James Pieron Forex




James Pieron ForexSr. James Pieron James Pieron. CEO da. James Pieron. CEO do Grupo JDFX em Zurique, Suica, disse que o Audi 2004 comecou como um sedan RS6. O Audi foi o nosso primeiro carro da empresa. Desde Zurique e uma cidade andando e nao ha muita necessidade de um carro, eu usei o carro como um projeto de hobby, escreveu em um e-mail em agosto passado. Pierons um tecnico. Fundou JDFX em 2004 como um participante eletronico antecipado no mercado de cambio. A empresa construiu sua reputacao em negociacao de alta frequencia, roteamento de ordens de alta velocidade e arbitragem estatistica. Ao longo de muitos anos, eu mantive o carro na minha garagem e fiz varias modificacoes no desempenho do carro, disse Pieron. Pieron nao compartilhar o preco de venda, mas escreveu, Nao havia lucros gerados a partir da venda deste carro, e se eu tivesse sido capaz de passar inspecao sem destruir o carro, ele ainda estaria aqui na Suica hoje. James Pieron. CEO da. James Pieron. CEO da JDFX, com sede na Suica, disse: O produto Meta RMS permite que os corretores de varejo FX gerenciem seus riscos a partir de um ponto central, independentemente de seu tamanho, localizacao e / ou numero de servidores. A cobertura pode ser controlada ao nivel do cliente, do grupo ou da exposicao. James Pieron. 41 43 443 69 00 James Pieron. Diretor Executivo e-mail: james. pieronjdfx James Pieron. CEO da JDFX. James Pieron. CEO da JDFX, disse a HedgeWorld que os algoritmos desenvolvidos em casa usam metodologias matematicas avancadas para adaptacao ao mercado em tempo real. Estes incluem filtros adaptativos e redes neurais, e dar a empresa a flexibilidade para reagir as condicoes de mercado em mudanca, disse o Sr. Pieron. A plataforma de negociacao pode processar mais de 1000 negocios por segundo e milhoes de taxas por minuto, alem de desempenho nosso sistema e banco Amigavel, acrescentou o Sr. Pieron. Explicou que o sistema tem tres medidas de contador para evitar bater fornecedores de liquidez off-market. Pieron disse que em agosto / setembro de testes ao vivo, a empresa tinha negociado 20 bilhoes com um spread rodada de 0,634, incluindo slippage. Testing foi realizada com 50 milhoes de fundos de clientes privados com 2x alavancagem. Sr. Ohl, tem experiencia em economia com 15 anos em instituicoes financeiras bem conhecidas, incluindo JP Morgan, Credit Suisse e UBS. E o Sr. Pieron tem um fundo matematico e de TI seguido por muitos anos projetando e implementando sistemas automatizados para organizacoes que incluem o Departamento de Defesa dos EUA, a Sun Microsystems eo Bureau of Criminal Investigation. O Sr. Pieron tambem decidiu que a empresa precisava para melhorar as medidas de seguranca e procedimentos operacionais internos. Established procedimentos agora impedem a negociacao nao autorizada incluem acordos com os fornecedores de liquidez que restringem a negociacao para a API, enquanto os diretores e policiais seguro de responsabilidade foi tomada com AON Suica. Enquanto eu nao estou feliz sobre como chegamos aqui, estou feliz por estar aqui, meditou o Sr. Pieron. Conversamos com Alain Broyon, CEO da Dukascopy - SWFX Mercado Suico FX, Ross Ditlove, CEO da MB Trading, James Pieron. CEO da JDFX. Vladimir Kisyov, Diretor de Marketing e Vendas da Deltastock, Greg Michalowski, VP e Analista de Moeda Principal da FXDD, Thomas OReilly, Vice-Presidente de Vendas da FXDD e Lubomir Kaneti, COO da FXDD para descobrir como a recente volatilidade afetou seus clientes e plataformas : Perfis similares Outras pessoas com o nome PieronReceiver Informacao para SEC v. Cook et al. . 09-cv-3333 CFTC v. Cook et al. . 09-cv-3332 e SEC v. Beckman et al. . 11-cv-574 Juiz Principal Michael J. Davis, Tribunal de Distrito dos Estados Unidos para o Distrito de Minnesota Perguntas Frequentes O Receptor continua recebendo um volume significativo de perguntas dos investidores por e-mail, audiencias e pelo numero 800. Embora nao possamos responder a todas as perguntas que recebemos por uma variedade de razoes, gostariamos de abordar algumas das perguntas mais frequentes aqui. 24 de junho de 2010 Perguntas frequentes Pergunta 1: O acordo de fundamento especificamente ajudou seu escritorio na localizacao de ativos Se assim for, como A partir de hoje, a resposta a estas perguntas e nao. No inicio deste ano, representantes do Receiver se reuniram com Trevor Cook para uma longa entrevista sobre o que ele fez com os investidores de dinheiro. Cook confirmou que enviou o dinheiro dos investidores para Crown Forex, JDFX, Mesa Holdings, JP Fund Services, Capricornio, Oxford Global Managed Futures Fund, varias entidades panamenhas, varias outras entidades suicas e uma serie de contas de jogo offshore. Em suma, Cook corroborou o que ja sabiamos e confirmou alguns detalhes que antes eram apenas as nossas suspeitas. Apos a reuniao, Cook assinou varios lancamentos, renuncias e procuracoes nomeando o Receiver como seu representante legal sobre varias contas que ele ou suas empresas realizaram em todo o mundo. Esses lancamentos foram notarizados sob os padroes da Convencao de Haia e servidos nas varias instituicoes onde as contas foram abertas solicitando informacoes sobre as contas, seus saldos e historicos de transacoes. O uso de liberacao notarial, renuncias e procuracoes e importante porque, embora o Receiver, de acordo com as ordens de Chief Judge Davisrsquo, controle os ativos de Cook e suas varias entidades nos Estados Unidos, o Receiver e as ordens subjacentes do Chief Judge Davis sao Nao reconhecido em outro pais sem uma ordem do tribunal desse pais. Obter tal ordem em outro pais pode ser oneroso, dificil e, em alguns casos, impossivel de obter. O Receiver esta esperancoso que com as liberacoes certificadas, as renuncias e as procuracoes assinadas por Cook, nos poderemos procurarar mais eficazmente para fundos offshore sem ter que incorrer o custo de procedimentos separados do tribunal, a menos que autorizado pelos fatos. Estamos planejando uma entrevista de acompanhamento com Cook antes dele ser sentenciado. Pergunta 2: Em sua propria opiniao (para nao ser considerado juridicamente vinculativo de qualquer forma), Trevor Cook cooperou com a carta ea intencao do acordo de culpa? Meu entendimento de seus comentarios citados e que ele apenas corroborou o que voce descobriu. Ver a resposta a pergunta 1 acima. A carta e, o que acreditamos ser a intencao, do acordo de culpa e que Cook deve ser totalmente cooperativa conosco na identificacao e repatriamento de fundos investorsrsquo. Cook respondeu as perguntas que lhe fizemos e assinou os lancamentos que lhe apresentamos. No entanto, ele nao nos levou a quaisquer novos ou significativos ativos. Cookrsquos alegacao basica e que a maior parte do dinheiro foi enviado para Crown Forex e e presumivelmente agora perdido devido a sua insolvencia. Esta historia nao faz sentido para nos, dada a investigacao SECrsquos, conforme divulgado no registro publico, e as enormes quantias de dinheiro que aparentemente desapareceram em bancos offshore, negociacao e instituicoes de jogo. Alem disso, Cookrsquos comportamento passado de imprudente gastar investorsrsquo dinheiro, envia-lo em todo o mundo, e tentando esconder o restante em violacao do Courtrsquos Asset Freeze Ordens, e indicativo de sua mentalidade nesta materia. Pergunta 3: Em um e-mail recente, Fred Abrams aludiu com aprovacao de sua atividade sobre a questao Crown Forex. Por favor, elabore o maximo possivel a esse respeito. O Receiver teve uma longa chamada com o Sr. Abrams, a pedido dos investidores. Nossa discussao centrou-se nos esforcos publicos do Receiver para repatriar fundos da Suica e de outros paises e se o Sr. Abrams poderia ser de ajuda nestes esforcos. O Receptor agradece a oferta de assistencia do Sr. Abramsrsquo e esta avaliando, em consulta com o Juiz Chefe Davis, onde o Sr. Abrams poderia ser de maior utilidade para a Sindicatura. Como explicamos ao Sr. Abrams, pouco depois de ser nomeado no ultimo outono, o Receiver comecou a trabalhar com advogados suicos para repatriar fundos de investidores que foram enviados a Crown Forex e outras instituicoes suicas onde o dinheiro do