Legal papers filed in a Boston Court have given extensive details about the financial scam that was run on investors by Eric Resteiner, the former so called Trade Counsellor of the Keith Mitchell-led government in Grenada.
Resteiner is also suspected of giving the Grenadian leader US$500, 000 in a briefcase in June 2000 in Switzerland in the form of a bribe to make him a diplomatic envoy of the Spice Isle.
Prime Minister Mitchell has denied the allegation claiming that he received ³approximately US$15, 000.00 from Resteiner to help finance an investment trip that he was undertaking to several European capitals.
Resteiner is currently locked up in a U.S jail in Boston awaiting sentencing for multi-million dollar wire fraud. Last week, GRENADA TODAY carried the first part of the indictment against Resteiner. Part 11 follows:
Harbur referred at lease ten other individuals to defendant RESTEINER's investment scheme, in large part by repeating the false information provided by defendant RESTEINER to potential investors.
These individuals, who included John Rutherford, Mary Reed, Marilyn Rinker, Court Kleinedler, Nathan Harbur (Harbur's brother), Andrew Teich and Jay Teich (Harbur's brother-in-laws; Rusty Jones, Peter Stodd, and Margaret Pinkham, invested over $5,8000,000 with defendant RESTEINER.
Harbur initially told investors to transfer funds to the SAM account, at defendant RESTEINER'S direction. Later in the scheme, defendant RESTEINER told Harbur to instruct investors to either transfer funds to the WSSC account or to refer them to the Resource F program run by VonStrasdas and Dyer.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that on various dates between March 1998 and May 2000, defendant RESTEINER paid Harbur fees for referring new investors to his investment program.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that starting in October 1998 and continuing thereafter until May 2000, defendant RESTEINER transferred money from his Osaka, SAM, and WSSC accounts to Harbur's New England Holdings account at Barclays's Bank.
This money, as directed by defendant RESTEINER, was purportedly a return on Harbur's investment with defendant RESTEINER, fees or commissions paid to Harbur for referring investors to defendant RESTEINER, and for Harbur to make periodic payments, typically monthly, to the investors he had referred to defendant RESTEINER.
John Rutherford
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that in late November/early December 1997, Harbur promoted defendant RESTEINER's investment program to John Rutherford by repeating the misrepresentations made to him by defendant RESTEINER.
Thereafter, at the direction of defendant RESTEINER, Harbur instructed Rutherford to wire transfer $2 million to an account in the name of Premiere Mercantile, at Barclays Bank, PLC, Nassau, Bahamas, for investment with defendant RESTEINER.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that on December 2, 1997, defendant RESTEINER signed a promissory note which acknowledged receipt of Rutherford's funds. Guaranteed Rutherford a return of 10% per month on his investment with defendant RESTEINER, and guaranteed a letter from the bank of repayment of Rutherford's principal in one year.
Nathan Harbur
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that in November 1998, Harbur introduced his brother, Nathan Harbur, to defendant RESTEINER.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that during this meeting, defendant RESTEINER made the misrepresentations described in paragraphs through 10 to Nathan Harbur.
Specifically, RESTEINER told Nathan Harbur that he was offering an investment opportunity that promise monthly returns of 4 to 5% based on the trading of off-balance sheet financial notes.
Defendant RESTEINER further told Nathan Harbur that he was making such a large return by buying high interest notes at a discount and selling them at par or above thereby generating a quick profit.
Defendant RESTEINER further told Nathan Harbur that he would arrange to sell the notes to a third party before buying them.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud, as designed by defendant RESTEINER, that Harbur promoted the investment program to his brother, both by repeating the misrepresentations made to him by defendant RETEINER and by telling his brother of the returns he had made on his investment with defendant RESTEINER.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that, as directed by defendant RESTEINER, Harbur referred his brother to VonStrasdas to invest money with defendant RESTEINER.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that in December 1998, VonStrasdas sent Nathan Harbur a private placement memorandum for Resource F, the investment vehicle offered by defendant RESTEINER and managed by VonStrasdas and Dyer.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that once VonStrasdas learned that Nathan Harbur intended to use money from his Individual Retirement Account to invest in Resource F that he referred Nathan Harbur to Dyer. Dyer, in turn, referred Nathan Harbur to Richard Hufnagel, a broker at Piper Jaffray.
It was further part if the scheme and artifice to defraud that in May 1999, Nathan Harbur received a letter from David A. Conary of Mustang Capital, LLC, Bethel, Maine.
This letter enclosed a Piper Haffray New Account Form; a roll-over certificate, and a self-directed IRA application.
On or about May 18, 1999. Nathan Harbur returned the completed forms, sent by Federal Express, to Conary at Mustang.
