Court Tells NCB NO!

The National Commercial Bank’s  application for leave to go to the Privy Council was this morning turned down by the Court of Appeal. NCB wanted to challenge the Court’s ruling that OLINT accounts should remain open.

Instead, the court has directed NCB to return to the Supreme Court and seek to have a speedy trial. The Court also said that the accounts should remain open until the civil case is dealt with. 

This is another blow for NCB in their quest to close OLINT three(3) accounts, while this is some good news for OLINT and its investors.

Source: NCB application denied – Olint accounts stay open

Related:

Advertisements

82 Responses

  1. Why is NCB trying so hard to close Olint accounts?

  2. A speedy trial in Jamaica destroys the meaning of the adjective.

    NCB will go to the Privy Council and they will grant leave to appeal. The appeal will be heard and NCB will win. There is no way that a bank’s entire business could be jeopardised by being forced to keep open an account for one customer indefinitely (which from a financial standpoint is what a “speedy trial” in the Jamaican court system amounts to). We really need to see the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in the decision to refuse the appeal of NCB and the decision to refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council.

    These two decisions, and the decision of the court to grant a stay of execution on the FSC CDOs, point to a court system or judges who are seriously out of touch with rights, responsibilities and risks in a modern financial world (by modern I mean since 1960s or so).

  3. Tito

    I can’t tell you what is in the minds of the people running NCB. But I can tell you that every day that the account is open is an additional day of extreme risk for NCB’s entire banking operation.

    The rich countries are deadly serious about tackling drugs and terrorism by shutting them out of the financial system. Whether that is a good strategy is neither here nor there; that is reality. That is what anti-money laundering rules are all about. A bank, especially a non-rich country bank, that does not subscribe actively to these rules is only a few short steps away from becoming a non-bank.

    Additionally, the people in charge of the bank are provided with significant personal incentives to toe the line. Did I say incentives? It’s really a big stick and that is the criminal sanctions they will be exposed to.

    When the bank goes down as a result of their failure to meet the AML standards, they will also face personal liability from every financial interest that depended on the bank continuing as a going concern (think borrowers and depositors, not to mention shareholders, employees and charitable foundations or recipients).

    Let us not stop at the bank. If the banks and other financial entities that do business with it do not move swiftly to cut off their relationship with it, they too will face draconian sanctions. And so the trouble, real trouble, spreads.

    The bank and the other institutions will not have the comfort of a few mouldy judges in some court room to step in the way of their destruction and protect them from becoming pariahs.

    Now, we may not like how this works, but that is how it works.

  4. I should have said “a few judges in some mouldy court room”.

  5. Tito:

    Another question (maybe a better one) is why is Olint trying so hard to keep its accounts at NCB open? Why not wire directly form overseas to clients or send checks drawn on overseas banks directly to clients or make other arrangements? Why fight so hard with a bank trying to close your account?

  6. What we all have to realize is that a lot of Judges and key players in the justice system have money tied up in Olint !! Therefore they won’t act decisively and according to the law but will go the route of opinion and allow the back and forth game with the case, so as to draw out this sham hoping that Olint will be able to pay them back their monies. The Chief Justice did the same thing with the electoral case, in order to buy JLP time !! NO JUSTICE !! It’s a FARSE !!

  7. Tito asks “Why fight so hard with a bank trying to close your account?”

    Because once the account is closed, that is tantamount to an admission that it is involved in wrongdoing of some kind. How many people have you ever heard of where the bank closes their DEPOSIT account? It’s just not something that a bank will do except maybe 25 years after not having heard from you and having failed to find you.

    This is all about AML. Olint doesn’t want to provide the information that the bank needs to have on file. That information is intended to establish the source of the customers money that is place in the account. Olint can’t claim it is money from operating an investment scheme as the bank would then ask to see a license which Olint doesn’t have. Olint can’t claim it is money from fx trading as the bank would want to see proof which, as a Ponzi scheme, Olint cannot provide.

    So, Olint cannot provide the information the bank needs to meet its AML obligations. Olint cannot withdraw since it can’t find another bank to take its money for the same reasons. Olint “cannot” lose the case since that would prove to others that it is on the shady side of things.

    On the other hand, Olint can string out the timeline for the final reckoning by continuing in as many court actions as possible. These bring a degree of legitimacy to Olint during the very long periods that the court processes involve and cost very little (just the pay of a few lawyers and they are being paid with investors funds anyway).

  8. NCB and O.
    Classic case of “Fatal Attraction”.

  9. Golden Lot

    I too am critical of the decisions of the judges in these cases, as you have seen. But the motives you have imputed are simply slanderous, unless you have information to support it.

