#bvi approved fund | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ccpbvi · 2 years ago

Text

British Virgin Island’s Regulatory Sandbox and Fintech Innovation

In August 2020, the British Virgin Islands’ Financial Services Commission introduced its Financial Services Regulatory Sandbox Regulation.

What exactly does this mean? What is the purpose? Let’s break it down.

What is the British Virgin Island Financial Services Commission?

The 2001 British Virgin Island (BVI) Financial Services Commission Act established the BVI Financial Services Commission. The commission independently regulates, inspects, and supervises all of the territory’s financial services (trustee business, banking, mutual funds establishments, company management, company registrations, intellectual property, limited partnerships, etc.). Put simply, it protects financial services regulatory freedom and carries out commitments to white collar crime prevention, all while safeguarding business transaction confidentiality and privacy.

What is a Regulatory Sandbox?

A regulatory sandbox is a business concept that allows firms to assess business models, new ideas, and pioneering services, all within a set of supervised prerequisites and under appropriate precautions.

BVI’s Financial Services Regulatory Sandbox

Approved participants would have eighteen months (and perhaps an extension) to perform unlicensed BVI financial services business. Such would establish a more effective, pro-market business environment that remained regulated. Its defined and controlled testing seeks to promote the Financial Technology (FinTech) sector’s advancement and offer groundbreaking financial solutions.

Recent Happenings

In April 2021, the BVI Financial Services Commission approved a global bank that was linked to a leading worldwide crypto exchange as the first partaker into the Regulatory Sandbox. Other eligible entities may now apply to the commission for consideration as a Regulatory Sandbox participant.

BVI’s role in the Digital Market

BVI is focused on the digital assets market and is a choice jurisdiction for token generation through Initial Coin Offerings. It remains committed to the territory’s establishment as the top digital International financial hub.

CCP Financial Consultants Limited

CCP Financial Consultants Limited is a BVI based, multidisciplinary financial services firm dedicated to providing premium financial solutions to clients around the world. It’s services include Company Incorporation and Management, Ship Registration, Liquidations, BVI Offshore Company Accountancy, Economic Substance, and assistance with the opening of bank accounts.

Through established contacts, CCP can also assist with regulatory sandbox application and fulfilling your requirements in the digital assets space. (Please see our earlier blog regarding Using British Virgin Island Companies for Cryptocurrency Initial Coin Offerings and Blockchain Innovation).

Please visit the website for more details on our full range of services and, if required, you can schedule a consultation for more information.

#BVI Registered Agent

0 notes

hknd123321 · 3 years ago

Text

Comparison of Regulatory Policies for Chinese-funded Enterprises' Overseas Listing Models (2)

