Talk:Edward Banayoti

Edit request by article subject

}

Posted from OTRS#2019061610003984. The following changes have been requested by the subject of this article:

Please change: "Edward Sawiris Banayoti, formerly known as Ernie Anderson, a businessman of Egyptian origin based in Canada" to "Edward Sawiris Banayoti, a businessman of Egyptian origin based in Canada".

• In the article quoted there is no reference to "formerly known as Ernie Anderson".

 Not done

Per this source in the article, Edward Banayoti's prior legal name was Ernie Anderson. Orville1974^talk 02:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Please Remove: "This press coverage brought him to the attention of Daphne Caruana Galizia, a Maltese journalist who’s work specialised in anti-corruption. She investigated Banayoti’s activities in Canada under his former name Ernie or Ernest Anderson.[5][7] In an article posted on 14 November 2016, Daphne Caruana Galizia quotes directly from an Ontario Tribunal and CTV News, a national Canadian newspaper linking Banayoti to a "ponzi scheme".[8] According to the article, Anderson was investigated on suspicion of dealing in fake mortgages through his defunct company Golden Gate Funds.[5][9] According to Canada's Globe and Mail more than 150 other investors put over $8-million into Golden Gate Funds, run by Anderson, before the company went bankrupt. A case was heard before an OSC tribunal before a settlement was agreed in 2009 in which Mr. Anderson acknowledged using investor funds not to invest in mortgages, as he told investors, but to cover operating costs and make payments to previous investors. As part of the settlement, the OSC demanded $4.7-million in monetary penalties.[10]"

• This statement is not true. Nowhere in the settlement agreement of this case can one find that Mr. Anderson acknowledged what is stated. See link [1]. This case was about an unlicensed fund which went bankrupt due to the wold mortgage market collapse at the time. This was quoted from another ctvnews article which stated the same thing but as you can see, from the official document from OSC this was not true.

 Not done

The source you've provided confirms the media source we have in the article. In the settlement agreement, page 4, para. 23: "Investor money was transferred from Golden Gate Funds LP to the bank accounts of other related companies, used to pay operating costs for Golden Gate Funds LP and other related companies used to pay monthly interest payments to other investors and, used to re-pay investors from a previous investment scheme operated by Anderson." (my emphasis added) Orville1974^talk 02:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• I was known by another name which was taken up per tradition which is Ashraf Banayoti, when he married princess Aisha, but this was never my official name.

 Done

I clarified the tradition and current use of Edward Banayoti. Orville1974^talk 02:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is being used by people updating my page to officialise lies in statements, or validate articles which are untrue or unprecise, for the sake of information and what wikipedia sought to achieve, do not allow this to happen and as gatekeeper of wikipedia, I hope you work hard for such things not to happen.

Posted on behalf of the article's subject by Yunshui ^雲_水 11:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The agreement indicated here did not use words which the media used, including words such as ponzi scheme. The issue the OSC had was due to the legal interpretation of who the firm was allowed to sell to. In fact as part of the settlement the two sides agreed to an interpretation to be understood by the firm thereafter. The settlement provided for a confidentiality clause and a settlement being required before information thereof would be released. The settlement itself was also equal to the entirety of the securities sold to third parties that the OSC deemed Golden Gate was not supposed to have sold to. By direct consequence there was no undue enrichment since the amount equated to the full amount of alleged mis-sold securities in addition to fines, penalties and other costs. The mention of several articles the author keeps quoting indicates a poor attempt to factually check the very basis of the allegations. A crime is a crime if a court deems it to be such. A settlement agreement is one where both parties agree that there is no criminal wrong doing but are paying a penalty without necessarily accepting fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRANCISBONNICI (talk • contribs) 13:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your interest in this article. The settlement agreement with the OSC indeed does not use the term "ponzi scheme", however as you point out, other media sources do. Wikipedia is based principally on secondary sources, so we should go by what the secondary sources say (i.e., the media groups) rather than try to interpret the primary source ourselves (i.e., the settlement agreement)

Here's a definition of a Ponzi scheme according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission :

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Instead, they use it to pay those who invested earlier and may keep some for themselves.

And here is what was agreed between the OSC and Mr Banayoti in the settlement agreement:

22. Contrary to the Golden Gate Limited Partnership agreement, investor funds were not used to purchase an investment portfolio of mortgages.

