Merchant Account Providers - Beware Of The Bogus

shocking truth about singapore

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:17:00 +0000

Shocking Truths About These Singapore Banks...WATCH THIS VIDEO Before You INVEST In Any Bank or Payment Gateway...It is a Devil's Playground...SAFE??? As SAFE As HELL.

سنغافورة تستثمر

Sue eNETS Pte Ltd & Chainfusion Ltd

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 03:03:00 +0000

WHY SUE ENETS-BUYBUTTONZ aka eNETS Pte Ltd & Chainfusion Ltd?

Duty of directors - eNETS Pte Ltd & Chainfusion Ltd FAILED!
The directors are required to exercise due care in the exercise of their duties. If they fail to do so, they can be made personally liable for the loss. Their personal assets can be seized to pay the judgment sums. If they are unable to satisfy the judgment, they can be subjected to bankruptcy proceedings.

The directors are jointly and severally liable.

Other directors sitting on board can be sued together because of the wrongful acts of one director.

The litigation process can last for many years and can be very costly. This is stressful to the directors. The duties placed upon the directors are ever-changing and increasing.

What are the wrongful acts?

Wrongful acts are broadly defined as actual or alleged breach of duty, breach of trust, neglect, error, misstatement, misleading statement, omission, breach of warranty of authority or other wrongful acts committed by the directors or officers in their respective capacities in managing the company.

Who may sue the directors and officers, and why should they sue?

* Shareholders - drop in share price as a result of min-management or mis-statement
* Employees - wrongful termination, breach of employment contract
* Regulators - dishonesty, fraud and environmental liabilities
* Creditors - debt collection
* Customers / Suppliers - contract disputes as a result of mis-statement
* Competitors - copyright and/or patent infringement
* Others such as receivers, liquidators and professional consultants

cfbizconnect.com

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:05:00 +0000

ChainFusion's Other Site. SCAM?FRAUD?

S$1.1 Million GONE.

http://cfbizconnect.com/index.html
cfBizConnect.com is a division of ChainFusion Limited. We provide more than IT Solutions. In this Internet Era, companies MUST INTEGRATE their Businesses with the Internet to gain a competitive advantage in this fast-moving economy. As the name implies, cfBizConnect.com seeks to connect YOUR BUSINESS with the INTERNET.

http://cfbizconnect.com/onlinepayment.html

Integrating your Business with the Internet. Create an online presence for your business.

Web Design, Web Development, eCommerce, Shopping Cart, Zen Cart, Online Payment, 12ePay, ChainFusion, cfBizConnect, Internet Business, Internet Marketing, Web Solutions, Business Startup, Web Consultancy, Online Shop, Web Applications, osCommerce, One-Stop IT Solution, Turn-Key Web Applications, Online Business, Web Hosting, Affordable Web Hosting, Visa, MasterCart, WorldPay, PayPal, WorldPay, Open Source

DBS, Citibank let S$1.1 Million through 4 Check Books of Forged Checks!

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:56:00 +0000

新加坡统计犯 ?

ENETS-BUYBUTTONZ STRATEGIC ALLIANCE'S

HEAD OF FINANCE

WANG LIANG HAO, S7204009J

enets-BuyButtonz Users It's Time To UNITE & And SPEAK UP For JUSTICE!

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:45:00 +0000

Were YOU An eNETS-BuyButtonz User?

Were YOU Misled By eNETS?

Does eNETS-BuyButtonz OWE YOU MONEY???

Well, eNETS is not taking responsibility over their service and their STRATEGIC ALLY, CHAINFUSION LTD is trying to wind up and let bygones be bygones....

I WON'T LET THEM! YOU SHOULD'NT!

Join our team of eNETS-BuyButtonz Victims! Those in the MINIBONDS invested in a product, yet they were compensated.

WE MERELY USED A SERVICE ! JOINTLY OPERATED BY ENETS PTE LTD and CHAINFUSION LTD! eNETS-BUYBUTTONZ TOOK MONEY FROM OUR CUSTOMERS AND NEVER RETURNED IT BACK TO US!