On or about May 21, 1999, Nathan Harbur sent VonStrasdas, by Federal Express the document needed to initiate his investment in Resource F. These documents were sent to Resource F's Palm Beach, Florida address.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that in June 1999, Nathan Harbur received a letter from VonStrasdas confirming his $200,000 investment in Resource F from his Piper Jaffray IRA account.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that, thereafter, as directed by defendant RESTEINER, Nathan Harbur received monthly payments on his Resource F investment from approximately August 1999 through February or March 2000, totaling approximately $53,540.
These monthly payments came from principal funds invested by Nathan Harbur and others. Nathan Harbur received no further payments after May 2000.
Andrew Teich
It was further part if the scheme and artifice to defraud that in 1998, defendant RESTEINER approached Andrew Teich with an investment opportunity while Teich was vacationing in the Bahamas.
Harbur previously introduced defendant RESTEINER to Andrew Teich, his brother-in-law, in 1996.
It was further a part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that during this 1998 meeting, defendant RESTIENER told Andrew Teich how he had become wealthy through off-balance sheet trading, a secret trading activity typically limited to the ultra rich.
Defendadnt RESTEINER further told Andrew Teich that his investment was safe and promised monthly returns of 4 percent.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud, as designed by defendant RESTEINER, that Harbur promoted the investment program to Andrew Teich, by both repeating the misrepresentations made to him by defendant RESTIENER and by telling his brother-in-law of the returns he had made on his investment with defendant RESTIENER.
Upon his return to the United States, Andrew Teich decided to refinance his home in Wayland, Massachusetts and use the equity from his home to invest with defendant RESTEINER.
Between May 1998 and August 1998, Andrew Teich wire transferred over $200,000 to the SAM account at Barclays Bank, Nassau, Bahamas.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud, as designed by defendant RESTEINER and at his direction, that Andrew Teich received periodic payments on his investment until the monthly payments stopped in May 2000.
These payments came from principal funds invested by Andrew Teich and others. Teach received no further payments after that time.
Arthur and Margaret Pinkham
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud, that sometime in 1997, Arthur Pinkham and other members of the CCS in Boston participated in a meeting at defendant RESTEINER's home in the Bahamas.
At this initial meeting, defendant RESTEINER made the basic investment pitch, which was later repeated by defendant RESTEINER at a meeting at the CCS in Boston.
Thereafter, defendant RESTEINER and his wife were dinner guests of Arthur Pinkham and his wife, Margaret. During dinner, defendant RESTEINER again discussed his investment opportunity.
Defendant RESTEINER told Margaret Pinkham that the investment was safe, that she could take their money back at any time, and a one year investment would reap an annual return of 50 percent.
When Margaret Pinkham told defendant RESTEINER that she was interested, but did not have the multi-millions needed to invest, defendant RESTEINER told her that he would make an exception for her and allow a $100,000 investment.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that defendant RESTEINER then gave Margaret Pinkham contact information for VonStrasdas, the individual defendant RESTEINER said would handle the paperwork for her.
In January 2000, Margaret Pinkham sent two wire transfers, totaling $100,000, from the Savings Bank of Manchester, Willimantic, Connecticut, to the WSSC account in the Bahamas controlled by defendant RESTEINER.
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud, as designed and directed by defendant RESTEINER, that Margaret Pinkham received one payment check for $5,300 shortly after she invested.
This payment came from principal funds invested by Margaret Pinkham and others. Margaret Pinkham received no other payments or return of her initial investment.
Marilyn Rinker
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud, as designed and directed by defendant RESTEINER, that Marilyn Rinker, an acquaintance of Miles Harbur, invested with defendant RESTEINER, individually and in her role as chairman of the boards of directors of the Principle Foundation, the Powell Crown Foundation, and Camp Leelanau-Kohana.
Rinker made or directed the following investments with defendant RESTEINER, both through transfer to the SAM account controlled by defendant RESTEINER and through investments made in Resource F, as follows:
DATE INVESTOR AMOUNT
02/25/98 Marilyn Rinker $ 500,000.00
06/09/98 Marilyn Rinker $ 500,000.00
09/04/98 Powell Crown Foundation $ 500,000.00
03/01/99 Marilyn Rinker $ 200,000.00
04/01/99 Powell Crown Foundation $ 200,000.00
04/28/99 Principle Foundation $ 200,000.00
09/20/99 Principle Foundation $ 100,000.00
10/19/99 Marilyn Rinker $ 100,000.00
12/20/99 Principle Foundation $ 100,000.00
12/23/99 Camp Leelanau-Kohana $ 200,000.00
$2,600,000.00
It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud, as designed and directed by defendant RESTEINER, that Marilyn Rinker and the entities for which she directed investments be made with defendant RESTEINER, received monthly payments until they stopped in early 2000.
These payments came from principal funds invested by Marilyn Rinker and others.
