Member Info for dougb189

I simply post that I am confident that shareholders might all hopefully see a cloudtag notice that is then verifiable ie. that is then proven to be true, especially now that Amit Ben Haim has been approached by the regulator to observe compliance with the regulations.

You then try and seek evidence to the contrary ?

''..have you heard anything verifiable back from the SFO, FCA, or the FOS in respect..''

That is not how any enquiries or investigations will proceed.

Any investigation /enquiry will simply start with collecting data, as per this week's request from the FOS and as per the phone call from the SFO. Anything 'verifiable' could literally then take many many months. And as stated below, I did not bring the regulator, the FCA to the table. This was as I suggested, likely done by the SFO [who then will work closely with the FCA, should an investigation proceed].

I suspect that you might be correct and that the information I forwarded to the SFO and to which they seem to be acting upon, inclusive of the recent 'compliance process being adhered to by ABH', is indeed such that you are likely not privy to it.

Pleased to see that the regulator is now tasking ABH to comply.

10th June. ‘The company is to advise shareholders that following a review, compliance will now proceed, with the regulator’.

Will send a note later to the Serious Fraud Office thanking them for bringing cloudtag to the attention of the regulator.

The concern which has now surfaced (as per failure to comply to Monday 10th June notice) is that perhaps ‘blood is thicker than water’ and that young Amit will take a hit from the regulator if it means elder brother’s Hobart Healthcare is bank-rolling Cloudtag [no other healthcare company would entertain Amit’s ridiculous 20th October request to ‘delay payment’] and hence it might then be down to the prosecution service that is the SFO to then facilitate 100% compliance.

The positive is as before, that the website is still open. That positive imo has then actually increased, in that the SFO and the regulator find nothing untoward in their preliminary enquiries, suggesting that the core of the cloudtag notices appear to be sound, ie. that company assets have been sold. The ombudsman though now asking for further details.

There is though as yet, reasons unknown as to why ABH is raising these serious concerns, centred on his inability to process payments. Possible reasons why, involving Shlomo and a US Securities And Exchange Commission court case were then forwarded.

Serious enough concerns for the SFO to ask questions (& is they who likely contacted regulator (I did not trust the FCA’s old-boys networking)) & is apparently serious enough that even the regulator raises a compliance procedure for ABH to adhere to. Question is though, will he? And I just ain’t too convinced he will.. ‘blood in the shape of a billionaire elder bro, being somewhat thicker than plain water’

Thankfully, there are yet still a few more irons in the fire. The Bureau being just one of them. Should be an interesting week. Fingers crossed & we finally get something verifiable.

Hopefully by the end of tomorrow (7th day) then should receive an email from an FOS case officer who will likely give an indication as to how the complaint proceeds.

If there is then no further action required from them that might suggest that all is above board or is outwith their jurisdiction. Hopefully any correspondence will then throw some light on their decision making.

If there is a cause for concern, then they will chase the agent who will then have 2 weeks to respond. And If there is then further cause for concern the case officer would pass all the data up to the ombudsman.

I’m half expecting though, that it might be a difficult & complex initial assessment (finding the agent) which then might see a delay in the standard operating procedure of the FOS and that I don’t then get my 7 day notice. If there is a delay then i’ll politely wait till the end of the week, prior to enquiring further. Any correspondence received will then be posted on here & twitter. I think we would all like to find out what is happening.

Thanks Antha, I’ve been cooped up for most of this year with work & needing a good blast outside.

Fingers crossed & this saga indeed eventually comes to an end. It does feel as if the regulators are now sitting up and taking notice now. A conclusion, good or bad, will hopefully soon arise.

There are a few observations to make : this is the 2nd time I’ve contacted the regulators but only the 1st time I received a call from the SFO asking for further data. One would deduce that the initial complaint [Jan. 2024] did not meet their requirements but that one could presume that they then looked into that initial complaint [& also from quite a few others] such that they found nothing untoward at that time, ie. that it is likely just very poor performance which now sees the agent sitting on $50M since last year & very likely the $229.5M since February of this year. If it is ‘poor performance’ (fingers crossed it is) they will then get their knuckles rapped & we then receive what is owed to us as income as per the Ctag notice.

