This is a summary of what we know about Sinclair James, Michael Whiting and his associates: From Public Domain Records We know with certainty that Whiting lied about every aspect of his business.This included the company’s legal status, his and his staff’s professional qualifications, the legality and safety of products he was pushing, the commissions and charges he was taking.
We know that he was not independent and that he was diverting client money to the Ascenta funds in which he had an interest. These funds in turn could have channeled money to mining companies where he was a director. We know that a co-director (who we are told may be taking over the business) is an undischarged UK bankrupt and would normally be disqualified from taking on directorships. The 90% insurance cover which he claimed existed in the Isle of Man did not exist at all.
We know that a so-called Wealth Management and Asset Protection company lost millions for its clients by advising them to put money in unregistered funds which largely collapsed – but which gave them high commissions. Enigma Diagnostics is just the latest in a long list to formally announce insolvency. TAM International is not the same as TAM Asset Management. Like Ascenta Asset Management, it is registered in Mauritius and is subject to “discretionary asset management”.
Ascenta’s websites disappeared without warning in January 2016. All of this information is freely available from the following sources: Sinclair James websites Philippines SEC registrations Professional membership lists (searchable online). Prospectuses of the funds he was pushing. UK bankruptcy records.
Ascenta Asset Management website (since removed) and prospectus. Press releases and reports. Online CVs and employment records. Documents which are not freely available We are told that there are documents which prove that: A client’s whole portfolio was changed by forging his signature several times.
That Whiting admitted there had been fraud and personally guaranteed to reimburse the client. That these documents have been notarized, properly authenticated and appear genuine. That Whiting is now denying the existence of a document which bears his signature. That Whiting admitted he was taking ongoing commissions and charges from the clients’ money, when his terms stated that they would only be taken at the outset.
That one or more salesmen/”consultants” resigned rather than sell what he was told to sell. That these proofs have been submitted to the Philippines authorities and that legal cases are ongoing. The claimant would no doubt have to prove the authenticity of these documents.
If they are genuine then it is difficult to see how Whiting could defend himself, other than by following the less conventional methods available in the Philippines….The world now waits to see how the Philippines judicial system reacts to these documents.
Review about: Sinclair James International Investment Service.