Thread: Banners Broker HYIP ponzi scam

Someone willing to waste 4 pounds to grab those top 2 docs to verify who is currently listed as a director ?

Companies Registry Public View

Originally Posted by NikSam

Ken, i would seriously question the reliability of that email.
Targus was operating as a receiver/ liquidator in 2004. And that Chris would leave his name on a offshore company would be dumbest thing any person would do.

SRC: Companies registry public view


But there are no links between Targus xxxx and any BB people.

Other than that could you keep the rest of this discussion to PM until you resolve it? If you have a difference of opinion figure out which of you is right and then post. Otherwise please post just company data as "yes im right/no you are not" is just talking up space.

Originally Posted by Beacon

Other than that could you keep the rest of this discussion to PM until you resolve it? If you have a difference of opinion figure out which of you is right and then post. Otherwise please post just company data as "yes im right/no you are not" is just talking up space.

Please re-read all my posts, i did provide "company data" on all what i said.

There is no damn link between Chris and Targus, just confusion by some why they looked as related, i explained exactly why.

And that "wrong" information (that Chris is behind Targus) being spread now all over the net, in FB,forums,blogs.

Targus is what OCRA puts as a shareholder on shelf companies and also Targus used to liquidate those companies.


Here is one more indication if some still did not get what i showed, that Targus is OCRA :

OCRA_TRAGUS.jpg
URL: http://service_2554750.seekby.com/ta...ments-ltd.html

Originally Posted by scamassassin007

FYI:

Court ruling could herald universal insolvency approach

THIS WEEK, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether foreign court rulings in insolvency matters can be enforced in England and Wales in a case that could herald a move towards a universal approach to cross-border insolvency cases

In a majority judgment (Lord Clarke dissenting), the
Supreme Court rejected the reasoning of the Court of
Appeal in Rubin, allowing the appeal. Among other
things, the Court held that:

As a matter of policy, it is not in the interests of
the universality of bankruptcy for there to be a
more liberal rule for judgments given in foreign
insolvency proceedings;

The restricted scope of the existing rules reflects
the fact there is no expectation of reciprocity by
foreign countries and expanding the principle to
England would be detrimental to UK PLC,
without any corresponding benefit; and

There is nothing expressly or by implication in the
UNCITRAL Model Law implemented by the
Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 which
permits recognition or enforcement of foreign
judgments against third parties

Judgement: http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-c...4_Judgment.pdf

Good try by Rubin though.

Originally Posted by NikSam

Please re-read all my posts, i did provide "company data" on all what i said.

There is no damn link between Chris and Targus, just confusion by some why they looked as related, i explained exactly why.

snip the rest
I don't need to re read your posts and I don't need to know the rest and you don't have to prove anything to me. But if you insist on doing so then PM it to me. I am aware how people may take up on information and spread false or misleading stories but that is different to wasting tiem and space arguing with each other personally. You cant stop people spreading misleading information. You CAN state "actually that is wrong and/or misleading" but i respectfully suggest a series of PMs is preferable to a series of "no it isnt yes it is " messages which only serve to reenforce any original misleading claim.

Note in all the above I don't refer to any peoples names companies etc. I do that in order to not continue the personal tete a tete and also to avoid rediffusion of any misleading information.

Also i already demonstrated that Targus was a shareholder of Bedford LTD in 2011, before OCRA sold that company to our dear scammers in 2012.

Let me sum it all up.

* Targus is a shareholder of Bedford in 2011: http://96.0.22.52/images/forum/Page5.png
* The Bedford company is still listed for sale by OCRA in Jan 2012: http://www.realscam.com/attachment.p...achmentid=7014, https://web.archive.org/web/20120113.../shelflist.asp
* The Bedford company director in 2011 is Colin Foster: http://96.0.22.52/images/forum/Page4.png
* Targus acts as a liquidator of another shelf company in 2004: Companies registry public view
* Colin Foster listed as a director of Targus and OCRA since 2002: http://www.ibs-company.com/~/media/F...ed-Nov-5th.pdf (page 157-158)
* c/o OCRA used on address of Targus: http://www.realscam.com/attachments/...cra_tragus.jpg
* our scammers bought Bedford LTD from OCRA and changed the name to "BANNERS BROKER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED" on Nov 2012: http://portal.gov.im/pvi/DocumentsLi...ompany=124375C


Anyone still wants to claim that Chris Smith is behind Targus ?

