Source: https://www.gomopa.net/Pressemitteilungen.html?id=564&meldung=Imperia-Invest-IBC-Wo-bleibt-die-Milliarde-Auszahlung
Timestamp: 2019-06-16 19:48:31+00:00

Document:
GoMoPa: Imperia Invest IBC: Wo bleibt die Milliarde Auszahlung?
278 User online, 50.715 Mitglieder
Imperia Invest IBC: Wo bleibt die Milliarde Auszahlung?
Über eine Milliarde Euro sollten spätestens am 16. August 2010 bei einer Offshore-Bank zur Abhebung über Visa-Kreditkarten bereitstehen, so hatte es die Imperia Invest IBC aus den Bahamas im Nordatlantik ihren Tausenden von Anlegern per Newsletter im Februar 2010 versprochen.
Seitdem sind die Käufer der 10.000 Imperia-TEPs (gebrauchte britische Rentenversicherungen) im Auszahlungsfieber. Doch das Geld kommt und kommt nicht. Der Großtrader ist seit dem 16. August 2010 wie vom Erdboden verschluckt, seine Internetseite abgeschaltet. Niemand weiß, über welche Bank die Auszahlung der Gewinne laufen soll. Den Namen der Bank hatten die beiden Chefs der Imperia Invest, Dr. Werner J. und Dr. Steve B., zwei angebliche deutsche Auswanderer, bis zum Schluss geheim gehalten.
Wieviele Policen wirklich verkauft wurden, weiß keiner
Drei Jahre lang haben die nun geprellten Anleger wie wild britische Rentenversicherungen bei der Imperia Invest IBC gekauft. Bis zu 50 Einzelpolicen waren auf einen Namen möglich. Wer weitere Käufer fand, bekam eine Vermittlungsprovision zwischen 1.260 Euro und 3.150 Euro pro Vertrag gutgeschrieben. Für eine Police, für deren Besorgung man nur 50 Euro Gebühr an die Imperia Invest bezahlte, erhielt man einen Kredit über 63.000 Euro. Allerdings wurde der Kredit nicht ausbezahlt, sondern an die Imperia Invest zum Zocken auf den Finanzmärkten per Treuhandvertrag abgetreten.
Täglich 1,2 Prozent Rendite
Dr. J. und Dr. B. gaben vor, ein Trading zu beherrschen, dass durch Währungsunterschiede (Forex) und Preisunterschiede für Waren (Arbitrage) in verschiedenen Ländern täglich bis zu 1,2 Prozent Rendite abwerfen würde. Schon nach einem halben Jahr würde man auf jedes Policendarlehen einen Gewinn von 105.000 Euro auszahlen.
Gewinnauszahlung erst bei 10.000 verkauften Policen
Es gab jedoch einen Haken. Jeder Policenkäufer bekäme seinen Gewinn erst ausgezahlt, wenn 10.000 Versicherungs-Policen verkauft worden seien. Das gelte auch für die Empfehlungs-Provisionen. Solange gab es nichts, nicht einmal die 50 Euro Gebühr zurück, falls die Versicherungsgesellschaft den Käufer ablehnen sollte. Also hieß es warten oder andere anwerben.
Die Motivation zum Mitmachen war groß. Was zählte für den einzelnen schon der Verlust von 50 Euro, wenn am Ende ein Gewinn von 105.000 Euro lockt? Und bei 50 Policen zu insgesamt 2.500 Euro bekäme man sogar 5,25 Millionen Euro. Doch nun...
» Solidinvestment: Vorzügliche Geschäfte trotz FBI-Kopfgeldes
» TXL Missionars Trading
» Borsa und Tortola - die Insolvenztrader
» Der Trading-König von Mallorca
» Forex4Free: Kostenlos traden?
» Bankgarantien und Trading: Zugang nur für Milliardäre
» Börsenbriefe fürs Klo
» Kopfgeld auf Aktienbetrüger Engler
» Imperia Invest IBC
» Imperia Invest IBC Warnliste Schweden
» Neue "Pensionspläne"
# - Kommentar von Struckischreck am 13.09.2010 10:18
Ich denke mal, es gibt keinen User, der sich weniger darüber wundert, dass die Auszahlungen ausgeblieben sind, als mich.
