OffshoreAlert raises concerns about KYC in Cayman

| 06/07/2010

(CNS): A Miami based offshore watchdog has run an in-depth story that raises question about a Cayman Islands based firm and how well local financial companies are confirming to the principle of “know your client”. OffshoreAlert has revealed that a broker with a long history of complaints for dishonesty from regulators, customers and former employees in the United States has moved his operations to the Cayman Islands, leaving behind substantial unpaid corporate and personal debt. The article also reveals that despite Section 44 of the Companies Law. OffshoreAlert was refused access to the respective register of members for the new operations.

David Marchant, Editor of Offshore Alert (above), said this raised concerns for Cayman, given that officials have been keen to promote transparency in the financial sector recently as a result of international pressure.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Business

About the Author ()

Comments (77)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Caymanite says:


    SIBL makes it quite clear that the regulator has no prudential authority over the managed funds of an exempted manager and the investor makes his own decision to invest or redeem accordingly based on the talent, performance and reputation of the manager.  That is how it is supposed to work and CIMA should know this. 

    XXXX A regulator needs to look at current facts and circumstance.  The fact that CIMA does not appear to know how SIBL should operate is strongly suggestive that the UK Government’s solution with respect to the FSA should be adopted.  That is to say, the current personnel of CIMA should be discharged and effective personnel who understand the law and their obligations employed. 

    What is crystal clear in all of this is XXXX we have not heard from any investors in any Cedrus managed products that those investors are unhappy with Cedrus conduct.  That is the end of the discussion but for one point.  If CIMA really think it is appropriate to use a perfectly good statute, the terms of which were commended on favourably by the IMF on inspection, as the basis of its campaign to increase its staff and power then CIMA should really have nothing whatsoever to do with public relations.  All CIMA has done is score a hopeless own goal and inflicted damage on the financial services industry in Cayman.

    • I really do wish people would use their real names when posting such messages because it would help the investing public to determine credibility.

      People like ‘Caymanite’ should be avoided like the plague. He or she is unfit to be part of any process involving the investment industry and the protection of investors.

      The statute is only "perfectly good" for those who don’t want to be held accountable for their actions and want to be left to do whatever they want.

      Cedrus Investments is simply Global Crown Capital under another name and there are indeed unhappy clients of Global Crown Capital, including one client who obtained a $1.7 million arbitration award. It doesn’t get much more unhappy than that. Five days later, the institutional business of Global Crown Capital was transferred to Cedrus. What consideration, if any, was paid for this business?

      It is absurd to claim that CIMA is actually the party inflicting "damage on the financial services industry in Cayman", as opposed to those who have been accused of fraud and fled the USA leaving behind substantial debts.

      People like ‘Caymanite’ represent the old Cayman that led to the jurisdiction being held in contempt by regulators, law enforcement, investigators and others outside the island who try to combat financial crime.

      • Flo says:

        Dear oh dear.  What a lot of confusion, which is what happens when the ill-informed are allowed to comment. 

        1)  CIMA have acted entirely correctly under the law

        2)  Clearly, so did Michael Alberga

        3)  Some people have no understanding about the way in which the Cayman securities law operates, which is based on UK law. 

        It is for investors to complain about Cedrus – no one else.  And since the investors have not complained, there is no problem.

  2. Mike Hardy says:

    I wish there were people in Bermuda who would have a similar conversation!

  3. Anonymous says:

    Many on this board fail to acknowledge that the USA is the most litigious place on Earth.  It is not unusual for a US broker-dealer (regulated by FINRA) operating for close to a decade, to have pages and pages of voluntary disclosures of arbitration awards, disciplinary, financial and regulatory events, particularly those operating in the era.  

    Some regional brokerage firms have over 40 pages of recent voluntary disclosures and are still very much in business – have a look at some others and decide for yourself.  The reality is that FINRA arb awards and their voluntary disclosures are the norm rather than the exception, though Marchant would have you believe otherwise.  

    • Anonymous says:

      We do not need Marchant to tell us that FINRA takes diciplinary action against brokers and brookerage houses all the time.

      In each and every case both the broker and brokerage house is named, and quite often not only the broker for misconduct, but also his or her supervisor for failing to properly regulate the conduct of the broker.

      In cases such as the one Marchant brought to our attention, the broker would normally have been fired by the brokerage house. However, the records still remain in the name of the brokerage house on the FINRA database.

