Offshore Outsourcing & Scammer

Today (2015-03-09) I got a LinkedIn message, which shall make me rich. I think that other members from LinkedIn have gotten a similar message with the following content:

Hello

Ms Rose LEE Wai Mun

9. März 2015, 11:33 Uhr

As I expect a scam about a long laying fund there I have answered the message to the given email address and expect now a story about a missing customer with millions of $ on a bank account, which has the same last name like me. For showing this to you, I have sent a short answer to the given email address:

Rudolf Faix <rudolffaix@gmail.com>	11:40
an msroselewaimun

 

 

 

 

Hi Rose

 

Please send me the details about your business proposal.

 

best regards

Rudolf Faix

2015-03-10: 

Like I have expected it yesterday, I have received such an email. Don't take the bait. The next follow up will be the advance fee scam.

Ms Rose LEE Wai Mun	23:45 (vor 1 Stunde)
an mich

 

 

 

 

Dear Faix

 

Thanks so much for replying to my email address, I know this will come as a surprise to you but let me formally introduce myself to you.I am Ms Rose LEE Wai Mun Vice-Chairman and Chief Executive at the Hang Seng Bank Plc. I am contacting you concerning an abandoned sum of $22,500,000.00 USD. In June 2004, A customer called Fernando Faix foreign contractor with Royal Dutch Plc came to our bank for business discussions and investment, As the officer in charge of his transaction then, I encouraged him to consider various growth of funds with prime ratings. Then he invested Nineteen Million Five Hundred Thousand United State Dollars only. Based on my advice, we were able to spin the initial deposit with profit and interest to 22.5 million U.S Dollars. After few months; My bank (Hang Seng) sent several notice to him without response and unfortunately, my client died in a car crash along with his nuclear family at France while on sabbatical in the summer of 2008, may their soul rest in peace. He died without leaving a Will and several efforts were made to find his extended family through your embassy without success. Because of the sensitive nature of private banking, most customers don't nominate next of kin in their investment, also usually in most cases leave their WILLS in our care, in this case; our now deceased client died in-testate.

 

It is quite clear now that our dear client died with no known or identifiable family member. According to practice, the Private banking sector will by the end of this year broadcast a request for statement of claim to Hang Seng Bank Ltd, failing to receive viable claims they will probably revert the deposit to the Management of Hang Seng Bank Ltd. This will result the money entering the Hang Seng accounting system and the portfolio will be out of my hands and out of the private banking division. What bothers me most is that according to the laws of my country at the expiration of Ten {10} years the funds will revert to the ownership of the Hong Kong Government if nobody applies to claim the funds.

 

Now, I am prepared to give the necessary details to you as the closest surviving relation of our deceased customer (Fernando Faix). I am also proposing that after a successful execution of the business deal, the funds will be shared in the ratio 40/60. You will get 40% and I will be entitled to 60% as the initiator of the deal. You know that I must have done my home work already before contacting you. Although the project is capital intensive, I know I will be able to pull it through following proper banking and legal Channels with your assistance at your end. I will tidy up the legal aspect with the assistance of a lawyer who will prepare all the documents that will be needed to transfer the money from Hong Kong to your country. Once more, I ask that if you find no interest in this project that you should discard this mail and forget I ever contacted you, I ask that you do not be vindictive and destructive; do not destroy my career. Opportunities like this only comes once in a lifetime. I am a family woman and this is an opportunity for me to give my family the best in life. I would want you to think about this and let me know your decision. If you give me a positive response, I will give you the relevant INFORMATION for the successful transfer of these funds and we both enjoy it in peace.

 

If you give me positive signals on my email: msroselewaimun@gmail.com, I will initiate this process towards a conclusion. I wish to inform you that should you not contact me via official Channels else I will deny knowing you and about this project. You can also check on my biography from this link as well http://bank.hangseng.com/1/2/about-us/directors-organisation/board-of-directors#irenelee you can also call our official line +852-2822-0228 but do not talk about this transaction or I may deny knowing you, when you call? Ask of Ms Rose LEE Wai Mun (Hang Seng Bank) and if I am on seat, then your call shall be transfer to me, what I will want you to do is to abolish the call before I talk because my official line are not secured means to reach me bearing in mind, the nature of this transaction, because they are periodically monitored to assess our level of customer care in line with our Total Quality Management.

 

I await your response.

 

Regards

I stop at this time the communication with this scammer. The follow up will be only an advanced fee scam.

For the case that such a email would not be only scam, you would make yourself punishable and will end up in jail for helping in betraying the government, which gets in such case the heritage. 

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.