Tag Archives: banks

CDV awaiting the banks’ responses but consider further actions

The Consortium of Defrauded Victims (CDV) announces that banks verified to have provided banking services to the fraud syndicate without conducting appropriate KYC background checks and thus allowing dubious/fraudulent business accounts to be opened and who also failed to carry out any meaningful follow-up account monitoring in the large-scale investment fraud scam reported on this blog site, have now been reminded to provide their responses to CDV.

If the banks involved fail to respond within the stipulated time-frame CDV will be left with no other option but to seriously consider seeking a ‘Discovery Order’ or escalating the Banks’ connivance in this matter to the respective Financial Regulator, Banking Ombudsman and Governments, etc., and/or making further detailed exposures through our blog available by e.g. publicly expose the participating banks’ on a ”CDV black list of banks to avoid”.

The CDV blog is now read by more than 30,000 people including major banking institutions, news magazines, the EU Commission, and legal agencies world-wide.

Informants or blog readers who may have further due diligence about the cases and boiler-room managers/employees referred to here are welcome to provide their comments at this blog site or by sending emails to fraudrecoveryblog at yahoo.com. Information and due diligence are treated with confidentiality and discretion.

//Consortium of Defrauded Victims (CDV)

Advertisements

Appeal to banks who have failed to respond to the CDV deadline of 20th February 2015

The Consortium of Defrauded Victims (CDV) recently sent letters to 25 banks, identified as providing dubious business banking accounts to facilitate the high value monetory proceeds originating from a series of systematic, complex illegal Investments Frauds.

The CDV has extensive documentary evidence directly linking the in-flow/out-flow of substantial amounts of money from the identified fraud syndicate i.e. the boiler-room principals residing in Thailand to the named banks’ dubious business accounts. In addition, the account holders of those dubious accounts and the banks involved, have been verified by an independant investigative company, the details of which can be found here: https://fraudrecoveryblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/banks-and-receiving-accounts.xls

The CDV would like to reach out those banks who have responded to the letter within the 21 day deadline and thank them for their comments, which we are giving due consideration. We have also noticed that most banks have visited the blog site, some for extensive periods of time and we are currently waiting for them to respond to the letters. We advise the deadline is 20th February 2015.

Upon receipt of all the banks’ respective responses the CDV will consider its position and will reply on a collective basis, including providing the details of a person with whom you can communicate directly.

For those instituions who deliberately fail to repond to the deadline, will leave the CDV with no other option but to escalate this extremely serious matter to a higher authority, which may be detrimental to the respective banks national and international reputation. If necessary, we may release further due diligence evidence, clearly demonstrating that those banks have continually failed to conduct any realtistic client on-boarding (KYC) analysis and/or to comply with or impliment relevant anti-money laundering and terrorist financing in accordance with existing FATF regulations and guidelines.

We refer to the law firm ’Deacons’ (Hong Kong), who conclude, based on our fraud case as recently presented by the business journalist, Benjamin Robertson, South China Morning Post, that the banks must check the type of business the customer operates before opening accounts and continue to monitor the client’s business. Boiler-room accounts are generally found to have a high frequency of small cash deposits originating from many countries. Money is then removed from those accounts in cash withdrawals or transferred/skipped to another bank’s business account. Deacons have stated that this type of transaction patterns may indicate a money laundering technique called “smurfing”.

We have access to recent due diligence showing that banks have knowingly or otherwise, provided extensive banking services to boiler-room principals in Thailand, including criminals with indicative linkages to drug rings and terrorist actions, recently unveiled by several national legal agencies working in partnership.

Those banks that have not responded so far are urged to send their comments to the CDV official email address: fraudrecoveryblog at yahoo dot com, preferably including reference to a single point of contact for a dialogue, not later than February 20, 2015.

//The Consortium of Defrauded Victims (CDV)

Link

About 20,000 visitors now share an interest to read this blog. We acknowledge this interest and the encouraging comments made by the Internet community. We find it to be of specific interest that, among the readers, we now have international legal agencies as well as banks reported to have been involved in the monetary transfers arranged by the illegal fraud syndicate operating across Asia and in particular Thailand.

The Consortium of Defrauded Victims (CDV), the founder of this blog site, is consistent with its mission to report about the on-going drama of the Big Boiler-Room Boys in Thailand as long as the Principals continue to fail to initiate a repayment of USD 20 million confirmed stolen from the members of the CDF by a series of
elaborate investment frauds.

In this report we’ll identify the banks involved in the transfer and subsequent laundering of fraudulent proceeds, obtained through various illegal boiler room scams, via a series of receiving and skipping bank accounts.

Our investigation has confirmed that the ‘Principal Fraudsters’ arranged for the transfer of the proceeds of their illegal investment frauds (scams) to be laundered via numerous corporate business banks accounts with recognised International and local Asian Banks. The listing outlined below only includes the top 25
banks and adjoined receiving business accounts, in terms of cash flow volumes, they were created solely to accommodate the payments unlawfully obtained from defrauded investors.