indirect listing model The indirect listing model refers to a model in which a Chinese domestic company establishes a holding company overseas, injects the assets and interests of a Chinese domestic enterprise into the overseas holding company, and raises funds by listing overseas in the name of the overseas holding company. "Big Red Chip" Model The "big red chip" model refers to the operation mode in which domestic companies or institutions establish holding companies overseas, inject assets or interests of domestic operating entities into overseas holding companies, and then conduct financing and listing through overseas holding companies. Most of the overseas listings using the "big red chip" model are state-owned enterprises, such as China Mobile, CNOOC, Beijing Enterprises, Shanghai Industrial Holdings, etc. Under the "big red chip" model, there are many regulatory departments and approval links involved, and the operation is relatively complicated. If a domestic enterprise establishes an overseas BVI company, according to the Measures for the Administration of Overseas Investment of Enterprises (Decree No. 11 of 2017 of the National Development and Reform Commission) and the Regulations on Mergers and Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors (Decree No. 10 of the Ministry of Commerce in 2006), It should be approved and filed by the National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Commerce. For the listing process of overseas special-purpose companies, according to the "Notice of the State Council on Further Strengthening the Administration of Issuance of Stocks and Listing Overseas" (Guo Fa [1997] No. 21, also known as "97 Red Chip Guidelines") and the Ministry of Commerce 2006 Order No. 10 Provisions shall be approved by the SFC. In terms of return investment, according to the 2006 Decree No. 10 of the Ministry of Commerce, domestic companies, enterprises or natural persons should report to the Ministry of Commerce for approval when they acquire and acquire domestic companies that are related to them in the name of companies legally established or controlled overseas. Due to the large number of approval procedures under the "big red chip" model, there have been few cases of listing in the "big red chip" model in recent years. Powerful large state-owned enterprises or private enterprises tend to choose overseas direct listings, while start-ups Emerging private enterprises tend to choose the "small red chip" model. "Little Red Chip" Model The "small red chip" model refers to the establishment of companies overseas by individual shareholders of domestic enterprises (controlled by domestic natural persons), and the assets or interests of domestic operating entities are directly or indirectly injected into overseas companies, and the overseas companies are listed for financing. model. Different from the "big red chip" model, the "small red chip" makes full use of the convenience of individuals to set up special purpose companies in offshore centers such as the Cayman Islands, and avoids the Ministry of Commerce and the National Development and Reform Commission's management requirements for institutional overseas investment to be filed and approved. It greatly reduces the difficulty of overseas listing of enterprises. Since the 2006 Decree No. 10 of the Ministry of Commerce stipulates that the merger and acquisition of domestic affiliated enterprises by the return investment enterprises shall be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Commerce, and my country still has foreign investment access restrictions in the fields of media, education, and the Internet. For private enterprises entering the industry, the use of variable interest entity (Variable Interest Entity) VIE agreement control has become a common choice. Under the VIE model, the Wholly Foreign Owned Enterprise (WFOE) investing in the return journey realizes the control and financial consolidation of the actual operating company by signing various agreements with the domestic company instead of direct equity control. The adoption of the VIE model not only avoids the regulatory requirements of the commercial department for related mergers and acquisitions to be approved, but also avoids the management restrictions on the access of foreign capital in some industries, so it has become the structure adopted by many companies under the "small red chip" model. . "SPAC" mode Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC), as a listing method emerging in the US capital market in recent years, is widely popular due to its low listing threshold, high efficiency and low cost. At the beginning of the establishment of SPAC companies, there is often only cash but no specific business. After the promoters rely on their own market influence and appeal to help the SPAC company go public and raise funds, they then look for and acquire one or more target companies with high growth and development prospects, which will be listed on the market. The identity is "transferred" to the target company to achieve the purpose of financing and listing of the target company. From the perspective of specific practice, it is relatively rare for domestic entities to directly set up SPAC companies overseas for listing. However, some domestic enterprises choose to set up a "small red chip" framework to establish overseas entities, and then achieve this through special-purpose mergers with already established and listed SPACs. Overseas listing, the usual structure is shown in Figure 3. Compared with other overseas listing methods, under the SPAC model, only the company planning to go public and the management of the listed “cash shell” SPAC company can reach an agreement on the merger and acquisition, so that the listing can be realized. There are significant advantages in terms of completion time and cost. Due to the many advantages and conveniences of listing in the SPAC model, and since the outbreak of the epidemic in 2020, the world's major economies have adopted large-scale monetary easing policies in response to the epidemic, resulting in excess global capital liquidity. Therefore, the scale of SPACs has grown rapidly in 2020. According to statistics from the SPACInsider website, SPAC companies listed on the US stock market in 2020 showed explosive growth. A total of 248 companies went public through SPAC, a year-on-year increase of 320%, accounting for 52.7% of the number of US stock IPOs that year. The amount of funds raised was 83.042 billion US dollars, a year-on-year increase of 510%, accounting for 53.5% of the US stock IPO funds raised that year. Since 2021, as of April 20, there have been 308 SPAC companies listed on the U.S. stock market, raising a total of US$99.995 billion, and the number and scale of listed companies have exceeded that of 2020. In addition to the United States, other financial centers in the world are also actively exploring the establishment of a SPAC listing mechanism to attract more capital and enterprises. The London Stock Exchange's SPAC listing system is relatively mature. In the near future, it plans to further relax regulatory requirements and cancel some investor protection policies to attract more SPAC companies to list. There is no precedent for a SPAC company listing in Hong Kong, China, but the person in charge of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange has also expressed his intentions recently. From the perspective of specific practice, it is relatively rare for domestic entities to directly set up SPAC companies overseas for listing. However, some domestic enterprises choose to set up a "small red chip" framework to establish overseas entities, and then achieve this through special-purpose mergers with already established and listed SPACs. Listed overseas. Compared with other overseas listing methods, under the SPAC model, only the company planning to go public and the management of the listed “cash shell” SPAC company can reach an agreement on the merger and acquisition, so that the listing can be realized. There are significant advantages in terms of completion time and cost. Due to the many advantages and conveniences of listing in the SPAC model, and since the outbreak of the epidemic in 2020, the world's major economies have adopted large-scale monetary easing policies in response to the epidemic, resulting in excess global capital liquidity. Therefore, the scale of SPACs has grown rapidly in 2020. According to statistics from the SPACInsider website, SPAC companies listed on the US stock market in 2020 showed explosive growth. A total of 248 companies went public through SPAC, a year-on-year increase of 320%, accounting for 52.7% of the number of US stock IPOs that year. The amount of funds raised was 83.042 billion US dollars, a year-on-year increase of 510%, accounting for 53.5% of the US stock IPO funds raised that year. Since 2021, as of April 20, there have been 308 SPAC companies listed on the U.S. stock market, raising a total of US$99.995 billion, and the number and scale of listed companies have exceeded that of 2020. In addition to the United States, other financial centers in the world are also actively exploring the establishment of a SPAC listing mechanism to attract more capital and enterprises. The London Stock Exchange's SPAC listing system is relatively mature. In the near future, it plans to further relax regulatory requirements and cancel some investor protection policies to attract more SPAC companies to list. There is no precedent for a SPAC company to go public in Hong Kong, China, but the person in charge of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange is also recently studying the feasibility of the SPAC mechanism. SINGAPORE plans to list its first SPAC company in 2021. It is foreseeable that in the future, there will be more and more cases of Chinese-funded enterprises going public overseas using the SPAC model. However, at present, domestic regulatory agencies still lack corresponding supporting policies for the SPAC listing model, and operational problems may be encountered in specific practice.

0 notes

atriumbvi · 4 years ago

Text

Getting All The Information About The Company Registration Bvi

Generally, individuals get some adverse outlook about framing an offshore company that individuals attempt to fuse an offshore business to shroud some obscure arrangements yet it is moderately not legitimate as offshore business serves some world's best benefits that an inland company can never give.

Assuming you truly have some sufficient measure of cash as equilibrium, it can fill in as monetary advantage to fire up another company registration bvi that can ensure your resources. An offshore company demonstrates as a company that is enrolled or approved in a country other than the country or locale where it demonstrates the limit of its development in business. While there are many defended reasons that favor an offshore company development including charge investment funds, less measure of expenses, namelessness, resource assurance and some more.

While some other extra-customary benefits of framing an offshore company is the ability to exchange and arrangement globally, monetary privately, basic activity and detailing, land proprietorship in an abroad nation, expanding financial adaptability and isolation. You will notice and find that offshore organizations offer in fact a prominent and fulfillment of resource insurance than setting up your company in UK or US. Larger part of abroad or offshore locales will permit you to shape an offshore company so that profit and pay are completely invigorated from all future obligation.

Offshore business arrangement additionally permits you the business secrecy and protection that a coastal business can never offer. For example, in specialists, for example, register bvi company with an individual can fuse an offshore company without utilizing their genuine name, no doubt genuine name! This can give a tallness of obscurity that is unimaginable in business systems of UK or USA.

