Thirdly, why is the SWIFT Code used in the WSJ shared document is different?
The best and most straight forward way to check whether a SWIFT document is authentic is to check the SWIFT Code of the bank used in the document. If it is wrong then the whole thing is a fraud. This can also be done online through the relevant official website.
The SWIFT Code of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch) located at 375 Park Avenue, NY 4080, NEW York, NY, US that is depicted on the shared SWIFT document is PNBPUS3NANYC. However, the actual SWIFT Code of Code of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch) located at 375 PARK AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10152 is actually PNBPUS3NNYC. See http://www.swift-code.com/m/united-states/swift-code- pnbpus3nnyc.html
"I had originally thought the SWIFT Code PNBPUS3NANYC belongs to Alfa-Bank Moscow but I got this wrong. Upon further checking, this SWIFT Code belongs to Wachovia Bank NY International Branch, New York located at 4th Floor, 11 Penn Plaza, New York 10001 USA. This bank actually changed its name to Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch) after 2008 following the merger between Wachovia with Wells Fargo.
"This final finding ties up all loose ends. To sum it up, there are actually two Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Bank) located at two different addresses in New York. One at 4th Floor, 11 Penn Plaza, New York 10001 USA (with SWIFT Code PNBPUS3NANY) and the other at 375 PARK AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10152 (with SWIFT Code PNBPUS3NNY).
"The fact that the documents shared by WSJ erroneously depicts the SWIFT Code PNBPUR3NANY as belonging to Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch) located at 375 Park Avenue, NY 4080, NEW York, NY, US is not just a tell tale sign that the document is an absolute hoax but a very firm confirmation that the document is a hoax or a fraud. How could SWJ missed this factual error?"
Original posting
The SWIFT Code PNBPUS3NANYC belongs to Alfa-Bank Moscow. This is not just a tell tale sign that the document is an absolute hoax but a very firm confirmation that the document is a hoax or a fraud. How could WSJ missed this factual error?
To Whom It May Concern,
I have done my analysis for the evidence shared by WSJ. In my attempt to evaluate the veracity of the accusations made against Prime Minister Najib based on the documents shared online (at http://s.wsj.net/public/
Firstly, where is the substantive documentary evidence that confirms the account numbers depicted in the documents actually belongs to the Prime Minister?
The elementary diagram included by them explaining how the fund flowed is not relevant as it is clearly created by somebody else and it goes without saying that it is not a formal bank document. Any Tom, Dick and Harry could have drawn the diagram. This makes it an unreliable evidence. Moreover, the letter supposedly issued by someone by the name depicted under the signature did not refer to the Prime Minister in any way whatsoever. For all we know he was referring to somebody else altogether. This creates a very strong reasonable doubt.
All in all, the documents lack clarity. This makes it difficult to conclude that the documentary "evidence" shared is strong or good enough to be relied upon for an accusation to be leveled against the Prime Minister in the first instance. I hope WSJ can shed more light on this seemingly inaccurate and incomplete picture. How could they make the accusation with so called banking documents that never had Prime Minister Najib's name reflected anywhere?
Secondly, why is the address of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch) stated in the SWIFT message very different from its actual address?
It is stated in the SWIFT message that the address is 375 Park Avenue, NY 4080, NEW York, NY, US.
When I searched online for the address of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch), I found it is 11 Penn Plaza, 4th Floor, New York, New York 10001. See http://www.banklocationslist.
So what is located at 375 Park Avenue? My first search led me to Wells Fargo Advisor, which is a non-bank affiliates of Wells Fargo & Company. See https://home.
Nonetheless, I was not happy with this as there could still be a Wells Fargo bank branch in that same location as Wells Fargo Advisor so I searched online specifically for Wells Fargo Bank N.A. using the same address and upon further checking I found out that there is also another Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch) at this same actual address, thus making the WSJ document seemingly authentic enough to those who does not scrutinize the document thoroughly.
However, the actual address online for this bank is still very markedly and visibly different from what is stated in the document shared by WSJ. http://www.swift-code.com/m/
This is typically one way how one could check the authenticity of a SWIFT message. The tell tale sign includes wrong name of bank and/or wrong address. Frauders will always make at minimum a slightly different name or address so that people would miss it upon first scrutiny. How could WSJ rely on documents that have such an apparent discrepancy found in the document to the information found at Wells Fargo website?