      What we have here is a case where the brokerage house and sanctioned broker, who also is the principal of the brokerage house, is moving the operations lock stock and barrel to the Cayman Islands and you are trying to convince us that Marchant is the one attempting to mislead us?


      • Anonymous says:

        FINRA arb awards are administrative only.  99% of the time, 2 out of the 3 people in attendence in the room will side with the client.  Most firms settle immediately, unless the dollar value is high, then it goes to court.  It’s easy for FINRA and they pay themselves well.  We really don’t need or want FINRA logic in Cayman.   

        • Re. "We really don’t need or want FINRA logic in Cayman."

          If by "FINRA logic", you mean a fair, efficient, independent and cost-effective system of determining client complaintswithout bankrupting the aggrieved client, then, yes, you do indeed need such a system in Cayman – and you need it urgently.

          It sure beats a system in which no action is taken by the authorities against anyone (not even by the Registrar of Companies when a registered agent refuses to produce a register of members) and it is left to the client to commit himself or herself to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs andfees on an action at the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. That is injustice, not justice.

          Hot air from Cayman Finance about the jurisdiction being sophisticated and transparent is not much comfort to a client who claims to have been cheated by a Cayman company.

    • I wish you would reveal your identity because your posting was so disturbing that it should serve as a warning to people not to do business with you.

      It is nonsense to suggest that the numerous arbitration awards, court judgments and regulatory actions against Rani Jarkas and Global Crown Capital for alleged fraud and misconduct are ‘normal’.

      If you consider this to be normal behaviour and conduct, I dread to think what type of activity you are involved in.

  4. Tim Ridley says:

    I hold no brief now for CIMA, but I did until two years ago when I ceased to be Chairman. Without going into the technical details of the Securities and Investments Business Law, I should point out that CIMA has almost no regulatory power over Cedrus as an "Excluded Person" and specifically no power to refuse to accept and register Cedrus as an "Excluded Person". In similar manner, CIMA has no power to refuse to register the vast majority of mutual and hedge funds that are set up in the Cayman Islands.

    While I was Chairman of CIMA, we consistently argued that it was very ill-advised to have these regimes where the perception of regulation and oversight was given to the world, when in reality very little regulation and oversight in fact existed. Either do not regulate at all and tell the world that, or regulate properly. Unfortunately that message has todate fallen on deaf political ears.

    • I did not know that CIMA had no authority to refuse to register Excluded Persons or most investment funds.

      As you pointed out, the fact that these appear as registered entities on CIMA’s web-site creates the false impression that they are regulated.

      Cayman has to decide whether it wants to develop itself as a jurisdiction of substance where smart, innovative and credible businesspeople generate prosperity for all through legitimate business transactions, e.g. Bermuda, or one of smoke and mirrors, where illegal and immoral activity is encouraged for the short-term financial gain of a few but which will ultimately lead to the collapse of the economy, e.g. Antigua.

      • Keds says:

        Based on comments, I have my doubts about the knowledge of some of the commenter’s regarding the Cayman Securities Investment Business Law (the “SIBL”) or securities laws in other jurisdictions. So below are some quick FACTS: 

        Companies usually exist and conduct activity long before the legislation catches up with them. Once SIBL was introduced a declaration and registration under SIBL meant fees could be collected each year and CIMA would receive an annual declaration filing identifying the firm and the type of activity conducted.

        The SIBL Excluded Person’s regime was based on the U.K. legislation and is similar to many Commonwealth jurisdictions. The thought being, that sophisticated and wealthy investors are sophisticated enough to protect themselves. Therefore, this also means CIMA can be focused on protecting the general public. I.e. Regulating Firms that require licensing and regulation under SIBL. 

        If the law is amended to allow approval of Excluded Persons to be at the discretion of CIMA, then CIMA will be assuming significantly greater liability as they will have to review and approve all excluded persons. Furthermore, there will then be an expectation for ongoing monitoring and regulation. For 2,000 plus firms, CIMA will need to significantly increase staff, resulting in smaller margins and increased liability.

        My question is why focus in on the Cayman Islands if by your own admission it was born and raised in the USA and based on the article this company continues to operate in the USA. CIMA can, and likely will, take action should there be a complaint from an investor that calls into question the accuracy of the annual declaration filed by this firm. Noting that firms filing as Excluded Persons are still subject to the provisions of SIBL if their activity fails to meet the excluded person’s criteria. Otherwise, they remain unregulated, so buyers beware.

