Blacklisted Banking Scam Companies You Should Avoid at All Costs!
Excerpt: These fraudulent financial institutions have been reported to have shady business dealings, and some of the victims have already filed a court case. With this study, we’ve outlined the signs to watch out for when dealing with such banks.
Someone on a blacklist is part of a group of persons who the government or another organization believes cannot be trusted or have done something wrong. Criminals frequently use bank frauds to get access to people’s personal and financial information. Phishing is known to be one of the most popular types of scams. Scammers use texts and emails to deceive people into giving up personal information, which is known as phishing. Passwords, Social Security numbers, account numbers, and other personal information are among the items they seek.
Their mission is to gain access to your personal information, such as email accounts, bank accounts, and other financial accounts. You may already be aware that phishing emails and SMS frequently appear to be issued from well-known companies. Phishing scams typically demand you to click on a website and do an action, such as confirming personal information. Suspicious activities on a personal account may be mentioned in the notification.
Scams will undoubtedly continue to exist as long as people fall for them. By following the guidelines below, you can safeguard yourself and your bank account. Don’t cash other people’s checks. You may like to assist others, but you should never cash a check in return for cash unless you are familiar with the individual. Make sure you finish your homework. Everything should be read and inspected. Always read the fine print, whether it comes in the form of an email, a text, or something else. If an offer appears to be suspect or too good to be true, it most likely is.
Personal information should not be shared. Scammers can gain access to practically every facet of your life if they have the right information. This includes taking your identity as well as money and other accounts. Never give up account information, Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, or passwords to strangers unless you know who they are and the request is valid.
Latest News & Scam Alerts
If you’re someone who wants to protect your financial data, then you’re definitely at the right place. We can give you the best practices in identifying red flags as well as help you in recovering your stolen money from scammers!
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: 1ST GULF INTERNATIONAL (AKA FIRST GULF INTERNATIONAL)
Gulf International Bank B.S.C. (G.I.B.) is a pan-GCC universal bank supervised by the Central Bank of Bahrain. It was founded in 1975. G.I.B. serves a varied client base in the G.C.C., Europe, and North America with a wide range of financial products, services, and bespoke banking solutions.
The corporate, institutional, global transaction, and investment banking; treasury and asset management; and meem, the world’s first completely digital Shariah-compliant retail bank are all included. Through its subsidiaries G.I.B. Saudi Arabia and G.I.B. (U.K.) Ltd, as well as its branches in the U.A.E. and the United States, the group, operates in regional and worldwide markets.
Gulf International Bank B.S.C. (G.I.B.) was founded in 1975 and began operations in 1976 in the Kingdom of Bahrain. In 1978, G.I.B. established its first representative office in London, which later became a full branch in 1979. It opened the first branch of any Arab bank in the United States in New York in 1980. G.I.B. shifted its focus to the Gulf Cooperation Council (G.C.C.) in the 1980s, drawing capital to the region by partnering with top international organizations to finance large infrastructure projects.
To support its regional activities, G.I.B. opened representative offices in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. in 1990 (which became an entire wholesale commercial branch in 2015) and Beirut in 1994, attracting business from Middle Eastern markets in the Levant and lower Gulf to its Bahrain hub while also servicing clients in Lebanon and the U.A.E. G.I.B. purchased the London-based Saudi International Bank (S.I.B.) in 1999, renaming it Gulf International Bank (U.K.) Limited to create a broader, more diversified banking organization. G.I.B. (U.K.) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of G.I.B. that currently manages the company’s assets.
In 2000, G.I.B. became the first non-Saudi bank to be granted a branch license in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, opening a branch in Riyadh. Following that, in 2005, G.I.B. launched a second Saudi branch in Jeddah, in the country’s western area. In 2014, G.I.B. opened its third Saudi branch and Country Head Office in Al Dhahran. In 2017, G.I.B. became the first foreign domiciled bank to be given a local commercial banking license in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, marking yet another historical milestone.
In April 2019, G.I.B. completed the conversion of its current branches in Saudi Arabia into a domestically established bank. This new business, G.I.B. Saudi Arabia, is the first foreign bank to become domestically incorporated in Saudi Arabia.
Is Gulf Bank International a legit company?
The particular bank will now operate as Gulf International Bank Saudi Arabia (G.I.B. Saudi Arabia), a fully-fledged local bank delivering comprehensive banking and financial services across the Kingdom, after receiving authorization from the Saudi Council of Ministers in May 2017. With a paid-up capital amounting to SR7.5 billion and a mission or strategy to further improve and build the bank’s presence and levels of service in the crucial Saudi market, G.I.B. Saudi Arabia is owned equally by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (P.I.F.) and G.I.B.
The establishment of a wholly-owned subsidiary, G.I.B. Capital L.L.C., in 2008 significantly strengthened G.I.B.’s Saudi Arabian footprint. G.I.B. Capital offers a wide variety of creative and personalized solutions to corporates, family companies, entrepreneurs, governments, and quasi-governmental entities seeking loan and equity financing, using its parent’s investment banking expertise and experience.
G.I.B. repositioned itself from wholesale banking to become a prominent pan-GCC universal bank in 2010, and its retail banking arm,’ meem by G.I.B.,’ started retail banking services in Saudi Arabia in 2014. meem provides online and mobile banking services in a technologically innovative manner. G.I.B. employs over 1,000 people worldwide and offers wholesale, treasury, asset management, investment banking, retail banking, and Shariah-compliant banking services through its branches across the world. The Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia owns 97.2 percent of G.I.B., which is owned by the state of the six G.C.C. countries.
Almost all organizations and individuals in the U.K. who offer, promote, or sell financial services or products must be authorized or registered with the F.C.A. This company is not regulated by the F.C.A. and is aimed at persons in the United Kingdom. If something goes wrong or you are scammed, you won’t have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service or the (FSCS) also known as Financial Services Compensation Scheme, so you’re unlikely to get your money back. Be aware that some companies may provide additional information or modify their contact information over time, such as email addresses, phone numbers, or physical addresses.
Why did it get blacklisted?