    Let us be critical, by all means, and strongly so if that is your view. But it really helps no one to impugn the integrity of our judges. Why don’t you wait to see the reason for their decision before you challenge their honesty? In fact, I want to go further and challenge you to provide information supporting your point.

  10. I said in earlier post “Tito asks “Why fight so hard with a bank trying to close your account?””

    It was nocotec who said so. Sorry, Tito and nocotec.

  11. @ Golden Lot:

    You are absolutely, 100 % RIGHT!! These guys are not following any law. I guess C+ and WW should have used Olint Strategy. Then if you follow the courts opinion, they would still have active accounts. Makes no sense does it.

  12. DaveSin you are absolutely 100 % wrong 🙂

    You need to research the reasons and logic why injunctions are granted. What the judge upheld was the injunction preventing NCB from closing the accounts until the actual trial determines if they are within their rights to do so. Injunctions are granted in defined circumstances such as when an action would harm the party in a way that damages at trial would not be sufficient to cure or make whole the damaged party.

    The judge has now prevented NCB from appealing the issue of the injunction any further and has ordered a speedy trial so that the actual issues can be litigated and a verdict handed down which can then be appealed if the parties choose.

  13. @Nocotec:

    What the judge upheld was the injunction preventing NCB from closing the accounts until the actual trial determines if they are within their rights to do so.

    If my argument is flawed then one should dismiss the precedence set in the C+, and especially, WW cases, where the outcome of those two cases essentially say that it was within the banks ambit to close those two entities accounts at NCB (C+)and RBTT (WW). The question is why is it that the “same” court have ruled that C+ and WW were in violation of pertinent banking regs, yet Olint’s faith should be postpone based on a tangential case? Basic question…Do banks have the power to close clients’ accounts when there was no evidence of illegal transactions taking place? Even more important, if the client refuse to provide audited financial statements, how can the bank prove “illegal transactions” exist?

    Are you saying that prior court decisions are flawed? My position is solely based on what was stated in those two previous rulings? In fact, World Wise was in the exact same position as Olint, since they had a parallel lawsuit going against RBTT? Why is it that the Supreme Court outcome is different for WW, when both entities cases are almost identical? If you are suggesting the Supreme Court has erred in the past and the Olint case is an attempted to correct that wrong (regressing), I am prepare to accept proposition. However, there is no evidence presented to suggest that is the case.

    May I suggest a similar pathway as it relates to due diligence (research)? 🙂

  14. Look at cases in the USA. One of the major reasons the US Supreme Court will agree to hear a case is when the lower courts have issued conflicting opinions. As the final arbiter in the courts they will agree to rule and settle the issue. There is nothing unusual about judges reaching dissenting Opinions on the exact same issues… and each will cite appropriate law or prior rulings to back his/her Opinion.

    I believe the judge has a credible position backed by law. Further i think he is right in saying let us stop arguing over the injunction and go to trial (speedy) and litigate the issues, which he has deemed important enough to be aired in a trial. At that point a verdict will be issued and the parties if they choose may appeal all the way to the final arbiter (Privy Council). The judges position seems reasonable and is backed by precedence and law.

  15. When the Supreme Court ruled in December, these same folks were lauding those same judges in the same moldy courtrooms.

    Is the court is only correct when its ruling coincides with your opinion? What kind of principles are those?

  16. As to court ruling. Only olint apeal tthe supreme court decision to the appeal court . If WW had apppeal the supreme court decision they may have had the same result If I understood correctly.

  17. Please hae some respect for our court system.

    Are you from NCB

    I operated a multi-million dollar business account at several banks and non never ask for audited accounts

  18. I have been in business for 20 years and the only time that a bank has ask for a audited statement was when i need a loan???. make me wonder why

  19. Marva/Traderfxj:

    Can I assume you are running an legitimate (registered/licensed, etc.) business? Also, your deposit and withdrawal patterns does not raise red flags..do they?

  20. Bob, on July 28th, 2008 at 1:24 pm Said:
    A speedy trial in Jamaica destroys the meaning of the adjective.

    NCB will go to the Privy Council and they will grant leave to appeal. The appeal will be heard and NCB will win. There is no way that a bank’s entire business could be jeopardised by being forced to keep open an account for one customer indefinitely (which from a financial standpoint is what a “speedy trial” in the Jamaican court system amounts to). We really need to see the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in the decision to refuse the appeal of NCB and the decision to refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council.

    These two decisions, and the decision of the court to grant a stay of execution on the FSC CDOs, point to a court system or judges who are seriously out of touch with rights, responsibilities and risks in a modern financial world (by modern I mean since 1960s or so).

