WRONG_WOEID WRONG_WOEID

Business Woman Under Scrutiny

Business Woman Under ScrutinyAntigua St. John's - An indigenous Antiguan businesswoman who sells perfume and other beauty products has reportedly come under scrutiny from the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC) and the Office of the National Drug Control and Money Laundering Policy (ONDCP).

The vendor has reportedly blamed a commercial bank in St John's for her troubles.

According to well-placed sources, the trouble began when the woman reportedly loaned a male relative $100,000, drawn on a
cheque from a local financial institution, to secure bail at the High Court.



The ONDCP had reportedly slapped the relative with several drug charges in 2013. When a copy of the cheque reportedly ended up in the files of the FSRC and ONDCP, the businesswoman reportedly blamed court officials and her bank of some 20 years.

Banks are required by law to report suspicious financial activities.

Adding to the woman's troubles, the financial institution reportedly closed her account and returned the balance in her savings account via cheque.

The bank, among other things, reportedly wrote due to your financial activities, your account is closed. She saw the actions of the financial institution as discriminatory, if not victimizing.

The dissatisfied customer has reportedly hired a law firm to look into possible breaches of contract and privacy, inconvenience and redress for the embarrassment she has been subjected to by the bank.


Reporting by Caribarena news, publishing by Ofer Shaked.

Hits: 4546

25 Comments In This Article   

HEADER   

@sitco - Forget about Bitcoin in ANU

#25 Tech Guru » 2014-02-26 08:50

As predicted, its not a good idea at this moment to invest in bitcoins. See what has become of your bitcoins idea in just a few days?
money.cnn.com/2014/02/25/technology/security/mtgox-bitcoin/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
1
0
+
−

Tech Guru

Pompey is wrong

#24 Budman » 2014-02-08 21:23

The Supervisory Authority referred to in the Money Laundering prevention Act refers to the Director of the ONDCP. It is actually a dual role. It doesn't have to be but that is the way in Antigua. FSRC deals with offshore entities and gaming.
3
1
+
−

Budman

cont'd

#23 CIROC » 2014-02-08 19:18

They should have left it opened to be monitored.The Feds would not let a bank close an account until they are satisfied.This would be kept confidential.Only the officers in that bank would be aware of what is going on.
7
0
+
−

CIROC

RE: Business Woman Under Scrutiny

#22 CIROC » 2014-02-08 19:14

In my opinion the bank made a pre mature decision to close the account.If this customer's account was being by the FSRC.T
1
3
+
−

CIROC

@ fnpsr

#21 SlyThatGuy » 2014-02-07 18:39

fnpsr, What you say makes a lot of sense. Either the bank officials closed the account because they became scared and nervous or they were pressured to do so by the authorities who feels that the circumstances of money laundering exist even if they were unable to prove it. But, in any case, whether the bank officials came to that decision on their own or they were forced to do so by the authorities, it was improper for them to close her account. It looks like the authorities wanted to punish her just to make sure she was not getting away with a crime.
8
0
+
−

SlyThatGuy

@sitco

#20 Tech Guru » 2014-02-07 18:06

Please do not introduce bitcoin technology so quick to ANU slick gurus. There are lots of problems with bitcoins too. Visit:

www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-03/one-big-problem-bitcoin
3
1
+
−

Tech Guru

keep your money under your bed

#19 sitco » 2014-02-07 16:37

Thank good for digital money like bitcoins so we do not have to put with banks anymore and keep our money under our bed. Bitcoins is the future of money, banks days are numbered.
3
0
+
−

sitco

The bank may be complicit - part 2 & final

#18 fnpsr » 2014-02-07 16:23

As SlyThatGuy correctly indicated that since the bank closed her account and returned her money, there is no money laundering here. Had there been, the bank would have frozen her account.

Since the relative is an accused drug person, it is okay for the authorities to question the source of the money. But this could have been done with an internal review of the account without the knowledge of the businesswoman. Only and only if they found discrepancies then they would have contacted the businesswoman to explain.

I believe the bank officials panicked and closed the account in fear of violating the law. Obviously, they do not know the law or how to apply the law!