Falsely claiming affiliation with Gulf International Bank (U.S.) Limited, New York City, or Gulf International Bank (U.K.) Limited, London, England. The Long-Term Issuer Default Rating short for (IDR) of Gulf International Bank – Saudi Arabia (G.I.B. S.A.) has been affirmed by Fitch Ratings at ‘BBB+’ with a Negative Outlook. Given considerable, albeit diminishing, external reserves, Fitch views the authorities’ strong ability to maintain the banking system.
It also reflects a long history of support for Saudi banks, regardless of their size, franchise, funding structure, or government ownership level. Given the market’s small size and interconnectedness, we see a high risk of contagion among domestic banks. This, we believe, adds to the state’s motive to support any Saudi bank that needs it in order to maintain market trust and stability. Gulf International Bank’s (G.I.B.) independent benchmark credit assessment, long-term deposit, and short-term ratings were recently confirmed by Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s).
The Moody’s rating committee confirmed G.I.B.’s Prime-2 short-term and Baa1 long-term deposit ratings but changed the outlook from ‘under review for downgrade’ to ‘negative.’ The bank’s standalone baseline credit assessment remained at ba1 as well.
The ratings were confirmed because Moody believes “the bank’s standalone profile will remain resilient notwithstanding the adverse environment, given the bank’s excellent asset quality indicators, capital, and liquidity buffers.” “G.I.B.’s asset quality profile is good and has been on an increasing trend,” Moody’s said in a press release. The capital, as well as the bank’s funding and liquidity profiles, all played a role in the ratings being confirmed.
The parameters of this banking scam
Gulf International Bank, based in Bahrain, recently completed a $625 million sustainability-linked multilateral loan, which was oversubscribed in global markets. The facility was initially set at $500 million, but applications totaled $1.1 billion, according to G.I.B., which is owned by the Public Investment Fund. The transaction, which includes environmental, social, and governance measures, attracted more than 20 global investors from the United States of America, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe.
CHAPTER 2: AB SUISSE
Credit Suisse Group AG, which was established in Switzerland, is an international investment bank as well as financial services firm. It is one of the key international “Bulge Bracket” banks, with offices in all of the world’s major financial centers. Its headquarters are in Zürich, and it offers investment banking, private banking, asset management, and shared services. It is known for maintaining banking secrecy and maintaining strict bank–client confidentiality.
The Financial Stability Board has designated it as a systemically important bank. Credit Suisse was established and started operating in 1856 to help support the expansion of Switzerland’s rail network. It provided loans that aided in the construction of the Swiss electrical grid and the European train system. Owing to the massive rise in the middle class and competition from fellow Swiss banks UBS and Julius Bär, it began to turn to retail banking in the 1900s. In 1978, Credit Suisse formed a partnership with First Boston before purchasing a majority stake in the bank in 1988.
Winterthur Group, Swiss Volksbank, Swiss American Securities Inc. (SASI), and Bank Leu were among the institutions purchased by the corporation between 1990 and 2000. Qatar Investment Authority, U.S. mutual fund providers Harris Associates and Dodge & Cox, the Norwegian central bank, and the Saudi Arabian Olayan Group are among Credit Suisse’s largest institutional shareholders.
During the global financial crisis, the company was one of the least damaged, but it soon began decreasing its investment operations, laying off employees, and slashing costs. From 2008 to 2012, the bank was the subject of various international investigations for tax evasion, which resulted in a guilty plea and the loss of US$2.6 billion in fines. Credit Suisse had CHF 1.6 trillion in assets in 2021. Credit Suisse has been caught up in a number of scandals involving its client selection and climate change, notably its assistance for Russian oligarchs during the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
DO YOU NEED EXPERT ADVICE?
We have encountered victims who were mentally and emotionally drained when they were scammed out of their money. We can help you with your legal and technical concerns. We can help you get your money back.
Is ABSUISSE company a legit company?
Credit Suisse Group AG is a holding company that is structured as a joint-stock company based in Zürich. It controls the Credit Suisse bank as well as other financial services companies. A board of directors, stockholders, and independent auditors manage Credit Suisse. The annual General Meeting of Shareholders is organized by the Board of Directors, but the agenda is set by investors with significant shares in the company.
Shareholders elect auditors for one-year periods, vote on the annual report and other financial accounts, and exercise other legal rights. The board members of the board of directors B.O.D. are elected by shareholders for a three-year term based on candidates proposed by the Chairman’s and Governance Committee, and the Board of Directors meets almost 6 times a year to vote on company resolutions. Based on input from the compensation committee, the Board of Directors develops Credit Suisse’s business strategies and approves its compensation policies. It also has the power to form committees to delegate certain management responsibilities.
Why did it get blacklisted?
The hidden wealth of clients implicated in torture, drug trafficking, money laundering, corruption, and other major crimes have been revealed thanks to a massive leak from Credit Suisse, one of the world’s largest private financial institutions. The breach, which reveals the identities of the recipients of more than 100 billion Swiss francs (£80 billion)* held by one of Switzerland’s most well-known financial organizations, includes information on 30,000 Credit Suisse clients around the world. Despite repeated promises over decades to screen out problematic clients and criminal assets, the leak reveals pervasive Credit Suisse due diligence failures.
The parameters of this banking scam
A human trafficker in the Philippines, a bribery-charged Hong Kong stock market head, a billionaire who ordered the death of his Lebanese pop star lover, executives who robbed Venezuela’s state oil business, and corrupt politicians from Egypt to Ukraine are among them.
One of the Vatican’s accounts was used to spend €350 million (£290 million) on an allegedly fraudulent investment in London property, which is the subject of a criminal trial involving numerous defendants, including a cardinal. A large amount of banking data was given to the German publication Süddeutsche Zeitung by an anonymous whistleblower. In a statement, the whistleblower source claimed, “I believe that Swiss banking secrecy regulations are immoral.” “The excuse of protecting financial privacy is only a fig leaf for Swiss banks’ reprehensible position as tax evaders’ collaborators.” Credit Suisse stated that tight banking privacy regulations in Switzerland barred it from responding to specific client allegations.
