The Editor, Sir:

I draw attention to recent reports in the public media, and in particular, to an article in The Sunday Gleaner of January 13, and what appears to be excerpts from an apology given by a Ricardo Azan. The information in these two reports do not give a clear picture, and I outline below a few points that need clarification so that the public can have an accurate understanding of the facts.

There is reference to a Ricardo Azan, "the man at the centre of an investment scheme". There is reference to a Richard Azan 'of Money Express Financial Services Limited' which as at September 2007 was licensed as a dealer/investment adviser by the FSC, and as at December 2007, was listed by the BoJ as a licensed Cambio Operator. The article suggests that these are two separate individuals; that the booking for the place of meeting called by Ricardo Azan with his investors was done in the name of Richard Azan, an unconnected party; that Ricardo Azan does not know the directors of Money Express Financial Services Limited; and that Ricardo Azan 'concedes that Richard Azan could be his relative.'

Double calamity

Excerpts from the apology are that 'the bank that Money Express banks with was a double calamity.' If the speaker here is Ricardo Azan, and it is Richard Azan who is of Money Express, and there is no connection between the entity in difficulty and Money Express, it is now manifestly unclear as to the nature of the connection or non-connection of the two named persons, and who is running what operation, etc.

Considering that the business of Ricardo Azan that has experienced the difficulty is not one and the same as Money Express Financial Services Limited, it is to be expected that the mention of both businesses in the same story will draw negative attention to the regulated entity. Can we learn then, the name of the entity that is experiencing the difficulty? Is it a deposit-taking operation or an investment-securities type operation that warrants the interest of either the BoJ or the FSC? Is it a registered company in Jamaica or any other jurisdiction? Surely, the name of the operation must be known and to distinguish it from the regulated entity would be helpful to clients of the regulated entity.

The article says that the scheme 'folded recently.' Is it still a going concern or is it in liquidation? Is the plan to reorganise itself formally and to become profitable so that 'principle' (sic) can be settled and hopefully, the promised interest paid to clients?

There is an understanding that only entities licensed in Jamaica under the Banking Act and the Financial Institutions Act, can use the name 'Bank' and appropriately refer to themselves as Banks. In the apology, it is mentioned that 'the bank went into receivership (bankrupt)'. It seems hardly likely that this reference is to a Jamaican bank as there is no public knowledge of any Jamaican bank going into receivership in the past twelve months. Is there indeed, a Jamaican bank that has quietly slipped into receivership, or is the reference to a bank operating in another jurisdiction? If the reference to 'bank' has been a malapropism, the Jamaican banking public will be considerably relieved.

Is admission of 'mis-management of funds' a criminal offence that requires investigation by the police, or is it soley a civil matter?

The continuously increasing flow of chatter and news stories related to the conundrum in which the so-calle investment schemes find themselves, is bound to have certain effects on the perception of Jamaica, its law and order stance, the effectiveness and quality of its financial regulatory mechanisms, and on how investment-friendly the economy is viewed by both local and foreign investors. It would do us well for the public officials, regulators, the controllers of the schemes, and any other relevant stakeholder groups, to move with deliberate haste to ring-fence this situation and articulate a way forward that is clear and credible.

It would also be a great public service for journalists, com-mentators and the media in general, to provide more thoughtful, penetrating and accurate reporting as the public depends on the Fourth Estate to discharge its implicit duty to appropriately frame the issues for our contemplation.

I am, etc.,

CHRISTOPHER PRYCE

christopherjmpryce@yahoo.com