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.

Do You Have Something To Say ?

Write a review


Terms of Service
Post Comment

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

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.


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?

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.

to AlfaRemeo #1390157

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 ]

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.

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.

You May Also Like