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
about Mr. Marchant and Grenada
Internal Administrator
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011
Joined: 10/12/2010
Posts: 5780


Posted: 3/30/2009 10:55:19 AM

By: knightmare3000

I am NOT directly involved with this,but from the traffic on this message board I think the following may occur. First I think that there are many that are angry with Mr. Marchant and the Bank Crozier incident. Second I think that some of this angry crowd will try to "bring down" Mr. Marchant in some fashion. third, some of the principals of this Grenada government crowd may try something more radical against Mr. Marchant rather then spreading rumors about his supposed involvment with the bank. consider how the old Diligizer board stopped all of a sudden and the founder went into hiding. I ask this: Could this be the fate of Mr. Marchant? Good luck and May God bless you.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 12:51:33 AM

By: subform

thank you Mr. MArchant for your callous reply. I will give you remarks about my choice of moniker the due attention it deserves...

Now onto your question as to where in the interview you stated that he admitted receiving a bribe. I suggest you listen from approx 12.20 to 12.50.... the exact words were at about 12.38 so i have now answered your question and shown you the evidence of where you said it...and i look forward to your reply... try to keep the childish nonsense about choice of moniker out of it ok....

I could stoop as low as you and call you a complete idiot for not recognising your own voice stating what i said in a short 28 min interview you need me to show you where you said something. You can't focus enough to search through 28 minutes?? You must be a complete idiot if you can't do that right???

See how childish we can be if we go like that??

Once again i have now shown you EXACTLY where you said it, so will you now retract it or provide prrof he did it?

As for your other comments about he never showed travel expenses, if he was not found guilty of taking a bribe why without showing the expenses why would he then go about showing it if it was not required? Mind you i totally agree with you and believe that he should have done it to make things more clear and i think his attitude toward the whole situation makes him appear guilty, but i'm not going to make up a story that he admitted guilt or was found guilty, because neither of the above are true.

You on the other hand are the one who took "joke" pics as you claim, and was fuly aware of the uproar they caused when they somehow landed in a local rag yet you did nothing at the time ..you made no mention of the pic being a joke then... so i guess you would have no problem with making untruthful statements like "he admitted accepting a bribe"

Thank you
looking forward to your reply as i said above


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/30/2009 9:26:05 PM

By: David Marchant

Dear Keith (a much more appropriate pseudonym than the meaningless and unimaginative 'subform'),

Re. "Did you not say in your interview with George Grant that "keith mitchell admitted receiving a bribe" ?

The link to the interview is
http://grenadabroadcast.net/pastshows/mp3ss3132d.swf

At what point during the interview (in terms of minutes and seconds in the row named 'Current') do you believe I stated this?

Re. "Keith Mitchell admitted receiving between 15,000-20,000 as re-imbursement for travel related expenses and that "you" consider it a bribe?"

Firstly, he has not provided one shred of evidence that he incurred such travel expenses. It is inconceivable that he legitmately incurred such expenses but has chosen not to publicly release the evidence in an attempt to clear his name.

Secondly, Resteiner's chief of security has stated that it was a bribe.

Thirdly, when an elected official goes to the home of a fraudster who has been appointed to a diplomatic position he is completely unsuited and unqualified to hold and receives a pile of cash from the conman that the elected official refuses to provide any evidence he is legitimately entitled to, what is one supposed to call this, if not a bribe?

You have to be a complete idiot not to believe that this was a bribe.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/30/2009 8:25:40 PM

By: subform

Mr.Marchant, i notic that you have been responding to other messages on this message board but i have yet to receive a response to mine...

Maybe you missed it so i will keep it short.

1) Did you not say in your interview with George Grant that "keith mitchell admitted receiving a bribe" ?
2) Can you provide us with the document or evidence that he admitted to such?
3) If you cannot provide such proof, will you retract your statement or at least correct it and state that Keith Mitchell admitted receiving between 15,000-20,000 as re-imbursement for travel related expenses and that "you" consider it a bribe?

There, i kept it short and sweet for you and hopefully my English is good enough for you to understand so that you can respond.

Your statement is just as misleading as your "joke" picture and i would love to see how you justify it!!


