Sinclair James International

This article has been taken from https://michaelwhitingisafraud.wordpress.com/

Whiting is operating in Philippines without SEC licence (Ffor over 20 years), this is what he'll have coming Filipino counterparts.

From Thailand..

Two Brits rapped as Thai SEC steps up operations

In separate incidents, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC) has filed criminal complaints against two British nationals accused of operating securities businesses without a licence.

The SEC was contacted by foreign investors residing in Thailand saying that Neil Arthur Robbirt, and firm Global Consultant, solicited them to make investments by promising them tax benefits and long-term returns.

However, neither Global Consultant nor Robbirt were licenced to operate a securities business in Thailand. The investors proceeded according to the advice given and suffered losses as a result.nThe SEC lodged a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division of the Royal Thai Police (ECD Police). If convicted, Robbirt faces imprisonment of between two and five years, a fine ranging between THB0.2m and THB0.5m, plus a daily fine of THB10,000 (£195, $282, €251) until the matter is resolved. Pension fraud In a separate incident, the SEC filed a criminal complaint against Richard Dunston Malpass for also operating a securities business without a licence.

Malpass, a Thailand resident, solicited foreign investors to transfer their pension funds from overseas to make investments based on his advice.

He faces the same charges as Robbirt. The SEC has urged prospective investors to check the credentials of any financial adviser on the licence check section of their website before making any investments.

I do hope Whiting is arrested and locked up for what he's done. The buck has to stop somewhere and it should be with Wilkes & Whiting the two directors.

They robbed me blind.

Another one of Whitings investments going down the 7ucking toilet..

http://www.scmp.com/business/money/article/168****/hk-investors-suffer-huge-losses-bets-through-cayman-islands-firm

I was also sold dodgy life plans by Darren Brindle of Sinclair James . Royal London 360 which he told me i could get all my money out after 24 mths.

I have lost almost half of my investments because of Darren. He is just interested in getting referrals and not in the slightest bit interested in looking after my existing which has taken a nose dive.

Browngirl that RL360 is what he sold me too. Its a rip-odd and you can't get your money back after 24 months.

Depending on the policy term (e.g. if it was a 25 year term) your money will be worth 0 for the first 18 months.

If I were you I would check the terms and conditions of the RL360 policy he sold you, ask a trusted financial advisor/accountant to go through the policy and I think you may find that Darren has ripped you off.

Darren Brindle is a pathological lier who told me what he thought I wanted to hear to lure my investment cash. He pretended to be my best friend, have my financial interests at heart, in reality it was all self serving.

Once he was introduced to work colleagues he was like a rash (all over them), ingratiating himself.

I soon saw a different side to him when the referrals dried up.

Dorien,

Darren Brindle is a criminal and low-life who steals people's money and will steal yours if he hasn't already. I would take action against him if I were you.

Matt Ledger is working at sinclair James on tourist visa for years. He doesn't pay tax or any contributions at all. These are the kind of low-life people that hang around that company ripping off hard working people.

To my knowledge Mr. Wilkes is NOT a qualified consultant, in fact he has no right giving any advice considering I just read he is a former UK Bankrupt.

How can some one like this give you sound financial advice?

I would question the morals and integrity of all Sinclair James Staff from what I know of them.

So why does Graham Wilkes still represent Sinclair James

Because it's run by dishonest, corrupt, self-serving tossers who enjoy stealing people's money.

Graham Wilkes took the balance of your investment cash as commission payments that's why you received very little back.

I'm sure Mr. (reliable) Wilkes would have told you all about the charges (not). As for keeping you up to date on your investments every 6 mths. Even if you would have invested over $200,000 this is seen as a pittance to Wilkes and not worth the effort.

He thinks is beneath him as he has so much contempt for smaller investors. Same as Whiting. They are out of the same scamming mould from what I know about them and have experienced first hand.

There are many people just like you.

You should write a blog and get people together for legal action. Make a complaint to SEC Philippines and have their offices raided. They have illegal workers not paying tax as my friend worked for them as a caller Matt is his name.

He was paid under the table (cash in hand), never paid any tax and worked on a tourist visa. These are the kind of people they are.

Mike Whiting is a 'chancer' who will fleece you of your life savings given half a chance. Darren Brindle is a domestic violence perpetrator who has alcoholic and insecurity problems.

