Home Blog

Anton Falk Capital Partners (clone of EEA authorised firm)

Almost all firms and individuals carrying out financial services activities in the UK have to be authorised or registered by us. This firm is not authorised or registered by us but has been targeting people in the UK, claiming to be an authorised firm.

This is what we call a 'clone firm'; and fraudsters usually use this tactic when contacting people out of the blue, so you should be especially wary if you have been cold called. They may use the name of the genuine firm, the 'firm reference number' (FRN) we have given the authorised firm or other details.

You can find out more about this scam tactic and how to protect yourself from clone firms.

Clone firm details

Fraudsters are using or giving out the following details as part of their tactics to scam people in the UK:

Anton Falk Capital Partners (clone of EEA authorised firm)

Address: Bahnhofstrasse 5, Zürich 8022, Switzerland; Brunnengasse 12, Eisenstadt A-7000, Austria (clone of EEA authorised firm's address); The Meydan Office Tower, P.O. Box 450676 Dubai, UAE

Telephone: +41 43 550 03 17, +41 43 508 19 09, +41 43 550 03 62

Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Website: www.antonfalk.com

Be aware that the scammers may give out other false details or mix these with some correct details of the registered firm.

EEA authorised firm details

This EEA authorised firm that fraudsters are claiming to work for has no association with the ‘clone firm’. It is authorised to offer, promote or sell services or products in the UK and its correct details are:

Firm Name: Anton Falk

Firm Reference Number: 507783

Address: Brunnengasse 12, Eisenstadt A-7000, Austria

How to protect yourself

We strongly advise you to only deal with financial firms that are authorised by us, and check the Financial Services Register to ensure they are. It has information on firms and individuals that are, or have been, regulated by us.

If you want to check a consumer credit firm that may not yet have been authorised by us, please also check the Interim Permission Register.

If a firm does not appear on the Register but claims it does, contact our Consumer Helpline on 0800 111 6768.

There are more steps you should take to avoid scams and unauthorised firms.

You should also be aware that if you give money to an unauthorised firm, you will not be covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service or Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if things go wrong.

Report a clone firm

If you think you have been approached by an unauthorised or clone firm, or contacted about a scam, you should contact us. If you were offered, bought or sold shares, you can use our reporting form.

What to do if your firm is cloned

If you think your authorised firm has been cloned or scammers are fraudulently using your name or other details, contact our Firm Helpline on 0300 500 0597.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Become a member of The Financial Analyst today. TFA publishes original opinion and news content on trending financial topics and breaking stories related to analysis and global markets. If you have a tip or a financial opinion to share get in touch to submit your story.

  • Marketing Campaign: Financial Conferences

    £3,250.00
    Add to cart
  • Initial Coin Offering (ICO) marketing

    Marketing Campaign: Initial Coin Offering

    £3,500.00
    Add to cart
  • Marketing Campaign: FinTech Products & Services

    £3,250.00
    Add to cart

Options Tech Limited trading as multiple entities

Almost all firms and individuals offering, promoting or selling financial services or products in the UK have to be authorised by us.

However, some firms act without our authorisation and some knowingly run investment scams. 

This firm is not authorised by us and is targeting people in the UK. Based upon information we hold, we believe it is carrying on regulated activities which require authorisation.

Options Tech Limited trading as Unitedmarkets4you and United & Equal

Addresses: 1 Canada Square, E14 5AB 

111 Piccadilly, Manchester, M1 2HY

8 Copthall, Roseau Valley 00152, Commonwealth of Dominica. Company Registration: IBC/00091/2017

Telephone: 02033931514; 02030518598; 02033931866

Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Website: www.unitedmarkets4you.com

Options Tech Limited trading as UBS Investment and UBS InvestmentOptions Tech Limited

Addresses: Level 3, 207 Regent Street, London, United Kingdom, W1B 3HH

8 Copthall, Roseau Valley 00152, Commonwealth of Dominica. Company Registration: IBC/00091/2017

Telephone: 02033227780

Email: [email protected]