        • Re. "My question is why focus in on the Cayman Islands if by your own admission it was born and raised in the USA and based on the article this company continues to operate in the USA."

          As the article clearly stated, Rani Jarkas closed down his operations in the USA and moved them to the Cayman, leaving behind substantial personal and corporate debt that remains unpaid. The institutional business of Global Crown Capital was transferred to Cayman just five days after a $1.7 million arbitration award was entered against Jarkas and Global Crown Capital jointly and severally.

          Honestly, I don’t know how anyone could read the OffshoreAlert article and form an opinion that this is not a Cayman problem. The propensity of some in Cayman to bury their head in the sand appears to be limitless. Just for once, accept some responsibility for something, anything. Stop trying to blame everyone else.

          • Anonymous says:

            I think the point, which you are doing your best to evade, is that the company was not disqualified from doing business in the U.S. and could have continued to do so. Its licence was not terminated. There were no criminal prosecutions. Personal and corporate debt does not disqualify one from being a director of a U.S. licensed entity, and moving to Cayman does not  evade that debt.   It is therefore disingenuous to paint this as a failing of the Cayman KYC regime.  

  5. Cayman’s Registrar of Companies, Cindy Jefferson-Bulgin, has just informed me by email that "Regrettably the Companies Law does not grant the Registrar any enforcement powers in such matter [failure to provide a complete register]. Our advice is that you seek your own redress."

    What is particularly remarkable about the above is that Section 3 of the Companies Law authorizes the Registrar to enforce the law (by my interpretation anyway) and Section 44 lays down financial penalties (a paltry four dollar per day) against any transgressors and allows for an application to be made to the Grand Court to enforce an inspection.

    The Registrar’s stance is, essentially, that OffshoreAlert is ‘on its own’.

    This came as no surprise. I would not have expected anything less, so low were my expectations, which is based on my past experiences.

    I feel sorry for the many legitimate participants in Cayman’s offshore financial sector because I am sure they are embarrassed by what has taken place and will not be looking forward to the negative publicity that the jurisdiction as a whole will inevitably suffer as a result of the actions of a few. 

    • Cicero says:

      If the Government is short of funds why on earth are penalties under the Companies Law not imposed? Sounds like negligence to me.

    • pauly cicero says:

      I think you went barking at the wrong tree. S. 44 requires the register of members to be kept at the registered office and be made available for inspection, and there are exceptions for exempted companies.  The Registrar will not have what you are looking for if the company in question is/was an exempted company and is not required to produce a register for inspection for an ordinary company.

      • Anonymous says:

        I think the article says the companies are ordinary (and not exempted) companies.

        • pauly cicero says:

          Then one would need to request inspection at the registered office.  The Registrar is obligated to disclose the location.

          • Anonymous says:

            They did. The registered office did not immediately comply and they therefore sought assistance from the Registrar. Ultimately the registered office did comply but this led to a dead end as the registered shareholder was another cayman company provided by the registered office.  

            • The registered agent did not fully comply with the law. Section 44 of the Companies Law (2009 Revision) requires that a complete register of members from inception be made available to the public. However, the register for Cedrus Investments that was produced contained no information about shareholders for the first 14 months of the company’s existence.

              Michael Alberga informed my local represrentative that a complete register would not be produced and Cayman’s Registrar of Companies, Cindy Jefferson-Bulgin, informed me by email that she could not force its production, adding that "Our advice is that you seek your own redress".

              Such conduct is extremely Mickey Mouse, more in common with Grenada, Antigua and Nevis and light years away from the jurisdiction that Cayman aspires to be, i.e. Bermuda.

              Cayman Finance would have you believe that Cayman is a transparent and cooperative international financial centre. The reality, however, is that it isn’t and it is a disgrace.

  6. Anonymous says:

    The silence from CIMA is absolutely deafening. 

    It can therefore safely be said that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any of this has anything to do with institutional governance based on political patronage, feudal political inner circles indifferent to the implications of institutional failings which do not adversely affect their personal wealth, and of course close family and business ties among all of the key players.

    • Interestingly, effective February 29, 2008, CIMA struck of from its register a mutual fund called Phoenician Venture Partners Ltd., whose directors were identified by CIMA in its ‘Notice of Deregistration’ as Rani Jarkas, Kimberly Nearing and Antoine Chaya, who all are associated with the Global Crown Capital group.