Thirdly, why is the SWIFT Code used in the SWJ shared document is different?
The best and most straight forward way to check whether a SWIFT document is authentic is to check the SWIFT Code of the bank used in the document. If it is wrong then the whole thing is a fraud. This can also be done online through the relevant official website.
The SWIFT Code of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch) located at 375 Park Avenue, NY 4080, NEW York, NY, US that is depicted on the shared SWIFT document is PNBPUS3NANYC. However, the actual SWIFT Code of Code of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch) located at 375 PARK AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10152 is actually PNBPUS3NNYC. See http://www.swift-code.com/m/
The SWIFT Code PNBPUS3NANYC belongs to Alfa-Bank Moscow. This is not just a tell tale sign that the document is an absolute hoax but a very firm confirmation that the document is a hoax or a fraud. How could WSJ miss this factual error?
Three simple questions are enough to prove the documents shared cannot be relied upon as basis for the accusations against Prime Minister Najib. Anyone making and reaffirming the accusations based on the shared documents without asking these questions would unfortunately be seen as doing something frivolous, vexatious as well as totally and absolutely irresponsible.
Fraud using SWIFT message is real and it is shocking that WSJ fell for it. And it is even more unfortunate that some Malaysians also fell for it by relying on WSJ's good reputation. I hope WSJ will do its own checking base on the three simple questions here and if the result is similar to what I have shared here then they must withdraw their accusations and apologize to Prime Minister Najib.
Bru Notes: This is not the work of PGI but I'm sure the people who tracked down Justo would be impressed by the analysis done by this author, who by the way is a legally-trained Malaysian currently heading a banking/finance institution [and therefore, unfortunately, must remain anonymous].
Hafarizam, Najib's lawyer, has his work cut out for him.
Read also:
To WSJ with No Love, Najib's letter of demand
Pembohongan terbaru Pembangkang dan WSJ, Novandri
Seribu pertikaian dan pembuktian pemalsuan memang bagus tetapi saman tidak juga kalau sudah terang lagi nyata !!!
ReplyDeleteAdakah surat mohon penjelasan bernada lembut bermaksud jangan tolong dedahkan lagi.. we are frens maa..
Kenapa kaedah surat penjelasan yang sama tidak dihantar kepada Mahathir untuk mengesahkan betul ke dia (Mahathir) mahu Najib berundur kerana 42B 1MDB (?)
Apa agaknya pula jawapan Najib kalau Mahathir hantar kaedah surat yang sama meminta penjelasan Najib betul ke dia tuduh Mahathir sebagai dalang pendedahan (?)
Surat guaman biasanya bermaksud masa dilengahkan dan perbincangan masih boleh dibuat !!!
http://swiftcodes.org/bank/wachovia-bank-na-9/
ReplyDeletehttps://www.wellsfargo.com/about/corporate/wachovia
please check
anak bentong
Oh well, if only this analysis was sent to Hafarizam BEFORE his law firm sent out that letter to WSJ.
ReplyDeleteSori bro u r wrong this time. Whoever banker that advise u definitely not know what he is talking. Its best u take this down before u get ridicule. Ur first point is irrelevant. Nobody says the illustrted flow as hard evidence. It s for easy comprehension. Second, wells fargo address for swift is also irrelevant. Do know how many wells fargo offices in ny alone. Hint, they dont even have to be a branch. Thirdly, wells fargo is an intermediary bank usd account not the actual sender. A real banker wud know what I m talking about.
ReplyDeleteIndeed you are correct Datuk. I check the PNBPUS3NANYC swift code but found no matching. http://www.theswiftcodes.com/search/?cx=partner-pub-3669717106174696%3A6758287936&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=PNBPUS3NANYC&sa=Search&siteurl=www.theswiftcodes.com%2F&ref=www.google.com%2F&ss=95j9025j2
ReplyDeleteWell Fargo swift code is PNBPUS3NNYC.
Sorry boss but these are my quick google findings
ReplyDeleteWACHOVIA BANK New York
11 PENN PLAZA,4TH FLOOR
NEW YORK,N.Y. 10001
(Swift Code : PNBPUS3NANYC)
also checks out here https://www.onlinesbi.com/.../remi.../sbinri_rem_corbnk.html
On this page it clearly shows that Alfa Bank has a different swift code from the one assigned to Wachovia http://for3d.ru/shop_content.php?language=en&coID=21
well in the end, only those guys in the task force can confirm or answer your questions.
