Thursday, April 12, 2012

Estafa (deceit/swindling) under Art. 315, Rev. Penal Code


For legal research purposes of my readers, may I share the jurisprudential part of a motion for reconsideration I have just filed with the office of the city prosecutor of a city in southern Metro Manila seeking the indictment for estafa of the respondent therein. The investigating fiscal had earlier indicted the respondent only for violation of BP Blg. 22 (bouncing check law). I felt that the respondent should be likewise indicted for Estafa under Art. 315 of the Rev. Penal Code. I removed all references to names of parties and the like.


MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION


            THE COMPLAINANT, by counsel, respectfully states:

1.       On March 27, 2012 the complainant received via registered mail a copy of the RESOLUTION, dated March 13, 2012, dismissing the complaint for SYNDICATED ESTAFA and indicting the respondent x x x merely for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

The 15th day of the complainant to file this motion expires on April 11, 2012.

Hence, this motion.

2.      The complainant submits that the resolution erred in not indicting x x x at the very least for the felony of regular or ordinary ESTAFA under Art. 315 of the Rev.  Penal Code (assuming, arguendo, that PD 1689, re: Syndicated Estafa does not apply in the instant case).

The complainant agrees, though, that x x x was correctly indicted for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

(As of this date, the complainant has paid the requisite filing and docket fees with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Trial Court of x x x City, in the amount of more than P95, 000.00, so that the said case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 may forthwith proceed with dispatch in the said Court).

3.      The complainant humbly submits that the resolution erred in finding that there was no estafa (whether syndicated or regular/ordinary) because the transaction was a simple loan; that what motivated the complainant to issue his checks was not the malice or deceit of SON but the complainant’s desire for interest income.

The complainant will not contest anymore the issue of Syndicated Estafa under P.D. No. 1689 but will simply focus herein on the sole issue of whether or not x x x should have been likewise indicted for the felony of Ordinary/Regular Estafa under Art. 315, Rev. Penal Code.

4.     The resolution failed to appreciate the points of law and fact raised by the complainant in his Reply-Affidavit, to wit:

 X x x.

4.       Likewise, the resolution erred in not appreciating the proofs of deceit/malice described in the Complaint as alleged bythe complainant, to wit:

X x x.

5.        The complainant does not have the duty to submit proofs of the nonexistence of the alleged x x x PROJECT. Sufficie it to state that upon the presentation by the complainat in his Complaint of concrete allegations aboput the clear use by x x x of the x x  x PROJECT as her express excuse to exact money from the complainant, the BURDEN OF EVIDENCE had shifted to x x x to prove the existence of the said Project to show the purity of her intentions and conscience.  But x x x failed to do this.

6.        LOAN per se does not exempt a criminal from indictment for estafa so long as it can be proved, as is the factual mileu in the instant case, that the motive behind such a transaction was deceit, swindling and malice on the part of the debtor/respondent.

7.        We repeat hereinbelow what we had argued in our previous pleadings before this Honorable Office.

8.       In the case of LIBERATA AMBITO,  BASILIO AMBITO, and CRISANTO AMBITO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 127327, February 13, 2009, it was held that in the prosecution for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC,[1] it is indispensable that the element of deceit, consisting in the false statement or fraudulent representation of the accused, be made prior to, or at least simultaneously with, the delivery of the thing by the complainant; and that false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the offended party to part with his money. Thus:

“x x x.

The elements of Estafa by means of deceit, whether committed by false pretenses or concealment, are the following – (a) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. (b) That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud. (c) That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. (d) That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[2]

In the prosecution for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC,[3] it is indispensable that the element of deceit, consisting in the false statement or fraudulent representation of the accused, be made prior to, or at least simultaneously with, the delivery of the thing by the complainant.

The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the offended party to part with his money.  In the absence of such requisite, any subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent and suspicious it might appear, cannot serve as basis for prosecution for estafa under the said provision.[4]

