Caesar City Corporation BVI ("CCC"), the founding entity of the Caesar City group, issues this statement to place the verified documentary record before the public in response to allegations and insinuations circulating in Malaysia concerning CCC, its group company Caesar City Corporation Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. ("CCCM"), CCCM's Chairman, and the corporate standing of CCC itself.
We will not respond to speculation with speculation. We respond with documents — dated, docketed, signed by public officials, and available for verification. Every factual assertion below is drawn from an official record identified in this statement.
In 2018, criminal complaints for Syndicated Estafa were filed before the Department of Justice, Office of the City Prosecutor, Davao City, Philippines (NPS Docket Nos. X1-02-INV-18-H-2909 to X1-02-INV-18-H-2913). The complaints were filed by officers of a local community association, Kalinga sa Kapwa-Mindanaoan, Inc. ("KAsaKAP"), against twenty-three individuals connected with a Philippine non-government organization, the Mindanao Grassroot People's Coalition, Inc. ("MGPC") — a local coalition partner through which CCC had committed humanitarian project funding.
The documentary record establishes the following:
(a) No corporate entity was ever a respondent. CCC was never charged in any Philippine criminal proceeding. The complaints named individuals only.
(b) No officer, director, or shareholder of CCC was ever named a respondent. The Department of Justice resolution expressly identifies CCC's Chief Executive Officer, See Qi Wen Julius, in the record — solely in his capacity as the principal of the international funder — and he was never charged with any offence of any kind. The only CCC personnel named was the group's project manager in the Philippines, Mr. James Edward Booyer III.
(c) The complaints were dismissed on 3 January 2019, and the complainants' Joint Motion for Reconsideration was dismissed for lack of merit on 20 May 2019. In that final resolution the prosecutor found no evidence to charge any respondent.
(d) The prosecutor recorded that the complainants themselves admitted MGPC's chairman acted as a representative of CCC's Chief Executive Officer by virtue of a written Letter of Representation whose authority was expressly limited "to bringing clarity and understanding to potential offers within the region of Cotabato, Philippines and to collate all the necessary information related to each deal." The resolution states that this limited authority "was never rebutted by complainants."
(e) The prosecutor found no evidence that the PHP 1,625,750 at the centre of the complaints was misappropriated by any respondent for personal gain, and held that the complainant's contribution could, at most, be treated "in the nature of a civil obligation" which "cannot be construed as a penal offense."
(f) The prosecutor further found no evidence that MGPC — a corporation duly registered with the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission (Reg. No. CN201635946) — was created to defraud or deceive anyone.
(g) The collections at the centre of the complaints were made by individuals within the local membership structure — not by CCC. The documented programme required only a processing counterpart of Fifty Pesos (PHP 50.00) per association, collected by the association's own treasurer and transmitted to MGPC's office. The sums complained of were collected entirely outside that structure. The resolution records that the complainant who collected the money from members held no authority to receive payments on MGPC's behalf, and that she failed to remit those collections to MGPC.
(h) The schemes described in the complaints solicited payments of PHP 300 to PHP 500 from individual applicants in exchange for promised monthly honoraria of PHP 15,000 to PHP 35,000, and promised grants of PHP 10,000,000 per association. Those promises appear nowhere in any CCC commitment, were never CCC's to make, and were never authorized by CCC. CCC's own documented commitment was to provide funding support for livelihood projects and development programs for rural and indigenous communities — without condition, and without any fee, tier, package, or payment of any kind required from any beneficiary.
(i) Mr. James Edward Booyer III, an American national who served as CCC's project manager in the Philippines, was never charged with any fraud offence. His role, as recorded in the Department of Justice resolution, was to verify that MGPC complied with the documentary requirements before CCC provided any assistance. The resolution records that he was "not connected, in any way, with" MGPC and had no personal knowledge of MGPC's activities.
(j) The only charge ever brought against Mr. Booyer was an immigration matter — an overstay arising from an honest, documented misunderstanding of visa-extension rules, which he admitted and offered to resolve. His detention in 2019, which is sometimes conflated with the estafa complaints, arose solely from that immigration matter.