Credit Suisse said in a statement that the charges and inferences regarding the bank’s supposed business practices are based on “picked facts taken out of context, resulting in tendentious interpretations of the bank’s business activity.” The claims, according to the bank, are mostly historical, referring to “rules, practices, and expectations of financial institutions that were considerably different from where they are now.” Despite the fact that some of the data’s accounts stretch back to the 1940s, more than two-thirds of them have been created since 2000. Many of them remained open long into the previous decade, and others are still operational today.
2009 violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and New York State Law
From 1995 until 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that it had reached an agreement with Credit Suisse on allegations that the bank aided residents of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act sanctioned nations to send funds in breach of the Act and New York law. Credit Suisse agreed to forfeit $536 million as part of the settlement.
Forex manipulation, 2013
Credit Suisse was fined €83.3 million by the European Union Commission on Competition in 2021 for F.X. rate manipulation as part of a cartel that harmed E.U. customers and included several other prominent international banks.
U.S. tax fraud conspiracy, 2014
Credit Suisse admitted to colluding with Americans to submit fake tax returns in 2014. Credit Suisse was fined $2.6 billion and had to pay restitution.
Malaysia Development Berhad scandal, 2015
In September 2015, Hong Kong police launched an inquiry into $250 million in Credit Suisse branch deposits in Hong Kong linked to former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and the 1Malaysia Development Berhad sovereign wealth fund (1MDB). Credit Suisse was fined S$0.7 million (£0.4 million, $0.5 million, €0.45 million) by Singapore in 2017. According to Reuters, “Swiss financial watchdog FINMA… undertook “extensive inquiries” into Credit Suisse’s contacts with 1MDB in May 2017. Credit Suisse was the subject of a FINMA complaint in 2019.
Mozambique secret loans scandal, 2017
Credit Suisse arranged US$1.3 billion in loans with Mozambican finance minister Manuel Chang between 2012 and 2016 to help the country’s tuna fishing sector grow. The loans were issued as bonds, with the proceeds from tuna fishing and the country’s budding natural gas economy being used to repay them. Chang deceived investors, his own government, the International Monetary Fund, and the banks that provided the loans, including Credit Suisse. Credit Suisse was fined over $500 million by the U.K., the U.S., and European regulators for lack of transparency in the bond’s issuance, kickbacks to Credit Suisse bankers, and allowing loans that were likely to be embezzled by Mozambican officials, including Chang. Credit Suisse pled guilty to wire fraud in October 2021 and agreed to cancel Mozambique’s debt of US$200 million.
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violation, 2018
Credit Suisse agreed to pay a $47 million fine to the U.S. Department of Justice and a $30 million penalty to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2018. (S.E.C.). According to the S.E.C.’s investigation, the banking firm violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by employing and promoting over one hundred Chinese officials and related personnel in order to gain banking and investment business in the Asia-Pacific region.
CHAPTER 3: APEX DEVELOPMENT BANK PLC
M/s Royal Merchant Banking & Finance Ltd., M/s Rara Bikas Bank Ltd., and M/s Api Finance Ltd. merged to become Apex Development Bank Ltd., a national development bank established under the Bank & Financial Institutions Act 2063 and the Company Act 2063. The company’s promoters include Nepal’s most significant and well-known industrialists, business people, and bankers.
Why did it get blacklisted?
The haphazard credit disbursement that left irreparable holes in the balance sheet of the erstwhile Apex Development Bank has revealed the long-suspected counterintuitive practice of ‘evergreening’ bad loans in the banking sector, which has the potential to contaminate and even bring down the entire financial sector. The development bank’s unethical and unprofessional practices were exposed when the Nepal Police’s Central Investigation Bureau (C.I.B.) detained over a dozen employees 10 days ago for their roles in an Rs1.5 billion scam involving the financial organization.
The arrestees were accused of misappropriating cash by extending credit on the basis of inadequate collateral. Shockingly, a loan restructuring directive approved by the development bank’s board of directors on September 13, 2015, included a provision allowing management to disburse new loans to settle outstanding credit, according to an on-site inspection report composed and presented by the Nepal Rastra Bank (N.R.B.), the banking sector regulator, which the Post obtained a copy of.
This means that the bank’s board of directors, whose role it is to oversee good governance, had given the management permission to evergreen the loan book. When banks make new loans to borrowers who are unable to pay their debts on time, this is known as evergreening. The new loan is then utilized to pay down the existing loan installments. This is a contradictory practice because it hinders banks from making good loans by diverting available funds to borrowers with bad loans. This creates a vicious cycle, and the financial institution eventually finds itself in a position where it can no longer make good loans, putting pressure on the capital adequacy ratio, a measure of a bank’s ability to disburse credit.
Apex Development Bank has been doing this fraud for a long time. This is evident from the practice of issuing loans to the same group of borrowers and diverting credit to the same group via other borrowers, according to the report, which was required to submit to the N.R.B. on January 12, 2017, or a month after the renewal of final approval for the merger between N.C.C. Bank and Apex Development Bank.
One example of this fraud is the disbursement of an Rs50 million demand and working capital loan to Aditi Enterprises on October 16, 2015, based on inflated assets. The loan was authorized on the same day that the bank received the collateral value paperwork, which is unusual. The so-called demand and working capital loan were never used for what it was supposed to be used for. According to the investigation, the money was instead utilized to compensate other parties, including Myanglung Housing, which had received Rs22.4 million. According to the report, Myanglung Housing received another Rs70 million loan from the bank on the same day.
According to the research, companies such as Myanglung Housing, Aditi Enterprises, Arohan Housing and Agricultural Firm, Arunima Housing, and Om Multipurpose Industries either borrowed directly from the bank or were end consumers of many of the bank’s loans. According to the study, the bank offered Rs125.4 million in house loans to 35 “dummy borrowers” who transferred the monies to the accounts of Upen Newang, Pandav Nepal, and Regan Karki, among others. “This suggests that money was being funneled to a small number of borrowers, enabling the evergreening of problematic loans,” a senior N.R.B. official stated on the condition of anonymity.
The seeds of the institution’s evergreening of bad loans were apparently sown even before Apex Development Bank was founded. The Royal Merchant Banking and Finance Limited, Rara Bikas Bank, and Api Finance merged to establish Apex. The credit of Rs1.15 billion disbursed by Royal Merchant was in doubt at the time of the merger. This was due to loans being made against inferior collateral and without a thorough examination of the assets pledged as security. Borrowers’ credit repayment capacity was also not examined. The investigation also claims that a number of phony borrowers were created in order to channel loans to Manoj Bhetwal and Anurag Pahari.
