According to the Wall Street Journal:
Depositors from as far away as Colombia have begun arriving in the island nation of Antigua, seeking to withdraw their money from an offshore bank under investigation by U.S. state and federal authorities.
Stanford International Bank Ltd. and related firms controlled by Texas businessman R. Allen Stanford have fallen under scrutiny by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory bodies, according to people familiar with the matter.
Authorities are examining the group's marketing practices, which include offering certificates of deposit with unusually high interest rates, as well as a mutual-fund product sold by Stanford Trust Co., a person familiar with the matter says.
On its Web site, Stanford says the product, known as Stanford Allocation Strategies, aims to "reduce volatility throughout the investment cycle." Investigators are looking at whether Stanford provided false historical return data that bolstered its performance, this person said.
Now what would they be thinking? Surely they couldn't think someone so recently sponsoring international cricket could be doing something wrong deep in the outfield, could they? Maybe they're just Madoff.
Hat tip to Chris Hopkins.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard
Private Eye carried a big warning about this about 4 months ago. It suggested that Stanford “controlled” bank regulation in Antigua and that local money laundering procedures left a lot to he desired. Why on earth would anybody put their money with a bank there? I warned friends in the cricket world to choose their bedfellow carefully and here we are today!
Rupert
I’m beginning to find this scale of agreement between us unsettling 🙂
Richard
Likewisee ! But don’t worry it has its limitations !
The bottom line is that there is acceptable and unacceptable use of offshore finance centres. I believe in doing everything properly and legally, and am adamant that there is more than enough good quality work around. I resent those who abuse “offshore” by conducting tax evasion and operating to low standards, risking ruining things for those who do things properly.
Where you and I really differ our opinions is in the moral side. You take the view that many aspects of offshore planning are wrong on moral grounds, even though they are legal, and I accept that we won’t agree on that. I also believe in the right to offshore privacy if no laws are being broken and I know that we won’t agree on that one either.
I resent the governments of those offshore jurisdictions who cannot or will not accept that we are no longer in the 1980s, and that outdated offshore practices really should be a thing oh the past. Particularly galling when higher-calibre financial services providers in those same jurisdictions are trying to operate to far higher standards themselves, only to be held back by governments and regulators who don’t want to recognise that the traditional way of doing things there are no longer acceptable.
Other than that, I guess we might share a few views !