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/30/2009 11:28:49 AM

By: David Marchant

Diligizer and OffshoreAlert are like night and day.

Diligizer was simply an Internet message board that was operated anonymously and run for free. Much of the information had to be taken with a pinch of salt.

OffshoreAlert is, first and foremost, a paid-for new service run openly by someone who has been a working journalist for more than 20 years, i.e. me. The information contained in the newsletter is highly credible and has helped to put many conmen behind bars.

The message board part of our site does not bring in any revenue and is incidental to our business. As with the old Diligizer Board, postings on our message board must be treated with scepticism, unless there is credible corroborating information.

Internet message boards attract their fair share of immature and silly posters, as is evidenced by the rash of Grenada-related messages in which some of the posters can barely write English, let alone string together a coherent argument.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 7:56:55 AM

By: Nazim

Please have some respect for the citizens of my country.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 7:55:06 AM

By: Nazim

So are you saying that what you said is not misleading? You said "Keith Mitchell admitted that he did receive a bribe"....the question is when and where did he admit such. He admitted receiving his reimbursement of $15,000 what proof do you have that it was bribe?

One last thing let's not twist what the former Prime Minister said...he said "ah only sorry he didn't give me more" he never said 'I only wish I had asked for more'. You are a man concerned with facts, so repeat what was said, not what you think or would have wanted him to say.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 7:39:16 AM

By: Grenada is Nigeria West

Mitchell is obviously corrupt and freely allowed hardened criminals to operate from Grenada.

No need for clarifications or apologies here, except from the utterly corrupt government of Grenada itself and its thieving citizenery.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 7:04:21 AM

By: David Marchant

The gist of my comments to George Grant, in their entirety, is that Keith Mitchell admitted going to the home of a fraudster whom he appointed to a diplomatic position and receiving $15,000 to $20,000 in cash (which Resteiner's former employee claims was actually $500,000) and that Mitchell has never accounted for it (even though, when the story firsy broke in OffshoreAlert he claimed he could and would).

Later, Mitchell told a public rally that 'I only wish I had asked for more', displaying a remarkable lack of shame, even by the low standards of corrupt politicians.

It is my opinion (if George Grant was interested in yours he would have interviewed you) that, taking all of the evidence into consideration, Mitchell has, essentially, admitted receiving a bribe and that he only wishes the bribe had been bigger.

But this apears to be ok in Grenada. Ripping-off foreigners for hundreds of millions of dollars is acceptable behavior but criticising the culprits on radio, for you anyway, is not only unacceptable but worthy of an apology to the chief perpetrator.

By the way, it is inconceivable that an innoncent man would not have have tried to clear his name by giving evidence to the Commission of Inquiry that was held, particularly knowing that it was set up to exonerate him.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 1:30:14 AM

By: Nazim

David, it is one thing to say "You have to be a complete idiot not to believe that this was a bribe" and it is another thing to say that "Keith Mitchell did admit that he received a bribe" and that is what you said on George Grant's Programme.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 11:47:19 AM

By: David Marchant

Your question has been answered already.

In my opinion, Keith Mitchell has, essentially, admitted receiving a bribe.

By that, I mean he 1. Admitted receiving a pile of cash from a conman at the conman's home (apparently you don't consider this to be unusual or suspicious); 2. Refused to provide any evidence that it was for any legitimate purpose (apparently you don't consider this to be unusual or suspicious); and 3. Stated in a public address that he wished he had received more (apparently you don't consider this to be unusual or suspicious).

If you ask the same question again, it will be deleted.

As with 'subhuman', based on your postings here, it is easy for me to imagine you with your snout in the Mitchell trough, grubbing your share of the hundreds of millions of dollars that were defrauded from the world's elderly and other vulnerable people.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 11:31:37 AM

By: Nazim

Again stick to my concern raised:

So again, are you saying that what you said is not misleading? You said "Keith Mitchell admitted that he did receive a bribe"....the question is when and where did he admit such. He admitted receiving his reimbursement of $15,000 what proof do you have that it was bribe?


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 11:23:02 AM

By: David Marchant

I also acknowledge that there are also some people in Grenada who are disgusted by the widespread corrupt practices of Keith Mitchell and are trying to hold him accountable for his actions.