In the case at bar, the records would show that PSI was given assurance by petitioners that they will pay the unpaid balance of their purchases from PSI when the CCTDs with petitioners’ banks, the Rural Bank of Banate, Inc. (RBBI) and/or the Rural Bank of Leon, Inc. (RBLI), and issued under the name of PSI, would be presented for payment to RBBI and RBLI which, in turn, will pay the amount of deposit stated thereon.  The amounts stated in the CCTDs correspond to the purchase cost of the machineries and equipment that co-petitioner Basilio Ambito bought from PSI as evidenced by the Sales Invoices presented during the trial. It is uncontroverted that PSI did not apply for and secure loans from RBBI and RBLI.  In fine, PSI and co-petitioner Basilio Ambito were engaged in a vendor-purchaser business relationship while PSI and RBBI/RBLI were connected as depositor-depository.  It is likewise established that petitioners employed deceit when they were able to persuade PSI to allow them to pay the aforementioned machineries and equipment through down payments paid either in cash or in the form of checks or through the CCTDs with RBBI and RBLI issued in PSI’s name with interest thereon.  It was later found out that petitioners never made any deposits in the said Banks under the name of PSI.  In fact, the issuance of CCTDs to PSI was not recorded in the books of RBBI and RBLI and the Deputy Liquidator appointed by the Central Bank of the Philippines even corroborated this finding of anomalous bank transactions in her testimony during the trial. [5]  

As borne by the records and the pleadings, it is indubitable that petitioners’ representations were outright distortions of the truth perpetrated by them for the sole purpose of inducing PSI to sell and deliver to co-petitioner Basilio Ambito machineries and equipments.  Petitioners knew that no deposits were ever made with RBBI and RBLI under the name of PSI, as represented by the subject CCTDs, since they did not intend to deposit any amount to pay for the machineries.  PSI was an innocent victim of deceit, machinations and chicanery committed by petitioners which resulted in its pecuniary damage and, thus, confirming the lower courts’ finding that petitioners are guilty of the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents.     

X x x.”

10. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code on deceit/swindling (estafa) provides any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned therein shall be punished by the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years; provided that the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
X x x.
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
X x x.
(a)            By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended
party may deem proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty.
(b)              By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (As amended by Republic Act No. 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)
10.1.  Article 316 (other forms of swindling) of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value, shall be imposed upon “any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute any fictitious contract.”
10.2. Article 318 (other deceits) of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage caused and not more than twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage another by “any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter.”

9.        In PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VIRGINIA BABY P. MONTANER, G.R. No.  184053, August 31, 2011, the accused was convicted for the crime of Estafa as defined and penalized under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about May 17, 1996 in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court accused Virginia (Baby) P. Montaner did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one Reynaldo Solis in the following manner: said accused by means of false pretenses and fraudulent acts that her checks are fully funded draw, make and issue in favor of one Reynaldo Solis ten (10) Prudential Bank Checks, all having a total value of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) and all aforesaid checks were postdated June 17, 1996 in exchange for cash knowing fully well that she has no funds in the drawee bank and when the said checks were presented for payment the same were dishonored by the drawee bank on reason of “ACCOUNT CLOSED” and despite demand accused failed and refused to pay the value thereof to the damage and prejudice of Reynaldo Solis in the aforementioned total amount of P50,000.00.

                                               X x x.

The Court cited Paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow x x x:

x x x x

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

x x x x

(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

According to the Court, the elements of estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee.[6]

In the said case, the prosecution sufficiently established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.  According to Solis’s clear and categorical testimony, appellant issued to him the 10 postdated Prudential Bank checks, each in the amount of P5, 000.00 or a total of P50, 000.00, in his house in exchange for their cash equivalent. 

From the circumstances, the Court held that it was evident that Solis would not have given P50, 000.00 cash to appellant had it not been for her issuance of the 10 Prudential Bank checks.  These postdated checks were undoubtedly issued by appellant to induce Solis to part with his cash.  However, when Solis attempted to encash them, they were all dishonored by the bank because the account was already closed.

Solis wrote appellant a demand letter dated October 13, 1996 which was received by appellant’s husband to inform appellant that her postdated checks had bounced and that she must settle her obligation or else face legal action from Solis.  Appellant did not comply with the demand nor did she deposit the amount necessary to cover the checks within three days from receipt of notice.  This gave rise to a prima facie evidence of deceit, which is an element of the crime of estafa, constituting false pretense or fraudulent act as stated in the second sentence of paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

X x x.

10.    In the case of BETTY GABIONZA AND ISABELITA TAN, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, LUKE ROXAS AND EVELYN NOLASCO, RESPONDENTS, [G.R. No. 161057, September 12, 2008], it was held that “to be clear, it is possible to hold the borrower in a money market placement liable for estafa if the creditor was induced to extend a loan upon the false or fraudulent misrepresentations of the borrower”; that “such estafa is one by means of deceit”; that “the borrower would not be generally liable for estafa through misappropriation if he or she fails to repay the loan, since the liability in such instance is ordinarily civil in nature”, except when deceit is present, of course. Thus:


“x x x.