      In its Notice, CIMA stated that Phoenician Venture Partners "failed to satisfy the Authority’s termination requirements", causing CIMA to remove it from the register.

      Given this, it is interesting that Cedrus Investmentswas subsequently approved as an ‘Excluded Person’, which allows it to offer products and services to high net worth individuals.

      Was Jarkas named on the application documents submitted to CIMA and his prior transgression ignored or not detected or did Cedrus omit his name from the application documents in order to avoid his past transgressions becoming an issue?

  7. Anonymous says:

    Dear Mr. David Marchant,

    While you are in the process of exposing the undesirables that find a haven on our shores, would it be possible to dig a little deeper and expose those undesirables who have already been here for many years.

    I am sure that that should not be difficult to do even though you may find a lot of resistance from those who hold the information you need secret and dear to their heart.

    I am curious as to what information you could find on many of those who have come here and gobbled up our land and businesses and now demand that we the caymanian people pay dearly for services such as electricity and others.

    Also there is a lot of development projects being forced upon we the caymanian people although many of us feel we dont need or are not ready for this.

    • Anonymous says:

      Dear Annymous,  David is quite welcome to conduct meaningful investigation on a politician now in the Nevis Island Government. 16 million French Men can't lie about a shyster inaugurated into the Nevis government one year ago. Get your investigative lense on David.  Help the nations of this world busted those glutonous fraudsters and crooks out a Charlestown, Nevis.

  8. Seriously? says:

    From what I heard on one of the talk radios this morning, CIMA has something like 130 odd employees of which only four are investigators!  Is it just me or is that totally ludicrous?  Why does it take someone offshore to bring these issues to light?  What exactly does CIMA do on this Island?  I don’t think I have ever seen any headlines stating CIMA was investigating a company.  Why not?  Surely all the corporate entities on this Island are not 100% legit which is why you need a governing body to oversee these things.

    Oh well, what’s another wasted government entity sucking this 2 by 4 dry. 

    • Pending says:

      Try dealing with CIMA and you will find out right away, they are about as useful as most of those employed by with the various civil service departments, too may incompetent people.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Most of us involved in compliance in the Cayman financial industry work extremely hard to ensure that no client is accepted unless they are very much above board.  If we use our Compliance database checks (of which I believe there are two pretty standard packageswhich most of us use) , Mr. Jarkas comes up immediately.  If we mere mortals in the financial industry can check our clients so easily, why wasn’t this done by CIMA, Immigration, the Law Firm involved, or was it done and simply ignored????????  This looks extremely bad on our financial industry, which has been so unfairly attacked during the last few years.   We are looking more and more like Turks & Caicos every day – only worse!!! 

    • Anonymous says:

      Is there a database for silent partners?

      • Anonymous says:

        CNS- Alot of us moved to the island on a whim and find ourselves victimized by individuals who do not disclose their interests.  At board meetings we observe alot of wink, wink, nod, nods.  Can an attorney please respond on how to confirm the identities of these ‘silent partners?’

    • Chris Johnson says:

      As I understand it Deutsche Bank were their bankers  and Deloitte were the auditors, at least according to the website, whilst Michael Alberga and his law firm also acted. One presumes therefore that Cedrus Investments and Mr Jarkas have been fully checked out by the above. No doubt CIMA would have relied upon these advisors in addition to making independant enquiries.

      • You raise an interesting point, which is the common practice of relying on others to do due diligence, rather than doing it yourself. The thinking goes something like ‘oh, they must be credible because they are a client of this major accounting firm or that big law firm’.

        Such a practice is a total cop-out and ignores the fact that there are plenty of accounting firms, law firms, etc. who don’t do any credible due diligence on prospective clients and, frankly, will represent anyone if they think there’s a buck to be made.

  10. Anyone who is interested in independently confirming (for free) details of arbitration awards and judgments against Rani Jarkus and Global Crown Capital in the United States should visit the two sites below:

    Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)

    Click on ‘Start Search’

    Check the box agreeing to the terms and conditions and click ‘Continue’

    In the search box named ‘FINRA Broker-Check – Simple Search’, check the circle next to ‘Broker’ and search for ‘Rani Jarkas’. Follow the instructions and eventually click on ‘Get Detailed Report’.