Es wundert mich nicht einmal mehr, dass die Initiatoren noch Geld für vermeintliche VISA-Karten abgezockt haben und erst dann verschwunden sind.
Was allerdings nicht stimmt: Die Imperia-Käufer haben niemals einen Kredit aufgenommen und werden diesen deshalb auch nicht abbezahlen müssen. Es wurde mit dem Geld auch nicht getradet. Es wurden lediglich die Einzahlungen eingesammelt und es war nie geplant, damit etwas anderes zu machen als zu gegebener Zeit zu verschwinden.
#1 - Kommentar von Siegfried Siewert am 11.10.2010 10:28
Im Anhang die Klage gegen Imperia Invest IBC
Bericht der SEC:
Litigation Release No. 21686 / October 7, 2010
SEC OBTAINS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ASSET FREEZE OF IMPERIA INVEST IBC RELATING TO INTERNET BASED OFFERING FRAUD
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Imperia Invest IBC, Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00986-B (D. Utah)
On October 6, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a temporary restraining order and emergency asset freeze against Imperia Invest IBC ("Imperia") for defrauding more than 14,000 investors worldwide. The Commission's complaint alleges Imperia raised in excess of $7 million, $4 million of which was collected primarily from deaf investors in the United States. In addition to the asset freeze, the court has granted the Commission's motion for expedited discovery and prohibiting the destruction of documents.
According to the Commission's complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for Utah, Imperia defrauded investors by soliciting funds via the internet to purchase Traded Endowment Policies ("TEP"), the British term for viatical settlements, claiming to pay investors a guaranteed return of 1.2% per day. The Commission alleges that Imperia promised unrealistic returns to investors. The Imperia website allegedly stated that an initial $50 investment would allow the investor to obtain an $80,000 loan from an unnamed foreign bank which would be used by Imperia to purchase a TEP; Imperia would then trade the TEPs and pay the investor the guaranteed return. The Commission's complaint alleges that Imperia claimed to be licensed and located in both the Bahamas and Vanuatu when, in fact, it is not licensed to do business or located in either of those countries. It is also alleged that Imperia's website stated investors could only access their profits by purchasing a Visa debit card from Imperia, but that Imperia has no relationship with Visa and was using the Visa name without authorization. Additionally, the complaint contends that Imperia took proactive steps to conceal the identity of its control persons by using an anonymous browser to host its website, by communicating with all investors via email without disclosing the identity of any control persons and by establishing off-shore Paypal style bank accounts to conceal the recipient of the investment proceeds.
The Commission's complaint charges Imperia Invest IBC with violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the State of Maine Office of Securities, the Securities Commission of the Bahamas, the Vanuatu Financial Services Commission and the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission.
Daniel J. Wadley (10358) Thomas M. Melton (4999) Attorneys for Plaintiff United States Securities & Exchange Commission 15 West South Temple, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Tel. 801-524-5796
ALEC IN UNITED STATE.SCI~TRIGf COURT, DISTRIOT Or UTAH?
OeT ()&!nlft D. MARK JONES, CLEI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
v. IMPERIA INVEST IBC,
Case: 2:10cv00986 Assigned To : Benson, Dee Assign. Date : 10/6/2010 Description: SEC v. Imperia Invest IBC
~~rull~HF"~
Plaintiff, Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission"), for its Complaint against Defendant Imperia Invest IBC alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1.	This matter involves an ongoing offer and sale of unregistered securities by
Imperia Invest IBC ("Imperia" or "Defendant"), a web-based entity which, at various times, claims either to be based in the Bahamas or in Vanuatu.
2.	Imperia fraudulently claims to use investor money to purchase Traded Endowment Policies ("TEP"), the British term for viatical settlements, and claims that it will pay guaranteed returns of 1.2% per day on the investment.