Unfortunately, even after the foundation of Apex Development Bank, which resorted to window dressing and covered up its faults by doctoring balance sheet statistics rather than taking strong action against loan defaulters, this practice continued. As a result, the bank’s non-performing loans increased to 27.2 percent of total credit in mid-July 2016, up from 11.5 percent indicated on its balance sheet.
This resulted in a negative capital adequacy ratio of 12.5 percent, compared to the minimum threshold of 11 percent. When the N.R.B. conducted a normal inspection of the bank in January 2014, it appeared that the malpractices that had eroded the bank’s balance sheet were not recognized. These flaws were also missed when the N.R.B. performed a special inspection of the bank with the help of KPMG, one of the world’s big four auditors.
The KPMG assessment, which the Post received a copy of, did identify several of the bank’s risk factors, including its use of revolving credit lines, credit risk connected with its credit portfolio, and the recoverability of real estate assets. According to the December 2015 report, certain credit exposures were not effectively provisioned. It has not, however, issued any sort of warning.
What’s more remarkable is that a due diligence audit (D.D.A.) was undertaken during the merger of Apex and N.C.C. Bank, as well as another D.D.A. conducted during the merging of Royal Merchant, Rara Bikas Bank, and Api Finance, failed to uncover these irregularities. “It’s harder to track wrongdoings when cosmetics are used,” the N.R.B. official explained. “However, the central bank is wary of these instances and will step up surveillance to catch these fraudulent activities,” says the statement.
What were the parameters of this banking scam?
Official sources said on Tuesday that the Arunachal Pradesh government has fired 28 workers of the state-owned Cooperative Apex Bank and filed criminal charges against individuals found guilty of indiscriminately approving loans totaling Rs 200 crore in connection with the scandal. According to the sources, 19 senior bank executives have been suspended, and borrowers have been given a month to clear their outstanding debts or face legal action.
Chief Minister Dorjee Khandu announced the formation of a committee led by independent M.L.A. R K Khirmey to devise a process to make the bank operational. According to reports, the state government received a cheque for Rs 225 crore from the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation on June 24 as an advance for three hydropower projects, which will be used to revive the state-owned bank.
The bank, which has 32 branches across the state, has been closed for the past two years due to a liquidity crisis caused by indiscriminate loan disbursement. The bank was scheduled to reopen in a few days, and operations would return to normal in the first week of August.
CHAPTER 4: CAN TRADE FINANCIAL TRUST
Can trade Privatbank AG was founded in Morgartenstr and is headquartered there. The trust deals in the following:
- Establishments that aren’t classified
- Unclassifiable Organizations
- Investing advice, financial transactions
- Management of Investments
- Administration of Securities Trust Funds
- Services of a Fiduciary
- Asset Management is the management of assets.
- Investments in stocks and bonds
- Portfolio and Foreign Exchange Management
- Services provided by banks
Do you suspect that someone had scammed you?
If you have any suspicion of a scam or phishing attack, then you can rely on TheClaimers to help you with protection, mitigation, and fund recovery. You will feel safe knowing that experts with years of experience will be guiding you!
Why did it get blacklisted?
In Jersey’s Police Court yesterday, a currency trader, a banker, and an accountant were charged with 69 counts of fraud. All of the accusations, which were filed under the Investors (Prevention of Fraud) (Jersey) Law, stem from currency deals conducted on the island by Nottingham-based trader Robert Young, who is accused by his customer of losing $27 million. He was in court with Peter Stoneman, a senior manager of UBS Can trade Private Bank Switzerland affiliate on the island, and Alfred Williams, a former partner with Touche Ross’s Nottingham, practice.
The currency deals were made between 1988 and 1993 through Can trade, which is accused by 90 investors of failing to notify them of the enormous losses, despite the fact that the trades had a 10% downside limit. Investors have already filed many lawsuits against Can trade and Touche Ross in Jersey’s Royal Court. Mr. Young’s figures were allegedly examined by Mr. Williams, who claimed trading profits. The charges are denied by both Can trade and Touche Ross.
In a separate civil case, the investors are seeking a judicial review of the Finance and Economics Committee of Jersey’s reluctance to investigate their allegations about Can trade in 1994. Following the advice of its legal and financial advisers, the Committee opted not to probe the bank under its regulatory authority. Mr. Young, 42, was charged with two counts of fraud in August and now faces a total of 29 counts. Mr. Stoneman, 52, of Jersey, is charged with 19 counts, while Mr. Williams, 48, of Derbyshire, is charged with 21 counts. In conjunction with the suspected fraud, the Can trade Bank has also been charged. Its Zurich headquarters has stated that it will deny the 12 charges leveled against it.
CHAPTER 5: DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST AND FINANCE (AG)
Deutsche Bank is Germany’s largest bank, with a global network and strong European origins. The bank focuses on its capabilities in a new Corporate Bank, a leading Private Bank, a specialized investment bank, and asset management, all of which were established in 2019.
Why did it get blacklisted?
Deutsche Bank is a German multinational financial services corporation with headquarters in Frankfurt. The charges stem from a scheme to hide corrupt payments and bribes to third-party intermediaries by falsifying their records in Deutsche Bank’s books and records, as well as internal operating accounting control violations, and a completely separate scheme to participate in fraudulent and deceitful commodities trading practices involving publicly traded precious metals futures and options.
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (N.Y.C.) and the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and (MLARS), also called Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, reached a deal with Deutsche Bank for a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (D.P.A.). In connection with the commodities conduct, criminal information was filed today in the Eastern District of New York charging Deutsche Bank with one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s books and records as well as internal financial reporting controls provisions, as well as one count of conspiracy to undertake wire fraud affecting a financial institution.
“During a seven-year period, Deutsche Bank failed to implement a system of internal control over financial reporting concerning the use of company funds as well as falsified its financial books and records to conceal corrupt and improper payments,” The following statement was issued by the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney, of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, General Robert Zink. “For five years, Deutsche Bank traders on three continents attempted to manipulate our public financial markets by deception.