Bank of Commerce (Philippines)
Bank of East Asia (Hong Kong)
Bank of America (USA)
Bank of Cyprus Public Company Ltd. (Cyprus)
Bank SinoPac (Taiwan)
Bank of Saint Lucia (Saint Lucia)
Cathay United Bank (Taiwan)
Chinatrust Commercial Bank Ltd. (Taiwan)
DBS Bank (Singapore)
Export and Industry Bank (liquidated; Philippines)
First Commercial Bank (Taiwan)
Hang Seng Bank Ltd. (Hong Kong)
HSBC (Hong Kong)
HSBC (Singapore)
Hua Nan Commercial Bank Ltd. (Taiwan)
International Commercial Bank of China (Taiwan)
Multibank Inc. (Panama)
Shanghai Commercial and Savings Bank Ltd. (Taiwan)
Ta Chong Bank Ltd. (Taiwan)
Taipei Fubon Bank (Taiwan),
Taishin International Bank (Taiwan)
Taiwan Business Bank (Taiwan)
The Sun Trust Banks Inc. (USA)
Union Bank (Philippines)
United Overseas Bank Ltd. (Singapore)

A detailed presentation of the Banks involved, including account names and numbers and adjoined inflated and faked investment objects, can be found in a previous article on this blog.

All of the named Banks who provided wire transfers and transaction accounts to the fraud syndicate have reasons to follow this blog as the Consortium of Defrauded Victims find it highly plausible that the Banks have systematically failed to act in accordance with recognised international AML guidelines and in particular
the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist funding regulations.

We have a substantial amount of records showing that company agents in e.g. Hong Kong and Singapore have registered ‘offshore’ companies on behalf of the fraud syndicate en masse. These companies are typically incorporated as limited liability companies with a foreign company director (goal keeper) being allotted an ordinary share value of $1 HK or $1SG dollar, just to meet with the minimum requirements set by the respective Companies Act (not required to take up personal liabilities except up to the nominal value of their shareholdings).

The purposes of the company registrations are to receive legal rights to enter into contracts with landlords, telecommunication companies, etc, to open corporate business bank accounts (intended to be utilised solely as receiving and skipping accounts in the transfer of monies from defrauded victims via illegal boiler-rooms to provide the Principals with substantial finances and to pay the salaries of the boiler-room employees) and to provide a facade of being a credible business entity.

It can further be questioned whether the registered foreign company directors and national company secretaries actually meet with general principals of Director duties

In one particular case, the fraud syndicate registered 18 companies in Hong Kong, in blocks with company registration numbers close to one another, having the same foreign company director registered, based on faked US passport data. All these companies were set up with business bank accounts linked to banks in Hong Kong and Taiwan, purposely used as receiving accounts to transfer and launder money from illegal boiler room operations. Typically, the procedure to register a corporate bank account in e.g. Hong Kong,
requires the filing of a copy of the Hong Kong identity card or passport; residential proof such as utility bills, bank statements, driving license etc.; and former name or alias proof for each of the directors, authorized signatories, principal shareholders and beneficial owners of corporate shareholders. The copies of all
documents submitted must be certified either by a Certified Public Accountant, Company Secretary, Lawyer or Banker.

The reader may reflect upon the following: How is it possible that the fraud syndicate has at such a significant scale been able to set up numerous offshore companies and register corporate bank accounts using fake identities, to defraud the Consortium of Defrauded Victims of USD $20 million, and transfer and receive vast volumes of money from their illegal business operations without arousing the suspicions of the respective Banks AML and compliance divisions and/or the financial regulators!

Finally, we would welcome and indeed encourage the aforementioned Banks to contact the Consortium of Defrauded Victims within the next 14 days to discuss the issues outlined above. Should the banks decline this offer, CFD may decide to embark on further disclosures.

The involvement of Banks and Receiving Account Holders

This time we reveal information about the banks involved in the transfer of money to the fraud syndicate due to boiler room investment fraud scams. We also provide data concerning the receiving account holders used by the fraud syndicate.

Typically, ‘goal keepers’ such as the US citizen Michael Lee Port, the UK citizen, David Strudwicke and the Dutch citizen Albert (‘Andree’) Hoogeveen, signed as company directors of off-the-shelf companies incorporated in Hong Kong or Singapore, to provide rights to withdraw money from receiving accounts registered in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Philippines and beyond. Money is further bounced via TTs through skipping accounts but also withdrawn as cash by the ‘bankers/couriers’, to be returned to the Big Boiler Room Boys of Thailand, and washed into the property and hospitality sectors in Thailand by assistance of money changers and Thai-based company formations as well as to provide massive security pay-outs to selected Thai Police and Army Officials.

Companies are in cases duplicated by registrations in several jurisdictions, including Belize and Panama.

Our due diligence has revealed that for this large-scale international boiler room scam (investment fraud) to have succeeded, which involved defrauding thousands of victims out of hundreds of USD millions, the fraudsters had to be assisted, knowingly or otherwise, by a number of Internationally recognised banks, in what appears to be acts of gross negligence and/or in contravention of ‘International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation – the FATF’.

There is little doubt that ‘business accounts’ were opened in these banks with the sole purpose of receiving and quickly transferring the substantial amounts of fraudulently obtained monies to other financial institutions. Despite the continuation of the inflow/outflow of vast amounts of ‘laundered’ money passing across these accounts, there is little evidence, if any, these banks ever questioned the origins of these funds or raised any ‘Suspicious Activity Reports’ (SARS) with their respective financial regulators.

We have received due diligence indicating that bank officials in one specific jurisdiction have been paid to open receiving transaction accounts on behalf of the fraud syndicate.

The data is tabulated on two spreadsheets (Excel-file).

Banks and Receiving Accounts