A Writ of Summons has been issued by DMS Bank & Trust Ltd and DMS Organization Ltd against Jazeb Jones.

The following are excerpts from the Summons:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Introduction
1. The Plaintiffs are affiliated companies within a group (the DMS Group), comprising a number of separate, but related, entities operating, principally under the DMS brand, in the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, London, Dublin, Sao Paolo, Hong Kong and New York.
2. The First Plaintiff (DB&T) is a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands with its principal office of business in Grand Cayman. DB&T carries on the business of banking and trust services under a Class B licence issued by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) and is regulated by CIMA.
3. The Second Plaintiff (the Employer) is a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands with its principal office of business in Grand Cayman. The Second Plaintiff provides, among other services, human resources services to entities within the DMS Group, including DB&T.
4. The entities operating under the DMS Group brand have developed a strong international reputation as providers of services to entities within the financial services industry.
5. Commencing 20 August 2012, the Defendant was employed as the Managing Director of DB&T under an employment agreement between DB&T, the Employer and the Defendant.
6. The Defendant was appointed to the Board of Directors of DB&T effective 7 August 2013. At all material times there were three other members of the Board of Directors: Don Seymour, Roger Hanson and Ray Whittaker.
7. The Defendant’s appointment as a member of the Board of Directors of DB&T was terminated effective 9 March 20J5. The Defendant’s employment as Managing Director of DB&T was terminated for cause on 9 March 2015.

List of Duties (NOT PUBLISHED)

The Defendant’s breaches of duties
10. In breach of his express duties under the Employment Agreement, and in breach of his fiduciary duties as a director of DB&T, the Defendant, whilst still an employee under the Employment Agreement with the Plaintiffs, and a director of DB&T –
(a) entered into an unauthorized and improper relationship with persons affiliated with an entity which was at the time a client of DB&T (Client A) whereby, among other things, the Defendant received for his personal benefit, and for the benefit of his close personal family, unauthorised and excessive gifts from Client A, which the Defendant failed to disclose to DB&T or to his fellow directors until confronted;
(b) entered into an unauthorised and improper relationship with another client of DB&T (Client B)2, whereby the Defendant received for his personal benefit, and for the benefit of his close personal family, unauthorised and excessive gifts from Client B, which the Defendant failed to disclose to DB&T or to his fellow directors;
(c) despite repeated instructions from another director of DB&T, failed to close Client A’s account with DB&T, even after it was made clear to the Defendant that the continuation of the client relationship with Client A posed a risk to the reputation of DB&T, and was otherwise detrimental to the interests of DB&T;
(d) without the knowledge or approval of his fellow directors, received, took legal advice upon and negotiated an employment offer from Client A to set up and operate a private banking institution for Client A in the Cayman Islands, which institution was intended compete directly with DB&T;
(e) misused the MasterCard debit card issued to him by DB&T for legitimate business expenses by incurring excessive charges for personal expenses and for expenses unrelated to DB&T’s business and failing to repay those charges in full.

11. Further, after the Defendant’s authorization to enter the Plaintiffs’ offices had been terminated, the Defendant entered the building and the Plaintiffs’ offices by using an unauthorised visitor’s pass, and removed from the office a box containing several items the identity and ownership of which are as yet unverified by the Plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s improper relationship with Client A