In its most basic form, a fight between 'good' and 'evil' is taking place in Grenada.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 9:59:52 AM

By: David Marchant

Is is interesting that few Grenadians appear to have any sense of shame or embarrassment about the massive fraud and corruption that took place under Keith Mitchell.

Thousands of people around the world were defrauded of hundreds of millions of dollars in joint enterprises between the private and public sectors.

And yet some Grenadians think that 1. The country is undeserving of ridicule; and 2. Mitchell is owed an apology.

Frankly, it is psychopathic.

One wonders how much Keith Mitchell-apologists such as 'subhuman' and 'nazi' profited from wholesale defrauding of the world's elderly and other other vulnerable people.

Based on his postings here, it's not hard to imagine 'subhuman' with his snout deeply buried in the trough.

David


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 9:41:43 AM

By: Lola

Nazim - are you for real? Your people get the respect they deserve ie close to nothing thanks to the Pirate of the Caribbean no 1. - Keith Mitchell and his corrupted friends. Why not ask Michael Creft for instance?


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 8:44:59 AM

By: Grenada is Nigeria West

No respect for citizens who allow a thoroughly corrupt government to remain in place which allows if not promotes notorious scam artists who fleece innocent victims.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 4:51:41 PM

By: Subform

Please excuse my typos e.t.c. I have a bad habit of posting my messages without double checking them beforehand. I gather you will still grasp the point of my previous post though.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 4:43:37 PM

By: Subform

Mr.Marchant i would appreciate it if you leave out the inane comments about my value as a human being and being an idiot not to believe etc. Lets just stick to the points please.

You know even less of me than i do of you, if you wish to know more just ask myself or brian and you will get straight up answers. With regard to the topic i brought up, you are right about one thing. I am currently focussed on the fact that you made a "joke" pic which caused an uproar in a country and we both know fully well that while you may not have known tthat it would be printed on the front page of a local newspaper, it was, and why is it that you did not see fit to tell the people that it was a "joke" pic back then. My guess is that it suited your intentons and that it was ok in your eyes. correct me if i am wrong there.

I also focussed on the fact that you clearly stated on a national radio program that "keith mitchell admitted receiving a bribe" You challenged me to show you where you said it...i did just that, and now you are saying that it is not a "lie" to state that "in your opinion he admitted guilt". On the program you never said "in your opinion" you said that he admitted receiving a bribe. You also try to say that the interview was extensive and taken as a whole one should realise that it was just your opinion and treated as such. The interview was approx 15mins. I will have to go back and listen for the umpteenth time to it, but as of this point, even when taken as a whole as you say, i believe one would not automatically know that this was just your opinion and not fact. I don't recall you using the words "in my opinion" at any point during the interview with regards to the statements you were making.

Thus the statement you made on a national radio could be construed as just as mischievous as the joke pic you made which ended up on the front page of a national newspaper.

My views of the innocence or guilt or negligence or outright stupidity of the actions of persons in the last Gov't are my own...and you do not know them so don't let your imagination get to you again. I have already told you i receive nothing from either gov't other that what all nationals are entitled to from them, e.g. healt care e.t.c. so i am not preaching for my supper...

I simply believe that it is irresponsible of you to be making joke pics then end up being used in front pages and not denouncing them at the time and making your opinions appear as fact when this is not so. If the persons are found guilty then i will want and expect them to suffer the full consequences under the law, as anyone of a sound mind would i hope.

But i will not condone your actions based on the fact that i may believe the past administration is guilty.

You see things from one side and i see them from another..
you appear to believe that he is guilty until proven innocent...i believe that he is innocent until proven guilty... thats all. I don't go preaching that he would never do such a thing...comprende????

You synopsis of the events shows me how one sided you are in your views. You made no mention of the fact that he claimed it was for travel expenses, you made no mention of the fact that that expnses that he incurred during that trip were NOT paid for by the G'ovt in adnvance so there is the possibility that his statements are true. You mentioned that persons in the commission of inquiry stated that they never saw him receive any money yet the tape shows him receiving money proves that they were lying...tell me now...does the tape show those persons in the room seeing him receiving money and thus prove they were lying?? You haven't seen the tape so you have no proof that they were lying do you?