ReplyDeletethey seem rather logical and the question i think is justified.
but if it were that simple, the task force would have figure tht out already.
but leads to 6 account frozen? shows some really physical money being transfered. or hinted at such.
plus if it is bogus document all ambank had to do is deny it.
but still, i guess all question need to be address in fairness.
but judging from the atmosphere.... the pm himself is not convincing neither did he properly refute wsj.
seems to me like the air of a guilty man.
Hello Rocky,
ReplyDeletePNBPUS3NANYC belonged to Wachovia Bank, not Alfa Bank. Wachovia Bank has been acquired by Wells Fargo.
rockys b,
ReplyDeletePNBPUS3NANYC not related to alfa bank moscow...their swift code totally diffrnt,
but PNBPUS3NANYC also not related to what ever said bank by WSJ...cause what ever said bank by WSJ swift code is PNBPUS3NNYC...
what does 'A' inside there mean?? A fraud BY wsj??? A lies by WSJ???
-SMH-
Just to provide readers more information on SWIFT codes
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9362
4 letters: Institution Code or bank code.
2 letters: ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code
Hence, it's unlikely to be a bank in Russia. After Wachovia Bank has been acquired, they probably retired the SWIFT code. If the transfer was done before SWIFT code was retired, this is still valid.
Dear Dato,
ReplyDeleteWhen WSJ came out this damning allegations, although i'm sympathetic with the predicament that our PM is facing now, i believe the right way is for us to allow the task force to carry their investigations until completion.
This is the only way for PM to redeem his honour and image before the rakyat.
And actually for anyone who is familiar with the banking systems work, the claims by this author is easily rebutted.
I believe someone want to play play with you Dato. Be careful.
Bro,
ReplyDeleteLepas baca few comments macam you pun nak mislead ,lebih kurang WSJ saja.
Hafarizam too busy saving his KIDEX highway project from being shelved by Selangor Gov. Where got time?
ReplyDeleteMalaysiakini has identified the senior bank official who detected possible discrepancies in the documents published by the WSJ.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't you name him in your blog, Bru?
Second, why are the investigations going round and round? 3 central banks/bank regulators know if the alleged transactions took place or not, and if they did take place, who were the sending and receiving parties.
The swift code PNBPUS3NANYC is a valid swift code in 2013 although Wachovia Corporation was acquired by Well Fargo in 2008.
ReplyDeleteSee the following.. http://www.chalanachithram.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-auth.cgi?file=/125/215134.html
http://www.sansantropez.com/oldsite/html/bonifico-e.html
https://www.onlinesbi.com/nri/remittances/sbinri_rem_corbnk.html
People are using it during that time. So the swift code is correct and not a fraud.
Dont have to know which bank it belongs to. The SWIFT Codes are either 8 or 11. The one sent by WSJ is 12 digits, which points out that there is something not right about the MT103. Also, Wachovia was taken over by Wells Fargo in 2008. The SWIFT codes should have been changed by 2013
ReplyDeleteYes, you got it right this time after the updated. The swift code is valid but at the wrong bank address. So definitely the documents is pure fraud.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhatever. The account may or may not belong to Najib. It does not matter.
Najib should resign because he is incompetent. He is not PM material.
As for the zip code discrepancy, I think 4080 is the 4-digit extended portion of a 9-digit zip code.
ReplyDeleteReally, half baked analyses like this doesn't help and reeks of clutching at straws.
Rocky,
ReplyDeleteactually i have a very simple way to resolve the issue.
we all trust Dr Zeti of BNM.
She has higher standing in most people's eyes (even oppo) than AG, IGP, MACC heads.
So why doesnt she call a presser to say:
1) PM Najib did (or did not) have bank accounts at AmBank - he is prime minister after all. dia punya sukalah nak ada 100 akaun pun.
2) But BNM have checked with Spore MAS and Fed in the USA. There were NO such huge transfers.
Easy what.
Why all these wayang about suing, raiding and denying not for personal gain?
It all depends on what you want to believe, since not many readers are experts in international finance and banking. If WSJ did not do a proper due diligence on information it obtained, it is clearly at fault in the publication of a misleading and potentially libelous article on a respected head of state. Hopefully, a prestigious newspaper such as WSJ will elect to do the right thing if erroneous information has been discovered to have been used in its news article.