    Then do another search for ‘Global Crown Capital’, this time checking the circle next to ‘Brokerage Firm’


    San Francisco Superior Court

    Click on ‘Name Search Query’ and do two searches, one for ‘Jarkas, Rani’ and another for ‘Global Crown Capital’. These searches will produce details of many court actions and links to underlying filings – all for free.


  11. anonymous says:

    should anyone be in the least surprised?

  12. Anonymous says:

    People get work permits because Immigration doesn’t actually check to see if the information provided in the persons criminal history is correct.  They only look to see that the piece of paper is there, not thinking that it could be fake.

    Shame but that’s expected in a place where people don’t fully understand the relevance of their jobs in some of the government depts and how it impacts on the country.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Can someone please turn on the a/c? Its getting hot in here.

    • Anonymous says:

      "Too much" going on in this little "2 by 4" island! Someone’s head soon roll.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I think for the sake of the Island’s reputation, Messrs. Alberga and Big Mac need to make a statement here on this situation. The Marl road is already screaming "grease" so damage control is a good idea, and fast.

    • Dred says:

      That would happen ONLY if he cared. He doesn’t. Big Mac is for Big Mac and Big Mac alone. "A Better Way Forward"

    • Anonymous says:

      Big Mac is a politician. Under Parlimentary Rules statements cannot be debated, but you are allowed to ask questions. He doesn’t want that. lol.

  15. Anonymous says:

    CIMA doesn’t do anything.. They just rubber stamp everything and file it away. They’d never find anyone unfit and unproper because they are too afraid of the consequences (i.e. going to court)

    • Anonymous says:

      If "CIMA doesn’t do anything" Anon Wed 8:37, why are we, the people of Cayman, paying the Managing Director $200K a year plus perks?

      Only in Cayman. But times are tough and getting worse and many of us are getting fed up with this sort of s–t.

    • Kryptonite says:

      So this dude donates a glass court costing between $100k and 200k, which will be based at the Ritz? He ‘s also grateful for McKeeva’s support (with respect to bringing in athletic events of course)…..

      Interesting bedfellows these lot make….. XXXXXXX.

      • Anonymous says:

        Does anybody know where this glass court is?

        Or has it gone the Kittiwake way? Soon come …

  16. Anonymous says:

    Is this person working in a business which CIMA regulates? If so what does CIMA say? If not, how did a work permit come about?

    • RIPNames says:

      CNS Note: This comment was flagged with the following note:

      User comment: To throw a name because it is in an article is an abuse as I am sure that this person has no knowledge who Liz Lynee is.. As such I am sure that if you ask this person for there reasoning as to why they feel that Liz Lynee’s name should be used by them, they will not be able to give any just cause. If this person would like to continue to try and discredit Liz Lynee’s untarnished name, I would be glad to carry them to court. I am demanding a public apology either by this person or by this forum for the publically trying to discredit my wife’s name. Dean Lynee

      CNS: Liz Lynee was named in the OffShore article as the Office Manager for Cedrus, one of the companies that this article is about. If this is not true, then CNS offers sincere apologies and is more than willing to set the record straight. The deleted comment implied that Mrs. Lynee is closely associated with the UDP. If this is not true and Mr. and Mrs Lynee consider this implication to be defamatory, CNS offers sincere apologies and is more than willing to set the record straight.

      • Dean Lynee says:

        RIPNames if you can name names please name yourself as I would like to carry you to court for trying to discredit my wife and family name… If not I would like to have public apology from you by the end of today….

        • What utter tosh.

          No-one needs anyone’s permission to state that Liz Lyne is the office manager of Cedrus Investments.

          • Anonymous says:

            What purpose does it serve to name her at all?  

            • Cicero says:

              Why name Lynee? Because people want the facts!! Are you stupid.

              • Anonymous says:

                The Facts??? That this poor woman has a legitimate job that is not more than (no offence to her) a mere office administrator. How can you people sit here and degrade a honest working woman that has done no wrong to the public or to any of you out there that are trying to make her look bad..