We can thus conclude that the DOJ Resolution clearly supports a prima facie finding that the crime of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) has been committed against petitioners. Does it also establish a prima facie finding that there has been a violation of the then-Revised Securities Act, specifically Section 4 in relation to Section 56 thereof?

Section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 176, or the Revised Securities Act, generally requires the registration of securities and prohibits the sale or distribution of unregistered securities.[29] The DOJ extensively concluded that private respondents are liable for violating such prohibition against the sale of unregistered securities:

Respondents Roxas and Nolasco do not dispute that in 1998, ASB borrowed funds about 700 individual investors amounting to close to P4 billion, on recurring, short-term basis, usually 30 or 45 days, promising high interest yields, issuing therefore mere postdate checks. Under the circumstances, the checks assumed the character of "evidences of indebtedness," which are among the "securities" mentioned under the Revised Securities Act. The term "securities" embodies a flexible rather than static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek to use the money of others on the promise of profits (69 Am Jur 2d, p. 604). Thus, it has been held that checks of a debtor received and held by the lender also are evidences of indebtedness and therefore "securities" under the Act, where the debtor agreed to pay interest on a monthly basis so long as the principal checks remained uncashed, it being said that such principal extent as would have promissory notes payable on demand (Id., p. 606, citing Untied States v. Attaway (DC La) 211 F Supp 682). In the instant case, the checks were issued by ASB in lieu of the securities enumerated under the Revised Securities Act in a clever attempt, or so they thought, to take the case out of the purview of the law, which requires prior license to sell or deal in securities and registration thereof. The scheme was to
designed to circumvent the law. Checks constitute mere substitutes for cash if so issued in payment of obligations in the ordinary course of business transactions. But when they are issued in exchange for a big number of individual non-personalized loans solicited from the public, numbering about 700 in this case, the checks cease to be such. In such a circumstance, the checks assume the character of evidences of indebtedness. This is especially so where the individual loans were not evidenced by appropriate debt instruments, such as promissory notes, loan agreements, etc., as in this case. Purportedly, the postdated checks themselves serve as the evidences of the indebtedness. A different rule would open the floodgates for a similar scheme, whereby companies without prior license or authority from the SEC. This cannot be countenanced. The subsequent repeal of the Revised Securities Act does not spare respondents Roxas and Nolasco from prosecution thereunder, since the repealing law, Republic Act No. 8799 known as the "Securities Regulation Code," continues to punish the same offense (see Section 8 in relation to Section 73, R.A. No. 8799).[30]

The Court of Appeals however ruled that the postdated checks issued by ASBHI did not constitute a security under the Revised Securities Act. To support this conclusion, it cited the general definition of a check as "a bill of exchange drawn on a bank and payable on demand," and took cognizance of the fact that "the issuance of checks for the purpose of securing a loan to finance the activities of the corporation is well within the ambit of a valid corporate act" to note that a corporation does not need prior registration with the SEC in order to be able to issue a check, which is a corporate prerogative.

This analysis is highly myopic and ignorant of the bigger picture. It is one thing for a corporation to issue checks to satisfy isolated individual obligations, and another for a corporation to execute an elaborate scheme where it would comport itself to the public as a pseudo-investment house and issue postdated checks instead of stocks or traditional securities to evidence the investments of its patrons. The Revised Securities Act was geared towards maintaining the stability of the national investment market against activities such as those apparently engaged in by ASBHI. As the DOJ Resolution noted, ASBHI adopted this scheme in an attempt to circumvent the Revised Securities Act, which requires a prior license to sell or deal in securities. After all, if ASBHI's activities were actually regulated by the SEC, it is hardly likely that the design it chose to employ would have been permitted at all.

But was ASBHI able to successfully evade the requirements under the Revised Securities Act? As found by the DOJ, there is ultimately a prima facie case that can at the very least sustain prosecution of private respondents under that law. The DOJ Resolution is persuasive in citing American authorities which countenance a flexible definition of securities. Moreover, it bears pointing out that the definition of "securities" set forth in Section 2 of the Revised Securities Act includes "commercial papers evidencing indebtedness of any person, financial or non-financial entity, irrespective of maturity, issued, endorsed, sold, transferred or in any manner conveyed to another."
[31] A check is a commercial paper evidencing indebtedness of any person, financial or non-financial entity. Since the checks in this case were generally rolled over to augment the creditor's existing investment with ASBHI, they
most definitely take on the attributes of traditional stocks.