He once accused his uncle of try to sex up his wife.

Graham Wilkes has a son who is a murderer.

Wilkes paid a large amount of money to hush this up.

Twisted brothers would be a good description.

Stay away from keyboard warriors who are cowards. De vere are *** Paul thompson, ian frederick mcintyre and fat phil roberts are all crooks.

Yeah everyone realises now

ok Denno , i think your on the blacklist [ which means , take you toothbrush to the airport ]

Don't forget your toothbrush & your snide Nike socks Mick.

the last i heard he got arrested at the airport and had a few days B & B

I bet he liked that home from home experience. Denisson can't count t to 100 let alone give financial advice. Old soak springs to springs to mind!

Yes, these 8astards have ruined countless pension/savings pots for up standing, honest people. They should be lynched for what they've done!

De vere *** Steal your money and hide behind a key board. Cowards.

You will lose more clients to denno. Jealousy is not good ***

Looks like Whiting is preparing to disappear & have his undischarged UK bankrupt (Graham Wilkes) front up the new company they will then tell clients "your loss is with Sinclair James not our new company."

Clients need to get together and lynch these bastars! Go around their houses and take all their belongings (cars, designer handbags, gold, diamonds).

I have been following these scams for a number of years. The launch pad was when the major financial institutions started to sell aggressively in the 80s and 90s.

They inflated the market by lending to poor credit risks and they covered themselves by selling on the debts to other institutions. Unfortunately, they were all selling to each other. The result was the dot.com bubble, the sub-prime bubble and the financial crash.

They could not sell high-risk products in well regulated markets, so they targeted countries with lax procedures, many in South-East Asia. They knew there were crooks who would take the bait of high commissions.

If anything went wrong they could say they just made the products available. It was Independent Financial Advisors (IFAs) who made the decisions. That is what they have done and they have walked away.

The so-called IFAs had been employed by their clients to act as policemen, not as salesmen for the insurance companies. They had all embellished their products.

They all promoted a strong ethical position. They sought legitimacy by supporting local charities, by writing articles for the local press, by taking on honorary positions. They all claimed to not handle your money directly. They just gave advice.

This advice may have been self-serving and dangerous. The advisors may have been unqualified and unregistered to give that advice but they consider it is your fault if you followed it!

There is a difference between embellishment and falsification. I have studied the complaints made about Sinclair James on the various consumer websites. I have ignored anything which is scurrilous or libellous.

That is unnecessary. I have researched material which is freely available in the public domain. Some of the information comes from insider sources, including the Government and people close to Whiting himself. Where documents are only copies, I have made sure they are properly authenticated.

I have no doubts as to their veracity.

These are quotes taken from the Sinclair James website over the years. They are public domain and can be easily verified.

“We carefully operate within a legal and ethical framework and strictly adhere to all required regulations in providing sound professional advice from qualified consultants…” “Our professional consultants are qualified and trained…” “We will explain these charges to you, and illustrate their effect…. There are no additional charges payable by you.” “Our independence means that we can impartially select the most suitable products…” “We prefer the ‘hard listen’ to the ‘hard sell’…” “Sinclair James does not handle your money directly.” “We have a number of cautious products that provide good returns with almost no volatility… we also have products that guarantee the capital invested.” “…assets in offshore centres like the Isle of Man are guaranteed by Government statutes up to 90% of their value, with no limit”. Here is the reality.

Sinclair James were not authorized to give advice or trade in securities in the Philippines. The products they were promoting were not registered in the country and were illegal. They had set up an administration company, Sinclair James Management Services Inc. This is the entity which gave illegal Buy and Sell instructions to the insurance companies.

I believe the insurance companies have furnished the SEC with copies of these documents. Communication with clients was made under the same of Sinclair James from the Makati Office. The “consultants” were not professionally qualified. Again, this is public domain information, available from sites such as Linkedin.

Whiting has for years been passing himself off as ACII. You may only use the letters after your name if you are a current, paid-up member. It is easy to visit the CII site and search for current members. He is not there.

In fact, his membership lapsed in 1998. This is important as ACII is a quality standard. It is telling your clients that you are adhering to a published Code of Ethics where you have properly qualified and supervised staff, where you are regulated to do business, have no conflicts of interest, where your status is described correctly and you have professional indemnity insurance. Whiting has contravened almost every element.