ReplyDeleteThis is from Malaysiakini here:
ReplyDeleteTop banker claims WSJ fell for 'fraud' bank docs
by Nigel Aw
Updated Jul 08, 2015 5:42pm
CIMB Islamic Bank chief executive officer Badlisyah Abdul Ghani has accused The Wall Street Journal of falling for false documents with regard to its report claiming that RM2.6 billion worth of 1MDB-linked funds were deposited into AmBank accounts belonging to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.
However, a check by Malaysiakini revealed that he could have missed the mark.
Badlisyah had based his claim on an analysis of the 'Swift' message documents released by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) yesterday.
"Fraud using Swift message is real and it is shocking that WSJ fell for it.
"And it is even more unfortunate that some Malaysians also fell for it by......
Malaysiakini has scrutinised Badlisyah's claim and found no discrepancy in the address' postcode.
Both "4080" and "10152" are part of the Bank's address and is listed as follows: "375 Park Avenue NY 4080. New York, NY 10152".
This was confirmed by two Swift Code databases (photo), bank-codes.com and swift.com,which list the address as "375 Park Avenue, NY 4080" followed by postal code as "New York, NY 10152".
Furthermore, Malaysiakini also found that Badlisyah had erroneously attributed the Swift Code PNBPUS3NANYC as belonging to Alfa-Bank Moscow.
Alfa-Bank on its official website lists its Swift Code as ALFARUMM and this is also confirmed by databases such as swift-code.com
My comments : So the CEO of a bank here thought he had caught out the Wall Street Journal. It looks like a reporter writing for Malaysiakini has caught out the Bank CEO.
Here is something a friend of mine sent me about Swift codes :
This guy (referring someone else) is just creating confusion.Swift codes are written as such:
AAAA BB CC DDD
AAAA refers to the bank
BB refers to the country
CC refers to location
DDD is the branch code. DDD is optional. I usually just put XXX when i do transfer.
When i transfer to my maybank acc, i just use MBBE MY KL XXX
So even the KL can change...
All that matters is that for wells fargo, it is
PNBP US
The rest can change...u check all this on www.swift-code.com
Maybe Badlisyah should check out the Swift codes.
This whole damn thing is a product of a systemic breakdown in our education system, the product of a really inadequate corporate fraternity, a non existent value system among our entire 'establishment crowd' (except maybe Nazir Razak and gang).
It is really presumptious to think that the Wall Street Journal would be conned by a wrong address or an altered Swift code.
I will also be commenting on that statement by Hafarizam Wan later. Also amateurish.
Well Sir, if the tables were turned and if Najib was in the place place of Mahathir, Najib would have been accused of using Zionist elements to bring down a democratic government. Remember '97 & ''98 financial crisis, everything was George Soros's fault, never Mahathir's.
ReplyDeleteSo, biarlah these Mamak bloggers melompat lompat macam kera kena belacan, at the end everything will come to nawt.
bro ... u r still a layman yang tak faham legal proceedings... hafarizam akan jadi lagi bodoh jika tanya soalan yang awak cadangkan....
ReplyDeletetugas hafarizam ialah memulakan suatu defamation suit bukan tanya semua soalan soalan tu... ianya sangat premature untuk dipertanyakan
Wachovia used to be popular usd accout for bahrain banks
ReplyDeleteObviously WSJ is not on this Badlisyah’s regular reading list. He probably have not heard of, much less read, the Financial Times or the Economist. His reading repertoire does not extend beyond Utusan Melayu, NST and other UMNO newsletters. Who appointed him CEO of a major bank? Nazir Razak as Chairman of CIMB should fire this guy on the spot.
ReplyDeleteHe (Badli chap) probably got his MBA locally, or if abroad, from Creekville State U. Or maybe he is like that Chairman of LTH, that Azzeeez character, with a PhD from Preston U, which is a universe away academically and in all other ways from Princeton. Of course UMNO folks would not know the difference. Then they get mad when others call us Malays dumb.
