Money spent at the Casinos

This amount of $119,865 is completely wrong. I'm sure Judge Gold knows the correct numbers. I wonder why he did not nail them for perjury. He must have known because document 884 says: “Those details do not agree with the information separately received by the manager.”

This may be closer to the truth although I believe this is not everything:

Date 11/24/2004 Amount 100,000.00 Ordering Customer WWIN Sender's Correspondent FCIB (Bahamas) Beneficiary's Account 990117921 Beneficiary Customer Name HGL Remittance Information Date 12/15/2004 Amount 50,000.00 Ordering Customer CCW Ltd Sender's Correspondent Banco Multiple Leon, S.A. Beneficiary's Account 990117921 Beneficiary Customer Name HLG Remittance Information Date 2/14/2005 Amount 25,000.00 Ordering Customer CCW Ltd Sender's Correspondent Banco Multiple Leon, S.A. Beneficiary's Account 990117921 Beneficiary Customer Name HLG Remittance Information Date 10/5/2005 Amount 100,000.00 Ordering Customer CCW Limited Sender's Correspondent Banco Multiple Leon, S.A. Beneficiary's Account 990117921 Beneficiary Customer Name HLG Rio Suite Hotel and Casino Remittance Information Date 10/6/2005 Amount 25,000.00 Ordering Customer CCW Ltd Sender's Correspondent Banco Multiple Leon, S.A. Beneficiary's Account 990117921 Beneficiary Customer Name HLG Rio Suite Hotel and Casino Remittance Information RFB Mike Fitzpatrick Date 11/10/2005 Amount 130,000.00 Ordering Customer CCW Ltd Sender's Correspondent Banco Multiple Leon, S.A. Beneficiary's Account 990117921 Beneficiary Customer Name HLG Rio Suite Hotel and Casino Remittance Information RFB Ref J. Ferrell Date 1/13/2006 Amount 100,000.00 Ordering Customer CCW Ltd Sender's Correspondent Banco Multiple Leon, S.A. Beneficiary's Account 990117921 Beneficiary Customer Name HLG Rio Suite Hotel and Casino Remittance Information RFB Derek Elliott Date 4/6/2006 Amount 100,000.00 Ordering Customer CCW Ltd Sender's Correspondent Banco Multiple Leon, S.A. Beneficiary's Account 990117921 Beneficiary Customer Name HLG Rio Suite Hotel and Casino Remittance Information RFB Derek Elliott Date 7/5/2006 Amount 150,000.00 Ordering Customer CCW Dominicana SA Sender's Correspondent Banco Popular Dominicano Beneficiary's Account 990117921 Beneficiary Customer Name HLG Remittance Information RFB Derek Elliott Date 8/31/2006 Amount 75,000.00 Ordering Customer CCW Ltd Sender's Correspondent Banco Multiple Leon, S.A. Beneficiary's Account 990117921 Beneficiary Customer Name HLG Rio Suite Hotel and Casino Remittance Information RFB Derek Elliott Date 12/15/2006 Amount 25,000.00 Ordering Customer CCW Ltd Sender's Correspondent Banco Multiple Leon, S.A. Beneficiary's Account 990117921 Beneficiary Customer Name HLG Rio Suite Hotel and Casino Remittance Information Date 2/6/2007 Amount 75,000.00 Ordering Customer CCW Dominicana SA Sender's Correspondent Banco Popular Dominicano Beneficiary's Account 990117921 Beneficiary Customer Name HLG Rio Suite Hotel and Casino Remittance Information RFB Derek Elliott Date 4/8/2008 Amount 50,000.00 Ordering Customer CCW Dominicana SA Sender's Correspondent Banco Popular Dominicano Beneficiary's Account 990117921 Beneficiary Customer Name HLG Remittance Information RFB Derek Elliott Total Gambling Fun: 1,005,000.00

I had some troubles to upload the proving files; I will send them to you so you can post them.

Was the money spent at the Casinos?

Miami Court, Document 884, Page 3 of 22:

1.       At page 30 of his Report the Special Master states:

“Gambling Advances paid from CCW. While Derek did provide details of his gambling advances through WWIN/CCW, those details do not agree with information separately received by the manager.”