(k) Mr. Booyer was subsequently cleared by every relevant Philippine authority: a National Bureau of Investigation clearance recording "NO DEROGATORY RECORD"; a Regional Trial Court certification of no pending criminal case covering the years 1970 to 2019; a Municipal Trial Court certification that he had never been charged with any criminal offence, verified against criminal index files from July 1945; and a City Prosecutor clearance of no pending case under preliminary or summary investigation or inquest. He departed the Philippines through voluntary deportation at his own written request and at his own expense, including the cost of his own flight (letter to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration, 13 September 2019).
(l) MGPC's founding chairman stated under oath, in a notarized letter to the Bureau of Immigration (March 2019), that Mr. Booyer was never MGPC's employee and had "NOT RECEIVED ANY SALARIES, ALLOWANCES, BONUSES, HONORARIUMS OR ANY REMUNERATIONS" from MGPC, and that MGPC had extended no financial support to him of any kind.
(m) Mr. Booyer served as an active member of Junior Chamber International (JCI) Davao, contributing to charitable work including the Tebow Cure Children's Hospital fundraiser and orphanage support (JCI Davao reference letter, 18 September 2019, issued by the chapter's 2019 President).
CCC states this plainly: Mr. Booyer was never charged with fraud, and every authority that examined his record certified it clean. His name appears here so that the record may correct what has been said about him.
These documents are held by the company and are available for scrutiny by the appropriate authorities. Requests for any of them may be submitted through the company website, www.caesarcitycorporation.com, and will be considered on their merits.
It is also necessary to address one point directly, because it is being repeated: a June 2018 report recorded that CCC was among several groups subjected to a preliminary examination by a local anti-scam unit in Davao City. A preliminary examination is not a finding. What followed is the finding — and it is recorded above. The same authority that examined the matter in 2018 dismissed it in 2019, twice, the second time for lack of merit, holding that there was no evidence to charge any respondent. Any account that cites the 2018 examination while omitting the 2019 dismissals is not reporting the record; it is selecting from it.
The allegation that CCC was associated with a scam inverts the documented reality. CCC's activities in the Philippines consisted of humanitarian commitments, funded entirely from its own established international business:
Much of this giving was deliberately never documented. We did not keep receipts, because we did not give for recognition. The communities we served know what was done, and the people who received it know who gave it.
Every direction of money in this record runs one way: from CCC to the communities. CCC earned no revenue in the Philippines, collected no fees, and took nothing from the Filipino people. The individuals who collected money from community members did so through the lowest levels of a local membership structure, in schemes CCC never authorized, never knew of, and never benefited from — and which the Department of Justice found unproven against anyone.
It has been suggested that CCC cannot be located or verified, and that the group therefore lacks substance. That suggestion is answered by official records, not by assertion:
Any party wishing to verify CCC's incorporation and standing may do so directly through the British Virgin Islands registry or through CCC's registered agent. We will facilitate that verification for any bona fide enquirer, including the media. A company whose existence is recorded in the official findings of a foreign Department of Justice, and whose donation instruments were received and routed through the office of a city mayor, is not a company that needs to prove it exists.
For completeness, and because it has been raised: CCC's Singapore-registered entity was an administrative vehicle which was never used to conduct the group's operations, and which never held or handled any Philippine funds, any community contributions, or any part of the matters described above.
When the group declined to proceed with arrangements proposed at the time of its establishment, that entity was wound up and closed completely. It is dormant and has no role in the group's affairs. The entity appears in the Singapore Government's Final Gazette Notification as removed from the register. That notification is the record of a closure we have described openly — it is not a finding of misconduct against anyone, and the Singapore registry records no such finding.
We note that this closure has itself been used as a basis for further allegation. We address it here so that the record is complete: closing an unused administrative entity is an ordinary corporate act, taken years before CCCM was incorporated, in another jurisdiction, with no connection to the Philippine matter or to any allegation of misconduct. We decline to discuss the commercial arrangements surrounding that closure in public, and we do not intend to name or impugn any party in relation to it.