  21. nocotec

    While I agree with you about the basis for granting an interim injunction, the judges seem not to have balanced the damage to NCB which will result from their judgment if it is allowed to stand. They seem unaware of the scale of the damage that will be inflicted on NCB. Even if DS really is the magic trader, he would hot have enough money to compensate NCB, NCB’s shareholders, NCB’s borrowers, NCB’s depositors and NCB’s employees.

    Without seeing the arguments that the judges accepted or dismissed, it is difficult to determine if they are wise judges or not. While the decision seems wrong to me, as I have said before, nobody can have a confirmed opinion on the matter if they don’t have an idea of the judge’s reasoning in the case.

  22. The only time the bank ask for source of fund is when large amount is lodge in my personal account .yet i do see known drug don lodging money there without any problem probably my skin coiour

  23. The don probably had a bigger account at Olint so he had more profits.

  24. “AGE QUOD AGIS”

  25. traderfxj:

    He cannot be a don! The don does not go to the bank. He gives his girlfriend (the Teller) the money to deposit.

    What do a female doctor, a female teller and a female lawyer have in common? ……. they date the same Pharmacist (I know, you don’t get..think the different reasons why he needs all three)!

  26. see you think all don are not educated or intelligent and i am not talking about the bottom feeders who think they are in control

  27. Olint need these NCB accounts open so super Dave can make his transfers. He has to fight what NCB ………

  28. Tito

    I also have to question the zest and zeal of NCB to try and close olints accounts…..

  29. watching closely

    But the accounts have been open and no transfers….then we got talk from DS about fuzzy accounting. If the accounts are left open…then what? Fuzzy accounting money going to drop in asap?

  30. Smitty.. remember “AGE QUOD AGIS”

    Do what you do!!!!!….

    (and boss, another version is look after your business)

    Torrington posse!!!

  31. Let me state first IANAL (I am not a lawyer) so, I do not know or understand the gory details o AML legislation. I have followed the introduction of AML in Jamaica, mostly at the urging of the US govt. and I can’t remember any mention of financial institutions (FI) being required to close the accounts of people who’s transactions might be considered suspicious. Of course the institutions would not be wise to deal with known criminals or people they know very little about. It is required by law that, FIs “know their customers” and that is why BNS requires two references, among other things, when one wants to open an account with them.

    What I do know is that, there are very strict reporting (informing) requirements for FIs. Any transaction over US$10,000 must be reported to the local regulators and/or tax authorities (Federal Reserve, IRS, BOJ, Inland Revenue). So even multi-million accounts with regular large transactions are regularly monitored. When Wray and Nephew receives a payment for a shipment of rum, it is reported and monitored but, no red flags are raised because, the transaction is part of their regular business. If Bigga from down the lane walks in with $12,000 cash, he is going to be told that, it is going to be reported and that if he does not want it reported , take it somewhere else.

    This is the way that the govt., tax authorities and law enforcement can know what people are up to. It is not the job of FIs to carry out the role of the tax man or law enforcement but, they are expressly forbidden from helping anybody to conceal information on large movements of funds.

    Having said that it makes the Wachovia due diligence excuse a little shaky. It also raises suspicions about the behavior of NCB and their intent. To my mind, even DS and Olint can be cleared of money laundering charges, as long as there is no evidence of an attempt to conceal the movement of funds or the sources and recipients of such funds.

    Are there any bankers or lawyers with intimate knowledge of AML legislation and procedures on this blog that, can correct or improve our understanding of the situation?

  32. Discussing laws. DS said the accounting is off. DS said he paid people extra money that belonged not to the recipients oor DS but to us. Payouts were made with favoratism.

    These are the facts. Said facts also include an “asking” for 9 months. By nine months suits that do not name DS directly but name others are going to have put people in Jail. Yeah…whether you went to school at torrington bridge, the ghetto or anywhere else.

    Not to mention the bankruptcies…and BTW is not no 4 years and 7 years bad credit….Bush passed the laws long ago….you always are going to have to pay back the money…yeah.

    So when some selfish bastards look in at this thing from some singular perspective and tell you fi cool without being able to articulate themselves just some of the type of problems listed above then you should realise that the efficacy of the Olint/NCB argument unless solved like by yesterday is now redundant. It don’t matter. You think bankrupcy court or “others” have the need or time to waste on Olint or NCB?

    Are you going to let NCB or Olint sell you that gyow while people bigger, badder and yes..yes more wealthy want to stamp out yu %&^$%&!! by any means necessary?

  33. When all certain Govt’s a call yu %&$^ you think Boy LChn or DS can deal wid it fi yu?

    Some tings bigger than money…if yu don’t belive that yu simple nuh %&$&$!!!””!