This is the central core of the 2nd complaint ; centred on the unsatisfactory performance of the agent & hence directed at the FOS. There was then additional data inputted on that complaint, reflecting the deletions observed on the ctag website and in addition there was a brief supposition of how I interpreted the funds being currently utilised in the USA, with supporting references. This complaint to the FSO was then cc’d to the SFO who then rang me the next day.

Can then observe that the website is still up & running, which is a (small) positive imv. For me, a good result would be that the FOS &/or SFO then instructs both Ctag and the agent to behave accordingly. A good or bad conclusion, will be welcome.

That is one aspect of the new approach in now getting the UK regulators involved. Whilst also keeping them in the loop on the approach to an external regulators which is now being sought by self and a.n.other Pi.

Hopefully the UK big boys & girls can then finally enable a conclusion, good or bad, to be found on the irregularities that are consistently seen with CTAG.

UK regulator phoned Monday last week asking for further data. As per my earlier there is still a (small) positive but unfortunately that is obviously offset by the regulator’s current enquiries.

Cayman Islands registered company Axiom Financial (£100M fleeced) which then recently saw the SFO successfully prosecute & jail two of the directors, for 15 years & 8 years.

Hopefully they can then confirm that ABH’s oft repeated “cheques are in the post” actually has substance.

The positive that i am taking is that the website is still open.

The negative is that ABH has raised serious cause for concern.

Fingers crossed that the regulators then enable a solution.

Not sure what a Laplace transform equation has got to do with ‘a decrease in English standards’ when perhaps an evening watching the BBC would perhaps better describe the aforementioned ‘collapse in standards’ ?

It could though be statistically argued that the reverse is true : whilst the average global IQ is set at 100, the average IQ in the UK used to be 99 but that has now quite recently changed to 101. So it could be argued that the youth of today (likely cutting deals on grams of stock & cutting that stock on various % flavours of rat poison, gives them a mathematical edge) & who are sharper than the old school. The average IQ is then relative to time ie. the global average 150 years ago is still 100 but that there was far fewer edukated peeps at that time, so an average IQ a century & a half ago is perhaps on a par with say a lettuce today & that some politicians have not improved.

Laplace himself though is accredited with the original theories that suggested the existence of Black Holes, an amazing 250 years ago. There then might be a use for the above equation if one correlates the T integral with the periodicity of Amit’s notices versus the potential of a good outcome ie. a slow rise in expectations backed up with the data of digital produce being sold, followed by reaching a plateau where the funds were transferred, then followed by a slow drop as the expectation that these funds will eventually get distributed get less & less as month after month passes.

The good news though, whether or not this is indeed a Black Hole, is that the SFO are now asking questions.

Fingers crossed that the next phone call is then a polite notification that all is well.

That 25% share still fault short by $10M+ to then cover the annual cash burn for Shlomo’s Impulse Dynamics development costs (heart monitors) with Shlomo’s funds now being tied up in a law suit v the fund manager who seeks compensation for the $150M they invested in Impulse, “under alleged false pretences”.

Nice reasoning AIM., and the specific circumstances all appear to be met, so hopefully it is a decent / persuasive argument that then brings them onboard.

I certainly believe it warrants further investigation. I even cc’d in the SFO and as a footnote gave them insight as to the complaint that the US Securities & Exchange Commission are currently pursuing.

Amit either simply explains WTF is going on or, if i play my cards right, he proceeds to an interview under caution.

Thanks. My experience then saw a good result previously so hoping i can replicate that again with this case. With this regulatory body, one can not go after the main player ie CTAG but with a little bit of creative conjecture the agent can hopefully be sighted. And that these big boys & girls can then finally take aim. Will find out in a couple of weeks.

(Guessing it will be Spikey who can then see the weakness in my claim, hence why i had to involve some creative inputs to then bring these guys to the table)

Yes, I honestly believe that Amit has been fraudulent with the truth. On many occasions. Hence why this now rests with several of the big boys & gals, for them to try wade through Ctag’s paper trail.

You state that you have cause for worry and anxiety with reference to shares being sold simultaneously to the notices of the deals being posted, yet you still castigate others who are trying to seek the truth, in your own words as “trolls or antagonists or nonsensical” on account of you being ‘provoked’ by said enquiries ?! Ohhh, so that’s okay then to be such a hypocrite “ coz I woz provoked..”

Appreciated though that you kept it all together in that last post. Saved a few of my grey cells that are habitually lost on most of your posts.