3.	Funds are transferred to Imperia via Pay Pal-like accounts in Costa Rica, Panama and the British Virgin Islands, among other countries. Funds are then transferred from these
accounts to additional foreign bank accounts, including accounts located in Cyprus and New Zealand. Imperia appears to have raised in excess of$7 million from 14,000 investors worldwide, $4 million of which was collected primarily from approximately 6,000 deaf investors in the United States.
4.	Notwithstanding the representations by Imperia, or the amounts purportedly owed to investors (often tens of millions of dollars based on $50, $100, or $150 investments), no evidence has been found that any ofthe investors have received a single payment.
5.	Unless Imperia's actions are enjoined, additional investors will be duped into investinginImperiawithnohopewhatsoeverofreceivingthepromisedreturns. Inaddition, Imperia should be compelled to disgorge amounts it has improperly obtained from investors, and should be subject to a civil penalty based on its fraudulent activities.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6.	This Court has subject matter jurisdiction by authority of Sections 20 and 22 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t and 77v] and Sections 21 and Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u and 78aa].
7.	Defendant, directly and indirectly, has made use ofthe means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the mails in connection with the transactions, acts and courses of business alleged herein, certain of which have occurred within the District of Utah.
8.	Venue for this action is proper in the District ofUtah under Section 22(a) ofthe Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and under Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa] because certain of the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged in this
Complaint took place in this district and because defendant resides in and transacts business in this district.
9.	Defendant, unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, will continue to engage in the transactions, acts, practices, and course of business alleged herein and in transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business of similar purport and object.
10.	Defendant's conduct took place in connection with the offer, purchase and/or sale of securities in the form ofinvestment contracts. As investment contracts, the investments therefore are securities, and no registration statement has been filed with respect to the offering ofthese interests.
DEFENDANT 11.	Imperia Invest IBC is a web-based entity that claimed, until late 2009, to be
located in the Bahamas. The Bahamian address listed by Imperia is fictitious. Imperia now claims to be located in Vanuatu. However, Imperia is not registered to do business in Vanuatu and the address listed on its website appears also to be fictitious. Neither Imperia nor its securities are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Imperia is not licensed or registered with the Commission, with any state, or with any Self Regulatory Organization.
FACTUAL STATEMENT 12.	According to its website, Imperia purports to invest in TEPs, the British term for
viatical settlements, and claims to pay guaranteed returns of 1.2% per day. 13.	A TEP or viatical settlement involves the sale of an insurance policy by the policy
owner before the policy matures. The policies are sold at a discount from face value in an amount in excess ofthe current cash surrender value.
14.	At the time the policies are sold, all beneficial rights and obligations on the policy transfer to the new owner. Imperia contends that its experience with financial derivatives and bank securities allows it to offer trading in TEPs to the mass market.
15.	According to Imperia's website, investors are required to invest their money for at least six months before withdrawing earnings. Investors are to receive 40% ofthe profit from their investment, Imperia is to receive 30%, and the remaining 30% is to be allocated for bank fees, trustee fees, investment costs and commissions.
16.	The Imperia website shows an example of such earnings in which a $50 investment will return $134,000 to the investor in six months.
17.	The majority o f investor monies paid to Imperia appear to have been sent to three PayPal-type entities: Liberty Reserve, located in Costa Rica; Perfect Money, located in Panama; and Procurrex, located in the British Virgin Islands.	Once Imperia received funds from Investors, it appears that Imperia then transferred amounts from these accounts to foreign bank accounts, including but not limited to accounts located in Cyprus and New Zealand.
18.	Imperia also requires that investors purchase a Visa debit card to access their investment proceeds. Imperia charges customers a fee to purchase the Visa debit card ranging from $145 to $450.
19.	Visa has not authorized Imperia to use its name or trademarks and has sent Imperia a cease-and-desist letter to halt its unauthorized use of the Visa name and logo. There is no evidence that any investor who has ordered a Visa debit card from Imperia has actually received such a card.
