Unauthorized?

The merchant bankers explain they have "representation in London, Switzerland, Thailand, and Malaysia." Please reference
www.investmentsuisse.com/is/our-group.html. Notice the mention of Switzerland. Interestingly enough, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) blacklisted the firm as of 03.03.2010 and posted that information on their official agency website. FINMA officials most recently confirmed that the firm's blacklisting is current and remains in effect. What kind of representation remains in Switzerland, for example, if the firm is blacklisted?

There might be some interest in correcting public information pertaining to another banking firm that is referenced on distributed documents as well as on "a list of unregulated persons who, based on information received by MAS, may have been wrongly perceived as being licensed or authorised by MAS." You can reference the Monetary Authority of Singapore list here.

If this information is incorrect then the bankers should be focused at getting off of these public lists... shouldn't they? Then the status amendment can be made available to the public.

As to Arizona, the Arizona Corporations Commission doesn't list Investment Suisse as being registered in Arizona as a Business Entity. As such, what would prompt the bankers to secure services of Arizona based representatives? Is it because documents were distributed by an Arizona registered "entertainment" company? If so, then Arizona would be an appropriate jurisdiction for action against the "entertainment" company. It makes sense that any action taken should be against those who used the offshore banker's documents to induce vendors, domestic US bankers and government officials to believe that there were massive offshore funds being held by specific merchant bankers. Make sure documents like the ones distributed by the "entertainment" company in 2009 and 2010, with some versions distributed early than that, are no longer used. That would be the proper thing to do. Hold accountable those who are in Arizona and used and/or distributed the documents in question to gain monies, services and contracts from others. As late as the spring of 2010, the "entertainment" company attempted to solicit a private loan (outside Arizona) to pay for the "engagement commitment fee" listed on Page 3 of the alleged loan document. The "entertainment" company had no collateral, only a promise to pay when the named banks released the funds. If the merchant bankers are so concerned about the misrepresentation of documents, it may be wiser, for example, to restrict the "entertainment" company (and its CEO) from using the documents to solicit loans from individuals in order to pay for "engagement commitment fees." Yet, it appears that the bankers haven't taken action in court against the "entertainment" company for unauthorized use of documents. Wonder why? Nothing else is relevant or carries jurisdiction in Arizona since nothing else exists or originates in Arizona aside from the "entertainment" company itself.

The first priority for the bankers should be getting off of these international blacklists that are available to the public. To get off the blacklist, contact FINMA officials. Once all of that is straightened out, then go after the "entertainment" company if you feel you have been damaged.