Vermont's Independent Voice
Browse News
Browse Arts + Culture
Browse Food + Drink
Browse Cannabis
Browse Music
Browse On Screen
Browse Events
Browse Classifieds
Browse Personals
Sam Agarwal
Member since Aug 18, 2015
Recent Comments
Re: “Report Says Feds Investigating Dozens of EB-5 Projects”
The EB-5 program full of fraudulent misrepresentation which threatens not only the integrity of the EB-5 program but also creates unfair competition in the open market where all material information must be accurate.
Documentation appears to support all of the following for just one Regional Center. All of the following were done through the internet and/or in person in China by middle men, by US Citizens and or on US soil. Of course in our country you are innocent until proven guilty, but consider these 30 obseervations.
1) Active misrepresentation of the experience of the RC Owner and his development experience
(indicated nearly 10 years of experience when actual was about 2 years)
2) Active misrepresentation of the size of the developer’s portfolio
(claimed $700 Million when actual was maybe $0-$20 Million)
(claimed 2000 residential units when there were just 108 units)
(Similar gross exaggerations (x1000, x10,000) regarding retail, industrial and other sorts of commercial space)
Posted by
Sam Agarwal
on 08/18/2015 at 11:46 AM
Re: “Report Says Feds Investigating Dozens of EB-5 Projects”
3) Active misrepresentation of collateral of investment
(Claimed $700 Million when it was more like $20M)
4) Active misrepresentation that 8 major investment firms were all partners with the EB-5 RC
(Marketing materials had “Partners” as headline and then used the logos/intellectual property to try and make investors believe that these firms were partners. The firms that were questioned by citizens confirmed they were not involved with the project or the EB-5 RC. These are firms like Morgan Stanley and Prudential claimed on the RC website to be his "Partners"
5) Active misrepresentation that a Regional Center has been approved when, in fact, the RC had been DENIED by USCIS
6) Proven involvement of state government officials involving themselves in encouraging USCIS officials to approve the Regional Center
7) Active misrepresentation of the one approved Regional Center with the claim that the owner actually had two Regional Centers (he only had one)….. later he got a second one approved but he had been claiming the approval of two RCs for a very long time (1-2 years)