23. Investor money was transferred from Golden Gate Funds LP to the bank accounts of other related companies, used to pay operating costs for Golden Gate Funds LP and other related companies used to pay monthly interest payments to other investors and, used to re-pay investors from a previous investment scheme operated by Anderson.

It is therefore not hard to see why the media would label this operation as a Ponzi scheme

As for your point regarding "no undue enrichment", there is a source which quite clearly shows that as of 2012, none of the financial penalty had actually been paid to the OSC in order to reimburse investors. Do you have a more recent source which shows that all or some of the agreed upon amounts were paid? This would be very useful for the article.

Also, as to your comments about what is considered a crime: This wikipedia article does not state that Mr Banayoti was convicted of a crime, it states that he entered into a settlement agreement with the OSC. However, to be clear, the settlement agreement uses the term "illegal distribution and unregistered trades of Panama Opportunity Fund securities" and also goes on to state that "By engaging in the conduct described above, Anderson and Golden Gate Funds LP have breached Ontario securities law by contravening section 25(1) and 53(1) of the Act, particulars of which are set out below, and has acted contrary to the public interest.". So it is clear that the OSC and Mr Banayoti agreed that the latter acted illegally and breached Canadian law in his actions. This is presumably also why Mr Banayoti was banned by the OSC as part of the agreement to act as a director or officer of an investment firm TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

References

So what's inappropiate, exactly?

@Bbb23 Would you care to elaborate on why you reverted my edits? It seems incontrovertible that the guy is a crook and uncontested that he is an arms dealer. I'm attributing pusillanimity to your action. Please prove me wrong. Mcewan (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've made a compromise edit. Although I would personally agree with the term 'fraudster' (as would certainly many of the journalists who investigated the fraud) it's worth noting that even Bernie Madoff hasn't warranted that label on his wikipedia page.

Hopefully with this compromise we can make it clear in the introduction what the subject is most known for (i.e. operating an investment fraud) while avoiding labels. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme

@TheSLEEVEmonkey: I inserted the word "allegedly" in the lead because (a) the cited source quotes an ex-attorney of the subject, who would clearly have a biased view; and (b) unrelated sources that define what a ponzi scheme is cannot be synthesized into a conclusion stated in Wikipedia's voice. See WP:SYNTHESIS. The word "allegedly" is there to make it clear that it is not Wikipedia making this conclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Point taken, I'll revert for now and try to think of a different wording which more accurately summarizes the sources TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. If reliable sources don't describe the events as a ponzi scheme, then the term probably doesn't rise to a level of importance that warrants mentioning it in the lead, although the attorney's quotation could be included in the body.

Full disclosure: I am a WP:OTRS agent who happened across an email to OTRS from the subject of this article, who has commented above and is now blocked. While OTRS agents don't get involved in content disputes, it did seem he had a valid WP:BLP concern about the lead paragraph, so I made a surgical change. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Request from subject of article

Hello. I work for Edward Banayoti and wish to suggest a few revisions to this article.

After reading the history of this entry and this talk page, I understand that over the past year, Mr. Banayoti or others affiliated with him (I don’t know the details) made edits to this article which were disruptive and interacted with editors on this talk page and elsewhere in inappropriate ways. That is done. I am disclosing my interest, here and on my user page; I have never edited Wikipedia before; and I will avoid editing this article directly and instead will make suggestions here on the Talk page.

The first, and most important matter to address, is the repeated reference to a “Ponzi scheme.” This was already dealt with in the latest section of this Talk page: there is no reliable source that states that Mr. Banayoti ran a Ponzi scheme, and as Anachronist mentioned above, the only sources are a blog post and a quote from Mr. Banayoti’s biased ex-attorney.

Obviously, the problem is not solved by adding the qualification “allegedly.” That word merely gives cover to a powerful attack by one unreliable individual.

I therefore make two suggestions:

• That the second sentence of the article be changed from “He allegedly ran a Ponzi scheme...” to “He violated Canadian securities law...” which is unbiased, factually correct, well-sourced, and in keeping with the policies of Wikipedia.
• That the third paragraph of the Career section be revised to clarify that only Mr. Banayoti’s ex-attorney linked Banayoti to a Ponzi scheme—not CTV News, as the language currently implies.

JosephChenPanz (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)