                This is so typical of Cayman… Sacrifice your own to put money into a foreigners pocket. Then drive by there really nice place and say “boy I wish I had that kind of money”…
                Be smarter than this leave this woman alone and focus on who this article is really about…
                • KA says:

                   Sometimes I can only shake my head in despair at posters like anonymous 13.08 and the four people who gave him or her a thumbs up.  Get with the programme – it’s 2010 we all live and work in an offshore island that is under close, close scrutiny by its international peers to ensure that it is compliant and that it is a safe and savvy place to do business.  People who take jobs in the financial and legal industries have a responsibility, not just to themselves but to everyone on this Island to do one of the things that I was taught to do when I was still at high school and that’s to do a little background checking on the company you’re going to interview with.  It’s all good and well saying this poor lady is nothing more than an office administrator but the truth of the matter is that she has the title of office manager and I’m sure that she would have been more than happy to take the perks that may have come with that title, which will include a pretty decent salary.  I whole heartedly agree that there are bigger fish to concentrate on in this tawdry little story but let’s not, yet again, allow ourselves to believe that it’s always the little man (who does anything wrong) who is being hard done by in Cayman.

                  • Anonymous says:


                    Under the times and economical circumstances of people getting laid off jobs and pay cuts do you really think she could have really pick and choose her jobs. Come on you seem to be an intellectual individual. I know personally that it took me 9 months to find a good job after my job was moved off island for down sizing. So if she had to go through what I went through, any job would be good enough so long it was above the table.
                    Between the fake ads for work permits and jobs that paid nothing, I am sure you would choose a job that you thought was legit especially since you would assume CIMA and immigration did there jobs. As far as anyone would be concern the operation was above table.
                    How can you still scrutinize a person for trying to put HONEST food on the table?
                    I bet that you are very secure in your job and that you have a great salary and you did not have to go through what a lot of us had to go through in the past year or so..
                    So again leave this woman alone trying to get ahead in life…
                    • KA says:

                      Yeah but the point is, the job isn’t above the table is it? This kind of reaction and defense sounds so much like comments on this website that seek to justify robbery because of financial hardship. Like I said, it’s simple enough to use google to investigate the company that you’re going to work for and I think it’s obvious enough that just because CIMA approved the company doesn’t mean there wasn’t any dirt to be found on it.

                      And just for the record, no I don’t have a secure job – I’m currently temping after being made redundant myself earlier this year – do you know what temping agencies pay? So I’m not just passing comment on someone less fortunate than myself for the fun of it. I want to see this Island overcome the trouble its having just now and we all have our roles to play in that, no matter how small.
            • Anonymous says:

              duHHH?  does that answer it?

          • robert says:

            What is Marchant trying to prove?Why dont you publish some facts in regard to these supposed complaints or are they just that COMPLAINTS.

            People are known to complain on a daily basis.


            • Before posting something so uninformed, why don’t you spend a few minutes actually reading the one-page abbreviated version of the article that OffshoreAlert has made available to the public free of charge and to which there is a link on the Cayman News Service?

              As the free story clearly states, "court judgments" and "awards" have been entered against Jarkas and Global Crown Capital and, in fact, the institutional business of Global Crown Capital (in California) was transferred to Cedrus Investments (in Cayman) just five days after a $1.7 million arbitration award was entered against Global Crown Capital and Cedrus Investments jointly and severally. A separate arbitration award for $512,000 was in favour of a 70-year-old client who had alleged fraud and elder abuse.

              It really is comical that, after OffshoreAlert spent several weeks investigating this matter and then published a comprehensive, five-page article that is full of specific details (dates, amounts, etc.) of awards and judgments, someone posts something as vacuous as "Why dont you publish some facts in regard to these supposed complaints or are they just that COMPLAINTS."

              And re. "What is Marchant trying to prove?".

              I’m not trying to "prove" anything. OffshoreAlert exists to want the investing public about red flags in the international financial community. In this particular instance, Cedrus Investments is accepting Cayman residents as clients.

              It does not reflect well on you that you can’t see the benefit in such an article to existing and potential clients of Cedrus. It’s not like OffshoreAlert published the article in 3-D and you need special glasses in order to fully benefit from it.

              • Silvio B says:

                Mr. Marchant should seek definitive confirmation from the "silent partner" behind the law firm.

            • Afraid to Strap on a Pair Also says:

              David and Cicero- You’re my heroes.

      • Liz Lynee is identifed as ‘Executive Assistant’ and ‘Office Manager’ of Cedrus Investments on Cedrus’ own web-site. See:

      • genetic mutation says:

        Dear Dean Lynee,

        I understand your concern about being protective of your lovely wife. Having said that, I wouldnt worry about posters on CNS ‘muddying’ her (and your) name. It appears that her current employer will do that just nicely without any assistance.