This resolution demonstrates the department’s commitment to assisting publicly traded companies in developing and implementing necessary and proper internal accounting control systems, as well as maintaining accurate and truthful corporate documentation. It also represents the department’s efforts to police public U.S. markets so that everyone can continue to trust and rely on the integrity of our public financial institutions.”
“Deutsche Bank was involved in a criminal scheme to conceal payments to so-called consultants around the world who served as conduits for bribes to foreign officials and others in order to obtain and retain lucrative business projects unfairly,” claimed Acting United States Attorney Seth D. DuCharme of the Eastern District of New York. “This office will continue to hold accountable financial institutions operating in the United States that engage in tactics that facilitate criminal behavior in order to boost their profits.”
“The Criminal Investigations Group of the US Postal Inspection Service takes delight in researching complicated fraud and corruption crimes that affect American investors,” said Inspector in Charge Delany De Léon-Colón of the US Postal Inspection Service. “This form of dishonest behavior has the potential to create enormous economic losses in competitive markets all around the world.” Our partners at the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice worked together to bring today’s substantial action to fruition, demonstrating our commitment to protecting the United States and the international marketplace.”
The FCPA Case
According to admissions and some court documents, Deutsche Bank, operating via its employees and agents, including managing directors and high-level regional executives, knew and intentionally collaborated to keep fraudulent books, records, and accounts between 2009 and 2016, concealing, among other items, payments to a (BDC) long for corporate development consultant who was working as a proxy for a foreign official and funds to a BDC that were essentially bribes made to a decisionmaker.
In some cases, Deutsche Bank paid payments to BDCs that were not backed up by invoices or proof of services rendered. In other incidents, personnel of Deutsche Bank established or assisted BDCs in creating bogus payment explanations. Deutsche Bank confirmed that its employees collaborated with a company owned by the wife of a client decision maker to orchestrate bribe payments of over $1 million to the decision maker in respect to a Saudi BDC.
The BDC relationship was approved despite Deutsche Bank employees being able to see the relationship between the Saudi BDC and the decision maker, and amidst Deutsche Bank employees publicly acknowledging the need to pay the Saudi BDC in order to reward her husband for continuing doing business with Deutsche Bank.Employees from Deutsche Bank warned that the “client and [the Saudi BDC] are tightly intertwined, and any cessation of payment to the will undoubtedly precipitate a major outflow of [business]” from the client when requesting approval for one payment.
Despite the fact that Deutsche Bank employees were aware that the Abu Dhabi BDC lacked qualifications as a BDC, aside from his family relationship with the client decision maker, and that the Abu Dhabi BDC was working as a proxy for the client decision maker, the Abu Dhabi BDC was contracted to obtain a lucrative transaction. Without receiving any bills, the Abu Dhabi BDC received more than $3 million from Deutsche Bank.
Deutsche Bank conspired to falsify the bank’s books, records, and accounts, in violation of the FCPA, by agreeing to misrepresent the purpose of payments to BDCs and misrepresenting payments to others as payments to BDCs. Furthermore, Deutsche Bank employees knowingly and intentionally conspired to violate the FCPA by failing to conduct meaningful due diligence on BDCs, making payments to BDCs who were not under agreement with Deutsche Bank at the time, and paying the bill to BDCs without receipts or sufficient documentation of the purportedly performed services, among other things. Deutsche Bank will pay a total punishment of $79,561,206 in conjunction with the FCPA scheme. In a separate lawsuit, Deutsche Bank will pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $43,329,622 in disgorgement and subconscious biases.
The Commodities Fraud Case
According to admissions and court filings, between 2008 and 2013, Deutsche Bank precious metals traders conspired to cheat other traders on the C.M.E. Group Inc.’s commodities exchanges, the New York Mercantile Exchange Inc., and the Commodity Exchange Inc. Traders on Deutsche Bank’s precious metals like gold, the desk in New York, Singapore, and England placed an order to buy and sell precious metals futures contracts with the intent to cancel them before they were executed on multiple occasions, including in an attempt to profit by deceiving other market participants by injecting false and misleading information about the existence of genuine supply and demand for precious metals futures contracts.
A federal jury in Chicago found two former Deutsche Bank precious metals dealers guilty of their participation in the commodities conspiracy, James Vorley, 42, of Great Britain, and Cedric Chanu, 40, of France and the United Arab Emirates, accused of wire fraud affecting a financial institution on September 25, 2020. On June 1, 2017, a third former Deutsche Bank trader, David Liew, 35, of Singapore, pled guilty to wire fraud and spoofing conspiracy. Edward Bases, 58, of New Canaan, Connecticut, On November 12, 2020, was found guilty of fraud and conspiracy in a third superseding indictment and is awaiting trial. An indictment is nothing more than a charge, and all defendants are deemed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in court.
In connection with the commodities fraud, Deutsche Bank has agreed to pay a total criminal sum of $7,530,218. This sum includes $681,480 in criminal disgorgement, $1,223,738 in victim compensation payments, and a criminal penalty of $5,625,000, all of which will be fully offset by Deutsche Bank’s payment of a $30 million civil monetary penalty to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission in January 2018 for substantially the same commodities conduct.
The D.O.J. reached this agreement with Deutsche Bank based on a number of factors, including the firm’s failure to knowingly and willingly disclose the conduct to the division, as well as the nature and scope of the offense, which also included corrupt payments, willful violations of FCPA financial information provisions, and commodities trading violations in three countries. Deutsche Bank was given full credit for its cooperation and significant rehabilitation with the department’s investigations.
Penalties linked with both the FCPA and wire fraud conspiracies receive a 25% deduction off the center of the otherwise applicable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range to reflect for Deutsche Bank’s 2015 resolution in connection with the manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate.
CHAPTER 6: EURO-SWISS FINANCE AND SECURITIES (ESFS) GROUP
The above organization is not really a company incorporated in the Isle of Man’s jurisdiction. It is not registered on the Isle of Man as a foreign corporation with a place of business. On the Isle of Man, it is not a registered business name.
DO YOU SUSPECT THAT SOMEONE HAD SCAMMED YOU?
