SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS-REGISTERED VESSEL SEIZED BY U. S. COAST GUARD WHEN ATTEMPTING TO SMUGGLE OIL INTO CUBA

The JAIRA PROVIDER, registered in SAINT KITTS & NEVIS, was intercepted in the Caribbean by the United States Coast Guard, carrying 210,000 gallons of illicit oil, bound for a power plant in Mariel, Cuba, in violation of the de facto American oil embargo on all petroleum shipments to that country. The United States recently announced the seizure, which took place over the Summer, this week, in connection with yet another vessel seizure of a ship attempting to smuggle oil into Cuba. The Jaira Provider, whose crew hid the oil in ballast tanks, which represent an environmental danger, due to likely leaks, was reportedly loaded in the Republic of Panama. We have no information regarding whether any Kittitians or Nevsians were on board.

We know the vessel, an offshore tug/safety & supply ship, had successfully completed a prior illicit oil delivery to Cuba. The Jaira Provider, previously registered in Tanzania,is not the first oil smuggling vessel that we have reported on in recent years, flagged in the CBI states of the Eastern Caribbean. Readers may recall our reports on illicit oil shipments to NORTH KOREA, using vessels registered in ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA and in DOMINICA. Also, shipments of sanctioned Iranian oil have been transported on tankers registered in the Eastern Caribbean.

ILLEGAL DISCOUNTING OF CITIZENSHIP BY INVESTMENT PASSPORTS CONTINUES EVEN WITH NEW REGIONAL REGULATOR IN PLACE

If you wanted proof that the illegal discounting of Citizenship by Investment (CBI/CIP) passports continues unabated, notwithstanding that a new, allegedly effective, regional regulator, is in place and supposedly on duty, an advert spotted yesterday by one of our readers, sponsored by MW IMMIGRATION, of Lahore, Pakistan, selling DOMINICA passports for USD$150,000. Kindly note the MW  logo on the upper right-hand corner of the page. No wonder the European Commission will not budge on the June 2028 termination date it has set for the end of Eastern Caribbean CBI programs; there has never been, and will never be, effective control of sellers by Dominica, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, Antigua and Grenada.

NOTE THAT THEY HAVE AN OFFICE IN CANADA. What will happen if their Canadian clients have their passports cancelled?

IF HAMILTON RESERVE BANK ALLEGES THAT ALL THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE SUED IT TO GET THEIR DEPOSITS BACK ARE MONEY LAUNDERERS, WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THEIR SELF-PROCLAIMED "SPOTLESS COMPLIANCE" PROGRAM?

As it ramps up a massive marketing campaign in Asia and the Middle East, (I am being besieged with emails touting the bank's financial solvency and availability as a valued financial resource) I note that, in all the civil litigation brought by its unhappy customers, the bank's primary defense is that they are all money launderers, tax evaders and yes, terrorist financiers. How on earth can a bank advertise SPOTLESS COMPLIANCE, when at the same time claiming its existing customers are financial criminals who also provide material support to sanctioned terrorist organizations?

Every new Hamilton client, all of whom must deposit a minimum of one million dollars (USD$1,000,000), is required to execute a sworn affidavit on Source of Funds, and provide sufficient documents to prove it. How can the bank later claim those clients are all money launderers, and the subject of pending criminal investigation in the United States (which they conveniently have not proven) and all bad actors, whom they therefore cannot disburse their own money to? This means either their compliance program is complete garbage, meaning ineffective, or they took deposits, fully intending to illegally retain them. Either way, this is not how legitimate banks are required to operate. Let potential future clients govern themselves accordingly.

HAMILTON RESERVE BANK CLAIMED THAT SKN POLICE AND NEVIS REGULATORS WERE FACILITATING FINANCIAL CRIME BY BANK CLIENTS

Omnibus Judgment, at 176.

It appears that the lawyers and law firm defending HAMILTON RESERVE BANK from customers who could not withdraw their funds on demand, are completely bereft when it comes to professional ethics. One of the victims has pointed out to me, (and this information I have confirmed in the Omnibus Judgment published on September 15) that HRB alleged that they were engaged in terrorist financing, and that such crimes were facilitated by a specific member of the Saint Kitts & Nevis Police, as well as one of the Nevis regulators. The fact that there was not factual basis for the claim did not seem to bother these attorneys. The Government facilitating terrorist financing? One of the fantastic claims asserted by the bank, to muddy the water, nothing less.

Obviously, the bank's goal here was to make sensational allegations, to delay the proceedings for years, whilst the Court examines all available evidence, to determine whether there is a grain of truth, as terrorist financing is probably the most serious claim one can advance, and which requires extensive inquiry. The have taken the term 'Dilatory" to a new level.

Will there ultimately be Defamation cases following on the heels of the resolution of the many Hamilton Revenue bank cases? What would you do, if defamed like that?

BAD FAITH IN LITIGATION: BOGUS CLAIMS THAT THE DEPOSITORS WHO SUED HAMILTON RESERVE BANK WERE MONEY LAUNDERERS

If you wanted to know why the Hamilton Reserve Bank customers who sued the bank for return of their demand deposits were outraged, it was the imposition, by bank counsel, of the defense that the depositor plaintiffs were money launderers. The bank asserted this as the principle reason why it failed to return their money to a large number of depositors. The reason for the customers' anger is that each new Hamilton Bank client was required to execute a sworn affidavit attesting to the legitimate Source of Funds for their deposit, and support it with documentary evidence. How can the bank turn around and allege money laundering? It apparently wired some of these customers' funds into banks in the United States.

This bogus defense is without any legal merit, and deserving of sanctions, against not only the bank, but the responsible lawyers as well. Additionally, alleging tax evasion and terrorist financing, without a scintilla of officially verified evidence, as a smokescreen to delay what was a very elementary legal issue, I find to be further evidence of dilatory and unethical conduct; the attorneys guilty of such unethical conduct should be brought before the tribunal that regulate their licenses, and the results of those hearings published by Caribbean media. They have clearly violated the Legal Profession Act of 2008, as amended.

Those lawyers knew very well that they could not produce evidence of pending criminal investigations in the United States. The Court graciously used the term "Mischief," as to that conduct, but I would use much stronger language, and seek to identify who at Hamilton Reserve Bank ordered that they be employed to delay and wickedly complicate the proceedings. We will be identifying those lawyers, who richly deserve sanctions or worse, so that future potential clients learn about their professional ethics history.

WHO REALLY OWNS HAMILTON RESERVE BANK?

Benjamin Wey f/k/a Benjamin Wei f/k/a Tianbing Wei 

In the United States, the names of shareholders of banks, even if they are privately owned, are subject to disclosure to regulators, but in the bank secrecy jurisdiction of Nevis, the identities of owners of offshore banks are not available to the public. The Nevis International Banking Ordinance, 2014 heavily restricts that information and designates it as confidential. This means that it is not available to the public, prospective investors or clients, journalists, and anyone else seeking corporate information.

Given the strong public interest in HAMILTON RESERVE BANK of Nevis, due to the ongoing civil litigation, and a judicial finding that the bank's license should be SUSPENDED, pending civil and criminal investigation by local law enforcement, with the support of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation or the UK Serious Fraud Office, we regard it as our obligation to identify the Beneficial Owner(s) of Hamilton.

Is BENJAMIN WEY the owner of Hamilton Reserve Bank? He is listed only as Hamilton's Senior Policy Advisor on its page of executives and senior officers, but first-hand reports from individuals who are present in the bank when Wey is present, indicate that he is definitely in charge of the institution. In a situation where there may be intention to conceal the true identity of the ultimate Beneficial Owner, Chinese family frontmen, nominees and assignees, remote family members abroad, and paid professionals are possible candidates to have their names on the stock certificates, whilst artfully concealing the identity of the true owner. Who really owns the bank?

Given that a number of American citizens and entities are known to be depositors at the bank, some of who have filed suit when their deposits were not returned to them, should not law enforcement agencies of the United States make diligent search and inquiry to identify this bank's Beneficial Owner or Owners?

HAMILTON RESERVE BANK ANNOUNCES IT WILL APPEAL NON-APPEALABLE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER; ACT OF BAD FAITH?

In a press release dated September 16, 2026, HAMILTON RESERVE BANK has announced that it intends to appeal the order of the High Court in Nevis, entered on September 25, 2026, requiring the bank to disburse $80 million of their funds to its depositors. As we have previously reported, the order stated that "Leave to appeal generally is refused, " and even if such language was not included, in our opinion it constitutes an interlocutory order, not a final judgment disposing of all relevant issues in the case, and therefore, it does not constitute an appealable order. The bank's intention to appeal under these circumstances, while incredibly arrogant, may ultimately be considered Contempt of Court.

This means that the disbursement of their deposits to the victims, as ordered, will not go forward on the 29th of October, and they will not be receiving the funds from their account. Given that the Court expressly warned that there would be serious consequences if the order was not properly obeyed, contempt proceedings, arrests of officers, or other punitive or corrective sanctions may follow.

Is this a Bad Faith response to a 222-page lawful court order? We note that the bank's defenses to the multiple lawsuits demanding that victims' funds be released forthwith have been met with dilatory actions by bank counsel, unproven allegations that the victims are tax evaders and money launderers, and other responses which were obviously interposed solely for the purposes of delay, and not to assert valid defenses in law or equity. Many legal authorities would consider such actions to be conducted in Bad Faith, and that sanctions should lie against the bank for such misconduct, as well as ethical complaints against the attorneys who filed such pleadings.

We will be monitoring the Court of Appeal, and will be reporting back to our readers on all developments as they occur. Will an appeal filed be rejected out of hand? We cannot say, but we will be watching.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST REARS ITS ANGRY HEAD IN NEVIS

In the aftermath of the suggestion by the judge in the  HAMILTON RESERVE BANK litigation that PREMIER MARK BRANTLEY suspend the bank's license, pending a civil and criminal investigation of its conduct, Nevesians are pointing out his multiple Conflicts of Interest that are on open display; he is using the Office of the Premier  as a conduit to his law firm, where millions of dollars are made.

First, on the law firm website, he deliberately listed his name as "Hon. Mark Brantley," and not Mark Brantley Attorney at Law, which is an explicit reminder to potential investors of his role as the Premier of Nevis. This is an indirect but powerful direction to investors towards his law firm without actually telling them where to go.

Second, his firm advertises that it can license international banks. Of course, as the Premier as well as Minister of Finance, he alone as the power, not only to grant such licenses, but also the responsibility to regulate, supervise and even sanction, them. He is the same man, who can incorporate s bank, grant it a license, and then subsequently regulate it. Many observers have deemed this Misfeasance or Malfeasance in Public Office, by definition.

Third, the premier has been the Minister of Energy since 2013, meaning that he has ministerial responsibility for NEVLEC, the Government's wholly-owned electricity utility, and from what the record shows, his law firm has been closely involved since then, from the incorporation of Nevis Renewable Energy International or NREI, to the legal Retainer for NEVLEC, to Dispute Resolution in NREI vs. Drillers. How is all this not a Conflict of Interest?

Nevis deserves better; the question is, will it ever get it?

WILL HAMILTON RESERVE BANK DISOBEY THE COURT ORDER OR PAY ITS DEPOSITORS ON OCTOBER 29?

On September 15, 2026, Nevis High Court Justice Iain Morley ordered HAMILTON RESERVE BANK, formerly known as Nevis International Bank and Trust, to pay over to the bank's depositors listed in the Order, their demand deposits, by 9:00AM local time on October 29, 2026. Whether the Bank will indeed tender the payments, in full, in accordance with the Omnibus Judgment, has been the subject of intense speculation in the Caribbean, as well as whether the Court, if payments are not timely made, authorize further action against the bank, including but not limited to:

(1) Issuing a Writ of Execution and Control, authorizing the seizure of bank assets, wherever they may be found, including at the bank's principal place of business in Nevis, thereby executing upon the Judgment.

(2) Issuing warrants for the arrest of bank officers and/or directors, so that they may be brought before the Court, to show cause why they should not be held in Contempt of Court, or taken into custody, pending compliance with the Judgment.

As the future of Offshore Banking in Nevis could depend upon the bank's actions on October 29, we will be reporting on all developments in this matter, as soon as they occur.

ANTIGUA'S DESPERATE PRIME MINISTER TELLS HIS GULLIBLE VOTERS HE'S NEGOTIATING FOR A THREE YEAR "TRANSITION PERIOD," SO HE CAN RAM THROUGH AS MANY PASSPORT SALES AS POSSIBLE

GASTON BROWNE and ST. LUCIA PM PHILIP J. PIERRE* had a meeting in New York this week, amidst the United Nations General Assembly opening session, with a representative of the European Commission, seeking to extract more time, before the 6/28 EU hammer comes down on all jurisdictions that choose to maintain Citizenship by Investment (CIP) programs. They want more time, three years, which they deign to call a Transition Period."

These Caribbean leaders must think that their negotiating powers will convince an unbelieving European Commission that their rogue programs, which caused all the problems, deserve even more time to sell passports to career white collar criminals, intelligence officers, international sanctions evaders, and the Usual Suspects, all of whom present a danger to the European Union. We doubt that they can save their programs from their existential threats.

Meanwhile, these leaders continue to lay it on thick to their constituents, claiming that they are effectively keeping the EU wolf away from the door. The reality of the situation is far more dire than they let on. Say goodbye to CIP, gentlemen, sooner rather than later.

_______________________________________________ *The Prime Ministers from St. Kitts & Nevis, Dominica and Grenada did not show up. Did they fear arrest, perhaps, or just close surveillance of their movements?

CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN A BANK DIRECTOR CAN BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR MISCONDUCT OF HIS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION - HAMILTON RESERVE BANK

HELENE LEWIS, Legal Advisor Nevis Island Administration

As Hugh Sowards, the law school professor in my old class in Business Associations was fond of saying, " Directors must Direct," and as he wrote the casebook on corporations we all used, he definitely knew his subject, Most people incorrectly assume that the directors of a bank are not personally liable for misconduct of the financial institution that they are charged with supervising, but in truth and in fact, there are circumstances where liability does absolutely attach, and the HAMILTON RESERVE BANK scandal is one of them.

(1) Bank directors can be held personally liable for bank misconduct when they breach their fiduciary duties. They owe a strict duty of care and loyalty not only to shareholders but also to depositors and the public trust.

(2) Failure of oversight:Directors can be personally liable if they completely ignore "red flags" or repeatedly fail to address explicit warnings and criticisms about bank actions. Passive or intentionally inattentive board service can be legally construed as a breach of oversight duties.

(3) Criminal Conduct and Fraud: Directors face direct criminal and personal civil liability if they knowingly participate in illegal acts, such as falsifying bank books, hiding material financial facts, misappropriating assets, or committing securities fraud.

In the Hamilton Reserve Bank case, Director HOWARD A. LEWIS, a resident director of the bank, had first-hand knowledge of its daily operation, including all active litigation against the bank by depositors who were unable to receive their demand deposits upon request, as well as other claims against the bank. He is therefore personally liable, upon any of the bases detailed above. He also held the position of ENTERPRISE RISK OFFICER at the bank, due to his former experience in compliance and government service.

Furthermore, as a part of the financial incest that infects Nevis, Mr. Lewis' wife, HELENE LEWIS, is the LEGAL ADVISOR FOR NEVIS ISLAND ADMINISTRATION. An attorney, she is responsible for statutory compliance with the laws of that jurisdiction, as she must certainly was completely aware of the multiple complaints filed with Government regarding the bank's default in remitting funds to its depositors, as well as the attendant civil litigation. There is a presumption that she notified her husband of those problems, which of course he was painfully aware of by reason of his position.

