PURPOSE AND INTENT OF TRADEX DUE DILIGENCE REPORT:
ORGANIGRAM AND LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

The Tradex Due Diligence report is a report on how an accounting firm and an accountant working for the accounting firm use their positions with the public, the court system, law enforcement and professionnals who are dealing with the financial world in one form or another regarding investments, liquidations, bankruptcies, insolvencies and with asset recovery from questionable transactions and representations.

1. The Tradex Due Diligence report is unique in its form because the evidence in this report provides the method on how an accountant represents himself alone without the accounting firm. One example with the evidence in the report is the accountant places everything in his or her own name and not with the accounting firm.

2. The accountant in this report provides no accounting of how creditors funds are spent.

3. The accountant in this report provides no statements of account for banking of any kind while having total control over the funds locally and internationally.

4. The evidence in this report demontrates how the acountant reponds to court issued documents addressed to the accouting firm instead of the accountant.

5. In this report the evidence speaks for itself on how the accountant provides no true balance of account regarding the amount of funds available to the creditors.

6. The evidence proves there is no verifiable transparent report as to the activities performed by the said accountant stating that he or she is performing his or her said accounting duties on behalf of creditors.

7. The veracity of the information is constantly put to question whereby the lack of transparency causes a lack of ability to verify and to get a second opinion on the work said to be done by the accountant acting on behalf of himself or herself in their own name.

8. When creditors attempt through court proceedings to make “right” a “wrong” they often pursue the accounting firm believing it is the accounting firm representing the creditors.The accountant makes it clear in writing to everyone that the court documents are sealed to creditors of Tradex while acting as liquidator for Tradex and “is not true” – see certificate of JURIS CONSULT in the Tradex Evidence section

The evidence in the Tradex Due Diligence report is important since the methods in this case allow any due diligence specialist to verify how an accounting firm is used to receive the title of liquidator, receiver, bankruptcy and/or insolvency trustee and thus the real party who is in control is the individual and not the accounting company.

An example of the above is briefly explained below taken from the Tradex Due Diligence report:

Funds came into Banc Caribe and then were processed out of Banc Caribe via an entity named Tradex and others.
Marcus Wide put all into his name and not with PricewaterhouseCoopers from February 6, 2003 to the year 2007 having full control as said liquidator over;

1- Marcus Wide the accountant/liquidator as Banc Caribe under his name and at the same time

2- has a depositor under his control as accountant/liquidator once again that is a depositor of Banc Caribe while he is in control of Banc Caribe at the same time locally and internationally through all of the correspondent banking relationship of Banc Caribe, and

3- no records were forthcoming for more than over 600 and more victims of Tradex, the depositor

4- the depositor complains one month after the accountant takes control over the bank that no funds are in the account of the depositor Tradex and the story begins as per the Tradex Due Diligence report

The question remains where are the funds? The techniques shared aboves and in the Tradex report is the principal reason for this report.

QUESTIONS

Tradex Ltd. (Tradex) in the year of 2003 has its bank account holding its funds for over 600 potential investors in a bank called Bank Caribe Ltd. (Bank Caribe).

Tradex and Bank Caribe were both located in a country called the Commonwealth of Dominica (Dominica).

The months of February and March in the year of 2003 are the key dates for events that unfold regarding these two (2) entities named Tradex and Bank Caribe.

Questions Regarding These Events Are;

Who had the signatory control over the day to day banking operations and international correspondant relationships for Bank Caribe of Dominica?
Who alone had full signatory control over both Bank Caribe and Tradex at the same time; was it

a) Mr. Marcus Wide of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) and/or,

b) PricewaterhouseCoopers and/or,

c) Mr. Marcus Wide alone?

What is the intention and purpose of PricewaterhouseCoopers Canada to use the name Rita Laframboise on the PWC website since the year 2003 and to continue in the year 2016?

The Due Dilligence with its evidence regarding Tradex and Mr. Marcus Wide of PricewaterhouseCoopers and/or PricewaterhouseCoopers and/or Mr. Marcus Wide alone is from court records, with notarized and court affidavids and with a certificate of Juris Consult.

What began in February 6, 2003 with Marcus Wide became a Notice Of Deadline For Proof Of Debts By Marcus Wide For Banc Caribe in the year 2007.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

THIS NOTICE EVIDENCES THAT BANC CARIBE IS UNDER LIQUIDATION ACCORDING TO THE COMPANIES ACT AND NOT UNDER BANKRUPTCY ACCORDING TO THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR TRADEX. SEE JURIS CONSULT (Evidence U-i)