The SWIFT dispute

What the supplied records show

Two PDFs carry titles indicating pages printed from an “alliancelite2.swift.com” reportPrint address. Their metadata identifies ordinary browser print-to-PDF creation. That is consistent with a person printing a web report; it is not independent proof that a message entered SWIFT, was authenticated, or was received by Barclays. Nor does browser-generated metadata alone prove fabrication.

On 28 October, Balkan compliance wrote that Golden Touch had “successfully transmitted the SWIFT pre-advice through Asia Nexus” and attached the purported MT998. The same communication treated the first £132,700 as due. On 29 October Kopa replied that Barclays’ trade team could find no reference to either the 14 October or 28 October messages and asked for the acknowledgement.

What Barclays allegedly said later

Kopa says that, during calls with Barclays complaints, fraud and SWIFT personnel, Barclays stated that the messages had not been received and that the printouts supplied as evidence were fake. No Barclays letter, fraud report or call recording has yet been supplied. The strongest presently available proof of that account is contemporaneous reporting: Kopa told Nahaboo on 11 November that Barclays had said the document was “not genuine,” and told another Balkan customer the same day that Barclays had called the SWIFT documentation “fake.”

That is evidence that Kopa made the allegation at the time, before signing the final acceptance. It is not a substitute for Barclays’ own record. Kopa should make a focused subject access request for relevant call recordings, call notes and complaint/fraud records.

The issuing bank’s former BIC was later deleted

Wise’s published BIC directory now states that Golden Touch Investment Bank’s former code, GTIVMY2LXXX, “has been deleted from the network and is no longer valid.” Wise also lists a different Golden Touch code, GTINMY22XXX, marked “CUTOVER2026.” The directory does not state when the former code was deleted. This therefore proves that the transaction-era code is now deleted and invalid; it does not, by itself, prove that Golden Touch was permanently expelled from SWIFT rather than migrated to a replacement code.

What is not alleged as an established fact

•      The PDFs are not labelled “proven forgeries” solely because of their metadata.

•      Neither Golden Touch nor Asia Nexus is described as unlicensed. Labuan FSA’s public directory listed both as Labuan investment banks.

•      Kopa alleges that the overall operation was a sophisticated scam; it does not claim that the Wise entry alone proves the allegation.

•      No allegation is made that every employee, intermediary or professional adviser knew of any falsity.