Angerona and some dodgy South Americans

This will be about the links between some of the other individual players in the New Zealand trust industry, and some Uruguayan lawyers. The focus will be mainly on the Angerona Group Trust (New Zealand) Ltd and one of its directors Patricio Jose Martinelli, and some legal issues that his associates are facing. The story is complicated slightly by the use of two surnames by those in Latin America, including on the New Zealand company register, where Patricio Martinelli Brito also appears. Martinelli Brito appears to be a partner in the law firm Bragard & Duran Abogados, based in Montevideo, and was the original director of Principal (New Zealand Ltd), along with Diego Pimavesi. As just Patricio Martinelli he is the shareholder of Angerona, and director of companies that it owns.

Before we get to the scope of the Angerona Group Trust we have to get through a complex sequence of ownership changes amongst the New Zealand resident directors. Angerona’s registered addresses have included that for the office of Trustee Executors International Ltd (TEIL) in Wellington; then the New Zealand Trust and Corporate Services Ltd, based in central Auckland; and now it’s with B.R. Associates Ltd, based in Parnell, Auckland. Angerona was first owned by Tarpon Holdings Ltd, a TEIL-owned company, with Carolyn Melville as a director. Carolyn Melville and her husband Garth have created well over 2000 companies in New Zealand, and have moved offices frequently, and are now based in Tauranga. Tarpon Holdings’ 100 shares in Angerona were sold to Patricio Martinelli in January 2015.

I will now refer to Margaret Moore, who runs NZ Trust and Corporate Services, because she has some interesting international connections. NZTCS had a Cyprian company as the original shareholder, Hermonassa Investments Ltd, before two of Moore’s other companies took part of the 100 shares in 2013; the main shareholder at the current time is a company called Valmont Ltd, which is domiciled in the Seychelles. Moore has a number of companies which are associated with Seychelles directors, and which see assumed from Carolyn Melville, including Green Crescent Venture Trust Co, and Tundra Finance Ltd. These companies usually have had a shareholding by Selma Louise Francis of the Seychelles; though some new companies, like Metinfra Ltd, were created for a Cameroon resident, by the name of Serge Yannick Nana, and then transferred to Francis.

But back to Angerona and its South American contingent of directors. Angerona had a number of companies created for it by TEIL in Wellington, including Big Boss 2 (NZ) Ltd, and NGVH Ant (NZ) Ltd (followed by NGVH Bat and NGVH Cat). Then there are more of the companies owned by Tarpon Holdings which have changed hands, passing through Margaret Moore’s administration, and then being run by B.R. Associates in Auckland. B.R. Associates has a principal called Alan Jay Riechelmann, and a staffer named Gregory Fitzsimons who is the local nominee director for Angerona. Riechelmann has a company called Braco No.3 Ltd that has taken over the shares of companies like BGL Trust (NZ) from Tarpon Holdings. One of these companies was called Waitorua New Zealand Ltd, now called Waitorua Trustee Co, whose main director is Raul Alejandro Duro of Montevideo. But the original director of the company was Gustavo Federico Larriera Mendevil, whose residential address is listed as being in Montevideo.

But Gustavo Larriera Mendivil also appears in the Panama Papers database a number of times, and seems to have a number of companies based in Miami, Florida. The press in South America report that he has 57 companies in tax havens , as well as the CFC Holding Company in Miami. Larriera Mendivil (or vice versa) is also linked to a money laundering investigation in Argentina, according to an article by Carlos Pagni in La Nacion from April. This involves an investigation into those linked with the Kirchner government, and in particular, Silvia Majdalani, who was assistant director of the intelligence agency in Argentina. Larriera has created a complicated web, including many dormant companies.

Angerona Group Trust (NZ) also owned until recently (March 2016), Latam Real Estate (New Zealand) Ltd, and it remains registered in Auckland. But this company is now owned by a new company called S.A. Trustee New Zealand Ltd, which is based in Tauranga, and run by Carolyn and Garth Melville. The Melville’s new venture is called Pantheon Holdings, which is a company previously known as NZ Securities Ltd. S.A. Trustee is owned by a Juan Carlos Siekavica Costa, who lives in Montevideo, and he replaced Martinelli as director of Latam Real Estate. This change may also be linked to current litigation in Brazil in which Latam and Angerona are named, along with directors Gregory Fitzsimons, Patricio Martinelli, and Diego Menafra Wilson. Those who can read Portugese may like to check the website, and the diary for 15 June 2016, for the details of this legal case.


