Sinclair James International - WHERE IS WHITING???

7 comments
Not resolved

Michael Whiting Director of Sinclair James has officiallly gone into hiding. He’s gone underground, know place to be found to answer for his complex & multiple financial dishonesty.

Most of his executives have already moved into various other Ponzi companies & continue to this very day, financially raping their clients. Darren Brindle Graham Wilkes Still very much active on the Manila scene.

Comments

Anonymous
#1458189

Whiting works here, https://www.facebook.com/brookworthhomes/The Net is closing on you Whiting!

Anonymous
#1456976

Whiting is confirmed working at Brookworth Homes.The net is closing in on you Whiting!

Anonymous
#1455062

Michael Whiting is living in Worthing, England with his family.He is working for Brookworth Homes based in Reigate, Surrey which is owned by Justin Barnes (who in turn works for Mike Ashley - owner of Sports Direct).

Anonymous
to TipOff18 #1455574

i have been thinking about this since i read this post , if that is what he is now doing , it seems to me he is hardly living the high life on yours and my money ................i managed after a few years to get over it , i dont think unless your prepared to spend a fortune and waste years on it will get you anywhere , i lost loads , some of it down to bad advice , some of it on reflection down to greed [ my own ] and alot down to mis management and more besides. i wont even look at this site again, time to move on , hope others can aswell and for those that cannot , good luck

Anonymous
to Anonymous #1456364

You can maybe move on if you were partially responsible for your own losses, through lack of attention or greed. Unfortunately, there were many people who did everything right – who specifically chose Whiting as he claimed to be fully regulated, whose funds were moved without their knowledge or whose signatures were forged.You also have to consider potential victims who need to know where Trinitas Advisory comes from and how it operates.

It may be nominally managed by someone else but are you sure Whiting is still not deriving income?Is Whiting working for Barnes, or working with him? He has no experience of property development or sales. He has plenty of experience of shifting investor funds into high risk property projects which pay him the highest commissions. A house builder needs plenty of cash up front for land acquisition and construction costs.

What are the chances of a new wave of investors seeing their savings flowing out to more suicidal projects? We have already seen massive conflicts of interests. Don’t forget that Barnes has also been accused of conflicts of interests, through using family and friends to hide the fact that he was providing services for Sports Direct, a company where he was a director.In Manila, Whiting was running physical risks every time he walked down the street.

The risks may be less extreme in the UK but he should never feel safe and should never be allowed to repeat the scams he was operating. So I will continue to monitor this site...

Anonymous
to TipOff18 #1455578

no surprise , he is good friends with Justin

Anonymous
#1435008

Hopefully, any potential client and the ex-pat community will now get the message. Everything said about these people was true.

They tried to downplay the evidence by saying it wasn’t important or that it was all someone else's fault.

Now you can see how quickly they and your money can disappear. By splitting the transaction over several different countries (Philippines, Mauritius, UK) you will find that no regulatory body feels it has jurisdiction to act.

Eventually the Philippines will have to clamp down on these unqualified and unregistered “advisors” but there are still officials who are willing to look the other way for the right price. This gives them the time to set up a new company and move their business there.

View more comments

Sinclair James International - SJI has disappeared - replaced by Trinitas Advisory

As expected, Sinclair James has disappeared. Their website has gone and the phone is off the hook… You were told some time ago that they would salvage whatever was still paying them commissions and transfer it to a new entity.

The millions of Dollars of client money tied up in useless Ponzi schemes would be allowed to crash and burn. You were told that the new entity was Trinitas Advisory, fronted by Sinclair James employees Graham Wilkes and Darren Brindle. They attempted to conceal this fact by operating a virtual website for over a year and by registering the whole thing anonymously. It turned out to be true.

They have used the old trick of creating a company name that suggests affiliation with a legitimate entity, called Trinitas Advisors. There is no link. You now know the model that awaits you, since it is run in the same way as Sinclair James. It is not SEC regulated, the investments are not registered, the partners are unqualified and not authorized to give financial advice.

Your money is being shunted through Mauritius again, you don’t know where it is going, the commissions that are being taken, how they arrive at valuations or what happens when it collapses. They have a track record of losing millions of Dollars and of personal bankruptcy. They have no professional indemnity insurance if things go wrong. Sinclair James used Mauritius to launder money back to themselves through their Ascenta Funds, then walked away when it went into administration.

They will try to divert attention by blaming someone else or by saying all this is unimportant. It is very important. They will not give you proof to the contrary. Despite the disappearance of the legal entity, there is a group of people who wish to pursue Michael Whiting on a personal level.

Apart from public domain evidence already cited here, they have details from other external sources and insiders which prove how signatures were forged and how client money was laundered back to themselves. They are willing to follow this both within and outside the country. The allegations are so serious and the evidence so compelling that they could lead to extradition. There are sufficient details available for him to be apprehended at international borders.

To remain within the Philippines he will have to continue paying off officials – and we know some of the people concerned. Ultimately, this is going to cause a problem for the country. There is a diminishing pool of third-world countries willing to be used as havens for these scammers. As they relocate to Manila they increase the concentration of fraudsters here.

The Philippines cannot afford to be seen as a third-world economy and will have to clamp down on these officials. If you have knowledge of Whiting’s whereabouts or other relevant details you can report them in confidence to whereiswhiting@gmx.com.

Reason of review: Bad quality.

Comments

Anonymous
#1430739

what i want to know is does elpsley-wilkes STILL cheat at golf?

Anonymous
to Anonymous #1431499

Batty Boy Wilkes will always cheat at whatever he does, it's in his family DNA.

Meanwhile back at the Bat cave Brindles is running around in his wife's skimpy knickers.

Telling tall stories to his potential clients about how many years they been in the business etc.

Whenever Brindle was in the room I would check to see my wallet was still in my pocket.

Anonymous
to Anonymous #1565279

oh he does

Anonymous
to Anonymous #1565281

and he plays a pink driver

Anonymous
#1429400

Whiting is lying low in West Sussex (Brighton) as I understand it. He has a brother that works as a chef at one of the racecourses in that part of the country.

It wouldn't surprise me if Whiting had set up a property portfolio with all his ill gotten gains.

Meanwhile back in Manila, Brindle & Wilkes continue the same formula as SJ for ripping the pants off their clients.

Anonymous
to GINGERMINGER #1429936

What you say makes sense. There is so much bad feeling against Whiting in Manila that he was fearing for the safety of himself and his family.

There is always the possibility that some hothead will take matters into his own hands when confronted by lack of action from the authorities.

We do have contacts in other countries, including the UK, so please can anybody with background information (family members, acquaintances, addresses, etc) send them in confidence to whereiswhiting@gmx.com. If you are one of his victims who wants justice you can also send your details here.

The paying off of officials in Manila was essentially a delaying action. Several people had filed complaints and had been told their case was valid. Sinclair James could have been taken out at any time and these officials will now have to explain why they did not.