12. In early May 2014, the Defendant met with representatives of Client A (including the founder/managing director of Client A) in London. Following this meeting, the Defendant negotiated a “white label agreement” between Client A and DB&T. The white label agreement was a branding arrangement under which Client A would market certain of DB&T’s products to certain clients of Client A. DB&T and Client A signed the white labeling agreement on or about 5 May 2014.
13. Between 5 May 2014 and 29 May 2014, employees of DB&T entered into discussions with representatives of Client A regarding the anti-money laundering (AML) and know your customer (KYC) enquiries that both DB&T and Client A would undertake in relation to the clients of Client A to whom DB&T’s products would be marketed.
14. Investigations subsequently carried out by DB&T revealed that, on or about 15 May 2014, the Defendant received by e-mail from the founder of Client A, a draft of one of Client A’s proposed individual account agreements which the Defendant failed to disclose to any other director or employee of DB&T. If this draft account agreement had been disclosed to the other directors of DB&T, they would have identified a number of very evident red flags regarding Client A and its intentions, and would have caused the other directors to consider the relationship with Client A. It would also have caused the directors to consider the Defendant’s intentions. The proposed agreement provided for a number of activities with the potential to violate banking regulations, something that the Defendant, as a senior banking employee and director of a bank, knew and understood, or ought to have known and understood.
15. DB&T’s subsequent investigations also revealed that during the period between 5 May and 29 May 2014, the Defendant engaged in unsanctioned communication with Client A via WhatsApp and Hobnail accounts, which was an unorthodox manner of communicating with DB&Ts clients and a method discouraged by DB&T, a fact which would have been evident to the Defendant since DB&T arranged and paid for the Defendant’s monthly bring your own device plan, which provided the Defendant with access to DB&T email on his own phone, allowing him to communicate with clients on DB&T’s network. The Defendant’s practice in this regard gives rise to the inference that the Defendant did not wish all his communications with Client A to be available to DB&T.
16. Whilst the discussions between DB&T and Client A regarding the white labeling agreement were in progress, the Defendant travelled to and was entertained extensively in various places such as London, Guernsey, Istanbul and Dubai, all at the expense of Client B, who had earlier introduced the Defendant to Client A.
17. On or about 18 May 2014, without the knowledge or consent of his fellow directors, the Defendant accepted an invitation from the founder of Client A for the Defendant, and his wife and two children to fly from the Cayman Islands to London, and then to be transported by private jet to Greece, where accommodation was also to be provided, for the purpose of attending the wedding of Client A’s founder, all at Client A’s expense. The Defendant and his family took advantage of this gratuitous hospitality in September 2014. This travel was completely unconnected to DB&T’s business and conferred no benefit to DB&T. The Defendant failed to disclose the receipt of this benefit to his fellow directors or any other representatives of the Plaintiffs.
18. Towards the end of May 2014, the other directors of DB&T received information that Client A was misrepresenting the nature of its relationship with DB&T, by stating that Client A had “purchased a Cayman Islands Bank” and “owned DB&T” and otherwise purporting to represent DB&T. As a consequence of this misrepresentation by Client A, on 29 May 2014, DB&T, further investigated the nature of the arrangements between DB&T and Client A and terminated the white labeling agreement before it was ever brought into effect.
19. During the discussions regarding the termination of the white label agreement in May 2014, the Defendant admitted that he was scheduled to travel to London to meet with Client A. DB&T required this trip to be canceled. It transpired, upon the Plaintiffs’ further investigation in March 2015, that Client A had arranged for the Defendant and his family of four to travel on first class tickets from the Cayman Islands to London and stay for four nights in a two bedroom suite at the Ritz at a combined cost of US$46,189.03. Although the Defendant disclosed his intention to travel with his family to London in May 2014, he never disclosed to DB&T the gratuitous nature and expense of his plans. A director of DB&T advised the Defendant in May 2014 that such hospitality was against DMS Group policy and that it placed DB&T and the DMS Group at serious risk of reputational harm.
20. On the same date, having terminated the white label agreement, DB&T advised Client A that DB&T would do no further business with Client A and the Defendant was instructed to close the account.
21. In September 2014, whilst the Defendant was attending the wedding of Client A’s founder in Greece, DB&T’s other directors found out about the trip taken by the Defendant and his family to Greece at Client A’s expense. The other directors met with the Defendant to discuss his behavior with a view to terminating his contract of employment or giving him a written warning. During the meeting the Defendant reassured the other directors that his relationship with Client A’s founder was simply a ”friendship with a former client”, suggesting, falsely, that the Defendant had closed Client A’s account as he was instructed, and that there was no existing client relationship, and therefore, no need for the Defendant to have disclosed the trip, or any actual or potential conflict of interest to the other directors. On this basis, DB&T did not terminate the Defendant and choose instead to issue a first and final written warning.
22. Between December 2014 and March 2015, after discovering that the Defendant had not in fact closed Client A’s account, another director of DB&T verbally instructed the Defendant on no fewer than three occasions to close the account. The Defendant advised a director of DB&T, again falsely, that he had taken steps to close the account. When this transpired to be false, the matter was escalated to DMS Group’s CEO, who requested that DMS Group’s internal audit team review the account files for Client A
23. During this time, unbeknownst to his fellow directors, the Defendant had received an employment offer from Client A, for the Defendant to set up and operate a private banking institution for Client A in the Cayman Islands. In all likelihood, this opportunity would have been severely prejudiced if the Defendant had closed Client A’s account with DB&T, and it is to be inferred that the Defendant refused to close the account wholly, or in part, because he did not wish to prejudice his relationship with Client A, and the personal benefits he was deriving from that relationship. As such, the Defendant placed his personal interests in the relationship with Client A over the interests of DB&T, whilst placing DB&T at risk of serious reputational harm by refusing to close the Client A’s account.