  34. 2004 (REVISED 2008) GUIDANCE NOTES FOR THE PREVENTION AND DETECTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST FINANCING
    ACTIVITIES
    -20.4. Because of the severe implications that can arise from a financial institution being viewed
    as one that is holding property or providing financial services to facilitate money
    laundering (i.e. prosecution; loss of correspondent banking relationships; reputation risk,
    etc.,) it is imperative that reports made to the Designated Authority by the institution
    are followed up by specifically assigned senior officers (i.e. the compliance officer
    himself/herself or his/her highly ranked designate) such that at anytime an institution is
    called on, it is in a position to provide more information than merely that “the matter was
    reported to the Designated Authority”. The institution should be able to show from its
    records that the account or transaction was followed up and continuously analyzed as well
    as the point at which a determination was made to:
    i) close the account;
    ii) end the business relationship;
    iii) terminate the transaction;
    iv) scale down services;
    v) refuse to undertake transactions above or under a certain amount;
    vi) refuse to undertake new business with the customer; or
    vii) refuse to accept introduced business from that customer.
    Steps of this nature must also be clearly evident from the institution’s records, as they will
    be indicative of a financial institution vigorously acting to protect itself and the integrity
    of the overall system. Such steps may ultimately be the determining factor in whether an
    institution is viewed as “complicit” in its dealings generally or with the customer; and
    whether it is negligent or is recklessly aiding and abetting the customer(s) in question.

  35. If Olint has collapsed as is claimed, why are they still in court? Why waste the money on legal fees?

  36. Ds you have the right to deal with your problems any way you se fit. what you do not have a right to do is think you can be in charge of other peoples problems. DS you ever once thought that other peoples problems are beyond your scope. I don’t think you have or you would behave differently. If you think you can take on the responsibility of other peoples problems then you must live with the consequences.

    DS many people gave you time and honor to take on their problems. You have already failed. you continue to display an arrogance that says your problems are greater or of more importance than problems faced by others.

    If this is what you believe…as WS has demonstrated he believes then I am here to tell you that you are wrong. You are a neophyte to this thing. Trading and money and even philanthropy may be your thing and it is impressive but it does not give a gren light to rule the lives and saftey of your money hungry flock.

    Before you had Olint you used to ask for help. Just like anyone else. Maybe WS not aware of this but I know you are aware.

    The raw arrogance you and those lapping up around you have displayed is sad. Because there are things that are priceless in this world over which you have no authority real and/or imagined.

  37. CJ

    Olint has collapsed because it does not have sufficient funds to pay everybody what it owes them. This does not mean that there is no money. DS is using this money to protect Olint from the charges and accusations being levelled at him and it. This includes protecting it from you, the investor. Yes, he is using your money to protect himself from you. This will go on for as long as there is enough money. Nothing can stop this at this point.

  38. Bob

    Who frooze DS assets in TCI?

  39. If Missick should go down…what of DS?

  40. Jared

    Good luck on Thursday.

  41. @sirach
    Your posts are usually a bit negative,However i agree with your 9:24pm post %100 well said…..I can tell you are speaking with honesty and emotion,and that sure displays accurately how we see the situation as well.

  42. Somethingsmissing

    Don’t be afraid of negative posts. If it is reality you must face it. For reality is ordained by God. Thinking positively in the face of reality that is negative is the business of the devil.

    “God helps thoose who…help themselves”

  43. Is help mi a try help DS. For I need not beg him a thing.

  44. sirach

    The Supreme Court in TCI froze assets. This was on application by TCI police. I don’t recall exactly whose assets were frozen, ie DS vs Olint TCI vs TS, etc. I think an earlier post on this blog provided this information.

  45. Let me try to explain a possible reason why NCB is fighting to close the accounts. It could stem from not only our POCA (Proceeds of Crime Act, formerly the Anti-Moneylaundering Act) but also the USA Patriot Act. That post 9-11 American legislation requires ALL US banks that do business with overseas banks, such as where it acts as a correspondent bank for an overseas bank, to confirm that all its correspondent banks, local and overseas, know their customers and have followed all KYC procedures. NCB, since it has correspondent banking relationships with US banks, therefore has to provide such declarations periodically to its US correspondent banks that it knows its customers, and demonstrate that.

    If NCB has no audited accounts for Olint, and worse, cannot therefore have verification of source of funds and legitimacy of operations, NCB cannot truthfully make such a declaration to its US correspondent banks. Those correspondent banks will, in the absence of such a declaration, have to sever its correspondent banking relationships with NCB. NCB cannot afford for that to be jeopardised, just because of Olint, worse now that Olint and/or its principals are under investigation by the authorities for money-laundering. Remember in a post 9-11 world, the Feds are interested in how money moves around the world, and who is doing what, since one of the issues arising from 9-11 was the extent to which its operations, and other terror operations, were funded by money all over the world, moving through banks, right under the Feds’ noses. So, it need not be ‘bad mind’ or a ‘fight gainst’ position why NCB is acting as it is, but simply self-preservation. Every man for himself and devil take the hindmost. So it go.