If you have suspicions of a scam or phishing attack, you can rely on experts to help you with protection, mitigation, and fund recovery. You will feel safe knowing that experts with years of experience will be guiding you!
Why isn't it recommended to trade on this website?
The ESFS Group has not been granted permission to engage in investing, deposit-taking, or collective investment fund activities as defined by the regulations listed below.
The Jersey Financial Services Commission has amended Article 22 of the Financial Services (Jersey) Law 1998, as revised (the “Financial Services Law”), Article 45B of the Banking Business (Jersey) Constitution 1991, as altered (the “Banking Business Law”), and Article 14A of the Collective Investment Funds (Jersey) Legislation 1988, as rewritten (the “Collective Investment Funds Law”) (the “Commission”).
The Commission wants to make the following four points clear:
- The ESFS Group has never been registered under the Financial Services Law, nor has it ever applied for registration. As a result, every financial service business conducted since July 1, 1999, as described in Article 2 of the Financial Services Law, is in violation of Article 6 of the Financial Services Law.
- The ESFS Group has never been registered under the Banking Business Law, nor has it ever applied to be registered. As a result, any deposit-taking business, as defined in Article 3 of the Banking Business Law, that has been conducted since October 1, 1991, is in violation of Article 7 of the Banking Business Law.
- The ESFS Group has never been registered under the Collective Investment Funds Law or filed for a license. As a result, any collective investment fund operation conducted from June 1, 1988, as stated in Articles 2 and 3 of the Law, is a violation of Article 4 of the Collective Investment Funds Law.
- The Commission’s website, www.jerseyfsc.org, lists all other regulated enterprises.
The Commodities Fraud Case
Avoid financial products offered by the Euro-Swiss Finance and Securities (ESFS) Group, which claims to have received authorization from the Isle of Man Authority, which has categorically refuted the document’s legitimacy. The company has also been included in a list of internet banking service providers operating without the requisite authorization by the U.K. supervisory authority.
CHAPTER 7: FIRST ATLANTIC CHARTERED BANK LTD
The parameters of this banking fraud
The largest scam involving the First Atlantic chartered bank was that scammers used the bank’s name and sent emails to consumers. The following email was shared on the official Facebook page. The management of First Atlantic Bank would like to raise the public’s attention to a bogus Facebook account called “Moni Atlantic” that is impersonating our logo and defrauding clients in a phony predict and win program.
We want to make it evident that this Facebook account has nothing to do with First Atlantic Bank and that it was not hired by the bank to run a lottery on its behalf. The general public, clients, and social media followers should avoid dealing with the “Moni Atlantic” Facebook account. Don’t provide them any of your private details, bank account details, or money. The bank will not be held liable for anyone who has been created by these con artists. Please be aware that First Atlantic Bank will not participate in any official program until it has provided appropriate information on its official social media handle, First Atlantic Bank.
CHAPTER 8: FORD FINANCIAL SERVICE
Ford Financial Services, Inc. (“FFSI”) is a commercial equipment financing company based in California. FFSI, as a Direct Lender, underwrites transactions, records deals, and funds equipment suppliers in-house and on schedule. FFSI is a credit-based lender that can help you finance practically any form of commercial equipment. Many of the country’s top banks, accountancy firms, and equipment manufacturers rely on FFSI’s services. At FFSI, we focus on building connections rather than transactions.
Ford Motor Credit filed more paperwork with the bankruptcy court on Friday morning, alleging that this is one of the greatest floor-plan financing frauds in U.S. history. According to the documents, Reagor-Dykes Auto Group concealed the “major breach” from Ford Credit by falsifying sales-reporting data. Reagor-Dykes was considered to be paying off cars it sold to the general public on time, but Ford Credit reported the company was selling cars on average 55 days before reporting them to Ford Credit. It’s referred to as a check-kiting scheme.
Reagor-Dykes was also accused of illegally obtaining double-flooring from Ford Credit, according to the affidavit. Double-flooring refers to when a car dealer receives finance for the same vehicle twice; it is an illegal practice in which a single vehicle is used as collateral for several loans. Ford Credit further claims that Reagor-Dykes secured inventory credit for automobiles it had already sold by claiming to Ford Credit that the car was still available for purchase and then obtaining extra financing.
According to the corporation, current management has also engaged in fraudulent vehicle double-flooring. According to Ford Credit, this isn’t simply a contract breach; it’s also loan fraud. It is a crime punishable by years in prison if found to be true.
Below are some frequently asked questions relevant to banking scams, frauds, and more.
How can I track down an individual or organization that has conducted a banking scam on me?
Depending on the manner they utilize to defraud you, there are a variety of options. A scam is sometimes a scam inside another scam within a “Make Money Online” scheme. Calling the cops is the greatest option. Because there are some uninformed/terrible cops out there, they may not answer at all times, but keep trying.
As a victim of the scam, you have the right to make a police report, which the police must investigate. The police are utilized instead of you doing things yourself since officers can obtain subpoenas. If you want to know where a google email account came from that was used in fraud, you can’t call Google and ask for the I.P. and backup email address, but the police can. If the scam was carried out over the phone, you may or may not be able to locate the OCN, CLLI, or Switch, but the police will be able to do so and use that information in a subpoena.
If a caller I.D. is faked, the authorities can subpoena your carrier’s PBX logs to determine the true source of the call. Subpoena hosting information if a web host is utilized, and subpoena leased line and VPN account information to find out who controls the I.P. address used in an email-based scam. When a police agency genuinely tries to solve a crime like this, they can collect the information far faster than someone who isn’t.
How can you identify if your banking cheque is fake?
It’s feasible to verify a check before depositing it, and it’s a good idea to do so with any checks you’re not sure about, especially large ones. Before you deposit a check, make sure it’s genuine, and the writer has enough funds on hand, or the check will bounce. If this happens, you’ll have to pay fees to your bank, and you’ll almost certainly not collect the money you’re entitled to.
Examine Where the Check Came From and Who Handed It to You Before you do anything else, look at where the check came from and who gave it to you. If someone contacts you out of the blue to send you a check, it’s likely they’re a fraudster, and the check is bogus. It’s a massive red flag if someone tells you that you won a prize, lottery, or sweepstakes and that they’ll mail you a check. Furthermore, if you have to pay money to receive the check, or if the person who sent it to you wants you to send back some of it, it’s almost certainly a fraud.