        Like it or not – if she is working for an outfit that has a reputation as this guy does – this will reflect on her, even if she has nothing to do and is a completely honest person (which I beleive is the case here). Given what has come out in the wash – if anybody there is concerned about being brought into disrepute – the best thing they can do for themselves would be to simply resign and to do it fast.


  17. Anonymous says:

    Ok CIMA or whoever, step up to the plate, comment on this and deal with it if Marchant is right. No faffing around please, we are getting tired of that in Cayman. If they are bad ‘uns bloody well deal with them!!!

  18. Me says:

    Mr Marchant needs to name names!

    CNS Note: Please follow the link

    • OffshoreAlert did "name names". Our article runs over five pages and contains the names of dozens of individuals, including Michael Alberga, who are or have been involved with Global Crown Capital, Cedrus Investments Ltd. and/or GC Research Ltd.

      One of the most interesting aspects of the article is that I sent someone to the registered agent for Cedrus and GC Research, which is Thorp Alberga affiliate International Corporation Services Ltd., to inspect the register of members for both companies and my representative was refused access, notwithstanding the fact that the registers must be made available for at least two hours per business day in accordance with Section 44 of the Companies Law (1999 Revision).

      Cedrus is an Ordinary Resident Company, meaning it can accept locals as clients, and GC Research is an Ordinary Non-Resident Company.

      In order to find out why my researcher had been denied access, I left one message for Michael Alberga and two for fellow Thorp Alberga partner Ruth Hatt and neither person called me back. I also sent emails to every Thorp Alberga partner on eight consecutive days and did not receive a single reply.

      I have been in contact with the Registrar of Companies and ICSL will be forced to produce this information, or face the consequences.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks David Merchant for exposing this and naming names. It is good to know that there is still a "watch-dog" out there!

        • Frier says:

          What we really need are bloodhounds not watch-dogs. Corruption abounds in Cayman and nothing ever happens. Example; the famous oil fund where so many local people lost their monies.

      • Chris Johnson says:

        David  There is a reluctance of certain Cayman law firms to let the registers be inspected by the public. The one you mention is in addition to three others that I have encountered. It make much more sense for the Registrar of Companies to provide this information. In addition it is high time that the Registers of Directors were made public. They are open for inspection in most financial centres including the BVI and Bermuda. So why not Cayman?

        • FedUpCaymanian says:

          The Register of Directors and Officers is a public document, but one must obtain it from the Registered Office of the company in question and not from the Registry of Companies.  The Registered Office is in the public domain. Also, the Registry of Members cannot be provided by the Registry of Companies (ROC) because it is not necessary to file them with the ROC.

          • Re. "The Register of Directors and Officers is a public document."

            I do not believe that is accurate. To the best of my knowledge, the register of officers and directors is not public information.

          • Chris Johnson says:

            The Register of Directors and Officers is not open to inspection in any Cayman company.Please get your facts straight.

      • Durrrr says:

        Erm David, we’re now on the 2009 Revision of the Companies Law, and the ‘consequences’ under s.44 are a fine of $4 per day.


        You need to make an application for an order for inspection, under Order 102, Rule 2(1)(a) of the Grand Court Rules.

        • I mistyped. I have corrected it to reflect that it was the ‘2009 Revision’.

          This morning, I finally obtained a copy of the register of members for both Cedrus and GC Research. The sole shareholder for each company is International Corporation Services Ltd., the company management arm of law firm Thorp Alberga.

          • Cicero says:

            What a great surprise. Do they need a Trade andBusiness Licence I wonder? If so who is the Cayman partner.Any guesses folks?

          • After obtaining the register for Cedrus Investments Ltd., I noticed that it was incomplete. The sole shareholder was identified as International Corporation Services Ltd. which, according to the register, became a shareholder on March 16, 2010.

            However, Cedrus Investments was incorporated on January 30, 2009. So who were the shareholders between January 30, 2009 and March 16, 2010?

            Under Section 44, the register of members must contain details of all shareholders since inception.

            What does it say about ICSL that, ten days after OffshoreAlert first requested this information, the complete information has still not been provided to me. What should have taken five minutes with minimum fuss, which is what happens in Bermuda, has turned into a long-running farce.

            I will not let this matter lie until I have been provided with what I am entitled to under Cayman law.