investidor pode ter sido enviado. Especificamente, o Receiver esta trabalhando com dois escritorios de advocacia altamente respeitaveis ??na Suica. Um conjunto de advogados suicos esta buscando uma reivindicacao de 66 milhoes no caso de falencia Crown Forex. O Receiver esta usando o outro conjunto de consultores suicos para interagir com uma variedade de instituicoes financeiras suicas e funcionarios do governo em busca de fundos de investidores. Por exemplo, o Receiver descobriu uma conta de 1 milhao no nome Cookrsquos no banco UBS na Suica. Essa conta foi congelada pelas autoridades criminais suicas sob suspeita de branqueamento de capitais. Nosso conselho suico e a nossa ligacao com o banco e as autoridades criminais suicas para garantir que esses fundos sao finalmente repatriados para os investidores. Nos tambem estamos trabalhando com o conselho suico para identificar quaisquer fundos adicionais na Suica atraves dos lancamentos, renuncias e procuracoes que Cook assinou. Continuaremos a dar seguimento a pistas crediveis na Suica e em outros lugares, conforme justificado pelos fatos e pelos custos previstos. Pergunta 4: Seria possivel revelar a farsa do acordo de suplica de Trevor Cook simplesmente perguntando-lhe se ele compartilhou tudo e, em seguida, divulgar uma area em que ele nao tem sido verdadeira (Ate agora, ninguem quer tocar neste - Mas vale a pena tentar.) Se encontrarmos areas nas quais Cook nao tenha sido sincero, faremos isso conhecido ao Tribunal. Pergunta 5: O esforco de recuperacao e afetado uma vez que o Cook e condenado Se sim, como Possivelmente. Apos a condenacao, Cook nao tem nenhum incentivo para cooperar com o Receiver, a menos que ele acredita que o governo vai tentar reduzir a sua pena com base nessa cooperacao. Nao podemos falar para o governo e nao podemos especular se isso e uma possibilidade. Pergunta 6: Se Cook nao explica onde o dinheiro foi, voce e o promotor ainda atestam que ele foi cooperativo? Nao parece certo que ele pode se recusar a revelar onde o dinheiro foi, servir 20 anos ou mais e deixar a prisao um milionario Nos Todos sabem o quao bom ele esta escondendo ativos no exterior. Veja as respostas as perguntas 2 e 4 acima. Nao podemos especular sobre o que o procurador ou o governo fara. Pergunta 7: Eu nao posso acreditar que ele so tera 25 anos para arruinar a vida de tantos O que precisa acontecer para ele servir mais de 25 anos O Recebedor nao teve qualquer envolvimento nas acusacoes criminais, as negociacoes de plea, ou o acordo que Foi finalmente alcancado entre Cook e o governo. As acusacoes criminais arquivadas contra Cook limitam a quantidade de tempo que Cook pode receber. Como cobrado, Cook nao pode ser sentenciado alem de 25 anos. Para Cook receber uma sentenca de mais de 25 anos, duas coisas devem acontecer: a Corte teria que rejeitar o acordo de culpabilidade eo governo teria que obter uma acusacao que acusou Cook de crimes que levam penas maximas superiores a 25 anos. Pergunta 8: Qual e o montante total das perdas de investidores relatadas Em conexao com culpa Cookrsquos culpado, o Oficial de Liberdade de Condicional dos Estados Unidos enviou pedidos de impacto de vitima e declaracoes de perdas financeiras e estara compilando uma lista de vitimas eo montante de perda. O Recebedor nao determinou o montante total das perdas, porem a queixa da SECrsquos declarou perdas de pelo menos 139 milhoes. Prevemos que o numero final alcancado pela Probation sera maior que 139 milhoes. Pergunta 9: Voce espera que isso aumente Veja a resposta a pergunta 8 acima. Pergunta 10: Qual e a sua estimativa low-end da recuperacao Os maiores ativos atuais investorsrsquo sao uma reclamacao na Crown Forex falencia na Suica, reivindicacoes contra varios individuos e entidades no Panama, e reivindicacoes nos Estados Unidos contra Mesa Holdings e Ed Baker . Alem disso, o Receiver fara reivindicacoes para ldquoclawbackrdquo dinheiro recebido preferencialmente por outros da Cook ou em excesso de seus investimentos. Estamos buscando esses ativos de uma forma que seja tao eficiente e rentavel quanto possivel e esperamos que esses esforcos produzirao uma restituicao financeira adicional aos investidores. No entanto, nao podemos especular sobre o resultado de qualquer reivindicacao particular ou ativo, quanto tempo a resolucao vai demorar, ou o que vai custar. Alem dos pedidos legais, Cook fez uma serie de investimentos usando investidores de dinheiro em uma variedade de entidades de capital fechado e instituicoes financeiras para as quais o valor presente e desconhecida. Estes incluem, entre outros, JDFX, JP Fund Services, Capricornio e Mesa Holdings. Aqui, novamente, estamos trabalhando para maximizar o valor desses investimentos para retorno aos investidores, embora nao possamos especular neste momento sobre qual sera esse valor. Em 23 de junho de 2010, apos ter levado em conta todas as despesas e honorarios advocaticios incorridos pelo Receptor, incluindo os apresentados ao Tribunal em 23 de junho de 2010, o Destinatario possui aproximadamente 4 milhoes em dinheiro (este valor nao inclui o 1 milhao em UBS na Suica). Pergunta 11: Qual e a sua estimativa de quando esses fundos recuperados serao devolvidos aos investidores O Receiver ainda esta envolvido em litigios nos Estados Unidos, Panama e Suica, com ldquoclawbackrdquo litigio adicional previsto. A distribuicao final dos fundos sera controlada pela Corte, provavelmente por meio do Escritorio de Liberdade Condicional dos Estados Unidos. Dada a natureza continua dos esforcos para recuperar os bens em litigios, existe a possibilidade de que mais do que uma unica rodada de distribuicao possa ser ordenada pelo Tribunal. Atualmente, Cook esta definido para ser condenado em 26 de julho de 2010. E comum nas audiencias de condenacao para o Tribunal para ordenar a restituicao as vitimas como identificado pelo Escritorio de Liberdade Condicional dos Estados Unidos. Quanto a quantidade e ao momento da restituicao e ao tratamento especifico das reivindicacoes, nao podemos especular. Pergunta 12: O que esta acontecendo com o caso Nosso site oferece as informacoes mais atualizadas sobre as atividades publicas do Receiver em relacao ao caso. Contem os documentos publicos do Receiverrsquos e as decisoes judiciais pertinentes no processo civil movido pelo processo SEC e CFTC, bem como os documentos e ordens pertinentes do processo criminal. Tambem fornecemos links para os sites da Courtrsquos e dos EUA sobre o caso. Para proteger a integridade da nossa investigacao em curso, nao podemos tornar publicos todos os nossos esforcos actuais, no entanto, fazemos todos os esforcos para tornar o nosso trabalho tao transparente quanto possivel. 29 de junho de 2010 FAQ Obrigado por suas perguntas continuadas. Porque nao queremos comprometer nossa investigacao, nao podemos revelar exatamente o que fizemos, onde olhamos e para quem falamos. No entanto, procuramos responder a perguntas que abordam as linhas de investigacao mais comuns apresentadas por si. Selecionamos perguntas reais e representativas que foram enviadas para nos como meio de transmitir informacoes para voce. Nossa prioridade e localizar e devolver o dinheiro que voce perdeu neste esquema Ponzi, e estamos focando todos os nossos recursos diretamente nessas tarefas. Como informamos a muitos de voces, estamos comprometidos em ser o mais transparente possivel sobre o nosso trabalho no entanto, nao podemos usar nossos recursos muito limitados respondendo a perguntas. Faremos o nosso melhor para continuar a fornecer-lhe informacoes de forma regular atraves de nossas mocoes, relatorios de recebimento e declaracoes em Tribunal aberto, e em resposta as suas perguntas neste formato Q amp A. Esperamos ser capazes de responder as suas perguntas neste formato QampA em uma base aproximadamente mensal. Pergunta 13: Meu marido e eu eramos investidores atraves de Bo Beckman e sem o nosso conhecimento Trevor Cook. O Sr. Beckman, quando representado por Andy Luger, nos disse que eles tinham sido capazes de tracar o nosso investimento para Crown Forex SA. Voce esta planejando perguntar ao Sr. Beckman ou Sr. Luger sobre investorsrsquo