Thread: Our Date With BNM Next Week

Originally Posted by Offshore-Wealth.com

As to investigative costs, this is a well known fact that all costs come off the top of whatever is seized, and in the U.S. I can tell you first hand, whatever is found is usually paying for investigation

So you are saying that if Pips is cleared by the investigation, BNM can just say: "Yes, you were legit but unfortunately we have used all your money to find this out".

I really think you should face facts. If Pips had been legitimate, the Central Bank of Malaysia would not have intervened in the first place.
And, had the company performed as they had promised, there would have been no need for the intervention.
As for information, Mr. Marsden or his lawyer(s) , if he has any, would be free to make a statement to the creditors should they wish to do so.

Originally Posted by michaelr

If that is the case perhaps you could explain to all of us why so many Companys and even individuals these days form International Business Corporations, have Offshore Bank Accounts, Trust Accounts and other perfectly legal ways to avoid leaving electronic paper trails.

Do you seriously believe that a Company the size of Pips was so completely wet behind the ears and short of legal advice that these devices were not used to full effect?

The BN is only concerned with breaches of its own regulations with regard to unlicensed investments in its own jurisdiction. Any approach to other jurisdictions would fall on deaf ears. All Offshore jurisdictions value their reputations for secrecy too highly to divulge priviledged information or their very purpose would be nullified.

It cuts both ways of course. Those who lost their wealth and art treasures to the Nazis in WW2 know they are in Swiss Banks but are unlikely to ever get them back,

Michael

I am fully agree with MichaelR

With all due respect, I think your are forgetting the influence of the FATF and OECD pressures of the last few years on every offshore centre. As one who was intimately involved in these negotiations on behalf of a major player, I can assure you that now there are no "legal ways" to avoid leaving a paper trail. The happy days of the offshore trust and so-called secret bank accounts are long gone. And The Central Bank of Malaysia is as concerned with complying with the international regulations as is every other central bank in the world - they are not solely concerned with breaches of their own regulations.
And, since you raise the question, yes, I do believe that Pips and the Marsden's were wet behind the ears when it came to international banking matters.

Carlton,
I hope you don't mind me saying, but I think you're wrong here.

Originally Posted by Carlton Lewis

I really think you should face facts. If Pips had been legitimate, the Central Bank of Malaysia would not have intervened in the first place.

I know another fact: there are cases where after an investigation and eventual court case, people turn out to be innocent - I guess some other members can give you a few examples if you'ld like to. Further, you simplify things here. There's no just 'Pips' being legitimate or not. Pips has several parts (companies, people, activities,...) and if in one of these parts one or more regulations and/or laws weren't respected, this is an entire different perspective than just 'If Pips had been legitimate'.

Originally Posted by Carlton Lewis

And, had the company performed as they had promised, there would have been no need for the intervention. (...)

Had the company this... had the company that... If... if... if...
What you say in this very sentence may be right on itself but is to me no valid argument in this discussion but just yet another simplification. If you look at the length of (and what has been gathered in) the humble thread, things are much more complicated (!) and (again) this has little to do with facing facts.

I think for many around here it is just too big an effort to gather information and knowledge and properly balance all elements, from facts to rumours and what you can do about them... certainly when apparently this case isn't as simple as one had expected... They just vent their thoughts and feelings. Although this kind of simplified thinking and writing doesn't bring anyone any further, I understand that... but please don't talk about 'facing facts' then... as this starts to sound like a pretty empty statement after a while.

Hasse

ps. Carlton, for clarity's sake: my previous reply was only related to your earlier post ;). As you seem to talk from experience... it's valuable to have experienced folks around as they can provide valuable input... Just wanted to make that clear.

Understood perfectly.

Originally Posted by Carlton Lewis

I really think you should face facts. If Pips had been legitimate, the Central Bank of Malaysia would not have intervened in the first place.
And, had the company performed as they had promised, there would have been no need for the intervention.
As for information, Mr. Marsden or his lawyer(s) , if he has any, would be free to make a statement to the creditors should they wish to do so.

GET ****** Carlton

Originally Posted by flockstar

GET ****** Carlton

hmmm, I used to get Carlton ciggies but switched to smoking Downhill not long after.... oops, Dunhill actually.

Heyyy Flock, this Carlton Lewis is not theeee Carlton we all want to believe he is to have a posse after him...this chap lives out in Derbyshire...or that's what it says....

Derbyshire, actually.

...That's right, darn keyboards....that left Derby out...it's a bet everyday with typing - YB.