We will continue to press for convictions in Manila as they improve the chances of extradition.

Our view is that the allegations are so serious and so comprehensively proven that there would be scope for action against Whiting in most countries. It may now be less likely that he will be approached from behind by two men on a motorbike but he will have to contend with more reliable legal systems.

As regards Wilkes and Brindle, the best course continues to be education of potential clients – to get them to ask the right questions and to walk away when they don’t get the answers. They should also report all unauthorized advisors to the SEC. The SEC are most interested in documents that say “Buy” and “Sell”, as these clearly indicated Sinclair James were trading unlawfully.

There may be fewer documents if instructions are now given through TAM International, but you should still have evidence that they are giving illegal advice.

Eventually, the SEC will be forced into action. At the very least, clients who thought they had friends looking after their long term interests will now realize how quickly these “friends” and their money disappear into thin air.

Anonymous
to GINGERMINGER #1455068

Worthing based with his family now.Works for Brookworth Homes in Reigate

View more comments

Sinclair James International - Now known as Trinitas Advisory

We now have confirmation of what was known all along. Trinitas Advisory is just Sinclair James under a different name.

Sinclair James was, of course, exposed as fraudulent, so needed a new vehicle for its activities. The website shows the partners as Graham Wilkes and Darren Brindle. Both lost huge amounts of their clients’ money when with Sinclair James. Wilkes is an undischarged UK bankrupt who would not be allowed to take a directorship in his own country.

You can check this out on Google. Michael Whiting’s name cannot be publicly associated with this venture as he is now just too toxic. Neither partner has recognized financial qualifications, their company is not properly regulated to do business in the Philippines and the products they are selling are illegal. You can check this with the SEC in Manila.

They are still pushing funds through Mauritius, where the lack of transparency allowed them to launder money back to themselves. You may ask how they manage to provide positive testimonials. They are obviously cherry picked, since nobody who they put into LM Managed Performance Fund, Royal London 360 and the other disastrous investments would give these people the time of day. Assuming these testimonials are genuine, there are a number of things to note.

There is a tendency for clients to think that the advisor is their friend, often because they met in a bar or social setting. Their salesmen are specifically tasked with meeting people in these environments. If a friend asks for a testimonial you will normally give it. Secondly, most of these people are relatively recent clients who joined after the 2008-9 bubble burst and just as the next one was beginning.

Since de-regulation in the mid-eighties clients have been put into a succession of bubbles (Black Monday 1987, Dot.com Bubble, Sub-prime Bubble, etc). That is the only way that the advisor and broker can make their cut before leaving peanuts for the client) And no, they aren’t disclosing the full commissions... These clients think they know what their pension is worth. They don’t.

You will only know when you come to take the money out. Sinclair James clients were always told that their funds were ticking along nicely but the valuations were not independent and were not accurate. These are products which are not conventionally traded, so any valuation is finger in the air. Problems were glossed over, especially the LM MPF collapse.

One of Wilkes’ clients reported that Wilkes just informed him this was "held" due to something not seemingly correct going on with the account. Another was assured that this was a temporary difficulty that would be sorted out. Don’t believe their story that one ex-employee is waging a vendetta against them. Many former clients have been ruined.

The most worrying thing is clients who seem satisfied that their previous pension schemes have been consolidated under QROPS. QROPS (Qualifying Recognized Overseas Pension Scheme) is a well-known scam that most of the cowboys in Asia were operating. Aegon consider that 80% of these schemes were scams (https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/aegon-warns-80-of-overseas-pension-transfers-are-scams/) and Sinclair James certainly came into this category. The approach is to offer a review of your existing pensions.

They are so desperate to get you to switch that they contact your providers themselves. It doesn’t matter what the review shows. They tell you that you could get higher returns by switching, that the new scheme is UK government approved, that you are less restricted, that there are tax advantages and that you have peace of mind knowing everything is under one roof. In fact, these schemes are not government approved.

The government simply recognizes that it looks something like a pension, in that all money cannot be immediately be withdrawn and a certain percentage (about 70%) must go to the client. That leaves a lot to be taken as commission… You are less restricted in that they can now put you into high-risk investments, illegal in the UK. That is how Sinclair James clients and others around Asia lost their pension pots. The tax advantages depend on the country to which you retire and they are not guaranteed.

For example, Sinclair James recommended products to clients which would be refused in France, a popular retirement destination. Any fiscal advantages are easily eaten up by commissions. They even recommended switching to clients who had defined benefit schemes, where the provider carried all the risk. The switch passed all risk to the client and, rather than have everything consolidated under one roof, he found all his eggs in one very flimsy basket.

I have yet to meet anyone who thought QROPS was anything but a disaster. Unfortunately, there still appear to be some people believing the hype.

Reason of review: Bad quality.

Comments

Anonymous
#1416797

i read you guff, because that is all it is , you hide behind your keyboard , you clearly have an agenda ........i dont , i just hate w@nkers like you ,I know Wilkes and he is a kn@b no doubt on that , but show yourself , thought not , balls the size of peanuts , if you want to run someone down show your face.

Anonymous
to Anonymous #1418155

Nobody on these threads gives their real name. That includes you and the various aliases used by Sinclair James.

That doesn’t bother me, provided this isn’t a one man personal vendetta and providing allegations are backed up by credible independent evidence. I am not interested in personal slurs concerning alleged narcotic use, wife beating, sexual preferences or even your opinion that Graham Wilkes is a “***”.

This information obviously comes from a wide variety of sources. Former clients (who gave a long list of collapsed investments and names of salesmen), existing clients (who alerted people to the existence of Trinitas Advisory and the people behind it), legal experts, financial experts, former employees and other work colleagues.

I have not taken the evidence cited as gospel. I have investigated it - and it isn’t “guff”.

It’s true. Sinclair James/Trinitas Advisory were not authorized to do business, were selling illegal products and did not have the qualifications they claimed. Whiting is not a member of the ACII and Wilkes is an undischarged bankrupt. Whiting and his accountant were officers of the Ascenta funds, an unacceptable conflict of interests, and the Sinclair James website was a pack of lies.

We have been given details of the very high commissions taken (directly contradicting terms on the website), information on how clients’ signatures were forged, how salesmen were incentivized to sell Ascenta and explicit information on where the Ascenta money was transferred. Those details can only come from insiders.

Sinclair James have given no evidence to show the contrary, nor have they explained the false claims on their website. They have just attempted to shift blame onto a former employee then, when it became obvious this was impossible, they blamed his brother. Nor are these facts confined to Sinclair James/Trinitas Advisory.

We have also been alerted to another firm banned in Thailand and which has moved its operations to Manila. Again, the information is independently verified.

As for somebody’s “agenda”, the important thing is that potential clients should know what they’re getting into. Some people may be dissatisfied with the low interest rates available and may be willing to gamble discretionary income on high risk stocks which they know to be illegal. They may accept the risks of using people who have an abysmal track record and who will take several sets of commission even if they fail.

That is their choice.