The Defendant’s termination
24. On or about 5 March 2015 the other directors of DB&T became aware of a criminal fraud investigation underway in the UK in which Client A, and several entities related to it, are implicated. Those directors immediately took the appropriate compliance steps and commenced a full investigation into the Defendant’s conduct.
25. On 6 March 2015 the Defendant failed to attend the DB&T office. DB&T was aware that the Defendant knew about the UK investigation at this time, because an employee of DMS’ UK operation had forwarded an article regarding the investigation to various employees, including the Defendant. He failed to request this time off and did not contact his team. The Plaintiffs therefore terminated the Defendant’s access to DB&T’s premises and all electronic access to files. On 9 March 2015 the Plaintiffs removed the Defendant as a director of DB&T and advised the Defendant that he was no longer an employee of DB&T. On 16 March 2015, the Plaintiffs wrote to the Defendant confirming formally the Defendant’s termination for cause.

The Defendant’s improper relationship with Client B

26. During the investigations into the Defendant’s conduct carried out in March 2015, the Plaintiffs also discovered evidence of an improper relationship between the Defendant and Client B, who had caused the introduction of the Defendant to Client A. In particular, during a trip that the Defendant made to Brazil at the expense of Client B, the Defendant spent the vast majority of his time with Client B, keeping “office hours” with Client B, was introduced as a “partner” of Client B, and generally conducted himself in a manner that gave the public impression that he was a direct employee of Client B.
27. During that period the Defendant, without the knowledge or approval of his fellow directors, accepted an excessive and improper degree of corporate hospitality from Client B. Client B, including an expensive handmade suit, offered the Defendant gifts. Although DB&T has not ascertained whether the Defendant accepted the suit, the Defendant failed to report the offer to his fellow directors.

28. DB&T also uncovered various communications indicating that Client B arranged for transportation and accommodation for the Defendant’s father to travel to Jamaica in
September 2014. The Defendant failed to report this gift to his fellow directors, or the fact that his father had taken this trip.
29. In light of DB&T’s discoveries during its investigations regarding the relationship between the Defendant and Client B, DB&T has since closed the account of Client B.

Misuse of expense account

30. In 2014 DB&T introduced a MasterCard debit card system. The operational process for the use of the debit card was that a senior employee with a debit card would request an upload onto the debit card and then submit supporting evidence of all expenses paid from the card. During the course of DB&T’s investigations, DB&T discovered that the Defendant had seriously misused his debit card, including –
(a) use of the debit card for expenses which were unsupported by receipts;
(b) use of the debit card for expenditure unrelated to DB&T’s business;
(c) use of the debit card for unauthorised personal purchases and expenditure for which the Defendant has not fully reimbursed DB&T.

