How did Olint steal your money, and how David Smith planned to get away with it.

From all the information that has been made available, it appears that David Smith really did little or no forex trading in the years prior to 2006 and then in 2007 attempted to create the illusion that he was really a big time trader.

I am of the view that and the end of 2006 and into 2007, the cash laying around in Olint had started to deplete as some persons opted to get out after the fight with the FSC.

Having recognized that he would more than likely soon ran out of money DS decided to make some changes that would allow him to steal as much as possible as he  in was in fact being robbed by his “partners”.

David Smith gathers his lawyers and began the process of separating his client’s money from them, and actually making the clients facilitate this process unknowingly.

Olint created a what was later  called a “private club members agreement” which was a new membership document which each client was told to sign and return or risked being kicked out of the club.

This new document( as far as I am aware) had no protection which had be offered in the earlier membership agreement, as while in the former it was stated that 80% of your funds where secured, this new agreement had no such thing. (We will get back to this later).

In early 2006, David Smith partnered with the Martinez to form I- Trade FX, as this was now going to be the vehicle used to steal as much money as was possible from his remaining client. (He was added as co-owner in Sept 2006)

David Smith subsequently started wiring funds to “fund” this account and appeared to have been doing some trading, in order to give his clients the appearance that he was really a super forex trader.

The trades that were being done were not particularly successful, but this was only a part of the larger plan, as now he could tell is loyal clients that he had lost most of the money while trading, which in this field was not illegal. You see the new agreement that his clients signed, gave DS full control over the pool of funds available and there was no protection being offered to his clients (i.e. no 80% was sitting around safely in the bank.)

While David Smith was trading and racking up losses (deliberately so), he was being assisted by other in moving the funds that he had been transferring into his personal accounts all over the world.

The losses that were been incurred on his trading platform were actually payments being made to his partner i.e. the co-owner of I trade FX (Really clever don’t you think). The trading records would show actual losses, (as he really did not want the fraudulent activity to be as brazen as he writing a check to these guys), so how better to get it done, while making it  appear to be a legitimate business(trading) activity.

The creation of TCIFX hedge fund was really smoke screen activity, once again to give the appearance that genuine trading activities were taken place, and where only done to increase cash flow to Olint thus allowing the process to continue for a while longer,which facilitated the concealment of stolen funds.

David Smith is very well aware how law  enforcement officials works in the Caribbean and so with very limited resources on their hands, they cannot afford the time or money to track the loot that may have been spread to all corners of the world.

Notes:

The account of activities mentioned above have not been verified by law enforcement, and is based on available records from the NFA, the FSC and personal views.

Advertisements

F1 vs May Daisy (Part 2)

On June 26, 2008, Steve Plamer & F1 investments has filed a lawsuit in a Flordia court against Ingrid Loiten, May Daisy, I Trade FX, LLC, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and Turks & Caicos Banking Co. Ltd.  In part 2 of this article we examine briefly the counts  as stated in the lawsuit.

These are the Counts as outlined in the lawsuit 

  1. Breach of contract
  2. Civil theft
  3. Conversion
  4. Unjust enrichment
  5. Demand Accounting 
We will now present a brief outline of each charge.

Count #1: Breach of Contract

Breach of contract is pretty much self explanatory.  F1 investments is accusing May Daisy and Ingrid Loiten of the following breaches.

  • Wrongful transferring money to 3rd party
  • Delegating duties
  • Failing to exercise diligent honesty
  • Failing to return funds when requested.

Count #2: Civil theft

In this count F1 Investment is basically saying May Daisy and or Ingrid Loiten has stolen their money. Civil Theft appears to be a american statue in some states including Florida. In summary it is a civil action brought by private individuals and is basically similar to obtaining money by false pretense, fraud and or deception.  It is a statutory right, and in Florida it is defined in §812.012, Florida Statutes.

Count #3: Conversion

This has to do with intentionally and wrongfully depriving another  person of his property permanently or for an indefinite time.  The intent component is important and F1 Investment is arguing that May Daisy/Ingrid Loiten has intentionally deprived it of its money.  The failure to return property(money) also is a part of conversion.

Count #4:  Unjust Enrichment 

In the this count F1 Investments is arguing that May Daisy has been duly enriched at the its expense and under obligation to make restitution.  F1 investment is asking May Daisy has unjustly gained it must return F1’s money

Count #5: Demand for accounting

It is in this count, that I-Trade FX and the other defendants come in. F1 Investment is asking the court to demand the accounting records of Ingrid Loiten and or MAY DAISY. That is, they are requesting that all the transaction records for accounts held with these defendants, including I-Trade FX be produced.

I am not a lawyer so the information presented is my understanding based on information available. Please consult a lawyer for legal advice.

Sources:

F1 vs May Daisy (Part 1)

In an interesting twist one alternate investment scheme(AIS) or Un-regulated Financial Organisation(UFO) has sued another. This occurred when F1 investments had enough of May Daisy’s failure to pay over sums it had requested. Here are more details on that lawsuit. There are five(5) points of contention

  1. Breach of contract
  2. Civil theft
  3. Conversion
  4. Unjust enrichment
  5. Demand Accounting

Background
Based on the information at hand, F1 investments contracted May Daisy to trade Foreign Exchange with specific contractual conditions. The account with May Daisy operated from August/September – December 31, 2007. A request for full encashment was made on January 13, 2008. That request has yet to be honoured. This effectively forms the basis of the lawsuit.

Time-line
The time-lime will further explain what appears to have happened.