The majority of people are looking for a safe long-term home for retirement funds. Certainly, that is what people in QROPS are looking for. They need to be aware that most of these schemes have independently been considered to be scams and they need to know how the scams work. Given the corrupt nature of institutions in the Philippines, I can understand whistle blowers not wanting to be identified.

Which of these facts do you dispute?

Why are they not relevant to potential investors? If the facts are both true and relevant what does it matter who presented them?

Anonymous
to Onlooker #1418226

snoooooooorrrrrrrreeeeeeee.........................go round to his office and sort him out , easier!

Anonymous
to Anonymous #1418487

So you haven’t denied any of the facts. The person you called a {{Redacted}} wasn’t talking “guff” at all.

Instead of diverting blame to a former employee, or his brother, you are now saying this really isn’t important. This is only boring to people who have a vested interest in continuing the scam.

It’s important to former clients who lost millions. They now know this wasn’t bad luck. It was an illegal set up where they were charged far more than they knew and where money was laundered back to the perpetrators.

It’s important to potential clients.

They now know they should beware anybody who offers to look after their money, especially if they meet in a social setting, if he’s British, if he recommends QROPS or routing your money through Mauritius. Sorry to Brits but it is mainly your countrymen who are pushing these schemes. They know that the Philippines is now one of the few countries not taking action against these people.

I’m not sure what you mean about going round to Wilkes to “sort him out”. Firstly, this is not just Wilkes.

It is Whiting, Brindle, Robbirt (who has moved his office from Bangkok to Manila) and other individuals in Metro Manila, Angeles or wherever expatriates gather.

I hope you are not advocating violence.

The Philippines has become a place where drive-by justice is being meted out summarily and someone in these threads stated that the only way to get justice is to take it yourself. The correct procedure is for people to keep informing the authorities until it is no longer possible for them to sidestep the issue.

Whoever the people are who have provided these facts, they should be congratulated for performing a public service.

Anonymous
to Anonymous #1425069

I'd like to slap your face from here to kingdom cum, then rub your face in it. It's Tossers like you that give this industry a bad rep. How long have you be pretending to be a Financial Advisor?

Anonymous
to KnickerSniffer #1426495

I’m not sure if Mr KnickerSniffer is ranting against the people who pretend to be Financial Advisors (Whiting, Wlkes, Brindle, etc) or against the group of former clients, experts and insiders who have exposed them. Let’s be clear:

The experts and insiders have quoted sources for their evidence which are independent and verifiable, Clients did lose millions of Dollars at the hands of these people.

They were unregulated, unqualified and placing money recklessly just to get commissions. There are regulations in the Philippines, most notably the Revised Securities Act, but they are not applied. It is very easy to influence regulators and purchase the decision you want in advance. That is why fraudsters who have been convicted in other countries are now relocating to Manila.

Here is some very simple advice (which you are free to disregard).

If you are a genuine IFA, report these fraudsters to the SEC, BIR, your Congressman or the British Embassy – and make sure something is done. You know who they are because they are undermining your business.

If you are an investor:

Until the Philippines gets its act together, do not invest there. It is just too dangerous.

Do not take advice from someone you met in a bar or at a social event. They target these places.

Be very wary of British advisors. It is predominantly the Brits who are perpetrating the scams. Check that your advisor has a license to operate in the Philippines, that he has a recognized financial qualification, that it is current and that he has professional liability insurance. Don’t believe testimonials.

Many clients don’t even realize they have been scammed. Avoid QROPS like the plague – unless you like danger, want 100% of the risk and are willing to lose 30% of your savings as commissions. Try to avoid commissions. They are illegal in many countries as they discourage independence.

It is not possible for two sets of people to pocket commissions and for you to carry low risk. It’s better to negotiate a set fee. If they say your savings are insured get them to prove it. Visit their office.

Make sure they have a permanent presence and it’s not a virtual office. Remember what “Discretionary Asset Management” is. It’s giving your money to a bunch of strangers to do whatever they like with it and where you have little scope to complain afterwards. Avoid your money being diverted through offshore havens like Mauritius.

Not only do you lose traceability but the transaction becomes split across several regulatory agencies, all of whom will claim they do not have full jurisdiction. Your portfolio should be balanced and should always contain an ultra safe element, such as strong government stocks. Google the people who contact you. Ignore personal slurs but take note of solid evidence.

You may have worked a lifetime for your savings. These people have no remorse about losing it in an instant.

Anonymous
to Deep Throat #1427624

i feel the same, you write your 6 draft 8 paragrapgh ' what clients who lost money should have done or do ' and i ask myself why dont you ??...........go to the the fraud police, report them to the authorities YOU are obviously someone who is either a competitor or you have too much time on your hands, so stop talking and start doing or go AWAY! and save the planet somewhere else

Anonymous
to Deep Throat #1428296

If I were a competitor I would not recommend people to be distrustful of ALL advisors. I would not recommend that it is safer if people invest outside the Philippines.

The evidence has obviously come from many different sources and I have checked it.

It is coherent. The people criticized have offered no evidence in return. They have simply blamed an ex-employee, then blamed his brother, then a competitor, offered some childish insults, then said none of this is important anyway. It is very important.

I also know that a number of victims have presented their evidence to regulatory organizations and these organizations are just sitting on it.

We all know this happens in the Philippines and why it happens.

I hate to say it, but if you cannot count on a good judicial system then you can never feel safe investing in a country.

It is absolutely the right thing to advise potential investors to check the evidence themselves. It is right that they should ask the right questions and to only go ahead if they get the right answers.

Anonymous
to Anonymous #1564396

Nobody show their face on here Mr Brindle. Not even you with all your sudo names.

You have tried and failed to state this was a "one man vendetta against you & Sinclair James." There are many different people who have contributed factual information with regards to you, Wilkes, Whiting and Co. I'm not interested in the allegations of wife beating, drug taking, fighting.

I am interested in financial fraud which you seem to have played a big role in. I have it on good authority that you will get what's coming to you.

View more comments

Sinclair James International - The Philippines - a Haven for Fraudsters

More and more scammers are coming to the Philippines as they consider themselves safe here. It has already been reported here that a number of countries have started to take measures against these unlicensed advisors.

Following action by the British Embassy in Bangkok, the Thai authorities issued an arrest warrant against Neil Robbirt of Global Investments (https://sites.google.com/site/lminvestorvictimcentre/news-links/news/arrestwarrantforneilarthurrobbirtissuedinthailand). He fled the country. This was for trading in unregistered securities and for not being licensed by the SEC there. These are the same crimes as Sinclair James, though Sinclair James was also forging signatures and laundering money back to themselves.

Robbirt has now relocated Global Investments to Manila (http://www.globalinvestments.net/). This is just a virtual office provided by Regus serviced working areas (www.regus.com). Whiting, Wilkes and Brindle are doing exactly the same thing with Trinitas Advisory – a virtual company with a virtual website (www.trinitas-advisory.com) in a virtual office, where local staff just take phone messages. This makes it more difficult to trace fraudulent activity back to them.

