Open letter to Mr Longo regarding ASX investigation and ASIC litigation of ISX and its CEO John Karantzis, page-96

·There is not a single auditor, independent expert, or regulator in any jurisdiction that has issued any serious or material adverse report or notice against iSignthis or its subsidiaries.” Visa is not an auditor.

ASIC is a regulator they have launched fairly meaningful action against the company and the Chair.
·ASX Ltd failed entirely to mention that “derogatory media” (caused by the ASX very public investigation) was a key aspect of the termination, as Visa is very conscious of reputation and “brand risk”. The term “brand risk” also refers to any service by a member like ISX that may be competitive or dis-intermediates the Visa brand at the point of sale.

I'm sorry, on what basis do you assert that the media was a key aspect of the termination? If you want a fact based argument what fact do you have to back this up?
·The merchants raised by Visa as being “risky” (none of which fall into a high brand risk category)are still being processed by other Visa processors.

Risky does not mean prohibited. It means tighter controls hence a reluctance to use a provider whose controls you may not have faith in.
·If Visa actually had any “AML” concerns, then it was legally obligated to report them to a regulator within a timely manner. There is no evidence that Visa has done so and there has been no interaction between any financial intelligence unit in the EU and ISX on this matter.

This is one of the many great furphys on this board. Can you please advise where any law requires that Visa was obligated to report ISX or anyone else if they felt their AML systems weren't up to scratch. Reporting of an AML breach is required but VISA correspondence didn't allege a breach.
·UK’s Financial ConductAuthority (which followed the Visa termination in authorising a UK AEMI), theCentral Bank of Cyprus, and the Central Bank of Lithuania all hold ISX in good standing (i.e., no fines, sanctions, notices, disciplinary or corrective actions), with 95% of ISX revenues originating in the EU, linked to monthly reporting to these regulators and central banks.
·ISX has not been subject to any anti-money-laundering action or notices against it by any regulator at any time.
·ISX received a written“all clear” from AUSTRAC that no AML issues exist with AUSTRAC
·ISX is fully certified for PCI DSS Leve1 and ISO27001
·ISX’s relationships with all other card and payment schemes remain unaffected.

That's all nice but irrelevant to a discussion of your question 15.

So I ask, why was it so important to ASX and ASIC for ISX to declare to the market that it was suspended for AML at all or alternatively before ISX had completed negotiations with VISA? There are not a lot of facts for it being solely AML - other than what seems a few specially selected letters out of >3000 illegally transferred from VISA EU to VISA AU to ASIC to ASX. Why are you so sure that you did see all of the relevant communications when you received only a small subset? Blind trust? Have you ever stopped to wonder if you were being used and perhaps were the patsy in this? And perhaps might just end up the patsy

Continuous disclosure is a key element of a fair and informed market. The information re VISA and AML was available via VISA's systems and posted on twitter with JK subsequently fobbing this off as a mere clerical issue. HAve I seen all communications? No! Do I expect there are other interesting pieces of information in there? Yes. Do I think those that I saw which clearly raise concerns with ISX's systems and (more alarming in my view) their response when questions were raised) are fake and part of an internal VISA conspiracy? Absolutely not.

Itzgr8 you once posted on here citing Occam's Razor. You are now here writing an open letter to ASIC suggesting that it is more "rational" that gloablmultinational VISA employees conspired to fake AML concerns including falsifying correspondence in order to sever ties with $1bn mkt cap ISX all as they were concerned by bad publicity? Is that really the more logical set of facts in your view?