#company registration bvi #company formation bvi #incorporation services BVI

0 notes

bisokubira1995 · 4 years ago

Text

Deutsche Bank, Singapore in spotlight over 1MDB

The operations of major international banks including Deutsche Bank in Singapore were linked to the money laundering scandal involving the now defunct Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), according to a recent US court document.From 2009 to 2015, more than US$4.5 billion was misappropriated from 1MDB by high-level officials of the Malaysian state fund and their associates, much of which was laundered in countries like the US, France and UK, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) allege. The DOJ is investigating whether Germany's largest lender violated US anti-money laundering laws or the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in its dealings with 1MDB, the Wall Street Journal reported on July 10, 2019.In 2014, 1MDB obtained two loans totalling US$1.225 billion from a syndicate of banks led by Deutsche Bank in Singapore, of which over US$850 million was diverted for fraudulent purposes and money laundering, alleged a complaint filed at the US District Court for the Central District of California on September 16.The ostensible purpose of both loans was to allow 1MDB to buy back options that it had given Aabar Investments, a subsidiary of International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC), an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, for IPIC's guarantee of bonds issued by 1MDB."1MDB officials secured approval of these two loans through material misrepresentations and omissions to Deutsche Bank, including that the proceeds of the loans would be paid to a legitimate affiliate of IPIC. In fact, the bulk of the proceeds of both loans went to two offshore entities named to create the false impression of an affiliation with IPIC: Aabar-BVI and a similarly-named entity incorporated in the Seychelles," the complaint alleged.The first loan from Deutsche Bank was approved in May 2014 to the tune of US$250 million. Almost immediately upon draw-down, 1MDB sent US$175 million in loan proceeds to a Swiss bank account called Aabar-BVI, the complaint alleged. The Aabar-BVI account, which was set up by Low Taek Jho, Khadem al-Qubaisi and Mohammed al-Husseiny, was used to siphon off funds from 1MDB and/or IPIC, the complaint alleged.Low Taek Jho, popularly known as Jho Low, is a Malaysian businessman whom the DOJ alleges played a key role in laundering 1MDB funds. Jho Low, who is wanted by the Malaysian authorities, is reported to be shuttling between Macau and mainland China. Qubaisi, a former managing director of IPIC, and Husseiny, a former chief executive officer of Aabar Investments, are serving jail sentences in Abu Dhabi.Some of the proceeds of this US$250 million loan ended up in the bank accounts of Jho Low and Najib Razak, who was Malaysian Prime Minister while the allegedly illegal 1MDB transactions occurred, said the complaint, which did not name Najib but referred to him as "Malaysian Official 1".A guarantee for this US$250 million loan required the approval of Bank Negara, but 1MDB never obtained the approval of the Malaysian central bank, "for reasons that were not disclosed to Deutsche Bank, and thus it never satisfied this condition of the loan," alleged the complaint.Deutsche Bank arranged a second syndicated loan for 1MDB in September 2014 in the amount of US$975 million. Upon draw-down on this second loan, 1MDB asked Deutsche Bank to send nearly US$700 million in loan proceeds to a bank account at UBS in Singapore that was held in the name of Aabar Investments PJS Limited.At the time it released the loan proceeds, compliance and risk officers at Deutsche Bank believed that the destination account was owned by a legitimate affiliate of IPIC and that the proceeds would be used to buy the Aabar options, said the complaint. In fact, the loan proceeds were sent to a UBS bank account belonging to a company bearing the name of Aabar in Seychelles which had no connection with the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund Aabar Investments, the complaint alleged. "The Aabar-Seychelles Account, like the Aabar-BVI Account, was a dummy account used to facilitate fraudulent funds transfers."Najib wrote a letter of support for the US$975 million loan to Deutsche Bank, said the complaint. "In...

0 notes

scgfund · 1 year ago

Text

How to Set Up a Hedge Fund: A Step-by-Step Guide

Setting up a hedge fund can be a complex process that requires careful planning, compliance with regulations, and attention to detail. Hedge funds are investment vehicles that pool capital from multiple investors to pursue various strategies, aiming to generate attractive returns while managing risk. In this article, we provide a step-by-step guide to help you navigate the process of setting up an offshore hedge fund successfully.

Visit us - https://scgfundservices.com/how-to-set-up-a-hedge-fund-a-step-by-step-guide/

#offshore company formation #setup offshore company #offshore hedge fund #offshore fund formation #bvi approved fund #offshore company incorporation #cayman island hedge fund

0 notes

abmgroup · 5 years ago

Photo

ABM GROUP

ABM provides value-added service relating to the formation of companies in the British Virgin Islands 12+ YEARS OF QUALITY SERVICE IN BVI Our services range from Company Formation drafting Memorandum and Articles of Association to arranging for the filing of necessary documents with the Registry of Corporate Affairs. ABM provides a comprehensive range of advisory and company secretarial services to BVI Business Companies and Limited Partnerships, including the provision of directors and shareholders where needed. Our team is very competent and strives hard to provide fast, accurate service. Incorporation is the same day and services are within four business hours. Also, we are familiar with and can assist in Yacht Registration in the B.V.I Shipping Register. We are also experienced with Funds, Approved and Incubator Fund license applications. We have an authorized fund representation and can offer a full service.

#bvi offshore incorporation #british virgin islands company formation #bvi hedge fund formation #bvi boat registration

0 notes

kerahlekung · 5 years ago

Text

Najib Received RM2.6 Billion Kickbacks From 1MDB...

Najib Received RM2.6 Billion Kickbacks From 1MDB....

U.S. Securities Commission –

No Saudi Donations...

For as long as one can remember, Najib Razak has denied any involvement in the 1MDB scandal, despite caught with his hand in the cookie jar – a jaw-dropping US$681 million in his private bank accounts. Instead, he claimed that the huge sum of money was donations from Saudi royal family, a claim that could not be officially and fully substantiated. Najib, former prime minister of Malaysia and chairman of 1MDB (1Malaysia Development Berhad), had been consistent with his claim – until he was grilled by Al-Jazeera journalist Mary Ann Jolley last year. Finally, he wasn’t so sure anymore. He said he actually “assumed” the funds came from the Saudi government, claiming the dead King Abdullah had promised to give him money. But in September 2018, Najib released documents which he claimed are proof that the Saudi Arabian royalty had indeed donated to him. He proudly uploaded to his Facebook page the document of a donation totalling US$100 million. Najib also unleashed a letter supposedly written by Saudi Prince Abdul Aziz Al-Saud dated February 1, 2011. Subsequently, another letter dated March 1, 2013, was issued to Najib – gifting him with another US$800 million. Both letters, hilariously, carried different signatures, despite claiming to be from the same Saudi prince. The biggest joke was some of the contents of the letters were similar to a letter written by Eric Tan Kim Loong to Jho Low (both individuals believed to be the same person). Like a storyline in a video game, the letter said – “In view of the friendship that we have developed over the years and your new ideas as a modern Islamic leader, I hereby grant you a sum of United States Dollars One Hundred Million (USD100,000,000) Only (“Gift”) which shall be remitted to you at such times and in such manner as I deem fit.”

