Samco at it again with the scams in West Van!
When you are talking about Green and Naim, it is the triple beam scene for the mean senior scheme.
KAITLIN GREEN - ONE OF THE WORST TO EVER DO IT!
Out of Squamish!
- We find that the RBC Credit Cards belong to Jessica Abou-Khazaal. We find that the Vancity credit cards belong to NAK and Samco. We find that BMO Mastercard belongs to either NAK or HAK but more likely that it belongs to NAK considering he was in control of Reveal’s banking. Again, not much turns on the BMO aspect as there were only a few transactions onto said credit card.
These findings are just brutal for the scam!
- Creditors to Reveal: We find sufficient evidence that Kevin McLean (address of 405-1333 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C. and KAM Law Corporation’s banked with RBC with its office at 1800-999 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC with its branch being where the drafts to Reveal originated at 685 W Hastings St, Vancouver, BC V6B 1N9
- KAM was a knight in shining armour by bringing another SHL of $160881.91 May 2016;
- This is supported by the cheque, Mr. McLean’s signature and the signing over of the cheque.
- His admission also demonstrates that
- KAM made another SHL of $11,100 in August 2016;
- Jessica was inputting these amounts as SHL’s;
- Taxes (GST, PST, Income Tax, interest) paid of $32,664.09 for all tax years from September 6th 2013 to Present. Cheque submitted to CPA
- However, there is no cheque from Reveal to any governmental body for said amount;
- Reveal had $140,000 on September 13, 2017;
- However, there were not sufficient funds in the account
- Reveal made $30,000 in profits over the years;
- However, NAK feels those are his.
- Reveal has inventory valued at $22,000 according to his cost of goods;
- His affidavit evidence in defending a security for costs motion values the inventory on market value along with more types of inventory that he so suggests in his letter;
- He was never paid, he never took out on withdrawal; and he had never taken out a withdrawal;
- Naim changed the banking agreements from dual signatory to sole signatory on August 24, 2017;
- McLean was the sole director of Reveal as per an email of October 2017;
- He wished to settle with Mr. McLean regarding a “hypothetical 100 K”;
- He subjectively felt that Mr. McLean owed his family monies for “years of support”;
- He wanted full and final releases with Reveal and Mr. McLean;
- He wanted to keep a $100,000 as a shareholder loan to a new consulting company that was not yet formed;
- These offers were all rejected;
- His positon changed from that funds were owed to him on account of dividends in August/September 2017 (absent sufficient funds) to wanting to negotiate on said amounts; and
- His position that a dividend for $100,000 could be issued at that time but he then represented that Reveal only had $30,000 in profits.
- KAM was a knight in shining armour by bringing another SHL of $160881.91 May 2016;
- There he is. the Big fattie.
- Reveal is owed approx. 41 K from SBS Trading;
- Backstage will not turn over invoices due to confidentiality with SBS Trading; and
Naim is contact person for SBS Trading.
CHECK THIS OUT!
Jessica Abou-Khazaal ruins her kids' lives. Destroys them. She is looking at six to eight years in jail with her husband who is looking at eight years in the can! He could use the can, could he not? He needs to let out all that milk from the boobies. Big man jugs!
SPEAKING OF JUGS
Check out the jugs of search warrant material that is coming their way!
- 10 cheques with numbers like Chq 998866:
- Cheques 1 to 269; and
- Cheque Serial #500.
- Each issuing and execution of the cheque with two signatures on them was a reaffirmation of the DSR.
- Firm’s Note: the Samco cheques paid to Reveal only have one space for signature and they are signed by NAK and he denotes himself as the CEO of Samco.
- Reasons for Closing the Bank Account on September 13, 2017: we find that it was based on a misrepresentation.
- Transactions: Reveal had 746 financial transactions
Undated Cheques: There were 22 undated cheques:
- Cheque serial #104 (cell 320)
- Cheque serial #105 (cell 325);
- Cheque serial #180 (cell 483);
- Cheque serial #181 (cell 487);
- Cheque serial #182 (cell 490) ;
- Cheque serial #201 (cell 547);
- Cheque serial #202 (cell 548);
- Cheque serial #209 (cell 580);
- RBC Cheque serial #217 (cell 607);
- Cheque serial #219 (cell 614);
- Cheque serial #238 (cell 652);
- Cheque serial #249 (cell 679);
- Cheque serial #250 (cell 693);
- Cheque serial #254 (cell 697);
- RBC Cheque serial #500 (cell 709);
- Cheque serial #255 (cell 703);
- Cheque serial #256 (cell 701);
- Cheque serial #261 (cell 735);
- Cheque serial #262 (cell 722);
- Cheque serial #263 (cell 723); and
- Cheque serial #266 (cell 740).
For an amount of 29,768.09.
- Suspects Bank Account Names, Institutions and Account Numbers: During the material times, the Suspects have bank accounts with the following numbers: :
- Samco had a bank account with Vancity Credit Union with the account number ascribed on the back end of the cheque when funds clear said financial institution.
- Naim Abou-Khazaal has a bank account with Vancity with the account number ascribed on the back end of the cheque when funds clear said financial institution.
- NAK has a bank account with BMO with the account number ascribed on the back end of the cheque when funds clear said financial institution.