dinheiro que pode ser rastreado para Crown Forex SA Nos entrevistamos Beckman sobre o seu envolvimento nesta materia e continuamos a nossa investigacao sobre o seu papel. Alem disso, nao podemos revelar os detalhes de nossa investigacao. Conforme discutido nas respostas as perguntas anteriores e em relatorios anteriores do Receiver, nos apresentamos uma reclamacao com os liquidatarios suicos responsaveis ??pela liquidacao da Crown Forex por aproximadamente 66 milhoes em nome das entidades da Sindicatura. Os liquidatarios suicos estao a avaliar todas as reclamacoes e aguardamos a sua decisao. Os liquidatarios nao nos forneceram qualquer outra informacao senao que estao avaliando todas as reivindicacoes. Pergunta 14: Voce citou 250 pessoas e na ultima conta que ouvimos que voce entrevistou cerca de 50. Quando saberemos quem esta na lista de subpoena e quem foi entrevistado Obrigado. Nos servimos as ordens de Courtrsquos em sobre 400 instituicoes financeiras. Tambem servimos citacoes em aproximadamente 250 pessoas e instituicoes. Tambem entrevistamos varios individuos. Nao podemos, neste momento, divulgar os detalhes de quem servimos e entrevistados, embora mais detalhes sobre essas atividades sejam divulgados em nosso relatorio final a Corte. Conforme mencionado acima, divulgar tais informacoes neste momento comprometeria nossa investigacao em curso. Pergunta 15: A maioria dos clientes que obtiveram o seu dinheiro de volta em junho principalmente clientes de Dale Madison. Como afirmado em nossos registros de tribunal anteriores, a maioria dos clientes de ldquopreferred foram investidores recrutados por Cliff Berg. Pergunta 16: Em relacao a Gary Saunders, ha uma discrepancia de 2,1 milhoes entre o montante enviado a ele eo montante que foi encaminhado para o Panama para o investimento do cassino com base na contabilidade no relatorio Receiver. Por que nao o Receiver, pelo menos, processa-lo para a 2,1 milhoes de discrepancia couldn39t potencialmente levar a ativos no exterior E relatado que ele foi para Saxo Bank em Londres, em outubro / novembro de 2009 para obter dinheiro para o projeto. Nao poderia ter fornecido conhecimento de ativos no exterior. Ed Baker tambem nao era um reu, mas o Receiver foi atras dele por 3,8M. Nos entrevistamos o Sr. Saunders sobre seu envolvimento nesta materia e continuamos nossa investigacao em seu papel. Alem disso, nao podemos revelar os detalhes de nossa investigacao. Em geral, a nossa decisao de prosseguir qualquer reclamacao legal requer uma analise cuidadosa e ponderacao dos seguintes quatro fatores: o valor de qualquer potencial recuperacao as chances de realmente recolher esse montante as chances de exito em provar a reclamacao judicial o montante em fundos de investidores que Sera usado em prosseguir, provar e recolher sobre o pedido. Se procurassemos legalmente todas as pessoas ou entidades que desempenhassem um papel no esquema do Sr. Cookrsquos Ponzi, rapidamente usariamos todos os fundos dos investidores. Nao podemos fazer isso e temos que ser muito criteriosos em nossas decisoes. Pergunta 17: Voce sabe se ha algum plano para o Juiz ou DOJ para pedir um teste de detector de mentira Nao podemos comentar sobre os planos Courtrsquos ou Departamento de Justicersquos a este respeito. Recomendamos ao governo que submeta o Sr. Cook a um teste de deteccao de mentiras antes de sua sentenca em 26 de julho de 2010 para fins de localizacao de ativos. Pergunta 18: O Recebedor ou o Tribunal planeja tornar publicos os investidores eo montante de Dinheiro perdido Veja a resposta a pergunta 8. Nosso entendimento e que a juiza Rosenbaum fara publica uma lista de vitimas ea quantidade de perda no caso criminal. Pergunta 19: Eu entendo que existem aproximadamente 584 verdadeiros investidores. O numero de investidores vem de registros recuperados do computador de Mary, mas muitos desses investidores tinham fechado suas contas antes que o esquema desmoronou. O Receiver investigou as contas fechadas a respeito de fechamentos legitimos ou de saidas para pessoas especiais Veja a resposta a Questao 18. Acreditamos que existem algumas centenas de mais investidores do que os 584 que perderam dinheiro neste esquema Ponzi. Estamos rastreando o dinheiro dentro e fora das contas de Receivership para garantir que apenas os investidores que realmente perderam alguns ou todos os seus principais recebem restituicao. Tambem estamos investigando se algum individuo recebeu algum dinheiro de volta como ldquointerestrdquo ou recebeu algum tipo de beneficio financeiro, se alguns individuos foram avisados ??sobre a investigacao da SEC ou tiveram suas contas descontadas como resultado da investigacao e as circunstancias de individuos que 12 de agosto de 2010 Perguntas frequentes Pergunta 20: Por que nao houve uma distribuicao de 6 a 7 milhoes de euros para investidores que foram transferidos para o exterior? Esperando um para ocorrer Parece-me que o montante de distribuicao parece ficar menor por causa de suas taxas. As taxas sao aparentemente muito regular, mas a descoberta de fundos adicionais nao ocorreu. O tempo ea quantidade de qualquer distribuicao serao dirigidos pelo Tribunal. Nao tenho controle sobre quando e quanto distribuir. No entanto, ha varias partes desta questao onde eu posso elaborar. Primeiro, a propriedade da Sindicatura nao esta ficando menor. Pelo contrario, e atualmente pelo menos duas vezes maior do que era quando a Receivership comecou e isso inclui todas as despesas e taxas. Alem disso, os fundos adicionais estao sendo adicionados regularmente a propriedade. Em segundo lugar, as taxas estao sendo pagas em uma base regular, porque ha muitos funcionarios que tem trabalhado incansavelmente em nome dos investidores. Esses funcionarios precisam ser pagos. Eles fizeram uma tremenda quantidade de trabalho duro localizar, recuperar e liquidar ativos. Voce pode ver alguns, mas certamente nao todos, de que o trabalho duro refletido em ativos que estao continuamente localizados e adicionados a propriedade de suspensao e nos depositos substanciais tribunal feito ate a data que sao todos voltados para o mesmo fim. Alem disso, as pessoas na minha equipe tem trabalhado em uma taxa de desconto durante todo o Receivership e continuar a faze-lo. Em terceiro lugar, as taxas e as despesas de auditoria sao examinadas mensalmente pela SEC, pela CFTC e pela Procuradoria dos Estados Unidos e sao aprovadas pela Corte somente apos uma analise completa e cuidadosa de registros de despesas e faturamento altamente detalhados. Estes registros detalhados nao podem ser tornados publicos porque eles estabelecem com especificidade os esforcos continuos do Administrador. Os detalhes de nossos esforcos continuos devem permanecer confidenciais porque a divulgacao publica pode comprometer nossa investigacao e, consequentemente, nossa capacidade de recuperar ativos para as vitimas. Somos tao transparentes quanto possivel em detalhar tudo o que pudermos em nossas mocoes publicamente apresentadas ao tribunal sobre a recuperacao e liquidacao de ativos, reclamacoes contra terceiros e pedidos de pagamento de taxas e nas audiencias sobre essas mocoes. Voce pode ter certeza de que, se a Receivership nao fosse agregar valor, a Corte nao permitiria que ele continuasse ou aprovasse qualquer pagamento por nossos esforcos. Em quarto lugar, mais da metade das despesas totais ate a data nao tem nada a ver com os meus honorarios. Eles tem a ver com o pagamento de investigadores, especialistas em informatica, especialistas em fiscalidade, contabilistas, peritos forenses, avaliadores, guardas de seguranca, seguradoras, leiloeiros, pessoal de armazem, empreiteiros, credores comerciais, advogados, web designers e empresas de gestao. As despesas tambem se referem a contratacao do pessoal necessario para nos ajudar a localizar e repatriar ativos em terras estrangeiras, como Panama, Canada e Suica. Todos esses gastos foram essenciais para o meu mandato de localizar, preservar e devolver ativos aos investidores. Por fim, os seis ou sete milhoes de que voce fala seria de apenas dois a tres milhoes sem nossos esforcos. Pergunta 21: Nos, que estamos nos processos contra a