The CII considers this to be fraudulent behavior and allows action to be taken against even lapsed members. Charges were not explained and were not only taken at the outset. Ongoing trail commissions were taken and continual charges were paid to the insurance companies. Sinclair James sold you what they wanted to sell, not what you needed.

What they sold was high-risk and high commission. This can easily be verified by downloading prospectuses. Their favored approach was to use Bonds (high commission, expensive to get out). They pushed investments such as student accommodation.

A Financial Times / Money Week article emphasized the high commissions on these products and called them “elegant fee harvesting systems”. Like most of the Asian “IFAs”, they strongly pushed QROPS, the attempt to get you to transfer your existing pensions to their control. They quoted tax advantages and fewer restrictions. They did not tell you that the restrictions were there for your protection, the huge commissions they were taking and that the risk which belonged to the pension provider now belonged to you.

The insurance company, Aegon, has warned that 80% of the requests it has received for transfers into qualifying recognised overseas pension schemes (QROPS) are designed to swindle savers out of their pension pots. Sinclair James had indirect control of your money. Why would you pay to take advice if you did not intend to use it? They also took direct control of Ascenta funds by effectively laundering client money through the insurance company.

The money was returned to them, with Whiting wearing the hat of Business Development Director and his Sinclair James accountant as Administrative Officer. The relationships with the fraudulent Belvedere Group, with the co-director of Ascenta, the directorships of Philippines Metals and FEC Resources are all a matter of public record. They are totally unacceptable conflicts of interest. One client has also submitted proof that his entire portfolio was changed by forging his signature.

Whiting has accepted that there was fraud, that he carried responsibility and that the client had not been allowed to retain control of his funds. For this reason, he came to an Agreement with this client. I have seen a copy of it. It is properly notarized, authenticated and signed by both parties.

It is undoubtedly genuine. Whiting agrees to reimburse commissions illegally taken, to personally guarantee any valuation shortfall, to live modestly until the obligation is met and to not conceal funds. This is not a contract made by an innocent man. He has reneged on every element of this contract.

He has stated that he only agreed to return what he could recover (why would you make a contract to do that?) when the authenticated document clearly shows the opposite. He has affirmed that the client always had control of his funds when he has already admitted that this was not true. He submitted several pages of complicated numbers which would be too complicated for the Prosecutor to follow. This particular client was numerate and did his own analysis.

It conclusively proved that, over a number of years, Whiting had paid almost $100K of charges to the insurance company without the client’s knowledge or permission. Remember, he had said there would be no further charges. Unbelievably, he had submitted evidence which destroyed his own case! You would imagine that the unequivocal evidence makes this case a foregone conclusion.

The biggest barrier to justice in the Philippines is, of course, the Philippines system of justice. With the right contacts it can be circumvented and my contacts lead me to believe that Whiting is doing everything he can to influence proceedings. This is very much the acid test for the Philippines if it wishes to protect any vestiges of investor confidence. Countries like Thailand are now acting against these cowboys.

My information is that part of the system is taking this case seriously (which may account for the proposed closure of Sinclair James) and part of it may be trying to look the other way. This could well be a result of the confusion caused by Whiting’s submissions and the belief that he could not possibly submit evidence which incriminates himself. On the other hand, a comical argument has been advanced that money stolen must be the same money that is received by the criminal. If true, this would mean that no crime could be committed so long as you use a third party to launder the funds.

There are several options available if there is obstruction. To politely ask for a reconsideration, to escalate to a higher level or even to publish evidence and name names. There is nothing scurrilous or libellous here. They are just solid facts.

It is in the interests of the Philippines to take action against these people and to protect investor confidence. If anybody wishes to contribute information you can send it to scambuster66.

The domain name is gmx.com. All information will be treated with complete confidentiality.

I will start by identifying myself my name is Tony Medcalf and I have been in the financial services industry for 35 years some of you I am sure either know me or have heard of me unfortunately nobody identifies themselves here if you are telling the truth and can back it up what do you have to fear. There is no point in Sledging these guys you need to take affirmative action to hurt them.