  46. Yes Bob. Yes ‘Oh’. unno know certain tings. good.

  47. DONTGIVEADAMN, I would guess from the last sentence that, for a FI to be in breach of AML legislation, they would either have to conspire with a questionable customer to conceal information or to do so out of negligence. This raises the question of NCB’s basis for closing the accounts.

    From what I know of the law, the courts would be seeking to establish whether a reasonable person, having had a four plus year relationship with a customer, would have good reason to suddenly get suspicious of the customer. This is going to be very interesting.

  48. Let us be honest here. NCB wants to close Olint’s accounts because the maintenance of these same accounts has a net present value of zero or negative! I can guarantee you if Olint was maintaining a minimum balance of USD$10 million or more in their accounts, NCB would not attempt to close those accounts. However, when you have thousands of deposits and an equivalent of thousands of withdrawals (evenly matched), the accounts have little or no value to NCB.

    In other words, Olint’s accounts are “nuisance” accounts. A lot of money comes (inflow) and the same amount of funds is withdrawn (outflow) – in short order. NCB does not have an opportunity to leverage these funds and in all likelihood, have to spend a significant amount of “FTE” time “monitoring” these accounts. Therefore, despite what NCB would like the public to think, they hate the idea that their bank is simply be used as a conduit, without any net benefit to them!

  49. From the points made by some people on this blog it appears that Jamaicans have a curious human right that no one else has in the world. That is the right to have a bank account in perpetuity.

    What you are saying is that once you have an account at a bank the bank cannot close it unless it has a “good” reason. For example, if you are a convicted terrorist, as long as you operated your account correctly for x number of years the bank is obliged to keep you as its customer indefinitely. Regardless of the situation, if a bank wants to terminate its relationship with you it needs to carefully prepare a litigation file first.

    The consequences for us in Jamaica of this new human right are going to be interesting. Free at last from oppression, our industry and commerce will now flourish and our people will enjoy the fruits of this revolution.

    They said once that it was not possible for a Jamaican to be the magic trader of the world. We told them: look at Asafa! Look at Usain! If we can do it on the track, why not on the fx computer? Well, I say, if we can do it in fx trading we can do it in jurisprudence too.

    Those old white guys in London are going to scratch their heads and have a good chuckle over this one. Jokes aside, if you are serious about building Jamaica for your children to enjoy, this decision is just plain embarrassing.

  50. Dave Sin, DONTGIVEADAMN and OLINT = Oh.. I Lent out ya $$!!

    In my opinion, your comments and information are right on the money.

  51. interesting article d-curious,this kind of money being handled by one branch of a bank from one individual must have raised red flags.If you look at the time lines the ufo-s may have been set up as an alternative conduit for handling these funds after the clampdown with the full backing of the official system and powerful men of the underworld and others in high places. Most of us were pawns in game. Such hypocrisy.

  52. Whenever big money involve it is the politicians and big men that “profit” in full sense of that word. The innocent naive and poor people always get shafted.
    Not every one “profit” from O or the other clubs. Many just get back what they put in, some get back less and some dont get anything at all. As usual you will see that is the politicians and big money men who have “profited”. Upfront they say what they must say in public but in the quiet they are up to their neck. They know when to jump ship and will do so and wont give a damn about who drown. To them is a game. God nah sleep though. Him nah sleep.

    You bright guys here need to ease up off people as in reality most never did it because of greed they did it because they thought it was real. They heard about all the different big wigs involved and many did research on fx trading and decided to take a chance on some one who appeared genuine and seemed to be doing a good job. People saw a chance to earn extra income , a chance to pay off bills, a chance to seek medical treatment for themself and family, a chance to send kids to better schools and pay university fees, a chance to pay off a mortgage or even get a downpayment on a house, buy a car, to be able to send money to family more regularly.

    Dont belive the hype that everyone was blinging. That a lie. Many who join did so after the election based on what they believe the new regime would do as it was a open secret that Olint gave plenty money to the JLP and also based on things Audley Shaw said.
    People are hurting and confused. Many innocent people hopes burn up .What they see now is the politicians and big men now getting paid as usual and experts picking at their carcasses and telling them how greedy and silly they were.