Entrust e possivelmente o Banco Associado, originalmente apresentamos reclamacoes contra a Entrust antes das acoes de execucao da CFTC / SEC e antes da criacao da Sindicatura. Jack Harper, um advogado para alguns dos investidores, se reuniu com a SEC, CFTC e voce (o Receiver) para discutir sua posicao como ele relacionado a quaisquer reivindicacoes que estaria perseguindo contra Entrust, Associated Bank, etc Depois de Jack recebeu garantias Da SEC e da CFTC que a permanencia no caso federal nao afetou nosso direito de investigar acoes particulares contra essas organizacoes ou pessoas que voce nao estaria perseguindo e nao haveria qualquer reclamacao contra qualquer dinheiro que pudessemos Para obter, decidimos juntar-nos no processo. Temos investido muito tempo e milhares de dolares com a compreensao de que qualquer produto possivel nao teria qualquer impacto sobre qualquer coisa que iria obter a partir do recebimento. Uma vez que estamos ouvindo o oposto agora, voce poderia por favor me explicar o que aconteceu para mudar isso. Houve um mal-entendido no comeco As circunstancias mudaram Voce conseguiu algumas informacoes novas que mudaram sua posicao sobre isso? Houve obviamente um mal-entendido desde o inicio. Minha posicao nao mudou desde o inicio da Sindicatura e nao houve mudanca nas circunstancias. Eu acredito que sob a lei voce tem direito a restituicao em um montante igual, mas em nenhum caso maior do que, sua perda real. E, em casos como este, onde nao ha dinheiro suficiente para pagar todas as vitimas na integra, a quantidade de restituicao sera proporcional a sua perda real. Na medida em que voce recuperar qualquer montante, esse montante nao e mais uma perda. Portanto, voce nao teria direito a restituicao pelo que ja recuperou. Esta e a lei e tem sido a lei da restituicao para as idades. Ver 18 U. S.C. Secao 3664 (j) (2) (ldquoQualquer montante pago a uma vitima por meio de uma ordem de restituicao sera reduzido por qualquer montante mais tarde recuperado como indemnizacao compensatoria pela mesma perda da vitima em qualquer processo civil federal ou estadual). Eu nao concordaria e nao poderia concordar com nada diferente. Como eu disse ao Sr. Harper quando nos conhecemos no inicio da suspensao judicial, a permanencia nos casos da SEC e CFTC nao afetou seu direito de prosseguir uma acao privada contra o Entrust e Associated Bank. Como tal processo nao afetaria as propriedades da Sindicatura, eu disse ao Sr. Harper que o Receiver nao tinha objecao a que investidores tentassem acoes particulares contra essas entidades. No entanto, eu nunca disse ao Sr. Harper que qualquer dinheiro que voce possa recuperar atraves de um processo privado nao seria deduzido de sua reivindicacao de restituicao da Sindicatura. Na verdade, essa questao nunca surgiu em nossas discussoes. Dado que a lei de restituicao e bem estabelecida e clara de que uma vitima tem direito a restituicao, mas apenas ate o montante da perda real sofrida e nao mais, nao havia razao para que o Sr. Harper e eu estivessemos discutindo o que Aconteceria se houvesse uma recuperacao. Em minha opiniao, sempre foi que se os investidores se recuperam fora da Receivership, entao eles tem reduzido a sua perda pelo montante da recuperacao. Em outras palavras, os investidores nao podem fazer uma reclamacao ao Recebedor onde eles de outra forma recuperaram pelo mesmo prejuizo. Se voce tiver sucesso em seu processo privado contra Entrust e Associated Bank, voce, sem duvida, vai manter o dinheiro que voce iria recuperar. Voce nao o compartilharia com as outras vitimas. Portanto, a menos que voce esteja disposto a compartilhar o dinheiro que voce recuperar com todas as vitimas da fraude, entao o seu pedido de restituicao deve ser reduzido pelo que voce manter. Alem disso, e interessante notar novamente que o que precede e a minha opiniao sobre a lei da restituicao e como as distribuicoes devem ser calculadas. No entanto, eu nao sou seu advogado e nao estou aconselhando voce como tal. Em ultima analise, as questoes relativas a dimensao e ao calendario de quaisquer distribuicoes serao decididas pelo Tribunal. Pergunta 22: Eu sou uma daquelas pessoas infelizes vitimadas pelo golpe de Cook Kiley. Eles roubaram a maior parte das minhas economias de vida e aos 64 anos eu nunca serei capaz de me recuperar disso. Nosso advogado Jack Harper de Messerli amp Kramer, P. A. Aconselhou-nos que voce acumulou 6.7 milhao e poderia fazer uma distribuicao parcial se assim inclinado. Voce estaria me ajudando e suspeito que muitos outros mais do que voce poderia imaginar se voce concordaria em fazer uma distribuicao parcial. A decisao de fazer uma distribuicao parcial nao e minha. O Tribunal decidira quando fazer uma distribuicao. No entanto, certamente transmitirei suas circunstancias e preocupacoes a Corte. Pergunta 23: Na medida em que um cliente incorrer em despesas ou honorarios na busca de uma reclamacao de terceiros, essas despesas serao compensadas com o valor da recuperacao de terceiros, conforme medido pelo numero do receptor. Um investidor que opte por contratar seu Seu proprio advogado para fins de recuperacao da fraude e responsavel por seus proprios honorarios advocaticios e custos. Pergunta 24: Se a resposta ao numero 23 e ldquono, como as despesas incorridas na perseguicao de reclamacoes de terceiros serao consideradas na analise de distribuicao Veja acima. Um investorrsquos despesas incorridas em perseguir reivindicacoes de terceiros nao sera fatorada na analise de distribuicao. Pergunta 25: Sera que o deslocamento sera 100, ou o Recebedor considerara uma porcentagem menor compensada como parte do plano de distribuicao? A compensacao sera 100 de qualquer recuperacao. Pergunta 26: Se nossos clientes nao recuperarem o valor total de seus investimentos de terceiros, eo valor da recuperacao mais a distribuicao pro rata do Recebedor nao levara o cliente a pagar em relacao a sua perda, sera ainda compensada Question 27: Qual e a posicao do Receiver em relacao aos investidores que tem reclamacoes de terceiros nao resolvidas no momento em que o Receiver faz a distribuicao final? Esses investidores receberao sua quota proporcional, mas esses investidores terao a obrigacao de devolver o valor Distribuidos ate o montante recuperado de terceiros. Pergunta 28: Como a sentenca de Trevor Cook impacta seus esforcos de investigacao e recuperacao E improvavel que tenha algum efeito significativo. Ate a presente data, o Sr. Cook nao divulgou quaisquer ativos significativos que nos eram desconhecidos. Pergunta 29: Por causa da descoberta mais recente, as pessoas estao recebendo ideias criativas sobre onde Trevor Cook pode ter escondido outros ativos. Foi Trevor questionado sobre ativos escondidos adicionais em outros lugares Desde que ele veio de Rarities de investimento e outros negocios de moeda de ouro, como nao sabemos que eles nao tem ativos ocultos dezenas de vezes em lugares diferentes Mr. Cook tem sido amplamente questionado sobre todos os ativos que nos Estao cientes de e se ele tinha quaisquer recursos escondidos em qualquer lugar e com qualquer pessoa em todo o mundo. Ele alegou que nao havia ativos ocultos em qualquer lugar. No entanto, recentemente, ele revelou ativos ocultos (200.000 em dinheiro e cerca de 200.000 em moedas de prata e ouro) que seu irmao estava escondido. Nao ha como saber se ha mais ativos ocultos. Pergunta 30: Foi a passagem secreta na mansao procurada Foi pesquisada atras das paredes com algum tipo de scanner Sim. Uma busca manual extensiva foi conduzida, mas, devido aos nossos recursos limitados e analise continua de custo-beneficio, nao nos engajamos em qualquer tipo de pesquisa que nao tenhamos motivos para acreditar que produziria resultados. We had no reason to believe that a search of the mansion with scanners would have uncovered any hidden assets. Question 31: Cook gave Gary Saunders 9.8 million to purchase the Panama Bay land, yet the sellers of the land received only 7.7 million, according to the Receiver39s Third Status Report. Can clawbacks be used to get back 2.1 million from Saunders Or, can the discovery process from Saunders of a Summary Proceeding be used