It’s possible that you were paid with a fraudulent check, even if the account has funds. It’s simple to replicate a real check and create a genuine-looking (but fraudulent) check with today’s technology.
Examine each check you receive:
- Verify that the check was issued by a real bank and that the name on the check isn’t a forgery. Make sure the check is correct if it includes the bank’s number and address.
- Look for security measures on checks, such as microprinting on the signature line, a security screen on the back, and the phrase “original document” on the back.
- Check the check’s amount, as scammers frequently write checks for more than the original amount intended.
- Look for smudges or discoloration on the check, which could suggest that it was tampered with.
What is a bad checks database for a business?
If you run a business, you may take checks and worry if they are valid on a frequent basis. It can take a long time to verify money, and it may not be possible to do so while consumers wait in line. When faulty checks are widespread (or just too expensive), the best approach to protect yourself is to employ a check verification service.
Before accepting a check as payment, these services can assist you in discovering bad checks by scanning numerous databases (you run the check through a check reader or punch in the routing and account number online). Gather contact information from anyone who pays by check, so you’re prepared. Make sure you have a current phone number and address and double-check your identity to make sure it all matches.
Check your local regulations to see what options you have if your checks bounce. If you own a business, it’s a good idea to put a notice informing clients of the steps you’ll take if checks are returned.
What is the best way to verify funds?
You can try to verify funds in the account if you’re holding onto a dubious check. To do so, call the bank on which the check is drawn and request verification of funds. In the interest of privacy, some banks will merely tell you if the account is authentic or will not offer any information at all. Others may be able to inform you if the account has enough money to cover the cheque right now. That information, of course, is merely a snapshot of what’s available in the account at the time you check.
After you hang up, the account holder could withdraw funds, or additional charges could be applied to the account. If you can verify funds and are confident that the cheque is valid, deposit it right away. Take the check to any branch of the bank that the funds are drawn on if you can’t verify the funds (or if you want to be extra careful). You might be able to cash the check right away without having to deposit it, which reduces the risk of it bouncing. Few banks may also charge a fee for this service, but not all do. For a fee, you may be able to cash a check at a business or check-cashing store (and those companies are usually able to verify checks as well).
Who are the most vulnerable to bank scams?
You’d think that financial fraud is on the decline, given the amount of cyber threat intelligence amassed over the previous 20 years and the variety of solutions available today to secure every element of the consumer experience. Unwillingly, this has not been the scenario for many banks and financial institutions in the twenty-first century.
Fraud prevention has become a never-ending fight in the age of multiple digital channels, including mobile banking applications running on various platforms. As soon as one threat appears to be gone, another emerges to take its place. Even businesses that pride themselves on having a comprehensive and cutting-edge risk management strategy are not exempt.
WORRIED THAT SOMEONE HAS YOUR PERSONAL & BUSINESS INFORMATION?
With how easy it is for scammers to acquire your data, it’s reasonable to be alarmed. Protect yourself and your loved ones by getting advice from experts. We will guide and even help you get your money back from scammers.
Fraud ready today does not imply fraud readiness in the future
The explanation for this is straightforward: fraud is on the rise. There are no promises concerning your future risk profile other than the fact that it will most certainly be elevated or differentiated from previous data. According to the Consumer Sentinel Data Book for 2020 published by the United States Federal Trade Commission (F.T.C.), fraud reports achieved an all-time high in 2020, up from an all-time high in 2019, which was up from an all-time high in 2018.
You see what I mean. 1 In fact, the only time since 2001 that the number of fraud reports has decreased was in 2016 and 2017. Finally, growing evidence of fraud implies that a risk management plan based exclusively on prior years’ risks is doomed to fail. No matter how well-established reactive security postures are, they don’t ensure future threat tolerance. Being proactive implies combining zero-day fraud detection and prevention skills with a defense-in-depth (layered security) strategy that includes physical, technical, and administrative controls.
Banks could also explore implementing machine learning-driven risk management, which can identify anomalies and identify new risks as they emerge, rather than after they’ve already exploited weaknesses and caused reputational damage, which is more expensive to remediate.
There is no such thing as a place when it comes to organizations
Major security breaches have become commonplace in the headlines. It may appear that your organization has been spared when threat actors do not target it. No organization, however, is an island. Banks today don’t live in a vacuum, and any large-scale security breaches have repercussions throughout the business. Each piece of information obtained by fraudsters, cybercriminal groups, or state actors regarding bank customers compromises their login information, resulting in transactional fraud involving the consumers’ valuable assets.
Fraud typically occurs from close quarters.
The balance between customer experience and security is tricky. Given today’s high expectations, it’s critical to strike a balance between security and usability. The ultimate goal is to maintain trust. Enhanced security that has a negative impact on the customer experience is not a realistic option, yet intuitive user journeys can be costly. Internally, businesses strengthen security by educating staff through information security seminars or implementing policies and procedures to prevent unauthorized access and reduce the probability of a breach.
Customers, on the other hand, have always been a diverse bunch who banks in a variety of unprotected locations, potentially in the presence of people with ill intentions. They may save their passwords on sticky notes, save them unprotected in their phones or browsers, or use the same password for every online service they utilize. They may even use social media quizzes (which are essentially data harvesting operations) to publish their answers to basic security questions with their whole network.
Consumer habits that are predictable and inadequate information security procedures provide possibilities for fraudsters that reactive security postures cannot address. The organization’s baseline should be a layered security plan. By going beyond standard verification, this must also emphasize treating I.D.s as a first-class currency. However, none of these steps should be taken at the expense of a positive customer experience, which is why implementing an adaptive and machine learning-driven/risk-based authentication system can help to balance the user journey.
Behavioral biometrics, which includes a wide range of consumer attributes (location, time of day, device type, operating system, browser details, and so on), will enable continuous identification and authentication by preventing identity theft and improving security without compromising ease of use, giving the bank a stronger defense against ongoing threats.
What is the worst bank to deposit your money in?