- Jessica Abou-Khazaal has a bank account with RBC with an account number of the cheque when funds clear said financial institution; and
- Hassane Abou-Khazaal has a bank account with BMO with an account number of the cheque when funds clear said financial institution.
- Credit Card Payees: during the material times, the Suspects had credit cards as noted above.
WE ALL WANT TO KNOW, RIGHT?
But what do you want to know more than the best perfume!?
Well, it is a tough one but we love making it rain off the scammers. Drop it like it is hotter than the mini 9-11 that BOUT BOUT IT SCAMCO
SAM THE SCAM!
In order to determine what is disputable, we will summarize the uncontroverted evidence, relevant admissions and our factual conclusions. We make the following factual determinations, findings and conclusions:
- Sole Financial Institution: Reveal had one financial institution and it had an Operating Account and a Savings Account.
Management: McLean and NAK were the management at all material times.
- McLean’s Alleged Resignation: We find that Mr. McLean did not resign as a director and officer from Reveal in fact: as there is no executed document by him to Reveal tendering his resignation and NAK represents that he is the sole director only later in October 2017. To the extent there was any resignation, it was not consummated in the corporate registry in accordance with the BCBCA.
- HAK as Director: We do not make any finding as to whether HAK properly came on as a director and it is inconsequential to this Forensic Audit due to, in part, that Mr. McLean did not resign as a director and officer so the transactions from August 27, 2017 to September 13, 2017 are invalid along with Mr. McLean returning the alleged dividend draft to Reveal.
Dual Signature Requirement (“DSR”)We find that Reveal had a dual signature requirement for its financial transactions wherein both NAK and KAM had to execute each draft for it to be valid based on the Articles, SHA and RBC Banking Agreement document.
- Amendment to the banking agreement with RBC in August/Sept 2017: we further find that NAK demonstrated his knowledge of the DSR by purporting to remove Mr. McLean as a signatory in the August resolution and carrying out acts without his signature.
- # of Cheques: Reveal issued 281 cheques during the material times.
WHY DID HE RUIN HIS DAD'S LIFE
HARLEY DAVIDSON COMING THROUGH WITH THE SEIZURE!
THEY ARE COMING
Tough enough to close the bank account but not tough enough to rock it out with courage. Put your name on it.
LETTING DOWN YOUR KIDS
For the presentation of records, we rely on the sworn evidence of Naim Abou-Khazaal and Kevin McLean as they were the only directors and officers. Further, we rely on the correspondence between them and that of Jessica Abou-Khazaal with respect to corporate governance and accounting. Mr. McLean has advised that he was not responsible for any of the accounting but he is prepared to accept the $30,000 in profits over said the relevant period.
Disagreement, Shift and Consent: Undated Cheques
Under our inability at this stage to agree with management’s categorization of the above as unauthorized transactions, there would be a change to the UNA line items in the amount of 22 item decrease and increase in SHW in the amount of the same.
For the purposes of this Forensic Audit Report, it would mean a shift of $28,673.40. The amended amounts, for the purposes solely of our FAR would mean that there would be 184 UNA (a decrease of 22) and SHW of 175 (an increase of 22). A cautionary Firm’s Note is required for the FAR. This does not mean that Reveal would not be successful on a claim that such cheques were either forged or invalid but we cannot make that determination at this time. Mr. McLean is prepared to accept that for the purposes of this Report. In this sense, we are giving the most favourable assessment to the Suspects.
BUY BEAUTY PRODUCTS PRESENTS:
- The appellant is a former practicing lawyer of the LSBC. The respondent is the AGBC who acts for the BC Legislature. The learned chambers justice was employed by the Ministry of Justice and AGBC for 23 years and, most recently, was Assistant Deputy Attorney General. The appellant has cited the regulations, legislation, jurisprudence and secondary source material in accordance with Citation of Authorities (Civil & Criminal Practice Directive, 30 May 2013), and underlined portions are the hyperlinks contained in the electronic version of this factum. The appellant adopts the definitions from the various enactments and authorities, Appeal Record and Appeal Book.
- “Lawyer” applies to current and former members when legislation is analyzed under Part 2, Parts 4-6 and Part 10 (see: LPA, s. 1(1)). The learned chambers judge correctly noted that the appellant’s challenges are to ss. 36(a), (b), (d), (i), 37.1 and 88(1.1) and (1.2) (the “Impugned Sections”). Sections 36(a), (b), (d) were passed in 1998, through Bill 75 fall under Part 4 – Discipline. The purpose of Bill 75 was to reduce the need for frequent minor amendments to the Legal Profession Act. This was achieved by transferring powers in the Act from the Legislature to the LSBC benchers if public policy decisions and legislative supervision are not required. Sections 36(i) and 37.1, which were passed in 2012, through Bill 40, fall under Part 4 – Discipline, and subsections 88 (1.1) and (1.2), which were also passed in 2012, fall under Part 10 - General. The appellant and other former lawyers remain subject to the warrantless search and seizure scheme in perpetuity along with increased fines and enforcement.
The appellant filed a petition that various sections of the LPA are inconsistent with s. 8 of the Charter and lawyers’ right to a fair hearing. It is undeniable that there has been a constitutionalization of privilege in Canada along with the scope and availability of review of decisions, which authorize warrantless search and
Check out the next BLOG for more exciting news!