to me. I first made this request weeks ago and I have not received a single page from anyone and no-one has ever sent me any evidence that Crozier has been involved in financial impropriety.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/17/2003 3:25:19 AM

By: brr

Ol' Hap - I really dont think it is your business if David had business or deposit with BC or not! Your posts are not helping depositors, it is only your own purpose. Why do you continue asking questions here? I am looking for valuable info as depositor and have to go through all this noice and wasting time !

pat


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/16/2003 10:33:31 PM

By: Ol' Hap - Phhh-THUNK!!

Okay, so there are no improprieties, only bad investments.
Say it isn't so, David. Please tell me you didn't do any business with a Grenada bank.
If you did, consider yourself soundly thwackydinked on the forehead of your shining dome!
-Hap

RE: "For the record, no-one has ever given me any credible information or anything that could reasonably be considered evidence that Bank Crozier has been involved in any financial impropriety...."
"PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has been in control of Crozier for nearly 12 months, has told me it has seen no evidence of fraud regarding Bank Crozier and the primary reason for its financial troubles is poor investments."
-David Marchant





Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/17/2003 12:53:33 PM

By: Any more on Stourbridge???

FROM YOUR POST
6 mil BC made loan to Stourbridge (registered
carribian company not sure which juristiction) which purchased
equity through Exchange Bank and Trust. Funds are frozen by
SEC in canada through Exchange Bank and Trust account, money laundering/fraud charges against Exchange Bank and Trust. Peter
claims funds may be unfrozen by summer. PWC said issue is
complicated and uncertain of recovery. would love to hear some
speculation on this from those who are familiar with the
Exchange Bank situation and similar types of regulatory issues.

MY QUESTIONS
Do you have additional information on Stourbridge. Is this a complete name or is there more? Any idea if this entity has invested in US companies? Also do you have a date for this loan?

Thanks,
Hunter


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/17/2003 12:15:15 PM

By: Ol' Hap - Deliverance

THANK YOU, David!!
Common sense prevails, as I figured it would.
That's all I needed to read. No more questions from me on this issue.
-Hap

RE: "No, neither I nor my company have ever been a client of Bank Crozier's.
"OffshoreAlert was the first publication to warn against Grenada as a jurisdiction and has done considerably more than any other news organization to highlight the problems in the jurisdiction.
"It's rather fanciful to believe that, given this and the fact that the jurisdiction's Prime Minister and former chief regulator are in our 'Hall of shame', I would somehow bank in the jurisdiction...."


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/17/2003 12:14:34 PM

By: get moving

after following this board for a while I believe clients of BC Grenada have better chance to recover funds through plan offered by BC. I think it's time to decide, go for it.

wish all of you the best of luck, worried slightly


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/17/2003 12:13:53 PM

By: Cyrille Emery - the bridge bank solution

Dear Readers,
I have been advocated solutions to the few depositors that are present on this board to voice their concern. I think that the bridge bank solution is the best available to them.

What is a bridge bank : it is a special purpose vehicle for securitisation and to protect depositors. The bridge bank operates with a newly appointed management and under the scrutiny of the Court and, in this instance, the ECCB. It consists of transfering to this entity the assets of the bank. If I have to believe BC management, it is possible to transfer USD 10,000 for every depositor + 23% of any sum above 10,000. Therefore the immediate security for depositors is obvious. They get their cash in the aforesaid limit in a limited timespace.
According also to B.C there are various assets that can pay back on a long term. The bridge bank will serve to identify non performing assets from sound assets and organise for their sale.
As in fact the bridge bank will assume the operation of B.C it may also be possible that the owners of BC will get some share out of the proceed..

The bridge bank will be located in Grenada and does not need to move to another jurisdiction.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/18/2003 5:12:49 AM

By: Cyrille Emery

Machiavel would be pleased to see that his book has been correctly read by B.C...lol

How it comes that the only point of contact for depositors is through BC website and not someone at the supervisory authority. I think the bank is trying to avoid altogether a run off and a concerted action by depositors...Though the former is legitimate the latter is not and should not have been allowed by regulators!

From the FAQ I have read that assets totalling USD 15 M could be considered sound assets and enable the bank to repay all depositors within one year... From where this figure comes out? who have said it is correct, is PwC ready to endorse such figure?
Who is going to realise those USD 15M and what if force realisation does not produce the same amount?

There is still a lot of questions unanswered and protection of depositors not defined!


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/17/2003 1:55:35 PM

By: Time to accept?

After reading new FAQ - do you think guys is it time to accept their plan and move funds to Nevis?

But - what happens if I accept moving cash now and then plan will be not accepted and bank will be liquidated? How my cash will be treated?

Daniel


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/17/2003 1:47:11 PM

By: deposits v/s funds

Hi !

It would be missunderstanding if depositors are treated same way like CrozFunds investors. Our cash deposits had low interest rates and it was because we did not decide to invest into risky funds. Dont think they should treal both parties same way.

Actually - our cash deposits should be not invested in any risky initiatives. How come they where?


Daniel


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011

Posted: 6/17/2003 1:29:16 PM

By: jcolvin - EBT Funds Frozen

Here are links to information regarding the funds frozen in Terry Neal's Exchange Bank and Trust in Vancouver. I'm not sure that there are not other EBT funds frozen elsewhere.

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=17493700

http://newsop.net/cgi-local/forums/cbbs.cgi?cbbs=get_topic&f=62&t=000021

http://newsop.net/cgi-local/forums/cbbs.cgi?cbbs=get_topic&f=62&t=000004

http://www.rgm.com/articles/bmo&lett.html


 

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

BAHAMAS  
BERMUDA  
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS  
CAYMAN ISLANDS  
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.