Website: http://www.upperbrookstreet.com/#/

Options Tech Limited trading as Cryptex Markets

Address: 8 Copthall, Roseau Valley 00152, Commonwealth of Dominica. Company Registration: IBC/00091/2017

Email: [email protected]

Website: https://cryptexmarkets.com/#/

Options Tech Limited trading as Block Chain Exchange Pro

Addresses: 160 City Road, London, EC1Y 1BE

8 Copthall, Roseau Valley 00152, Commonwealth of Dominica. Company Registration: IBC/00091/2017

Telephone: 02034757924

Email: [email protected]

Website: https://www.blockchainexchangepro.com/#/

How to protect yourself

We strongly advise you to only deal with financial firms that are authorised by us, and check the Financial Services Register to ensure they are. It has information on firms and individuals that are, or have been, regulated by us.

If you want to check a consumer credit firm that may not yet have been authorised by us, please also check the Interim Permission Register.

If a firm does not appear on the Register but claims it does, contact our Consumer Helpline on 0800 111 6768.

There are more steps you should take to avoid scams and unauthorised firms.

You should also be aware that if you give money to an unauthorised firm, you will not be covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service or Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if things go wrong.

Report an unauthorised firm

If you think you have been approached by an unauthorised firm or contacted about a scam, you should contact our Consumer Helpline on 0800 111 6768. If you were offered, bought or sold shares, you can use our reporting form.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Become a member of The Financial Analyst today. TFA publishes original opinion and news content on trending financial topics and breaking stories related to analysis and global markets. If you have a tip or a financial opinion to share get in touch to submit your story.

  • digital marketing

    Marketing Campaign: Financial Services

    £3,500.00
    Add to cart
  • Marketing Campaign: FinTech Products & Services

    £3,250.00
    Add to cart
  • Initial Coin Offering (ICO) marketing

    Marketing Campaign: Initial Coin Offering

    £3,500.00
    Add to cart

Analysis of Central Clearing Interdependencies

This report by the Financial Stability Board, the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, the International Organization of Securities Commissions and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision maps interdependencies between central counterparties (CCPs) and clearing members and other financial service providers. The international standard-setters published a first report on central clearing interdependencies in July 2017.

To assess whether the findings of the July 2017 report were stable over time, the international standard-setters conducted another more streamlined data collection (as of October 2017) from the same 26 CCPs. The results are broadly consistent with the previous analysis with the data as of September 2016 and show that:

  • Prefunded financial resources are concentrated at a small number of CCPs.
  • Exposures to CCPs are concentrated among a small number of entities.
  • The relationships mapped are characterised, to varying degrees, by a core of highly connected CCPs and entities and a periphery of less highly connected CCPs and entities.
  • A small number of entities tend to dominate the provision of each of the critical services required by CCPs.
  • Clearing members and clearing member affiliates are also important providers of other critical services required by CCPs and can maintain several types of relationships with multiple CCPs simultaneously.

There are, however, some changes to highlight in the interdependencies in central clearing. For instance, the concentration of client clearing activity has decreased. Compared with the last report, initial margins from clients are now concentrated in two CCPs, compared to only one with the data as of September 2016.

The analysis of interdependencies in central clearing is intended to provide useful inputs for designing supervisory stress tests and has informed the policy work as set out in the  joint CCP workplan to promote CCP resilience, recovery and resolvability. The standard-setters published a report on the implementation of the workplan in July 2017.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

BIS research papers

Read the full paper at: https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d181.htm

Analysis of Central Clearing Interdependencies

This report by the Financial Stability Board, the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, the International Organization of Securities Commissions and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision maps interdependencies between central counterparties (CCPs) and clearing members and other financial service providers. The international standard-setters published a first report on central clearing interdependencies in July 2017.