We should be clear that the question of whether the subject checks fall within the classification of securities under the Revised Securities Act may still be the subject of debate, but at the very least, the DOJ Resolution has established a prima facie case for prosecuting private respondents for such offense. The thorough determination of such issue is best left to a full-blown trial of the merits, where private respondents are free to dispute the theories set forth in the DOJ Resolution. It is clear error on the part of the Court of Appeals to dismiss such finding so perfunctorily and on such flimsy grounds that do not consider the grave consequences. After all, as the DOJ Resolution correctly pointed out: "[T]he postdated checks themselves serve as the evidences of the indebtedness. A different rule would open the floodgates for a similar scheme, whereby companies without prior license or authority from the SEC. This cannot be countenanced."
[32]

This conclusion quells the stance of the Court of Appeals that the unfortunate events befalling petitioners were ultimately benign, not malevolent, a consequence of the economic crisis that beset the Philippines during that era.
[33] That conclusion would be agreeable only if it were undisputed that the activities of ASBHI are legal in the first place, but the DOJ puts forth a legitimate theory that the entire modus operandi of ASBHI is illegal under the Revised Securities Act and if that were so, the impact of the Asian economic crisis would not obviate the criminal liability of private respondents.

X x x.

It is ineluctable that the DOJ Resolution established a prima facie case for violation of Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and Sections 4 in relation to 56 of the Revised Securities Act. X x x

X x x.”


11.     IN FINE, respondent x x x must be indicted at the least for the felony of ordinary/regular ESTAFA under Art. 315, Rev. Penal Code.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that resolution, dated March 13, 2012, be reconsidered and that a new resolution be issued FURTHER indicting x x x for the felony of regular/ordinary ESTAFA under Art. 315, Rev. Penal Code. Involving the two checks issued by the complainant to satisfy the total claim of the complainant in the amount of Five Million Pesos (P5, 000,000.00), plus exemplary damages of P100, 000.00, moral damages of P100, 000.00, attorney’s fees of P125, 000.00 plus 5% of the recoverable amounts, and costs of suit.

            Las Pinas City, April 10, 2012.


LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER
LAW OFFICES
Counsel for the Complainant
Unit 15, Star Arcade. C.V. Starr Ave.
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1740
Tel. No. 8725443; Fax No. 8462539.



MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
Roll No. 33640, 4/27/85
IBP Lifetime Member No. 1907
IBP Leyte Chapter
PTR 10288207, 1/18/12, Las Pinas City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-1326, 2/3/11


Cc:

X x x aka x x x
Respondent
c/o  x x x  Inc.          
x x x x  
x x x  City
            Reg.  Rec.  No. 
            Date                                        PO

Client
File Copy



EXPLANATION

            A copy hereof is served on respondent SON via registered mail due to the lack of staff and time of undersigned counsel at this time. Thanks you.


                                                           
                                                                                    Manuel J. Laserna Jr.


[1] Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below . . .
x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. 
[2] R.R. Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, March 5, 2007, 517 SCRA 369, 393.
[3] Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below . . .
x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. 
[4] Aricheta v. People, G.R. No. 172500, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 695, 704.
[5] Rollo, pp. 184-187.
[6]               Cajigas v. People, G.R. No. 156541, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 54, 63.

11 comments:

  1. Dear Investors/Financial Seekers.

    We are a Registered Private Investors/Loan Lender! Do you need FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE? We give out loans to Local and International Customer ranging from $5,000.00 to $500,000,000.00, CURRENCIES: USD, CAD, KWD, OMR, SGD, RUB, GBP, AUD, MYR, ZAR, IDR, UAH, PHP, EURO.

    Interested Individual OR Companies should contact us via:

    Email: {linpohloanfirm@yahoo.com.sg}

    Regards,

    Lin Poh Loan Firm Team.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can't hide this great testimony that take place in my life I will
    love everyone to know it and be partaker, I am Mrs Jean Wang Agg by
    name, I live in Texas, United State Of America, I want to thank
    (Mr Erivan) for his kindness upon my family life.