CCC was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands in 2012 and has operated continuously since, with an established office in Hong Kong — a record visible in its 2015 proposal, its 2017 corporate profile and donation deed, and the 2019 Department of Justice resolution.
CCCM was incorporated in Malaysia in 2025. The Philippine matter dates to 2018. CCCM did not exist at the time of the events in question. Any attempt to attribute a 2018 Philippine allegation to a Malaysian company incorporated seven years later is chronologically impossible, and any party asserting such a connection must produce specific, verifiable evidence — none exists.
Corporate association, common naming, or the existence of a representative role cannot, on their own, establish participation in or responsibility for alleged misconduct.
CCCM's Chairman is a member of Malaysian royalty who became associated with CCCM — a company incorporated in 2025 — as a partner and shareholder. He held no role, no office, no position, and no knowledge in relation to the 2018 Philippine matter. He does not appear anywhere in the Philippine record. There is no document in existence connecting him to it.
It has been suggested that the involvement of a customary institution in a private company is itself grounds for suspicion, and that the Chairman's name may have been used to lend credibility to CCCM. That suggestion is answered by public record, not by our assertion. The Chairman holds, and has long held, directorships and shareholdings in numerous Malaysian companies, all recorded in the public filings of the Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia and available to any member of the public through SSM e-Info Services. CCCM is one among many such appointments. It is neither a novel arrangement nor a concealed one, and it carries no implication that any institution has endorsed any commercial venture.
We state plainly what we feel about the conduct being discussed in this matter. Poor families in Mindanao were asked to pay money they could not afford, on promises of grants, housing, and livelihoods that were never ours to give and were never delivered. Communities that trusted the language of humanitarian help were exploited. Our name was used as the bait. That is what angers us — not the scrutiny, but the exploitation of the poor and the theft of a reputation built on giving. The people who did this preyed on the very communities CCC travelled to the Philippines to serve, and we will not accept any attempt to rewrite the victims' story so that the people who came to give are portrayed as those who took.
The Chairman's name, dignity, and standing are not available as collateral for unproven historical allegations against unrelated parties and a non-existent corporate connection. We reject, in the strongest terms, any suggestion that the Chairman has been complicit in any scam, fraud, or corrupt conduct.
In October 2026, allegations concerning CCCM were published in the Malaysian media and on social platforms, and reports have circulated that a police complaint was lodged on 16 October 2026 seeking referrals to several Malaysian authorities. We address the principal points raised, because each is answerable on documents.
(a) CCCM's registration. CCCM was incorporated in Malaysia on 6 January 2025 (Company No. 20250100477 (1801892-X)) and is a company registered with, and subject to the reporting requirements of, the Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia. Its registration particulars are public records, purchasable by anyone through SSM e-Info Services. We have nothing to conceal in them and we do not ask the public to take our word for them.
(b) Paid-up capital. CCCM's paid-up capital as recorded at incorporation is a nominal sum. Paid-up capital at incorporation is the amount the incorporators initially subscribe; it is not a statement of a company's assets, its capacity, its funding, or its worth, and it is not a limit on what a company may later hold or do. Nominal opening capital is ordinary in Malaysian company practice and is visible in the registration records of a great many Malaysian companies. Any argument that moves from a small incorporation figure to an allegation of fraud is not an argument about that company's conduct — it is an argument about a number on a form.
(c) The registered address. CCCM's registered address is the address recorded in its SSM filings. Its use for that purpose was authorized by the Chairman's office. A registered address is a statutory requirement of incorporation and a matter of public record; it is not evidence of the scale, the activity, or the conduct of the company registered there.
(d) CCCM has not commenced business operations. CCCM was incorporated on 6 January 2025 and has not commenced business operations. It has carried on no trade, entered into no commercial dealings, employed no staff, opened no client accounts, and taken no money from any person. A company that has not commenced operations has no customers, no depositors, no investors, and no transactions of any kind — and there is therefore nothing for any allegation of unlicensed deposit-taking, fund management, or investment scheme to attach to. This is not a matter of assertion: the absence of operations is apparent from CCCM's filings with the Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia, which are public records.