Najib Razak and Sheikh Arab Jho Low - 1MDB

However, Najib failed to produce all the documents to substantiate the entire US$681 million, which he claimed were donations from the Saudi royal family. What he had produced was just a fraction of the documents to justify the RM2.6 billion found in his bank accounts. Even if the documents were genuine, it cannot prove that the “money” came “directly” from the Saudi government. Besides, the contents of the letter appeared to be an afterthought ploy and probably were composed by Jho Low (full name: Low Taek Jho), the partner-in-crime of Najib Razak. The letter was begging the readers to believe that the money was donations. Exactly why was the letter addressed to Najib’s residence in Jalan Langgak Duta, and not the Prime Minister Office, is beyond comprehension. Amusingly, Najib’s hotshot lawyer – Shafee Abdullah – didn’t think it’s important to produce Saudi Prince Abdul Aziz Al-Saud as material witness in the ongoing 1MDB corruption trials against his client. Did not the letter from Saudi praise Najib’s contribution to the Islamic world, hence the donations without any strings attached? Why did the Arab royal house refuse to save a good Muslim like Najib now? That’s because Saudi had never paid a penny to Najib Razak, despite what the disputable (and probably fake) letter says about the free cash for the disgraced premier. Only the fools would believe that the late King Abdullah was damn worried about Arab Spring in Malaysia, a country which is 6,461-km away, and had sought to pay Najib regime a large sum of money to preserve stability. While Najib and his lawyers could not produce complete documents to verify the US$681 million donations, let alone Arab witnesses to support his fairy tale, the United States is able to do so. According to latest documents released by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Najib Razak has been identified as the person who had received kickbacks from bonds issued by 1MDB.

US DOJ Indicts Jho Low, Tim Leissner, Roger Ng

The documents released were in relation to SEC’s settlement with former Goldman Sachs Group Inc executive Tim Leissner. In detailing the background of the case, the SEC said that Leissner had helped to raise US$6.5 billion (RM26.9 billion) for 1MDB under the guise of supporting projects meant to benefit Malaysians. But the money raised didn’t go to the people of Malaysia. The commission said – “Leissner and others instead planned and executed a scheme to misappropriate more than US$2.7 billion and distribute the money as bribes and kickbacks to government officials in Malaysia and Abu Dhabi. Including but not limited to Najib as well as to other participants in the scheme and their families, including Leissner.” After the stunning defeat of Mr. Najib in the historical May 2018 General Election, apparently the panicked Leissner hurriedly sought negotiations with U.S. prosecutors to potentially plead guilty to criminal charges, especially to a violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits the use of bribes to foreign officials to get or keep business. On Nov 1, 2018, the United States revealed criminal charges against not only Tim Leissner but also another Goldman Sachs banker, Ng Choon Hwa (Roger Ng), together with Malaysian financier fugitive Jho Low. Roger Ng was arrested in Malaysia while his former colleague Tim Leissner pleaded guilty to conspiring to launder money and to violating anti-bribery laws. Tim Leissner agreed to pay US$43.7 million (£33.6 million; RM182 million). It was a good deal considering he had admitted to enriching himself – acknowledging that more than US$200 million in proceeds from 1MDB bonds flowed into accounts controlled by him and a relative in Hong Kong. This sweet deal means that Leissner had agreed to turn witness in the explosive scandal.

After he pleaded guilty to helping orchestrate the looting of billions of dollars from Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund 1MDB, Leissner, who is married to model and fashion designer Kimora Lee Simmons, has also been banned for life from working in the securities industry by the U.S. regulators. Still, Leissner is scheduled to face sentencing on June 11 in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York. Months ago, the U.S. prosecutors revealed that the three bond sales for 1MDB, code-named Project Magnolia, Maximus and Catalyze, had resulted in more than US$2.7 billion of the US$6.5 billion raised diverted into accounts controlled by Jho Low, Tim Leissner and other crooks. Money stolen was used to pay bribes to government officials, including the purchase of jewellery for Najib’s wife Rosmah Mansor. Now, the U.S. Securities Commission agreed with the U.S. prosecutors, saying – “Leissner also knew at the time that Najib Razak and government officials from Abu Dhabi and 1MDB officials would receive money from the proceeds of Project Maximus that passed through various shell companies beneficially owned and controlled by himself, Low and others.” Under “Project Maximus”, the second of two bonds issued by 1MDB in 2012, which is called the Aabar BVI phase, Najib received US$30 million. But the juiciest kickbacks came from the “Project Catalyze”, which is also known as the Tanore phase in 2013 where the despicable former prime minster received a further US$681 million misappropriated from 1MDB. It was also during the “Project Catalyze” that kickbacks, including “transferring approximately US$1.3 million (RM5.38 million) to the account of a New York jeweller to pay for jewellery for the wife of Najib” happened. This is in reference to 27 different 18-carat gold necklaces and bracelets Jho Low had bought for Rosmah Mansor from the 1MDB money siphoned. Najib loves to drum the fact that US$620 million (out of the US$681 million) of the so-called donation money had been returned in August 2013. What he refuses to tell his dumb supporters is what actually happened to that money thereafter. Nope, the money didn’t go back to the Saudi royal house’s account, but stayed in the Tanore Finance Corp account in Singapore.

SA Foreign Minister Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir and Najib

In fact, a month after the US$620 million was returned to the Tanore, the money was used to purchase a 22-K pink diamond necklace worth a staggering US$27.3 million for Rosmah, after US$32.76 million was transferred from Midhurst to a DBS Singapore bank account for Blackrock, one of many accounts held nominally by fugitive Jho Low under the alias of Eric Tan. Yes, Najib’s wife Rosmah Mansor had earlier been exposed to have had purchased a 22-carat pink diamond necklace – worth a stunning US$27.3 million – using money siphoned from 1MDB. According to U.S.-DOJ investigations, Jho Low had arranged for jewellery designer Lorraine Schwartz (also known as “Jewish Queen of Oscar Bling”) for the pink diamond on June 2, 2013. Now that the U.S. Securities Commission has established that the US$681 million (RM2.6 billion) discovered in Najib Razak’s bank accounts were kickbacks from 1MDB bond deals, it proves that the much hyped Saudi donations did not exist at all. From the beginning, the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI had found no evidence of donations from Saudi in their investigations.

Despite Najib’s attempt of claiming ignorance in his current corruption and money laundering trials, the U.S. SEC has pointed out that upon 1MDB’s formation, Najib assumed a position of authority in 1MDB, and had the authority to approve all appointments and removals in 1MDB’s board of directors and 1MDB’s senior management team. He knew what he was doing until he is put on trial.

To make matters worse for the crooked Najib, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Adel Ahmed Al-Jubeir confirmed in October last year that the RM2.6 billion “donation” which former prime minister Najib Razak proudly claimed to have received had nothing to do with the kingdom’s government. Mr. Najib is really screwed. He has not a single material witness to back his story. - FT

SD Azilah vs Sumpah laknat Najib...

