Andrada Mining acquisition elevates the miner to emerging mid-tier status. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Yes I’m vulgar, rac.ist, fascist, denier this, denier that, any ic or ist you care to throw
But I’m always right and I’m a decent person
Doug, investigations can take *years*, and sometimes witnesses are interviewed several years in … take a look at the timescale for the WRN investigation.
but it also depends whether any particular agency has relevant powers / jurisdiction ( … i.e. over a st vincent company, not UK …)
& also depends if an investigation agency thinks it stands a realistic chance of being able to prove some wrong-doing that it suspects … if they think that’s unlikely, they’ll close down the investigation and conserve their resources for other things.
Initially you was ‘very specific’ & then was an ‘assertion’, but now is ‘speculate’
‘..nothing untoward found, suggesting that the core of activities was sound..’
A clear non-assertion then.
& a clear obtuse monotonously boring argument. Again.
Amit was as a director of SB Corporate Finance for a specific period regulated by the FCA. Only those who know - know the significance.
The FCA would have influence, including interactions with the FSA who regulate companies registered in St Vincent & the Grenadines who then would comply with any investigation, of companies registered within that jurisdiction. Some are trying to suggest that St Vincent and the Grenadines registered companies don’t comply with any regulations… which is misleading.
Perhaps some may also lose sight of why companies go to specific lengths to protect intellectual property … registering a company offshore can be an advantage (which may also enforce any NDA’s) whilst in the stages of research and development
As per all of ABH’s statements, his use of ‘regulator’ covers a fairly broad spectrum.
There has been suggestion, that this could be centred on the States.
As earlier, I’m still pleased that compliance with a regulator, then occurred 7 days after further information was passed to the SFO.
22:48, blimey doug, you’re being a bit thick.
i have been highlighting the specific assertion you made at 15:40 that:
“SFO and the regulator have found nothing untoward in their preliminary enquiries.”
? how could you possibly know that for a fact, doug? - prove it.
And your desire for repetitive obtuse arguments, is somewhat sad.
Whispering: “Some are trying to suggest that St Vincent and the Grenadines registered companies don’t comply with any regulations”
i have not seen any poster make that claim.
the relevant point is that a company registered in st vincent, but which is not registered in the UK, should follow st vincent regs, not UK regs.
What I'm having trouble with is that the only mention of regulators and compliance therewith has come from the CTAG website (an organ hardly renowned for either its accuracy or veracity).
And yet some here seem to think it reasonable to take it as gospel that some regulatory authority has marked Amit's homework and given it a big green tick... solely on the basis of "because Amit said so"?
That's bizarre. In spades.
22:55, doug, what evidence is there that any ‘compliance with a regulator’ happened?
all that’s happened is that amit put out an update which mentioned an unspecified regulator amit saying something in an update hardly counts as evidence, surely??
23:10, snap!
… night all.
“And yet some here seem to think it reasonable to take it as gospel that some regulatory authority has marked Amit's homework and given it a big green tick... solely on the basis of "because Amit said so"? “
The FCA carried out said regulation during the period Amit was regulated… so they stated on their official website ?
Or perhaps they just don’t … and give a big green tick irrespective of compliance… only you’d know for sure HITS ?
Common sense ain’t all that common is it? 🤔
‘.. some seem to think it reasonable.. that some regulatory authority has marked Amit's homework..’
With the latest Amit shenanigans of lost / unknown / missing contents to the share register, then it is also probable that some have taken this to task with the regulator. That ABH’s compliance might then cover sorting out the book.
Nowt to be “pleased” about, but certainly a step in the right direction ?!
Whispering (née WakeyMitch) talks of 'common sense'... but would benefit perhaps from understanding logic and particularly the nature of the simplistic logical fallacy known as a non sequitur.
Her assertion seems to be that, just because going on a year ago, Amit held a role at SB Partners that was potentially subject to FCA scrutiny, all his pronouncements and actions ten months later as an officer at an entirely unrelated company operating in an entirely different geography simply *must* be subject to the same levels of compliance checking and scrutiny from the same regulatory authority...
Such a claim is both illogical and indeed laughable. As such, it adds precisely zero credibility to the Jun 10th statement from Amit that "The Company is pleased to advise shareholders that following an in depth review over recent weeks, the compliance process has now been approved by the regulator", which in reality holds as little weight as all the other utter inaccuracies and blatant untruths issued by CTAG over the years - a thing which provably continues to this day.
There's a little more mileage in Dougb's floated posit that maybe, just maybe, recent comms from disgruntled holders with various regulatory authorities has got said authorities interested in some way - but as I'm sure he'd acknowledge, there's no guarantee of that either.