    I never knew that there is still nice lender like this on internet and
    earth here. Just some Months Back, I was in search for a loan of
    $50,000,00 as I was running out of money for feeding and rent. I was
    scammed $2,800 Dollars and I decided not to involve my self in such
    business again but a Friend of my introduced me to a loan company due to
    my appearance and doings.

    And I told him that I am not interested of any loan deal anymore but
    he told me that there is still a nice lender who he will recommend me
    to, and I made a trial and I am most grateful lucky am I today, I was
    given a loan amount of $50,000.00usd, by this great Company (ERIVAN
    LOAN COMPANY) managed by (Mr Erivan ) If you are in need of a
    genuine or legit loan or financial assistance and you can be reliable
    and trusted of capable of paying back at the due time of the funds I
    will advice you to, contact her via:
    erivanloancompany@yahoo.com. And you will be free from scams in
    the internet.

    All thanks to Mr Erivan You are the one who remove me and my
    family out of poverty. The reason why i am doing this is that, i
    promise Mr Erivan that if i truly got my loan, i will
    advertize her company and bring customers to her company. Contact her
    now at (erivanloancompany@yahoo.com) for the Loan you have been
    looking for..

    ReplyDelete
  3. We offer our Loans to our clients In USD($), GBP(£) Euro(€) or ($) Singapore Dollars and in the following categories.

    Auto ,Mortgage ,Business ,Personal ,Real Estate Loan.

    Contact us today for easy loan with less stress. We give out loans at low and affordable interest rate... Why waste more time? Contact us ASAP so we can move on with your request.

    Contact us for more information with the Contact below,

    Loan Agent: Peter White


    Email: lim.koh56@yahoo.com

    Thank you for your response.

    Yours Faithfully,
    Mr. Lim Koh(C.E.O).

    LIM LOANS FIRM

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Value Customer,
    My name is Mr. Steve Brown CEO of Steve Brown Loan Company, We give out legitimate loans to serious Individual and Companies that are in need of loans, we offer all kinds of loans at 3% interest rate without stress, apply with us and get your loan transfer to you within 2 days, interest person or company should contact us via E-mail: stevebrownloan4@hotmail.com, and stevebrown012@gmail.com
    We offer all kind of categories of loan they
    Short term loan 5_10years
    Long term loan 20_40
    Media term loan10_20
    We offer loan like
    Home loan.....................
    Business loan.................
    Debt loan .................
    Student loan..............
    Business start up loan
    Business loan ...........
    Car loan ..............
    International loan
    Company loan........etc
    When it comes to financial crisis and loan then Steve Brown loan financial is the place to go please just send us an email and application form will be send back to you below is our Email address stevebrownloan4@hotmail.com (or) stevebrown012@gmail.com


    ReplyDelete
  5. Do you Need Personal Loan?
    Do you Need Business Loan?
    Are you in need of a loan?
    Do you want to pay off your bills?
    Do you want to be financially stable?
    email:(arabfinancialcorporation@yahoo.com.sg)

    Our Loan Services Include:

    1)Personal Loan
    2)Business Loan
    3)Secured Loan
    4)Unsecured loan
    5)Consolidation Loan
    6)Mortgage Loan
    7)Payday off loan?
    8)Student Loans
    9)Commercial Loan
    10)Car Loan
    11)Investments Loans.
    12)Development Loans.
    13)Acquisition Loans .
    14)Construction loans.

    email:(arabfinancialcorporation@yahoo.com.sg)

    ReplyDelete
  6. A licensed Loan Lender, We offer Affordable Loan at 3% interest rate available for local and international borrowers, Are you seriously interested in getting a genuine Loan without stress? Do you need this Loan for business and to clear your bills? Then send us an email now for more details via:(arabfinancialcorporation@yahoo.com.sg)


    Our Loan Services Include:

    1)Personal Loan
    2)Business Loan
    3)Secured Loan
    4)Unsecured loan
    5)Consolidation Loan
    6)Mortgage Loan
    7)Payday off loan?
    8)Student Loans
    9)Commercial Loan
    10)Car Loan
    11)Investments Loans.
    12)Development Loans.
    13)Acquisition Loans .
    14)Construction loans.