To assess whether the findings of the July 2017 report were stable over time, the international standard-setters conducted another more streamlined data collection (as of October 2017) from the same 26 CCPs. The results are broadly consistent with the previous analysis with the data as of September 2016 and show that:

  • Prefunded financial resources are concentrated at a small number of CCPs.
  • Exposures to CCPs are concentrated among a small number of entities.
  • The relationships mapped are characterised, to varying degrees, by a core of highly connected CCPs and entities and a periphery of less highly connected CCPs and entities.
  • A small number of entities tend to dominate the provision of each of the critical services required by CCPs.
  • Clearing members and clearing member affiliates are also important providers of other critical services required by CCPs and can maintain several types of relationships with multiple CCPs simultaneously.

There are, however, some changes to highlight in the interdependencies in central clearing. For instance, the concentration of client clearing activity has decreased. Compared with the last report, initial margins from clients are now concentrated in two CCPs, compared to only one with the data as of September 2016.

The analysis of interdependencies in central clearing is intended to provide useful inputs for designing supervisory stress tests and has informed the policy work as set out in the  joint CCP workplan to promote CCP resilience, recovery and resolvability. The standard-setters published a report on the implementation of the workplan in July 2017.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

BIS research papers

Read the full paper at: https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d181.htm

Good Crypto (clone of FCA authorised firm)

Almost all firms and individuals carrying out financial services activities in the UK have to be authorised or registered by us. This firm is not authorised or registered by us but has been targeting people in the UK, claiming to be an authorised firm.

This is what we call a 'clone firm'; and fraudsters usually use this tactic when contacting people out of the blue, so you should be especially wary if you have been cold called. They may use the name of the genuine firm, the 'firm reference number' (FRN) we have given the authorised firm or other details.

You can find out more about this scam tactic and how to protect yourself from clone firms.

Clone firm details

Fraudsters are using or giving out the following details as part of their tactics to scam people in the UK:

Good Crypto (clone of FCA authorised firm)

Address: 13 Fitzroy Street, London, W1T 4BQ, UNITED KINGDOM

Website: www.good-crypto.com

Be aware that the scammers may give out other false details or mix these with some correct details of the registered firm.

FCA authorised firm details

This FCA authorised firm that fraudsters are claiming to work for has no association with the ‘clone firm’. It is authorised to offer, promote or sell services or products in the UK and its correct details are:

Firm Name: Arup Corporate Finance Ltd

Firm Reference Number: 471210

Address: 13 Fitzroy Street, London, W1T 4BQ, UNITED KINGDOM

How to protect yourself

We strongly advise you to only deal with financial firms that are authorised by us, and check the Financial Services Register to ensure they are. It has information on firms and individuals that are, or have been, regulated by us.

If you want to check a consumer credit firm that may not yet have been authorised by us, please also check the Interim Permission Register.

If a firm does not appear on the Register but claims it does, contact our Consumer Helpline on 0800 111 6768.

There are more steps you should take to avoid scams and unauthorised firms.

You should also be aware that if you give money to an unauthorised firm, you will not be covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service or Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if things go wrong.

Report a clone firm

If you think you have been approached by an unauthorised or clone firm, or contacted about a scam, you should contact us. If you were offered, bought or sold shares, you can use our reporting form.

What to do if your firm is cloned

If you think your authorised firm has been cloned or scammers are fraudulently using your name or other details, contact our Firm Helpline on 0300 500 0597.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Become a member of The Financial Analyst today. TFA publishes original opinion and news content on trending financial topics and breaking stories related to analysis and global markets. If you have a tip or a financial opinion to share get in touch to submit your story.

  • Marketing Campaign: FinTech Products & Services

    £3,250.00
    Add to cart
  • Initial Coin Offering (ICO) marketing

    Marketing Campaign: Initial Coin Offering

    £3,500.00
    Add to cart
  • digital marketing

    Marketing Campaign: Financial Services

    £3,500.00
    Add to cart

SEC Charges U.S. Congressman and Others With Insider Trading

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the filing of insider trading charges against Congressman Christopher Collins, the U.S. Representative for New York’s 27th Congressional District, his son, Cameron Collins, and a third individual, Stephen Zarsky. In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York today announced related criminal charges.