to extract a verifiable accounting as to the 2.1 million Mr. Saunders and the whereabouts of the 2.1 million are still under investigation and we cannot comment further at this time. Question 32: Was Cook asked in the lie detector test about the approximately 44 million that is separate from investor money (the alleged corporate profits that Kiley told me about and Cook told others about) We cannot respond to questions concerning any lie detector test because we did not administer any such test. Those questions should be directed to the United States Attorneyrsquos Office and the FBI. Question 33: Was Cook tested about CFX SA, the Fased payment, etc. See the response to Question 32. Question 34: Have you interviewed Beckman Allegedly he and Cook hated each other. Could he not have some incriminating evidence We have interviewed Beckman. He is still under investigation and we cannot comment further at this time. Question 35: How does Cookrsquos performance in the lie detector test effect his plea bargain We are not a party to the plea bargain and cannot comment on Cookrsquos performance or its effect on the plea bargain. That is an issue for Judge Rosenbaum to decide. The plea agreement required Cookrsquos cooperation with the Receiver in recovering assets. If asked by the Court to comment on the record, I will do so. Question 36: I have heard Kiley and Mahmoud were not cooperative in their interview. Have they given any helpful information to you or any of the agencies such as the FBI Mr. Kiley invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when we tried to interview him. He has not provided any helpful information. Mr. Mahmoud was subpoenaed for documents and interviewed. We cannot make any further comment at this time. Any questions concerning whether government agencies (such as the FBI) have received information should be directed to the U. S. Attorneyrsquos Office or the agency directly. Question 37: Prosecutor Joe Dixon said at the July 12 meeting that once Cook is sentenced, there would likely be a restitution order and a partial reimbursement. Since the summary actions against the preferred clients for 7.4 million and other recent developments, can you speak to the likelihood of a disbursement and an approximate amount I cannot. Chief Judge Davis and Judge Rosenbaum will decide if a partial disbursement will be made, when it will be made, and the amount (if any). Question 38: What has been discovered about the relationship between Crown Forex SA and CGI Forex We do not have any jurisdiction outside the United States so we cannot subpoena either Crown Forex or CGI Forex to learn of their relationship. In addition, the Swiss liquidators have not provided us with any information or documents from Crown Forex so we have no means of ascertaining the relationship between the two companies. From evidence received from Receivership entities, it appears both Crown Forex and CGI were being run by the same people and as part of the same group of companies. Question 39: What is the status of the investigation in Mauritius concerning Basel Financial owned by the same consortium as Crown Forex SA albeit sans Cook Because of the connection, how might it help us See the response to Question 38. We have no jurisdiction outside the United States. Although we cannot comment specifically on Basel Financial, we have received requests from government agencies regarding our knowledge of various entities outside the United States and have given our complete cooperation in hopes that additional money can be recovered for Cookrsquos victims. Question 40: Could you give an opinion of how Cookrsquos recent lie detector performance might affect his plea or what your recommendation to Judge Rosenbaum might be No. Judge Rosenbaum has been kept fully informed of the scope and details of Cookrsquos interaction with the United States Attorneyrsquos Office and with us. If Judge Rosenbaum requests my opinion on the record, I will provide it. Otherwise, I have no comment. Question 41: Would it benefit your investigation if the sentencing were further delayed and if others were charged At a certain point, there is nothing further to be gained by delaying Cookrsquos sentencing. As to charging others, that is not within the area of my responsibilities and I do not want to speculate on who might be charged and how that might impact our investigation. Question 42: What is the status of James Pieron of JDFX/IB Tech of whom Cook invested 15 million and who held the partner stock What about the other European brokerages who have been identified as holders of registry funds James Pieron has put JDFX into liquidation claiming that the adverse publicity surrounding Cook has destroyed his business. We are investigating this matter further and evaluating our options. As to the other European brokerages, we have no jurisdiction outside the United States. At our request, Cook executed general powers of attorney to further our ability to repatriate foreign assets. We have received information and documents from some foreign institutions and are still in the process with others. September 23, 2010 FAQ Question 43: Do we yet know the potential benefits ARIF Association Romande des Intermeacutediaires Financiersmdasha self-regulated non-profit private rights association in Geneva, Switzerland dedicated to the prevention and the fight against laundering registration and Swiss regulation might have for our matter No. We are still waiting for the Swiss Liquidators of Crown Forex SA to provide us with information regarding the 66 million claim submitted to them on behalf of UBS Diversified. To date, we have received no information from the Swiss Liquidators. Until we receive information, there is nothing that we can provide to ARIF. As we mentioned in our previous answers, we do not have jurisdiction outside the United States. Accordingly, we cannot compel any person or entity outside the United States to comply with our requests. Question 44: Was there any applicable insurance in connection with Crown Forex We do not know. We have not received any documents whatsoever from Crown Forex, S. A. including any that might relate to any insurance that it may have had. Nonetheless, any possible claims for insurance or other compensation are premature until the claim with the Swiss liquidators has been decided. Question 45: Why is the interim distribution set at 2,250,000 rather than the full amount of 5,427,265 My thought, along with most other victims, was to get OUR money back before it is all used up on fees, etc. That doesn39t seem to be the case. So far the victims have gotten 0.00. Expenses and fees incurred to date are 2,281,519. Does that seem fair The interim distribution is designed to provide some measure of relief for victims before the Receivership is concluded and a final distribution is made. Those working on behalf of the Receivership have added value to the Receivership and it is fair that they receive reasonable compensation for their efforts. When the Receivership began there was only approximately 1.9 million cash available for all the victims. Today there is 5,427,256 in cash. That is a net gain of 3,627,256. The net gain does not include other substantial amount of work that the Receivership staff has been done on behalf of the victims. This other work includes tracking down additional Receivership assets, filing motions to retrieve and liquidate those assets, litigating in Panama, working with U. S. Probation, the FBI, the IRS, the SEC and CFTC, helping investors submit and substantiate claims for restitution, and preparing for an interim distribution. The Receiver, his staff, and his vendors, continue to work at a discounted rate to minimize the burden on the investors to the extent possible. In some cases, the Receiver has been able to secure critical services to the Receivership at no cost whatsoever. The interim distribution alone is more than the 1.9 million that would have been available but for the Receivership. The interim distribution is 2,250,000 in civil restitution plus 362,700 in criminal restitution, for a total of 2,612,700. (The 362,700 available