This entry was posted in Panama Papers, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Angerona and some dodgy South Americans

  1. Kiaora You weren’t kidding about that litigation case in Brazil and its taken me the best part of an hour to translate..

    Página 717 • Judicial I – Capital SP • 13/07/2015 • TRF-3
    Página 717 • Judicial I – Capital SGP • 7/13/2015 • TRF-3

    Pág. 717. Judicial I – Capital SP. Tribunal Regional Federal da 3ª Região (TRF-3) de 13 de Julho de 2015
    Page 717. Judicial. I – Capital SP. Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF-3) 13 July 2015

    representantes da Mascarenhas como o instrumento particular de primeiro aditivo ao instrumento particular de promessa de venda e compra (fls. 58/61). Participaram, assim, do negócio. E, em tese, incidiram no previsto no artigo 10da Lei n. 8.429/92. O mesmo se diga de Marcelo de Campos Bicudo, que assinou os dois instrumentos como representante da Latam Real Estate Brasil Empreendimentos Imobiliários.Embora o autor afirme que Luiz Fernando Pires e Luiz Eduardo Monteiro Pires tenham assinado o instrumento particular de promessa de venda e compra do imóvel, não é o que se verifica do exame dos mesmos. Embora seus nomes constem de fls. 62, quem assinou pela Mascarenhas foram Flavio Oliveira e Antonio Carlos Barbosa de Almeida, como se verifica das firmas reconhecidas às fls. 75. Assim, entendo não haver elementos para se dizer que estes dois participaram de atos ímprobos. Quanto a Gregory Luke Fitzsimons, Patricio Jose Martinelli e Diego Menafra Wilson, entendo que, pelo simples fato de serem diretores da Latam Real Estate New Zealand Limited e da Angerona Group Trust New Zealand não podem ser considerados beneficiários do contrato. Como já dito, não há elementos nem para dizer que a própria Latam R. E. Zew Zealand Limited se beneficiou diretamente do mesmo. Para os requeridos em relação aos quais entendi haver indícios da prática de ato de improbidade ou de que se beneficiaram do mesmo, deve ser decretada a indisponibilidade de bens. É que a jurisprudência do STJ estabeleceu que a decretação de indisponibilidade de bens em caso de improbidade administrativa caracteriza tutela de evidência. Independe, assim, da comprovação do periculum in mora concreto, consistente na dilapidação do patrimônio. Confirase: EMEN: PROCESSO CIVIL. ADMINISTRATIVO. IMPROBIDADE ADMINISTRATIVA.

    Mascarenhas representatives as the private instrument of first amendment to the private instrument of promise of sale and purchase (pgs. 58/61). They participated, as well, business. And, in theory, focused on under Article 10 of Law n. 8,429 / 92. The same is true of Marcelo de Campos Bicudo, who signed the two instruments as a representative of Real Estate Latam Brazil Empreendimentos Imobiliários.Embora the author states that Luiz Fernando Pires and Luiz Eduardo Monteiro Pires signed the particular instrument of promise of sale and purchase property, is not what it appears from the examination of them. Although their names appear on pages. 62, who signed for Mascarenhas were Flavio Oliveira and Antonio Carlos Barbosa de Almeida, as testified by the companies recognized on pages. 75. Thus, I see no evidence to say that these two participated in acts ímprobos. Quanto Gregory Luke Fitzsimons, Patricio Jose Martinelli and Diego Menafra Wilson, understand, simply because they are directors of Latam Real Estate New Zealand Limited and the Angerona Group Trust New Zealand cannot be considered beneficiaries of the contract. As I said, there is no elements to say that the very Latam RE New Zealand Limited benefited directly from the mesmo. Para required for which I understand there is evidence of impropriety act or practice that benefited from it, must be decreed the unavailability of bens. É that the Supreme Court’s case law has established that the declaration of availability of goods in the event of improper conduct characterized tutelage of evidence. Independent, thus the proof of periculum in mora concrete, consistent in dilapidation of heritage. Confirase: EMEN: CIVIL PROCEDURE. ADMINISTRATIVE. ADMINISTRATIVE DISHONESTY.

