Bloomberg: David Smith claims he got help from Famous Friends

In a expose that appears in the June 2015 issue of Bloomberg,  David Evans goes behind the history of OLINT and David Smith.  Much of what he says is already known,  however there are a few things that stand out.

The key one is one why was the Martinez Family from I-Trade never prosecuted? Many persons law enforcement agents and prosecutors  are puzzled. David Smith seems to reveal that part of his pleading guilty was in exchange for providing information and feels he was tricked and thrown under the bus.

“Once I decided I’d plead guilty, there was no holding back,” Smith says, locked up just a few miles from the turquoise waters and seaside villa where he often entertained the Martinez family. “I went all the way. I did everything they asked me to do. I got nothing in return.”

A number of persons are named in this article for their roles including members of the Martinez family. There are the stories of many who persons would call greedy still lamenting what the lost.

In a related article, Leverage as High as 50-1 Lures OTC Forex Traders Who Most

Martinez admits the dangers for FOREX Trading or Currency Casino

He says he’s taught 30,000 students a formula for making consistent profits with MTI’s Ultimate Traders Package, which sells for $7,995. Yet, in an interview with Bloomberg Markets last year, Martinez estimated no more than half his customers make back trading what they spend on their MTI tuition.

The role Market Traders Institute(MTI)  played is beyond question in Jamaica as those organisations gave legitimacy to David Smith and his OLINT operations.  In fact, Jared Martinez openly praised the skill of David Smith and called him a Jamaican Moses.  Listen carefully and note a few things:

  1. He admits there has been controversy “about the returns he brings” but he has “helped” persons
  2. But then issues an “endorsement”  and says “it has been the real deal”

Watch and listen Jared Martinez Calls David Smith the ‘Jamaican Moses’

Whether they were complicit in a conspiracy is the question that will probably be never known, unless there is a confession.

For more read The Con Man and His Mentor

Advertisements

End of the Road for I-Trade FX

Is it the end of the road for I-Trade FX? It appears that way, if announcements seen and a notice posted on the website mean anything.

I Trade FX notice

Forex Capital Markets LLC (www.fxcm.com) announced on May 4, 2009, it has reached an agreement to acquire the U.S. and international retail forex clients of i-Trade FX. Subject to regulatory approval, accounts are expected to be transferred from i-Trade FX to FXCM on May 8, 2009. source 

This source offers an explanation on what is happen although there could be more to this particular story.

Like several other forex firms, I-Trade FX has decided to cease offering service to US retail clients. Other firms that have decided to exit the U.S. retail business include ODL Securities, Hotspot FX, and CMC Markets. To offer retail forex trading services under NFA rules, Forex Dealer Members (FDMs) will be required to have a minimum of $20 Million in firm capital as of May 16, 2009. source 

I-Trade FX’s relationship with the David Smith/OLINT and the resulting problems with the the NFA has certainly not helped their cause. Last  month, the NFA fined I-Trade FX US $250,000.

Interestingly, the shut down appears to be affecting some non-us clients. One visitor to the blog from Australia commenting on the issue, said  that since May 8, 2009,  she has been unable to get access to her account and the lack of response from I-Trade has been a source of frustration. 

We would love to hear from I-Trade FX.  I-Trade FX customers would love to hear from you.

Sources:

 

 

Of interest:

NFA fines I Trade FX LLC $250,000

Investforlife has just received news earlier today that the NFA has imposed a US$250,000 fine on I Trade FX LLC for failing to implement a anti-money laundering program.

April 28, Chicago – National Futures Association (NFA) has fined I Trade FX LLC (I-Trade) $250,000 for failing to implement an adequate anti-money laundering (AML) program. I-Trade is a Futures Commission Merchant and Forex Dealer Member of NFA located in Lake Mary, Florida. I-Trade solely conducts retail, off-exchange forex business. The Decision, issued by an NFA Hearing Panel, is based on an NFA Complaint filed in June 2008

The Panel found that I-Trade failed to adequately implement its AML program by not filing a suspicious activity report (SAR), not investigating deposit and withdrawal activities of the accounts of two Jamaican investment clubs, Olint TCI and TCI FX, and not investigating the source of funds received from two of I-Trade’s customers.

See final judgement here at this link.

Related:

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:

I-Trade and Martinez Response Delayed

The NFA is reporting that I- Trade FX and Isaac Martinez’s response, to the June 30, 2008 complaint, should be available on August 15, 2008. According to the NFA information desk, an extension was given and as soon as the response is available it will be posted on their web-site. They further stated that there was nothing to be read into the delay as it is a usual occurrence.

Serious Penalties if found guilty
According to the complaint document, at the conclusion of the proceedings, the NFA may impose one or more of the following penalties:

  1. expulsion or suspension for a specified period from NFA membership;
  2. bar or suspension for a specified period from association with an NFA Member;
  3. censure or reprimand;
  4. a monetary fine not to exceed $250,000 for each violation found; and
  5. order to cease and desist or any other fitting penalty or remedial action not inconsistent with these penalties.