20.	Investors have access to their purported account statements via Imperia's website. After an investor makes his or her $50 initial investment into Imperia, Imperia allows the
customer to create and user name and password. Investors can log into the Imperia website to viewtheiraccountstatements. Thoseinvestoraccountstatementsshowoutrageousand unrealistic returns.
21.	Although not appearing to directly target it, Imperia's activities in the United Statesappeartotakentheirgreatesttollamongthedeafcommunity. Thereareatleast14,000 investors worldwide with a total investment exceeding $7 million. In the United States, there appear to be approximately 6,000 investors, most o f whom belong the hearing impaired community, who have invested in excess of $4 million with Imperia.
22.	As is the case with investors outside the United States, there is no evidence that any ofthese U.S.-based investors have received any returns.
23.	To date, Imperia, either via its website or through email, has made numerous excuses about why returns have not been paid. As early as 2007, Imperia claimed it could start paying investors only when it had at least 10,000 investors - a number that already has been significantly exceeded.
24.	In late 2009, when Imperia claimed to relocate from the Bahamas to Vanuatu, it maintained that it experienced computer server problems as a consequence of the relocation which, according to Imperia, delayed payments of investment proceeds.
25.	Other excuses Imperia provided via its website regarding the necessity to delay payments include but are not limited to (1) its computer server being overloaded and unable to process the payments; (2) a delay in obtaining a trustee agreement for its partners; (3) the need for additional time to verify the identities of investors; and, (4) its computer system had been compromised by hackers.
IMPERIA OFFERED AND SOLD SECURITIES
26.	Imperia sold investment contracts. Imperia requires investors to invest at least $50. Investors transfer their funds into a pooled account in Costa Rica, Panama, or the British Virgin Islands. The initial $50 investment purportedly allows the customer to obtain an $80,000 loan from an unnamed foreign bank which is used to purchase TEPs.
27.	Imperia then claims to trade the TEPs in order to generate guaranteed returns sufficienttopayinvestorsreturnsof1.2%perday. Investorsexpectedtheirreturnstoderive from Imperia's efforts, had no role in any investment decisions, and provided nothing besides their money.
MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS AND OMISSIONS
28.	Imperia told investors their investments would generate guaranteed returns of 1.2%perday. Itishighlyimprobablythatanylegitimateinvestmentcanguaranteea1.2%per day return.
29.	In support ofthis misrepresentation, Imperia's website, which was available to the general public, showed a $50 dollar investment yielding a $134,000 return in a six month period. 30.	More specifically, Imperia represented to one investor who invested $150.00 with
Imperia that Imperia owed him $36,610,755.20 within a two year time frame.	Another individual's account statement who invested $500 in July 2007 showed he is owed $43,907,652.20 as of May 2010.
31.	Imperia also misrepresented its business location and registration.	Although Imperia claimed, at different times, to be licensed and located in the Bahamas and in Vanuatu, it is not licensed to do business or located in either ofthose jurisdictions.
32.	Finally, Imperia's website states that investors are required to purchase a Visa debitcardinordertoaccesstheirinvestmentproceeds. Imperiachargescustomersafeeto purchase the Visa debit card ranging from $145 to $450.
33.	Notwithstanding these representations, Visa has not authorized Imperia to use its name or trademarks and on June 7, 2010, Visa issued a cease-and-desist letter to Imperia requestingthatithalttheunauthorizeduseoftheVisanameandlogo. Imperia'suseoftheVisa name and logo is misleading, because it creates the false impression that the investment is legitimate and even endorsed by Visa.
DEFENDANT ACTED WITH SCIENTER 34.	Imperia's solicitation o f investments through the promise o f highly improbable
returns demonstrates a high degree of scienter. Based on its web of misrepresentations, Imperia is seeking to convince individuals to invest with Imperia while at the same time having no intention offulfilling any ofthe promises in return for the investment.
