BY JENNIFER KUSAPA
The case against owner and director of One Link Pacifika money scheme has been adjourned for next week.
It was mentioned in court for a plea to be made, however, some issues which needed sorting out forced the adjournment.
Accused, Charles Dora, is facing charges under the Financial Institutions Act 1998.
Allegations said on July 4, 2019, One-link Pacifica was registered at the company Haus under the name of Mr Charles Dora as Director and Mr Dora is the proprietor and sole trader of the OLP, he is also a manager for online mentors.
One link Pacifica scheme was described as sharing resource; however, it is a Ponzi scheme, the essence of the scheme is that investors give money towards the company, on promise there will be a higher return after 30 days of investment, the creator of the scheme then used recruiting agents (mentors) for people to come along and invest their money through them.
Prosecution alleged that Dora collects deposits from mentors by way of online deposits. Members of the public invested their money through his agencies, and the total amount that was alleged to have invested in the were around $56,440,475, those monies went missing and have not been recovered since.
Prosecution also alleged that between the period of December 2019 to March 2020, investors did not receive their money as promised. Within the period, CBSI warned public members about the operation of the scheme, that one-link Director Mr Charles Dora did not apply for a licence under the FIA to engage in the business of banking in Solomon Islands.
On March 4 2020 CBSI wrote to Charles Dora as Director of One-Link to make available to CBSI record, books or accounts relating to the business for examination within 7 working days pursuant to section 3(3) of the FIA. However, Mr Dora did not provide detail documents or failed to comply such their bank account details, receipt books and accounts books.
Later on, March 27 2020, CBSI informed Police that One-link Pacifica seem to be operating as a banking business, and does not comply with the Financial Institution Act, it was at that time investigations were made and the accused was arrested for that offence.
