Flag Theory Avaliações 

Resposta da Flag Theory

Atualizado em 18 de fev. de 2022

Dear Mr. Diehl,

This is Marc, the managing director of Flag Theory (FT). First of all, as I told you personally, I am sincerely sorry for your experience with FT. I cannot comment much on the case as it happened 5 years ago, and the people who handled it have not worked at FT since 2017, and early 2018 (before I took over management), neither I nor anyone who has worked at FT since then was involved in that assignment. I understand you are aware of this as it was mentioned in a conversation we had in 2018.

Unfortunately, I have conflicting information about your case which does not allow me to form a professional opinion (primarily your blog post and chat we had, information provided by the people involved in your case, and records that you were fully reimbursed and the administrative and legal costs related to this assignment were borne by FT), and while I am sorry for your situation and experience, and given that you already made your views about the matter public in the past, I kindly ask you to refrain from keeping to attempt to damage FT's reputation after 5 years, as it affects the current personnel of FT who are some of the most honest, hard-working and customer-oriented professionals I have met (who had nothing to do with your case and experience) - by calling FT "Complete Garbage" or willingly or unwillingly trying to cause current FT personnel's honourability to be called into question. We appreciate your understanding.

I remain at your entire disposal to discuss the subject in depth if you wish, as long as it is done in a reasonable and polite manner, without trying to damage the honour of the professionals currently working at FT, and without letting any personal dislike or opinion you may have for or about Edmund John Lowell get in the way.

Thank you for your understanding.

My best wishes

Resposta da Flag Theory

Atualizado em 17 de abr. de 2021

In order to defend our honour, good faith and dedication to clients - we have written below a review of the specific facts related to the professional relationship of Mr Jarrod Germs, and his partner, with Flag Theory - with final comments on our opinion of the facts.

Mr. Jarrod Germs contacted us on 31 July 2019, requesting information about a corporate structure. On an e-mail conversation consisting of 23 emails, the client requested information about various jurisdictions and structures to compare.

On 5 September 2019, the client decided to incorporate a company in one of the jurisdictions, and instructed for the same, requesting an invoice for our services. We issued the invoice accordingly.

On 9 September 2019, the client provided a payment confirmation for our services. 13 minutes after, we provided the list of documents required, which mainly consisted of passport and proof of address, as well as two simple forms (company, and personal details).

On that same day, there was a 6-email thread post-payment where the client had certain questions about the company. On the following business day, there were 7-email thread conversation to address other questions of the client about other structures. We were as "fast" to issue the invoice as to address the client requests.

On 23 October 2019, we emailed Mr. Jarrod Germs given that he had not provided the documents. His partner emailed us requesting what documents were required. We provided again the information on the same day (3 hours after client email).

On 28 October 2019, the client requested again the forms for incorporating the company, which were provided 11 minutes after the client request.

Once the forms were provided, there was an issue with the company name as it was not available. During that day several emails occurred where our response time was always under 24 hours.

The client provided the company name on 29 October 2019. The name was approved on 30 October 2019. The company constitution and other statutory documents required were provided to the client on 31 October 2020 - which needed to be signed by the client.

On 6 November 2019, we sent a reminder email to the client as the signed company constitution and statutory documents were not provided yet.

On 7 November, the client provided the documents, and on 8 November 2019 the company was incorporated. The post-incorporation documents (resolutions, share certificate, etc) were provided on the same 8 November 2019. There was also a request from the client to change the financial year end.

There were several emails thereafter related to changing the financial year end of the company. Our response time was kept at less than 24 hours, and generally not more than 2-3h.

The client provided the bank questionnaire "completed". The questionnaire was poorly completed, and sentences were extremely short (sometimes no more than 3 words), providing absolute no insight. We provided the reviewed questionnaire 2 business days after, together with the documentation for changing the financial year end. The reviewed questionnaire provided in each of the questions, a description of the information that needed to be provided for the bank to complete the due diligence process.

--- (2 months after)

On 20 January 2020, the executive assistant of the client provided a new questionnaire were there was more information but the same was not complete, poorly organized and there were substantial inconsistencies. Nonresident banking requires a substantial level of due diligence on the activities of the company, underlying subsidiaries, counterparties, etc.

On the following business day, given the new information provided in the form, we requested the client to provide a structure chart and information about the subsidiaries. Mr. Germ's partner questioned why we would need such information - we comprehensively answered why the information was relevant for the bank to complete a due diligence process on the same day. Mr. Germ's partner was questioning each of our comments, deeming not necessary the information that we requesting.

Mr. Jarrod Germs, who in all our relationship had a more constructive approach to our requests, provided further information about the subsidiaries in a written email. His partner advised on an email in the same day that all the information needed was already provided and instructed us to submit the account application, despite our advise on to provide more comprehensive information and address certain aspects that were incomplete and/or inconsistent. The executive assistant provided the questionnaire again adding the information provided already via email which we advised already that was not complete, providing specific and elaborated comments on it. Unlike Mr. Jarrod Germs' partner, his executive assistant was kind, respectful and willing to cooperate.

On 27 January 2020, the executive assistant provided another version of the questionnaire partly addressing our requests. Due to the back and forth created and despite knowing that the questionnaire did not fully address our requests, in order to avoid further frictions with Mr. Jarrod Germs' partner who already requested various times to submit the questionnaire as it was - we submitted the questionnaire to the bank.

On 11 February 2020, the executive assistant requested us an update. Less tan 24 hours later we advised that the questionnaire was still under review by the banker, and that the recent spread of COVID-19 in the jurisdiction where the bank was located created certain delays.