35.	In addition, and in an effort to facilitate its fraud, Imperia took proactive steps to conceal the identity of its control persons by using an anonymous browser to host its website, by communicating with all investors exclusively via email without disclosing the identity of any control persons, and by establishing off-shore PayPal style bank accounts to conceal the identity o f the recipient o f the investment proceeds.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION EMPLOYMENT OF A DEVICE, SCHEME OR ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD Violation of Section 17(a)(I) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.c. § 77q(a)(I)]
36.	The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 though 35, above.
37.	Imperia, by engaging in conduct described in Paragraphs 1 though 35, above, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities, by the use ofthe means or instruments of
transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use ofthe mails, with scienter, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud.
38.	By reason ofthe foregoing, Defendant, directly or indirectly, violated, and unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, will continue to violate Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(l)].
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD IN THE OFFER AND SALE OF SECURITIES Violations of Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.c. § 77q(a)(2) and (3)]
39.	The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 though 35, above.
40.	Imperia, by engaging in the conduct described in Paragraphs 1 through 35, above, directly and indirectly, in the offer and sale ofsecurities, by the use ofthe means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of material fact or by omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operate or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
41.	By reason of the foregoing, Defendant, directly or indirectly, violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Section 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) ofthe Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(2) and 77q(a)(3)].
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SECURITIES Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]
42.	The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 though 35, above.
43.	Imperia, by engaging in the conduct described in Paragraphs 1 through 35, above, directly or indirectly, by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or use of the mails, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, with scienter, (1) employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; (2) made untrue statements ofmaterial fact or omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made not misleading; or (3) engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business that operated or would operate as a fraud and deceit upon other persons.
44.	By reason of the foregoing, Defendant violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate Section 10(b) ofthe Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
OFFER AND SALE OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES Violation of Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.c. § 77e(a) and (c)]
45.	The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 though 35, above.
46.	Imperia, by engaging in the conduct described in paragraphs 1 through 35, above, directly or indirectly, through use ofthe means or instruments oftransportation or communication in interstate commerce or the mails, offered to sell or sold securities or, directly or indirectly, carried
such securities through the mails or in interstate commerce, for the purpose of sale or delivery after sale.
47.	No registration statement has been filed with the Commission or has been in effect with respect to these securities.
48.	By reason ofthe foregoing, Imperia, directly or indirectly, violated, and unless enjoined will continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) ofthe Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)].
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
Issue findings offact and conclusions oflaw that the Defendant committed the violations charged herein.
Issue in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure an order that permanently restrains and enjoins Defendant, and its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and accountants, and those persons in active concert or participation with any ofthem, who receive actual notice ofthe order by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from engaging in transactions, acts, practices, and courses o f business described herein, and from engaging in conduct of similar purport and object in violation of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) ofthe Securities Act, and Sections lOeb) ofthe Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Issue, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an order that permanently restrains and enjoins Defendant and its officers, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, and accountants, and those persons in active concert or participation with any ofthem, who receive actual notice ofthe order by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from: (A) transferring, changing, wasting, dissipating, converting, concealing, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, any funds, assets, claims, or other property or assets owned or controlled by, or in the possession or custody of Defendant; and (B) transferring, assigning, selling, hypothecating, or otherwise disposing of any assets of Defendant.
Issue in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) o f the Federal Rules o f Civil Procedure an order that permanently restrains and enjoins Defendant and its officers agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and accountants, and those persons in active concert or participation with any ofthem, who receive actual notice ofthe order by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from destroying, mutilating, concealing, transferring, altering, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, books, records, computer programs, computer files, computer printouts, correspondence, including e-mail, whether stored electronically or in hard-copy, memoranda, brochures, or any other documents of any kind that pertain in any manner to the business of the Defendant.
Enter an order directing Defendant to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) ofthe Securities Act and Section 21(d)(3) ofthe Exchange Act.
Enter an order directing Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains received during the period of violative conduct and pay prejudgment interest on such ill-gotten gains.
Enter an order requiring that Defendant, and each of its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice ofthis order by personal service or otherwise, including facsimile transmissions, electronic mail or overnight delivery service, and each of them, within five (5) days ofreceiving actual notice ofthis order, to take such steps as are necessary to repatriate and deposit into the registry ofthe Court in an interest bearing account, any and all funds or assets that presently may be located outside ofthe United States that were obtained directly or indirectly from investors.