Originally Posted by scamassassin007

FYI:

Court ruling could herald universal insolvency approach

THIS WEEK, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether foreign court rulings in insolvency matters can be enforced in England and Wales in a case that could herald a move towards a universal approach to cross-border insolvency cases

In a majority judgment (Lord Clarke dissenting), the
Supreme Court rejected the reasoning of the Court of
Appeal in Rubin, allowing the appeal. Among other
things, the Court held that:

As a matter of policy, it is not in the interests of
the universality of bankruptcy for there to be a
more liberal rule for judgments given in foreign
insolvency proceedings;

The restricted scope of the existing rules reflects
the fact there is no expectation of reciprocity by
foreign countries and expanding the principle to
England would be detrimental to UK PLC,
without any corresponding benefit; and

There is nothing expressly or by implication in the
UNCITRAL Model Law implemented by the
Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 which
permits recognition or enforcement of foreign
judgments against third parties

Judgement: http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-c...4_Judgment.pdf

Good try by Rubin though.

The reasons i questioned the reliability of that email from a police officer in IoM are:

* That is not information i posses (even though i am not sure mine is current)
* Officer would not disclose the name of shareholders or directors to someone over email, yes you can get it officially for a fee, but surprise - you will only see OCRA people on it.
* IoM requires at least 2 directors for a company and statement as "The current sole director of the Company is:- ..." is very surprising.
* I am detecting a style of writing change beginning at "It appears that ..."
* And the one i already stated , it would be really dumb for Chris to put his name on it.

Perhaps someone just added up stuff on top.

Originally Posted by NikSam

...
* And the one i already stated , it would be really dumb for Chris to put his name on it.
...

But I am open to the possibility that Chris is openly used as fall guy or it is not even a real name of our scammer.

There is no proof that Chris Smith is the "real" Chris Smith. All we know he is someone playing to be Chris Smith. You have no CV to show his education, years attended university, any degrees awarded, and any companies he worked for in the past. In short we have zip, nil, nada, zilch, zero, goose-egg a big nothing. Does Roman Novak come to mind for anyone?

I have reasons to suspect that this is not the real Chris Smith that is part of BB, just someone paid to play being him. You can tell he is following a script on all the calls, and I have yet to see him say anything in public that remotely makes him a math genius, let alone an astute businessman. Of course then we had the initial stock photo of him being white and then in person he is black. And the faithful never blinked an eye or questioned any of this.

I am looking forward to the events of the 24th and to see how that all plays out. It is going to be interesting to say the least. Just one more scene in the drama that is BB.

Everyone here as with all BB members should write to the law firm and demand / ask for a reason or information regarding a possible conflict.
It might cause them to rethink the matter if its at all devious.

Email paul.cooper@drpartners.com

You may each want to alter your message to make each one unique.

FYI;

Just a concerned suggestion.
Please.. No debates...

Originally Posted by NikSam

I see how confusing and related those 2 companies might seem to a normal person not familiar with offshore schemes.

All these, BBI (BEDFORD LTD) and Targus companies were registered (bought online) at exactly same place OCRA Worldwide
every name you would ever find linked to those (as Colin Foster) will be a pupet agent provided by OCRA.

Hell, OCRA itself set up the way you will never find ends :)

Attachment 7012

The only thing which can possible link Chris or Raj to any of these is a secret record in OCRA, but OCRA itself was setup to avoid any jurisdictional enforcement.

I note on the same source I believe used above there is a Stellar Point International Ltd. ( British Virgin Islands company formed in 2007 ) linked to Portcullis Trust BVI Limited but I assume it is address for a business setting up "off the shelf" companies. Which begs the question was "stellar Point" a name they picked up or did they just happen to come up with it independently? If not then the 2007 company may have a connection.

Originally Posted by NikSam

* IoM requires at least 2 directors for a company and statement as "The current sole director of the Company is:- ..." is very surprising.

Actually there can be single directors in IoM.

To clarify, the 2006 Act companies may have a single director and corporate directors are permitted,provided that the corporate director meets the requirements of section 91(7) of the
Companies Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”)(i.e. the corporate directoris either the holder of a
financial services licence with Class 4 authorisation (which does not exclude acting as
such); or is the subsidiary of such a licence holder).

Source: At 1.2 in
http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc/guida...ilitiesand.pdf

But section 2 ~ Duties of Directors is worth a look too.

Originally Posted by NikSam

But I am open to the possibility that Chris is openly used as fall guy or it is not even a real name of our scammer.

Maybe Chris is using the "victim" as a ruse but I suspect that only he is being fooled. While he thinks he is getting BB for himself the other leading BB people are setting him up to take the hit as they leave a dying scam. If he doesn't get out and declare he will be the one everyone will look to. I mean look how in the beginning he was kept away from the limelight and no doubt from the tens of millions they were getting by the others. Later he became the "genius" behind BB but I believe while he got fame he collected tiny amounts compared to the main players. He probably thinks his big payday is to come and if he doesn't out the main players first ( and I doubt he has enough to pin anything on them) that day is indeed coming t is when the authorities catch up with him and the others have departed over the hill offering him excused as he and others offered to the public.