Let me clarify another thing to you. If i were involved in a court case, while a part of me would want every thing to come out in court to prove my innocence, if i could avoid having to go to court or have anything thrown out which i think would give people the wrong impression, i would have it thrown out if i could. Thats the smart thing to do, it not the perfect thing overall, but why would i risk something that i have no need to risk? I have no idea whether a jury would believe me or not as people can easily be swayed as your "joke" pic showed where you had many people in the nation believeing you had "the" tape when you didn't and still don't. So it would be in my best interest in a court case to not even take the risk of having stuff shown which might fool a jury as you did a nation.

I look forward to the new gov't pursuit of this case, and i will say this to you now, if the tape shows the louis vutton case and the former prime minister receiving cash in it and leaving with it...that will be pretty much all the evidence i need to believe that he ias a liar and you are right, because i heard him deny that briefcase part many times straight out. If however the tape only shows him receiving aprrox 15,000 to 20,000 in cash as he stated, and we should be able to tell the diff between 15,000 and 500,000 on the tape if we are lucky, then you still have not provided any proof that he is guilty of accepting a bribe in my opinion.

Hopefully the tape will come to light and hopefully it also has audio so we will be able to make a good judgement. As of this moment the only thing i know for sure is that the action of him receiving cash from a "fraudtser" whom you also conveniently left out the fact that he was not a known/ convicted fraudster as the time, was stupid / negligent at best. Even if things like this were done in the past by previous gov't as was stated in the commisson, it was very reckless of him to do this and not go throught the proper protocols. The fact that is was done in the past by other administrations does not make it right but it is a plausible defence. He should have accepted a cheque or deposited the funds ino the consolidated fund, but i could argue with you that the prime minister incurred these expenses personally to go visit the gentleman on the promise of re-imbursement. Upon arrival the "fraudster", in an attempt to blacmail the prime minister or have leverage on him as he claimed, deliberately re-paid the expenses in cash so that he could make the prime minister appear to look as if he was receiving a bribe. Being a fraudster, why would he not do that? It could have been a set-up from the start. so until we see and hear that tape, or we see and hear some other evidence proving guilt, i will continue to question any journalist who states he admitted guilt when this has never been done.

Hope that clears the air up for you. Being a journalist comes with responsiblilty and all i ask is that you show both sides of the story in a fair and balanced way, and let the people form their own opinions. not try to force your opinion down their throats by only displays segemnts of a story which help agenda. Leave that kind of journalism to George Worme of the Grenada Today.

Thanks


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 3:30:45 PM

By: David Marchant

Regarding the photograph. What on earth is wrong with me, in a spur-of-the-monent bit of fun, have my girlfriend take a photograph - with Eddie Frederick's camera - of me giving a videotape to Eddie? I did not publish this photograph or claim to anyone that it was a recording of Keith Mitchell receiving cash. It was not my intention that it be taken with a view to Grenada Today or anyone else publishing it and I had no role in Grenada Today subsequently publishing it, which is something that Eddie and George Worme came up with independently of me. When it was published, it was never stated that it was a video of anything in particular.

Given that Mitchell has admitted receiving cash from Resteiner's home and that all any video will show is of him receiving such cash from Resteiner's home, the photograph is a non-issue.

And, for the umpteenth time, it is not a "lie" to state that Keith Mitchell has, in my opinion, essentially admitted taking a bribe. That is my interpretation of the information that is available, i.e. he admitted receiving cash from the home of a fraudster whom he appointed to a diplomatic position, he has never provided any evidence that he was legitimately entitled to it, he was not willing to testify before the sham Commission of Inquiry, and, in a frank admission in a public address, stated that he wished he had received more.

My interview with George Grant was extensive and, taken as a whole, it is clear what my position is and the rationale for it.

As I have stated before, you have to be a complete idiot not to believe that Mitchell received a bribe and that his administration was exceptionaly corrupt (FIBG, etc.)