And thanks for the heads up on that other regulatory body. Took a wee bit of creative conjecture & several costas but I was pleased with the result. Fairly plausible I thought. Hopefully they are then able to enquire further. Fingers crossed & a result good or bad is then forthcoming.

There is then only one voice that implies Amit has been selling shares up until August 2023.

And that voice belongs to Tracey. So... hardly credible then ?

Lets now see if the Financial Ombudsman can crack the case..

So once again we hear the ‘Pot calling kettle black’ : as the “utter nonsense” was what you had only just described the previous post as. Once more your memory seems to be a tad selective. Try a little introspection prior to the next time you glibly call others antagonists or zealots or nonsensical.

That you then do not find it alarming that there was deals made for $275M and that shares were then being further sold or that Amit allegedly delayed the payment of one of the deals to enable an alleged extra gain of 2% (or as per your argument to sell more shares) is simply like everything else that you have claimed, utter unvalidated nonsense.

“..utter nonsense..” from one who regularly posts fragmented random non sequiturs and then when others try to focus the issue on a single point, she then suggests that you ‘just join the dots’ and then in response to peeps joining-her-convoluted-dots, she subsequently complains that everyone is ‘taking it out of context’…?!! There are 3 year olds with better communication skills. Was no wonder that many then deleted her contact data.

The validity though of querying wether shares have been issued up until the quoted ‘August 2023’ is then centred on if additional funding had been raised from Pi’s, which then seems unlikely and as yet, unproven. Again, there’s a lot of fragmented points being made when Whispering posted :

“.. Amit is a UK resident, CEO of Cloudtag, Director of SB Corporate Finance Partners LTD, registered with the FCA… He was until Aug 23 - whilst regulated - selling shares… no random moniker or multiple ID’s used…”

Checking the 2020 figures against the most recent 2023 figures it is seen that there has been additional shares issued during that time of c.50M and these could likely have gone on ‘payments’ eg. agent/s, or similar. No one has admitted to purchasing since the IPO and more importantly, certainly none since the deals were finalised, December 2021.

I’ll leave the fragmented posts to your good self Whispering.

Appreciate the heads up though with the Financial Ombudsman. Tq.

The previous experience with them was then utilised as a possible insightful into the current CTAG situation : trust fund being used as a deposit on a flat in Oxford then saw a 6 month delay whilst the fund managers prevaricated on paying out. Ombudsman then assisted & benefited me with a 5 figure bonus.

There was then a possible similar correlation with CTAG agent / fund manager (aka Mr.ABH).

Hadn’t thought of using that route for here. Good luck though if you have. I’ll still be happy to see Amit’s name highlighted in the press. And the FCA then acting accordingly.

Whispering 20:55: “He was until Aug 23 - whilst regulated - selling shares…”

Spikey “.. i don’t think that “reasonable” investors have been the target demographic for cloudtag marketing for many years now. it’s the dumb money that’s been fished for, imv..”

The 20:55 then appears to back your conclusion Spikey. The 7 paragraphs of abstract random non sequiturs with no proven evidence or explanation to the earlier statements.

1. ‘fresh meat…’

2. ‘rhododendrons…’

3. ‘84’s language…’

4. ‘Amit’s citizenship…’

5. ‘struggles with concepts..’

6. ‘oil that grinder..’

7. ‘ego / IDs /as ego does /said Freud /…sommat..

You are way too polite Spikey.

‘..It tends to give the impression imv…’

that she is yet again, inebriated.

‘..fresh meat for the grinder..’

Would surely be totally unrealistic to imagine that any ‘fresh meat’ would now get involved with Amit Ben Haim. It has been factually proven that he is totally reckless with the truth and has been over at least one decade.

One had suspected that there was a small group of devotees (likely now being the somewhat special babbas & his various ID’s) who then set out to delete threads that highlighted any negatives on Amit’s credibility but that there was such an overwhelming number of notices given, that any reasonable ‘fresh’ investor could see there are now multiple red flags.

‘Fresh meat’ then obviously does not cover the faithful devotees. All of whom are welcome to further finance Amit’s ego.

If special bubbas is daft enough to reply from a second LSE id then it only enforces what most sane peeps think of him.

Many appear to be using the LSE portal as their ‘coping mechanism’ which is fair enough considering the brutal episodes that Amit has put them through. And some are also just as obviously utilising the bb as a coping mechanism for their griefs obtained from elsewhere. Those though that regularly resort to insults do not add anything.