GET THEM OUT OF THE INDUSTRY AND CLEAN IT UP. Let’s look very quickly at the SEC are they really bothered NO why because they are not selling to Filipinos we are foreingers and can kill each other so far as they are concerned. They are selling offshore insurance products are the insurance commission here interested NO they are not selling to Filipinos. WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED IMMIGRATION, BIR, NBI.

To stop them from causing more grief to the innocent unassuming expat you need to stop them placing business with the life companies. I took a look at their new businesses web site and noted the partners not one life company is mentioned which I find very strange. As an aside to this I looked at the testimonials track these people down and enlighten them so many of you can't be making up stories. You take management fees away from them you take away the air they breath.

Ok to continue Trinitas seems to be trading as a business here so please follow me with this as foreigners we cannot own an business period we can hold 40% of an SEC registered corporation minimum 5 directors 60% owned by locals. So check with the DTI to see if Trinitas Advisory is registered with them if so who is the principal apply for the name on line see if it comes up as available easy done which leads me to the question to have a bank account here you need either a corporation SEC or a business registration document DTI to open an account other than in your own name. We are just getting started. It might be a BVI company but I doubt it or one of the other offshore business registry countries that offer company names with no back ground checks.

Given the fact the 2 major insurance companies here Friend Provident and Old Mutual pulled out of the unauthorised countries Philippines being one and closing their book to new business from here but allowing the brokerage to continue servicing and receiving management fees from the investment bonds they manage, one has to ask given the strict vetting which should now happens in the industry and given the back ground of the individuals involved how have they got these agencies in the new business name and I am sure they would not open a new agency for servicing rights only it’s not worth their while remember these insurance companies are only interested in new business. My thinking is Sinclair James is still there as a ghost that is it still holds all its agencies for business placement with Royal London 360 an Hansard AS TWO OF THE FEW INSURANCE COMPANIES ACCEPTING NEW BUSINESS FROM HERE while Old Mutual and Friends Provident still have the agencies open in Sinclair James name for servicing and transferring new client in to service. Wilkes was already a director so all they have to do is make an agreement between Trinitas and Sinclair James appointing Trinitas as its agent and Sinclair James being responsible for the admin so it goes through under Sinclair fees are paid and they transfer the funds to the individuals from the Sinclair account to the individuals bank account so Trinitas is a dummy it’s a front name only. One other possibility is they have joined a brokers co operative like the one Nigel Green of De Vere fame owns called Global Net run out of Cyprus that would give them access to insurance companies who do accept business from the Philippines because of the agencies Global Net have in place Trinitas is appointed as an agent and for that to happen they will need a business registration from some where.

If that has happened then 2 things have not happened full disclosure from the directors / partners of their financial circumstances bankruptcy in financial services is a life time not 10 years these have not been declared and the vetting process has not been done thoroughly. Simon Pack is the Sales Director of Royal London 360 base in the UK. Jason Pearce is the regional manager for Old Mutual Jon Winter is the sales manager for Friends Provident International both are based in the Hong Kong offices. Global Net are based in Cyprus Stop the air supply they will die.

So those of you with time to research and ask question do some detective work you have a light to guide you. Will be interesting to follow the progress happy hunting As a caveat to this I think Graham Wilkes started out as an unconscious incompetent he has now unfortunately Graduated as a greedy conscious incompetent from Wolverhampton University (LinkedIn) which did not exist when we were younger it was a polytechnic college getting university status in 1992 Graham stop the *** clean up your act and get out of the business.

Darren Brindle has forged my signature on £250,000 worth of trades to earn himself and Whiting big commissions. I have insider evidence and knowledge this happened.

I dd not sanction these trades myself, I wished to keep 65% of my portfolio in cash until I decided which way i wanted to go on exposure.

This man needs to be locked up, is there no stopping these money hungry criminals?

Have you tried the actions suggested; reporting to the SEC, reporting to the British Embassy or taking legal action (if you have evidence of this forgery)? The first two options are relatively inexpensive.

there is no way to stop them...........................unless you pay the man Whiting pays within the BIR........................MORE

It's not just the BIR that's being paid off by Whiting and his intermediaries...

However, people with inside knowledge have a duty to inform Sinclair James/Trinitas clients and potential clients. Some of them may believe the company line that this is just one ex-employee with an ax to grind.

