HENG SHENG CBI FRAUD IN GRENADA EXPOSED BY INSIDER

This scandal is unfolding in plain sight, driven by public statements made by a former employee of the Heng Sheng–linked CBI operation, who is now openly accusing his former employer of conduct that appears to cross the line from unethical business practices into potential financial and document fraud within Grenada’s citizenship-by-investment (CBI) program. The disclosures are not anonymous;They are not being leaked quietly to regulators. They are posted publicly, visible to banks, compliance officers, foreign governments, and law‑enforcement agencies worldwide.

From discounting to document fraud; In a detailed LinkedIn post, Galli Kureleh, formerly associated with the Heng Sheng–connected Grenada National Resort project, alleged that CBI discounting has resumed—but now through a structure that dramatically escalates legal exposure. According to Kureleh, applicants are allegedly being issued “cash payment” receipts showing the full required CBI price, while the actual wired amount reflects a discounted payment. If accurate, this describes a dual‑track misrepresentation scheme: one financial narrative submitted to Grenadian authorities, and another reflecting the true amount transferred. This is no longer a commercial dispute; It is false documentation submitted to a sovereign state.

Grenadian authorities have been accused of looking the other way. Most damaging of all, Kureleh does not limit his allegations to private actors. He states publicly that Grenadian authorities are effectively closing their eyes to this conduct, questioning why documentation that allegedly fails to reflect actual financial flows is being accepted at all. Kureleh explicitly pointed to the Investment Migration Agency Grenada as the authority accepting these so‑called “cash receipts,” despite the apparent discrepancy between receipts and actual wire transfers. If true, this constitutes regulatory willful blindness. He also disclosed that 30,000 to 40,000 passports will be issued just for Heng Sheng CBI, and they will all be shortly appearing in person in Grenada, acting as best friends of the native-born Grenadian citizens.

Direct Accountability at the top: Oversight responsibility ultimately rests with Thomas Anthony, Chief Executive Officer of the Investment Migration Agency Grenada, the government body legally mandated to enforce compliance, verify source of funds, and protect the integrity of the Grenadian passport. Given the public and technically specific nature of these allegations, the silence from the agency raises serious questions about enforcement and oversight.

There is escalating political and U.S. legal exposure. Responsibility does not stop at the agency level. If Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell fails to take immediate and visible action, this matter risks rapidly moving outside Grenada’s jurisdictional control. According to Kureleh’s allegations, the U.S. banking system is being used to wire funds connected to these transactions. The moment U.S. correspondent banks are involved, jurisdiction attaches automatically. At that point, this becomes a United States Federal matter potentially involving wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, and false statements to U.S. financial institutions. Kureleh could become a material witness in a U.S. Federal CBI fraud investigation if supporting documentation emerges.

Money laundering, misrepresentation and applicant endangerment could now exist. If substantiated, these practices expose applicants to passport revocation, visa bans by the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union, and permanent inclusion in financial‑crime and intelligence databases. The result is the end of plausible deniability. When insiders publicly accuse promoters and regulators alike, the window for plausible deniability closes rapidly. Silence becomes evidence of tolerance.

In a final assessment, These remain allegations, not judicial findings. But they are public, specific, technically detailed, and involve the U.S. banking system. The question is no longer whether this will be examined, but who will be held accountable when financial records are finally compared line by line.