To:
CC: ;
Subject: RE: 希望在哪里？仅供参考,现在不能发表任何文章
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:16:07 -0400
哎，你真是糊涂透顶，无可救药。上次推出LUCY帮你，你不抓住时机，死要面子，错过最好良机，最后不得不向客户低头认罪，看看网上铺天盖地的议论，你今日已名誉扫地，你还不知道今天是何时何地自己是何人，还在做白日梦，今日还有谁相信你还有谁敢向你投资？
你还不明白自己的危险处境，客户给你最后一丝机会扳回本金，你全家生命安危和客户性命都系于此，你不去想怎样最大限度利用最大力量保险地去挽回本金，却还做梦想打你的唐氏大旗，就靠你那点操盘本事？太不自量力！你是对己，对家人，对客户对朋友和社会都极不负责，还想孤注一掷，作最后的赌博，你这样必定走向最后的毁灭。我最后一次告诉你，现在能救你全家性命和客户性命的是LUCY，只有推出新人才能稳定盈利，才能融资，客户才能看到希望，否则你就等待命运对你全家最严厉的惩罚吧。
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:54:06 -0400
Subject: Fwd: 希望在哪里？仅供参考,现在不能发表任何文章
From:
To: @hotmail.com
希望在哪里？
2008年金融海啸，作为一个资深的投资者我能够远离市场，走向社会，避免了巨大的市场风险，融资3000万，如果没有提款和挤兑，融资会更多更大。在目前市场发生历史性转折时期，谁都没有能力和资金的情况下，一举投入市场是何等的威风。
回复
lucyketang
2012-09-23 02:54
举报
0
稗子长得再好,永远变不成大米;
骗子的口号再响,永远变不成真理 .
简单的看一下思考一下下面几点,我想人人都会明白在操盘盈利能力方面唐炜臻和Lucy Lu 谁真谁假 :
1. 唐集资6000万,但在2009年2月27日全体投资客户大会上,唐在录像机面前告诉大家海外华人基金总共只剩1400元!
2.别说唐捏造的天天公布给客户的所谓虚假盈利, 就连投资本金客户们也根本拿不回来!
3.以点概面以偏概全是唐的拿手好戏. 唐总是说某几天或某周赚钱,何时见他拿出过某整年的哪怕是某整月的完整交易记录和结果.
4.2009年2月27日全体投资客户大会后,为了自救,客户们委任Lucy当主操盘手,唐作助手按Lucy的买卖指令按鼠标,结果唐不听指令拧着来,造成本该盈利却亏损了,自救计划很快夭折.
5.一次,唐趁着Lucy到楼外吃午饭的时间,命令其女员工Tracy偷着从Lucy的个人交易账户上打印了Lucy的一段交易记录,而且特意不打印上Title因为那Title是Lucy的名字和账号.这一点Tracy可以证明.
6.Lucy的个人交易账户从来不允许任何人(包括其丈夫)碰,何况你唐炜臻!
7.Lucy是久经沙场的精明能干的生意人,怎么可能连一纸合约都没有就让你老唐在她的个人交易账户上操盘?
这是 Common Sense .
8. 在老唐的几个受害客户多次恳求下,Lucy帮她们几个做交易,从去年9月23日至今天整整一年的投资回报率是 146.25%,她们都非常感谢 Lucy,称赞道"这才是真的 东方巴菲特和 The Queen of 1% Weekly Return" !
请看一看主流媒体加拿大发行量最大的英文对开日报的有关报道:
Tang trial takes bizarre turn
Published on Thursday September 20, 2012
Share on twitter Share on facebook
Madhavi Acharya-Tom Yew
Business Reporter
The fraud trial of Toronto businessman Weizhen Tang took a bizarre turn Thursday, with testimony from a crown witness who said she wants to be the new “Queen of 1 per cent returns.”
During a tense cross-examination, witness Lucy Lu often became angry, yelling on the stand and calling the defence lawyer advising Tang “a liar.”
Tang has pleaded not guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000.
He is accused of running a Ponzi scheme, paying early investors with money from those who came after. Prosecutors say that, billing himself as “the king” of 1 per cent weekly returns, Tang pulled in as much as $30 million from hundreds of investors.
Lu testified that she used to be in the restaurant business, first in China, and after she came to Canada. She also told the court through a Mandarin interpreter that in 2006 she sold the business and began day trading through a personal account. She said she focused on “foreign currency exchange and oil.”
In January, 2009, Lu deposited about $1 million with Tang’s company, known as Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership.
Lu bristled when Peter Boushy, who conducted the cross-examination on behalf of Tang, presented documents to the court showing that Lu had $5 million in her personal trading account.
“Is this Mr. Tang's case or my case? What does my personal account have to do with this?” Lu asked.
Boushy suggested that Lu had a side deal where Tang traded for her in her personal account, and the January deposit was a 25 per cent payment on a profit of $4 million.
“This is my account and my money. I did the trading,” Lu responded.
Boushy then asked why she traded in her personal account at Tang’s home and his downtown office.
The jury heard that in September, 2006, Lu went to China to visit her dying mother. When she returned, she was angry to find out that her husband invested money with Tang.
They had an argument that turned physical, and Lu was arrested and charged with assault.
Tang posted Lu’s bail, on the condition that she live at his North York home. The charges were later dropped but Lu pleaded guilty to a breach of recognizance and was given 18 months probation.
Lu seemed unfamiliar with the details of the charges, telling the court at one point, “No one told me the case was withdrawn. I don’t understand English.”
Lu said that she did her day-trading at the Tang’s home because she had to live there as part of her bail conditions.
When Boushy challenged Lu, pointing out that the day trading continued long after the bail requirements had lifted, the exchange became heated.
That’s when Lu yelled in English, “This lawyer is a liar.” She later said, “Why do you make up stories? This did not happen.”
Boushy then showed the court a brochure that she had created to advertise a venture called “Golden Future International Investment Limited Partnership.”
“The reason you haven’t admitted to this court that it was Mr. Tang who did your trading was that you want to be the new Mr. Tang, the Queen of 1 per cent, isn’t that right?” Boushy said.
Lu replied, “I had this idea in 2006. That’s why I used my own money and practiced in my personal account. I am a proven businesswoman. I started to do my own business when I was 10 years old.”
During the cross-examination, Lu often spoke at length in Mandarin, interrupting Boushy, her interpreter, and even the judge.
“Do you want the assistance of an interpreter?” Justice Alfred O'Marra of the Ontario Court of Justice asked. “Then let him interpret.”
The court has heard that Tang told investors in late February, 2009 that there was no money left and their investments had been lost.
Lu testified that she was asked by a group of Tang’s investors to take the lead on the Oversea trading account, with Tang assisting, in an effort to recoup the loss.
That didn’t happen, Lu said
华人妇女投资逾百万 被指是付唐佣金