Offshore Outsourcing & Scammer

As you already found out, 99.99% of the people visiting internet boards are full of crap.

I hope the following information will give you a better insight into the actual conditions that are acceptable to the real people trading financial instruments as opposed to all of the nonsense that has been perpetrated by the brokers and others that simply do not understand the nature of this business.

First, let’s put to rest many of the things that are incorrect and inaccurate about buying and selling instruments.

Consider the following corrections to items that are pervasive throughout the brokers’ network, continue to be included in Letters of Intent, have been incorrectly applied to these transactions and are never a part of a real agreement between a real seller and his buyer counterparty in the trading world:

• First and foremost, the days of the buyer standing in the public square and dropping his pants while the seller hides in the dark and is "protected" by some broker that calls himself the "mandate" are gone from this business, never to return.
  
  
• The letter of intent can never become a contract. This is contrary to contract law. The seller and the buyer will always enter into an enforceable commercial contract or agreement. The letter of intent is just that, an expression of the buyer’s interest or intention. More than 95% of the time, the letter of intent is written by a broker, not by the seller and, for the most part, these brokers have just cut and pasted information that they obtained from other brokers.
  
  
• Banking coordinates are never conveyed in a letter of intent. These are very confidential and are not the business of the broker network. In fact, banking coordinates are never conveyed in an agreement. Banking coordinates are only conveyed principal to principal.
  
  
• The laws of perjury do not apply to any commercial document, or agreement. This is contrary to contract law and it is impossible for someone to perjure themselves in a letter of intent or interest.
  
  
• There are no rules, regulations, acts, ordinances or laws (including the US. Patriot Act of 2001) that require a buyer to produce a proof of financial capability prior to acquiring any instrument.
  
  
• There is no agency or department of the US Government that approves the private sale of Medium Term Notes (MTNs) or Bank Guarantees (BGs) and there is no department that issues a "Fed number" for MTNs. This is all broker nonsense.
  
  
• Banks do not endorse fee agreements, contracts or letter of intent letter of intents. This action would place a financial liability on the bank and they cannot and will not incur that liability on behalf of their depositors.
  
  
• Banks do not issue irrevocable conditional bank purchase orders (ICBPO), or any purchase orders, period. In fact, a bank is precluded from incurring any liability on behalf of a depositor. And, the words "irrevocable conditional" form an oxymoron. No western world bank will issue a MT543, as it is a liability on behalf of the bank. In fact, as of September 1, 2003, the MT543 is gone from the banking world.
  
  
• Issuing banks do not enter into agreements to sell their financial instruments and the buyer’s banks do not enter into agreements to purchase the financial instruments. The agreement is always between the buyer and the seller. And no banker or securities officer is going to act on behalf of the buyer or seller until and unless there is an agreement in place.
  
  
• Collateral first is the most misunderstood phrase. Collateral first does not mean that the actual instruments move to the buyer before payment. It means that the seller must provide an invoice setting forth the details of the instruments, before the payment is made. There is no longer such a thing as a collateral first settlement via Euroclear and there is no such thing as a "collateral first" DVP settlement, these are not the same settlement types.
  
  
• There is no such thing as "due diligence" by some "agency" for seasoned instruments. The buy/sell transaction between private parties is private and does not require the approval of any governmental body or agency.
  
  
• As a result of the post-September 11 rules on wire transfers of funds, it is no longer possible for buyers to move cash funds in amounts over US$500M without the funds being stopped and investigated. Accordingly, offers that set forth tranches of $1b, $5b and more, are just pure nonsense.
  
  
• The ICC in Paris, France, is not an enforcement, adjudication or legislative body. They are simply an information body. And, they have never published anything on the subject of NCNDs. Accordingly, the ICC has no jurisdictional authority or standing in any commercial agreement.
  
  
• Contract law sets forth that there cannot be any conflict of jurisdictional oversight to an agreement. Accordingly, an agreement cannot contain multiple jurisdictions as the controlling laws. Example: "This agreement is governed by the laws where the buyer and the seller reside and the ICC. Paris, France". Or "this agreement is governed by the laws of the USA, UK, Hong Kong, Switzerland and Germany" were written by someone who knows nothing about the law.
  