2-3 hari ini hangat dengan SD pengakuan Azilah tentang pembunuhan Altantuya..sebenarnya aku tak berapa minat kes kes lama diulang tayang semula.. bagi aku hari ini masa untuk Move On dengan membangunkan Ekonomi dan negara.. Tapi bila Najib sendiri dalam status dia dok ulang ulang cabar kerajaan PH dakwa dia, Memang dia silap besar lah.. Atok memang pantang dicabar... Jadi sendiri cari pasal lah.. itu lah perangai Najib, Dia selalu cabar troll orang, Bila kena menangis kononnya jadi Mangsa.. Kalau kes ni disabitkan dengan pendakwaan saja, maknanya hari pertama didakwa, Najib tidak akan dibenarkan ikat jamin, dan akan terus ke Penjara.. Jadi biar lah Tun yg selesaikan..ini bukan urusan kita..

Bagi aku nasiblah Tun yang jadi PM..sebab dia bukan Pemaaf seperti Ds Anwar.. jadi biar Tun Mahathir selesaikan.. moga selepas Ds Anwar jadi PM ,Ds Anwar tidak akan dibebankan dengnan semua kerja jahat regim lama ini lagi..jadi bagi Tun Mahathir selesaikan.. Najib biasa lah.. Dulu orang tanya pasal Jho low pun dia kata tak kenal.. Dia tak kenal sapa Jho Low.. Dia Cukup yakin duit itu dari Putera Raja Saudi, Siap publish Dokumen ada Cop Mohor saudi lagi.... akhir dalam Mahkamah, Dia kata dia ditipu Jho Low.. sebab Yakin Jho Low begitu rapat dgn saudi.. Disini pun dah nampak Najib kaki temberang.. Kalau dia yakin degan Jho Low, dia ditipu dgn Jho Low, tang mana dia tak kenal Jho Low.. Begitu juga dalam Kes Altantuya.. Dia kata tak kenal Altantuya.. tapi semua kes Melibatkan Kes Altantuya, Melibatkan urusan transaksi ,urusniaga dengan orang dan kenalan rapat dia, Melibatkan Kementerian dia..

Sumpah laknat...

Razak baginda itu penasihat dan pembantu Najib, Sirul dan Azilah itu juru iring dan pegawai peribadi Najib..Altantuya itu pula jelas berurusniaga soal kapal selam berkaitan dengan Kementerian Najib dan Razak baginda jelas terima komisen dalam urus Niaga itu.. Kalau kata Najib tidak terlibat pun, jelas kes ini amat dekat dengan Kementerian Najib.. dan pasti jika ini jenayah peribadi melibatkan Azilah, mana mungkin mudah Bom C4 digunakan untuk meledakkan jasad Altantuya.. mana mungkin rekod keluar masuk,,Imigresen melibatkan Altantuya dipadamkan..

Jika ia bukan dilakukan Najib, dah pasti ia juga bukan dilakukan Azilah dan Sirul secara peribadi.. dan Misteri inilah yang perlu dirungkai.. dan bagi aku pendedahan ini akan lebih menarik jika semua persoalan ini terjawab..biarpun sukar untuk sabitkan Najib selepas bukti dihapuskan sekian lama..

Ostad kesayangan yg membimbing Jibby Al Penyamun bersumpah laknat...

Bagi aku nak sabitkan seseorang dengan kes Bunuh.. tambah kes lama yang mana segala bukti , jasad dan keterangan sudah dihapuskan agar sukar.. Ia berbeza dengan tuduhan melibatkan salah laku Kewangan... Biarpun kamu hapuskan segala bukti, dokumen transaksi,Dokumen Audit.. Transaksi, "Money Trail" itu masih boleh dijejak sebagaimana kes 1MDB dan SRC.. hatta kamu tutup akaun,Bunuh Pengasas Am Bank pun, jejak kewangan itu masih mampu dikesan.. Memang benar.. Najib mungkin boleh terlepas dari pertuduhan, tapi bagi aku yang penting siasatan semula akan membongkar segala persoalan misteri.. Jika ini berlaku.. Bukan salah PH, tapi salah Najib sendiri.. Siapa pergi pandai pandai cabar Atok.. Cabar Tun Mahathir.. Tun Mahathir tu orang yg pantang dicabar.. dia bukan mcm Najib, Pandai Troll jer..Mengaku darah Pahlawan..padehal Pondan.. - Ipohmali

youtube

Secebis nasihat utk Najib

oleh seorang sahabat....

Najib nak bersumpah laknat. Eloklah. Cubalah bersihkan diri. Apa yg berlaku kpd Najib hari ini, mungkin ujian buat kita semua, khususnya Najib yg barangkali menzalimi isteri pertama dan anak2 dengan isteri pertama. Mungkin isteri pertamanya dizalimi ketika Najib jatuh cinta dengan Rosmah Mansor. Ingat yer, doa org yg teraniaya, khususnya isteri dan anak2, tiada hijab antara mereka dengan Allah. Hari ini, apabila berlaku semua ini, kita menoleh sejenak ke belakang, apakah perbuatan kita dahulu, telah menghambat kita. Boleh sahaja berkahwin lain, menambah isteri tetapi jgn sesekali menzalimi isteri dan anak2. Kita semua tidak terlepas dari melakukan kesilapan, sementelah kita adalah manusia biasa.

Jadi, bertaubatlah. Ada sesiapa boleh sampaikan kpd Najib, bertaubatlah. Mungkin ada lagi pendedahan demi pendedahan akan muncul nanti. Duit yg selama ini digunakan utk membeli penyokong dan pengikut tidak selama2nya dpt menambat hati mereka. Habis duit, habislah kesetiaan. Najib, sekali lagi diingatkan, bertaubatlah. Cukuplah berpolitik. Cukuplah menyerang org sana, menyindir org sini. Zaman skrg, zaman awak perlu berlawan dengan “masalah awak sendiri”. Tak perlu berlawan dengan PH, dengan Tun M atau dengan Khalid Samad. Itu bukan musuh awak. Musuh awak yg sebenar adalah “semaian awak sendiri, yg kini membuahkan hasil” yg tidak tertuai dek tangan.... - Tan Sri Rahim Thamby Chik

cheers.

Sumber asal: Najib Received RM2.6 Billion Kickbacks From 1MDB... Baca selebihnya di Najib Received RM2.6 Billion Kickbacks From 1MDB...