By laundering money through Mauritius again, using “discretionary asset management” to do whatever they want, they distance themselves even further. This confirms that the Philippines has become the main haven for financial scammers. Firms are still looking to recruit “consultants” here, willing to work on a commission only basis and capable of generating annual income of around $100K. The ability to sell is more important than any financial knowledge.

The authorities are aware of these scams but have taken no action, for reasons that everybody knows… There are other firms in Manila and Angeles which have also been cited. The Philippines is trying to position itself as a hub for investment, but there is little point in putting your money here if legal systems are not reliable and transparent. It is just too dangerous. This is equally embarrassing for the UK, since it is UK nationals, UK financial institutions and often UK offshore protectorates most involved in these frauds.

Given the impact of the Embassy in Thailand, it is probably a good idea for any expatriate to report these firms to the British or to their own embassy in the Philippines. They can at the very least warn their own expatriates. Ideally, they will put pressure on the Philippines Government to take action. It is also a good idea to report fraudulent advisors to the SEC, though there is less chance of any action being taken here.

Eventually, the sheer volume of complaints may stir them into action. Sadly, for the time being you should be very wary about investing any money in the Philippines.

Sinclair James International - Mauritius and the Paradise Papers

1.0
Details
Reliability

Sinclair James have been and are still using the island of Mauritius as a conduit for clients’ funds. The recently leaked “Paradise Papers” illustrate why this place is so popular with scammers who want to launder money.

It is easy to set up, guarantees secrecy and the controls are pretty toothless if you get caught. The main example given is of people who set up a company in Mauritius and had their salary sent there. This company was registered as a fund with Protected Cell status, giving complete secrecy. The scammers then appointed themselves as “advisors” and advised the fund to loan money back to themselves.

Loans are not subject to tax, so they evaded tax on their income and never repaid the loans. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41886608) Michael Whiting set up the Ascenta funds in Mauritius with Protected Cell status. They insisted in the prospectus that they needed complete secrecy, supposedly to protect their hedging activities. Sinclair James then transferred clients’ money into these funds, often without the clients’ knowledge and by forging their signatures.

We are told that Whiting even offered prizes for his salesmen who put the most client money into Ascenta. The Ascenta fund was secretly “advised” to invest in mining companies, such as Philippine Metals Inc and Prize Mining Corp, where Whiting and his colleagues had personal interests. These companies never found any minerals and made no sales, yet paid millions of Dollars in fees and commissions to Whiting and his colleagues. This is confirmed by the official filed accounts of these companies (available at www.sedar.com).

The Ascenta funds went into administration and were wound up, causing losses for the investors. Lets be clear. The clients received no benefit from their money being pumped through a remote island in the Indian Ocean. In fact, they lost heavily.

It was only Whiting and his associates who profited. So why are they still doing it..? They are still channeling client money through Mauritius, using TAM International. They are protecting themselves this time by advising “discretionary asset management”.

This means they can do whatever they like with your money, don’t have to ask for your permission and don’t have to risk forging your signature. They have also been careful to make their own activities untraceable by concealing the identity of people behind Trinitas Advisory, the advisor.

If these high-risk funds collapse, as all other funds have, TAM International will wash their hands and refer the client back to his advisor. Trinitas Advisory will disappear and you will find it difficult to link any individuals to this shell company.

Reason of review: Poor customer service.

Preferred solution: Let the company propose a solution.

Sinclair James International - SKI/ Trinitas Advisory; What can you do?

1.0
Details
Reliability

These people are fraudsters. Absolutely, 100%, no question.

The evidence cited in these threads is accurate, is independent and can be easily verified. The poster called Financial Analyst has taken the allegations one by one and proved them conclusively. Do not accept Sinclair James’ claims that these comments are nonsense made up by a one man vendetta. In response, Sinclair James / Trinitas Advisory have offered no evidence – because they have none.

Instead, they have tried to divert attention by smearing an ex-employee who they (wrongly) think is the only person who could have disclosed so much accurate insider information. The information comes from multiple sources and can be checked by anyone who has an analytical mind. They have told us that we should admire Michael Whiting for being an entrepreneur willing to take risks. These risks were never taken with his own money, as he pocketed eye-watering commissions up front.

The risks were laid entirely on his clients; by pushing illegal and catastrophic products, laundering money into companies where he had personal interests, often by forging client signatures. If you are in any doubt that they were laundering money back to themselves, just go to Philippine Metals Inc filed accounts, where Whiting was the Treasurer: http://www.sedar.com/GetFile.do?lang=EN&docClass=5&issuerNo=00008673&issuerType=03&projectNo=01612209&docId=2698459. This was just one company which was receiving client money through Whiting’s Ascenta funds. Section 8, Related Party Transactions shows how much was being paid back to officers of related companies (including Ascenta, for “investor relations”) in salaries, fees and commissions.

Despite making regular payments of investor funds to these officers, the company never made any sales. Prize Mining Corp is another company that received client money through Ascenta, paid large sums back to related officers and never made any sales. You can check their accounts on the same site. Sinclair James is continuing these scams under different names.

The Mauritius based company is now TAM International, replacing Ascenta, and it too places money entirely at its own discretion. TAM’s model is to guess the future, rather than spread risk over a balanced portfolio. This is the same strategy which lost clients their money previously. Valuations were not independent, were inflated and collapsed quickly.

Like Sinclair James, Trintitas Advisory is not registered to do business and is pushing illegal products. If you try to take action against TAM International when these funds collapse you will have no more protection than the investors in Ascenta. They are not FCA covered and will remind you that you allowed them to invest at their own discretion. They will tell you they do not give advice and you should chase the matter with your IFA.

If your IFA is Trinitas you will be unable to link it to its officers. They have been very careful to remove traceability. There is none on their website. Do you have any official documents where the officers are named?

Probably not. If you do take action they will use the normal methods for evading justice in the Philippines. My insider sources inform me that there are longstanding complaints which they have circumvented in this way. It is expensive but necessary, since Thailand has issued arrest warrants for similar crimes.

What can you do? One option is to complain to the SEC now (http://www.sec.gov.ph/message-us-4/). At least, this is inexpensive. They are inefficient and there is no guarantee they will act, but a large volume of complaints might stir them.

They are most interested in evidence that the IFA was trading illegally (Buy/Sell instructions, etc). It may be worth contacting the British Embassy, since the majority of scammers in Asia are British and are an embarrassment to the UK Government. The British Embassy in Thailand was instrumental in getting arrest warrants issued there. If you really have solid evidence you may consider fraud action through a lawyer.

This is more expensive and is also liable to abuse, through paying off local officials. The main risk to Sinclair James is that their alternative methods of avoiding justice could be met by alternative methods of imposing it.

Comments

Anonymous
#1398660

well you have all this evidence and you do NOTHING with it ..........just talking about it, another keyboard warrior

Anonymous
to Anonymous #1399095

You have not disputed the evidence. You cannot because sources are cited, it is independent and is verifiable.