for criminal restitution is a Receivership asset that Chief Judge Davis has authorized to be used for criminal restitution.) If the entire 5,427,256 is distributed now as you suggest, there would be no money left to fund the clawback actions against those who received preferential treatment, the clawback actions against the mortgage companies, the Panama litigation, the retrieval of money from Switzerland, the sale of the Canadian property and the retrieval of those assets, or the orderly and equitable distribution of money to the more than 800 victims in this fraud. A full distribution will end the Receivership immediately and end any chances of recovering the preferential payments, the Panamanian assets, the Canadian assets or the Swiss funds, which in turn are worth somewhere between 5 to 10 million. Please note that any victim is free, at any time, to ask Chief Judge Davis to terminate the Receivership. Question 46: Trevor Cook hired and paid a team of lawyers hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend himself with victims39 money. Why isn39t that being clawed back Why is it any different than clawing back salaries, commissions, etc. as stated in the Receiver39s Fifth Status Report The Court decided this issue in January 2010 and ruled that the lawyers had earned the money and were entitled to keep it. Question 47: How is the clawing back of commissions going to work if the sales representative received more in commissions than he or she quotinvestedquot with Cook Are you going to sue the sales representative for the full amount of the commissions Can the sales representative avoid paying this back by declaring bankruptcy What if the sales representative claims he or she spent the money and can39t pay it back What steps will you take to prevent him or her and others similarly situated from hiding money As stated in our answer to Question 16, the Receiver39s actions are governed by the Court39s Orders and a cost-benefit analysis on a case-by-case basis. Unless we can foresee a net gain for the Receivership estates, we will not take legal action on a given matter. In short, our mandate is to maximize the recovery for the victims. At a minimum, the Receiver will make adjustments to any claims submitted by sales representatives (or others who received money or other benefits from the Receivership entities) to reflect the Receivership assets they have already been paid. The Receiver cannot advise what sales representatives may or may not do other than to reiterate that they, like every other individual or entity with Receivership assets, are governed by the Court39s Orders. Question 48: Trevor Cook had key associates or plausibly, accessories, co-conspirators and accomplices, who have yet to be charged, even a year after the news of the crime hit the press. Now that Cook has been sentenced, is it plausible that the investigation will wind down due to lack of resources, leaving Cook39s associates free to bank our money or assets purchased with our money For example, the Receiver is aware of an alleged accessory to Cook39s crime, who holds an interest in foreign land purchased around 2008 using funds mostly, if not entirely traceable to Cook. Purportedly, in 2008, this individual did not have sufficient personal assets to purchase such a real estate interest, leaving us to suspect that his real estate interest must have been a gratuity from Cook in return for that individual39s complicity. No individual should be allowed to walk away with ill gotten gains or assets racked up by helping Cook secure investors to fleece, launder money, or by other wrongful acts. That is not just or equitable. If the Receiver cannot or will not pursue such assets, could the Receiver suggest a way for the public to do so As stated in the answer to Question 47, the Receiver is governed by the Court39s Orders and a cost-benefit analysis in everything we do. Some meritorious claims cannot reasonably be pursued because the cost of litigation would outweigh any potential recovery. Other meritorious claims have not been pursued because, although there is a potentially high judgment, it would probably not be collectible. We understand investors39 frustrations on these pointsmdashand share them. We would like to ensure that no one be allowed to gain from this fraud, no matter how small the gain. However, we must remain focused on our goal of maximizing recovery for the victims and leave pursuit of wrongdoers and ill-gotten gains to the government authorities. At some point which likely will be in the next year or so, we will have exhausted the claims that make sense for us to litigate. At that point, the Receiver will ask Chief Judge Davis to terminate the Receivership. The public can thereafter continue to urge the SEC, the CFTC and the United States Attorney39s Office to pursue charges or claims against any of Cook39s associates and assets that might still exist. October 20, 2010 FAQ Question 49: On the FAQ page of your site you mention a 66 million claim submitted on behalf of UBS in the Swiss bankruptcy of Crown Forex. How would the payment of this claim affect the victims of this case Furthermore, when are these claims supposed to be paid or rejected We have inquired, but have yet to receive information from the Swiss authorities about how or when they will process the claim. Question 50: You state that you are actually only going after 5 to 10 million more How did we go from 66 million to 5million As explained in Question 49, the 66 million figure relates to the claim that UBS submitted in the Swiss bankruptcy of Crown Forex. Because that claim is being handled in confidence by the Swiss government, we do not have any estimation of whether that claim will be recognized or if so, in what amount. We are not optimistic about the chances of any recovery on the 66 million claim pending before the Swiss liquidators and therefore have not included it in any of our projections. The 5 to 10 million referenced in response to Question 45 relates to actions where we have information or control. Specifically, the 5 to 10 million includes our estimated returns on the clawback actions in Chief Judge Davis39 Court, as well as the litigation in Panama, sale of the Rainy Lake property in Canada, and expected return of approximately 1 million the Receiver found in an account Cook held at UBS in Switzerland. Question 51: Why do you keep saying we have no jurisdiction outside of the United States Haven39t you hired overseas lawyers to work on our behalf Is there anybody (i. e. FBI) that WOULD have jurisdiction outside of the US We cannot impose American laws on foreign countries. Each country is a sovereign nation and has its own laws and procedures. There is no court, governmental agency or law enforcement agency in the United States that has any jurisdiction in a foreign country. There are a number of mutual assistance treaties in which one government can ask another government for help. But these are merely requests and cannot be mandated. In addition, these requests take years and perserverance to yield results. We have asked for the assistance of foreign authorities but are at their mercy as to if, when, and how they will help and the extent of any help that they might offer. Our overseas lawyers are assisting our efforts in Panama, Canada, and Switzerland, but they cannot compel anyone to comply with our requests unless we have a good faith factual and legal basis to (1) invoke the mutual assistance treaties in place in their respective countries or (2) file a lawsuit under the laws of their respective countries as was done in Panama and Canada. If we were to hire overseas lawyers to follow-up on every possible lead, hunch, or speculative tip that we have received, we would very quickly deplete all the assets of the Receiver Estate. We have hired overseas lawyers only where we have identified specific and existing assets and where we believe we have a good chance of recovery, such as, in Panama, Canada, and Switzerland. Question 52: I am writing after reading Dan Browning39s recent article in the Star Tribune on October 18, 2010. I sent a completed form and documents to Justin Delfino in Chicago and also completed a separate claim to you via certified mail. The documents sent to you included copies of bank cashier checks, other checks and bank documents to substantiate the amount I actually deposited with Pat Kiley. I have not heard anything back from you indicating that my claim has been accepted or verified, is lacking documentation, is incomplete, or is inaccurate with respect to the amount that I demonstrated that I had deposited. The article states that out of 1,200 investors, the Receiver has only verified 668 claims, with losses totaling 142 million. In light of the fact that it appears you will be asking Chief Judge Davis to set a deadline of January 14, 2011 for investors to file a claim, and that many investors have filed incomplete claims and others failed to account for withdrawals, how do we know if our claim has been accepted or verified or if you need additional documentation to clarify any possible irregularities before the possible cut-off date As soon as the Court approves the interim distribution and the procedures for claim processing and final accounting, which we expect to be in early November 2010, we will send out letters to all known investors. The letters will inform investors whether they will be receiving an interim distribution and, if so, the amount of their recognized claim and the amount of the pro-rata interim distribution that they will receive. In the meantime, please feel free to contact us by telephone on the Receiver hotline (local: 612-436-9664, toll free: 877-316-6129) or email (infocookkileyreceiver ) to confirm that we have all the information from you that is necessary to process your claim. Question 53: I am interested in entering into an agreement with you for a finder39s fee for all bank accounts found in foreign countries held by any of the individuals involved in the Oxford Global Ponzi Scheme, including but not limited to: Cook, Kiley, Beckman, Durand, Saunders, etc. I am requesting 10 of all monies found by me and returned to the USA by you for disbursement to the victims. Are you willing to consider this offer Unless you actually find a foreign account that we are not aware of and you actually provide substantial assistance in successfully returning the funds in that account to us in the United States, then your offer has no value to us. If you are able to locate such an unknown account and you in fact substantially assist us in successfully repatriating the money to the Receivership, then we would be willing to pay a finder39s fee of no more than 3. Question 54: If I am an investor who worked for Cook and received some form of compensation or other benefit from Cook, will I get an interim distribution No. We are in the process of adjusting your claim to take into account the amount of cash or other benefits that you have already received from Cook. After your claim is adjusted, we will notify you of our determination and provide you with an opportunity to be paid out based on that amount or contest our determination. In the final accounting, all investor claims will be adjusted to ensure that everyone, employee or not, receives an equal pro rata share in proportion to the amount that they have actually lost. Question 55: Henry Mahmoud, at the hearing, told an investor that it was still possible for Cook to communicate with one of his minions concerning the transfer of funds to hidden locations. Is this true What steps have been taken to prevent this from happening We do not and cannot know the veracity of such statement. Cook is under Court Order to disclose and return all assets. It is our understanding that all telephone calls to and from the jail are monitored. However, there is no way to prevent Cook from communicating with the outside world. Not all of his constitutional rights are terminated by his imprisonment. Question 56: At the hearing Kiley compared our matter to the REFCO theft, where he alleges that most of the money was found in an offshore bank in Pakistan. What credence do you place in this possibility Question 57: Please confirm how my share of recovered assets will be determined. The final amount you will receive cannot be determined yet, but reasonable estimates of your percentage are possible. The general formula we will follow is: Until the final accounting is completed, we cannot say exactly what the total amount of all recognized claims will be, but it will likely be somewhere between 150 to 160 million. With this estimate, investors should be able to get an approximate calculation of their percentage of the total recovery. November 29, 2010 FAQ Question 58: Why are you not optimistic about the potential recovery of the 66 million Crown Forex claim The Swiss authorities took over and are liquidating Crown Forex SA because it was insolvent and incapable of paying its creditors. Question 59: How many times and in what manner have you contacted the Swiss Liquidators regarding the 66 million claim We have attempted on many occasions to contact the Swiss Liquidators by correspondence, telephone and personal contact through two different sets of Swiss counsel that we have retained to assist us in Switzerland. The liquidators have treated the Crown Forex SA bankruptcy as highly confidential and have not shared any substantive information with us. They informed us that they could not provide us with any information until such time as they had completed their claim review process. Once that process is completed, they will draw up and publish a schedule of accepted claims. They said that this process will take time measured in months. The most recent information we have is that the liquidators are preparing to finalize the inventory of assets and liabilities of Crown Forex SA. The draft inventory will then be submitted for approval to the Swiss financial market authority, FINMA. Once approved by FINMA, each deemed creditor of Crown Forex SA will be informed if its claim has been accepted or rejected. Creditors whose claims have been rejected by the liquidators will have a right to sue the bankruptcy estate to overturn this rejection. The inventory of claims will be made available to all creditors, which will also have a possibility to challenge other creditorsrsquo claims, but not to the general public. These next steps are expected to happen in 2011. Question 60: Since you have been unsuccessful in securing even a response from the Swiss liquidators handling the 66 million Crown Forex claim (i. e. how they will evaluate the claim, when the claim will be decided, etc.) perhaps we can help. If you provided us with the contact info for the liquidators, we could all contact them every day until they responded. Perhaps having the faces behind the names would compel them to respond. The Swiss liquidators contact information can be found at crownforex. info. daggerDagger Question 61: ldquoThere are a number of mutual assistance treaties in which one government can ask another government for help. But these are merely requests and cannot be mandated. In addition, these requests take years and perseverance to yield results. rdquo Have we made these requests If the receivership is not pursuing these assistance treaties, we would like to know how to do it and who to contact so that we can continue to pursue this once the receivership is terminated. Requests under a mutual legal assistance treaty, or MLAT, can only be made by one government to another government. Because the Receiver is not part of the government, he cannot make an MLAT request. We understand, however, that the United States Attorneyrsquos Office has made an MLAT request to the Swiss authorities. For more information, please direct your inquiries to the United States Attorneyrsquos office at 612-664-5600. We have requested the SECrsquos Office of International Affairs (ldquoOIArdquo) to formally request the Swiss Authorities to assist us in our investigation and to help repatriate any assets that are found in Switzerland. OIA has made this request and we are awaiting a response from the Swiss authorities. Question 62: What are the tax consequences of the