Christopher Collins, who served as an independent director of an Australian biotech company, Innate Immunotherapeutics Ltd., is charged with tipping Cameron Collins after receiving confidential information about negative clinical trial results for Innate’s multiple sclerosis drug. Cameron Collins and his girlfriend’s father, Stephen Zarsky, are charged with trading and tipping others on the basis of the material, nonpublic information.  

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Christopher Collins learned of the negative clinical trial results on the evening of June 22, 2017 in an email from Innate’s CEO to the board of directors, which stated that the CEO had “extremely bad news” indicating that drug trial results “pretty clearly indicate ‘clinical failure’.” The SEC alleges that Christopher Collins replied to the CEO’s email within minutes, expressing his surprise at the results, and then called and spoke to his son minutes later.

According to the SEC’s complaint, later that same evening, Cameron Collins drove to Stephen Zarsky’s home and tipped him. The next morning, almost two hours prior to the market opening, Cameron Collins and Zarsky allegedly entered orders to sell Innate shares, which were executed just after the market opened. Over the next two trading days, Cameron Collins allegedly sold a total of nearly 1.4 million Innate shares. According to the complaint, a few hours after the last of these sales, Innate publicly announced the negative results of the clinical trial. The company’s stock price then plummeted by more than 92 percent.  Through their sales, Cameron Collins and Zarsky avoided losses of more than $700,000. The complaint also alleges that they contacted other friends and family members who also sold Innate shares in advance of the negative announcement.

“We allege that Christopher Collins breached his duty of confidentiality to Innate’s shareholders, exploiting his access to nonpublic information about the company’s clinical trial results so that his son could avoid significant financial losses,” said Stephanie Avakian, Co-Director of the SEC Enforcement Division. “Our laws are designed to prevent and punish such misconduct, which undermines investors’ trust in the fairness and integrity of our markets.” 

“In the hours and days after learning of the drug trial results, Christopher Collins, his son, and their associates exchanged a flurry of calls,” said Steven Peikin, Co-Director of the Enforcement Division. “The investigation yielded a detailed footprint left by the defendants, revealing their frantic efforts to sell shares and warn others before Innate announced bad news.”     

The SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges Christopher Collins, Cameron Collins, and Stephen Zarsky with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 as well as Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus interest, penalties, and permanent injunctions.  It also seeks an officer and director bar against Christopher Collins.  

The SEC also announced settled charges today against Lauren Zarsky, Cameron Collins’ girlfriend, and her mother, Dorothy Zarsky, for trading on the basis of material, nonpublic information. Lauren Zarsky and Dorothy Zarsky consented to the entry of final judgments without admitting or denying the charges that they sold their shares of Innate based on tips they received from Cameron Collins. Lauren Zarsky agreed to disgorge her ill-gotten gains of $19,440, plus prejudgment interest of $839, and pay a civil penalty of $19,440.  Dorothy Zarsky agreed to disgorge her ill-gotten gains of $22,600, plus prejudgment interest of $975, and pay a civil penalty of $22,600. The final judgments, which require court approval, would enjoin Lauren Zarsky and Dorothy Zarsky from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. Lauren Zarsky, a CPA, has also agreed to be suspended from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an accountant, which includes not participating in the financial reporting or audits of public companies. The SEC’s order permits Zarsky to apply for reinstatement after five years.

The SEC’s investigation has been conducted by William Max Hathaway, Colby A. Steele, Patrick McCluskey, and Carolyn M. Welshhans in the Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit. The case has been supervised by Joseph G. Sansone, Chief of the Market Abuse Unit, and Robert A. Cohen. The litigation will be led by Melissa Armstrong and Cheryl Crumpton. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Become a member of The Financial Analyst today. TFA publishes original opinion and news content on trending financial topics and breaking stories related to analysis and global markets. If you have a tip or a financial opinion to share get in touch to submit your story.