  
• Bank guarantees are never on any screen (DTC or Euroclear) for screening, authentication or settlement. All BGs must be transacted via standard non-Euroclear DVP protocol settlement procedures.
  
  
• Medium term notes (MTNs) are only on Euroclear, not on DTC, for screening, authentication and settlement. All MTNs and bonds on Euroclear must be transacted via standard Euroclear DVP protocol settlement procedures.
  
  
• Prior to January 1, 2003, it was possible to settle on Euroclear with a collateral first settlement. The seller provided the buyer with the invoice containing all of the instrument and Euroclear codes, including the blocking code. The buyer would then screen the instruments, block (delivery) the instruments in its name and then pay the seller via wire transfer of funds. Euroclear called this a "free delivery" as the instruments were blocked in the name of the buyer without any funds being delivered (payment) at the same time. There were too many incidents where the funds never were wired, causing both the seller and Euroclear big problems. So, as of January 1, 2003, there are no more "free deliveries". All instruments on Euroclear must be transacted via standard Euroclear DVP protocol settlement procedures.
  
  
• Standard Euroclear DVP protocol settlement procedures and standard non-Euroclear DVP protocol settlement procedures, do not require and, in fact, preclude the need for a proof of funds, proof of capability, financial capability letter, MT760, MT543 or MT799. This is handled in the bank to bank call, after the agreement is signed and in place. Accordingly, no one will issue these documents, as they are replaced by the bank to bank confirmation call that must take place immediately after the agreement is signed.
  
  
• MT100 and MT103 are conditional swift transfers of cash funds. The MT100 has not been used for more than two years. The MT103 is the current method of sending a conditional swift transfer of cash funds. However, the MT103 is only used for fresh cut (new issue), funds first transactions and never for seasoned paper or a DVP settlement transaction.
  
  
• MT760 is not a proof of funds, blocking of funds, movement of funds or settlement document. It only has one purpose. Its purpose is for the actual movements of the bank guarantee (not MTNs or bonds) from the seller’s bank officer to the buyer’s bank officer.
  
  
• MT799 is a simple text message, sent bank to bank. In this business, this is used for a bank to bank proof of funds, only. The MT799 is not a form of payment and it is not a bank undertaking or promise to pay. It is simply a bank to bank confirmation of the funds on deposit, nothing more. And, all of those brokers out there who modify the MT799 to make it look like a bank undertaking are just kidding themselves.
  
  
• Standby Letters of Credit (SBLCs) are not instruments that are issued, bought and sold at discounted prices. When a bank issues a SBLC, the price to the buyer is 100% of face value, plus the bank service charge for the instrument. And, the purchaser of the SBLC will ask the bank to place a restrictive endorsement on the SBLC, for the payment of a specific item of goods or services. All offers for large amounts of SBLCs at discounted prices are absolutely fraudulent offers.
  
  
• A fee protection agreement (FPA) that states "to be determined" or "to be nominated" as the name of the paymaster for either the buyer’s side or the seller’s side is absolutely worthless. No prudent business person will issue a blank document. And, if you do not know the name of the seller’s side paymaster, then you do not have a valid offer and you do not have any way of delivering the Ready Willing and Able (RWA) letter to the seller.
  
  
• There is no such thing as slightly seasoned instruments. Instruments are either fresh cut (new issue that has not been registered with a buyer) or they are seasoned (instruments that have already been sold to one or more buyers). While the price of seasoned instrument can vary, the fact that they are either seasoned or not seasoned is binary in nature.
  
  
• There is no such thing as the "gray screen", a "Fed ID" approving the acquisition of MTNs, a "Fed Pool", "Fed program" or "Fed trader". This is all pure broker nonsense.

Yesterday I got an email with the content that sage.co.uk or staff from them is scamming center owners. As Sage is a big software company from UK I did not believe it. Why should a big company be in need to take a few thousands or Pounds from center owners?

