Renwick Haddow & Bar Works — Alleged Ponzi Scheme

JPMorgan Chase & Co. & JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Allegedly Aided and Abetted Renwick Haddow and His Purportedly Fraudulent Ponzi Scheme; 27 Chinese Investors Suing JPMorgan for a Total of $3,050,000 in Damages and Requesting the Bank Provide Them with Data Related to Bar Works & Renwick Haddow

JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. allegedly aided and abetted Renwick Haddow and his purportedly fraudulent Ponzi scheme, according to Court Reports New York Southern District Court under review by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

Peiffer Rosca Wolf securities practice lawyers are investigating Renwick Haddow & Bar Works’ alleged Ponzi scheme.

Investors who believe they may have lost money in activity related to Renwick Haddow & Bar Works’s alleged Ponzi scheme are encouraged to contact attorneys Alan Rosca or James Booker with any useful information or for a free, no obligation discussion about their options.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. have allegedly been against  discovery-related demands by the plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit opened in a New York court, according to said Court Reports.

What is more, it should be remembered that that 27 Chinese investors, who claim to have been allegedly defrauded by Bar Works, are suing the bank for a total of $3,050,000 in damages, Court Reports note.

Said investors have also requested that the New York Southern District Court urge JPMorgan Chase & Co. to provide them with ample amounts of data, including all documents related to Bar Works, Renwick Haddow, Jonathan Black, Zoia Kyselova aka Zoe Miller aka Zoia Haddow aka Koia Kyselova, the Court Reports note.

Plaintiffs in the Bar Works Case Assert Several Causes of Action against JPMorgan including Alleged Knowing Participation in a Breach of Trust, Alleged Aiding and Abetting of Embezzlement, Alleged Aiding and Abetting of Fiduciary Breach and Conversion, Alleged Unjust Enrichment, and Alleged Commercial Bad Faith and Gross Negligence

The plaintiffs in the Bar Works case assert seven alleged causes of action against JPMorgan including:

•     allegedly knowing participation in a breach of trust

•     alleged aiding and abetting embezzlement

•     allegedly aiding and abetting fiduciary breach

•     allegedly aiding and abetting conversion

•     alleged unjust enrichment

•     alleged commercial bad faith

•     alleged gross negligence

The purportedly defrauded investors also allege that JPMorgan had actual notice that Haddow was purportedly laundering investors’ money, Court Reports note.

Said action took place as a purported consequence of Bar Works Inc’s deposits allegedly being immediately transferred out of the business operating account and into overseas money laundering havens such as Mauritius, the Seychelles and Morocco, Court Reports state.

Securities Lawyers Investigating

The Peiffer Rosca Wolf securities lawyers often represent investors who lose money as a result of investment-related fraud or misconduct and are currently investigating Renwick Haddow & Bar Works’ alleged Ponzi scheme. They take most cases of this type on a contingency fee basis and advance the case costs, and only get paid for their fees and costs out of money they recover for their clients.

Investors who believe they lost money as a result of Renwick Haddow & Bar Works’ alleged Ponzi scheme may contact the securities lawyers at Peiffer Rosca Wolf, Alan Rosca or James Booker, for a free no-obligation evaluation of their recovery options, at 888-998-0520 or via e-mail at arosca@prwlegal.com or jbooker@prwlegal.com.

Alan Rosca (1252 Posts)

Alan is a securities lawyer. He also teaches Securities Regulation at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. He focuses his legal practice on complex commercial and financial litigation and arbitration, particularly in the areas of securities and investment fraud. His office is in Cleveland, Ohio.


In our legal system, every person is innocent until and unless found guilty by a court of law or a tribunal. Whenever we reference “allegations” or charges that are “alleged,” such allegations or charges have not been proven, and are merely accusations, not findings of fault, as of the date of the blog. We do not have, nor do we undertake, a duty to continue to monitor or follow cases about which we report, and/or to publish subsequent blogs regarding various developments that may occur in such cases. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research regarding any such cases and any developments that may or may not have occurred in such cases.