Unauthorised entry into DB&T’s premises

31. On 8 March 2015, after the Defendant’s authorisation to enter the Plaintiffs’ offices had been terminated and his electronic access pass to the building was deactivated, the Defendant entered the Plaintiffs’ offices using a visitor’s pass which he had no reason to have on his person and, following the deactivation of his own pass, was clearly not authorised to use, and removed a box containing items the identity and ownership of which are unknown. DB&T only became aware of this unauthorised access via its video surveillance system.

Damage to DB&T’s reputation

32. The Defendant’s actions, specifically in relation to his relationship to Client A, have placed DB&T, and other entities within the DMS Group, at risk of serious harm to their highly valued international reputation. The Defendant, placing his personal interests above those of DB&T, wilfully refused to terminate Client A’s account, despite having been repeatedly instructed to do so from 29 May 2014. Had the Defendant terminated the account when instructed, that account would not have existed in March 2015 when it became public that Client A was the subject of criminal fraud investigations, and any risk to DB&T’s reputation would have been significantly reduced or eliminated.
33. As a direct consequence of the Defendant’s conduct in this regard DB&T has suffered damage.

Dishonesty
34. The Defendant knew of his duties to the Plaintiffs under the Employment Contract, and of his fiduciary duties as a director of DB&T. Notwithstanding this knowledge, the Defendant continued to engage in his course of misconduct in his relationships with Client A and Client B, and in so doing, improperly appropriated to himself benefits and opportunities which became available to him only by virtue of his position as an employee of the Plaintiffs and a director of DB&T.
35. The Defendant knew that this conduct was wrongful and engaged in conscious and deliberate efforts to conceal and mislead others about his actions. If he did not know before then, the Defendant became aware that his conduct was wrongful and was not approved by DB&T when, in May 2014, a director of DB&T advised the Defendant that accepting gifts of hospitality was against DMS Group policy and placed DB&T and the DMS Group at serious risk of reputational harm, and in the September 2014, the Plaintiffs gave the Defendant a formal written warning with respect to his acceptance of excessive and unauthorized gifts of hospitality, without informing his fellow directors, or any other person in authority at DB&T.
36. Notwithstanding this written warning, the Defendant, without disclosing the facts to his fellow directors of DB&T-
(a) continued to maintain Client A’s account with DB&T, despite being instructed on several occasions to close it;
(b) continued to accept unauthorised and excessive gifts and benefits without informing his fellow directors;
(c) negotiated with Client A to set up and operate banking operations in Cayman in direct competition with DB&T;
37. The Defendant’s actions and deliberate failures, in light of his knowledge, give rise to an inescapable inference of dishonesty on the party of the Defendant.

The Defendant’s liability as trustee
38. The Defendant is liable to account as constructive trustee to the Plaintiffs for all unauthorised and secret profits and benefits he has derived from his breaches of duties under the Employment Contract and of his fiduciary duties to DB&T.
39. The Defendant is also liable to account to the Plaintiffs as trustee for all or any of the Plaintiffs’ property removed by him from the Plaintiffs’ offices during his unauthorised entry to those offices.
40. The Defendant is also liable to account to the Plaintiffs for all unpaid personal and other expenses incurred by him through the misuse of the MasterCard debit card issued to him by the Plaintiffs.

Interest
41. The Defendant is entitled to and claims interest on any sums found due to the Plaintiffs pursuant to section 34 of the Judicature Law at such rate and for such period as to this honourable Court seems just.