The content of the email has been:

I got Cheated by person called Sameer Ahuja , Ranveer swamy and Leisa Dorcherty , In the name of Business they took $ 490  Fraudulently and Now they are not receiving call and not replying mail also I filed a complaint in Near by Police station , 
sameer Ahuja  Skype id : sameer.sage-inc  , Mobile Number (Office ) - 00447509754621 , (personnel) - 00447509756623

Ranveer Swamy skype id : ranveer.sage-inc
Leisa Dorcherty skype id : leisa.sage-inc
Account number which they have given
Bank Name : State Bank of India
Name: Ranveer Swami
Account no.- 20176913465
IFSC code: SBIN0001161
Branch- IIT Kanpur

Let us verify the data, which seem to be true of this scam.

If someone calls you and he is transmitting his caller id, then it is possible to call him back. If the same person picks up the call than you have at least a phone number, which can get verified. In our case it is a little bit difficult, because the UK data protection act don’t let you make a reverse phone lookup.

Under the UK's data protection act, reverse phone number lookups are against the law. There are however a couple of options, depending on your situation.

If you are receiving nuisance calls, then you should contact your phone provider and lodge a complaint. Should the problem persist, then contacting the police is an option.

Only the area can get located where the call comes from. In our case is it a mobile phone from the area of Jersey.

By having the phone number and the location we find the first reason why the scam is not from Sage. Jersey is in an Island in front of the coast of France. It belongs to the UK territory. Sage is located in Newcastle upon Tyne. If we use Google maps and let us calculate a route, than we see that the shortest route is 781 km and it takes around 11 hours to drive the route without respecting the possible traffic and resulting traffic jam. Nobody will drive to his workplace this distance. On the other side nobody will use a mobile phone from an area, which is around 800km away from his home or workplace and where he needs to use even a ferry going to the island.

The office and the private phone numbers are mobile phone numbers.  A big company like Sage has a land line phone number for their office. They are not using mobile phones for their office.  Manager from a company with the size of Sage will not give you their private phone number. Leisa Docherty is a manager from Sage.

Additional to the reason that you need not pay in Europe for getting some work you can easily verify such offers, which are coming from such companies. Sage has published some phone numbers at their website the offer can get easily verified if you are calling one of their phone numbers. If you have really a contact with one of the manager, then you will be able to pass the gatekeeper.

The next information which seems to be true is the bank account number, because the scammer likes to get the money. The name can be already a fake. It is the age of electronic transactions. For this the name will not get verified during a transaction from the bank as long as the account number is correct.

A company like Sage will every time use their real bank account and not a private account from someone in India. The reason for this is the strict tax law in Europe. Each company need to have a correct financial bookkeeping, which gets verified from time to time from tax officers of the government.

The only possible way to catch the scammer is over their phone number and their bank account.  In our case it the scammer located in India, because the bank account is there. The phone number gets simple forwarded by Voice over IP to any place in the world. Don’t let yourself get fooled bank accounts are normally in the same area where the company is registered. With the usage of electronic banking you have access to your bank account all over the world. For this there is no reason to have a bank account abroad if you have not an affiliate in the country abroad.

All other information cannot get verified. The LinkedIn accounts could got hacked and everybody can chose his Skype ID how he likes to name it. There is no verification for company names by creating an account. Each free combination can get chosen.

Companies are using for their contracts their own registered domain names for sending and receiving emails. Only people, which have something to hide, are hiding themselves by using freemail accounts. Companies, which are using official such freemail accounts have listed them on their homepage too.

The only criticism that can be made sage.co.uk is that they do not respond to emails. Apparently they do not care that criminals are using the name of SAGE. A company that not even not care about the crime, where her name is used, will not take care of the interests of their clients. This is the sign of today's society. Everyone cares only about their personal profits and the profit of their shareholders.

The scammer are speculating with the greed of the people. So don't see the proposed winning - take a look if you are not pay for get nothing!!! A good name in the offer does not guarantee something. Use your brain and make in each case a background check!!!