The Document Trail they forgot to Shred!

Some stories are born from headlines. Others emerge from silence; buried in footnotes, ignored in scanned folders or scribbled in someone’s margins.

A different kind of evidence

While reviewing a collection of archived corporate records, internal correspondence and court materials, a pattern began to emerge. Not one of explosive revelation, but of quiet contradictions.

PDF resolutions that didn't match official registries. Duplicate signature blocks applied to unrelated filings. References to financial transactions not recorded in the minutes. And occasionally, handwritten notes or side comments that never belonged in the final draft.

They were not erased. They were simply left behind; oversights by those who assumed no one would look.

The note that didn’t belong

One document stood out. A scanned set of board minutes, signed by known officers. Procedurally standard, at least on the surface. But when cross-referenced with witness statements and payment records, the paper trail pointed to a deeper problem.

An annotation, reconstructed based on internal witness statements, might have read something like:

“Ask Mak for doc – no loan terms in file. Still send monthly.”

This is not quoted from any scanned handwriting. But it accurately reflects the sworn claims of former Mansion CEO Karel Manasco, who stated under oath that he was instructed to send monthly payments of $550,000 to Kathleen Sampoerna under a loan agreement he never once saw.

“I asked repeatedly for a copy of this so-called loan. Nothing came. Not from PO Mak, not from Mr Block, not from the accountants. But the money kept going out.”

In a functioning compliance system, such an arrangement would raise alarms. Here, it became embedded in routine.

What the messages reveal

That silence wasn’t limited to board documents. Screenshots of internal WhatsApp communications reviewed by Malta-Media reveal further context.

In one conversation from April 2019, Mansion Group executive Sagi Lahav, previously CEO, had refused to sign legal documentation without full indemnity. This, according to internal correspondence, prompted panic and restructuring. The company’s principal (identified as Putera Sampoerna) reportedly demanded Lahav’s exclusion.

“Sagi refused to put his name on the dotted line – letters already carefully filtered by legal – as CEO. He also demanded full indemnification… This had caused both panic and bad taste with some of the people here…”

The same exchange explains that Lahav’s refusal to sign was not taken as a sign of diligence, but as disloyalty.

Another WhatsApp thread from February 2021 makes reference to a dual-track strategy. It states that while the business in Gibraltar would be marketed as “regulated and clean,” offshore operations like M88 would continue under what was described internally as “arms-length” control.

“This is part of his narrative to outsiders that he has quit gaming in Asia and all his businesses (Gib) are clean… Then there are the unregulated markets with lots of grey areas and M88 will continue to operate with arm’s length.”

These are not external allegations. They are internal messages between senior executives.

Patterns in paperwork

Looking further through the documents, the inconsistencies began to repeat.

We found examples of the same company spelled three different ways across four filings. Signature blocks that appeared duplicated using digital overlays. Board minutes referencing decisions outside their scope. Some of the phrasing used (such as “informed majority consent” and “admin-led approval”) does not appear in standard UK corporate law terminology.

None of these inconsistencies, on their own, confirm wrongdoing. But they do raise questions about internal governance and document management.

When control gets careless

There’s a maxim in corporate investigations: “Control leaves fingerprints.” Whether in a footnote, a margin or a WhatsApp thread, operational authority always shows up somewhere.

This investigation does not allege unlawful conduct. But it does raise structural concerns. Across the documents reviewed, three names repeatedly surface:

• Putera Sampoerna as the alleged UBO
• Hassans International Law Firm Limited as legal advisors
• Gibraltar Financial Services Commission as the relevant regulator

Each plays a role in how the group is structured, governed and interpreted, on paper and in practice.

Why this matters

Some companies redact. Others destroy. In this case, the trail was left behind, sometimes in scanned notes, sometimes in text messages, sometimes in sworn affidavits.

What emerges is not a clean map, but a messy set of footprints. Financial instructions given without supporting documents. Legal pushback that was ignored. A separation between what’s said to regulators and what’s said internally.

This is not an accusation. It’s a reminder. That when internal discipline fades, paper trails get longer and more revealing. We continue to examine these materials in the public interest and encourage any relevant parties to submit clarifications or responses for equal publication. This remains an active file.

FAQs

What is the main focus of the article?
The article investigates governance irregularities at Mansion Group through internal documents, emails, and messages, exposing systemic compliance gaps.

Who is Karel Manasco and what did he reveal?
Karel Manasco, former CEO of Mansion, claimed under oath that he was ordered to make $550,000 monthly payments under a loan agreement he never saw.

What role does Putera Sampoerna play in this story?
Putera Sampoerna is identified as the group's principal and alleged ultimate beneficial owner (UBO), appearing frequently in internal decisions.

What was the issue with the board minutes and other documents?
The documents showed discrepancies such as mismatched resolutions, duplicated signatures, and vague financial references, suggesting poor document control.

Were there any legal concerns mentioned?
Yes, internal messages indicated reluctance from executives to sign documents without indemnity, hinting at awareness of legal exposure.

What was the significance of the WhatsApp messages?
The WhatsApp messages revealed internal strategies to present some operations as regulated while maintaining offshore business with minimal oversight.

Did the article make any legal accusations?
No, the article did not accuse anyone of unlawful behavior but highlighted structural and procedural weaknesses in governance.

Who else is mentioned as a key player in the oversight of Mansion Group?
Hassans International Law Firm (legal advisors) and the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission (regulator) are cited as key entities.

Why is the investigation important?
It shows how internal control failures and weak documentation can obscure accountability and invite regulatory scrutiny.

Is the investigation still ongoing?
Yes, the article states that the investigation remains open and encourages parties to provide clarifications or responses for publication.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is based on a review of publicly available records, sworn court statements, internal communications and confidential submissions deemed credible at the time of publication. No allegation of unlawful conduct is made against any individual or entity named herein.

All parties are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise by a competent authority. The material presented is for journalistic and informational purposes only and reflects the editorial team’s interpretation of the documentation available. Any party wishing to submit a clarification or formal response is invited to contact the editorial team.