Sinclair James have offered no evidence, just an attempt to blame other people and divert attention. The most obvious fact is that Sinclair James wiped out people's life savings. That is pretty much impossible to do - even for a complete amateur.

You are assuming that nobody is taking action. Those who do will come up against the stone wall of the Philippines’ legal and financial systems.

Those who already know the system may decide that they would be throwing good money after bad. It is extremely easy to buy people off. That is why firms are still recruiting “consultants” to work here and why some known criminals are relocating here. They feel safe.

The more people who complain, the more difficult it gets to bat the complaints away.

Some people may not take action as they have suffered no personal loss but have witnessed how others have been scammed. Some of the comments obviously come from ex-Sinclair James employees. Others may well come from insiders to the Philippines legal system. The facts quoted are very precise and clearly come from people with inside information.

It’s also necessary to think of current or future clients of these people.

They should be advised to ask the right questions, check out independent evidence and make up their own minds. Anybody who offers to look after your money should be treated with suspicion until they prove their credentials.

The same methods are being operated under different names.

Why would firms hide the identity of their officers, set up temporary offices, channel money through Mauritius, insist you abide by any decision they make, not disclose commissions, etc? They are all reasonable questions to ask.

Anonymous
#1388532

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?

Anonymous
to AlfaRemeo #1388949

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.

Anonymous
to AlfaRemeo #1390157

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

Anonymous
to Anonymous #1390640

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.

Anonymous
to AlfaRemeo #1393486

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

Anonymous
to Anonymous #1393822

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.

Anonymous
to Deep Throat #1393841

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

Anonymous
to Deep Throat #1393899

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.

Anonymous
to Deep Throat #1395250

always amazes me , investors when they lose money ALWAYS look to blame someone , IF SJ forged signatures and your client found out but made loads of money i suspect they would not say a word ...........as a general rule they suffer from SMS [selective memory syndrome ]

Anonymous
to Deep Throat #1395390

Not true in any of the examples I have seen.

Clients employed Sinclair James to manage their portfolios professionally and with low to moderate risk, or even with capital guaranteed (all of which they offered). They said they were qualified and regulated to do this.

This meant a sensible spread of funds, with strong government securities or alternative forms of insurance, giving slow but steady growth.

They did not employ gamblers. They did not want volatility. There was no reason to lose money. They expressed concern even at times when the (false) valuations suggested gains, because the volatility indicated the portfolio was out of control.

The portfolios were totally unbalanced, all high risk (as proved by the impossible number of collapses) and were designed only to maximize commissions.

Signing on behalf of a client may be acceptable if he has given some other form of assent, such as an email approval.

Forgery can never be acceptable, especially when it is used to secretly launder money back to the IFA and his colleagues. No matter what the outcome, the people I know would have sacked anybody who forged their signature.

Anonymous
to Deep Throat #1397142

The suggestion that people wouldn’t mind their signature being forged if it made them money just shows further contempt for Sinclair James clients.

The job of a Wealth Management company is primarily to protect assets, respecting tax and money laundering laws, then growing it according to the client’s risk profile. It is not about making “loads of money”.

Loads of money means loads of risk. The vast majority of clients only wanted their life savings to be subjected to minimal risk, with perhaps a small element worth a gamble.

Sinclair James put everything into high risk products, without having any understanding of markets or how to balance a portfolio. That is why they lost everything. The risk was entirely for their own benefit.

People from Michael Whiting’s generation have only really been in the financial services sector since the deregulation of the mid-eighties.

That was when greed took over and the client was just a source of cash. We got bubble after bubble, Bob Diamond, Fred Goodwin, Bernie Madoff, PPI and fixing of LIBOR.

If you could give your client the illusion that he was making 15% he wouldn’t notice too much if you siphoned off 3% for yourself. Once the bubble burst you blamed it on someone else and started a new one. The dot.com bubble, based on intangible assets, was replaced by the sub-prime bubble - tangible assets in the form of property, but massively overvalued.

If you could now only safely make 3%, a 3% deduction would be noticed. So the IFAs massively increased the risk, to protect their own margins.

Sinclair James simply took products from insurance companies which gave them the highest commissions. They had no concern for risk and they all failed. Then they cut out the middlemen by going directly to scammers like Porton Capital.

Everyone who understood the business knew Portland Capital had never paid a cent to clients and were untrustworthy. Another bankruptcy followed. They then covered all bases by putting client money into Whiting’s own Ascenta fund, for which he received commission, then laundering it back to himself and his friends.

Sinclair James’ reaction has been to blame an ex-employee, to blame clients for complaining and to praise Whiting as an entrepreneur willing to take risks. At no point have they addressed the independent evidence which proves what they were doing.

View more comments

Sinclair James International - Darren Brindle Financial Services Scam

2 comments
Not resolved
1.1
Details
Additional Fees
Advertised vs Delivered
Billing Practices
Customer service
Discounts and Special Offers
Diversity of Products or Services
Interest Rate
Price Affordability
Privacy and Data Security
Product or Service Quality
Reliability
Staff
Value for money
Website

Darren Brindle Is A SCAMMER Darren Brindle Is A FRAUD Darren Brindle– Former Senior Consultant at Sinclair James Darren Brindle is a colorful character who I trusted the most from the Sinclair James group. It just goes to show how much I know about people.

Darren Brindle turned out to be nothing more than a slimy second-hand car salesman. He stole my money. My entire life savings. This is a tale of how Darren Brindle ripped off this trusting old American.

I had only recently arrived in Manila from North America with my life savings in tow and dreams of setting up a new life in the Philippines. I joined “Internations” which is a website for meeting like-minded expats in Manila. Little did I know Internations was being used to stalk new arrivals in order to fleece them of their money. Steve Hill from Sinclair James based in Salcedo Village was the meet-and-greet guy who pushed himself into the position of “Internations Manila Ambassador” in order to give him an air of authority and trust.

Steve Hill seemingly helped me find my feet in Manila before passing me onto the next slime ball, Darren Brindle to take care of my finances. And when I say take care of my finances, I mean steal everything I had spent my entire life in the USA earning. Darren Brindle was a young Brit newly arrived from Singapore and I felt comfortable with Darren at first. He advised me to put my money into several schemes claiming various rock bands and British Government councils had put their staff’s salary into these investments.

If British Councils were putting their staff’s money in then surely it was totally legitimate, right? Michael Whiting was Darren’s boss and also put the boot in by claiming he personally vets every single investment and meets with the schemes founder to check them out. I see now that the only vetting Michael Whiting actually did was negotiating with the founder how much of a cut he personally gets from each scam. Sadly, every single investment Darren Brindle advised me to put my money into disappeared within a year.

Each one collapsed with a different unique excuse and turned out to be nothing but a litany of Ponzi scams. All my money was stolen and Darren Brindle was the advisor who made sure I lost it all. Darren Brindle is still in Manila. Conveniently, he started his own company with Wilkes & Whiting The forming of his new company after myself and other investors in Sinclair James lost our life savings to their scams.