Enter an order requiring that Defendant submit in writing and serve upon the Commission, within three (3) business days following service of the order, a written accounting identifying:
a.	The name, address, amount, and date ofpayment and present location ofproceeds for each and every individuals who made payments in connection with solicitations on the website "Imperiainvest.net" or any affiliated entities;
b.	Assets of every type and description with a value of at least one thousand dollars ($1,000) held for the direct or indirect benefit, or subject to the direct or indirect control, of Defendant, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere;
c.	All transfers of funds or other assets of one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more in funds obtained in connection with solicitations on the website "Imperiainvest.net," or under the name of Imperia Invest IBC or any affiliated entities, including the names and locations of all persons, entities, and accounts to and from which the transfers were made, the
dates, amounts, and purposes ofthe transfers, and the identity and location ofany assets derived from such funds; and All accounts maintained at any bank, broker-dealer, other financial institution, or Internet payment agent in the U.S. or elsewhere for the direct or indirect benefit, or subject to the direct or indirect control ofDefendant at any time since January 1, 2007.
Grant such further equitable relief as this Court deems just, appropriate, and necessary, including, but not limited to, a freeze ofassets and the acceleration ofdiscovery, including the forthwith production ofdocuments.
X Retain jurisdiction of this action in accordance with the principles of equity and the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees that may be entered, or to entertain any suitable application or motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Dated this 6th day of October 2010.
Respectfully submitted, lsi Daniel J. Wadley
Daniel J. Wadley Thomas M. Melton Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission
#2 - Kommentar von Frau Nacy Smith am 21.01.2011 08:26
lch bin Frau Nacy Smith, eine legitime und eine seriöse Geldverleiher. Wir sind von Church Missionary KREDIT HELP.With finanziellen assistance.We verleihen Zahlungen an Personen, die eine finanzielle Unterstützung, dass eine schlechte Kredit-oder Geld brauchen, um Rechnungen zu bezahlen, um auf die Unternehmen zu investieren. Haben Sie für Darlehen gesucht? Sie haben keine Sorgen machen, weil Sie an der richtigen Stelle Wir bieten Darlehen von 5.000,00 Min sind. auf 20.000.000,00 bei niedrigen Zinssatz von 3% so, wenn Sie benötigen einen Kredit i möchten, dass Sie einfach Kontakt mit mir über diese E-Mail-Adresse {churchmissionary.loanhelp @ gmail.com} Ich möchte dieses Medium nutzen, um Ihnen mitzuteilen, dass wir verleihen zuverlässige und Empfänger Unterstützung, freut sich, Ihnen ein Darlehen. Und wird Darlehen mit 3% Zinsen anbieten ..
Kind Attn;
Ich erhalte E-Mail und wollen das Darlehen vollständig
Anwendung, so können wir beginnen Verarbeitung des Darlehens.
1: Der Name (n ):....................
2: Land :...................
3: Staatliche :.................... Home Adresse :................
4: Alter :...........................
5: Keine :...............................
6: Höhe :..............................
7: Time :............................
8: den erforderlichen Betrag :.................
9: Telefonnummer :....................
10: Beruf :...........................
11: Und schließlich müssen Sie schicken eine Beschreibung des gescannten
Öffentliche Lizenz
Was tun Sie ..................?
Wir erwarten die Antwort schnell.
Kirche missionarisch Darlehen helfen
Suche nach einem besseren Weg zur finanziellen Freiheit! ...
#3 - Kommentar von Gerhard Sultzer am 17.12.2011 17:50
wie erfolgt eine Kreditvergabe und die dazugehörige Tilgung
» Karatbars International GmbH und GCC.AG: Goldskand ... 15.06.2019
» Annasiedlung Hanau: GPG GmbH Charles Smethurst mag ... 07.06.2019
» Europäischer Wirtschaftssenat: Rauswurf von Konst ... 30.05.2019

References: § 77
 § 78
 § 77
 § 77
 § 77
 § 78
 § 240
 §78
 § 240
 § 77