  • Marketing Campaign: FinTech Products & Services

    £3,250.00
    Add to cart
  • Marketing Campaign: Financial Conferences

    £3,250.00
    Add to cart
  • digital marketing

    Marketing Campaign: Financial Services

    £3,500.00
    Add to cart

Horst Weinmann (Clone)

Almost all firms and individuals carrying out financial services activities in the UK have to be authorised or registered by us. This firm is not authorised or registered by us but has been targeting people in the UK, claiming to be an authorised firm.

This is what we call a 'clone firm'; and fraudsters usually use this tactic when contacting people out of the blue, so you should be especially wary if you have been cold called. They may use the name of the genuine firm, the 'firm reference number' (FRN) we have given the authorised firm or other details.

You can find out more about this scam tactic and how to protect yourself from clone firms.

Clone firm details

Fraudsters are using or giving out the following details as part of their tactics to scam people in the UK:

Horst Weinmann (clone of EEA authorised firm)

Address: One Canada Square, London, E14 5AB, United Kingdom

Telephone: +44 (0)20 3966 1543

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.horstw.com

Be aware that the scammers may give out other false details or mix these with some correct details of the registered firm.

EEA authorised firm details

This EEA authorised firm that fraudsters are claiming to work for has no association with the ‘clone firm’. It is authorised to offer, promote or sell services or products in the UK and its correct details are:

Firm Name: Horst Weinmann

Firm Reference Number: 471240

Address: Heilbronner Str. 77 Leingarten DE-74211 GERMANY

How to protect yourself

We strongly advise you to only deal with financial firms that are authorised by us, and check the Financial Services Register to ensure they are. It has information on firms and individuals that are, or have been, regulated by us.

If you want to check a consumer credit firm that may not yet have been authorised by us, please also check the Interim Permission Register.

If a firm does not appear on the Register but claims it does, contact our Consumer Helpline on 0800 111 6768.

There are more steps you should take to avoid scams and unauthorised firms.

You should also be aware that if you give money to an unauthorised firm, you will not be covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service or Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if things go wrong.

Report a clone firm

If you think you have been approached by an unauthorised or clone firm, or contacted about a scam, you should contact us. If you were offered, bought or sold shares, you can use our reporting form.

What to do if your firm is cloned

If you think your authorised firm has been cloned or scammers are fraudulently using your name or other details, contact our Firm Helpline on 0300 500 0597.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Become a member of The Financial Analyst today. TFA publishes original opinion and news content on trending financial topics and breaking stories related to analysis and global markets. If you have a tip or a financial opinion to share get in touch to submit your story.

  • Marketing Campaign: FinTech Products & Services

    £3,250.00
    Add to cart
  • Marketing Campaign: Financial Conferences

    £3,250.00
    Add to cart
  • digital marketing

    Marketing Campaign: Financial Services

    £3,500.00
    Add to cart

FEDS 2018-055: The Near-Term Forward Yield Spread as a Leading Indicator: A Less Distorted Mirror

Eric C. Engstrom, Steven A. Sharpe | The spread between the yield on a 10-year Treasury bond and the yield on a shorter maturity bond, such as a 2-year Treasury, is commonly used as an indicator for predicting U.S. recessions. We show that such "long-term spreads" are statistically dominated in recession prediction models by an economically more intuitive alternative, a "near-term forward spread." This latter spread can be interpreted as a measure of the market's expectations for the near-term trajectory of conventional monetary policy rates. The predictive power of our near-term forward spread indicates that, when market participants expected--and priced in--a monetary policy easing over the next 12-18 months, this indicated that a recession was quite likely in the offing. Yields on bonds beyond 18 months in maturity are shown to have no added value for forecasting either recessions or the growth rate of GDP.

FRB: Finance and Economics Discussion Series Working Papers

Read the full FEDS working paper at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/feeds/feeds.htm

Incentives to centrally clear over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives – A post-implementation evaluation of the effects of the G20 financial regulatory reforms

This consultative document from the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) examines the effects of G20 financial regulatory reforms on the incentives to centrally clear over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. 