#Blogger

0 notes

ccpbvi · 2 years ago

Text

British Virgin Island’s Regulatory Sandbox and Fintech Innovation

In August 2020, the British Virgin Islands’ Financial Services Commission introduced its Financial Services Regulatory Sandbox Regulation.

What exactly does this mean? What is the purpose? Let’s break it down.

What is the British Virgin Island Financial Services Commission?

What is a Regulatory Sandbox?

BVI’s Financial Services Regulatory Sandbox

Recent Happenings

BVI’s role in the Digital Market

CCP Financial Consultants Limited

CCP Financial Consultants Limited is a BVI based, multidisciplinary financial services firm dedicated to providing premium financial solutions to clients around the world. It’s services include Company Incorporation and Management, Ship Registration, BVI Liquidation Services , Accountancy, Economic Substance, and assistance with the opening of bank accounts.

Please visit the website for more details on our full range of services and, if required, you can schedule a consultation for more information.

#BVI Insolvency Services

0 notes

upshotre · 5 years ago

Text

$9.6bn judgment: FG orders lawyers to appeal $200m security deposit

The Federal Government said it had directed its lawyers to seek the leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal the ruling of Justice Christopher Butcher of the Commercial Court in London that asked Nigeria to pay $200m security payment into the court’s account while granting request to stay execution in the $9.6bn award in favour of Process and Industrial Development Limited. The Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, who was part of the Federal Government’s delegation to London last week disclosed this to reporters in Abuja on Wednesday. He said the government retained international legal firm of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, for the case. Apart from the $200m, the minister said the government would be able to seek refund of the $250,000 it was asked to pay to P&ID if the appeal succeeded. Mohammed argued that contrary to claims by the P&ID and “its cohorts”, the government delegation’s trip to London was a successful one. Describing the delegation’s mission as a huge success, the minister said the firm had every reason to be worried that the $9.6bn arbitration awarded to it had a good chance of being overturned. He said, “The Federal Government has a good chance of being successful in its impending appeal, otherwise the Commercial Court would not have allowed the appeal. “Please note that Nigeria will be able to demand a refund of the 250,000 GBP payment to P&ID where the government wins on the appeal. This fact is being hidden by those who have been spinning the London judgment in their own favour. “On the $200m payment as a condition for the granting of the stay of execution, Nigeria has instructed its lawyers to seek the leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal against that payment. “Nigerians should remain assured that the Federal Government is taking all necessary steps to strongly avail itself of all defences customarily afforded to sovereign states under the United Kingdom Sovereign Immunity Act to fight and upturn any enforcement of the award. “In the words of Mr President at the 74th session of the UN General Assembly in New York last week, we are giving notice to international criminal groups by the vigorous prosecution of the P&ID scam attempting to cheat Nigeria of billions of dollars.” We have shown that P&ID is a fraud – FG The minister added that the Federal Government had succeeded in changing the false narrative being peddled by the P&ID both within and outside Nigeria by putting across strong evidence that the company is a fraud. “For those who may still not understand the gravity of the judgment of the Commercial Court in London last week, let me say that had we lost our quest for a stay of execution and application to appeal in London last week, P&ID would by now be attempting to seize our assets all over the world. “Remember they boasted before the judgment that they had started compiling a list of our assets which they would attach. But now, that’s an empty boast, thanks to the successes recorded in the court of law and the court of public opinion last week,” he added. He disclosed that ahead of the trip, the team that comprised himself; the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami; Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele; Inspector-General of Police, Mohammed Adamu; Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Ibrahim Lamorde; and the acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Ibrahim Magu, set off to achieve three main objectives which appeared to be difficult. The objectives, according to him, were to change the narrative, especially on the international stage, on the entire P&ID issue; apply for leave of the Commercial Court to appeal the judgment that recognised the arbitration award; and to seek a stay of execution on the UK judgment that recognised the award. The minister boasted that the delegation achieved all the three objectives. He added, “First, we took London by storm, taking our case to international media outlets and Think Tanks like AP, AFP, Reuters, Bloomberg, BBC, Financial Times, The Economist, The African Confidential, Royal African Society and the Red Lions Chambers, a leading Barrister’s Chambers in London, among others. “We also met a group of experts and stakeholders. Our message was simple: P&ID, a company without a physical address and no known investment anywhere in the world, set out to dupe Nigeria from day one, with the connivance of unpatriotic, corrupt and greedy Nigerians. The entire Gas Supply Processing Agreement, which P&ID entered into with the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, is nothing but a fraudulent contraption with no chance, or expectation, of success. “We then said the unprecedented $9.6bn in arbitration award to P&ID constitutes an unreasonable reward to a company that has done nothing more than to engage in fraud and economic sabotage. This runs contrary to the course of justice and is capable of bringing harm and hardship to Nigeria, and indeed the wider region.” He insisted that a contract of such magnitude could not be valid until it has been vetted by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and taken to the Federal Executive Council for approval, saying none of those was done. He added that the “sham contract” was also signed in contravention of the Bureau of Public Procurement Act and the Infrastructural Regulatory Commission Procurement Act. According to the minister, the MoU for the project was signed in 2009 by P&ID Nigeria Limited and the Nigerian government (Ministry of Petroleum Resources). He said a ‘trick’ clause dubiously inserted into the MoU was curiously activated that allowed British Virgin Island (BVI)-registered P&ID to replace the original contractual party, P&ID Nigeria Limited, to sign the contract on January 11, 2010. According to him, P&ID, incorporated in BVI, is a shell company that has no history of any business except the phantom GSPA in Nigeria, adding that there is no board resolution approving the assignment of the contractual interest to P&ID BVI. He added, “The P&ID never kick-started the construction of the project facility, despite its claim to have invested $40m in Nigeria. It also never acquired any land to build the gas processing plant. “There is no proof of any financial commitment by the P&ID towards the execution and implementation of its own obligation as stipulated in the 2010 agreement. Similarly, the Central Bank of Nigeria confirmed there is no trace of any funds brought into Nigeria by P&ID. “Two directors of P&ID Nigeria have been convicted of charges of money laundering and economic sabotage. They are Mohammed Kuchazi, a Director of P&ID BVI, and Adamu Usman, a Director of P&ID Nigeria. “Suspicious payments were made to Mrs Grace Taiga, the Legal Director in the Ministry of Petroleum Resources. Mrs Taiga was supposed to ensure that the interest of the country was adequately protected. Of course, the payment, transferred in three tranches, could only have been made in appreciation of the ‘good deed’ done to P&ID by Mrs Taiga. Also, billions of naira in suspicious cash transfers were made by P&ID. Investigations continue into these transfers. “According to the contract, the gas for the project was expected to come from OML 67 operated by ExxonMobil and OML 123 operated by Addax. But none of the two companies was even aware of the agreement. “And finally, for such a supposedly important project, there was no budgetary provision for the implementation of the GSPA in the budget of the Ministry of Petroleum Resources in 2010, and P&ID did not obtain the necessary licence to deal in petroleum products from the Department of Petroleum Resources as stipulated by extant laws. The firm also neither filed tax returns nor paid VAT to the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) as required by law.” He said all but one of the six proposed grounds of appeal by the Nigerian government were allowed by the Commercial Court. This, he said, was a huge success.