That you should spend so much time and energy concentrating on irrelevant aspects of the Mitchell affair, while saying nothing negative about the rampant fraud and corruption that took place under Keith Mitchell, and the compelling evidence of it, causing thousands of people to be defrauded out of hundreds of millions of dollars speaks volumes for your values and, frankly, worth as a human being.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 2:27:12 PM

By: Subform

Wow, Mr.Marchant, you refuse to crawl out of the gutter i see. Calling me subhuman now that you were shown where you made an unthruthful statement. Perhaps it was just another one of your "jokes" ?. Maybe you will actually apologise for misleading people with it in a " few or many --since your concept of time is skewed" years down the road.

As for your statement :
"As with 'subhuman', based on your postings here, it is easy for me to imagine you with your snout in the Mitchell trough, grubbing your share of the hundreds of millions of dollars that were defrauded from the world's elderly and other vulnerable people"
i speak for myself when i tell you i have received zilch from the Keitch Mitchell gov't or the current Gov't for that matter. You liase with my brother Brian here on this talkshop and via email so i'm sure he can confirm that for you...

It sure does seem that you let your "imagination" run wild at times....It allows you to make "joke" pics and make statements that are outright lies. Might i recommend that when you make the flase statements and joke pics in the future, you put a little watermark or subtitle, stating "From the imagination of David Marchant - not to be mixed up with the truth" in the future.
Thank you


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 12:01:25 PM

By: Lola

i only sorry he didn't gimme more!!

What an corrupted idiot and clown!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-fuBDNVmFM


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/1/2009 7:33:20 PM

By: Nazim

'Lola' where's the proof? Once you and Marchant (who back peddling now) present the proof that KCM is a "corrupted idiot and clown" then he must stand the consequences....as for anything else, you and Marchant can continue to blow hot air!

Gregory Bowen was accused of being corrupt, who turned out to be corrupt in the end? Jack Gryberg or Bowen?


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/1/2009 7:30:07 PM

By: Nazim

Marchant you have the right to air your opinion, but keep one thing in mind, it does not make it right. As for your opinion of me, well there's an old saying "opinions are like assholes, we all have one"

Finally I worked for the previous Government and I work for the present Government.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/1/2009 1:27:50 PM

By: ShoreLines

Two ( 2 ) post excerpts ( below ) gave me pause to study two ( 2 ) traveller categories:

A. High-profile personality travel - ‘while on corporate business travel’ - typically see ‘formal’ travel arrangements’ ( security / bodyguards, foreign monetary exchanges, hotel, restaurant and car rentals, etc. ) made by an ‘administrative assistant’, ‘executive secretary’, or ‘personal secretary’ making reservations paid via ‘corporate credit card’ where ‘receipts are processed’ through a ‘finance office’, retail merchant receipts go to their own ‘accounting department’, and credit card company records bill client accounts; and,

B. Proprietor travel - ‘while on store business travel’ – typically see ‘less-formal travel arrangements’ either ‘self-made’ or using a ‘secretary’, ‘wife’, or ‘mistress’ making reservations ( foreign bank or kiosk bureau monetary exchanges, hotel, car rentals, etc. ) and financial arrangements using a ‘company credit card’ that see receipts on ‘corporate books’ for later tax write-offs.

Really now, what category of traveler was Prime Minister Mitchell, taking into account no national accounting transparency?

- - - -

Subject: Re: about Mr. Marchant and Grenada
By: Subform
On: 3/31/2009 4:43:37 PM
E-mail: subform@spiceisle.com

SUBFORM: “…the fact that he [ Dr. Keith C. Mitchell, then Prime Minister of Grenada ] claimed it [ $12-K to $15-K ] was for travel expenses… [ round-trip, Grenada to Switzerland ] …the fact that that expnses that he [ Keith Mitchell ] incurred during that trip were NOT paid for by the G'ovt [ Grenada ] in adnvance…”

Reference

http://www.kycnews.com/message_board_detail.asp?id=60628&page=1

- - - -

Subject: Re: about Mr. Marchant and Grenada
By: Beating the Dead Horse
On: 3/31/2009 9:30:10 PM
E-mail: fep@nwp.pwn

BEATING THE DEAD HORSE: “…why not focus on the KNOWN FACTS about the Grenada government, including Keith Mitchell…”

Reference

http://www.kycnews.com/message_board_detail.asp?id=60631&page=1

- - - -

Feedback appreciated.