It is often too painful to think that people who appear friendly, trustworthy and interested in you would throw you under a bus at the first opportunity. Clients need to be directed to the independent sources which will show them what has really happened. These people are unqualified, unregulated and acting illegally. They have simply repeated the same scam, but without having to forge your signature and knowing they are untraceable when things go wrong.

Also, the more people who complain and the more organizations they contact (SEC, Department of Justice, British Embassy, etc), the more difficult it becomes to block the complaints.

Eventually, somebody will have to do their job. You should make a note of who you contact, the date and information given – and these people should be aware you have retained these records.

Many of the names are already known.

When the next collapse occurs it will be severely embarrassing for the Philippines, especially as other less-developed countries have started taking action. Officials should be aware that their names could be made public and they may be required to explain why they took no action.

mate , i am no friend of Brindle ........BUT i doubt he forged your signature to place trades , they DONT need to , what most likely happened is they had you sign a management authority form when you signed up , this enables them to switch and place trades without your authorisation or knowledge as you signed that right away....................sorry to burst your bubble

No, there has definitely been forgery. I have seen evidence of a client whose signature was clearly forged.

This was done in order to place his money in funds which he had specifically prohibited and where he had given written instructions that nothing should be done without his prior consent. On a previous occasion, when he had accepted Sinclair James’ suggestion, his signature was not forged. These were not standard operating procedures. They were criminal acts.

To my knowledge, the only waiver signed by the clients was where they allowed an insurance company to act solely on the instructions of Sinclair James.

This was designed to protect the insurance company, not Sinclair James. The insurance company stated that Sinclair James must still consult the client and obtain his consent before proceeding. Whiting has always contended that they only gave advice, which the client was free to reject, and did not touch his money. He claims that all cash movements were instigated by the client.

Clearly, this is untrue.

Even if the client had signed a waiver it could not be upheld, as Sinclair James had from the outset invalidated their contract with the client. The contractual relationship between the client and Sinclair James was one of principal and agent. An agent is required to do the following:

To accurately present his qualifications and legal status to act on behalf of the client. Sinclair James stated that they were fully regulated and that all their “consultants” were trained and qualified.

All of this was untrue. They further claimed that they only dealt in legal, non-volatile securities, that these products were 90% insured in the Isle of Man and they implied that they had professional indemnity insurance. Again, all untrue. No client would have given them free rein without these assurances.

The agent must follow the reasonable instructions of his principal.

The example given above shows they did not. It was clear from the very high risks outlined in prospectuses that instructions were ignored for any client who requested low to moderate risk, not to mention capital guaranteed products. There was no attempt to spread risk over portfolios. Circumstantial evidence suggests that the only goal was to select products which gave the highest commissions.

The agent must disclose his commissions or other compensation.

Sinclair James stated that they would do this, but did not. Their terms were that the client would pay commissions for the initial advice, then would have no further charges. This was untrue. There were substantial ongoing trail commissions to them and charges paid to the brokers, all undisclosed.

The agent must not have any conflict of interests with the principal. The obvious example here is Whiting’s own Ascenta funds. He received additional commissions whenever client money was transferred in and he incentivized his salesmen to transfer in the maximum, using forgery if necessary. Money was then laundered into companies where he and his colleagues had personal interests, from where it was paid back to them as fees and commissions.

All of these facts are supported by rock solid independent evidence. Sinclair James did forge documents and invalidated any contract they entered into with their clients. These are the laws of the Philippines.

If they have not been applied by local officials, it is for other reasons and they may well have to account for their interpretations at a future date. It is with regret that I would have to advise potential investors that the systems are so flaky and unreliable that they would be safer investing elsewhere.

Good luck trying to prove that , little or no chance ....... the PI has bigger fish to fry , i suspect the worst thing is they will be 'invited' to leave , plus a lot of the money invested is less than legal [ ie has not been declared to the tax authorities by clients] ........... but not sure what your angle is , but it is up to the people who have been wronged or think they have to take legal action , that is the only way to get justice BUT in the PI it is costly and wil take forever and NO guarantees EVEN if you have a slam dunk of a case

I’m not sure how much illegal money is invested. Generally, people have to provide proof of the source of funds and then comply with money laundering legislation.

Anybody who has lost money through Sinclair James has a legal case.