AND the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendant
(1) An account of all secret profits and benefits derived by the Defendant by virtue of his relationship with Client A whilst an employee of the Plaintiffs and a director of DB&T;
(2) An account of all secret profits and benefits derived by the Defendant by virtue of his relationship with Client B whilst an employee of the Plaintiffs and a director of DB&T;
(3) An account to the Plaintiffs of all unpaid personal and other expenses incurred by the Defendant through the misuse of the MasterCard debit card issued to him by the Plaintiffs.
(4) An order for payment by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs of all sums found to be due from the Defendant to the Plaintiffs on taking the accounts under (1), (2) and (3) above.
(5) Damages.
(6) Interest on any sums found due to the Plaintiffs pursuant to section 34 of the Judicature Law at such rate and for such period as to this honourable Court seems just.
(7) Such further or other relief, including all further necessary or appropriate accounts, inquiries and directions.
END
NOTE: This is NOT the FULL transcript of the Writ of Summons.
Lawyers for DMS are Mourant Ozannes

Related story:

Cayman attorney Michael Wingrave & client Jazeb Jones demonstrate how not to deal with the media
March 13, 2015 by David Marchant

After my blog last year entitled “A Message to Greg Fairley, Ashley Hurst & Anyone Else Thinking of Threatening Me’, I didn’t think any lawyer-client duo would be stupid enough to repeat the mistake of needlessly threatening to sue me and OffshoreAlert.

I should have known better.

The latest candidates for ‘numbnuts of the year’ are Cayman attorney Michael Wingrave, who’s a minion with nondescript local law firm Dinner Martin, and his client, Jazeb Jones, who approximately five days ago became unemployed after departing DMS Bank & Trust in the Cayman Islands, of which he was Managing Director.

After I inquired with Jones yesterday via LinkedIn as to why he abruptly left DMS, including whether he was terminated, as has been indicated to me, Jones decided not to respond directly but instead went trotting off to Wingrave in the remarkably ignorant belief that the best way to deal with OffshoreAlert was to threaten us.

After stating in an email today that “Our client was not dismissed by DMS” but adding “We are not prepared to descend into any further detail in that regard”, Wingrave then descended into La La Land by ‘inviting’ me to “name your sources in order that our client may take steps to bring these defamatory rumours to an end”, asking me to provide an “undertaking” that OffshoreAlert “will not publish on the basis of the rumours” and, if no such undertaking was provided by 2 pm EST that same day, Wingrave and his client would “take Court action in the form of an urgent injunction to prohibit publication”.

Wingrave didn’t specify the court or jurisdiction but it doesn’t matter. His local court, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, has no jurisdiction over OffshoreAlert and, as such, is unlikely to grant an injunction that it could not enforce, while any U.S. court would probably ridicule him as much as I’m doing here.

After I responded by telling Wingrave that he was “delusional” and that: “You really ought to get off the island more since you seem to be clueless about how the world operates outside Cayman”, he decided to double-down by sending two more threatening emails.

In the first, he stated that: “I remind you that silence on your intention will be treated as confirmation of intention to publish. I reserve the right, on Mr. Jones’ behalf, to bring this correspondence to the attention of the Court in the course of our client’s application for an injunction, should such an application prove necessary” and in the second that “This is your last chance before proceedings are issued against you and/or Offshore Alert to confirm whether or not and if so when you intend to publish.”

As with Greg Fairley, the mind-numbingly stupid decision to threaten OffshoreAlert has inevitably had the opposite effect to that desired by Jazeb Jones, i.e. it has led to more publicity (in the form of this blog) than he otherwise would have had. In the case of Jones, I haven’t written an article about him and I probably won’t – that’s how insignificant I think he is.

When will attorneys and their clients learn? Hopefully never because lampooning them is one of my favorite past-times.

For more on this story go to: http://www.offshorealert.com/jazeb-jones-and-michael-wingrave-threaten-offshorealert-with-injunction-court-action.aspx

See also iNews Cayman related story published March 23 2015 “Capetonian Kellermann accused as kingpin of R200bn Belvedere Ponzi [Cayman Islands named]” at: http://www.ieyenews.com/wordpress/capetonian-kellermann-accused-as-kingpin-of-r200bn-belvedere-ponzi-cayman-islands-named/