Read the full article

0 notes

elizabethcariasa · 7 years ago

Text

U.S. tax rules for international donation deductions

If compassion fatigue hadn't set in after the back-to-back-to-back hurricanes that roared across the Atlantic, laying waste to much of Texas, Florida, Georgia and many Caribbean islands, it probably did when Mexico got rocked within two weeks by two massive and deadly earthquakes.

A group of American tourists were literally rocked when their Sept. 19 Mexico boat ride was interrupted by a 7.1 magnitude earthquake. Click image to watch full YouTube video.

Many of the small tropical islands were particularly hard hit by Hurricanes Irma and then Maria. Both were major hurricanes. Both covered wide areas. The mass of the storms dwarfed the islands, which couldn't put up much to break the fury of the wind and rain.

Four of the islands — Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands trio of St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix — are American territories. Constitutionally, a territory is subject to and belongs to the United States. As such, they'll be getting some official U.S. help in their recovery efforts.

Also, any donations you make to U.S. charitable groups helping those territories would qualify you to deduct your gift if you itemize.

Foreign charity gifts not deductible: But what if you wanted to give to a foreign-based nonprofit that's sending aid to the French/Dutch island of St. Martin/Sint Maarten or the British Virgin Islands or Dominica or Barbuda, all of which sustained massive damage from Irma and/or Maria? Or to Mexico as it literally digs out of the rubble that the recent temblors produced.

Feel free to do that. I might join you, as the hubby and I spent a couple of wonderful vacations St. Martin and BVI. My heart breaks at the losses those welcoming residents have sustained.

Islands.com has some hurricane help suggestions, as does the Center for International Disaster Information. Topos México and Fondo Unido México are just two of the ways you can help our neighbors to the south recover from the earthquakes.

But you and I won't be able to deduct our gifts to those non-U.S. nonprofits helping many Caribbean islands. U.S. tax laws do not allow for deduction of direct contributions to foreign charities.

In my post back in November 2013 after a gigantic typhoon slammed the Philippines, I cited an background provided by audit, tax and consulting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) on two foreign donation/deduction cases decided by the U.S. Tax Court:

In Welti v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the court held that a contribution was not deductible because it was made to a church that was organized under Swiss law, even though the church essentially was a branch of a U.S. church organized under Massachusetts law.

In Bilingual Montessori School of Paris v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, however, the Tax Court ruled that contributions to the French-based school were deductible because the school was incorporated under Delaware law. That was sufficient to support the tax deduction, said the court, even though the school had no assets or employees in the United States.

The bottom-line in both cases is that gifts to a charity created or organized under foreign law are not deductible for U.S. income tax purposes.

U.S. based global gifts: If you're intent on giving to groups that are helping foreign island nations recover from the recent spate of storms, consider giving to an IRS-approved U.S. organization with tax-exempt status and which has a special fund designated for overseas relief efforts.

That shouldn't be too hard.

Many U.S.-based nonprofits do provide global aid. In these cases, you can direct your money to the areas outside U.S. borders, but still be allowed to deduct your gift on your U.S. tax return.

Here are five U.S. organizations that are dedicating funds to international hurricane and/or earthquake relief efforts:

UNICEF

World Vision

United Nations World Food Program USA

AmeriCares

Oxfam America

Regular tax rules apply: Remember, regardless of your gift's donation, the usual donation and deduction rules apply.

And be on the look out for despicable crooks who use disasters as hooks to steal the money you meant for those in desperate straits. Check out every charity, either at the IRS' online nonprofit search tool or via private philanthropy trackers GuideStar and Charity Navigator, before making any donations.

This week's Weekly Tax Tip also has more charity tax scam warning signs.

You also might find these items of interest:

Volunteering is laudable, but not deductible

Trump adviser recommends reducing tax breaks for very wealthy philanthropists and business nonprofits

Careful documentation, including donation selfies, could convince the IRS of your charity deduction claim

Advertisement // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // &lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); // ]]&amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;gt; // ]]&gt; // ]]> // ]]>

0 notes

christophergill8 · 7 years ago

Text

U.S. tax rules for international donation deductions

A group of American tourists were literally rocked when their Sept. 19 Mexico boat ride was interrupted by a 7.1 magnitude earthquake. Click image to watch full YouTube video.

Also, any donations you make to U.S. charitable groups helping those territories would qualify you to deduct your gift if you itemize.

Feel free to do that. I might join you, as the hubby and I spent a couple of wonderful vacations St. Martin and BVI. My heart breaks at the losses those welcoming residents have sustained.

But you and I won't be able to deduct our gifts to those non-U.S. nonprofits helping many Caribbean islands. U.S. tax laws do not allow for deduction of direct contributions to foreign charities.

The bottom-line in both cases is that gifts to a charity created or organized under foreign law are not deductible for U.S. income tax purposes.

That shouldn't be too hard.

Many U.S.-based nonprofits do provide global aid. In these cases, you can direct your money to the areas outside U.S. borders, but still be allowed to deduct your gift on your U.S. tax return.

Here are five U.S. organizations that are dedicating funds to international hurricane and/or earthquake relief efforts:

UNICEF

World Vision

United Nations World Food Program USA

AmeriCares

Oxfam America

Regular tax rules apply: Remember, regardless of your gift's donation, the usual donation and deduction rules apply.

This week's Weekly Tax Tip also has more charity tax scam warning signs.