On 18 February 2020, the bank rejected the application outlining some of the issues that we previously advised to the client during the questionnaire preparation process. We offered to apply for bank accounts in other 5 banks in the same jurisdiction but insist on addressing the issues. The executive assistant requested us whether we could submit the application again with updated information to the same bank. We advised to the client on the reasons why the bank did not approve the application, and that we should address such issues when applying for the same bank or for other bank (which were already advised before during the preparation of the questionnaire). Mr. Jarrod Germs sent an email showing willingness to amend the application on 18 February 2020. He advised that he will send an amended form shortly. We answered acknowledging it.

Then, the client did not contact us again, and we never received the amended form.

--- (9 months after)

After 9 months, on November 2020, due to the anniversary of the company registration date, we sent to the client the invoice for the annual services of the entity (resident director and corporate secretary), as the same are requested by the person acting as director, and the person acting as secretary. The invoice was never paid.

Mr. Jarrod Germ's partner answered us aggressively blaming us for the account not to be opened, despite never addressed the issues that we pointed out on the application, and had failed to submit the amended version of the form as promised on February 2020. We sent various emails requesting to send the amended questionnaire promised, and elaborating and providing further advice on the information necessary for meeting the compliance requirement of the bank.

On 10 November 2020, unlike his partner, Mr. Jarrod Germs answered our email and seemed willing to cooperate. A few hours later we responded providing further insights on how the information could be provided and what supporting documents he could provide. On 11 November 2020, Mr. Jarrod Germ's partner requested the forms again, and also asked for the forms of other banks. He changed his attitude and advised that "We appreciate your support but find ourselves frustrated by the situation." On the same 11 November, we provided the forms.

The pending invoice was not paid.

The client did not contact us back with the completed forms either.

---- (during the following months)

Then, during the following months, on our end we faced enormous pressure from the resident director and the secretary as they were not being paid. If the resident director and secretary resigned from the company, the company would not be compliant with local laws which could raise personal liability of the client in the jurisdiction for non-compliance with local laws.

As we wanted to avoid such situation, and due to the pressure from the secretary and the director, we paid in advance the fees to avoid the company to not be in good standing. We advised the client about the same, and the client did advise that they will be paying (but they never did).

--- (7 months after their last request about the bank, and 14 months after their advise that they will provide the questionnaire amended)

On April 2020, we contacted again the client requesting for the payment, as we had already paid on his behalf from our company monies. Mr. Jarrod Germs' partner got back to us aggressively wrote us, blaming us again for the account not being opened - despite the fact that we were waiting for the new questionnaire for more than one year, and despite he never got back to us during the previous 7 months, not showing any interest in completing the bank account opening process.

When we exposed the above facts, the client requested us to advise on our disbursements and costs suffered, and that they will think about whether to pay or not - despite that we have advanced the monies for the client to not incur in personal liability. A few hours after of such email, Mr. Jarrod Germs has written this review in this website.

--- Final Comments

We believe that although we do comprehensively advise on how to complete the bank questionnaires, what information and documents need to be provided, the clients are responsible of providing a sound application, explaining with comprehensive details and in an organized manner the business of the company and related and non-related parties - the clients should adapt to banks' client profile and compliance requirements in order to open bank accounts. The clients need to be cooperative and willing to put some effort on preparing a sound application assuming that opening nonresident accounts is not always an easy task.

We believe that it is in the best interest of the clients, in our best interests (our reputation with banks) and actually the most effective way to obtain results, to be inquisitive when applications are not consistent or are not complete or comprehensive, or not address the typical issues presented by banks. Generally, most clients appreciate this way of work, as they understand that this is the way to have higher chances to succeed.

We believe that when we advance monies on behalf of clients to pay service providers in order to avoid issues for the client, we are showing a client-oriented and client-concerned attitude, and we have the right to request the payment to the client.

We work on providing a good customer service, we work on responding clients' requests in a very timely manner, generally in less than 24 hours, and many times within minutes or hours - regardless of whether we need to issue an invoice or not, or invoices are paid or not paid. When it comes to this specific case, services that required minor cooperation from the client (incorporation) were delivered within the following day after receiving the documents, and our response times and effort on comprehensively answer requests were appropriate and in the best interests of the client, as covered above.

We appreciate you taking the time to read this response.

Resposta da Flag Theory

20 de jun. de 2020

This is the Managing Director of Flag Theory. This message is a related to Mr. Isek Solari's review, accusing us to be thieves. These accusations are not acceptable given the related events.

First of all, Mr. Isek Solari did receive a refund for cancellation of service.

The refund was requested for cancellation of service. Therefore - "they do not deliver" is not an accurate description. Mr. Isek Solari requested a cancellation of service before the provision of mandatory full due diligence documents. We did not have the chance to "deliver", although note that our response time before and after payment was always within 24 hours, excluding Sundays.

Secondly, note that the refund request was not compliant with our terms of service agreement (cancellation of service) in line with non-recoverable costs that we face and industry standards. Our Customer Support Team do not have the authority to grant refunds without Management approval in those cases. Furthermore, Mr. Isek Solari requested a refund to be paid to a bank account of a marketing service provider which was not connected to him - for security and accounting reasons, this is not acceptable. The Customer Support Team advised on the terms of service and that his request was passed to Management. Delays on such process occurred due to Mr. Isek Solari failure to follow up our emails in a timely manner (up to 22 days delay).

Management approved his request applying a cancellation fee of 15% to cover administrative and bank expenses incurred (which was accepted by Mr. Isek Solari) and returning the purchase amount to a bank account in Mr. Isek Solari's name. The bank transfer was authorized and executed within 48 hours after receiving Mr. Isek Solari's bank details. We can provide proof of refund in the form of bank payment advice and MT-103 (masking any sensitive details) to any concerned person.

Thank you for your attention