M. Bakri Musa
The SWIFT Code is definitely wrong. The first four characters in the SWIFT code denote the Bank. In the Wall Street Swift message, the first four characters are PNBU. If it was PBNP, yes it would have been Wachovia Bank. Being the sender the SWIFT code would have been default and you would be recognised by it and you cant change it. Obviously, the SWIFT message is a fake
ReplyDeleteThat fellow is no more anonymous
ReplyDeleterocky
ReplyDeleteBadli sudah kena internal inquiry by CIMB.
Hang pi baca Outsyed The Box mengenai swift code , simple straight forward explanation from ex banker himself
drmuzi
Latuk,
ReplyDeleteApa dah sudah jadi!!!
Have a look at this article : http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/07/09/Nazir-CIMB-internal-investigate-badli/
CIMB group chairman apologised and said that Badlisyah should not have commented on the documents as it was a technical matter.Badlisyah (pic), who is also Association of Islamic Banking Institutions Malaysia president, had claimed in his original posting that banking documents released by the WSJ allegedly showing transactions of US$700mil (RM2.6bil) of 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) funds into personal accounts of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak were false.
YES HE CLAIMED IT WAS FALSE!!!!!!!!
Later the same evening, Badlisyah released a press statement admitting he was wrong in his analysis of the documents and that the opinions expressed on his Facebook page were strictly his personal opinion.
Yeh!! Now he states " HE WAS WRONG "
"I would also like to acknowledge that I had made an error in my post with regard to my analysis of the various Swift codes.
"The mistakes were correctly pointed out by a report in Malaysiakini on the matter, and I have also made the correction on my Facebook page," said Badlisyah
ROCKY ... THIS IS THE LEVEL OF INCOMPETENCY OF THE CEO of the CIMB Islamic Bank. Rudimentary mistakes . Bugger this idiot. If you wish to enter the fray, CHECK your facts.. because now you look like a MORON!!!!
ROCKY!!! YOU goose , in your blog you stated " In the amendment, he admits to getting the bit about Alfa-Bank wrong." Only the bit about Alfa Bank wrong?????
You suckholes are in deep 5hit!!! Make a fool of yourselves and we the raykat can have a chuckle at the crap you dungus dish out.
All the actions taken thus far is just to show the Malaysia public that Najib is doing something about the allegations about him while the truth Najib is playing a procrastination game. This is so that he can remain as PM for a little bit longer, to date he has yet taken any tangible action to sue the WEJ and he will never will. He can only say publicly he has never gained personally but never ever deny that the US$700- million has never gone into his personal accounts. Which is the crux of the matter and also the fact of the matter, Why is he or what is the need for him to have so many accounts and in so many different countries ? And why is he now closing down some of these accounts, only after they were being revealed to the public if he was really sincere about having the bank accounts for the real purposes bank accounts are intended for ?
ReplyDeletePlease Rocky deleting my posts about this turncoat will not diminish Najib's many of your bloggers are also bringing out the many problems he is facing right now. They will only make the matters even worse, let the truth be told and shame the devil, isn't that the real purpose of journalism ? Don't try to cover fire with paper, it will never work !
To M Bakri Musa,
ReplyDeleteI am no fan of Badlishah, but your condemnation of his blunder is downright appalling and disgusting. Yeah, he made a mistake, and he apologised for his mistake, but your arrogance in putting him down in your posting is certainly deplorable.
Refer to the website below from bloomberg (I purposely chose a western media since you wouldnt believe a local source, based on your condenscending attitude on everyone local) to obtain Badlishah's professional background. GO READ IT!
And Badlisyah holds a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Leeds, United Kingdom.
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=11498878&ticker=CIMB:MK
Mr. Badlisyah bin Abdul Ghani is recognized as a Leader in Islamic finance globally. Amongst his notable accomplishments includes the introductions of the world’s first Sukuk al Ijarah, the world’s first Istisna’ Sukuk and the world’s first Musyarakah ABS/RMBS. In 2004, Euromoney named him one of “Global Top 20 Pioneers in Islamic Finance” and in 2007, he was voted “Islamic Banker of the Year” at the prestigious Islamic Business and Finance Awards and the “Best Individual Islamic Banker in 2007” by Islamic Finance News Poll. He was named the sole recipient of “The Asian Banker Promising Young Banker Award for Malaysia 2007” in The Asian Banker Achievement Awards 2007 programme.
Latuk:
ReplyDeleteIn your defence, your England is better than the obnoxious Hafarizam. Pity you guys are all going down.