ShoreLines
E-MAIL: ShoreLines@bluewin.ch


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 9:32:09 PM

By: David Marchant

I really don't have the time or the energy to go through your postings in detail.

In a nutshell, I think you're incredibly naive and have an unusual inability to evaluate information or you have an undisclosed vested interest in the Keith Mitchell matter.

I will comment on two things:

Regarding 'innocent until proven guilty', I don't need someone to be found guilty before forming an opinion on whether they committed an illegal act. I gather my own evidence on which my opinions are based. It is worth pointing out that Grenada allowed 40-odd offshore banks to commit the most egregious financial crimes imaginable and not a single person was ever prosecuted in Grenada. It is ludicrous for anyone to believe that the people behind these scams are innocent just because Grenada is so lacking as a country that it generally allows financial criminals to go unpunished.

Secondly and lastly, re. "Being a journalist comes with responsiblilty and all i ask is that you show both sides of the story in a fair and balanced way, and let the people form their own opinions. not try to force your opinion down their throats by only displays segemnts of a story which help agenda. Leave that kind of journalism to George Worme of the Grenada Today."

This is a message board on which I express my opinions and informally pass on information. It is very different to OffshoreAlert newsletter, which is where my news articles are published opinion-free and where all relevant people, including Keith Mitchell, are given ample opportunity to provide input.

I doubt that you subscribe to OffshoreAlert or have read any or many of the numerous articles that have been published about financial crime in Grenada so I suspect you are commenting largely out of ignorance.

My track record for conducting exhaustive research, inviting targets of exposes to comment at length, and exposing serious financial crime speaks for itself.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/31/2009 9:30:10 PM

By: Beating the Dead Horse

Instead of focusing on what David Marchant did or did not do, why not focus on the KNOWN FACTS about the Grenada government, including Keith Mitchell, knowingly promoting and tolerating numerous scam artists in Grenada, which has created for it the reputation as the "Nigeria of the West" and by far the most corrupt and untrustworthy jurisdiction in the Caribbean.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/2/2009 1:01:46 AM

By: Nazim misses the point

Keith Mitchell welcomed various criminals such as Van Brink with open arms, gave them carte blanche on the island, protected them from criticism, and either blocked or refused to start investigations that might have kept thousands of people from being scammed. You might as well claim that Bernie Madoff is honest.

Grenada is utterly corrupt, everybody in the offshore world knows Grenada is utterly corrupt, the stories of people losing money due to scams in Grenada is legion, and nobody in their right mind would do business with or in Grenada or with anybody from Grenada. Corrupt, corrupt, thoroughly corrupt.

So, you can rant against David all you want to, but none of that is going to change the FACT that Grenada has a terrible history of being the home base for many a notorious scam artist.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/1/2009 7:55:21 PM

By: Nazim

"Subform" Marchant will make a good "rounders" player....I wonder if the SJC Students could beat him? lol

Anyways I done with Marchant and this site, his own partner tell me today to forget him. Unless he does not present the evidence he claimed to have gathered on Keith Mitchell, I would consider his ramblings as 'hotair'


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/1/2009 7:50:02 PM

By: Nazim

Marchant you said "It is worth pointing out that Grenada allowed 40-odd offshore banks to commit the most egregious financial crimes imaginable and not a single person was ever prosecuted in Grenada"

Have you taken a look at this website http://www.spiceisle.com/anslemc which I noticed was posted and you REFUSED to respond to it (I wonder why?)

Should Keith Mitchell alone be held accountable for Offshore Banks in Grenada? Are you aware that the present Administration is about to restart the Offshore Banking sector?

Marchant Grenadians have finally started to firgure you out and the fact is YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE! You exposed a few criminals and I applaud you for that, but OPINIONS are not EVIDENCE.