    email:(arabfinancialcorporation@yahoo.com.sg)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Value Customer,
    My name is Mr. Steve Brown CEO of Steve Brown Loan Company, We give out legitimate loans to serious Individual and Companies that are in need of loans, we offer all kinds of loans at 2% interest rate without stress, apply with us and get your loan transfer to you within 2 days, interest person or company should contact us via E-mail: stevebrownloan4@hotmail.com, and stevebrown012@gmail.com
    We offer all kind of categories of loan they
    Short term loan 5_10years
    Long term loan 20_40
    Media term loan10_20
    We offer loan like
    Home loan.....................
    Business loan.................
    Debt loan .................
    Student loan..............
    Business start up loan
    Business loan ...........
    Car loan ..............
    International loan
    Company loan........etc
    When it comes to financial crisis and loan then Steve Brown loan financial is the place to go please just send us an email and application form will be send back to you below is our Email address stevebrownloan4@hotmail.com (or) stevebrown012@gmail.com


    ReplyDelete
  8. LOAN SERVICE OFFER, APPLY NOW AND GET APPROVED WITHOUT STRESS OR DELAY.

    We are MULTI CREDIT FINANCE; we are Legitimate/Accredited Loan Company & we are fully licensed by the Government to grant loans and offer other credit facilities to both local and international customers. We offer loans to individuals and co-operate bodies in need of financial assistance. Do you have bad credit OR are you in need of money to pay bills? Do you need business loan? We offer ALL KINDS of loan at 2% interest rate to reliable & serious individuals or companies! Get back to us if interested & upon your response; you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) We Look forward hear from interested borrower!!!! Interested person can contact us via E-mail: {multicreditfinance@gmail.com}

    MULTI CREDIT FINANCE TEAM.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Sir/Madam,
    My name is Mr. Steve Brown CEO of Steve Brown Loan Company, We give out legitimate loans to serious Individual and Companies that are in need of loans, we offer all kinds of loans at 2% interest rate without stress, apply with us and get your loan transfer to you within 2 days, interest person or company should contact us via E-mail: stevebrownloan4@hotmail.com, and stevebrown012@gmail.com
    We offer all kind of categories of loan they
    Short term loan 5_10years
    Long term loan 20_40
    Media term loan10_20
    We offer loan like
    Home loan.....................
    Business loan.................
    Debt loan .................
    Student loan..............
    Business start up loan
    Business loan ...........
    Car loan ..............
    International loan
    Company loan........etc
    When it comes to financial crisis and loan then Steve Brown loan financial is the place to go please just send us an email and application form will be send back to you below is our Email address stevebrownloan4@hotmail.com (or) stevebrown012@gmail.com


    ReplyDelete
  10. Good day ladies and gentle men am Mrs Lily Brown a God fearing and honest loan lender who can change your life from bad to Good i want you to understand the fact that i give my loans out in a low interest rate of 2%. Bad credit acceptable,The Terms and Conditions are very simple and considerate.You will never regret in this loan transaction because i will make you smile through out this transaction, because you where not born to be a loser my terms and conditions are very simple what are you waiting for asap why don't you try Mrs Lily Brown loan company and be free from debts,only serious clients should contact me Asap via Emai:(mrslilybrownco9@gmail.com) for further proceeds.


    Please fill the below application form and get back if interested and
    you will be glad of knowing a loan lender like Mrs Mrs Lily Brown

    BORROWER'S DATA

    1)Full Names:
    2)Country:
    3)address:
    4)State:
    5)Gender:
    6)Marital Status:
    7)Occupation:
    8)Phone Number:
    9)Monthly income:
    10)Loan Amount Needed:
    11)Loan Duration:
    12)Purpose of Loan:


    I will be looking forward to hear from you so as to proceed.

    Kind Regards
    Mrs Lily Brown

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm Jane Brown by name. I live in USA, i want to use this
    medium to alert all loan seekers to be very careful because there are
    scammers everywhere.Few months ago I was financially strained, and due
    to my desperation I was scammed by several online lenders. I had
    almost lost hope until a friend of mine referred me to a very reliable
    lender called Mr. Barry Smith who lend me an unsecured loan of $350,000
    under 2hours without any stress. If you are in need of any kind of
    loan just contact him now via: (barrysmith1loanlender@gmail.com) I'm using
    this medium to alert all loan seekers because of the hell I passed
    through in the hands of those fraudulent lenders. And I don't wish
    even my enemy to pass through such hell that I passed through in the
    hands of those fraudulent online lenders,i will also want you to help
    me pass this information to others who are also in need of a loan once
    you have also receive your loan from Mr. Barry Smith, i pray that God
    should give him long life.

    God bless her forever.

    Jane Brown

    ReplyDelete