SG Hambros Gibraltar has reacted promptly to accusations of wrongdoing and, as one would expect, has rejected admitting any liability in respect to buying 100% of the private banking business of illegally-operating ABN AMRO N.V. Gibraltar Branch.
Lawyers acting for SG Hambros have confirmed that the take over was only in respect to the mortgage loan portfolio, and not the investment business.
This is stark contrast to what both firms publicised back in 2008.
Quietly though, alerted by the implications of having bought a business that could bring shame of the name SG Hambros Bank (Gibraltar), managing staff have reacted as one other bank -Nordea Banks S.A.- did: removing incriminating posts from internet.
The knee-jerk reaction is generally a clumsy move as not only does it leave a trail but too, ERVA has already pre-empted it by printing the original press release where SG Hambros confirms having acquired 100% of the Gibraltar-based private banking business of ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (Gibraltar).
This is the site where press releases are shown (the PR is of the 1st of July 2008).
This is the page that comes up when you click on the PR.
This is the press release viewers should have been able to read, had they not removed it.
SG Hambros is not new to complex tax-cheating artifices: it was already involved in a 2006 tax avoidance scheme that was busted by the HMRC last year.
Anyone who would like some information on SGHambros Bank in Gibraltar and the “German Lady” Claudia Rolf, who introduced the equity release scam of which she was the “Mastermind” when she was working for AbnAmro Gibraltar, can contact me!!
I am certain that Antonio Flores would be delighted to hear from you, if of course you have not been in touch with him
Yet another bank erasing vital evidence when the pressure is on. They must have been talking with Nordea Bank, who also removed from the web site all material appertaining to the forthcoming trial in the Mercantile Court Malaga. From what Appears in this web site they did so just 15 days before the pre trial hearing. now I wonder why? could it be that they knew that the material was mis leading and could have criminal complications?