You also might find these items of interest:

Volunteering is laudable, but not deductible

Trump adviser recommends reducing tax breaks for very wealthy philanthropists and business nonprofits

Careful documentation, including donation selfies, could convince the IRS of your charity deduction claim

from Tax News By Christopher http://www.dontmesswithtaxes.com/2017/09/us-tax-rules-for-international-donation-deductions.html

0 notes

weddingpearlneecklace · 7 years ago

Text

( Times Live ) - You're heavy, Cap of Monomakh. For Beny Steinmetz Group Resources (BSGR), the investment in the world's largest iron ore deposit, Simandou, located deep inside the territory of Guinea, may not be worth the $ 10 billion it is valued.

In 2009, the eponymous owner of the BSGR empire, Beny Steinmetz, acquired mining rights in the northern part of Shimandu at a preferential - garbage - price for only $ 165 million. Soon after that, he sold 51% of Vale's rights for a whopping $ 2, 5 billion. This strategy made sense: Steinmetz did not have a significant mining experience other than diamonds, a mineral that is easier to mine and sell than iron, which requires the creation of a vast infrastructure worth hundreds of millions in such projects. This is exactly what Rio Tinto, a mining company that previously occupied the whole concession, has invested over $ 450 million.

Steinmetz said in a rare interview with the Financial Times in 2012 that sometimes "one has to get his hands dirty" - a statement that was made in the context of discussing aggressive business strategies, but not corruption. However, the material also includes the words of the Minister of Mining of Guinea, Mohamed Lamine Fofana, who stated that the BSGR "did not follow the law". A lot of charges concerned bribery. The elected government and the government of Guinea, led by President Alpha Conde, began to investigate the deal. The same engaged in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as well as the US Department of Justice. During the FBI operation, Fredric Cillins, a representative of the BSGR, was charged with destroying evidence and falsifying testimony.

In 2015, after serving two years in the United States, Sillins was released. BSGR acknowledged that it had used Sillins as a representative of the company, but made a reservation that he was not an employee. According to Global Witness, a British non-governmental organization that played a significant role in the disclosure of this deal, Touré received a payment of $ 2.4 million from a company called Pentler Holdings, registered in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) through Matinda, her own Company Toure. Pentler owned a 17.65% stake in BSGR Guinea. This amount is one of several promised payments, along with a 5% stake in BSGR in Simandou, to Matinda, owned by Tours.

Internal data from Mossack Fonseca, registered in Panama offshore law firm, shared by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and received by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, reveal the corporate structure of the companies involved in the transaction.

Origin

The question of who founded Pentler is an integral part of the decision regarding a possible source of corruption. In August 2014, the legal department of Mossack Fonseca asked the company to open a dossier on three legal entities represented by the company: Pentler, Windpoint and Astopak. This e-mail came in response to a notification from the US government in the BSGR on the Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA). All three companies were managed by the Swiss subsidiary Mossack Fonseca. Windpoint, a company known as belonging to BSGR, was represented by Onyx, a financial consulting group that had a long relationship with BSGR. Pentler and Astopak were managed by the Swiss Agefor.

By 2014, the investigation time, the company no longer functioned. The senior partner of Agefor, with whom Mossack Fonseca was in contact, Menachen Eitan (also known as Menahem Eytan) was described by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as being on the run and Wanted in connection with the fraud according to the Ponzi scheme for $ 50 million.

The Geneva representative of Mossack Fonseca, Adrian Simon, explained that while they presented their candidate so that he "acted as a shareholder [Pentler]" and that while Agefor was listed as a beneficiary , "Agefor ... for its part, had a personal mandate of the end user to act on a fiduciary basis as the designated beneficiary." Mossack Fonseca was unable to determine the ultimate beneficiary of the company Pentler.

The question was turned to Onyx, the company that helped register the Pentler.

"Onyx is important because it created ... Pentler Holdings, a shadow offshore company that signed corrupt deals in one of the world's largest mining scandals. BSGR claimed that the Pentler was created independently. But the close ties of BSGR with Onyx show that this statement is deceptive, "said Leigh Baldwin of Global Witness.

Is Onyx allegedly a separate fiduciary agent and advisor and, according to the BSGR, "completely separate and completely independent of the BSGR?" Or is it de facto part of the diamond empire of Steinmetz? Both companies share directors who are old employees of Steinmetz, and these are people like Dag Cramer and Sandra Merloni-Horemans. And in the registration data for the Onyx site, the @bsgms (Beny Steinmetz Services Management Group) address is entered as the registrant. Public information, including corporate data from the Registration Chamber, indicates a change in the name of BSG Management Services, registered in May 2005, to Onyx Financial Advisors.

Another legal entity working in tandem with Onyx and also, it would seem, the former separate firm, is Margali, who often acts as the sole director for many Steinmetz firms, including Koidu Holdings, Octea and a myriad of others.

On February 16, 2006, Merloni-Horeemans, acting on behalf of Onyx, informed Mossack Fonseca about the appointment of two Mossack Fonseca directors in Pentler Holdings Limited. The letter says that the company Margali, which ran the company Pentler since registration in 2005, is in the process of adding off its management functions. But an email on this topic is important because its author speaks out. Merloni-Horeemans writes that Margali's only director "approves his resignation and appointment of two Mossfon directors".

About the single director Margali is referred to as one man - a man. In the certificate of certification from 2012, Doug Kramer is listed as a representative, but not the actual owner of the company Margali.

On March 23, 2006, an e-mail from Merloni-Horeemans from Onyx included three applications: the first one was the BSG Guinea certificate registered in the British Virgin Islands, confirming 8,825 shares for Pentler Holdings, and the second - the BSG Guinea certificate, which provided 41,174 shares for BSG Steel Holdings; This made both companies shareholders of BSG Guinea. The third annex was a document confirming both transactions with all three companies under the supervision of Margali.

October 2, 2015, Merloni-Horeemans from Invicta (formerly Onyx) sent an e-mail document revealing the source of funds Margali. The jurisdiction - Guernsey, where BSG Resources is based - was also disclosed. "Income from contractual obligations" were listed for income. No other information was provided. In an e-mail letter, the company's activities are described as "a corporate director in several companies that form the [part of] the BSG Group of Companies."

This is often emphasized in letters dating back at least for a decade: for example, on October 28, 2005, Merloni-Horeemans from Onyx sent an urgent letter confirming the registration of several companies, including BSG Energy Holdings, BSG Gold, BSG Metals and others, in the British Virgin Islands Using Margali as a director and issuing a power of attorney to himself.

0 notes