To this day, Darren remains advising unsuspecting newly arrived expats to give up their life savings. Keep away from Darren Brindle & Graham Wilkes Keep away from Sinclair James Keep away from

Review about: Moog Suspension Parts Auto Part.

Comments

Anonymous
#1530160

*** Darren we called him in Singapore. He was thrown out by the governor for doing much the same. Darren is a violent drunk.

Anonymous
#1384180

Brindle is going to get a visit from BIR soon. They will have his house from him for starters. Thank you Sir!!!

Sinclair James International - Savings Plan Review

6 comments
Not resolved
1.1
Details
Additional Fees
Advertised vs Delivered
Billing Practices
Customer service
Discounts and Special Offers
Diversity of Products or Services
Interest Rate
Price Affordability
Privacy and Data Security
Product or Service Quality
Reliability
Staff
Value for money
Website

I was tricked into buying a Savings Policy with {{REDACTED}} Darren. He told me the Royal London 360 plan was very flexible, that I could close it after 20 mths if required.

I had informed him that I would be returning to UK imminently, that I would need to access the lump sum. Darren said “this wouldn’t be a problem.” Now he doesn’t return my calls or want to meet me for a drink (like he always did before). I do feel extremely cheated by this genetic throw-back. After I told Darren my son was Down’s syndrome Darren informed me he has a sister with the same condition.

He said it runs in his family genes. I felt a certain amount of empathy with him after hearing this. Maybe this was all part of his despicable plan to gain my trust. What a disgusting human being he is to stoop so low.

I hear that the commissions from my dishonest savings plan paid a large chunk on the deposit of his 12,000,000 pesos house he recently purchased. Any suggestions on what I can do to get my money back and have Darren face the music?

Review about: Royal London 360.

Reason of review: Not as described.

Comments

Anonymous
#1469416

What is it about downs Darren? He look like he been smashed in da face with frying pan. That is the Down's look I guess, it in his genes.

Anonymous
to Kattoi #1383227

you muppet , you obviously think you were wronged, suggest you stop getting pissed and writing some bs comment .......the man in question will get his very soon...i have it on GOOD authority

Anonymous
#1382025

sounds like your the retard buddy

Anonymous
#1381565

I went out with Daz one night, he had ketemine (horse tranculizers) GHB, coke. By mid way through the eve he ended up in the police station with his Merc driven back by the pigs.

He wet himself & cried like a baby, the baby he really is... Man up and STOP bullying your family you poor excuse. STOP RIPPING OFF YOUR CLIENTS BELLY BRINDLE.

While ur at it... Send ur Mrs back to Primary school so she can lean how to talk properly.

Anonymous
#1381492

sometimes things go south , that's the way sometimes it goes, these guys seem too know that before the storm and they keep selling it , jeez ........cant believe it , seriously no conscious ........so i get sometimes things go south , but these guys don't give hoot either way............i just hope they get it ALL back in spades ......surprised they still have the front to STILL go out , that geezer Denison and Whiting TAKE the biscuit ..............wouldn't mind seeing them in irons

Anonymous
#1381472

just inform BIR they are always looking for a payday .....so same same no?

View more comments

Sinclair James International - Review in Financial Services category from Makati, Manila

Make all your complaints about Sinclair James to Philippine SEC (security & exchanges Commission).These are the people that could hold Whiting, Brindle and Wilkes to account. All those Ponzi funds they have been selling have cost investors millions.

If you speak to Whiting he'll tell you your money has a great chance of being returned, this is deluded, you have little or no chance of recovering your monies. Michael Whiting uses this as delaying tactics until he's sold the business book and done a disappearing act. Darren Brindles is running around Makati shouting at people like he owns the place.

Pressure of ripping so many people off must be getting to you love. You heard it first on Pissed Consumer

Reason of review: Pricing issue.

Monetary Loss: $750000.

Preferred solution: Full refund.

I liked: Something too good to be true.

I didn't like: Darrens piggy waste.

Comments

Anonymous
#1379925

For some reason, random parts of a post are excluded. Let’s try again.

The central points are these.

Sinclair James do not understand how so much accurate insider information has been disclosed and presented so coherently. So they have invented a story about a family of stalkers and posted it, complete with pictures of fictitious Bogeymen, on a platform which they say has no credibility. They use this as proof that they were right all along. Really?

It is paranoia. It is hysteria. It is untrue.

On the other hand, we have a series of reasoned arguments, fully substantiated, where sources are cited and people are invited to check it out for themselves. Would you believe a discourse underpinned by third-party evidence or a made up story about a family of Bogeymen?

What do Sinclair James do when their fake news is exposed for what it is?

They lapse into sentimentality. Our misunderstood hero shuffles to the center of the stage. He only lost all of his clients’ money because he was nobly trying to do what was best for them. This worthy cause had nothing to do with the obscene commissions that he and his sidekicks were pocketing.

“The record shows I took the blows and did it – my way…”. Curtain.

Anonymous
#1379538

You are correct that this self-serving distortion of a Theodore Rooselvelt quote illustrates that Sinclair James/Trinitas Advisory have sunk to a new level of delusion. What they are trying to say is this:

It is the victims who are “those cold and timid souls”, since they have only tried to protect their life savings.

They should applaud Michael Whiting as he is the person who “fails while daring greatly”.

He courageously took reckless risks with other people’s money, lied about qualifications, disobeyed their instructions and forged their signatures.

He knew “great enthusiasms” and spent “himself in a worthy cause” of obtaining the highest possible commissions at his clients’ expense, without ever disclosing those commissions to his clients.

He is the man “who errs, who comes short again and again” and loses all of his clients’ money. His clients should applaud his tenacity in picking himself up and in showing a willingness to lose his clients’ money over and over again.

Sinclair James are alarmed at the amount of insider information which is being divulged and have wrongly concluded that this is just one person, Michael Phillips. They have then realized that this cannot be true, as the arguments are too coherent and Michael Phillips is a financial illiterate (a financial illiterate who they employed to give advice to their clients…). So they have jumped to the conclusion that it must be his cleverer brother.

They have fabricated a blog about a family of stalkers and posted it as “proof” that they are right. Clearly, this is absurd. On the one hand, we have an unsubstantiated, petulant blog on a platform which Sinclair James themselves have criticized as being unreliable. On the other hand, we have a series of reasoned arguments, supported by solid evidence, where sources are cited and which can be independently verified.

These sources include official filed accounts, third party prospectuses, professional membership records, UK bankruptcy records and statements made by Sinclair James themselves on their own website. Any clients who are with Trinitas Advisory should go online and try to find the names of the people behind this entity. Everything has been done to remove any traceability. Who will you complain about if this fund collapses, as all the others have done?