    DS lawyers are a bunch of bullshit. The statement that release July 18th dont say anything to ease members fears. They dont come back and give any update. They dont say if they get the assets release. They dont say if they have confirmed existence of clubs funds but people are to just sit back and give DS 9 months to repay. Will the banks and other creditors be giving members who need their money 9 months to pay. Will the lawyers work for 9 months without pay.? DS needs to do more if he is so concerned about the poor members. They have already been waiting 7 months. Are the politicians and big men waiting for 9 months ?

    I DONTGIVEADAMN about hypocrisy and hindsight that is 20/20. I gone back to sea.

  53. See di ‘ypocrites dem ah galang deh
    See di ‘ypocrites dem ah galang deh
    dem ah cut cut cut gainst dem one ah nodder
    cut cut cut gainst dem one ah nodder
    cut cut cut –

    The Legend sing so and it still ah gwaan.

    God nah sleep

  54. OLINT starts the battle in TCI

    http://www.radiojamaica.com/content/view/10351/26/

  55. DaveSin, somehow I completely missed the Nembhard case.It is not the sort of news that I would easily forget . Maybe it was my preoccupation with family (health)) matters at the time. Having read the article, it does however reinforce my point that, it is failure to report and monitor large transactions that is considered a breach of AML legislation. Legitimate business carry out large transactions every day but, there is a good deal of transparency, The source of funds and their purpose is usually well known.

    OLINT = Oh.. I Lent out ya $$!!,, I made my last post before reading yours. While you do shed some light on the matter, AFAIK Olint was operating it’s accounts like a legitimate business, with no attempts to conceal any transactions or the purpose of such transactions. I have no reason to believe that NCB did not know Olint and it’s principals well, as well as, the nature of their business. As for the individual club members and the feeder clubs, that is an entirely different matter.

    Your point does however give some credence to the Wachovia due diligence excuse since the size of Wachovia would have made it much more difficult for them to know Olint or even notice Olint’s transactions, until the transaction values became significant to them. Once the transactions became what Wachovia would consider significant, they would then have to make sure they are covering the provisions of the Patriot Act..

    Bob, where Olint is concerned, I don’t think it is a question of being able to operate the account in perpetuity. I think the question arises as to whether the closure of the accounts was justified purely on grounds of NCB protecting their interests regarding the risk of running afoul of AML legislation.

    It is widely believed that local; banks were not happy with the fact that several “high net worth customers” had placed funds with Olint. This would have placed Olint in competition with such banks. In most jurisdictions that have fair competition legislation, the actions of NCB could be viewed as possible attempts to unfairly jeopardize the business of a competitor.

  56. As i have stated often here, everyone needs to just realise that there is NO money to be paid out.
    NCB & Olint fight is just a battle of David Smiths EGO.
    He & Wignall is going to have a chat to be published next week.
    Anything other that telling us how much money he currently has is a waste of time.
    With accounts being frozen, and all the international court actions against Olint, including a GAG order, how can DS now be giving an interview?
    The only thing that ppl want to know is HOW DEM MONEY GUH?
    All the other sideshows are just a waste of time

  57. DONTGIVEADAMN:

    So let me ask this…

    If right now I start another club like DS and provide no proof of my claims, no audited returns etc… just promise high monthly returns and be paying it for a while…people are going to just send me their hard earned money too because they see me as a way to better their lives?

    Because … “People saw a chance to earn extra income , a chance to pay off bills, a chance to seek medical treatment for themself and family, a chance to send kids to better schools and pay university fees, a chance to pay off a mortgage or even get a downpayment on a house, buy a car, to be able to send money to family more regularly.”

    Don’t you see the fact that people want to better themselves does not mean one just sends money to people who are full of promises and offer no proof. It is this logic why I know that in another few years we will be repeating this cycle.

  58. nocotec

    not if you start “right now”,

    Give it about 18 months and then start.

    If however you are already up and running,yes ppl will give you their money.
    All that they need is to find a few ppl, to attest that they are collecting their monthly interest.

    Money can be made trading FX
    Money can be lost trading FX.
    People understand that and will give you their money.
    It is when ppl who started honest and with good intentions like DS, start robbing and spending the funds, that the Problems start.

    This modus operandi seems to be what happens in all the cases

  59. Nocotec you make me laugh. I cant talk for other people but for myself . The answer is no you wouldnt get a penny from me. I dont trust noone again. Even if you do all the disclosure and your intentions good , once you have to deal with ‘ypocrites and their agendas it not going to work.
    You hear what I say about ‘ypocrites?

  60. do you guys notice that the number of DS supporters on Facebook has actually reduced.
    Last week it was about 226.
    and now it is 206

    Whats up with that?

    DS yuh losing ground

  61. Bob: “From the points made by some people on this blog it appears that Jamaicans have a curious human right that no one else has in the world. That is the right to have a bank account in perpetuity.”

