NBLO response to UTM's email of 21 Nov

Further to the e-mail sent by UTM to its Investors on Monday, 21 November, we would like to make several comments and address certain points that were raised and as such demand an answer by and to the respective parties involved.

What impresses most about the letter is how hard UTM tries to discredit the efforts of investors, their representatives and regulators. These are efforts to ensure UTM repays investors – as it should – and efforts that situations in which people lose their funds on this scale, have their lives disrupted and suffer much distress are not repeated in future.

By contrast, UTM continues its consistent policy of hiding, of smoke and mirrors. They refuse to identify themselves – there have been no disclosures of individuals, no address given where the individuals that are UTM carry out their business – their supposed preparation to re-start trading – nothing but generic email addresses. One way in which UTM can help a lot resolve this is if they would be genuinely open, identifiable and contactable.

UTM ridicules the request by UK private investigators for a meeting and a disclosure of the identities of the people behind UTM (“As a private investigator [sic], they should do the work and find answers for you, not to send us an email asking for UTMarkets companies structure, office location, directors and or appointing a meeting in Seychelles, UK, Poland, Dubai or Sofia.”).

In fact, questions such as these are precisely the ones to which answers must be had. Obviously, if answers are not provided by UTM voluntarily, they will eventually be established through proper processes, through the work of private and public investigation.

We still believe UTM should agree to a public meeting with its investors and their representatives, including those it criticises. Given where investors are, such meeting should most conveniently be in Dubai.

Investors should not and will not stop their efforts to secure their funds and recover their losses. If UTM did pay out as it promises, those investors to whom it has paid will discontinue their claims or reduce them to the extent that they have been paid. Those who have not been paid will not. Until then, one should be sceptical that UTM will pay many or pay much of what it owes. Taking action will not prevent UTM to settle its debts if it wanted to.

We won’t comment extensively on the inconsistencies and likely false statements in the letter, but we illustrate with several:

  • The letter lists all the places where UTM is supposedly not regulated. However, in its last paragraph it says “[UTM has] agreed with some financial authorities to release more money [in November or December]”. Since it is claimed not regulated by any such authority, it is impossible to see why UTM should depend on any agreement with financial authorities to repay funds.
  • UTM continues with the fiction that it has only done business through the Caribbean company T-Marketing Services Ltd, that “other companies or transfer providers are only a third a party providing consulting, transfer solutions and services to T-Marketing Services Ltd”. Since it is common knowledge that T-Marketing was incorporated only on 23 February 2016, it is inexplicable how it could have done UTM’s business before it existed. Which person or company received investors’ funds before T-Marketing was created? Which company or person did these “other companies or transfer providers” provide their consulting, transfer solutions and services to?

The letter states “UTMarkets / T-Marketing Services Ltd is going back to trade in the last of November / beginning of December, our strategy will be changed as many of our trading experts left us”. As we have told those of you whom we met in Dubai earlier this week, the Bulgarian police has now interviewed a large number of the individuals who worked for UTM in Sofia. You knew them under their assumed names. None of these individuals were in any sense trading experts – most had taken a casual job with UTM and explained their behaviour to the police by saying that they had been given instructions on what to say. It is unclear where any other experts may have been invisibly employed, how many of them there were, and how many have now been lost. And if they have been – and we assume for a moment that what UTM states about its plans is entirely true – is UTM realistic to think that it can resume its activity after such a significant loss of talent?

UTM asserts that the only outcome of the work of Bulgarian lawyers (and we believe this refers to us, though we are not named) is that the Financial Services Commission has been investigating one of their entities. This is manifestly untrue: we have notified the Prosecutor’s Office and the Police of our clients’ suspicions of wrong-doing. This has resulted in the opening of an investigation by the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office, the Sofia Police, and by the State Agency for National Security (a special unit dealing with the investigation of especially serious crimes).

Once again, one can take UTM’s letter positively, despite the multiple problems with it which we have pointed to. If the individuals behind UTM want to have any form of trust with their victims, they should agree to a meeting in Dubai and answer all questions fully, clearly and truthfully and provide evidence to support what they say.

Until this has happened to the satisfaction of all UTM’s investors, the only justified and just approach is to press ahead with the actions of private and public law enforcement and fact finding.