Anyone with TAM International should look for parallels with the Ascenta funds. Both were registered in Mauritius. Neither is protected by the Financial Conduct Authority. Both allow funds to be used at the fund manager’s complete discretion.

Both are inevitably high risk – they have to be if two sets of middlemen are taking commissions before the investor. Any valuations will be suspect – and were obviously wrong in the case of Ascenta. Ascenta was used to launder money into companies where Whiting and his colleagues had personal interests. It went into administration, closed down and caused further losses for investors.

All of these comments are based on solid facts which can be independently verified.

Sinclair James are continually swerving the facts and are trying to deflect blame by pointing the finger at an ex-employee and his brother. It is nonsense.

Anonymous
#1378581

If Michael Whiting is a “legitimate businessman” he should directly address the concrete allegations that have been made against him.

In the previous thread, Financial Analyst has gone through them point by point and proved them conclusively. He has cited his public domain sources, which anybody can verify.

He has proved the argument. These are the issues that they need to address.

What we have, instead, is a quote taken completely out of context. The quote refers to “critics”, when it should relate to “victims”. A man who has obviously broken all the rules is portrayed as a courageous warrior who was willing to take risks.

It does not mention that he profited from those risks and passed on all the losses to his clients. It is nonsense.

We also have another attempt to deflect blame to Michael Phillips. It has been done by simply posting personal slurs on a platform (wordpress) which you do not consider credible. The main assumption is that some of the arguments in these threads are so clever (and coherent) that Michael Phillips cannot have made them.

It must have been his brother – a dangerous and libellous assumption if you do not have the facts to back them up.

Michael Phillips may well have been a scammer working for Sinclair James – but he was a scammer and he was working for Sinclair James, under the control of Michael Whiting. Many other Sinclair James employees have been named.

Michael Phillips may well be the insider who has posted information on how Sinclair James operated and on the huge commissions they took, unknown to their clients. However, the figures look credible and tie in with what is known of other operators, some of whom now have arrest warrants against them. Michael Phillips may well be the person who has made personal slurs against Sinclair James managers.

These statements are puerile and irrelevant – but it is just as puerile and irrelevant to set up a blog to reply in kind. Michael Phillips is almost certainly not the Australian gentleman who complained that he had been scammed by Sinclair James – and blamed Michael Phillips. The posts complaining about Sinclair James /Trinitas Advisory come from a large variety of sources, clients and insiders of all nationalities.

I have not seen a single allegation that has been disproved and the vast majority have been independently authenticated. Rather that try to deflect blame, Sinclair James should address these points directly.

Anonymous
to Anonymous #1382694

Whiting is a thief, lier, scam artists, & much more. He has lost his clients millions of $’s and should be locked up for a very long time.

Anonymous
#1378050

More to consider on the Sinclair James Critique. Search for Micheal Phillips: Watchout and read the posts — it aptly describes this guy's agenda

Duplestier
to Rettack #1378529

Here's the real story about this guy and his brother:

michaelterryphillipswatchout.wordpress.com/2017/10/12/phillips-family-stalking-attack/

Anonymous
#1378032

What's amazing about these scurrilous posts by Michael Phillips (who has a *lot* of time on his hands) is that they drag down a legitimate businessman because of his own inadequacies.

As Theodore Roosevelt said;

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

View more comments

Sinclair James International - The chance for Sinclair James to set tthe record straight...

It’s good to see Sinclair James or one of their apologists participating in this thread, under the alias of Righteous Fury. You claim that the comments on the pissedconsumer and wordpress sites are nothing more than a dialogue between the various personas of Michael Phillips.

This is no doubt the story you have been spinning to any clients who haven’t yet abandoned you. I agree that the scurrilous gossip and insinuations are out of place and irrelevant. They simply allow Sinclair James to pretend that this is a one-man vendetta against them. If this is Michael Phillips, it would be in everyone’s interests for him to stop.

However, it’s very unlikely that this is the case as one client has complained it was Michael Phillips who scammed him (https://other-company.pissedconsumer.com/michael-phillips-fraudster-scammer-manila-bangkok-pattaya-20160927926270.html) – and I’m not sure he would incriminate himself. I also know a number of the many other people who claim to have been defrauded by Sinclair James and their stories stack up with most of the comments on these threads. Their claims are substantiated by documents which are freely available on the Internet and, where I have been given access to evidence, it looks completely authentic. You now have the chance to put the record straight, Mr Righteous Fury, so maybe you could answer these questions: Why did Michael Whiting claim in all versions of the Sinclair James website that they were strictly adhering all to all regulations, when they were not registered with the SEC, trading in unlicensed securities and operating illegally?

Why did he claim that all his consultants were qualified, when they were all unqualified commission-based salesmen? Why have so many other Sinclair James “consultants” been cited for scamming clients? Why would you allow an undischarged UK bankrupt to become your co-director when he would be banned from all such activity in the UK? Why did Michael Whiting claim to be a current member of the CII (meaning he was following a strict code of ethics and had professional indemnity insurance), when his membership had lapsed years before, he had broken almost very item on the code and did not have insurance?

Why did Whiting claim that that they sold only non-volatile, safe products (including capital-guaranteed) when all the prospectuses of these products made clear that they were high risk and that you could lose all your money (and often did)? Isn’t it true that Sinclair James lost millions of their clients’ money by putting it into LM Australia, Argentum/Centaur/Buttonwoon/Orion, Axiom, Premier New Earth, Mansion, Brandeaux, London & Capital, Porton Group (Enigma and Cellcrypt) Ascenta Special Sits, Ascenta Gold Bullion, EEA and many others? How is it possible for so-called experts to get everything wrong? Why did Sinclair James claim that products were covered 90% by IOM insurance, without limit, even in the event of a Ponzi scheme – when these losses were not covered at all?

Why did Whiting state that clients would have no additional charges after the initial commissions, when there were high ongoing trail commissions and charges payable to both Sinclair James and the broker? Why did Sinclair James claim they would explain all charges, when they did not? Insiders have quoted on these threads the percentages that were taken. If they are incorrect, what are the figures?

What were the commissions taken from Porton Capital and LM Australia? Why did Sinclair James staff move client money around (deducting commissions) without telling the client and in multiple cases by forging their signatures? Why was client money put into the Ascenta funds, where Michael Whiting and his colleagues had unacceptable personal interests (http://www.pr.com/press-release/348184)? Why did Ascenta insist on keeping secret where its money would be invested, allowing its officers to do whatever they liked without giving explanations?

Why were its funds laundered into companies (eg. Philippine Metals Inc, Prize Mining Corp) where Whiting and his Ascenta Colleagues had personal interests (http://www.equitystory.com/Download/Companies/philippine/Presentations/PMC-Presentation_Jan2011.pdf)? Why did these two companies never find minerals or make any sales, yet paid millions in related-party transactions to Whiting and his colleagues (accounts available at www.sedar.com)? Why did Whiting admit wrongdoing by his firm, agree to reimburse victims, then renege?