    INDISPONIBILIDADE DE BENS. DESNECESSIDADE DE PERICULUM IN MORA CONCRETO. RECURSO ESPECIAL PROVIDO.1. Extrai-se dos autos que o Ministério Público Federal ajuizou ação civil pública por ato de improbidade administrativa contra o ora recorrido, em razão da utilização de recursos federais advindos de convênio firmado entre o Município de Itapetinga/BA e a FUNASA para a instalação de sistema de esgotamento sanitário em loteamento particular, quando, em verdade, tais recursos deveriam ter sido originalmente destinados à instalação do sistema de esgotamento em vias públicas.2. O Juízo de primeiro grau deferiu a liminar para decretar a indisponibilidade dos bens do requerido até o limite do valor que se pretende a reparação. Todavia, no julgamento do agravo de instrumento, a medida acautelatória foi revogada pela Corte regional, ao fundamento de que não há prova da dilapidação do patrimônio pelo requerido.3. É firme o entendimento desta Corte Superior no sentido de que não exige a necessidade de demonstração cumulativa do periculum in mora e do fumus boni iuris, que autorizam a medida cautelar de indisponibilidade dos bens (art. 7º, parágrafo único da Lei n. 8.429/92, bastando apenas a existência de fundados indícios da prática de atos de improbidade administrativa. Recurso especial provido. (RESP 201402382319, 2ªT do STJ, j. em 6.11.2014, DJ de 17.11.2014, Rel: HUMBERTO MARTINS) Entendo, contudo, que a indisponibilidade deve se limitar ao valor necessário à reparação do dano, que é de R$ 196.906.166,00. Nesta fase inicial, não é razoável bloquear bens tendo em vista a aplicação de uma multa que depende, antes de mais nada, do julgamento desta preppie ação.Também é de ser indeferido o pedido de bloqueio de empresas em que os réus possuem participação societária ou que se dediquem ao mesmo ramo de atividades, sob pena de estar-se bloqueando bens de terceiros.Diante do exposto, CONCEDO EM PARTE A LIMINAR PARA decretar a indisponibilidade dos bens móveis, constituídos de veículos, aplicações financeiras e participações em sociedades, e bens imóveis em nome de ANTONIO CARLOS CONQUISTA, SINECIO JORGE GREVE, RICARDO OLIVEIRA AZEVEDO, ROBERTO MACEDO DE SIQUEIRA FILHO, JOSÉ CARLOS RODRIGUES SOUSA, MÔNICA CHRISTINA CALDEIRA NUNES, JOÃO CARLOS PENNA ESTEVES, ERNANI DE SOUZA COELHO, MARCOS ANTONIO DA SILVA COSTA, JÚLIO VICENTE LOPES, ROGÉRIO FERREIRA UBINE, REGINALDO CHAVES DE ALCÂNTARA, TÂNIA REGINA TEIXEIRA MUNARI, MASCARENHAS BARBOSA ROSCOE S.A. CONSTRUÇÕES, FLÁVIO OLIVEIRA, ANTONIO CARLOS BARBOSA DE ALMEIDA, LATAM REAL ESTATE BRASIL EMPREENDIMENTOS IMOBILIÁRIOS LTDA. e MARCELO DE CAMPOS BICUDO até o limite de R$ 196.906.166,00.O cumprimento desta determinação será feito por meio do site, pelo RENAJUD, por meio de ofício à Junta Comercial de São Paulo – JUCESP e ofício ao Banco Central do Brasil. No ofício à JUCESP deverão constar as empresas elencadas às fls. 555/557 em que os requeridos MASCARENHAS BARBOSA ROSCOE S/A CONSTRUÇÕES, LATAM REAL ESTATE BRASIL EMPREENDIMENTOS IMOBILIÁRIOS LTDA. e MARCELO DE CAMPOS BICUDO possuem participação.Intimem-se e notifiquem-se os requeridos para oferecer manifestação por escrito, que poderá ser instruída com documentos e justificações, no prazo de quinze dias, nos termos do previsto na Lei n. 8.429/92, artigo17, 7º.Por fim, retiro o segredo de justiça anteriormente decretado nestes autos.São Paulo, 25 de junho de 2015.SÍLVIA FIGUEIREDO MARQUESJUÍZA FEDERALFLS. 64: Nomeio como tradutor juramentado do Juízo o Sr. MARIO MIGUEL FERNANDEZ ESCALEIRA, telefones (11) 5011-1506, 96622-8723 e 99195-8723 para que proceda à tradução das cartas rogatórias a serem expedidas, bem como das peças de fls. 501/560 e 564/575.Intime-se o tradutor supracitado para que, no prazo de 10 dias, apresente as suas estimativas de honorários. Após, dê-se vista ao autor, para que se manifeste em 10 dias.


