Not quite sure what you mean if it isn't
"everybody should first ask me whatever they intend to undertake" 
I can also follow you in your statement re. the ex-USSR clients and their complex business. It's always more or less risky to do business with someone you don't know. If nobody would be willing to take any risk you would have no clients, right ?
Mind, I didn't come here only to complain but also to find out if there were many others caught in this scam,
because that is a scam. When you have in hand a card UnionPay, an authentic one, of course, and it works OK you think the deal is fair, because it could have been worse, no need to say that. So, was the scam more elaborate, i.e. the card stops working when you put some more money on it, that is still to be investigated.
It's not just an "authentic Union Pay card". You can have "authentic Visa/UnionPay/Masercard" in your hand, but ultimately security and fate of your funds is not down to a card scheme, but to the particular issuer. Of course, there are scheme
due diligence, scheme operational rules etc. but in the end of the day the don't guarantee anything on the part of issuer credibility, solvency, risk appetite and whatever goes from there.
So when you're placing an order for product marketed as "anonymous Union Pay card", your main argument for the trust you placed was... the fact that it is issued through Union Pay network? Did you take issuer credibility, licensing status, public profile in consideration beforehand?
In my professional lifetime, I've seen countless financial institutions that had SWIFT, card scheme memberships, partnerships etc. and in the essence it has no impact on their operational risk appetite. Believe it or not, when the issuer is comfortable with products issued being marketed by its partners as "anonymous" "no name" it usually has quite
high risk tolerance and you can also guess that by looking at their tariffs.
High risk financial products only work until they work, and they tend to exist only for a certain time. They're here in place to satisfy needs of specific client base, "normal" or low risk clients just go elsewhere - to their local banks/global fintechs like
revolut and wise since they need none of that "no name anonymous" stuff.
Respectively, offshore agents and intermediaries sell those solutions while they work, knowing they can stop working anytime, just because we live in funny times. That's the sad truth.
Yes, I did but they all tell the same story - a security issue that it takes time to solve, etc. Well, you can believe it for some time but eventually enough is enough. In fact, there are several layers but the end issuer (The Bank) is supposed to be a large UP card issuer and I'd rather think of some contract breech between Offshore Pro / International Wealth and the Bank, the latter is not willing to disclose and they have agreed on a narrative.
No, the card doesn't look like a sub-brand. It looks just like an ordinary UP card with no name on it. However, at the Bank it's registered as "No Name" and, consequently, the Bank, yet knowing my identity, does not consider it's abnormal to issue a "No-name" card. The supposed breech must be elsewhere.
May be. Or may not be. There can be a very complex network of underlying faciliators. I've just tried to explain you how those "anonymous" financial instruments work nowadays. It's 2024, not 2007, mate.