Email Us At netizensofasia@gmail.com

eNETS PTE LTD Remains SILENT.

CHAINFUSION LTD is trying to WIND UP!

Declaration of solvency
293. —(1) Where it is proposed to wind up a company voluntarily, the directors of the company, or in the case of a company having more than 2 directors, the majority of the directors shall, in the case of a members’ voluntary winding up before the date on which the notices of the meeting at which the resolution for the winding up of the company is to be proposed are sent out, make a declaration to the effect that they have made an inquiry into the affairs of the company, and that, at a meeting of directors, have formed the opinion that the company will be able to pay its debts in full within a period not exceeding 12 months after the commencement of the winding up.

[13/87;12/2002]

(2) There shall be attached to the declaration a statement of affairs of the company showing, in the prescribed form —

(a) the assets of the company and the total amount expected to be realised therefrom;

(b) the liabilities of the company; and

(c) the estimated expenses of winding up, made up to the latest practicable date before the making of the declaration. (3) A declaration so made shall have no effect for the purposes of this Act unless it is —

(a) made at the meeting of directors referred to in subsection (1);

(b) made within 5 weeks immediately preceding the passing of the resolution for voluntary winding up; and

(c) lodged with the Registrar before the date on which the notices of the meeting at which the resolution for the winding up of the company is to be proposed are sent out. (4) A director, who makes a declaration under this section without having reasonable grounds for the opinion that the company will be able to pay its debts in full within the period stated in the declaration, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.

[15/84]

(5) If the company is wound up in pursuance of a resolution for voluntary winding up passed within a period of 5 weeks after the making of the declaration, but its debts are not paid or provided for in full within the period stated in the declaration, it shall be presumed until the contrary is shown that the director did not have reasonable grounds for his opinion. [UK, 1948, s. 283; Aust., 1961, s. 257]

REFERENCES FOUND FROM:
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/NoIncSearch.pl?type=simple&db=act&version=currentVersion&date=20081115&mode=and&query1=Declaration+of+solvency&dborcap=database&Capno=&hits=10&search=Search

lehmanenetscp1.jpg hosted at ImageShack.us

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 15:39:00 +0000

Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

eNETS-BUYBUTTONZ , Shared Merchant ID

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:56:00 +0000

Defamation? I read that there are Umbrellas with the words " DBS is a BANDIT " *Hello eNETS, this is a quote and I don't own any of the umbrellas but KUDOS to ALL WHOM HAVE IT! Where can I buy it?

CLICK ON THE PHOTO TO VIEW THE FULL DETAILS.

eNETS Mislead? HELL vs Singapore?

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:46:00 +0000

DBS BANK PTE LTD...mine is as bad or worse..eNETS and NETS!

Meet The People Session, We Await To See What Good Can Come Of It.

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:46:00 +0000

eNETS PTE LTD

vs

NETIZEN WHOM eNETS MISLED INTO MISFORTUNE

OK, Apology Done! Now Back To CHAINFUSION LTD

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:26:00 +0000

Slippery Situation, $1.1 Million Lost, My Monies Are AMongst What They Lost.....

WITHOUT PREJUDICE: Apology to Singapore's Largest Online Payment Gateway - Annexed 27/08/2008

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:51:00 +0000

WITHOUT PREJUDICE:

Dear (?),

I am sorry for the fair comments that I made.

All in All!

This Blog and any media is meant to alert the public

on the dangers of the BuyButtonz service.

I am sorry. It is not done with malice.

Youtube video not online anymore.

Blog is online for future references.

Thank you for accepting my apology.

Yours Sincerely

Belle

PS. My money is still being owed, please help me.

DUTIES OF CERTIFICATION AUTHORITIES - ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT (CHAPTER 88)

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:31:00 +0000

PART VIII
DUTIES OF CERTIFICATION AUTHORITIES

Trustworthy system
27. A certification authority must utilise trustworthy systems in performing its services.

28. Disclosure
(1) A certification authority shall disclose —
(a) its certificate that contains the public key corresponding to the private key used by that certification authority to digitally sign another certificate (referred to in this section as a certification authority certificate);
(b) any relevant certification practice statement;
(c) notice of the revocation or suspension of its certification authority certificate; and
(d) any other fact that materially and adversely affects either the reliability of a certificate that the authority has issued or the authority"s ability to perform its services.

(2) In the event of an occurrence that materially and adversely affects a certification authority’s trustworthy system or its certification authority certificate, the certification authority shall -
(a) use reasonable efforts to notify any person who is known to be or foreseeably will be affected by that occurrence; or
(b) act in accordance with procedures governing such an occurrence specified in its certification practice statement.

Issue of certificate

29. —
(1) A certification authority may issue a certificate to a prospective subscriber only after the certification authority —
(a) has received a request for issuance from the prospective subscriber; and
(b) has —
(i) if it has a certification practice statement, complied with all of the practices and procedures set forth in such certification practice statement including procedures regarding identification of the prospective subscriber; or
(ii) in the absence of a certification practice statement, complied with the conditions in subsection (2).

(2) In the absence of a certification practice statement, the certification authority shall confirm by itself or through an authorised agent that —
(a) the prospective subscriber is the person to be listed in the certificate to be issued;
(b) if the prospective subscriber is acting through one or more agents, the subscriber authorised the agent to have custody of the subscriber’s private key and to request issuance of a certificate listing the corresponding public key;
(c) the information in the certificate to be issued is accurate;
(d) the prospective subscriber rightfully holds the private key corresponding to the public key to be listed in the certificate;
(e) the prospective subscriber holds a private key capable of creating a digital signature; and
(f) the public key to be listed in the certificate can be used to verify a digital signature affixed by the private key held by the prospective subscriber.
Representations upon issuance of certificate30. —(1) By issuing a certificate, a certification authority represents to any person who reasonably relies on the certificate or a digital signature verifiable by the public key listed in the certificate that the certification authority has issued the certificate in accordance with any applicable certification practice statement incorporated by reference in the certificate, or of which the relying person has notice.

(2) In the absence of such certification practice statement, the certification authority represents that it has confirmed that —

(a) the certification authority has complied with all applicable requirements of this Act in issuing the certificate, and if the certification authority has published the certificate or otherwise made it available to such relying person, that the subscriber listed in the certificate has accepted it;
(b) the subscriber identified in the certificate holds the private key corresponding to the public key listed in the certificate;
(c) the subscriber’s public key and private key constitute a functioning key pair;
(d) all information in the certificate is accurate, unless the certification authority has stated in the certificate or incorporated by reference in the certificate a statement that the accuracy of specified information is not confirmed; and
(e) the certification authority has no knowledge of any material fact which if it had been included in the certificate would adversely affect the reliability of the representations in paragraphs (a) to (d).

(3) Where there is an applicable certification practice statement which has been incorporated by reference in the certificate, or of which the relying person has notice, subsection (2) shall apply to the extent that the representations are not inconsistent with the certification practice statement.

Suspension of certificate
31. Unless the certification authority and the subscriber agree otherwise, the certification authority that issued a certificate shall suspend the certificate as soon as possible after receiving a request by a person whom the certification authority reasonably believes to be —
(a) the subscriber listed in the certificate;
(b) a person duly authorised to act for that subscriber; or
(c) a person acting on behalf of that subscriber, who is unavailable.

Revocation of certificate
32. A certification authority shall revoke a certificate that it issued —

(a) after receiving a request for revocation by the subscriber named in the certificate; and confirming that the person requesting the revocation is the subscriber, or is an agent of the subscriber with authority to request the revocation;
(b) after receiving a certified copy of the subscriber’s death certificate, or upon confirming by other evidence that the subscriber is dead; or
(c) upon presentation of documents effecting a dissolution of the subscriber, or upon confirming by other evidence that the subscriber has been dissolved or has ceased to exist.

Revocation without subscriber’s consent
33. —

(1) A certification authority shall revoke a certificate, regardless of whether the subscriber listed in the certificate consents, if the certification authority confirms that —
(a) a material fact represented in the certificate is false;
(b) a requirement for issuance of the certificate was not satisfied;
(c) the certification authority’s private key or trustworthy system was compromised in a manner materially affecting the certificate"s reliability;
(d) an individual subscriber is dead; or
(e) a subscriber has been dissolved, wound-up or otherwise ceased to exist.

(2) Upon effecting such a revocation, other than under subsection (1) (d) or (e), the certification authority shall immediately notify the subscriber listed in the revoked certificate.

Notice of suspension
34. —
(1) Immediately upon suspension of a certificate by a certification authority, the certification authority shall publish a signed notice of the suspension in the repository specified in the certificate for publication of notice of suspension.

(2) Where one or more repositories are specified, the certification authority shall publish signed notices of the suspension in all such repositories.

Notice of revocation
35. —
(1) Immediately upon revocation of a certificate by a certification authority, the certification authority shall publish a signed notice of the revocation in the repository specified in the certificate for publication of notice of revocation.

(2) Where one or more repositories are specified, the certification authority shall publish signed notices of the revocation in all such repositories.

Defamation? Can I sue a company for false accusation of defamation?

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:01:00 +0000

Chapter XXI: Defamation

Defamation – A person criminally defames another person when he or she, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes
any imputation concerning the other person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason
to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person.[111] An imputation harms a person’s reputation if it directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect
of his or her caste or calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.[112]

There are 10 exceptions to the offence:

Imputation of any truth which the public good requires to be made or published –
It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it is for the public good that the imputation should be made or published.

Public conduct of public servants
It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any discharge of his or her public functions, or respecting his or her character, so far as his or her character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Conduct of any person touching any public question
It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his or her character, so far as his or her character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Publication of reports of proceedings of courts of justice, etc.
It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice, or of Parliament, or of the result of any such proceedings.

Merits of case decided in a court of justice; or conduct of witnesses and others concerned therein It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a court of justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his or her character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Merits of a public performance
It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his or her character appears in such performance, and no further.

Censure passed in good faith by a person having lawful authority over another
It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law, or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.

Accusation preferred in good faith to a duly authorised person
It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of the accusation.

Imputation made in good faith by a person for the protection of his or her interests
It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided that the imputation is made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it,
or of any other person, or for the public good.

Caution intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed or for the public good
It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that the caution is intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.

The punishment for defamation is imprisonment of up to two years, or with a fine, or both.[113]

Why did they return my petition and plea with a defamation claim?

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:56:00 +0000

Is there a member of the Singapore Authority that can help me?

I just explained to Singapore's Largest Online Payment Gateway that I have no money to hire big time lawyers because my monies are stuck with Chainfusion Limited...and was hoping that someone in (?) would ask Chainfusion Limited to return the monies that belong to me! That was all !

but all I received is a registered letter from a lawyer sent by (?) claiming the facts and truth I have shared with the netizen community is defamation???

the video was shown to explain how I came to know about BuyButtonz and how this all started..all the information stated here or anywhere is 100% True!

i don't want to post on the Speakers Forum because I love my country, I truly am seeking for help? I would'nt have started and sent the petition if my intention was to defame...

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/singapore_desperatecry/ I sent this in the hope of help is that defamation?

In response to my desperate Plea, I received a lawyer's letter...is my fair comment of my disappointment a form of defamation as well? I don't know ?

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:03:00 +0000

My Pure & True Intent Of This Blog & Of Anything I Share With Regards To My Misfortune:

That NO ONE ELSE will suffer like I did.

In the HOPE that someone who is willing and can help WILL HELP ME!

That Chainfusion Limited will return my monies ASAP!

After the lawyer's letter, I am dumbfounded. So wronged and helpless, even on the net I can't share the TRUTH...isnt it supposed to be the WORLD WIDE WEB? And EVERYTHING I EVER STATED AND SHARED WITH ON THIS BLOG OR YOUTUBE OR ANYWHERE IS 100% TRUTH. If I get CRUXIFIED FOR TELLING THE TRUTH in Singapore then so be it because the TRUTH is what I will share to prevent other misfortunes

I don't understand why they would react in such a manner?

All I was seeking was some help...genuine help...but I got a lawyer's letter.

After this shocking episode on the 27th of August 2008, I went to the LAW.com dictionary to check myself to see if I did defame? I am not a lawyer? I am just a netizen caught in a bad situation and sharing my experience with the world...anyway I looked it up here it is:

Thanks to http://dictionary.law.com/

Courtesy of The People's Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill

(Publisher Fine Communications)

I TOLD THE TRUTH & I WILL KEEP TELLING THE TRUTH.

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that I made FAIR COMMENTS. I know that every country has their own set of laws so I looked up the Singapore Defamation Act. AND I AM NOT QUOTING BUT JUST MERELY LETTING NETIZENS KNOW THAT on the website of the Statutes of Singapore : http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-75&doctitle=DEFAMATION%20ACT%0A&date=latest&method=part&sl=1

* Please Take Note That I Am Doing Reported Speech And NOT QUOTING

Fair comment By Singapore Law Standards:
In regards to taking a legal action against Defamation or in legal terms libel or slander in respect of words consisting partly of allegations of fact and partly of expression of opinion, a defence of fair comment shall not fail by reason only that the TRUTH of every allegation of fact is not proved if the expression of opinion is fair comment having regard to such of the facts alleged or referred to in the words complained of as are proved.

Thanks to http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-75&doctitle=DEFAMATION%20ACT%0A&date=latest&method=part&sl=1 for the explanation of Fair Comment Abiding By Singapore LAW.

This is not the first time I am declaring that my pure intentions of this blog and other forms of sharing my experience and my mission of Asiamerchants on Blogger.com is EVIDENT in my Blog TITLE. Once again " Share Your Own Story, Save a Life "

It's a good thing I have the Prayer For When In Times Of Trouble & Despair Written On The Same Blog! It's time for heavenly intervention!

What Happens To A Singapore Version Of Michael Faye? Criminal Breach Of Trust vs Vandalism

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 06:01:00 +0000

* UPDATE: Our Lawyer Informed Us That There Is An Arbitration Condition In The Contract. It Will Cost Approximately $2000 to $3000 SGD Per Day For Arbitration Cases.

WITH CHAINFUSION LIMITED HOLDING ALL OUR MONIES THEY ARE PRACTICALLY FORCING US TO DESPERATION AND THEREFORE OUR PUBLIC OUTCRY OF THIS INJUSTICE!

WE WILL NOT SUFFER IN SILENCE WE WILL SHOUT TO THE ASIAN AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY FOR JUSTICE IN SINGAPORE! WILL THIS DRAG TILL SEPTEMBER 2008... WE HOPE NOT.

ALL WE WANT IS OUR EARNINGS! CHAINFUSION LIMITED HAS A TEAM OF WELL KNOWN LAWYERS PROTECTING THEM. THIS IS SHOCKING, FOR AN AMERICAN COMPANY TO SUFFER SUCH INJUSTICE and PREJUDICE...PURPOSEFUL ORGANIZED CRIME DONE TO CORNER OUR COMPANY.

THIS CASE WILL NOT REMAIN UNHEARD, IT WILL BE IN THE AMERICAN HISTORY OF BUSINESSES SET UP IN SINGAPORE RECEIVING SUCH TREATMENT FROM ALLIES.

THEY DISREGARD CLINTON ON MICHAEL FAYE, NOT ACCEPTABLE BUT AS THE BOY DID WRONG IT IS SINGAPORE'S PEROGATIVE. NOW, THIS SINGAPORE COMPANY HAS COMMITTED CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST AGAINST AN AMERICAN SUBSIDIARY IN SINGAPORE.

WHAT HAPPENS TO SINGAPORE'S OWN VERSION OF MICHAEL FAYE?

SHOULD THE AMERICAN AUTHORITIES GIVE CHAINFUSION LIMITED A LASHING OF THE CANE AS WELL AND SHAME THEM INTERNATIONALLY? OR ARE THESE LAWS AND REGULATIONS BIAS AGAINST AMERICANS ONLY.

If Nothing Continues To Be Done. We Will Seek The Assistance Of Our American Partners and The American Embassy in Singapore

Chainfusion Head of Financial Services caught in the act - Youtube

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:41:00 +0000

Mr C. Hao Wang aka Mr Kliff Wang aka Mr Wang Liang Hao aka Chainfusion Limited, Head of Financial Services CAUGHT IN THE ACT! IN THE CHAINFUSION OFFICE AT 289 BEACH ROAD, DAO YEW KONG ( Operations Director ) and ONG KIAN WEI ( Managing Director ) ARE THE OTHER TWO IN THE OFFICE ASSISTING WANG LIANG HAO ON THIS VIDEO.

Video has been removed from the public eye.

Keelan Wainright Limited's Address

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:21:00 +0000

201 The Rogers Office Building, Edwin Wallace Rey Drive, George Hill, Anguilla

You Can Share Tan Jee Lee's Address in Anguilla Too!
Just Click Here: http://www.gcsl.info/html/OrderForm.pdf

Just A Few Of The Other Shelf Companies or Offshore Companies:

http://www.anguillafsc.com/directory-Companymanager.html

www.fsc.org.ai/market.htm
http://www.pmalawyers.com/offices.asp
http://amikod.com/

GLOBAL TRUSTEES (ANGUILLA) LIMITED
http://abfoundationlimited.com/index.php?page=4

Akiris Inc.201 The Rogers Office BuildingEdwin Wallace Rey DriveGeorge HillAnguilla (British West Indies)

He Will Make A Way - Pray In Times Of Trouble

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:13:00 +0000

* Thanks Br Andrew :o) for being God's Messenger I needed that message.

After so long a trial, I finally broke down today..Because I found out that Keelan Wainright Limited is a company registered in Anguilla. And their registered address is virtual or borrowed.

Gerald went down to Keelan Wainright Capital Pte Ltd and it was also a law firm beside a temple. 65 Pagoda Street. I just felt so lost, so much pain, so much anger... I picked up my phone and started smsing nonsense to the man who plotted and planned this whole fiasco. Whose smooth lies I so gullibly believed. " Don't Worry, the monies will be transferred. "

All may seem lost and hopeless but I cling to my faith in a GOD who created this earth. Thanks Br. Andrew & All Who Have Been Praying For Us! Keep Praying,

We Will Keep Fighting On And Claim The Vistory!

"Prayer in Time of Trouble"

Lord, in every need let me come to You with humble trust saying, "Jesus, help me."
In all my doubts, perplexities, and temptations, Jesus, help me. In hours of loneliness,weariness, and trials, Jesus, help me.

In the failure of my plans and hopes; in disappointments, troubles, and sorrows, " Jesus, help me."

When others fail me and Your grace alone can assist me, help me.

When I throw myself on Your tender love as a father and savior, " Jesus, help me."

When my heart is cast down by failure at seeing no good come from my efforts, "Jesus, help me."

When I feel impatient and my cross irritates me, "Jesus, help me."

When I am ill and my head and hands cannot work and I am lonely, " Jesus, help me."

Always, always, in spite of weakness, falls, and shortcomings of every kind,

"Jesus, help me and never forsake me." In Jesus's Most Powerful Name, Amen!

Tan Jee Lee - Fraud or In Limbo? FRAUD!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:02:00 +0000

MEPS DBS BANK - According to the Bank Officer MEPS Payments SHould Have Reached By Now...But Nothing yet. SO DEFINITELY A FRAUD! THEY FORGED THIS TRANSACTION!

Through a friend, I received ACRA updates on LACC Investments Pte Ltd.

The owner of Keelan Wainright Capital is ALSO The BOSS of LACC Investments Pte Ltd

BUT! ONE VERY BIG & GLARING DIFFERENCE IS!

Keelan Wainright Capital Pte Ltd's Paid Up Capital : $49,350,000.00 SGD

CEO/OWNER: TAN JEE LEE

LACC Investments Pte Ltd's Paidup Capital : $1.00 SGD

CEO/OWNER: TAN JEE LEE

* MY LOGICAL DEDUCTION of this whole fiasco...

Tan Jee Lee, the owner of Keelan Wainright

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:58:00 +0000

Click on the Picture to view the Magnified Version.

Confessions Of C.Hao aka Wang Liang Hao aka Kliff Wang aka Head of Financial Services of Chainfusion Ltd

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:20:00 +0000

SMS Evidence of

Mr C.Hao Wang's CONFESSIONS,

The Boss Of CHAINFUSION LIMITED

Who are the Bosses of Chainfusion Limited?

Who are those people involved?

* WONG WEI TUCK

* WANG LIANG HAO

* DAO YEW KONG

* ONG KIAN WEI

This blog is updated 24/7 for educational purposes as a warning to the general public. All evidences and materials are genuine and based on real life experiences. This is in the hope that no one else will fall prey.

LIESPOTTER UPDATE! Now The Latest News Is TAN JEE LEE is ALSO OWNER OF LACC!

LACC Investments Pte Ltd. Incorporated By LIM LIAN KEE on the 22/02/2008

Mr C. Hao Wang is also the Boss of LACC Investments Pte Ltd.

He showed Gerald a UOB bank statement of LACC Investments Pte Ltd.

that showed the account has approximately $787,000 and above.

* Started on the 22nd of February 2008 till 13th August 2008, only over 5 months old company.

Recorded Video Evidence of Mr C.Hao Wang acknowledgement of the monies present in LACC UOB Account.

Gerald was not given a copy but Mr Wang showed it to Gerald in his efforts to prove that he is credible of making payments.

When we do go to the High Courts of Singapore, All these will be documented as evidence. Gerald and Mr Wang met at Park Royal Hotel and there is where this meeting took place on the 8th of August 2008 at around 5:30pm to 6:30pm.

Mr C.Hao Wang, the Boss of Chainfusion Limited & Partner of LACC Investments Pte Ltd

Evidences Of Unreliable Agreements - CHAINFUSION

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:36:00 +0000

sinova.com, sinova group, chainfusion ltd, buybuttonz, enets, singapore

*** PLEASE CLICK ON THE PICTURES FOR THE MAGNIFIED VERSIONS ***

Today is the 16th of JULY 2008 ...

only acknowledgement but no monies...

desperate we are in the midst of appealing to the Singapore Court.

* UPDATE: Our Lawyer Informed Us That There Is An Arbitration Condition In The Contract. It Will Cost Approximately $2000 to $3000 SGD Per Day For Arbitration Cases.

14th July 2008 - Chainfusion Hong Kong HQ Responds With A Settlement Offer But Still NO MONIES.

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:57:00 +0000

This morning, I received from CHAINFUSION FINANCIAL MERCHANTS ...whatever they call themselves you know who I am talking about by now..anywayz they offered a $50,000 SGD Settlement fee on top of the $220505 SGD UNPAID and OWED amount promised and agreed on. Their condition was for the payment to be done in 3 Weeks.

DEDUCTIONS OF MY OWN ON DEALINGS WITH CHAINFUSION:

* CHAINFUSION Issues Cheques That BOUNCES ALL THE TIME Not Even 1 Went Through!

* Even Their Cashier's Order (Which According to CF Finance Director CANNOT BOUNCE) Bounced!

* They make all payments in CASH DEPOSITS at the bank in funny amounts with no seuqence or pattern.

* Out of desperation, we make a public outcry and harm their chances of others falling into prey, ONLY THEN DO THEY PAY.

My family and friends all feel that they are DIRTY MERCHANTS!!!!

Tomorrow, I will pass all evidence to a qualified lawyer and will go as God leads.

Pray for us if you read this! We need it!

chainfusion ltd

noreply@blogger.com (Merchant Police) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:57:00 +0000

this video is done in desperate measures because up till now,

Chainfusion still makes empty promises and owes us up to $250K with interest.

We suffered so much loss and it hurts us to announce that the homeless that we used to sponsor

will soon no longer be sponsored as before due to all our monies imprisoned by Chainfusion Ltd.

A dishonest merchant is the doom of any business.

Please allow us just 5 minutes of your time and empathize our sorrow...

and if you would like to adopt an elderly, please send an email to :

iamachannelofblessing@gmail.com

We will direct you to these innocent people who suffer with us.

Thank you and God bless you.