More Banners Broker BS over on their facebook page.

Good questions by GP Blues.

BS reply by the Banners Broker scammer.



Screen Shot 2014-02-12 at 17.49.46.jpg

The "good" news is the audit is ongoing.
It must be very thorough. What is it? Nearly twelve months since they started it? :)

Originally Posted by Joe_Shmoe

More Banners Broker BS over on their facebook page.

Good questions by GP Blues.

BS reply by the Banners Broker scammer.



Screen Shot 2014-02-12 at 17.49.46.jpg

The "good" news is the audit is ongoing.
It must be very thorough. What is it? Nearly twelve months since they started it? :)

Yeah, OK thorough...! Real companies audit their books quarterly or annually so I guess we can expect the results any day now? RI-I-I-IGHT!!! When you see a hippo in ballet slippers! HIPPO.jpg

Originally Posted by laidback

Yeah, OK thorough...! Real companies audit their books quarterly or annually so I guess we can expect the results any day now? RI-I-I-IGHT!!! When you see a hippo in ballet slippers! HIPPO.jpg

But, but, but you don't understand. They have to audit the books in Canada, IoM, Seychelles, Belize, UK and India. These things take time don't you know. Besides they are not financial geniuses like Chris.

I did some sleuthing and discovered why Elke Waszmann has not received her Mercedes yet. You see they had to ship it from Seychelles to Belize, then to IoM, and then to Elke. Due to all the bad weather they had to put into port. It will be several more weeks before the ship gets to Belize to ship it to IoM and then to Elke. But rest assured the car is on its way. (cough, cough)

Originally Posted by scamassassin007

Funny how this new BB "TRUTH" Chat Forum is right down the road from the where Chris Smith's Email was sent to James Clark.

TRACE: forumbb.net Whois Lookup & IP | Whois.netforumbb.net Whois Lookup & IP | Whois.net

Coincidence? Or Are They Looking For Ip Addresses?

????????????????????????????????

How Much Do You Want To Bet That They Will Check For IP's For Any Negative Comments?

Sorry, but you wrong on it, that whois address for forumbb.net you assumed belongs to the owner of the forum in fact is address of TUCows and they use it on any domain with privacy protection on

Registrant Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0136597824
Registrant Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0136597824
Registrant Street: 96 Mowat Ave
Registrant City: Toronto
Registrant State/Province: ON
Registrant Postal Code: M6K 3M1
Registrant Country: CA
Registrant Phone: +1.4165385457
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: forumbb.net@contactprivacy.com

forum hosted in Columbus, OH, USA


I can assure you the real owner of that domain and forum lives in Netherlands, would not disclose his details for his own sake.

It seems that Chris/Ron have a new, er, assistant.
JOE.

JOE.JPG

[QUOTE=HARRISON;66210]It seems that Chris/Ron have a new, er, assistant.
JOE.

JOE.JPG[/QUOTE

So it's Rockin' Ronnie and what shall we call him? Jolly Joe?

Jolly Joe? Hmmm... not so sure about that, Della. He's not an adorable Disney character, he's on Facebook and Twitter to 'keep the information flowing'. Being fed a stream of Ponzi propaganda is far from jolly. So I propose we call him JIVE-ASS JOE.

For those of you less acquainted with urban slang:

Jive-ass | Define Jive-ass at Dictionary.com

What does jive mean? jive Definition. Meaning of jive. OnlineSlangDictionary.com

Any seconders?

Originally Posted by EagleOne

But, but, but you don't understand. They have to audit the books in Canada, IoM, Seychelles, Belize, UK and India. These things take time don't you know. Besides they are not financial geniuses like Chris.

Of course Terry stern saida year ago that an audit had already been done. I'm really confused- it can't be that an official BB spokesman was lying. It must be an error. Although he seemed very certain at the time, laughing at all you naughty naysayers who were asking for audited accounts.

Originally Posted by Dreamstealer

Of course Terry stern saida year ago that an audit had already been done. I'm really confused- it can't be that an official BB spokesman was lying. It must be an error. Although he seemed very certain at the time, laughing at all you naughty naysayers who were asking for audited accounts.

Maybe I can help? Why don't they just publish Terry's audits up to last year and we can have a look at them wait while they are doing the current one? I mean were they set up in 2010? We should have three or four audits which they have already done to peruse while waiting on one for 2014. I mean they are not going to say they are in operation for three years without a legally required audit which is demanded for "compliance" purposes are they? What were all those "compliance" talks and "compliance" directorships about if they were not doing the simplest legally required compliance
of submitting annual audited accounts?


Then again, maybe the audits were distributed into the "blind network" where nobody can ever see them