  • August 16, 2007 – US $2,500,000 given to May Daisy
  • September 6, 2007 – Contract finalised
  • Sometime after September 6, 2007 – A further US $9,330,278 handed over to May Daisy
  • By December 31, 2007 – F1 account with May Daisy valued at US $20,191,858.16
  • January 13, 2008 – Request made for funds, i.e full encashment, no funds forthcoming
  • April 2008 – Ingrid Loiten arrested in Zambia and US $7,000,000 seized.
  • June 13, 2008 – Court documents signed
  • June 26, 2008 – Documents filed in Florida court.
  • July 25, 2008 – Letter sent out to clients
Special Terms
The contract between F1 investments and May Daisy appeared to have some specific terms. The following are highlighted as they are mentioned specifically in the lawsuit.
  • Only May Daisy and Ingrid Loiten should trade the F1 investment funds.
  • Trading should not be sub contracted.
Allegations
  1. May Daisy and Ingrid Loiten allegedly used I-Trade FX which was a breach of contract
  2. May Daisy allegedly sub-contracted actually trading to I-Trade FX which was also a breach of contract.
On June 26, 2008, Steve Plamer & F1 investments has filed a lawsuit in a Flordia court against Ingrid Loiten, May Daisy, I Trade FX, LLC, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and Turks & Caicos Banking Co. Ltd.  In Part 2 we will attempt to break down the counts in the lawsuit and explain how I-Trade FX and the other defendants come in. 
Related:

F1 Closes OLINT-traded Gold Fund

F1 Investments is explaining to customers that problems with David Smith Led OLINT has put their GOLD fund in jeopardy.  In a release to members they say that the Platinum fund is not in danger except for the problems that they are having with Ingrid Loiten led May Daisy. Please see the letter below.

July 25, 2008

Dear Valued Client

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your patience and understanding and seek to update you on the current status of affairs with regards to our Gold and Platinum Funds in light of recent developments which have occurred within the foreign exchange trading industry.

As you are aware our Gold Fund, as mentioned on the website, is traded by OLINT Corp. Limited (OLINT).

Mr. Smith sent out a communiqué on July14 & 18, 2008 and we wish to forward this to you, as this will have implications re your Gold Funds in trade.

We believe that due to investigations by various international authorities there may be a significant impact on OLINT’s ability to successfully trade this Fund and as such in order to protect the funds placed with OLINT we have decided to close this Fund and have requested that OLINT forward to us all monies due to date with a view to paying out our clients all amounts due for this Fund. It is our understanding that to date no legal action has been brought by the authorities against David Smith or OLINT nor has OLINT been ordered to cease its operation.

We have heard that the investigation, at this stage, is a fact-finding exercise on the part of the local authorities in the exploration of their mandate to stem the flow of financial crimes in the jurisdiction, however we believe that our decision to close the Gold Fund is necessary to mitigate any risk to client funds in light of these circumstances.

We are aware that possible consequences of this investigation could be the delay of these payments by OLINT and we are currently in dialogue with OLINT with a view to have payment made as soon as possible. A direct consequence will be the delays in fulfilling encashment requests for the Gold Fund.

We anticipate a resolution to this situation and will endeavour to keep you fully informed and pledge to address all relevant issues in a timely, effective and efficient manner as the situation unfolds; as we can only inform you of the facts as we receive them. As you are aware, this is beyond our control.

Our Platinum Fund continues to be traded by our traders with good results save and except for the sums placed with Ingrid Loiten of Maydaisy which we are endeavouring to recover through due process in the Courts of the United States of America.

We continue to monitor the events closely and commit to keeping you informed. We once again thank you for your understanding and wish to reassure you that your support
serves to encourage and strengthen our resolve to do whatever is necessary to ensure that our clients’ interests remain of paramount importance.

Please do not hesitate to give us a call for any queries you may have.

Yours sincerely,
F1 INVESTMENT INC.

F1 Investments addresses May Daisy issue

F1 investments who filed suit against May Daisy has now sought to advise its clients of what is happening. Here is a letter sent out to its clients.

Dear Clients

F1 Investments Inc. (F1) has, over the years, achieved good returns for its clients through Foreign Exchange Traders and entities who have had good trading discipline and have exercised capital preservation as a main investment strategy within the context of foreign exchange trading. In order to achieve this, F1 Investments has entered into contractual agreements with traders who trade the Funds of the clients of F1. As you may be aware, a number of these entities and individuals have come under the scrutiny of various regulatory bodies and some have had a number of issues in regards to the ability to return clients funds on request. F1 has sought to ensure that it remains able to encash and return clients’ funds at reasonably short notice.

F1 entered into a contractual relationship with Miss Ingrid Loiten of May Daisy Corporation, to perform some of the trading activities for an allotted portion of funds on behalf of our clients, and Miss Loiten has seemingly performed well in relation to her trading. In light of the challenges of the Industry and to ensure the protection of client’s funds, F1 re-structured its arrangements with its Traders and requested the funds held by Miss Loiten with a view to doing same. Miss Loiten has failed to comply with our requests for the transfer of funds, inclusive of gains made through her trading, within a reasonable timeframe and to date continues to hold the funds either in banks and/or on a trading platform.

In order to protect our client’s interests, F1 has initiated legal proceedings against Miss Loiten with a view to obtaining a court order to have the funds returned. F1 has engaged the services of United States legal counsel to assist in this process.

While it is with regret that we have had to take this action, our client’s interests are paramount and it is imperative that we take the necessary steps as outlined above. We continue to have very good results from our other traders and expect to continue on a path of good results for you our client. It is however possible that the impact of the action being taken against Miss Loiten and May Daisy Corporation could result for the first time in a delay in encashments were we to receive a large number of requests. We hope for a timely resolution to this matter, and we will continue to update you accordingly.

We continue to thank you for your support.

Yours truly,
F1 Investments Inc.

We will be presenting a breaking down of the counts as listed in the lawsuit filed by Steve Palmer and F1 investments soon.

Related