This comment is disingenuous in the extreme. On September 16, 2009, Derek Elliott emailed to Kip Rabin and Robert Rightmeyer a sworn declaration regarding total gambling losses, which was based on reports received from the casinos in question. A true und correct copy of the same is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. The sworn declaration indicated that net gambling losses from 2005 to 2007 were $119,865….

…any such losses came directly out of the Elliott’s own pockets. …

Comments by SunVillageFacts: 

- There are rumors about payments to the Casinos for more than 1 Million Dollars! We are expecting further details and will provide supports.

- If the losses came directly out of the Elliott's own pockets, why didn't they deposit the returned checks into their own pockets?

Is Werden one of the the big winners on cost of the investors?

Facts:

Inversiones Werden ended up with: Cofresi Cove Complex, at least two villas, and two apartment complexes. Nobody is aware of any litigation or foreclosure process for these buildings. They were just turned over without any dispute and without informing the partial owners and investors.


Werden was created by: ENRIQUE EDUARDO DE MARCHENA KALUCHE by order from Derek Elliott as per his sworn Testimony in Miami.


Werden's President is: Maireni Aleman Mera

It never was disclosed when or where the loan from Inversiones Werden was received nor where this 2.? Millions went.

Who created Inversiones Werden?

EXP. E/ 2007-43507

SOL. FECHA  14/12/07

NOMBRE COMERCIAL INVERSIONES WERDEN

ACTIVIDAD: PRESTACION DE SERVICIOS PAR AL PLANIFICACION, DESARROLLO, FINANCIAMIENTO, COMERCIALIZACION, MERCADEO, COMPRAVENTA Y EN GENERAL, PARA LA IMPLEMENTACION DE PROYECTOS INMOBILIARIOS, YA SEAN TURISTICOS O NO.

SOLICITANTE: ENRIQUE EDUARDO DE MARCHENA KALUCHE

REGISTRO: 242888

Source: http://www.sunvillagefacts.com/files/Court/onapi15ene082.pdf

Who is behind Inversiones Werden?

In the wake of the aforementioned contempt proceedings, Plaintiffs brought yet another instance of potentially contemptuous behavior to the Court’s attention during a hearing on September  30,  2009.  Through the questioning of Frederick Elliott at that hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel elicited information regarding a recent transfer of the Cofresi Cove, at least two villas, and two apartment complexes from an Elliott-related company to Inversiones Werden, S.A (“Werden”), a Dominican business entity that Plaintiffs suspected was affiliated with the DMK Defendants.  [Sept. 30, 2009 Tr. at 17-19].  After examining Mr. Elliott, Plaintiffs’ counsel questioned Mr. De Marchena regarding the relationship between Werden and the DMK Defendants.  In response to this line of questioning, Mr. De Marchena denied any present affiliation and testified that his law  firm had merely
incorporated Werden and promptly thereafter “transferred [their] shares” to a gentleman named Mr. Aleman.  [Sept. 30, 2009 Tr. at 30:15 - 30:20].


Following this hearing, however, a number of submissions raised serious questions about the veracity of Mr. De Marchena’s testimony.  Specifically, on October 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Dominican governmental certificate indicating that: (1) Werden’s address 24 is the office address of DMK; (2) Werden’s telephone number is the telephone number for DMK; (3) two of Werden’s shareholders are DMK attorneys; and (4) Werden’s secretary is Mr. De Marchena.  See  [DE 795].  Second, and more importantly,  was the DMK Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ filing, which effectively conceded that Mr. De Marchena was less than candid when questioned about the Werden-DMK relationship during the September 30, 2009 hearing.  Notably, the DMK Defendants’ response admitted that “the transfer of [Werden] shares [had] not been perfected” as of November 11, 2009.  [DE 834, p. 2].  Thus, notwithstanding Mr. De Marchena’s testimony to the contrary, the DMK Defendants were still affiliated with Werden at the time it  took title to  the properties at issue.

In light of the foregoing, I now find by clear and convincing evidence that the DMK Defendants violated  paragraph eight of the Monitor Order by taking actions  affecting property, assets, or estates of the Elliott Defendants “without the advice of and consent of the Monitor.”  See [DE 528, pp. 5-6].  Specifically, I conclude that the DMK Defendants, by virtue of their relationship with Werden, participated in the transfer of Elliott Defendant property when Werden took title to Cofresi Cove, the villas, and the apartment complexes.
See  [DE 751, pp. 16-19];  [DE 528, p. 6].



source: http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/09cv20526_956.pdf