The central clearing of standardised OTC derivatives is a pillar of the G20 Leaders' commitments to reform OTC derivatives markets in response to the financial crisis. A number of post-crisis reforms are, directly or indirectly, relevant to incentives to centrally clear. A large majority of the relevant international standards have been agreed upon and are being implemented. This evaluation is the second using the FSB framework for the post-implementation evaluation of the effects of the G20 financial regulatory reforms. 

The report concludes that the reforms - particularly capital requirements, clearing mandates and margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives - are achieving their goals of promoting central clearing, especially for the most systemic market participants. This is consistent with the goal of reducing complexity and improving transparency and standardisation in the OTC derivatives markets. Beyond the systemic core of the derivatives network of CCPs, dealers/clearing service providers and larger, more active clients, the incentives are less strong. 

The report identifies reform areas that may merit consideration by the relevant standard-setting bodies (SSBs). The findings from the report will inform relevant SSBs regarding any subsequent policy efforts and potential adjustments, bearing in mind the original objectives of the reforms. This does not imply a scaling back of those reforms or an undermining of members' commitment to implement them. 

Responses to the questions set out in this consultative document should be sent to fsb@fsb.org with the subject 'DAT consultation response' by Friday 7 September 2018. Responses will be published on the FSB's website unless respondents expressly request otherwise. The final report will be published around the time of the G20 Summit at end-November 2018.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

BIS research papers

Read the full paper at: https://www.bis.org/publ/othp28.htm

SEC Charges Cloud Communications Company and Two Senior Executives With Misleading Revenue Projections

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a cloud communications company and two executives with providing misleading quarterly revenue estimates.  The company and executives agreed to pay over $1.9 million in penalties to settle the SEC’s charges.

According to the SEC’s order, Sonus Networks Inc.’s former CFO, Mark Greenquist, was aware of red flags which undermined the company’s first quarter 2015 revenue estimates.  These red flags included that Sonus had pulled forward deals initially projected to close in 2015 in order to achieve its revenue guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014.  Despite recognizing these risks, Greenquist said in a press release that he was comfortable with the consensus analyst revenue estimate of $74 million for the first quarter.  About six weeks later, the company issued guidance of $74 million which reflected certain forecasted sales that had been improperly reclassified, due to pressure from Michael Swade, Sonus’s Vice President of Global Sales, in order to support the $74 million estimate.

Seven days before the close of the quarter, Sonus announced that it was lowering its first quarter revenue estimate to between $47 million and $50 million.  Following this announcement, Sonus’s stock price dropped over 33 percent.

“The investing community expects that when companies choose to provide public financial projections, there is a reasonable basis underpinning those projections,” said Antonia Chion, Associate Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “When a company ignores red flags or takes steps to make public financial projections inaccurate we will take appropriate action.”

Without admitting or denying the findings, Sonus, which following a merger conducts business as Ribbon Communications Inc., Greenquist and Swade consented to the entry of the SEC’s order, which found that they violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and that Ribbon violated, and Greenquist and Swade caused Ribbon’s violations of, the reporting provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and ordered Ribbon, Greenquist and Swade to pay penalties of $1.9 million, $30,000, and $40,000 respectively.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Jonathan Austin and Elizabeth Doisy, with assistance from Peter Rosario, Avron Elbaum, Nick Pilgrim, and Cheryl Crumpton, and was supervised by Deborah Tarasevich and Ms. Chion.
 

Become a member of The Financial Analyst today. TFA publishes original opinion and news content on trending financial topics and breaking stories related to analysis and global markets. If you have a tip or a financial opinion to share get in touch to submit your story.

  • digital marketing

    Marketing Campaign: Financial Services

    £3,500.00
    Add to cart
  • Marketing Campaign: FinTech Products & Services

    £3,250.00
    Add to cart
  • Initial Coin Offering (ICO) marketing

    Marketing Campaign: Initial Coin Offering

    £3,500.00
    Add to cart