Exactly! I too am amazed at how many people are still supportive of Bryan. If their soooo supportive then why dont they set up a fund to provide Bryan legal counsel? I doubt you will see these people put their money where their mouth is.

Wow, what tempers! I look at the whole deal like this. The court will decide the fate of PIPS and BM. There is a chance that BM will beat the charges and also a chance that he will face jail time. Whatever the decision is will be decided by the court. We all have to wait and by now we are all used to that. So be cool and hope for the best. I would love to see PIPS or a restructed PIPS come back and make our dreams come true, but that is out of my hands at this time.

Don't get upset tough guy. It's not a personal insult calling you a 'septic', it's what we call all yanks. It's just what we do. You were the one that call everyone on the Aus Pips forum a peanut. Now as a supposit 'Moderator' should you be insulting people? Not really professional mate.

It's a nice way of segregating your members (the Aussies), so congrats.

I recon I'll get my information somewhere else mate cause that's all I want, not all the other crap that comes with it.

People see justice as Bryan doing jailtime. I urge everyone of you to follow this process closely and see How justice is done as opposed to How Well. None of the other investment clubs got this threatment the mardsens received. 99% just ran away with your money or disappeared. Some of the members act like a lynch mob; lets hang anyone remotely smelling like the other crooks. I can only say this as I said before, the moment pips came on the radar of the big boys and the media it was just a matter of time for it to be dismembered.
Try to be objective and see how this trial will unfold. I for one don't want to see the man burn but he will burn none the less. For the people who think they won't be affected; on the pips servers are all our data. Including copies of passports. Since he is accused of moneylaundering, the guilty will be found among us. Think again if you think justice will serve You. This whole hullabaloo is to make an example and to set a standard.

fyi, BM will not be the first person charged under the Anti-Money Laundering Act. only he can vouch for his honesty and integrity but in any case, he was caught becoz he did not check for possible violations of the law. it was so convenient for the authorities to clamp him down when he had a physical presence in the country plus a whole paper trail as a result of the transactions done via Eon Bank.
another one to look out for would be profitswingerpro which i heard is also located in malaysia

It’s very easy to say what i said I guess because I was lucky not ending up in the same situation, but I can really see that they where mislead by Bryans big words.

I only attended in a few smaller local meetings myself (at a stage when still allowed) and I never met Bryan in person. I had people around me though, some of the “real *******s”, who had met him and also had a VERY strong belief in PIPS and Bryans words (I guess most of us had..). They where talking very convincing about PIPS and I was close to invest a bigger amount myself. From what they also told me about Bryan and how great this system was suppose to be I have no problem to understand that many did fall for Bryans promises and reassuring words and invested much more than their financial situation could take if it would fail (but that was never suppose to happen, right; we all remember Bryans promises and reassuring words saying something like he had made sure PIPS would be strong and last even long after he’s was dead and buried….

I don’t have evidences for conclude with either the one or the other but must justice happen in the end.

Ax

hi everybody ,food for thought, bryan is charged with receiving money that were proceeds of unlawful activities! did`nt the funds have to go though a bank for pips to receive it,sooo if that is the case the banks that forewarded the funds , should be investagated. my first post .

Hey stovepipe

Come on people. Go back and reread my post. It is not that hard to understand. People in this thread continue to make the assumptions that there was a problem with the actual money that was recieved into Picpay. This was NOT the case. Here is the deal.

ALL financial institutions in Malaysia are supposed to be licensed. Bryan Marsden DID NOT OBTAIN THE PROPER LICENSE for Picpay to be able to LEGALLY RECIEVE DEPOSITS. It is NOT the banks responsibility to check and make sure the proper license has been obtain for a finance entity or business. It is the responsibility of the the owner or CEO. Period. Bryan Marsden is at fault for NOT OBTAINING THE PROPER LICENSE. Period. End of story.

Marek,
It's one thing for people to post questions, or opinions that might have valuable insight but can't something be done with the trivial BS that is being exchanged between some of the people making these posts. It is a complete waste of our time having to scan over all of these in order to find posts where there is some validation of possible information that could help answer some of our questions. Good God, it's unfortunate that we have all lost money but to be subjected to this type of negativity from people who act as though they have known everything that was going to go down from the beginning before anything even happened, is completely unnecessary. Thank you Marek.