History
On June 30,2008, the NFA filed a complaint against I-Trade FX after investigations found that I-trade FX failed to file Suspicuous activity Report(SARs) on some transcactions carried out by OLINT, TCI FX, David Smith, Ingrid Loiten of May Daisy and Gareth Harris.

I-Trade FX response to the complaint is of interest to many persons especillya OLINT and May Daisy investors. What I-Trade says might not have a bearing on how quickly persons get back their money but it might just give further highlights into what happened to the money.

The Department of Justice in the United States in a letter dated July 11,2008, later froze all the assets of the said persons/organisations named above in that NFA complaint against I-trade FX. Whether this was conincidence or related no one is sure but reasonable conclusions could be drawn.

MTI on the Defensive?
On Sunday July 27, 2008, Market Trader’s Insitute(MTI) a sister organisation of I-Trade FX, published an AD. That AD it could be said stopped just short of calling David Smith’s OLINT and Ingrid Loiten’s May Dasiy and other Forex Clubs scams and guilty of taken advantage of Jamaican people.

Related:

May Daisy and I Trade

Although much sadness and excitement has surrounded Olint and David Smith,  there is still the matter of what is happening with May Daisy. Ingrid Loiten figured prominently in that NFA report but for the most part it has gone unnoticed. Ingrid Loiten again figured in the Depart of Justice’s letter to FXCM. May Daisy has also been suited by F1 Investments and interestingly I-Trade FX is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Ingrid Loiten (May Daisy) named

Item 25

Another account at l-Trade which had suspicious activity was the account of Ingrid Loiten (”Loiten”), which was opened in August 2006. Loiten’s account opening documents listed her annual income and net worth as between $25.000 and $50,000. Yet, between December 2006 and March 2007 , seventeen deposits weremade to Loiten’s account totaling over $1.7 million.

Item 26

l-Trade’s records included an April 17,2007 e-mail from Jared Martinez to Martinez concerning a purported April 13 meeting with Loiten, during which she supposedly told Jared Martinez that she owned and operated a multi-million dollar website, http://www.homeworkjamaica.com, and wished to deposit between $2 and $5 million of her personal funds into her trading account. Despite the discrepancy between Loiten’s account application and her purported verbal representation to Jared Martinez in April concerning her financial information, l-Trade waited almost two months to obtain updated information from Loiten, even though it accepted an additional $2.7 million in deposits during that same time.

Not only was the size and frequency of the deposits in Loiten’s account inconsistent with her stated annual income and net worth in her account application, but the wire activity in her account was also highly unusual. For example, Loiten opened her account in August 2006 with a $500 deposit and, over the succeeding three months, made four subsequent wire deposits averaging less than $2,000. However, beginning at the end of December 2006, the wire deposits changed dramatically in size and frequency. During the first three months of 2007, Loiten made multiple wire deposits (e.g., five to six per month) in amounts averaging over $100,000 each.

Item 35

l-Trade and Martinez failed to file SARs for, or otherwise report, the highly suspicious activities, as alleged above, which occurred in the Olint and TCI accounts and the Harris account – and also failed to file a timely SAR for, or otherwise report, the suspicious activity which occurred in the Loiten account, and, thereby, completely disregarded their obligations under NFA Compliance Rule 2-9(c), the Notice, and the firm’s own AML procedures.

l-Trade did file a SAR for the Loiten account but only after it received information in March 2008 that Zambian authorities had anested Loiten for alleged money laundering. However, l-Trade never filed a SAR for the suspicious activity that took place in Loiten’s account between December 2006 and June 2007.

Here is the troubling part Item 36

l-Trade filed a SAR for a customer who deposited $10,000 in an account and withdrew the funds several months later without ever trading. Similarly, l-Trade filed SARs for two other customers who each deposited $5,000 and then withdrew the funds a month or two later without conducting any trading. The activity reported in these SARs was far less suspicious than the suspicious activity which went unreported in the Olint, TCl, Hanis and Loiten accounts

May Daisy has not paid most investors for many months. They closed all Jamaican accounts at the end of May but in the most part they have failed to repay investors even their principal much less their ‘interest’ or ‘gains’.

I-Trade FX covers its tracks?

I-Trade FX has some explaining to do based on these statements (changing the order for emphasis) ,”However, l-Trade never filed a SAR for the suspicious activity that took place in Loiten’s account between December 2006 and June 2007.” and “l-Trade did file a SAR for the Loiten account but only after it received information in March 2008 that Zambian authorities had anested Loiten for alleged money laundering” 

I-Trade must file a written answer to the complaint with NFA within thirty (30) , days of the date of the Complaint, i.e. by July 31, 2008.

You can and should read the entire document here. http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=1620

N.B.  Thanks to poster who pointing out this document.

Related: