.
Seorang
CEO Bank yang juga pakar penganalisis pasaran, telah membuat analisa
berikut dan berkongsi dengan semua wartawan. Rocky Bru juga ada
memuatkan di dalam postingnya di sini.
Malangnya dokumen-dokumen berkenaan telah
diubah suai (doctored). Dalam erti kata lain, ketulenan dan kesahihan
dokumen-dokumen berkenaan boleh dipertikaikan. Ambil contoh Dokumen 2
sahaja, tidak kurang dari 5 ubah suai yang dilakukan ke atas dokumen
berkenaan. Baca pengubahsuaian pada tulisan biru dan merah di bawah.
Kerja pengubah suaian dokumen ini dilakukan dengan tidak teliti sekali.
Nampak sangat Anti-Najib akal kosong dan amatur.
BACA ARTIKEL BERIKUT :
"To whom it may concern.
I have finalized my own analysis. In my attempt to evaluate the veracity
of the accusations made against Prime Minister Najib based on the
documents shared online (at
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/info-MALPROBE070715b.html)
by WSJ and Sarawak Report (who had said they have sighted similar
documents as WSJ), I posed the following three simple and
straightforward questions:
Firstly, where is the substantive documentary evidence that confirms the
account numbers depicted in the documents actually belongs to the Prime
Minister?
The elementary diagram included by them explaining how the fund flowed
is not relevant as it is clearly created by somebody else and it goes
without saying that it is not a formal bank document. Any Tom, Dick and
Harry could have drawn the diagram. This makes it an unreliable
evidence. Moreover, the letter supposedly issued by someone by the name
depicted under the signature did not refer to the Prime Minister in any
way whatsoever. For all we know he was referring to somebody else
altogether. This creates a very strong reasonable doubt.
All in all, the documents lack clarity. This makes it difficult to
conclude that the documentary "evidence" shared is strong or good enough
to be relied upon for an accusation to be leveled against the Prime
Minister in the first instance. I hope WSJ can shed more light on this
seemingly inaccurate and incomplete picture. How could they make the
accusation with so called banking documents that never had Prime
Minister Najib's name reflected anywhere?
Secondly, why is the address of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York
International Branch) stated in the SWIFT message is very different from
its actual address? It is stated in the SWIFT message that the address
is 375 Park Avenue, NY 4080, NEW York, NY, US.
When I searched online for the address of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New
York International Branch), I found it to be 11 Penn Plaza, 4th Floor,
New York, New York 10001. See
http://www.banklocationslist.com/wells-fargo-bank/new-york-ny/branch.24723.html
So what is located at 375 Park Avenue? My first search led me to Wells
Fargo Advisor, which is a non-bank affiliates of Wells Fargo &
Company. See https://home.wellsfargoadvisors.com/001_PNZ2. The actual
address is 375 PARK AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10152.
Nonetheless, I was not happy with this as there could still be a Wells
Fargo bank branch in that same location as Wells Fargo Advisor so I
searched online specifically for Wells Fargo Bank N.A. using the same
address and upon further checking I found out that there is also another
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch) at this same
actual address, thus making the WSJ document seemingly authentic enough
to those who does not scrutinize the document thoroughly.
However, the actual address online for this bank is still very markedly
and visibly different from what is stated in the document shared by WSJ.
http://www.swift-code.com/m/united-states/swift-code-pnbpus3nnyc.html.
The real address is 375 PARK AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10152.
Please note post-code is very different - 10152 vs. 4080 and also how
the address is written in the shared document by WSJ is quite wrong as
follows 375 Park Avenue, NY 4080, NEW York, NY, US. (ie. the post-code
put in the middle of the address).
This is typically one way how one could check the authenticity of a
SWIFT message. The tell tale sign includes wrong name of bank and/or
wrong address. Frauders will always make at minimum a slightly different
name or address so that people would miss it upon first scrutiny. How
could WSJ rely on documents that have such an apparent discrepancy found
in the document to the information found at Wells Fargo website?
Thirdly, which is one of the most important question - why is the SWIFT Code used in the SWJ shared document is different?
The best and most straight forward way to check whether a SWIFT document
is authentic is to check the SWIFT Code of the bank used in the
document. If it is wrong then the whole thing is a fraud. This can also
be done online through the relevant official website.
The SWIFT Code of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch)
located at 375 Park Avenue, NY 4080, NEW York, NY, US that is depicted
on the shared SWIFT document is PNBPUS3NANYC. However, the actual SWIFT
Code of Code of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch)
located at 375 PARK AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10152 is actually
PNBPUS3NNYC. See
http://www.swift-code.com/m/united-states/swift-code-pnbpus3nnyc.html
The SWIFT Code PNBPUS3NANYC belongs to Alfa-Bank Moscow. This is not
just a tell tale sign that the document is an absolute hoax but a very
firm confirmation that the document is a hoax or a fraud. How could SWJ
missed this factual error?
Three simple questions is enough to prove the documents shared cannot be
relied upon as basis for the accusations against Prime Minister Najib.
Anyone making and reaffirming the accusations based on the shared
documents without asking these questions would unfortunately be seen as
doing something frivolous, vexatious as well as totally and absolutely
irresponsible.
Fraud using SWIFT message is real and it is shocking that SWJ fell for
it. And it is even more unfortunate that some Malaysians also fell for
it by relying on SWJ's good reputation. I hope SWJ will do its own
checking base on the three simple questions here and if the result is
similar to what I have shared here then they must withdraw their
accusations and apologize to Prime Minister Najib."
Read more at http://khairulryezal.blogspot.com/2015/07/anti-najibrazak-keluarkan-dokumen-bank.html#CQPMPcfWEtr3w0o6.99
No comments:
Post a Comment