Picpay may have not been a bank but I would imagine it is being looked at as a financial institution or as a "reporting institution" and Pips as "dealing in securities". As you can see by this article. I guarantee that Bryan Marsden did NOT do any of these things with Picpay deposits. And that is why he(i.e. us) are in this situation today. It is clearly BM fault. Not some conspiracy inside Pips or by employees of Pips.



Money Laundering and Financial Crimes

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/62399.pdf

"The Government of Malaysia (GOM) has a well-developed regulatory framework, including licensing and background checks, to oversee onshore financial institutions. BNM’s guidelines require customer identification and verification, financial record keeping, and suspicious activity reporting. These
guidelines are intended to require banking institutions to determine the true identities of customers opening accounts and to develop a transaction profile of each customer in order to identify unusual or suspicious transactions. A comprehensive supervisory framework has been implemented to audit financial institutions’ compliance with AMLA. Currently, there are 300 examiners who are responsible for money laundering inspections for both onshore and offshore banks.

Malaysia has strict “know your customer” rules under the AMLA. Every transaction, regardless of its size, is recorded. Reporting institutions must maintain records for at least six years and report any suspicious transactions to Malaysia’s financial intelligence unit, Unit Perisikan Kewangan-Bank Negara Malaysia. Regardless of the transaction size, if the reporting institution deems a transaction suspicious, it must report that transaction to the FIU. Officials indicate that they receive regular reports from institutions, but cannot divulge the volume or frequency of such reports. Reporting individuals and their institutions are protected by statute with respect to their cooperation with law enforcement.

While Malaysia’s bank secrecy laws prevent general access to financial information, those secrecy provisions are waived in the case of money laundering investigations.
Malaysia has adopted due diligence or banker negligence laws that make individual bankers responsible if their institutions launder money. Both reporting institutions and individuals are required to adopt internal compliance programs to guard against any offense. Under the AMLA, any person or
group that engages in, attempts to engage in, or abets the commission of money laundering, would be subject to criminal sanction. All reporting institutions are required to file suspicious transaction reports and are subject to the same review by the FIU and other law enforcement agencies. Reporting
institutions include: commercial banks, Islamic banks, money changers, discount houses, insurers, insurance brokers, Islamic insurance and reinsurance (takaful and retakaful) operators, offshore banks, offshore insurers, offshore trusts, the Pilgrim’s Fund (to pay for Hajj trips to Mecca), Malaysia’s postal service, development banks such as Malaysia’s National Savings Bank (Bank Simpanan Nasional), the People’s Cooperation Bank (Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad), and licensed casinos."




Anti-Money Laundering Act 2001 (Act 613)


http://www.bnm.gov.my/index.php?ch=1...&ac=354&full=1



[Section 3, definition of “reporting institution”]

PART I

1. Banking business, finance company business, merchant banking business, discount house business and money–broking business and electronic fund transfer as defined in the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 [Act 372].
2. Islamic banking business as defined in the Islamic Banking Act 1983 [Act 276].
3. Building credit business, credit token business, development finance business, factoring business and leasing business as defined in the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 [Act 372].
4. Insurance business, insurance broking business and adjusting business as defined or provided in the Insurance Act 1996 [Act 553].
5. Takaful business as defined in the Takaful Act 1984 [Act 312].
6. Dealing in securities, as defined in the Securities Industry Act 1983 [Act 280], but not including the activity of providing investment advice by an investment adviser as defined in the Securities Industry Act 1983.
7. Money–changing business as defined in the Money–Changing Act 1998 [Act 577].
8. Futures broking business and futures fund management business as defined in the Futures Industry Act 1993 [Act 499].
9. Business activities carried out by the prescribed institutions as defined in the Development Financial Institutions Act 2002 [Act 618].
10. Activities carried out by Lembaga Tabung Haji establised under the Tabung Haji Act 1995 [Act 535].

11. Postal financial services as provided under subsection 24(3) in the Postal Services Act 1991 [Act 465].
12. Gaming carried out in common gaming houses as defined in the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 [Act 289].




.