(e) The conflation of 2018 and 2025. The recurring feature of every allegation against CCCM is the attempt to attach to it a 2018 Philippine matter that was dismissed in 2019. This is addressed in Sections 1 and 5. It is restated here because it is the only substantive allegation on offer: CCCM did not exist in 2018.
(f) The reference to "Treasury Vault." The complaint and the material circulating with it assert that the group's website refers to a "Treasury Vault" as though it were a fictitious regulator invented to lend false credibility. The website passage in question describes the group's infrastructure investments through public-private partnerships as subject to strict confidentiality measures and to the oversight of recognized government entities "such as the Treasury Vault, Central Bank, World Bank, and other similar organizations." A treasury vault is an established category of sovereign financial infrastructure: reserves of gold, bonds, and other sovereign instruments maintained by governments and monetary authorities in numerous jurisdictions around the world. The term is used on the website in that ordinary international-financial sense, describing a class of sovereign financial institutions — not as a claim that any single body bearing that name licenses or supervises this group. It is further a matter of record, verifiable by any reader, that the website makes no reference of any kind to Malaysia, to Malaysian law, to any Malaysian regulator, or to any Malaysian market. Nothing on it claims or implies Malaysian regulatory approval. What the complaint presents as a fictitious regulator is a standard term of international finance, read through a domestic lens that the website never invited — and the grievance on offer is that misreading, not anything the company has stated.
The article published on 17 October 2026 on themalaysiacorporate.com — subsequently reproduced on themalaysian-corporates.com and themalaysiancorporates.com, and amplified in video and social-media postings — records on its own face that, as at publication, no response had been obtained from Caesar City Corporation Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. or from the office of the Undang Luak Johol.
We state for the record that neither CCC, nor CCCM, nor the Chairman's office was approached for comment before publication, by that outlet or by any of the platforms that have since carried the same material. We were not given the opportunity to provide the documents described in this statement before the allegations were put into circulation. This statement is issued now so that the record is not left incomplete.
We are not granting interviews and we are not entering into correspondence about these allegations at this time. This statement is our response in full. Any person or organization wishing to put a document, a record, or a specific factual enquiry to the company may submit it through www.caesarcitycorporation.com. Submissions will be considered, and those from verifiable and credible sources will be answered. We will not be drawn into speculation, and we will not debate insinuation.
We further note the pattern in which these allegations appeared. The same content, using identical captions and the same video assets, was published simultaneously across multiple social-media platforms and three separate news domains within a single day, beginning on 16 October 2026. One of the accounts involved announced further instalments in advance. A precursor article targeting the Chairman's institution had appeared six months earlier, in April 2026. This pattern indicates a coordinated publication effort rather than independent expressions of public concern. We make no allegation as to who organized it, and we do not speculate. We record it because it is a matter of observable fact, and because it bears on the weight to be given to the repetition of these allegations across multiple surfaces. Repetition across coordinated channels is not corroboration; it is the same assertion, counted several times.
Finally, we record the standard this company applies to what it answers. The public has every right to speak, and we do not ask any authority to silence any person. But statements published on social media by unidentified accounts carry no standing of their own: they are answerable to no editor, no regulator, no proprietor, and no court. Where such statements merely repeat one another, they do not become evidence — they become volume. This company responds to official records, to accountable publications that stand behind their reporting, and to specific enquiries that can be verified. It does not comment on material that is anonymous, unevidenced, and unaccountable, and it will not be drawn into doing so. The documents cited in this statement come from a Department of Justice, a city mayor's office, a corporate registry, a national gazette, and the company's own records — and any reader may weigh them against anything said about us by anyone with no name attached.
We welcome anyone who has allegations against CCC, CCCM, or the Chairman to come forward with verifiable evidence. Evidence can be examined. Insinuation cannot.
The facts are dated, docketed, and signed. We trust the public and the media will weigh documents, not insinuations.
Issued by:
SEE QI WEN (JULIUS)
Chief Executive Officer
Caesar City Corporation BVI
For and on behalf of Caesar City Corporation BVI and its affiliated group interests
Date of Issue: 25 October 2026
Further enquiries: www.caesarcitycorporation.com