Present your evidence against Keith Mitchell or simply shut up....like you said many times you have no interest in Grenada and it's politics.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/1/2009 7:43:00 PM

By: Nazim

"Subform" Marchant was afraid to come to Grenada under the NNP Administration for fear of his safety, well the Government that campaigned for is now in Government and yet still he's afraid to come to Grenada to present the "evidence" he seems to be now claiming he never had. No wonder why George Worme taking a turn in his backside now.

Don't bother with Marchant, he seems to forget all what he said on:

June 3rd, 2006
June 18th, 2006
December 17th, 2006
February 25th, 2007
May 5th, 2007
December 25th, 2007
March 29th, 2009

But very soon he will be reminded by his own "friends" who claimed to repremanded.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/3/2009 5:22:32 AM

By: David Marchant

Re. "don't you find it a little bit funny that the AG saw this "tape" in december and only this week mention is being made of it??"

Not really. People like you have made this a huge issue in Grenada once again so it is not unsurprising that the authorities would release information addressing the matter.

Re. "yet the only time we hear of their seeing the tape is when Mr.Marchant confirms that he never saw the contents of the tape itself".

I confirmed that I hadn't seen it when this matter first came up some years ago so your point is not valid. I have never claimed to anyone that I saw the tape.

Re. "why now all of a sudden is Mr.Marchant seemingly backing down and talking about the quality of the tape not being good enough??"

If the tape shows a briefcase full of cash, do you honestly think that the quality will be sufficient to allow you to count every bank note (no doubt, stacked tightly together) to determine whether the amount comes to exactly $500,000. It is extremely silly of you to believe that you will be able to see every note and to interpret a comment from me which just states the obvious as being an example of me "backing down".


David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/3/2009 4:58:02 AM

By: Subform

Brian, as i discussed with you last night, don't you find it a little bit funny that the AG saw this "tape" in december and only this week mention is being made of it?? Is it just co-incidence that we hear of this right after Mr.Marchant is being attacked for making a "joke" picture of a tape many years ago as he put it?

This is the same gov;t that was all out frothing at the mouth for getting Keith Mitchell, and yet the only time we hear of their seeing the tape is when Mr.Marchant confirms that he never saw the contents of the tape itself, and why now all of a sudden is Mr.Marchant seemingly backing down and talking about the quality of the tape not being good enough??

If he just stated that reisteiner might not give up the tape and therfore the issue would reach a dead end then fine, i would give him some credibility....but to say the "quality" of the tape /"what it actually shows" might not be of any use leads me to wonder about how sure he was of what this tape actually showed in the first place....


Lets see now...to sum it up....A convicted conman, has a "tape" which the convicted conman says, shows our former prime minister accepting a bribe is holding Grenada to ransome by not giving it up freely based on the fact that he might be incriminated if he does...He was willing to give it up previously for safe haven for his family and a tidy sum of money.
Now Mr.Marchant expects me to believe that a convicted conman who was smart enough to rip off millions of dollars from unsuspecting people, was not smart enough to make a good quality tape of a Prime minister accepting a bribe, knowing full well that he could use that tape for leverage / extortion purposes???

As the "rock" would say..... can you smell what the "rock" is cooking???

lol

come on Mr.Marchant...you never saw the tape you only took "joke" pics yet you are commenting about it's quality???

And the AG and present gov't who were so gung ho about putting keith mitchell in jail, saw the tape since December and are only now making mention of it??? I wonder why...


Even if they could not disclose it's contents, based on previous actions, where they claimed he is still a citizen of the US despite court documents showing that this tape was of no use because he was not a citizen, they would have jumped high and low and ran their mouths stating that it was only a matter of time before they had him...... Yet all we had was silence on their part until you were exposed as an accomplice to making a "joke" pic of a tape you had never possessed or seen Mr. Marchant...

Co-incidence???? i think not


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/2/2009 10:42:37 PM

By: Brian

>The essence of this article is similar to one that was
>published in OffshoreAlert in December, 2006 when we reported
>that Resteiner had shown the tape to US investigators in an
>attempt to obtain leniency in his fraud case in Massachusetts.

Ahh, but in this case it seems that two local government officials have now had direct sight of the tape - the AG and the DPP. It's going to be a lot harder for the naysayers to deny its existence. Doesn't stop them from trying to discredit those that have pursued this story though. There's been a lot of activity to discredit your publications, and interestingly enough, there now seems to be some activity going on discredit the AG.


