Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

SP1

Click for more information

0.00%

$1.07 southern cross payments ltd

Open letter to Mr Longo regarding ASX investigation and ASIC litigation of ISX and its CEO John Karantzis, page-109

First 109 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
itzgr82balive

2,243 Posts.

4424

17/08/21

11:12

Post #: 55347138
Share

Originally posted by LongNWrong: ↑

·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?

Expand

@LongNWrong, Upon re-reading this post of yours this morning I am more disgusted than when I hurriedly read it last night as I headed out the door. I again call on @aes411 excellent Post #:55327119 above as additional support to this response.

I am going to start from bottom to top. For you to call on Occam's Razor as support for you to make a totally erroneous statement that I am "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?" Really? And just where in this letter did I say this? Perhaps you should have applied Occam's Razor to your own arguments and left this out! Very strange.

Regarding your "furphys" (should actually be "furphies") statement: This statement "The ongoing alerts from the Visa Compliance Programs and the suspected transaction laundering identifications lead Visa to reasonably conclude that IsignThis is introducing excessive risk into the Visa Payment system and is not operating in sound and safe manner" indicates that VISA was claiming it was getting AML alerts on "suspected transaction laundering". Did VISA report these?

Love your calling on the convenient statement "Continuous disclosure is a key element of a fair and informed market when all of your irrelevant ASX "disclosures to the market" left us (shareholders) with more valid questions than we had before (see questions above). No one is disclosing the answers to these questions to the market. Why not, if continuous disclosure is so important?

Re brand risk: It is a commonly known fact that Visa makes a great effort to remain at the top of the Brand rankings around the world. It is a commonly known fact that the media in Australia (most notably the AFR, but also others such as Kruger of SMH) was very vocal in repeating, pretty much as fact, as many of the insinuating questions made by ASX in its many query letters as possible through this period. VISA does not live in a bubble. Additionally VISA"s new rules seek to impose competitive restrictions to protect its position and branding by not allowing the SDWO to issue account numbers to a retail customer that is not a Visa account number including BBANs.

Lastly, really? Any reasonable person reading my letter to Longo would know that since ASIC (and ASX) is the subject of this letter that I would not be including ASIC in the statement.

Last edited by itzgr82balive: 17/08/21

ISX Price at posting: $1.07 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
28 Upvote

6 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

Trump is President Again: What Does This Mean for Crypto?

ASX Market Open: Australian market set to open slightly lower following a mixed session on Wall Street | November 12, 2024

3DA

To make modern missiles, you need 3D Printing. And in that gold rush, Amaero is selling shovels

PDN

Paladin cuts back uranium production guidance for FY25 based on hiccups at Langer Heinrich

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

There are more pages in this discussion • 400 more messages in this thread...

First 109 Last

Add SP1 (ASX) to my watchlist

SPONSORED BY