Institutional Verifications and Denials
Verifying NJInc’s assertions regarding money transfers, payments, receipts, repayments, banking relationships, and regulatory encumbrances has proven extremely difficult. Most of the institutions involved do not engage with the public directly and lack online customer support, making independent verification nearly impossible.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that many of NJInc’s purported banking partners are based in China, where language barriers and limited transparency hamper communication.
Despite these challenges, two verifications were successfully obtained—one on the U.S. Federal Reserve and another from a financial regulator and bank in Hong Kong. Both findings raise serious red flags and lend support to the growing concern that NJInc may be operating a fraudulent scheme.
NJInc’s References to the U.S. Federal Reserve
Statement (as implied or referenced by NJInc):
NJInc has repeatedly cited the U.S. Federal Reserve in relation to audits, processing fees, pre-repatriation audit bonds, and certificates such as the so-called "NRAC." While they stop short of claiming these actions are directly executed by the Federal Reserve, they frequently present themselves as intermediaries or proxies acting in compliance with purported regulatory requirements.
Rebuttal and Analysis
-
Misrepresentation of the Federal Reserve's Role:
The U.S. Federal Reserve is the central banking system of the United States. It provides financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. Treasury, and certain international organizations. It does not interact directly with private individuals or investment clients.
-
No Regulatory Authority over Client Transactions:
The Federal Reserve does not impose audits, collect repatriation fees, issue Anti-Money Laundering (AML) bonds, or require certificates like the "NRAC" for personal or investment-related transactions.
-
Deceptive Framing by NJInc:
By referencing the Federal Reserve, NJInc creates the misleading impression that certain fees or delays are due to official U.S. regulatory obligations. This tactic lends unwarranted legitimacy to their demands and misleads clients into complying under false pretenses.
-
No Evidence of Official Mandates:
There is no documentation or corroboration that any of the fees demanded by NJInc are mandated or facilitated by the Federal Reserve or any other recognized U.S. regulatory body.
Conclusion:
NJInc’s repeated invocation of the Federal Reserve is misleading and deceptive. These references are likely used to justify illegitimate charges and create a false sense of regulatory necessity. No evidence supports that the Federal Reserve has any involvement in NJInc’s operations or client-facing requirements. These claims serve to manipulate victims and obscure the fraudulent nature of NJInc’s practices.
NJInc’s References to HSBC
NJInc’s has further made references to HSBC.
In response to claims and concerns regarding how HSBC Hong Kong is handling the NJInc non-interest-bearing trust account, we contacted both the HKMA and HSBC Hong Kong directly.
We received formal replies from senior representatives at the Enforcement and AML Department of the HKMA, and from Customer Experience and Portfolio Management, Business Banking at HSBC Hong Kong.
Conclusion:
Both institutions categorically deny any involvement.
-
HSBC Hong Kong confirms that no business relationship exists in the name of Newman Jiang Inc or NJInc.
-
The HKMA confirms it has not instructed any AML audit related to NJInc or any such repatriation.
-
These responses were provided by named senior officials and, at their request, are being treated as confidential.
-
These findings add to our growing concerns that the representations made by NJInc are materially false and potentially fraudulent.