    I disagree with your conclusions. Long timers may recall that I am on record as saying that I believe that NCB and the banks have the right to close Olint’s and the other UFO accounts.

    The court case is another matter… and by the way with regards to investors interests, this is just a smokescreen since Olint has no money… But back to the discussion points…

    I believe the Appeals Court judge is correct. I think you are forgetting that the USA Securities Act as Amended originated in 1933 and 1934. Current Banking statutes as amended, rules and regulations originated during the 1930’s Great Depression. These statues, rules and regulations have had decades of litigation which has settled many of the issues though there is still litigation at times.

    Jcans being the way we are did not see fit to implement many of these types of statutes, rules and regs until our banking system melted down 60 years later. On these issues we do not have a history of settled litigation in the courts.

    Look at what you are concerned about and seem to imply as giving Jcans rights others do not have… an interim injunction. The actual case has not yet been tried. The judge’s opinion is simply saying, let us have a speedy trial so that we can determine and have settled case law as to whether and how the banks can close customers accounts in circumstances such as these.

    What is wrong with that? This is standard procedure. I believe Olint should and will lose however settling this issue will prevent similar challenges in the future. Courts do not normally allow the same issues to be re-litigated, unless new issues are being introduced. Once this is settled the judges would normally issue summary judgments… for example in the similar cases brought by the other UFOs.

    Anyway this discussion is interesting but ultimately will be meaningless to Olint investors as Olint simply ran out money to cover the encashments. There is little money to share up so pretty soon they will not need any accounts.

    And by the way I do not believe that NCB’s banking relationships are currently jeopardized given the fact that NCB is aggressively litigating this matter…

  62. DONTGIVEADAMN Said: “… I cant talk for other people but for myself . The answer is no you wouldnt get a penny from me. I dont trust noone again.”

    This is how folks need to be all the time. People are always trying to separate you from your hard earned money and unless you are vigilant and trust no one, they will succeed. They know how to prey on your dreams and aspirations, so when it comes to your money trust no one.

  63. d-curious, traderfxj, and marva be careful about the things you post. I do not want to post them again because they are misleading and I think they are part of the misinformation that continue to feed people with this nonsense that some how there is some sort of conspiracy on the part of the big banks to hurt OLINT and other schemes. These criminals are using it to their advantage to continue to dupe their club members. DONTGIVEADAM and OLINT = oh I lent out ya $$!! (Get a better screen name) have done a good job already explaining why NCB is pursuing this case. I think every one should read these posts.

    Finally, (I have said this before) the truth is that the negative publicity is a saving grace in my opinion to some extent for NCB. Right now, they are happy to be on record as fighting to close OLINT’s accounts. The truth is that NCB should have done more much earlier and should have closed OLINT’s account long ago. Technically, they have aided and abetted a fraud by allowing OLINT to continue operating their account at the Bank. Any intelligent person at a bank could or should have know that DS was commingling clients funds, holding out at first that his deposits belong to himself or himself and his wife only to later say he was a club. Clearly, his source of funds did not come from a normal course of trade or form supplying services. He was collection deposits and even if he did not need to be licenses, under the ML Act an audit of his accounts (showing some trail of his depositors) was necessary. It was also public knowledge that he was making promises to investors that were patently false. While the general public is free to be fooled by OLINT the bank should not be in the business of facilitating or allowing a fraud to be conducted using their services.

    I thing a few investors with a smart lawyer should begin a court case against NCB for assisting DS with his scheme. They would not be entitled to all their funds back from NCB but at least some responsibility can be placed on the bank. The big problem is that club members continue to damage their case by insisting on defending a man who has callously taken form their mouth the fruits of their labour.

  64. I agree wit that 100%

  65. Banker,

    I have often said here that the clubmembers who are still defending David are just holding on to hopes and dreams that there is some monies to be returned to them.
    They need to now let go, and realise that they are not going to be refunded anything at anytime.

  66. nocotec

    I must commend you on an intelligent post. (except that the poster you quoted was just been sarcastic with his remarks.) Finally, your last point “I do not believe that NCB’s banking relationships are currently jeopardized given the fact that NCB is aggressively litigating this matter…” is correct. NCB need to take these steps and are actually doing it to protect the integrity of the institution.

  67. The thing we don’t need is to start trying to tell people what to blog and what not to blog. Is not no parliment or senate dis. FREEDOM……L…….FREEDOM L……especially significant at this time to remember that at emancipation time.

  68. The truth will be reveal one day one way or another

  69. Let the truth hang out,We want to know who was the badman politician who collected using force while we are suffering,we want to know how much he collected and who he collected for?More anon…..

