VICTIM OF $100m VENEZUELAN FRAUD SEEKS RELIEF IN MIAMI COURT
 |
| The plaintiff, Mr. Vasquez |
Ramos was arrested in 2010, and later convicted, in US District Court, of Extortion and money laundering, and was sentenced to 27 months for his crimes. He apparently cooperated with US authorities, and was released in 2012. The story behind the extortion, now being played out in a hard-fought civil suit, in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, serves as a reminder of the mandatory nature of due diligence. Bankers should periodically review their client files, for information that surfaces after a client has been taken on board may turn what you though was a low-risk client into an unacceptable high-risk.
Tomás Vazquez, the intended victim of the extortion, had an even bigger problem.; one of his trusted employees, company Vice President Leonor Sarmiento Camperos, had allegedly embezzled the equivalent of millions of dollars from his brokerage firm, and wired the money to a cohort, Moisés Wahnon Maman. much of this illicit money ended up in Miami, Florida. Sarmiento herself later moved to Miami. Both parties then became involved in the ownership or control of a number of local businesses.
Mr. Vazquez later brought a civil action*** against Wahnon, Sarmiento, and Ramos, in state court in Miami, for:
Conversion
Civil Theft
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Fraudulent Concealment
Constructive Fraud
Conspiracy to Commit Fraud
Breach of Contract
Plaintiff's counsel, a Washington DC and a Miami law firm, seeks restitution of the money stolen, money damages for the loss of future profits from UnoValores, and punitive damages. of course, the plaintiff must prove up his case at trial, to recover his losses. A review of the curt docket indicates that the defendants, through their counsel, have repeatedly failed to cooperate in the Discovery process, which accounts for the fact that this case has still not gone to trial. I leave it to our readers to determine whether such actions were dilatory, and taken solely for the purposes of delay, or were taken in good faith.
The point that I am making here is that the lawsuit, which came after the defendants placed large amounts of money in their US bank accounts, and became engaged in multiple businesses, should have been picked up by their bankers in a follow-up compliance check. Should the plaintiff prevail, any post-judgment collection effort, which would involve garnishing the defendants' bank accounts, and seizing their assets, would involve the banks that chose to continue to serve them after the lawsuit was filed.
The safest thing to do, when an existing bank client is involved in major litigation, is to have outside counsel review it, and report back on whether it presents any risks to the bank, including reputation damage, exposure to suits from third parties, and potential regulatory or criminal exposure. Some lawsuits are frivolous, and have no merit at law; your counsel should advise you on these matters.
The court file lists the businesses that the defendants, mainly Wahnon, allegedly are involved in:
Blue Diamonds USA Corp
BlueFountain Limited Corporation
Iconbrick LLC
MW Corporation USA Inc.
Palace View LLC
Some of the above names are similar to those of other companies also doing business in the State of Florida, so check the exact wording of the names carefully. Compliance officers should always remind senior bank staff that existing clients, particularly those with large balances, must be checked at least annually, to determine whether anything has occurred that could affect client risk levels. When you read about negative events that impact clients in the newspaper, it is already too late.
_______________________________________________________________________
* United States vs. Rafael Ramos de la Rosa, Case No.: 10-cr-20842-PAS (SD FL) .
'** Tomas Andres Vazquez Estrella vs. Leonor Sarmiento Camperos, Moises Wahnon Maman and Rafael Ramos de la Rosa, Case No.: 11-35080-CA22 (11th Jud. Cir. Fla.).
No comments:
Post a Comment