“Let’s fix the little things with RWE before we attempt to fix the big things.”
11
0
+
−

fnpsr

The bank may be complicit - part 1

#17 fnpsr » 2014-02-07 16:22

I believe that the bank may be complicit in this matter. First of all, the woman-vendor is a businessperson and is known to the bank for twenty years. The bank enjoyed her business all these years, to include deposits and withdrawals and should have been aware of her banking activities. If the bank had any problems with her deposits, in terms of frequency and amounts, relative to the business activity, that was the time the bank should have notified the authorities. Writing a check for $100k to a government agency to post bail for an accused drug dealer, is not in and of itself money laundering, when the customer is known to the bank for twenty years and the account can support the amount written. The bank allegedly never reported any previous suspicious activity to the authorities.

A suspicious activity would have been, had she deposited $150K in cash. Another suspicious activity would have been writing a check to some one a month later for $100K or making a series of withdrawals just under the reportable amount.
8
0
+
−

fnpsr

@Hereby

#16 CIROC » 2014-02-07 15:08

If I made a transaction with my bank.And they deemed it to be suspicious.They would report me to the Feds.The Feds would begin to monitor my account activites.The bank in Antigua had such a right to bring the FSRC into this matter.It is based on circumstances outlined in the story.The banks in any jurisdiction have the rights to close an account without notice.The FSRC does not regulate banks.However they do get involved into suspicious financial transaction when called upon by Banks.
5
6
+
−

CIROC

STATE YOUR ROLE HERBY?

#15 RAWLSTON POMPEY » 2014-02-07 13:48

HERBY,
Lay your " ...role, knowledge, experience and achievements" for our readers' benefit.

Not only rendered service to the nation in an " ...individual enforcement capacity," but also proudly managed a Law enforcement agency that up to this day, has" ...responsibility for enforcement of the very Law."

The reward, the prestigious " ...QUEEN'S POLICE MEDAL-(QPM)."
Never used it after my name anyway.
3
12
+
−

RAWLSTON POMPEY

RE: Business Woman Under Scrutiny

#14 Reader » 2014-02-07 13:11

oh what a backwater place this is
3
7
+
−

Reader

HERBY IGNORANCE

#13 RAWLSTON POMPEY » 2014-02-07 13:11

Herby,
You are confused. You gave the impression that you are in a " ...HERBY WORLD."

If it will lift you from such immersion, then kindly refer to Section 10 of the Money Laundering (Prevention) Act.

For your benefit, paragraph 3 speaks ONLY to the FSRC as the " ...SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY" and ...NOT REGULATORY."

You have given me the benefit of " ...age" and this comes with knowledge and experience. You may be youthful, but clearly " ...IMMERSED IN 'HERBY' IGNORANCE."

Have enforced the Law for over three decades. Hence, one has to to be " ...sufficiently trained in it; ...understood it to successfully enforced it.
6
7
+
−

RAWLSTON POMPEY

RE: Business Woman Under Scrutiny

#12 R. Baptiste » 2014-02-07 12:51

Thanks, Mr. Pompey; some old dogs can never be thought new tricks...
1
7
+
−

R. Baptiste

@ DR DREDD

#11 SlyThatGuy » 2014-02-07 12:46

How can you or anyone else regard this woman as a criminal? What solid proof or evidence do the Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC) and the Office of the National Drug Control and Money Laundering Policy (ONDCP) have to back up their claim or suspicion that this woman has committed the crime of money laundering? If they conducted an investigation into the matter and reach the conclusion after the investigation was completed that the woman is guilty of wrongdoings, the bank would never have returned the money to her. The police would have seized the money (and her business) as evidence, and the woman would have been arrested. They're treating her unfairly because they suspect that she is hiding money from her relative's drug activities in her account. But even though it looks likes all the signs are their, without the proof, it's wrong to say she's a criminal.
9
1
+
−

SlyThatGuy

RE: Business Woman Under Scrutiny

#10 Herby » 2014-02-07 12:37

Mr Pompey...probably age has gotten the better of you. The FSRC has no business in regulating COMMERCIAL BANKS it is the ECCB. The FSRC regulates offshore banks which are governed by a different set of statutes to that of a Commercial Bank. If the woman in question did anything wrong at a COMMERCIAL BANK then it has not business been reported to the FSRC as it has no legal authority in supervising COMMERCIAL BANKS.

As a learned person i expect better from you. I guess you are just proving to err is human.

As one of the UPP candidates said last night which i am now endorsing there is truly a need for some financial literacy here.
8
1
+
−

Herby

UNDER INFLUENCE OF HERBY

#9 RAWLSTON POMPEY » 2014-02-07 12:27

It is plain to see that commentator " ...HERBY" may have been under the influence of the vegetable substance, if the letter " ...Y" was removed from the pseudonym " ...HERBY."

Teacher you are correct. Financial institutions are legally bound to report all transactions to the FSRC (Supervisory Authority)."

If the FSRC has reasons to " ...suspect activities not in keeping with the Law, it " ...SHALL" refer the transactions to the " ...Law enforcement authorities- Police: ...Director of Public Prosecutions and/or the ONDCP.

Seemingly, that which " ...Herby" may not have known is this:

" ...Financial Institutions SHALL pay special attention to ALL complex, unusual and LARGE TRANSACTIONS, whether completed or not, and to ALL unusual patterns of transactions, and to insignificant, but PERIODIC TRANSACTIONS, which have no ECONOMIC or LAWFUL PURPOSE" [ Money Laundering (Prevention) Act: Section of No. 9 of 1996].

The establishment, role and function of the ONDCP are for the specific purposes to deal with activities relating to " ...Proceeds of Crime and Money Laundering ...Prevention; ...Detection and Prosecution."

The sooner commentator " ...HERBY" clears his mind of that which may have caused him to " ...think and write HERBY," the better it might be for his understanding.
5
12
+
−

RAWLSTON POMPEY

Clarification

#8 Dadliman » 2014-02-07 12:08

The story does need to be checked cause the FSRC does not in anyway regulate domestic banks.....Internatio nal yes....but not domestic....that's the ECCB's mandate
6
1
+
−

Dadliman

RE: Business Woman Under Scrutiny

#7 Fed Up » 2014-02-07 10:07

There are no 'indigenous' Antiguans, everybody bang water to get here. The Caribs & the Arawaks were here long before the white people & slaves arrived, and dey all garn.
13
10
+
−

Fed Up

Indigenous sets the balance

#6 DR DREDD » 2014-02-07 09:01

Thank you Caribarena for finally balancing things. The local media, joyfully,likes to identify nationalities when they report on crime stories. A Jamaican did this. A Guyanese did this. Now we can identify the 'indigenous Antiguan' criminals.
11
9
+
−

DR DREDD

@ teacher

#5 Tasmanian Devil » 2014-02-07 08:33

teacher, it seems like you might be too smart for your own good. The cruz of blogger Herby's point which you fail to address is why a domestic bank would be reporting any bounce cheque or whatsoever to the FSRC and not the ECCB. We agree that ONDCP is the authority but again why FSRC also.
5
6
+
−

Tasmanian Devil

Scrutiny

#4 Teacher » 2014-02-07 08:26

Herby and others - it is the ONDCP that is responsible for investigating any issue relating to money laundering. All banks are required to report suspicious activities to the ONDCP, and they will investigate to ascertain if there is cause for concern or if the transaction is legtimate.

Finally, the bank has a right to close an account, and to refuse to conduct business with anyone, if the customer cannot satisfy them that their business activities are legitimate. If the bank facilitates the laundering of money, it can face prosecution, so it must take steps to protect itself, its employees and shareholders.
21
2
+
−

Teacher

RE: Business Woman Under Scrutiny

#3 Arawak » 2014-02-07 08:11

Indigenous? You guys are imposters. Go back to Europe and Africa!
8
11
+
−

Arawak

RE: Business Woman Under Scrutiny

#2 Herby » 2014-02-07 08:04

Why FSRC and not ECCB. Something aint write in this story. CA please double check facts. ECCB deals with commercial banks so it would be ignorance on the part of the Bank if any compaint was lodged with the FSRC.
1
15
+
−

Herby

“Indigenous Antiguan”

#1 Mr. Byam » 2014-02-07 07:42

Well, I hope we “Indigenous Antiguans” will rise up and take back our country for the assorted collection of foreign criminals and adventurers.
6
10
+
−

Mr. Byam

Add comment

Follow us on Facebook

Spotlight on Opinon

Previous Next
Ten Days of Anxiety - We Ready - Part I
The delayed announcement of the “...Date for the 2014 Elections,” no doubt, ...  Read more

Latest Business News

App

Android LogoDownload Caribarena's Android App Click To Download

Find us on Twitter!