  70. Winston niney

    Statement is what we call oxymoron….the word badman and politician can’t be put toghther.

    The two are not one and the same. Even though in relative terms some politicians and even police like to think of themselves as badman.

  71. Dem teck poor people’s money and den mek big life, big ginal swindle dem outta it.

  72. Banker, be careful what you attribute to me. I am merely presenting an idea that could be construed from no less than a Court of Appeal decision reported in the following Gleaner article;

    http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080719/lead/lead2.html

    The relevant sentence reads “There are serious issues to be tried in this matter, particularly in relation to the power of a bank to close an account where there is no evidence of any proven illegal transactions in respect of conduct of operation of accounts,”

    Also from the same article, “The Court of Appeal said further that there were serious issues to be tried in relation to allegations of conspiracy being made by Olint against NCB. The court said damages would not be an adequate remedy if Olint were to succeed in its case.”

    These are not the words of the man in the street but, learned judges of the Court of Apeal. They know more than everybody here about what is admissible in a court of law. When the civil suit against NCB begins and arguments are presented you will see whether or not, “the actions of NCB could be viewed as possible attempts to unfairly jeopardize the business of a competitor.” Emphasis on “could be viewed”. In light of the above please feel free to point out anything that I have said that is misleading or inaccurate.

    As my screen name suggest, I am curious and want to know if there are serious flaws in my ideas. At this point, I have kissed my money goodbye, so it is just curiosity as to how the whole situation is going to unfold. This drama is more intriguing than anything Hollywood could cook up.

  73. Banker, I would also like to point out that, the two posts you said everyone should read may well have been responses to my first post, which I ended with, “Are there any bankers or lawyers with intimate knowledge of AML legislation and procedures on this blog that, can correct or improve our understanding of the situation?”

  74. Question—Has anybody read their latest contract sent out 1/1/08 ?
    The contract WE signed is with HALL MARK BANK TCI and not DS?? Can anybody read the CEO’s signature??

  75. TurnPoor:

    Can you scan the contract and email to investforlife?

    Hall Mark Bank TCI…is it a real bank or a P.O. Box Bank & Trust? If memory serve me right, “Olint” is also stated on the contract. Right?

    FYI:

    http://www.hallmarktrust.com/

  76. DaveSin DS is referred to as de ” the investment manager “and our contract is with “Hallmark Bank-” herein referred to as “The Company ” read the contract guys.!!…I don’t know where this put us………..I guess behind the eight ball?

  77. @ banker…

    Yuh prefer this name fada? I always listen to what my banker says…..unless he tells me to invest in Olint…

  78. d-curious

    I am going to apologize to you because I see that you are grossly misled. To begin with, the gleaner report is a lazy presentation like so much of the report coming out of the Jamaica press.

    With respect to the quote, you highlight ““There are serious issues to be tried in this matter, particularly in relation to the power of a bank to close an account where there is no evidence of any proven illegal transactions in respect of conduct of operation of accounts,”
    I hope form DONTGIVEADAMN post you see that the judges are less learned than folks on this message board. Or at best the Gleaner just failed to quote the judeges properly or in entirety and therfore lost the point of their deliberation. I am broker I have to do an annual AML exam which despite the fact that I am in Canada it covers internationl rules that I am certain that Jamaica is a signatory to.
    OLINT was clearly taking deposit so irrespective of weather he needed to be regulated the source of his funds were not all his and came from third parties. (Who therfore had an interest in the account) Consequently under NO YOUR CLIENT rules NCB is obliged to ask OLINT for audited statement. Not income and expenditure or balace sheet. But statements which show some audited trail of the source of the funds. If you think logically without any knowledge of law or AML legislation you should realise that if that was not the case then any one could set up a club and proceed to take money from third party and launder money. For get FX trading or anything else just plain launder money
    Regarding your next quote …Also from the same article, “The Court of Appeal said further that there were serious issues to be tried in relation to allegations of conspiracy being made by Olint against NCB. The court said damages would not be an adequate remedy if Olint were to succeed in its case.”
    The statement by itself is correct and if NCB was in anyway engaged in a conspiracy they would be required to pay dearly for such a malicious and agregious act. Once again if you think logically, I hope you would be hard press to believe that the bank could be that careless.

  79. Olint = All Lost
    wrote “Yuh prefer this name fada? I always listen to what my banker says…..unless he tells me to invest in Olint…

    A little bit better son…. and I would never tell you dat.. under yu mattrass betta.

  80. @ golden lot
    the correct spelling of the word is FARCE, you idiot!

  81. Johnny,

    Thanks for the correction !! I stand corrected. But I would appreciate not being called an idiot !! Peace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: