Keith won't be leaving on a jet plane to Fiji. But it is unclear whether he could sell his purported 1/3 interest.

Bangkok: Keith is not legal owner of 1/3 Wakaya Island; Frank, Toni and Barb won’t collect as Nxivm victims

Editor’s Note: Bangkok is responding to an earlier post, Email reveals Raniere Owns One-Third of Wakaya Island in Fiji. The email referenced is one from Clare to Keith indicating she understood that he owned 1/3 interest in ACK the corporation that owns Wakaya Island in Fiji.

By Bangkok

Those Wakaya Island assets are NOT in Keith’s ‘name’ — you dummies. 🙂

A private email does not constitute official legal ownership of an island, meaning that Keith does not legally have the right to sell his 1/3 interest in that asset to other parties or have it confiscated in his name to settle any debts that he might owe.

Get a clue.

If it were that simple then title documents wouldn’t be necessary. Just send an email to buy an island, LOL.

No matter what Clare’s email might say about Keith being a partial owner of Wakaya, only Clare Bear can sell those assets and/or borrow against them to generate cash. I doubt the US government can seize the ownership of a foreign island anyway, even in Clare’s name.

Also… Frank Parlato, Barb Bouchey and Toni Natalie would NEVER receive funds intended for NXIVM victims because they are not officially NXIVM victims under the law. They did not get raped or branded like Jane Doe witnesses did.

Any money recovered from NXIVM assets (not used to satisfy government tax debts) will likely go to the OFFICIAL victims of NXIVM such as Jane Doe witnesses and rape victims, not to guys like Frank or longtime NXIVM girlfriends like Toni or Barb.

Frank has suffered from NXIVM greatly but under the law he’ll never be a ‘victim’ — since an indictment (even if its unwarranted) does not make him a victim in the eyes of the law.

Toni and Barb are also not victims and won’t recover one dollar from NXIVM unless they first sue NXIVM and get a judgment against them, which would take years and due to their own complicity (when they were part of NXIVM and following Keith’s orders) no jury would likely award them any money IMO.

Get a clue.


Editor’s clarifications.

  1. The charges against Frank Parlato concerning the Bronfmans was dropped by the Feds which could conceivably open the door to malicious prosecution claims against the Bronfmans.
  2. Toni Natalie could barely be said to be a member of Nxivm. Although she was briefly in the organization, when it was called Executive Success Programs – in 1998 – she got out – and away from Keith – within months of the starting of the so-called ‘self help” organization. 
  3. Barbara Bouchey is posting her views on how she participated in the cult and what she did to take it down after she realized the harm Keith was doing to others. She would likely not agree that she obeyed Keith’s orders once she fully realized what a louse, fink and ultimately monster he was. 


About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • You have no idea what you are talking about Cock.

    Torts are not created because someone is an alleged victim in a criminal case. Duh.

  • Bangkok(Scott),

    Last time I checked Krclaviger has JD and you Bangcock(Scott) have a GED. Who should we believe? LMFAO

  • From what I’ve seen in following a number of cases, when asset ownership is at issue, all sorts of documentation and statements may be taken into consideration, including those that promised or implied an interest or gift. In one famous case, Getty Oil was forced to live up to a multi-billion-dollar ownership transfer, when a handshake deal was ruled to have been valid under New York law.

    As far as I can tell, we have no indication what the paperwork and documentation behind ACK actually are – and if the initials do stand for Allison, Clare and Keith, that implies 3-way ownership just by itself. If ACK holds title to the island, rather than any individuals, then it’s far more complex than the sort of residential real estate transactions most of us are used to.

    I think that much of what eventually happens with assets, is going to come down to whether the government can “pierce the veil” of Raniere’s various attempts to have control of wealth without actually having anything in his name, and establish that he effectively had (or was given) ownership interests. It’s also likely to be at issue in very messy future actions over tax evasion, and what back taxes and penalties various parties owe.

%d bloggers like this: