Sharon Lexa Lamb, the reputed leader of the Cayman Gang of Four, who is being sued for the theft of $450m, by a Canadian investor, has filed a counterclaim for defamation, against the plaintiff, as well as two whistle blowers, including this blogger, in an effort to control further news about her central role in the massive Cayman Islands trading scandal. She also has avoided any responsibility for the losses, which occurred when Lamb illegally transferred the victim's funds, which was a violation of her fiduciary responsibilities.
Lamb, who has previously threatened legal action, should her name be mentioned in coverage of the illegal transfer of investor money to a shell company controlled by a known fraudster, Canadian national Ryan Bateman, alleges that the plaintiff, a prominent retired Toronto attorney and Queen's Counsel, improperly assisted whistle blowers, by giving them details of the case, including threats and demands made by Lamb's counsel, which counsel did not want made public. The plaintiff has reportedly denied the defendant's allegations.
Suing a whistle blower, what is generally referred to as "shoot the messenger," is a futile effort to control the flow of news about the case to the investing public, including the other sixty victims of the Gang of Four, who are financial professionals accused of looting hundreds of millions of dollars of investors' money, for their own use. Lamb alleges that the news about the scandal amounts to defamation, though the truth about her prominent role in the fraud is supported by documentary evidence.
The case has been cited as a prime example of the repeated failure of the Cayman Monetary Authority, CIMA, to take any action to protect foreign investors who lose assets placed in the Cayman Islands. CIMA has not shut down B & C Capital, Ltd., the Gang's corporate entity, which took the victims' money, nor even interviewed the members of the Gang of Four, who are Sharon Lexa Lamb, Ryan Bateman, Fernando Mota Mendes, and Derek Buntain. Is CIMA merely a paper tiger, who never displays its regulatory enforcement teeth, when confronted with financial crime ? Should it be disbanded, and replaced with an effective agency ?
|Ineffective and toothless ?|
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.