    PROPERTY UNAVAILABILITY. No need for periculum in mora CONCRETE. SPECIAL FEATURE PROVIDO.1. It is extracted from the file that the Federal Public Ministry filed a public civil action by an act of improper conduct against the defendant now, due to the use of federal funds arising from an agreement between the municipality of Itapetinga / BA and FUNASA for system installation sewage in particular subdivision, when, in fact, such resources should have been originally intended for the sewage system installation in públicas.2 way. The first degree Court granted the injunction to order the personal property of the defendant to the threshold value that you want to repair. However, in the judgment of the interlocutory appeal, the cautionary measure was revoked by the Regional Court, on the grounds that there is no evidence of dilapidation of heritage by requerido.3. It is firm understanding of this Superior Court in that it does not require the need for cumulative demonstration of periculum in mora and prima facie case appear, which allow the precautionary measure of personal property (art. 7, sole paragraph of Law no. 8,429 / 92, just by the existence of grounded evidence of the practice of acts of administrative impropriety special feature provided (RESP 201,402,382,319, 2ªT STJ, j on 06/11/2014, DJ 17.11.2014, Rel: HUMBERTO MARTINS). I understand, however that the unavailability should be limited to the amount necessary to compensation for damage, which is R $ 196,906,166.00. at this early stage, it is unreasonable to block goods with a view to applying a fine it depends, first of all , judgment of this very ação.Também is to be dismissed the lock request undertakings in which the defendants have ownership interest or engaged in the same field of activities, under penalty of being-blocking terceiros.Diante goods of the above, Granted in PART a PRELIMINARY for decree the unavailability of movable property, made up of vehicles, investments and interests in companies, and real estate on behalf of ANTONIO CARLOS CONQUEST, Sinecio JORGE GREVE, RICARDO OLIVEIRA AZEVEDO, ROBERTO SON SIQUEIRA Macedo, JOSÉ CARLOS RODRIGUES SOUSA, MONICA CHRISTINA BOILER NUNES, JOHN CARLOS PENNA ESTEVES, ERNANI RABBIT SOUZA, MARCOS ANTONIO DA SILVA COSTA, JULIUS VICENTE LOPES, ROGÉRIO FERREIRA UBINE, REGINALDO ALCÂNTARA KEYS, TÂNIA REGINA TEIXEIRA MUNARI, MASCARENHAS BARBOSA ROSCOE SA cONSTRUCTIONS, FLÁVIO OLIVEIRA , ANTONIO CARLOS DE ALMEIDA BARBOSA, LATAM REAL ESTATE BRAZIL HOLDINGS LTD. and MARCELO BICUDO CAMPOS to the limit of R $ 196.906.166,00.O compliance with this determination will be made through the website at RENAJUD, by letter to the Board of Trade of São Paulo – JUCESP and craft the Central Bank of Brasil. No letter to JUCESP shall contain the companies listed on pages. 555/557 where required MASCARENHAS BARBOSA ROSCOE S / A CONSTRUCTION, LATAM REAL ESTATE BRAZIL HOLDINGS LTD. and BICUDO CAMPOS MARCELO have up participação. Intimem and notify them required to provide written statement, which may be accompanied by documents and evidence within fifteen days, under the provisions of Law n. 8.429 / 92, Article 17 to 7º. Por end, the secret retreat of justice previously decreed these autos. São Paulo, June 25, 2015.SÍLVIA FIGUEIREDO MARQUESJUÍZA FEDERALFLS. 64: I nominate as an authorized translator of judgment Mr. MARIO MIGUEL FERNANDEZ Escaleira, phone (11) 5011-1506, 96622-8723 and 99195-8723 to undertake the translation of letters rogatory to be sent, as well as parts of pgs. 501/560 and 564 / 575.Intime to the aforementioned translator so that, within 10 days, submit its estimates honorários. Após, give yourself a view to the author, to be revealed in 10 days.

    Consignment PAYMENT

    0033918-77.1998.403.6100 (98.0033918-3) – ADRIANA VERONEZE OVIDIO X NELSON OVIDIO (SP099377


  2. Pingback: ”GOLD’ FINGER – The Theft of NZ Water & the vulnerability of strategic infrastructure. Part 1 & Part 2. – BEN VIDGEN THE DYSLEXIC DETECTIVE

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s