Government Linked To Bank Of Asia Withdrawal
New reporting alleges the Government attempted to withdraw a US$5 million term deposit from Bank of Asia in late March 2025, potentially front-running other depositors. Regulators issued a restrictive Second Directive on March 21 and VIDIC’s then-CEO rejected the Government’s demand; the Auditor General has opened an investigation.
New information has emerged in the ongoing Bank of Asia saga suggesting the Government sought to prioritise its own repayment ahead of other depositors using non-public regulatory information. According to court filings reported by OffshoreAlert and reporting by our newsroom, the Government held a US$5 million six-month term deposit placed in late January 2025, maturing in late July 2025.
Term deposits at Bank of Asia were subject to an early-withdrawal ban on the bank’s own website, a rule the bank says has been in place since November 2020. On 21 March 2025 regulators issued a so-called Second Directive to Bank of Asia placing tight restrictions on withdrawals and requiring regulatory approval for any redemptions.
The directive was sent to a single Bank of Asia official, Deon Vanterpool, who is reported to be related to Junior Minister Lorna Smith. Media reports say the Second Directive was not made public until the summer of 2025. Our reporting indicates that almost immediately after the Second Directive was sent the Government demanded repayment of its US$5 million deposit.
Bank of Asia, operating under Vanterpool at the time, reportedly sought regulatory approval to release the funds despite its standard “no early withdrawal” policy. That attempt was blocked by Lisa Violet, then CEO of the Virgin Islands Deposit Insurance Corporation (VIDIC). Ms Violet—who left VIDIC in June 2025—rejected the Government’s demand within a week, citing the likely adverse impact on the bank’s financial position and the unfair advantage to the Government over other depositors.
If the Government had been permitted to withdraw the funds, reporting suggests uninsured exposure for other depositors—many of whom are BVI residents—would have increased by nearly US$5 million. The article alleges that only a small circle within VIDIC and the Financial Services Commission (FSC), as well as senior government figures, would have been aware of the directive when it was issued.
Premier Natalio Wheatley has previously commissioned an internal audit that he said was completed months ago but the report has not been released. The Auditor General has since opened an investigation. The claims raise questions for BVI residents about possible misuse of non-public information, conflicts of interest and the need for transparency from the Government, VIDIC and the FSC.
Given the number of local depositors potentially affected, residents and civil society groups are likely to demand the release of relevant documents: the original deposit records, the Government’s written withdrawal request, and communications between the bank and regulators. The unfolding probe will be closely watched in the BVI and by international observers concerned about financial governance and depositor protection.
Primary source: Guavaberry