Why did he lie about the terms of a binding contract which bears his signature? Why did Sinclair James persist in pushing QROPS products when they were unsafe for clients, gave huge commissions to them and (according to Aegon Insurance) were mostly fraudulent? Why are Sinclair James trying to switch client funds to Trinitas Advisory, a shell company which is also operating illegally, has a website which has been in development for over a year, does not say what it does, does not name any officers and has hidden the identity of its owners by using Domains By Proxy to register the site? Why are Sinclair James/Trinitas putting client funds into TAM International, a company registered in Mauritius (like Ascenta), which isn’t controlled by the FCA and which promotes “Discretionary Asset Management”, which (like Ascenta) allows a bunch of people you don’t know to do whatever they like without giving explanations?

These are all serious questions. So over to you, Mr Righteous Fury. I’m sure you’d like to set the record straight and give substantive replies, rather than the previous vague denials of rock solid evidence and blaming of disgruntled employees (who you recruited and who were following your instructions).

Show us which side of the fence the righteous fury really lies…. If there are any existing clients who are confused, why not post your questions or comments here?

Review about: Sinclair James Fraud Michael Whiting.

Comments

Anonymous
#1371186

It’s interesting that Sinclair James (SJI) should complain about anonymous nonsense posted on Wordpress, then use an anonymous post on Wordpress to “prove” their point. Do they not understand irony?

This post was almost certainly created by them. The person mentioned may have made some of the comments but certainly not all of them.

The allegations against SJI fall into three categories: 1. Those supported by public domain information. 2.

Those where we are told there is evidence but it is not in the public domain (maybe through confidentiality or sub judice). 3. Personal slurs, which we can ignore.

1. Public Domain.

I have retrieved and saved all SJI websites from 1999.

They do indeed all claim that SJI adhered to all regulations, that all of its staff were qualified, that investments were safe and adequately insured in the IOM and that clients would have no additional charges. There is also a joke that SJI do not operate in the North and South Poles as “we avoid frozen assets”. That joke looks a bit flat now. The allegations of serious misrepresentation are proven.

I have studied online CVs (Linkedin, Bayt.com, etc) for the long list of SJI employees cited for fraud.

Most of them prove these people worked for SJI and I cannot find a single financial qualification. The claim that they were all qualified is untrue.

UK Bankruptcy records do show that Graham Wilkes was registered as bankrupt in Birmingham and would normally be disqualified from future directorships. The online Member Search of the ACII shows Michael Whiting is NOT a current member and does not have the right to use the designation CII after his name. He has never had the required Professional Indemnity Insurance.

The long list of failed investments described by a SJI client looks accurate. I know a number of people who were put into them. I have also talked with someone who worked for one of these companies and he confirmed Whiting’s involvement. It is a matter of public record that they all failed, losing millions of Dollars for the clients.

I have retrieved the prospectuses for a number of these investments and it was obvious that they were high risk, completely unsuitable for individual investors. The Press Release quoted confirms that Whiting did have the role of Business Development Director with Ascenta. I have also retrieved the Ascenta website. This too confirms Whiting’s role and also shows the the SJI Accountant, Allan Naval, as Administrator.

The allegation of unacceptable conflict of interests is proven. I have retrieved the Ascenta prospectus (as part of Universal Mutual Fund). It confirms it was registered in Mauritius and does indicate that this is extremely high risk. It does say that secrecy is necessary to protect its hedging operations.

We have been told that this secrecy allowed Ascenta to launder funds into Philippine Metals Inc and Prize Mining Corp, companies where Whiting and colleagues had interests. A Google search confirms Ascenta went into administration. The Philippine Metals Inc website confirms Whiting (Director/Treasurer) and other Ascenta officers (Marshall Farris, Jim Glass) were directors of this company. The official filed accounts of Philippine Metals and Prize Mining Corp at sedar.com confirm that both companies shared common directors (including Ascenta officers).

The filed accounts (sedar.com) show that between 2009-2016 Philippine Metals paid $2.9M of fees/commissions/salaries to Related Parties, including these officers. Prize Mining Corp made even higher payments. Neither company ever made any sales. I have been told from two sources that SJI have been trying to move clients into Trinitas Advisory.

This name follows the standard scam of trying to sound like an existing company, in this case “Trinitas Advisors”. Trinitas Advisory (www.trinitas-advisory.com) is indeed just a shell which gives no information on its officers or what it does. A “whois” search shows it was registered anonymously and has not been developed since it was set up on Sep 9 2016. Unlike SJI, if Trinitas Advisory collapses clients will find it difficult to prove who is responsible.

The TAM International website confirms that (like Ascenta) it is registered in Mauritius and is not protected by the FCA. Like Ascenta, it is subject to “discretionary asset management”. This will make it difficult to prove incompetence if, like all other funds, this one collapses. Conclusion: All of the public domain allegations are proven.

2. Evidence not in public domain. An insider has given a list of SJI charges and commissions. Apart from disproving the claim of “no additional charges”, these charges are much higher than would be expected.

SJI should publish what they believe the charges to be. This should not be a problem as they promised to explain all costs. An insider has also given details of how the insurance wrapper scheme worked. This is consistent with independent newspaper articles.

An insider has claimed that SJI moved money without client permission, that it routinely forged client signatures and that there is evidence of this. SJI would need to state categorically that this never happened. We are told that there is evidence that Whiting admitted wrongdoing by SJI, that he contracted to reimburse investor(s) and then reneged. We are also told that he lied about the content of contracts, which may well be perjury.

Whiting would need to state categorically that this is untrue. We are also told that there is evidence that Ascenta money was secretly put into Philippine Metals Inc and Prize Mining Corp. As Treasurer, Whiting would know the source of funds and he would need to deny these allegations. If Whiting is innocent he should be able to make these statements.

If evidence subsequently came to light then this would prove fraud. SJI’s claim that these allegations are “nonsense” is, frankly, nonsense. All of the public domain allegations are proven and can be verified by anybody who looks. The others are not disproved and are very likely to be true.

It is worrying that SJI are being allowed to continue operating under a new name. The new organization has been deliberately set up so that it will be difficult to prove incompetence and to identify individuals when the next collapse occurs.

Anonymous
to Financial Analyst #1378052

Thanks for the chance: https://michaelterryphillipswatchout.wordpress.com/2017/10/12/phillips-family-stalking-attack/

Anonymous
#1369680

Darren Brindle or should I say Righteous Furry (sorry, Freudian slip on the latter) needs to stand up and be counted. Let's hear it from the mouth of Mr Perfect please.

Mr Straight, I've not ripped anyone off... LOL LOL LOL.

Anonymous
to DarrenBrindles #1378420

Check this blog post:

michaelterryphillipswatchout.wordpress - family stalking stalking

Duplestier
to DarrenBrindles #1378530

The real story on the person promoting this array of personal attacks + his brother:

michaelterryphillipswatchout.wordpress.com/2017/10/12/phillips-family-stalking-attack/

View more comments
You May Also Like