Mark Wignall has come out kicking against some revelations that if they are true could raise serious questions. Having read the article he gives no indication that any of those e-mails we have seen have been false.
Instead much time has been spent giving a history lesson of when he started writing, his growth as a writer and involvement in the OLINT affair.
Where is the proof?
The following quotes are of interest.
“What eventually sold me on OLINT was its ability to sustain the 2006 raid, sustain a 70 per cent withdrawal of funds and still survive.”
This has long been used as a selling point that OLINT was no scam – the ‘survival’ of Olint when the FSC came raiding. This is the problem when you have no transparency. This is not the case of the SEC falling down on their job like Madoff and now Stanford. The FSC wanted information and OLINT refused. Yet, people believed OLINT’s claim about this 70% without one shred of evidence to back it. Where did that figure of 70% come from? Could it be independently verified? 70% of what, persons or funds?.
“A pyramid-like structure could never sustain such an incursion.”
Here is the problem with that statement. One assumption being made on the premise that the first assumption is true. The validity of the first assumption, i.e. the 70%, is not known, therefore the building on it to declare a truth is not the way to go. Also a Pyramid scheme is defined slightly different from a PONZI.
In the February 2007 article, that appears to be part of the questioning the following quote is found:
“I have been informed that Olint will not be taking in any new customers until a time to be announced, probably in March(2007). The question I would like to ask Rutte Ginpebn is this: If Olint was a PONZI scheme, would it not have failed long ago, with no new funds coming in from the base to feed the top?”
Again, an assumption was made that a) a PONZI can’t last a long time b) no money was coming in. Firstly there are the Madoff and Lou Pearlman examples of PONZI’s that lasted a long time. Secondly, what should also be clear to everyone now is that OLINT survived by taking money through the back door, piggy backers and feeder clubs, and by moving offshore to the TCI and accepting wires there.
I still can’t believe that people ‘in the know’ did not know that Olint had a) so many feeder clubs, (many seen as liars now) and b) that the persons who were old customers could continue to add new money therefore become ‘piggy backers’.
His Defence
Mark Wignall acknowledges;
“It is quite true that one of my main sources was the PR arm of Olint I need to pose these questions”. (bold added)
Those questions are listed below.
- “How many times have journalists, columnists sat down with various PR bodies to pose questions to them”?
- “Second, if my general views on the subject, the person or the entity are well known to those bodies, how can it be a secret as to where I may be going with a column next week”?
(see article The OlINT Saga: I was not David Smith’s Boy!)
Good questions, and reasonable answers. However the answer to the second question serves the interest of those looking for an ally, who knows a pawn, in the media. Control the PR getting to that influential journalist, given their known sympathies, and you will be be sure the support from the masses will grow.
Troubling
There is one e-mail that I found troubling. A certain banker appears to send an e-mail to Mark Wignall with comments about ‘Literary Genius’ with references to another outspoken anti-UFO banker. That banker it is rumored, had jumbled his name to come up with a pseudonym used in a letter sent to the Observer. What does Mark Wignall do, he appears to forward the ‘Literary Genius’ e-mail to ‘PR arm of Olint’.
The issue of seemingly sending an article to the group of persons now known as the ‘PR arm of Olint’ raises certain journalistic ethics and integrity questions. Should the subject of every article therefore be given the right to review the article before publication? From my research and common sense, such a practice should simply be avoided as it puts the journalist under undue pressure as the subject/representative might want the information toned up or down to suit their purposes.
My Question to Wignall are:
- Did he send and receive those emails, including forwarding the one from the Managing Director of a leading bank in Jamaica?
- Given what has come to light, does he still believe that OLINT, is not questionable operation much like Cash Plus?
I will add in his defence, sometimes you get used and you don’t even know you have been used. When King David got Joab, his army chief, to send Uriah to heat of the battle, Uriah had no clue that he was been set up.
OLINT vs Cash Plus
The truth is Wignall was a writer whose articles I read regularly. But even before these e-mails came to light and the subsequent innuendoes, I was very disappointed with his handling of the OLINT affair from early 2007. I was very displeased when he attempted to make a distinction between OLINT and Cash Plus, knowingly or unknowingly, effectively ‘unofficially’ declaring one legitimate and the other not.
Indeed ‘Water Boy’ or not, I thought it an irresponsible peice of Journalism. THis is the problem people with influence face. You have to be careful not just with what you endorse, but what you appear to endorse.
So far the main distinction is that one claimed to be dealing in Forex Trading and the other was claim to be conglomerate of companies in everything from real estate, cambio services, telcommuncations, hospitality and more.
THen, neither was licensed by the FSC, both beleived that the FSC had no right to regulate them, but offered no transparency and no accountability. Then both offered fascinating rate of returns 10% per month in one case and in the other returns that averaged about 10% per month.
Today, they are still not registered or regulated by the FSC in Jamaica. One is a declared Ponzi and in the hand of a receiver/liquidator and the other probably a ponzi too , and both have had their principals charged for fraud. Today, investors of both clubs are still left holding the empty bag.
BTW: If there are any laws that this blog is flouting, please let us know by emailing us at hyipmyths [at] yahoo.com. Also the title is not a direct quote but an interpretation.
Reference:
Related:
- David Smith Arrested
- Carlos Hill Arrested (Gleaner/Power106)
- How OLINT survived?
- A FOREX Club to a Ponzi?
- Can a Ponzi last 20 years?
Filed under: Cash Plus, Olint | Tagged: Carlos Hill, Cash Plus, David Smith, Forex, Olint, TCI FX | 91 Comments »
Real Investments For Life 