>The tape clearly exists but there is little incentive for
>Resteiner to hand it over since it incriminates him and leaves
>him exposed to new charges.

I'm wondering how statutes of limitations may apply here. After all, we're talking about an incident that occured over 7 years ago...


>Other than titillation and entertainment value (it would
>certainly make for more interesting viewing than the movie I
>handed over to Eddie Frederick!), the tape will not really
>progress the matter much because it will likely only show what
>Mitchell has already admitted, i.e. that he went to
>Resteiner's home and received a substantial amount of cash. I
>doubt that the tape is of sufficient quality to show the exact
>amount that he received.

I won't speculate on the contents of the tape. Obviously it seems to be valuable enough for Resteiner to keep a close grip on it, so might show enough to indicate not only the amount, but the purpose.

Just out of interest though, the "tape" in question was reported as a DVD. Did that have DVD video recorders readily available over 7 years ago? I suspect that what was shown was a copy of the original tape, which in turn suggests that there might be more than one copy floating around...


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/2/2009 8:16:55 PM

By: David Marchant

The essence of this article is similar to one that was published in OffshoreAlert in December, 2006 when we reported that Resteiner had shown the tape to US investigators in an attempt to obtain leniency in his fraud case in Massachusetts.

The tape clearly exists but there is little incentive for Resteiner to hand it over since it incriminates him and leaves him exposed to new charges.

Other than titillation and entertainment value (it would certainly make for more interesting viewing than the movie I handed over to Eddie Frederick!), the tape will not really progress the matter much because it will likely only show what Mitchell has already admitted, i.e. that he went to Resteiner's home and received a substantial amount of cash. I doubt that the tape is of sufficient quality to show the exact amount that he received.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/2/2009 4:27:20 PM

By: Brian

Dave, I'd like to hear your views about the info at the following link: http://www.grenadabroadcast.com/content/view/4798/1/

Don't worry to much about my brother "subform" - he's a bit "late to the game" and is still catching up .



Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/3/2009 9:09:23 AM

By: David Marchant

It is my opinion that Mitchell is a crook based on the overwhelming evidence against him regarding Grenada's offshore banks, his own words regarding taking money from Eric Resteiner and not accounting for it, plus other actions, such as appointing another conman, Viktor Kozeny, to a diplomatic position, just like he did with Resteiner.

I didn't start out assuming he was a crook but it quickly became obvious as the evidence began piling up.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/3/2009 7:59:06 AM

By: Brian

>It is extremely silly of you to believe that you will be able
>to see every note and to interpret a comment from me which
>just states the obvious as being an example of me "backing
>down".

LOL - I expect supporters of the former government will be grasping at ANY straw as this situation progresses - shame on you for providing them a (small) one .

I don't think the poster understands that, in your mind, Keith Mitchell is already a crook, hence your comments about the relevance of the tape. For some persons here though, it might take a showing of the actual tape for them to be convinced about what actually happened - and even then, I expect to receive "alternative explanations" from some of them.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/3/2009 7:54:10 AM

By: Brian

>I state this because you seem to think I am part of some grand
>conspiracy against your beloved Keith Mitchell.

LOL. And apparently the local AG, the local DPP, and elements of the USDOJ are also part of this grand conspiracy too!


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/3/2009 5:52:15 AM

By: David Marchant

Something worth pointing out is that, during a radio interview with Eddie Frederick many, many months ago, I commented that I didn't think Jack Grynberg's lawsuit against Gregory Bowen had any merit. Frankly, the lawsuit seemed contrived and jumped up.

I state this because you seem to think I am part of some grand conspiracy against your beloved Keith Mitchell.

I specialize in exposing fraud, money laundering, and corruption that affects international investors. The reason I have written so much about Grenada under Mitchell's government is that there was an enormous amount of fraud and corruption to report.

If the current Grenada government re-opens the country's offshore sector and we see a repeat of what happened in the late 1990s/early 2000s, you can rest assured that I will be reporting about it extensively.

David Marchant


 

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.