The long- and much-promised answer to the Jerry Maguire question remains as conspicuous as ever by its absence.
Whsopering)
I suspect the reason the word ‘regulator’ found its way into the last update is probably just about amit reading this chatboard, and seeing various pis talking about making complaints to regulators etc.
My guess is that whispering bought additional cloudtag shares via SB partners, and is now naively thinking that her ‘investment’ in that entirely different private overseas registered unlisted company is somehow protected, or voucher for, by the FCA, simply because amit used to be registered with FCA at the time she dealt with SB partners. .. just speculating…
‘talks of 'common sense'... but would benefit perhaps from understanding logic and particularly the nature of the simplistic logical fallacy known as a non sequitur.’
My ‘assertion’ HITS… the topic of conversation yesterday was specifically - Dougie hasn’t yet had feedback from the either FOS or SFO, which I believe he mentioned he was expecting in a previous post 10th June (?)
No matter how you and certain others try to dumb them down… The FCA & FOS are recognised official bodies in which regulation is as it says… who in my experience give timeframes to replying to those who make complaints.
Whether there is any truth to the 10th June Company update or previous ones no one knows for sure, do they now?
Though, perhaps they do stand up to compliance? … You sure don’t know either way
Yet waffled yesterday about big green ticks.. and then proceed again today with yet another stream of rhetorical waffle …
All fascinating stuff I'm sure.
It's almost like everyone has forgotten they were supposed to be notified last week.
Handy that.
Are you suggesting Whispering, that the SFO are going to be phoning me every week ??
Your struggle with providing clear logical argument, whilst consistently going off at random tangents, then seems to affect your ability to read, or perhaps arises from.
To recap, one week ago I posted that I was expecting a response from the FOS. Now read again, and try concentrate on just the one specific, the FOS aka… the ombudsman, as per what I posted yesterday :
“.. The positive is as before, that the website is still open. That positive imo has then actually increased, in that the SFO and the regulator find nothing untoward in their preliminary enquiries, suggesting that the core of the cloudtag notices appear to be sound, ie. that company assets have been sold. The ombudsman though now asking for further details…”
“.. "The Company is pleased to advise shareholders that following an in depth review over recent weeks, the compliance process has now been approved by the regulator", which in reality holds as little weight as all the other utter inaccuracies and blatant untruths issued by CTAG over the years…”
An accurate assessment. The utter inaccuracies and blatant untruths, do though then follow a pattern.
One can then remove Amit’s superfluous vocabulary which is known to follow such pattern. You then end up with :
‘The Company is to advise shareholders that following a review, the compliance process from the regulator, is now being proceeded with..’
Take it no one's been contacted? even the 4 kind people who said they had share certificates on here last week?
“.. The ombudsman though now asking for further details…” which then ties in with my belief that Amit’s agent, the same company that sold off-market shares to Whispering, is then behaving against the shareholders interest (almost on a par with Whispering aka WakeyMitch’s rather self-centred posts) and it then remains to be seen by ‘early this week’ if Amit is once again fabricating reckless with the truth notices. Only this time, others are also reading.
‘Are you suggesting Whispering, that the SFO are going to be phoning me every week ??’
… Actually no Dougie… and that reads as a pretty ridiculous sentence imv.
As said Yesterday my interest was what/if anything, you’d actually heard back from the SFO or FOS - which you haven’t. I’m only interested in facts, and not necessarily overly interested in your opinion… we’re all entitled to form thoughts based on our understanding…
My positive is - as said yesterday - ‘that some make take solace’ from the website still being in situ.
Let’s see whether the Paying Agents contact those of us this week - who hold certificates
Forget the last update. It is in essence no different to any of the other updates that have appeared on the website. Notifications due out last Friday to shareholders holding paper certificates except that not all will be notified and that the process will continue into this week. Come Friday of this week everybody will be wondering where the notifications are, but Amit will have bought himself another week during which he can continue with his nefarious activities.
I notice that even though it was apparently so important all notifications go out at the same time he now feels that nominee accounts should wait. He doesn’t want to be making any more hollow promises to the likes of HL does he.
For clarity for any sincere shareholders that are perhaps, understandably, getting overwhelmed with all the contradictory information getting posted here.
Contrary to what Whispering states :
Fact One. The SFO called me back, asking for further data.
Fact Two. The FOS emailed me back, also asking for further data.
There is then an external interest being taken in cloudtag proceedings.
Courtesy of those two facts, whether or not that interest shown is then significant or whether or not further action is being taken, then my interpretations (as per my posts of recent events) are then my opinions open for debate. But I draw the line at certain characters with a clear track history of obtuse and exceedingly monotonous argument..