distribution checks for those investors who had the money in IRAs The IRS directed us to publication 202-45, and it appears that the IRS may treat the distribution checks as disbursements from the IRA accounts and, for anyone under the age of 59.5 years, charge a 10 penalty on the distribution checks from the Receiver. To ensure that the distribution is not a taxable transaction and avoid the 10 penalty, can we rollover our distribution to another eligible retirement plan within 60 days of the distribution The Receiver cannot provide any tax advice related to your investment or any distribution made from the Receivership. Please consult your tax advisor regarding the tax consequences of these issues. The IRS has regional offices that may be able to assist you. A list of IRS regional offices can be found at irs. gov/localcontacts/index. html. daggerDagger Also the IRS has a Taxpayer Advocate Service that may be able to help you. For more information please visit irs. gov/advocate/index. html. daggerDagger Question 63: We recently received the interim civil and criminal restitution distribution checks for the loss suffered by us due to the actions of Cook and others. Thank you for your efforts on our behalf. We are confused about the status of Associated Bank. Are some of its assets frozen and available for the receivership If so, how, how much, and what is the status of the receivership claim against Associated Bank We were not able to find any of this information in your latest status report. If large amounts of money were at the bank, and the bank might have played a role in the fraud, why was Associated Bank not named as a quotrelief defendantquot We see from your earlier FAQ that there is a separate private lawsuit involving some of your claimants and the bank. What is your understanding of the nature of those claims, and why are those claims not being brought under the receivership Thank you for all of your assistance. No deposits remain at Associated Bank. Although approximately 100 million flowed through the accounts that Cook and others opened at Associated Bank, only 970,000 was found in those accounts at the time that the Court entered its asset freeze order in November 2009. The Receiver seized the 970,000 and those funds became part of the interim civil distribution. The SEC and the CFTC brought the two civil lawsuits that created the receivership. Those agencies were the ones who named the ldquoRelief Defendantsrdquo in the lawsuits. The Receiver had no say in who was named as a Relief Defendant. The private lawsuit brought by certain investors against Associated Bank is based on a theory that the bank was negligent and owed a duty to those investors in handling the accounts that Cook and others opened at the bank and used to perpetuate the fraud. The Receiver is not part of and has no role in this lawsuit. In the meantime, the Receiverrsquos investigation into Associated Bank is ongoing and, as such, we cannot comment further on this matter. December 16, 2010 FAQ Question 64: Do you know whether the IRS will in certain circumstances allow fraudulent losses of IRA funds to be deducted from income for tax calculations Please see our answer to Question 62. The IRS issued guidance concerning treatment of losses arising from Ponzi schemes that can be found at the following sites: The IRS Commissioner identified revenue rulings and procedures related to Ponzi schemes at: irs. gov/Businesses/Corporations/Reporting-Losses-Resulting-from-Ponzi-Schemes . Embedded in the foregoing link are links to the actual revenue ruling: irs. gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-09-09.pdf and the revenue procedure: irs. gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-09-20.pdf . We urge investors to consult either a tax advisor or contact the IRS directly about tax issues stemming from your investment or any distribution from the Receivership that you may receive. Question 65: Do you know whether I can write-off the entire amount of my investment (in or outside of an IRA) for tax purposes and treat your distribution as ordinary income Please see our answers to Questions 62 and 64. Question 66: From a tax standpoint, do we take the loss against our taxes now or do we wait in the event we will receive reimbursement Please see our answers to Questions 62 and 64. Question 67: I was an IRA account holder at Entrust and I called the IRS and they said that the distribution checks would be a quotdistributionquot from my IRA and therefore, since I am not 59 frac12 years old, there would be an additional 10 penalty. They said that the receivership would issue 1099-R39s and that the IRS would get copies. On my 1040 form, why can39t I treat the distribution as quotother income, quot especially if you will not issue any 1099-R39s for these checks Please see our answers to Questions 62 and 64. Question 68: Are the accounts and assets Jason Beckman has in MN, TX, FL and any other states, frozen Beckman is not a defendant or a relief defendant in the two civil cases, SEC v. Cook, et al . and CFTC v. Cook, et al . However, to the extent Beckman is in the possession, custody or control of any Receivership assets, they are subject to the Court39s Asset Freeze Order and belong to the Receivership. Question 69: Where do you stand on pursuing Kiley and what he has embezzled from us The SEC is proceeding in its civil case against Kiley, SEC v. Cook . 09-cv-3333 (D. Minn.), which is the same case in which the Receiver was appointed. The Receiver has already seized property from Kiley and to the extent additional assets are located in his name, those will be seized as well. Question 70: Is Kiley still in the country or where does he presently live The Receiver understands that Kiley presently lives in Minnesota. He has appeared before Chief Judge Davis on a number of occasions. Question 71: Should someone put this in front of the news media, Fox News for instance, to see if their investigative department can do something about this as they have with other folks by putting the embezzlement in front of the public This matter has received extensive media coverage in the Twin Cities and also national coverage by CNN and the New York Times. Question 72: Obviously the distribution from the Cook settlement was a joke compared to what we had invested. Is this all we will receive No. We acknowledge that the interim distribution was small compared to your investment. We understand, and share, your frustration and are doing our best to maximize recovery while minimizing expenses. We anticipate that there will be another distribution in the future. Question 73: Shouldn39t Millennium Trust and Entrust have some monetary responsibility in this situation as they were the custodians and collected fees We cannot advise any investor about potential claims they may have against third parties such as Millennium Trust and Entrust. We are presently analyzing our options with respect to providers such as Millennium Trust and Entrust. Our course of action with regard to these entities will be guided by a cost-benefit analysis as discussed in response to previous requests. Question 74: It has been reported that Jason Beckman has been driving a Maserati in his neighborhood. Is this the same Maserati sold by Trevor Cook We do not know what car Beckman is driving around his neighborhood. Cook sold a Maserati to a local dealer on October 20, 2009. The dealer had no notice of Cook39s fraud and paid fair value for the car. By the time Receiver was appointed, the car had been sold by the dealer to a third party. Since being appointed, the Receiver has taken possession, custody and control of all known assets that Cook had, presumably, including the money paid by the dealer for the Maserati. Question 75: I was reading the article about the lawsuits filed in the Bernie Madoff case, and I was wondering in the Trevor Cook case, if there is a deadline for filing against alleged possessors of registry assets Also, after looking at the SEC39s Proposed Case Management Plan for Pat Kiley, are all fourteen disclosures, etc open to the public, or are they closed hearings The statute of limi