What constitutes a good or terrible bank for a consumer is determined by their requirements. A comparison of attributes alone would not be adequate to identify the worst banks in the United States. We need to hear directly from customers in order to do so. Fair shake, a consumer rights service, reviewed Consumer Affairs reviews and identified the banks with the lowest ratings across the country, mapping the most-hatred institutions in each state based on the number of 1-star reviews on the consumer review site. After all, was said and done, these men were at the bottom of the heap in the hearts of customers across the country:
- Bank of America
- One Bank Credit
- Wells Fargo & Company
- Chase Bank is number four.
- The United States Bank
It’s worth considering that some of the country’s largest banks have the lowest ratings. Because it seems to be the reason that businesses with the most customers would have more ratings — and thus a higher number of one-star reviews – the ranking is likely influenced by size. But it isn’t the only reason these financial institutions have made a list.
What tends to make these banks the worst?
In general, we follow the guideline that people have followed for millennia when deciding which services to purchase: Pay attention to what others are saying. When looking for a bank, read over the features to make sure it has what you need, but also look into client reviews, ratings, and complaints. How a bank handles challenging and unique issues can make or break your long-term experience. Banking review site MyBankTracker compiled a list of the most common complaints clients have about poor banks based on an examination of reviews on its site, including:
- Ineffective client service.
- Hidden expenses
- Bounced check fees
- Mortgage and loan issues
- Major errors or faults
- Products and services that do not meet expectations
Can I get scammed with a bank cashier's check?
Theft of cashier’s checks is a popular scam, with many victims losing thousands of dollars. Here’s everything you need to know about cashier’s check scams, including how to avoid them. Checks taken from a financial institution’s own funds and signed by a cashier or teller are known as cashier’s checks. Cashier’s checks are generally regarded as a secure method of making a significant purchase payment.
The difference between a standard check and a bank check is that the bank, not the buyer, guarantees payment. However, in certain, limited situations, a financial institution may issue a stop payment on a cashier’s check in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code, often for lost or stolen cashier’s checks. Wait until the cashier’s check has cleared before assuming you have the money. You will most likely be the one who suffers financial loss if a cashier’s check is not real and you unintentionally accept a fraudulent cashier’s check in exchange for products or services.
Scams involving cashier’s checks nearly always include someone handing you a legitimate-looking check or money order and requesting you to wire money or deliver them things in exchange. You discover that the check or money order you received was fraudulent after you deposit or cash it and transmit the money.
Get to know the folks who are sending you the cheque
Accepting a check from someone you don’t know, even if it’s a cashier’s check, is risky. If the check is a forgery, getting a refund may be challenging.
Check to see if the check is authentic
Call or go to the banking institution’s branch where the check is drawn. The financial institution should be able to assist you in determining whether the check you received is valid. The phone number for the banking institution stated on the cheque should not be trusted; it could be a scam. Do your homework and uncover the institution’s true phone number.
Check to see if the check has cleared
Verify that the check has cleared and that the funds are in your account by calling your banking institution.
Backup all of your papers
All documentation related to a cashier’s check should be saved. If something goes wrong, these documents may come in handy. Scams involving cashier’s checks are rather common.
Scams involving work-at-home opportunities
You get payments in the form of a cashier’s check, which you must deposit in your account and transfer to someone else. These schemes, which are frequently marketed as a work-at-home check processing employment, are frequently troublesome. You may be laundering money for criminals in some circumstances. In other circumstances, the first few payments are OK, but after they’ve established your trust, you’ll receive a bogus check and lose money.
Scams involving mystery shoppers
You’ve been luckily chosen as a mystery shopper, and you’ve been notified. You get a cashier’s check and are instructed to deposit it in your account. You must spend a portion of your funds at selected stores, transfer a piece of your funds to a 3rd party using a wire service business, and keep the remaining. If the cashier’s check is bogus, you will lose the money you spent and mailed. You sell goods, and the buyer sends you a cashier’s check for the agreed-upon sum.
HAVE YOU BEEN SCAMMED AND NEED HELP IN FIGHTING BACK?
Scammers can create complex scams that can trap even the most cautious of people. But it’s not too late because we can help you track the damage done by scammers. We can help you get your money back!
Foreign lottery scams
You transfer the products to the customer only to discover that the cashier’s check is fake. You’ve won a foreign lottery, or someone close to you has died and left you a large sum of money.
A cashier’s check is normally included with the letter. The check is to help cover the taxes and expenses associated with claiming your reward money, according to the document. You simply need to deposit the check into your account and send a portion of the funds to the folks who sent it to you to settle the taxes and fees.
You keep the remainder of your deposit as well as the entire amount of the reward money you’ve “earned.” Of course, the money you’ve been promised never arrives, and you’re stuck with the fees you’ve already paid.
Scams involving property rentals
Due to reportedly taking a new job, someone wishing to rent your property is willing to pay the first and final month’s rent (together with the security deposit) using a cashier’s check before ever seeing the property. They explained there was an issue with the job – they’re not coming, so they don’t require the rental the next day after you deposit the check. The security deposit is yours to keep, but they’d prefer you to refund some of the rent. You’ll discover that the check was a forgery after you’ve sent the reimbursement.
Stay Clear of Blacklisted Banking Scam Companies
Being proactive in monitoring who has access to your bank account or other personal information is the best way to avoid having it compromised. While the potential scams in this article are related to banking, they are only a small fraction of the greater realm of identity theft. Scammers are ready to exploit any weaknesses related to your banking because your bank accounts are the way by which you access and interact with so many parts of your financial life.
Dealing with financial institutions that have been authorized or registered by us provides you with additional protection in the event that something goes wrong or you get scammed. To make sure they’re authorized or registered, look them up on the Financial Services Register. It contains data about businesses and persons who are or have been regulated by us.
If you utilize an authorized or registered firm, your access to the Financial Ombudsman Service and FSCS protection will be determined by the amount of money you invest, the service the firm provides, and the permits the firm has. If you have any questions about protection, the authorized or registered firm should be able to assist you.
do you need help?
A lot of those who contact us have questions and concerns about their personal and business data being compromised. We aim to arm you with the legal and technical know-how in the fight against scams. Also, we will be able to refer you to top scam recovery agencies.
Please fill up the form. Rest assured that our support team will get in touch with you