Therefore, he is, by definition personally liable under any interpretation of the law; frankly, I am surprised that he has not, as yet, been named as a party defendant by any of the victims, but as the scandal further unfolds, it is likely that he will be drawn in. Any possible or potential civil or criminal liability of Helene Lewis, or any other government official in Nevis, is outside the scope of this article.

WILL THEIR POTENTIAL SENTENCE CAUSE NICOLAS MADURO AND HIS WIFE, CELIA FLORES DE MADURO TO EVENTUALLY PLEAD OUT AND COOPERATE?

Here is a portion of the recent Government's Memorandum of Law, in opposition to Celia Flores' quest for pre-trial release. Note that she faces a Mandatory Minimum sentence of forty (40) years, which is in effect a Life Sentence. Given that ALEX SAAB MORAN has already pled guilty in his Miami case, which means he will be testifying against the Maduros, their conviction by a jury has a high probability of success.

Will she and her husband ultimately plead out? That should be considered a strong possibility, which could result in these defendants incriminating individuals in Antigua and Dominica, who had a hand in laundering the drug proceeds, and Venezuelan government funds illegally diverted by the Maduro criminal organization. If you were facing 40 years, your options are extremely limited, no matter what your lawyers say.

TONIGHT AT 8 P.M. EDT/AT, I DISCUSS CARIBBEAN CORRUPTION

 

SOURCE: NEVIS PREMIER ORDERED REGULATORY AGENCY NOT TO TAKE ANY ACTION AGAINST ROGUE OFFSHORE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, HAMILTON RESERVE BANK AND BONI

For those readers who have been asking why the FINANCIAL SERVICES REGULATORY COMMISSION (Nevis Branch) has failed to supervise the two principal offshore banks in Nevis, HAMILTON RESERVE BANK and BONI [BANK OF NEW INNOVATION], reliable sources inside the country report that the Premier, MARK BRANTLEY, specifically ordered regulatory staff members not to take any action. This was ordered, notwithstanding that both banks had serious defaulted on allowing depositors to withdraw funds from their demand accounts.

While we must refrain from identifying our sources by name, they are prominent members of the country's business community; to reveal them at this time could place them in personal physical danger. Compliance officers around the world have wondered aloud how a financial institution could be allowed to retain its license, when evidence of what might be interpreted as insolvency, fraud, material mismanagement, or illegal asset diversion has surfaced.

Whether this new disclosure will result in American compliance officers raise Saint Kitts & Nevis to the highest level, regarding their assessment of Country Risk, is a distinct possibility. Indeed, the entire country's financial structure could be red-lined as the result, causing international banks to decline any wire transfer requests, or the closing of the banks' correspondent accounts.

The financial world anxiously awaits the end of October deadline for both banks to make payment on their demand deposits to their customers; it is feared that they will default and violate the court order, and given the dilatory history of bank counsel in the active litigation, the odds are that this will be the case; Stay tuned.

PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL SCHEDULE IN NICOLAS MADURO MOROS CASE, AS POSTED ON COURT DOCKET

"The parties' proposed schedule is adopted. Oral argument on the first round of defense pretrial motions shall be held on November 17, 2026 at I 0:30 am.

 The final pretrial conference shall be held on May 25, 2027 at 11:00 am. 

Trial will begin June 1, 2027. 

Defense Motions (first round) due by 9/2/2026. 

Government Response (first round) due by 10/2/2026.

 Defense Replies (first round) due by 10/16/2026 

Defense Motions (second round) due by 1/11/2027. 

Government Response (second round) due by 2/18/2027. 

Defense Replies (second round) due by 3/11/2027.

Motions due by 3/11/2027. 

Responses due by 2/18/2027.

Replies due by 3/11/2027. 

Oral Argument set for 11/17/2026 at 10:30 AM before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. 

Pretrial Conference set for 5/25/2027 at 11:00 AM before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein). 

Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein"