Sting – the greatest one night Reggae show in the world / Portmore, Firelink- Hot Monday and Weddy Weddy / Kingston
(3.)7 Star – Supplies & Rentals and Services Team
At L.A. Lewis Enterprize Ltd. we offer the full range of equipment for your successful event or incentive.
Ask us for:
1. Lighting & Stages , 2. Sound systems 3. P.A. systems
(4.)7 Star – Legal Service Team
At L.A. Lewis Enterprize we network with the finest lawyers to suit your needs. Our lawyers work 24/7 to see that your case is well represented and victorious. We represent DJ´s, singers, musicians, sports personalities. whether it is to assist in copyright, publishing, lawsuit and case claims on any area that the law is required, under music and entertainment.

(5.)7 Star – Tracking Service Team L.A. Lewis Enterprize Ltd. provides the #1 tracking services in the Caribbean for Jamaican Musician, sound systems, sport personalities, venues, entertainers. Over a short period, our team has tracked down 576 artists and found them with their excellent connections to police and cooperators. If we cannot find them – no one else can! We help you to find out – call now.

(6.)7 Star – V.I.P. Service Team
L.A. Lewis Enterprize Ltd. is specialized in extreme demand for high-class guests and VIP´s.
- Limousine service, top car and luxury car rentals, male and female escorts. We make you feel comfortable! Highly confidential.
(7.)7 Star – Fashion Service Team

We recruit and supply the finest male and female models in different sizes for all your fashion shows and party needs. We also provide videographers and photographers to cover all your fashion events. .
Please feel free to call us now.

I am asking this question, because for us non-millionaires, living in Asia, being recruited by NU SKIN , for what looks like a pyramid scheme, NU SKIN people are saying that any company publicly listed in NYSE can not be running a pyramid scheme.

Please investigate NU SKIN, and their deceptive marketing strategies.

So I assume a stock is going to go down in value…so I sell a naked short? Then what?

You wonder why so many start up companies never had a chance at success.

tb

The whole point of having Madoff hold the assets and manage it for the big funds was that they could collect fees for them doing nothing. How much was he charging and how much were they charging their investors? The money would be used up rapidly if he were charging large fees and paying out gains so that the funds’ managers could get their cut.

It would be interesting to see how much the funds were running through the broker in trades besides what was in the funds. How much money was actually transferred in and taken back out? Was there money actually transferred in or were these trades just bogus to cover up dirty money? As a market maker, he could book trades by naked shorting and do the reverse at a lower price, pocket the difference and no money ever trade, just giving the client a trade to explain the appearance of a loss and an explanation of the money having come from a brokerage account that was established. Chasing down where the money came from would be obliterated by the presence of a fund and stock trades.

He traded a trillion dollars a year.. so these bogus money laundering things possibly in the millions wouldn’t hit the radar, particularly if they didn’t trade on the US exchanges or were only ledger entries with an accompanying account statement in paper. All of his foreign counterparty trades need scrutiny. The fact that he was instrumental in computerizing the market and didn’t allow his clients computer access to the accounts is suspicious. His going to cash every quarter so that he didn’t have to report positions is also ripe for fraud. He couldn’t do all of this alone. By not allowing people access to their accounts, he had plenty of time to figure out post market what trades to record. If people had online access to their accounts, he would have real time scrutiny.

He could even show a profit for these guy’s trades if they paid him more than the amount of the transaction. They want to launder 2 million sending him 100K through a backdoor, he does a trade that shows they bought at 1.85 and sold at 1.9. On another set of books, he does his own trade at 1.9 and sells for 2 booking 100K for the firm. The entire amount has been laundered, The fund pays taxes on 50K and he pays taxes on 100K. They only pay taxes on 7.5% of the total.. and everyone is happy. The taxman gets his.. Broker actually makes about 65K after taxes for fabricating two transactions. The cost of laundering is 100K plus taxes or 6%. Neither gain is so great as to raise suspicion and can be done after the fact finding the right stock that would meet the appropriate price fluctuations.

Fact: We have a self-confessed crook.

Fact: Crook trades 10% of the volume..

Fact: Securities market is used for money laundering.

Rational Assumption? Madoff was responsible for at least 10% of the money laundering.

This becomes even more questionable with all the lies about integrity and success that this was included in Madoff’s home page.

” IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR OPENING A NEW ACCOUNT

To help the government fight the funding of terrorism and money laundering activities, Federal law requires all financial institutions to obtain, verify, and record information that identifies each person who opens an account.

What this means for you: When you open an account, we will ask for your name, address, date of birth and other information that will allow us to identify you. We may also ask to see your driver’s license or other identifying documents.”

By taking in funds of funds, this can be avoided. Just the manager of the fund is recorded… hmmmm…. interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z66kmPRl5Y

http://www.chx.com/content/Participant_Information/Downloadable_Docs/MarketRegulation/1_InformationMemoranda/2004/MR_04_26_Regulation_SHO.pdf

Regulation SHO, Rule 200 – Order Marking and Ownership

SEC Rule 200(g) defines the ownership of securities with regard to short sale transactions previously enumerated under SEC Rules 3b-3 and 10a-1(d). Pursuant to the provisions of SEC Rule 200, all sales of equity securities must be marked “long”, “short”, or “short exempt”.

Orders can be marked “long” only when the seller owns the security being sold, and such security is in the physical possession or control of the broker-dealer, or it is reasonably expected that the security will be in the physical possession or control of the broker-dealer prior to settlement.

Orders must be marked “short exempt” if the seller is entitled to rely upon any exception to the tick test under SEC Rule 10a-1 and Exchange Article IX, Rule 17. Short sale transactions involving a specialist pursuant to the so-called “Madoff” exception or the equalizing exemption under SEC Rule 10a-1(e)(5) (sales by specialist or market maker on a zero-minus tick), however, need not be marked as “short exempt.” Orders marked “short exempt” must also comply with the stock locate requirements detailed in SEC Rule 203 below, unless some exception applies…

http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-12-06/s71206-149.pdf

As what has become a pattern of the SEC, the investing public is not given equal face time to openly discuss matters/analysis with the Commission as is frequently being afforded to the institutions the Commission is responsible for regulating; a double standard that puts in question the Commissions true motives. [Ref: The SEC’s Documented Memorandums to meetings held during the inception of Regulation SHO with the Securities Industry Association, National Service Clearing Corporation, Bear Stearns, Madoff Investment Securities, Hill Thompson, Citigroup Global Markets, and LEK Securities Corp http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s72303.shtml ]

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s72303/s72303-431.pdf

Once considered a radical practice but only a minor source of inefficiency, payments for
order flow – agreements by which dealers offer monetary rewards or other non-pecuniary
services to brokers in exchange for the routing of retail market bid or ask offers116 — have
become a core regulatory concern. The controversy became prominent in 1993, when Madoff
Investments mysteriously garnered 10% of NYSE-listed volume through a legal “kickback”
scheme that permitted brokers to increase personal revenues without obtaining the consent of
their clients.117

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s71004/jdmt011405.pdf

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s72303/s72303-284.pdf