This is because they were obviously operating illegally and continue to do so. As explained, Sinclair James invalidated their contracts by breaching every element. People invested in Ascenta have a slam dunk case, since there is clear evidence that their money was laundered back to people who had personal interests.

However, you are right that any legal action will be difficult because of the inherent corruption in the Philippines legal systems.

Whiting has had over twenty years to find out which palms he needs to grease. Ultimately, the country will be left behind if it doesn’t reform – but we don’t know how soon that will be.

Whiting has done a runner... all the guff he used to come out with like- "you'll get your money" "just temporary regulatory probs" all BULL.

has he really ???...... i have not seen him around for a long time, just curious i guess , not bitter anymore [ much - although it stung ] , i think actually Whiting has probably gained nothing in so much as his reputation etc are trashed which i know he valued

The stench around these two directors and there 'Regional Partner" leaves a lot to be desired. They are the talk of the town around Greenbelt, Makati.

The 'Regional Partner' Mr. Darren Brindle has been getting high on class 'A' drugs. He is a dangerous sod that needs to be kept in check.

Wilkes has robbed so many people in Manila I am surprised he is still walking around the place in one piece.

Whiting is as nonchalant as ever, seeming oblivious to the mega financial loss he has incurred to many clients with devastating effects.

Head in the sand I believe the term is.

Can I ask how they manage to take the money. I have Invested $90 000 dollars about 4 months ago and at present the TAM Website is indicating a slight increase in investment.

I have now been told that Sinclair James is closing and a new company Trinitas Advisory wants to take over the management of my funds with TAM.

One of the people behind this is Graham Wilkes. I am getting worried about my investment and was wondering if you could sdvise me how to try to salvage ss much as possible back og my investment.

The good news is that your money is as safe with Wilkes as it is with Whiting. The bad news is that your money is as safe with Wilkes as it is with Whiting.

TAM International is not the same thing as TAM Asset Management.

It is registered in Ebene, Mauritius, and is unlikely to be covered by the UK Financial Conduct Authority. The “Discretionary Asset Management” means they can pretty much do what they want and reduces your scope for complaint.

Without passing any judgement on TAM, you should consider the Ascenta funds which Whiting previously set up himself. Ascenta was also registered in Ebene, Mauritius, and was supposedly regulated out of Guernsey. It was a cell in the Belvedere Group and was frozen as part of an investigation into a huge Ponzi scheme fraud.

Whiting maintained that the suspension was just a temporary issue, but the Ascenta websites disappeared without explanation in January 2016.

He had claimed that these were very safe funds, yet the prospectus made it clear that they were extremely high risk, that the fund managers could do whatever they liked at their own discretion and were not required to explain their actions. An advisor cannot possibly put client money into his own funds and claim to be an independent consultant, but that is what Whiting did.

Whiting was described as the Business Development Director for Ascenta and the Administrative Officer was the Sinclair James accountant. The co-founder of the Ascenta Group and Whiting were both Directors of Philippines Metals Inc, a company whose accounts were qualified as it was in desperate need of cash. The Ascenta Special Situations Fund gave cash to mining companies.

The lack of transparency makes it impossible to know if the fund managers used their “discretion” to divert client funds from Ascenta to this ailing company.

You should inquire about the terms for withdrawing your money from TAM but early withdrawals usually incur heavy penalties. You should also ask Trinitas for absolute proof that they are approved to give advice in the Philippines and that TAM is a registered security. Failing that, you should report them to the SEC. Why does Whiting say he is closing his company and where you can contact him in the future?

He may well be making a run for it as legal actions are currently being taken against him and the matter is in the hands of the SEC. Is Whiting walking away or could he just be exchanging roles with Wilkes under a different banner? I have seen much of the evidence against Sinclair James and it is conclusive. It includes multiple forgery of a client’s signature.

You only have to look at the various incarnations of the Sinclair James website to see the extent of their misrepresentations. Sinclair James did not rigidly adhere to all legal requirements, they were not SEC registered, they were selling unauthorized high-risk investments, they did not employ only professionally qualified consultants, Whiting was not a member of the CII and did not have the required professional indemnity insurance. The 90% Isle of Man insurance which made his investments “safer than banks”, even in the event of fraud, did not exist. Commissions were not disclosed to the client.

The terms were that commissions would only be payable when advice was given and that the client would have no further charges. By Whiting’s own admission, he was taking ongoing trail commissions and paying substantial additional charges to the insurance companies from the client’s money. The adage seems to be: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. Anybody who selected Sinclair James based on their ethical stance and integrity (“We prefer the hard listen to the hard sell”) can claim to have been materially misled.

You only have to use Google to see the extent of clients’ complaints. Whiting has tried to put this down to jealous competitors. The majority of complaints are well founded and the long list of failed high-risk investments is certainly accurate. It is impossible for anybody to lose so much money, never mind someone who professes to be an expert in Asset Protection and Wealth Management.

Anybody who reviews the prospectuses can see that these funds were totally unsuitable for individual investors. Client portfolios were unbalanced, illiquid, inadequately diversified, uninsured and had no fallback position (eg. Government Securities). They were constructed by unqualified individuals whose only motive appears to have been to get maximum commissions.

Whiting has agreed to many of the facts but blamed his employees, not that this absolves him of responsibility. It is no coincidence that so many salesmen (”consultants”) have been cited for fraud. He has made agreements to reimburse clients but reneged on even the smallest repayments. He has even denied the terms of legally binding contracts, despite the terms being absolutely clear and signed off by both parties.

He has used the usual Philippines playbook of delaying tactics and the use of contacts. He cannot do that forever and it may be now that the game is up. The clients who have lost millions will no doubt want to see him account for his actions in front of a competent court of law. Legal action is not restricted to the Philippines.

He should not consider himself safe in any country. These comments are not made by a jealous competitor and are based only on solid documentary evidence.

Thanks for this financial analyst. I am still unsure how to move forward on this

Assuming Whiting is still your advisor you should ask him to give you details of how to get back your investment and how much it would be worth. Failing that, try to contact TAM yourself via their website or ask them for other approved agents.

It may be that you have to wait a certain time if you wish to avoid penalties.

Typically, a lot of your money is paid up front to the agent as commissions (rarely disclosed) and TAM will want to cover this cost. It is possible to get money back yourself, though you will probably have to remove Sinclair James as your advisor first.

It is better that the TAM site is showing a small profit, rather than a loss. However, valuations given by insurance companies themselves are not always reliable. Previously, Whiting’s fund providers were reluctant to write down investments which were suspended or in trouble.

Whiting himself was eager to write up investments which were risky but trading at an improved price. One large investment collapsed and the rest followed like dominos. Many investors, on this and other sites, have given details of investments which crashed when they were supposed to be capital guaranteed or low risk. Sinclair James definitely did put people into these funds and these funds definitely did go under.

Find out why Whiting is closing his company and where he is going.

Ask him if he intends to continue in the profession elsewhere. He should have no problem disclosing these details – unless he is doing a runner.

I would be surprised if Trinitas is an approved advisor. Certainly, an undischarged bankrupt should not be allowed to become a director of another company.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to trust anybody in these developing countries.

The large financial institutions are reluctant to deal with individuals (and their behavior has also been reprehensible over the past decade). The so-called Independent Advisors are rarely what they say they are. They have a very simple game plan which starts by telling the client anything he wants to hear. Even prudent investors who ask all the right questions can be misled if they are lied to.

You only have to look at the statements on the Sinclair James websites to see that they are almost all false. No matter how much anybody pleads innocence or implies misunderstanding, this is undeniable and unambiguous. “Consultants” are simply salesmen whose job it is to provide leads. They have little understanding of what they are selling.

I have followed these sites for a couple of years and, apart from Whiting and Wilkes, have seen at least three other Sinclair James salesmen cited for fraud. There are others who have not yet been named and some who resigned rather than sell what they were told to sell. If they get found out then they play for time. They make agreements which they have no intention of honoring.

They blame everyone else. Nobody really wants to take legal action in these countries, for good reason. There are too many ways of avoiding justice through using contacts to circumvent the system. The problem will only be eradicated when some of these people experience the inside of a Filipino/Thai/Malaysian jail.

This is very much a test case for the Philippines if they wish to gain any credibility and encourage investors to stay. The Thai authorities have now started taking action against unapproved advisors.

My understanding is that the Philippines SEC considered there was strong documentary evidence that Sinclair James were trading illegally. I don’t know where they are in their investigations but it may be relevant that Whiting now appears to be closing shop.