DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**ggandibazz** · 01-27-2006, 07:00 AM

Before I write anything about Baninter, I have been reminded that our Dear Leader has made clear that he will sue anyone who says anything bad about a Dominican bank pursuant to the Guacamole Act of 1947.

Robert reports today that the Baninter reconfirms that it will not press charges against Pepe and company for the ALLEGED RD$40M fraud. It was also said that this is because the loss was covered by insurance. This all makes no sense.

Without even going into whether a bank can press charges for a fraud in which it was intimately involved, or whether an insurance company would cover such a loss without doing a painstaking investigation that would have completely exposed the bank's role in the fraud, the insurance angle is clearly total caca, The limit on credit card fraud insurance is US$50,000, a fraction of the alleged loss. Also, any insurance company would automatically have what's called a right of SUBROGATION against the perpetrator of the fraud. In other words, had VISA's insurance company had to pay the Baninter for the loss, it would automatically try to recover its loss by sueing Goico, his associates, and possibly the DR government, in a US or Bermuda court.

That said, I would have let Goico go as well. How can you defraud a bank/oligarch that's actively working with you on the fraud?

Or has the Bank been paid by the government to make up for the "loss" and/or to keep quiet, in which case it was the Dominican people that paid for Goico's Rolex and Mercedes Benz?

01-27-2006, 07:00 AM	#2
ggandibazz Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 400 Senior Member	Baninter and Subrogation Before I write anything about Baninter, I have been reminded that our Dear Leader has made clear that he will sue anyone who says anything bad about a Dominican bank pursuant to the Guacamole Act of 1947. Robert reports today that the Baninter reconfirms that it will not press charges against Pepe and company for the ALLEGED RD$40M fraud. It was also said that this is because the loss was covered by insurance. This all makes no sense. Without even going into whether a bank can press charges for a fraud in which it was intimately involved, or whether an insurance company would cover such a loss without doing a painstaking investigation that would have completely exposed the bank's role in the fraud, the insurance angle is clearly total caca, The limit on credit card fraud insurance is US$50,000, a fraction of the alleged loss. Also, any insurance company would automatically have what's called a right of SUBROGATION against the perpetrator of the fraud. In other words, had VISA's insurance company had to pay the Baninter for the loss, it would automatically try to recover its loss by sueing Goico, his associates, and possibly the DR government, in a US or Bermuda court. That said, I would have let Goico go as well. How can you defraud a bank/oligarch that's actively working with you on the fraud? Or has the Bank been paid by the government to make up for the "loss" and/or to keep quiet, in which case it was the Dominican people that paid for Goico's Rolex and Mercedes Benz?
	Quote